H04_Pkg_C_Geotechnical_Engineering_&_Concrete_Coring_Report.pdf

PV:mrh:pw1:ds1:intl:MED:25272.15:07:09:DA:PkgC_Final O-1 Stanley Consultants

Appendix O

Geotechnical Engineering & Concrete Coring Report

Geotechnical Engineering Report Peace Vector VII, Cairo West Air Base – Package C – Phase III

Cairo, Egypt

January 10, 2017 Terracon Project No. H1165100

Prepared for:

Stanley Consultants Muscatine, Iowa

Prepared by:

Terracon Consultants, Inc.

Winter Park, Florida

Terracon Consultants, Inc . 1675 Lee Road Winter Park, Flor ida 32789

P [407] 740 6110 F [407] 740 6112 terracon.com

January 10, 2017

Stanley Consultants 225 Iowa Avenue Muscatine, Iowa 52761

Attn: Mr. Christopher Day, P.E.

P: 563.264.6237 E: daychristopher@stanleygroup.com

Re: Geotechnical Engineering Report

Peace Vector VII, Cairo West Air Base, Package C - Phase III

Terracon Project Number: H1165100

Dear Mr. Day:

Terracon Consultants, Inc. (Terracon) has completed the geotechnical engineering services for the above referenced project in project in Cairo, Egypt. This study was performed in general accordance with Amendment 0002, Task Order 0015, Modification 03, Sub-consultant Agreement between Stanley Consultants Inc. and Terracon.

This report presents the findings of the subsurface exploration (performed by others) and provides geotechnical recommendations concerning earthwork, the design/construction of foundations.

We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you on this project. If you have any questions concerning this report, or if we may be of further service, please contact us.

Sincerely, Certificate of Authorization Number 8830

Xuebing Zheng, E.I. Amr M. Sallam, Ph.D., P.E.

Staff Engineer Principal

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................. i

INTRODUCTION

PROJECT INFORMATION

SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

3.1 Typical Profile

3.2 Groundwater

3.3 Corrosion Series Testing

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION

4.1 Geotechnical Considerations

4.2 Earthwork

Site Preparation

Material Requirements

Compaction Requirements-Mass Fill Areas

Utility Trench Backfill

Grading and Drainage

Earthwork Construction Considerations

4.3 Foundations

Foundation Design Recommendations

Foundation Design and Construction Considerations Based on Local Practice and Experience

4.4 Floor Slabs

Floor Slab Design Recommendations

Floor Slab Construction Considerations

4.5 Lateral Earth Pressures

4.6 Seismic Considerations

4.7 Pavements

Design Considerations

Estimates of Minimum Pavement Thickness

GENERAL COMMENTS

APPENDIX A – SITE LAYOUT

APPENDIX B – FIELD EXPLORATION AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION

Exhibit B-1 Results of Geotechnical Investigation by Geo-Consultants Exhibit B-2 Photos of Samples Exhibit B-3 Foundation Analysis and Design Charts

Peace Vector VII, Cairo West Air Base, Package C, Phase III ■ Cairo, Egypt January 10, 2017 ■ Terracon Project No. H1165100

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Geotechnical exploration has been performed for the proposed structures within the Cairo West Air Base located in Cairo, Egypt. Terracon has utilized Geo Consultants (GC), a geotechnical engineering firm in Cairo, Egypt, as a sub-contractor to perform the field explorations and laboratory testing for this project.

Based on the information obtained from the field exploration performed by Geo-Consultants and monitored by Terracon, it appears that the site can be developed for the proposed structures.

The following geotechnical considerations were identified:

Groundwater was not observed to the termination depth of the borings (approximately 3 to 10 meters below existing grade) during the field exploration program performed by Geo- Consultants back in December 2016.

The proposed buildings may be supported on shallow footings bearing on the existing site soil following satisfactory subgrade compaction or on newly placed engineered fill.

Target bearing pressures required by Stanley to maintain proper safety factor against bearing capacity failure as well as limit settlement to 25mm (1inch) are achievable. Details of the recommended bearing pressures are presented later in the report.

Additional recommendation for foundation design and construction typically utilized in similar subsoil conditions in Cairo are also included later in the report.

The in-place sands appear suitable for re-use as general engineered fill.

The general guidelines included in this report are not intended to supersede any more stringent requirements which may be mandated by the Egyptian Building Code.

This summary should be used in conjunction with the entire report for design purposes. It should be recognized that details were not included or fully developed in this section, and the report must be read in its entirety for a comprehensive understanding of the items contained herein. The section titled GENERAL COMMENTS should be read for an understanding of the report limitations.

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 1

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT

PEACE VECTOR VII, CAIRO WEST AIR FORCE BASE

PACKAGE C, PHASE III

CAIRO, EGYPT

Terracon Project No. H1165100 January 10, 2017

INTRODUCTION

Geotechnical engineering services were performed for the proposed structures within the existing Cairo West Air Base located in Cairo, Egypt. The following borings were performed by Terracon’ sub-consultant and were utilized in our analysis for the proposed structures:

Building Boring Depth (meters)

Guard Shack BH-5 3.27

Guard Tower

BH-4 3.00

BH-9 3.45

Forklift Sunshade BH-7 3.23

Earth Covered Magazines and Hardstand

BH-2 9.50

BH-3 10.00

Munitions Assembly BH-1 10.00

Roadway

BH-6 3.10

BH-8 3.24

The site layout of the proposed structures, provided by Stanley Consultants, is included in Appendix A of this report. Logs of the borings along with a Boring Location Diagram are included in Appendix B of this report.

The purpose of these services was to provide information and geotechnical engineering recommendations relative to:

subsurface soil conditions foundation design and construction groundwater conditions floor slab design and construction earthwork general site preparation

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 2

PROJECT INFORMATION

Item Description

Location This project site is located within the existing Cairo West Air Force Base in Cairo, Egypt.

Current ground cover Exposed subgrade mostly desert sandy soils.

Existing topography Relatively level.

Site layout See Appendix A for site layout

Proposed construction

1. Guard Shack

2. Guard Tower

3. Forklift Sunshade

4. Perimeter Fence

5. 3 Earth Covered Magazines (Six are shown on Appendix A for possible alternative locations or future expansion)

6. Munitions Assembly

7. Hardstand, a concrete paved area

Grading Final grades are anticipated to be at/near existing grade.

Building construction (assumed) Concrete framing and masonry non-bearing walls.

Finished floor elevation Final grading information was not available at the time of this report. However, we have assumed minimal fill (less than 2 feet) will be required.

Required allowable bearing pressures (by Stanley Consultants)

60 to 192 kPa (1250 to 4000 psf), with 30% increase for the dynamic loads.

Maximum allowable settlement 1 inch total and ¾ inch differential settlement

We were provided with structural drawings for Guard Shack, Guard Tower, Forklift Sunshade, Covered Magazines, and Munitions Assembly. The table below summarizes foundation dimensions, required allowable bearing pressures, and equivalent column/wall loads.

Structure Required Allowable Bearing

Pressure1

Foundation Dimension Maximum Column/Wall Loads1

Guard Shack 120 kPa (2500 psf)

0.6 meter wall footing 72 kN/m

1.6 meter wall footing 192 kN/m

1.5 meter square footing 270 kN

Guard Tower 100 kPa (2100 psf) 4 meter square footing 1600 kN

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 3

Structure Required Allowable Bearing

Pressure1

Foundation Dimension Maximum Column/Wall Loads1

Forklift Sunshade

100 kPa (2100 psf) (assumed) 2.5 meter square footing 625 kN

Covered Magazines2

192 kPa (4000 psf) 2 meter wall footing 385 kN/m

Munitions Assembly

60 kPa (1250 psf)

6 by 14 meter 5050 kN

2 meter square footing 240 kN

1.8 meter square footing 195 kN

1. The maximum column/wall loads are static loads assuming that the footing are loaded to the required allowable bearing pressures specified by the structural engineer and shown on the typical foundation plans. For dynamic loads, bearing pressures may be increased by 30%.

2. Provided structural drawing indicated retaining wall with width of 2.3 to 6 meter.

SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

A discussion of subsurface conditions encountered in the borings performed by Geo-Consultants back in December 2016 is presented in the following sections.

3.1 Typical Profile

The borings performed within the area of the proposed structure’s locations generally encountered very dense sand and gravel mixture. The top 3 meter (10 feet) encountered relatively large size of gravel with high penetration resistance during drilling and refusal during performing SPT sampling/testing. Twenty-eight (28) full sieve analysis (gradation) tests were performed.

The borings were performed under Terracon’s supervision, photos of samples were taken and attached as Exhibit B-2 of Appendix B of this report.

Conditions encountered at each boring location are indicated on the individual boring logs.

Stratification boundaries on the boring logs represent the approximate location of changes in soil types; in-situ, the transition between materials may be gradual. Details for each of the borings can be found on the boring logs in Appendix B, Exhibit B-1 of this report. Results of the laboratory testing performed can be found on in Appendix B, Exhibit B-1.

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 4

3.2 Groundwater

Groundwater was not observed to the termination depth of the borings (approximately 3 to 10 meters below existing grade) during the field exploration program performed by Geo-Consultants in December 2016. We don’t anticipate groundwater table to be encountered during the foundations construction activities.

3.3 Corrosion Series Testing

Two corrosion series tests were performed on samples obtained from SPT borings BH-1 and BH- 3 to determine subsurface environmental conditions. The environmental classifications are based on the FDOT Structures Design Guidelines. Testing included pH, chlorides and sulfates. Based on the results, the substructure should be classified as moderately aggressive for use in selection of an appropriate class of concrete and steel. Detailed results of corrosion series testing are presented in the following table:

Boring # Sample depth

(meter) pH Chlorides

Sulfates

Substructure Environmental Classification (FDOT)1

Concrete Steel

BH-1 2 8.0 0.153 0.091

Moderately Aggressive

Moderately Aggressive

BH-3 4 8.0 0.051 0.11

Moderately Aggressive

Moderately Aggressive

1. Resistivity test was not performed.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION

4.1 Geotechnical Considerations

The materials encountered in the borings are generally suitable for construction of the proposed foundations, floor slabs and pavements, following site preparation according to the recommendations of the Earthwork portions of this report.

Given the consistency of the natural soils encountered in the test borings, spread footings bearing on natural sands or engineered fill are recommended for support of the proposed buildings/structures. The engineered fill should be placed as outlined in Section 4.2, Earthwork, of this report.

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 5

We recommend that the exposed subgrade be thoroughly evaluated after stripping of any topsoil and creation of all cut areas, but prior to the start of structural fill operations (if any). We recommend that Terracon be retained to evaluate the satisfactory preparation of the bearing material for the pavements, foundations, and floor slab subgrade soils. Subsurface conditions, as identified by the field and laboratory testing programs, have been reviewed and evaluated with respect to the proposed building plans known to us at this time.

Design and construction recommendations for foundation systems and other earth connected phases of the project are outlined below.

4.2 Earthwork

Soils and foundation specifications shall be developed by the project civil engineer based on Unified Facility Criteria, UFC-1-200-01, and the recommendations contained herein.

Site Preparation

Prior to placing any fill, all vegetation, topsoil, possible uncontrolled fill material and any otherwise unsuitable material should be removed from the construction areas. Wet or very dry material should either be removed or moisture conditioned and re-compacted. After stripping and grubbing and achieving cut grades, the exposed surface should be proofrolled where possible to aid in locating loose or soft areas. Proof-rolling can be performed with appropriate heavy equipment to obtain a minimum compaction as defined in Section 4.2.3 Compaction Requirements-Mass Fill Areas. Unstable soil (pumping) should be removed or moisture conditioned and compacted in place prior to placing fill.

Where fill is placed on existing slopes, we recommend that fill slopes be over filled and then cut back to develop an adequately compacted slope face. Slopes should be provided with appropriate erosion protection.

Material Requirements

Compacted structural fill should meet the following material property requirements:

Fill Type 1 USCS Classification Acceptable Location for Placement Maximum Lift

Thickness 2

General 1

SP (fines content < 5%)

All locations and elevations 300 mm

(12 inches)

SP-SM (fines content between

5 and 12%)

All locations and elevations, except strict moisture control will be required during placement, particularly during the rainy season.

200 to 300 mm (8 to 12 inches)

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 6

Fill Type 1 USCS Classification Acceptable Location for Placement Maximum Lift

Thickness 2

1. Controlled, compacted fill should consist of approved materials that are free of organic matter and debris.

2. Loose thickness when heavy compaction equipment is used in vibratory mode. Lift thickness should be decreased if static compaction is being used, typically to no more than 200 mm (8 inches), and the required compaction must still be achieved. Use 100 to 150 mm (4 to 6 inches) in loose thickness when hand-guided equipment (i.e. jumping jack or plate compactor) is required.

Compaction Requirements-Mass Fill Areas

Minimum Compaction Requirements 1 95 percent of the material’s maximum modified Proctor dry density (ASTM D 1557).

Moisture Content2 Within ±2 percent of optimum moisture content as determined by the Modified Proctor test, at the time of placement and compaction.

Minimum Testing Frequency One field density test per about 1000 square meter (10, 700 sf) or fraction thereof per 300 mm (1 foot) lift.

1. We recommend that engineered fill be tested for moisture content and compaction during placement. Should the results of the in-place density tests indicate the specified moisture or compaction limits have not been met, the area represented by the test should be reworked and retested as required until the specified moisture and compaction requirements are achieved.

2. Specifically, moisture levels should be maintained low enough to allow for satisfactory compaction to be achieved without the cohesionless fill material pumping when proofrolled.

Utility Trench Backfill

All trench excavations should be made with sufficient working space to permit construction including backfill placement and compaction. Utility trenches are a common source of water infiltration and migration. All utility trenches that penetrate beneath the building should be backfilled with native soils to avoid creating a preferred flow path through the trenches.

Grading and Drainage

Final surrounding grades should be sloped away from the structure on all sides to prevent ponding of water. Site grades should be set considering the estimated seasonal high groundwater presented in Section 3.4.

Earthwork Construction Considerations

After initial proofrolling and compaction, unstable subgrade conditions could develop during general construction operations, particularly if the soils are wetted and/or subjected to repetitive construction traffic. Upon completion of filling and grading, care should be taken to maintain the subgrade moisture content prior to construction of floor slabs and pavements. Construction traffic

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 7 over the completed subgrade should be avoided to the extent practical. The site should also be graded to prevent ponding of surface water on the prepared subgrades or in excavations. If the subgrade should become desiccated, saturated, or disturbed, the affected material should be removed or these materials should be scarified, moisture conditioned, and re-compacted prior to floor slab and pavement construction.

Trees or other vegetation whose root systems have the ability to remove excessive moisture from the subgrade and foundation soils should not be planted next to the structure. Trees and shrubbery should be kept away from the exterior edges of the foundation element a distance at least equal to 1.5 times their expected mature height.

As a minimum, all temporary excavations should be sloped or braced as required by Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) regulations to provide stability and safe working conditions. Temporary excavations will probably be required during grading operations. The grading contractor, by his contract, is usually responsible for designing and constructing stable, temporary excavations and should shore, slope or bench the sides of the excavations as required, to maintain stability of both the excavation sides and bottom. All excavations should comply with applicable local, state and federal safety regulations, including the current OSHA Excavation and Trench Safety Standards.

Terracon should be retained during the construction phase of the project to observe earthwork and to perform necessary tests and observations during subgrade preparation; proof-rolling;

placement and compaction of controlled compacted fills; backfilling of excavations into the completed subgrade, and just prior to construction of building floor slabs.

4.3 Foundations

In our opinion, the proposed building/structures can be supported by a shallow foundation system bearing on native soil or newly placed fill extending to native soil. Design recommendations for shallow foundations for the proposed structure are presented in the following sections. In addition, foundations should be in accordance with TM 5-818-1 by United States Department of the Army, with specific attention to Chapter 7 for shallow foundations.

The followings summarize Terracon foundation evaluation procedure:

The top 3 meter (10 feet) encountered a mixture of sand and relatively large size gravel with high penetration resistance during drilling and refusal during performing SPT sampling/testing at a depth of about 3m. For Terracon design purposes, we assumed a SPT N-value of 30 within the top 3m.

Terracon evaluated the bearing capacity of the foundation soil based on a minimum safety factor of 3 against shear failure. A foundation bearing depth of 3 feet was assumed in our analysis. The resulting allowable bearing pressure were

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 8 plotted versus the foundation size for both square and strip footing as shown on Exhibit B-3.

Terracon evaluated the allowable bearing pressure to limit settlement to about 1 inch assuming a foundation bearing depth of 3 feet. The resulting allowable bearing pressure were plotted versus the foundation size for both square and strip footing as shown on Exhibit B-3.

The structural engineer should utilize the “thick envelope curve” shown on the design charts, shown in Exhibit B-3, to size the footings to ensure both bearing capacity and settlement requirements are satisfied.

Foundation Design Recommendations

Description Column Footing Wall Footing

Net allowable bearing pressure 1

6000 to 8000 psf for footing width of 20 to 2 feet, respectively (Exhibit B-3)

4200 to 6000 psf for footing width of 20 to 2 feet, respectively (Exhibit B-3)

Minimum embedment below finished grade 2 60 cm (24 inches) 60 cm (24 inches)

Over-excavation and Replacement Please review section 4.3.2 below

Minimum Compaction and Testing Frequency Please review section 4.3.2 below

Approximate total settlement 3 <25 mm (1 inch) <25 mm (1 inch)

Estimated differential settlement 3 <20 mm (¾ inch) between columns

<20 mm (¾ inch) over 12 meter (40 feet)

1. The recommended net allowable bearing pressure is the pressure in excess of the minimum surrounding overburden pressure at the footing base elevation. Assumes any unsuitable fill or soft soils, if encountered, will be undercut and replaced with engineered fill. “B” refers to the foundation width.

2. For erosion protection and to reduce effects of seasonal moisture variations in subgrade soils.

3. The foundation settlement will depend upon the variations within the subsurface soil profile, the structural loading conditions, the embedment depth of the footings, the thickness of compacted fill, and the quality of the earthwork operations. The net allowable bearing pressure recommended above should maintain settlement to the maximum allowable values.

Foundation Design and Construction Considerations Based on Local

Practice and Experience

According to the subsurface conditions encountered at the site of Cairo west airbase, the following design recommendations are typically utilized for lightly loaded buildings/structures and are provided here in for your considerations:

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 9

Shallow foundation in the form of Reinforce Concrete (RC) isolated footings resting on isolated Plain Concrete (PC) footings is typically used. The minimum thickness of the PC footings is typically 30 cm (about 12 inches) while its planar dimensions are to be protruding from the RC footings by 30 cm (about 12 inches) to develop 1:1 stress distribution in the PC footing.

Even though it is not mandated by the site seismic classification “D”, it is a typical practice in this area of Cairo, Egypt to connect the RC footings by rigid ground beams in two perpendicular directions. Typically, the minimum depth of the ground beams is about 60 cm (24 inches). It is up to the design structure engineer to utilize ground beams in his foundation design.

Foundation depth is typically 1 to 1.5 m (3 to 5 feet) below the final grade level. The foundation is typically measured to the bottom of the Plain Concrete pad.

Over excavation of 0.75 to 1 m (about 3 feet) below the foundation level to perform soil replacement is typically recommended. Protrusions of the soil replacement outside the outer edge of the plain concrete footings should not be less than 50 cm (about 20 inches).

However, the subsoil encountered did not show any soft or loose soils within the shallow soils, therefore, overexcavation is not mandatory and should depend on soil specific conditions during foundation construction.

The excavation depth must be inspected by a specialist to confirm homogeneity.

Although it is unlikely based on the field explorations, however, in case loose sandy soils or soils with silt binders encountered at the excavation depth, it is typically recommended to flood the excavation surface by water at a minimum rate of 250 liter/m2. The flooding process could be in stages and any accumulated fine material at the surface should be removed to allow proper water penetration.

After the flooding process, the excavation level should be compacted by a vibratory roller not less than 20 tons in weight.

Compaction need to be performed for sub-layers of maximum compacted thickness 25 cm (about 12 inches). The backfilling is to be performed from the excavation level to the foundation level.

The replacement soil should be of well graded sand with fines content not exceeding 10%.

The encountered shallow soils should satisfy this condition.

Compaction of each sub-layer should satisfy a relative compaction of 95% of the maximum dry density measured in a modified proctor test.

Sand cone or similar compaction control tests are to be carried out on each sub-layer at a rate of 1 test per 200 m2 of the layer area with a minimum of 3 tests per layer.

The above recommendations are to be confirmed based on the site inspection to the excavation level by a specialist.

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 10

4.4 Floor Slabs

Floor Slab Design Recommendations

Design of floor slabs that are heavily loaded should follow the TM 5-809-12. The following sections summarizes our recommendations for floor slab design and construction.

Floor slab support Free draining granular material meeting the general fill specification 1

Modulus of subgrade reaction 1400 kPa (200 pounds per square inch per inch ) for point loading conditions

Minimum Compaction requirements 95 percent of the materials maximum Modified Proctor dry density

Minimum Testing Frequency One field density test per 250 square meter (about 2,500 square feet) or fraction thereof for a depth of 30 centimeter (12 inches). 2

1. We recommend subgrades be maintained in a relatively moist condition until floor slabs are constructed. If the subgrade should become desiccated prior to construction of floor slabs, the affected material should be removed or the materials scarified, moistened, and re-compacted.

Upon completion of grading operations in the building areas, care should be taken to maintain the recommended subgrade moisture content and density prior to construction of the building floor slabs.

2. Density should be re-checked after utility construction.

Where appropriate, saw-cut control joints should be placed in the slab to help control the location and extent of cracking. For additional recommendations refer to the ACI Design Manual.

Floor Slab Construction Considerations

We recommend the area underlying the floor slab be rough graded and then proofrolled prior to final grading. As construction proceeds, the subgrade may be disturbed due to utility excavations, construction traffic, desiccation, rainfall, etc. As a result, the floor slab subgrade may not be suitable for placement of concrete and corrective action will be required.

Particular attention should be paid to high traffic areas that were rutted and disturbed earlier and to areas where backfilled trenches are located. Areas where unsuitable conditions are located should be repaired by removing and replacing the affected material with properly compacted fill. All floor slab subgrade areas should be moisture conditioned and properly compacted to the recommendations in this report immediately prior to placement of concrete.

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 11

4.5 Lateral Earth Pressures

Reinforced concrete walls with unbalanced backfill levels on opposite sides should be designed for earth pressures at least equal to those indicated in the following table. Earth pressures will be influenced by structural design of the walls, conditions of wall restraint, methods of construction and/or compaction and the strength of the materials being restrained. Two wall restraint conditions are shown. Active earth pressure is commonly used for design of free-standing cantilever retaining walls and assumes wall movement. The "at-rest" condition assumes no wall movement, such as a basement wall that is structurally confined at both the top and bottom of the wall. The recommended design lateral earth pressures do not include a factor of safety and do not provide for possible hydrostatic pressure on the walls.

Earth Pressure Coefficients

Earth Pressure Conditions

Coefficient for Backfill Type

Equivalent Fluid Density

Surcharge Pressure, p1

(kPa/psf)

Earth Pressure, p2

Active (Ka) Granular - 0.33

1.9 kPa/m (40 pcf)

(0.33)S (1.9)H kPa

(40) H psf

At-Rest (Ko) Granular - 0.46

2.6 kPa/m (55 pcf)

(0.46)S (2.6)H kPa

(55) H kPa

Passive (Kp) Granular - 3.0

14.4 kPa/m (300 pcf)

Applicable conditions to the above include:

Uniform surcharge, where S is surcharge pressure

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 12

In-situ soil backfill weight a maximum of 1900 kg/m3 (120 pcf) Horizontal backfill, compacted between 95 and 98 percent of modified Proctor maximum dry density Loading from heavy compaction equipment not included No hydrostatic pressures acting on wall No dynamic loading No safety factor included in soil parameters

Backfill placed against structures should consist of granular soils. For the granular values to be valid, the granular backfill must extend out from the base of the wall at an angle of at least 45 and 60 degrees from vertical for the active and passive cases, respectively. To calculate the resistance to sliding, a value of 0.35 should be used as the ultimate coefficient of friction between the footing and the underlying soil.

To control hydrostatic pressure behind the wall we recommend that a drain be installed at the foundation wall with a collection pipe leading to a reliable discharge. If this is not possible, then combined hydrostatic and lateral earth pressures should be calculated for lean clay backfill using an equivalent fluid weighing 90 and 100 pcf for active and at-rest conditions, respectively. For granular backfill, an equivalent fluid weighing 85 and 90 pcf should be used for active and at-rest, respectively.

These pressures do not include the influence of surcharge, equipment or floor loading, which should be added. Heavy equipment should not operate within a distance closer than the exposed height of retaining walls to prevent lateral pressures more than those provided.

4.6 Seismic Considerations

For seismic design purposes, the site class may be taken as “C” (very dense soil and soft rock profile in upper 100 feet). It should be noted that borings performed by Baker only extended to a depth of about 40 feet. There is no boring data for soils below 40 feet, however, the measured N-value are substantially increasing with depth, which indicate transitioning from dense soil to soft rock followed by rock typically encountered at this area in Cairo.

The parameters for the maximum considered earthquake ground motion of 0.2 sec spectral response acceleration (Ss) and the maximum considered earthquake ground motion of 1.0 sec spectral response acceleration (S1) should be determine from country maps. Since, the 2012 International Building Code (IBC) does not include Egypt acceleration map. Thus, we used Unified Facilities Criteria document UFC 3-301-01, Structural Engineering, January 27, 2010. The Appendix G of UFC 3-301-01 provides spectral values for Egypt. The spectral accelerations of S1 and SS were taken as S1 = 0.27g and Ss = 0.67g, respectively.

Based on a Class C site and Ss of 0.67 and using Table 1613.5.3(1) of the IBC, the site coefficient (Fa) is 1.132.

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 13

Based on a Class C site and S1 of 0.27g and using Table 1613.5.3(2) of the IBC, the site coefficient (Fv) is 1.53.

The adjusted maximum considered earthquake spectral response acceleration parameters are calculated as follows:

SMS = FaSS = 1.132 × 0.67g = 0.758 g For short periods

SM1 = FvS1 = 1.53 × 0.27g = 0.413 g For 1 − second

The design spectral response acceleration parameters are calculated as follows:

SDS =

SMS =

× 0.758g = 0.505 g For short periods

SD1 =

S1S =

× 0.413g = 0.275 g For short periods

Using Table 1613.5.6(1) with the value of SDS =0.505g, the structure is permitted to be assigned to Seismic Design Category “D” for Short-Period Response Accelerations.

Using Table 1613.5.6(2) with the value of SD1 =0.275, the structure is permitted to be assigned to Seismic Design Category “D” for 1-Second Period Response Acceleration.

4.7 Pavements

Design Considerations

Traffic patterns and anticipated loading conditions were not available at the time that this report was prepared. Traffic data including vehicle type, number, and distribution will be required to develop final pavement designs. Groundwater table is too deep and should not have an effect on the pavement design. The shallow soil should be suitable as subgrade material.

Pavement designs should be based on TM5-822-5 or can be determined using PCASE, AASHTO, Asphalt Institute, PCA, and/or other methods if specific wheel loads, axle configurations, frequencies, and desired pavement life are provided. For planning purposes, the following sections may be considered until traffic data is available.

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 14

Estimates of Minimum Pavement Thickness

Typical Pavement Section (inches)

Traffic Area Alternative

Asphalt Concrete Surface Course

Limerock, Soil-Cement or Crushed Concrete

Base Course

Stabilized Subbase

Course2,3,4

Portland Cement

Concrete

Free Draining

Subgrade

Car Parking and Hard

Stand

PCC -- -- 5.0 18.0

AC 1.5 6.0 12.0 -- --

Truck and Drive Areas

PCC -- -- 6.0 18.0

AC 2.5 8.0 12.0 -- --

GENERAL COMMENTS

Terracon should be retained to review the final design plans and specifications so comments can be made regarding interpretation and implementation of our geotechnical recommendations in the design and specifications. Terracon also should be retained to provide observation and testing services during grading, excavation, foundation construction and other earth-related construction phases of the project.

The analysis and recommendations presented in this report are based upon the data obtained from the borings performed at the indicated locations and from other information discussed in this report. This report does not reflect variations that may occur between borings, across the site, or due to the modifying effects of construction or weather. The nature and extent of such variations may not become evident until during or after construction. If variations appear, we should be immediately notified so that further evaluation and supplemental recommendations can be provided.

This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of our client for specific application to the project discussed and has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices. No warranties, either express or implied, are intended or made. Site safety, excavation support, and dewatering requirements are the responsibility of others. In the event that changes in the nature, design, or location of the project as outlined in this report are planned, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report shall not be considered valid unless Terracon reviews the changes and either verifies or modifies the conclusions of this report in writing.

APPENDIX A

SITE LAYOUT

Appendix A Site Layout

APPENDIX B

FIELD EXPLORATION AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION

Exhibit B-1 Results of Geotechnical Investigation by Geo-Consultants

GEO-CONSULTANTS

Prof. Ahmed Hosny Abdel-Rahman 22 Abdel-Hakim El-Refaai St., Nasr City, Cairo, Egypt – Postal code 11471 Tel (02) 22873593 - Fax (02) 22757417

GC

Geotechnical Investigation for Cairo West Air Base

Factual Report

Submitted to

Terracon

December 2016

22 Abdel-Hakim El-Refaai St., Nasr City, Cairo, Egypt – Postal code 11471

Table of Contents

Page

1. INTRODUCTION

2. SITE LOCATION AND OBJECTIVES

3. SCOPE OF THE FIELD EXPLORATION AND TESTING PROGRAM

4. BOREHOLES DRILLING AND SPT TESTING

5. LABORATORY TESTING PROGRAM

6. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

7. GROUNDWATER TABLE

APPENDICES

A- Layout and Boreholes Locations

B- Borehole Logs

C- Laboratory Tests Results

22 Abdel-Hakim El-Refaai St., Nasr City, Geotechnical Investigation

Report for Cairo West Air Base

1. INTRODUCTION

This factual report was prepared per the request of Terracon to present the findings of 9 boreholes conducted at Cairo West Airbase. The depths and coordinates of the boreholes are as follows:

2. SITE LOCATION AND OBJECTIVES

The site is located within Cairo West Airbase located along Cairo-Alexandria desert road. The purpose of the investigation is to study the geotechnical characteristics of the subsurface formation and conclude the soil condition at/beneath the foundation level of the proposed structures.

3. SCOPE OF THE FIELD EXPLORATION AND TESTING PROGRAM

The geotechnical investigation scope of work was carried out in compliance with the requirements of Terracon. The scope of the investigation was comprised of carrying out nine

(9) boreholes to depths ranging between 3 m and 10 m. SPT was carried out with depth at each borehole location to measure the density of the soil layers. The layout of the boreholes is attached in Appendix (A).

BH No. Easting Northing Elevation Drilling Depth 1 607461.95 823837.05 161.06 10 m 2 607722.60 823954.75 162.98 9.5 m 3 607739.00 823894.69 161.58 10 m 4 607294.53 824083.93 159.30 3 m 5 607398.87 824110.35 162.19 3.27 m 6 607438.60 824013.90 159.82 3.10 m 7 607604.09 823951.01 161.09 3.23 m 8 607576.71 823821.51 162.17 3.24 m 9 607393.83 823686.49 161.94 3.45 m

22 Abdel-Hakim El-Refaai St., Nasr City,

4. BOREHOLES DRILLING AND SPT TESTING

The boreholes were mechanically drilled using rotary drilling technique utilizing bentonite slurry as the drilling fluid. Standard penetration tests (SPT) were performed at different intervals along the borehole depth noting that the general subsurface condition of the area is generally graved-based. Due to the fact that the top 3 m of all boreholes have experienced the presence of gravel at medium coarse range, performing SPT was not feasible due to the very high resistance. Meanwhile, all other SPT results indicted a refusal condition. Disturbed samples were retrieved from the SPT spoon samplers in addition to disturbed samples retrieved during drilling between SPT tests.

a. Standard Penetration Test (SPT) Procedure

The standard penetration tests were carried out in accordance with ASTM - D 1586.

At intervals of 1.5 m, the drilling tools were removed and soil samples were obtained using a standard split-tube sampler (50.8 mm O.D., 38.1 mm I.D. and 60.0 cm length). The sampler was first seated 6 inches to penetrate any loose cuttings and then driven an additional 12 inches (approximately 30 cm) with blows of a 140-lb (approximately 63.5 kg) hammer falling 30 inches (approximately 76 cm) under its own weight. The number of hammer blows required to drive the sampler the final 12 inches is designated the Standard Penetration

Resistance (N) value. The (N) value has been empirically correlated with various soil properties. The following correlation can be used in estimating the relative density of granular soils from the (N) values shown on the boring logs.

Number of blows per foot (12 inch) Relative Density

0 - 4 Very loose

4 - 10 Loose

10 - 30 Medium dense

30 - 50 Dense

Over 50 Very dense

5. LABORATORY TESTING PROGRAM

All soil samples recovered during the field investigation were transported to our laboratory for visual re-classification and testing. The laboratory testing program included classification and measuring the physical and chemical properties of soils. The results are presented on the borehole logs and attached in Appendix (C). The following terminologies were implemented in classifying the soil samples:

22 Abdel-Hakim El-Refaai St., Nasr City, Descriptive Terminology Ratio of presence in sample

Traces 0 – 10%

Some 10% - 20%

Adjective: Ex: Gravelly, ,. 20% - 35%

Mixture of Soil A "and" Soil B > 35%

a. Grain Size Analysis

Mechanical sieve analyses were conducted in accordance with ASTM-D 422 on the cohesionless soil samples. The grain size distribution plots are attached in Appendix (C).

The sieve plots provide also the percentages of fine materials (silt and clay) passing through the standard sieve No. 200 (0.075 mm).

b. Chemical Analysis of Soil Samples

The testing program included the determination of the pH value, chloride content as

CL-(%), Sulphate content as SO3 (%) for soil samples at different depths. The results of the chemical analysis are presented in Appendix (C).

6. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

The subsurface soil condition depicted from the boreholes logs is generally consistent and is comprised of very dense siliceous sand and gravel mixture at different ratios. The top

3 m have experienced the presence of relatively larger size of gravel particles that indicated very high resistance against performing SPT. An extensive number of mechanical sieve tests were carried out to define the changes in the ratios between the sand and gravel ratios.

7. GROUNDWATER TABLE

No groundwater was encountered in any of the boreholes.

Best Regards;

Ahmed Hosny Abdel-Rahman

Professor of Geotechnical Engineering

Consulting Engineer

December, 2016

22 Abdel-Hakim El-Refaai St., Nasr City, Appendix (A)

Layout and Locations of Boreholes

22 Abdel-Hakim El-Refaai St., Nasr City, Appendix (B)

Borehole Logs

SAMPLE

TYPE No. % F.C SPT PER 30 cm

1.00 D.S

2.00 W.S 1

3.00 W.S

4.00 SPT 11

5.00 W.S

6.00 SPT 4

7.00 SPT 8

8.00 W.S

9.00 SPT 9

10.00 SPT 6

11.00

12.00

13.00

14.00

15.00

16.00

17.00

18.00

19.00

20.00 qun ST

F.C. C

RQD WS

checked by

Eng.A.K Dr.A.H

Prepared by

Washed Sample

Core Sample

Undisturbed Shelby tube Sample

Percent Passing Through ASTM Sieve 200

Rock Quality Designation %

SPT

N

DS

Unconfined Compressive Strength

Disturbed Sample

Standard Penetration Test

SPT- blow counts (blows/ft)

CLIENT: TERRACON

Y: ( 823837.05 )X: ( 607461.95 )Elevation: ( +161.06 m )

INSPECTOR:

Eng. MEDHAT HANNA

DATE COMPLETED:

12-12-2016

RIG TYPE: Rotary

DRILLER:

MAHMOUD ELSAID

TOTAL DEPTH: 10.00 m

PROJECT: CAIRO WEST AIR BASE

LOCATION:

WEST CAIRO AIRPORT

DATE STARTED:

08-12-2016

BOREHOLE No.

BH ( 01 )

GWT:

NO G.W.T

DRILLING FLUID: BENTONITE SLURRY

GWTDescription

Sheet (1/1)

DEPTH

(m) STRATA

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

10.0

11.0

12.0

13.0

14.0

15.0

16.0

17.0

18.0

19.0

20.0

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90100

D ep th (m

NSPT (blows/ft)

End of Borehole at 10.00 m .

Gravelly SAND, some silt.

50/9

50/16

50/12

54/30

50/13

Sand = 76 % , Gravel = 23 % , Fines = 1 %

Sand = 54 % , Gravel = 35 % , Fines = 11 %

Sand = 81 % , Gravel = 15 % , Fines = 4 %

Sand = 59 % , Gravel = 33 % , Fines = 8 %

Sand = 70 % , Gravel = 21 % , Fines = 9 %

Sand = 92 % , Gravel = 2 % , Fines = 6 %

GEO-CONSULTANTS

22 Abdel-Hakim El-Refaai St. , Nasr City, Cairo, Egypt ahosny66@hotmail.com cm

1.00 D.S

2.00 W.S

3.00 W.S 1

4.00 SPT 10

5.00 SPT 9

6.00 W.S

7.00 W.S 1

8.00 SPT 12

9.00 W.S

10.00 W.S 1

11.00

12.00

13.00

14.00

15.00

16.00

17.00

18.00

19.00

20.00 qun ST

F.C. C

RQD WS

checked by

Eng.A.K Dr.A.H

Prepared by

Washed Sample

Core Sample

Undisturbed Shelby tube Sample

Percent Passing Through ASTM Sieve 200

Rock Quality Designation %

SPT

N

DS

Unconfined Compressive Strength

Disturbed Sample

Standard Penetration Test

SPT- blow counts (blows/ft)

CLIENT: TERRACON

Y: ( 823954.75 )X: ( 607722.60 )Elevation: ( +162.98 m )

INSPECTOR:

Eng. MEDHAT HANNA

DATE COMPLETED:

12-12-2016

RIG TYPE: Rotary

DRILLER:

MAHMOUD ELSAID

TOTAL DEPTH: 9.50 m

DATE STARTED:

07-12-2016

BOREHOLE No.

BH ( 02 )

GWT:

NO G.W.T

DRILLING FLUID: BENTONITE SLURRY

GWTDescription

Sheet (1/1)

DEPTH

(m) STRATA

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

10.0

11.0

12.0

13.0

14.0

15.0

16.0

17.0

18.0

19.0

20.0

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90100

D ep th (m

End of Borehole at 9.50 m .

Gravelly SAND, some silt.

50/11

50/13

50/15

Sand = 91 % , Gravel = 8 % , Fines = 1 %

Sand = 46 % , Gravel = 44 % , Fines = 10 %

Sand = 53 % , Gravel = 38 % , Fines = 9 %

Sand = 84 % , Gravel = 15 % , Fines = 1 %

Sand = 60 % , Gravel = 28 % , Fines = 12 %

Sand = 97 % , Gravel = 2 % , Fines = 1 %

GEO-CONSULTANTS

22 Abdel-Hakim El-Refaai St. , Nasr City, Cairo, Egypt cm

1.00 D.S

2.00 W.S 2

3.00 W.S

4.00 SPT 15

5.00 SPT 5

6.00 W.S

7.00 SPT 4

8.00 SPT 3

9.00 W.S

10.00 SPT 3

11.00

12.00

13.00

14.00

15.00

16.00

17.00

18.00

19.00

20.00 qun ST

F.C. C

RQD WS

checked by

Eng.A.K Dr.A.H

Prepared by

Washed Sample

Core Sample

Undisturbed Shelby tube Sample

Percent Passing Through ASTM Sieve 200

Rock Quality Designation %

SPT

N

DS

Unconfined Compressive Strength

Disturbed Sample

Standard Penetration Test

SPT- blow counts (blows/ft)

CLIENT: TERRACON

Y: ( 823894.69 )X: ( 607739.00 )Elevation: ( +161.58 m )

INSPECTOR:

Eng. MEDHAT HANNA

DATE COMPLETED:

12-12-2016

RIG TYPE: Rotary

DRILLER:

MAHMOUD ELSAID

TOTAL DEPTH: 10.00 m

DATE STARTED:

08-12-2016

BOREHOLE No.

BH ( 03 )

GWT:

NO G.W.T

DRILLING FLUID: BENTONITE SLURRY

GWTDescription

Sheet (1/1)

DEPTH

(m) STRATA

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

10.0

11.0

12.0

13.0

14.0

15.0

16.0

17.0

18.0

19.0

20.0

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90100

D ep th (m

End of Borehole at 10.00 m .

Medium to coarse SAND, some gravel and traces of silt.

70/30

50/8

50/7

50/15

50/14

Sand = 91 % , Gravel = 7 % , Fines = 2 %

Sand = 74 % , Gravel = 11 % , Fines = 15 %

Sand = 85 % , Gravel = 10 % , Fines = 5 %

Sand = 88 % , Gravel = 8 % , Fines = 4 %

Sand = 95 % , Gravel = 2 % , Fines = 3 %

Sand = 92 % , Gravel = 5 % , Fines = 3%

GEO-CONSULTANTS

22 Abdel-Hakim El-Refaai St. , Nasr City, Cairo, Egypt cm

1.00 C 2

2.00 W.S

3.00 W.S 1

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

8.00

9.00

10.00

11.00

12.00

13.00

14.00

15.00

16.00

17.00

18.00

19.00

20.00 qun ST

F.C. C

RQD WS

checked by

Eng.A.K Dr.A.H

Prepared by

Washed Sample

Core Sample

Undisturbed Shelby tube Sample

Percent Passing Through ASTM Sieve 200

Rock Quality Designation %

SPT

N

DS

Unconfined Compressive Strength

Disturbed Sample

Standard Penetration Test

SPT- blow counts (blows/ft)

CLIENT: TERRACON

Y: ( 824083.93 )X: ( 607294.53 )Elevation: ( +159.30 m )

INSPECTOR:

Eng. MEDHAT HANNA

DATE COMPLETED:

12-12-2016

RIG TYPE: Rotary

DRILLER:

MAHMOUD ELSAID

TOTAL DEPTH: 3.00 m

DATE STARTED:

07-12-2016

BOREHOLE No.

BH ( 04 )

GWT:

NO G.W.T

DRILLING FLUID: BENTONITE SLURRY

GWTDescription

Sheet (1/1)

DEPTH

(m) STRATA

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

10.0

11.0

12.0

13.0

14.0

15.0

16.0

17.0

18.0

19.0

20.0

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90100

D ep th (m

End of Borehole at 3.00 m .

Sandy GRAVEL, traces of silt.

Sand = 15 % , Gravel = 83 % , Fines = 2 %

Sand = 38 % , Gravel = 61 % , Fines = 1 %

GEO-CONSULTANTS

22 Abdel-Hakim El-Refaai St. , Nasr City, Cairo, Egypt cm

1.00 D.S 3

2.00 W.S

3.00 W.S

4.00 SPT 4

5.00

6.00

7.00

8.00

9.00

10.00

11.00

12.00

13.00

14.00

15.00

16.00

17.00

18.00

19.00

20.00 qun ST

F.C. C

RQD WS

GWTDescription

Sheet (1/1)

DEPTH

(m) STRATA

CLIENT: TERRACON

Y: ( 824110.35 )X: ( 607398.87 )Elevation: ( +162.19 m )

INSPECTOR:

Eng. MEDHAT HANNA

DATE COMPLETED:

12-12-2016

RIG TYPE: Rotary

DRILLER:

MAHMOUD ELSAID

TOTAL DEPTH: 3.27 m

DATE STARTED:

07-12-2016

BOREHOLE No.

BH ( 05 )

GWT:

NO G.W.T

DRILLING FLUID: BENTONITE SLURRY

checked by

Eng.A.K Dr.A.H

Prepared by

Washed Sample

Core Sample

Undisturbed Shelby tube Sample

Percent Passing Through ASTM Sieve 200

Rock Quality Designation %

SPT

N

DS

Unconfined Compressive Strength

Disturbed Sample

Standard Penetration Test

SPT- blow counts (blows/ft)

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

10.0

11.0

12.0

13.0

14.0

15.0

16.0

17.0

18.0

19.0

20.0

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90100

D ep th (m

End of Borehole at 3.27 m .

GRAVEL and SAND, traces of silt.

50/12

Sand = 44 % , Gravel = 53 % , Fines = 3 %

Sand = 35 % , Gravel = 61 % , Fines = 4 %

GEO-CONSULTANTS

22 Abdel-Hakim El-Refaai St. , Nasr City, Cairo, Egypt cm

1.00 D.S

2.00 W.S

3.00 W.S 1

4.00 SPT 8

5.00

6.00

7.00

8.00

9.00

10.00

11.00

12.00

13.00

14.00

15.00

16.00

17.00

18.00

19.00

20.00 qun ST

F.C. C

RQD WS

checked by

Eng.A.K Dr.A.H

Prepared by

Washed Sample

Core Sample

Undisturbed Shelby tube Sample

Percent Passing Through ASTM Sieve 200

Rock Quality Designation %

SPT

N

DS

Unconfined Compressive Strength

Disturbed Sample

Standard Penetration Test

SPT- blow counts (blows/ft)

CLIENT: TERRACON

Y: ( 824013.90 )X: ( 607438.60 )Elevation: ( +159.82 m )

INSPECTOR:

Eng. MEDHAT HANNA

DATE COMPLETED:

12-12-2016

RIG TYPE: Rotary

DRILLER:

MAHMOUD ELSAID

TOTAL DEPTH: 3.10 m

DATE STARTED:

07-12-2016

BOREHOLE No.

BH ( 06 )

GWT:

NO G.W.T

DRILLING FLUID: BENTONITE SLURRY

GWTDescription

Sheet (1/1)

DEPTH

(m) STRATA

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

10.0

11.0

12.0

13.0

14.0

15.0

16.0

17.0

18.0

19.0

20.0

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90100

D ep th (m

End of Borehole at 3.10 m .

SAND and GRAVEL, some silt.

50/10

Sand = 55 % , Gravel = 44 % , Fines = 1 %

GEO-CONSULTANTS

22 Abdel-Hakim El-Refaai St. , Nasr City, Cairo, Egypt cm

1.00 D.S

2.00 W.S 1

3.00 W.S

4.00 SPT 7

5.00

6.00

7.00

8.00

9.00

10.00

11.00

12.00

13.00

14.00

15.00

16.00

17.00

18.00

19.00

20.00 qun ST

F.C. C

RQD WS

GWTDescription

Sheet (1/1)

DEPTH

(m) STRATA

CLIENT: TERRACON

Y: ( 823951.01 )X: ( 607604.09 )Elevation: ( +161.09 m )

INSPECTOR:

Eng. MEDHAT HANNA

DATE COMPLETED:

12-12-2016

RIG TYPE: Rotary

DRILLER:

MAHMOUD ELSAID

TOTAL DEPTH: 3.23 m

DATE STARTED:

07-12-2016

BOREHOLE No.

BH ( 07 )

GWT:

NO G.W.T

DRILLING FLUID: BENTONITE SLURRY

checked by

Eng.A.K Dr.A.H

Prepared by

Washed Sample

Core Sample

Undisturbed Shelby tube Sample

Percent Passing Through ASTM Sieve 200

Rock Quality Designation %

SPT

N

DS

Unconfined Compressive Strength

Disturbed Sample

Standard Penetration Test

SPT- blow counts (blows/ft)

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

10.0

11.0

12.0

13.0

14.0

15.0

16.0

17.0

18.0

19.0

20.0

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90100

D ep th (m

End of Borehole at 3.23 m .

SAND and GRAVEL, some silt.

50/8

Sand = 69 % , Gravel = 30 % , Fines = 1 %

Sand = 39 % , Gravel = 54 % , Fines = 7 %

GEO-CONSULTANTS

22 Abdel-Hakim El-Refaai St. , Nasr City, Cairo, Egypt cm

1.00 D.S

2.00 W.S 2

3.00 W.S 3

4.00 SPT

5.00

6.00

7.00

8.00

9.00

10.00

11.00

12.00

13.00

14.00

15.00

16.00

17.00

18.00

19.00

20.00 qun ST

F.C. C

RQD WS

checked by

Eng.A.K Dr.A.H

Prepared by

Washed Sample

Core Sample

Undisturbed Shelby tube Sample

Percent Passing Through ASTM Sieve 200

Rock Quality Designation %

SPT

N

DS

Unconfined Compressive Strength

Disturbed Sample

Standard Penetration Test

SPT- blow counts (blows/ft)

CLIENT: TERRACON

Y: ( 823821.51 )X: ( 607576.71 )Elevation: ( +162.17 m )

INSPECTOR:

Eng. MEDHAT HANNA

DATE COMPLETED:

12-12-2016

RIG TYPE: Rotary

DRILLER:

MAHMOUD ELSAID

TOTAL DEPTH: 3.24 m

DATE STARTED:

07-12-2016

BOREHOLE No.

BH ( 08 )

GWT:

NO G.W.T

DRILLING FLUID: BENTONITE SLURRY

GWTDescription

Sheet (1/1)

DEPTH

(m) STRATA

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

10.0

11.0

12.0

13.0

14.0

15.0

16.0

17.0

18.0

19.0

20.0

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90100

D ep th (m

End of Borehole at 3.24 m .

Sandy GRAVEL, traces of silt.

50/9

Sand = 19 % , Gravel = 79 % , Fines = 2 %

Sand = 41 % , Gravel = 56 % , Fines = 3 %

GEO-CONSULTANTS

22 Abdel-Hakim El-Refaai St. , Nasr City, Cairo, Egypt cm

1.00 D.S 1

2.00 W.S

3.00 W.S

4.00 SPT 29

5.00

6.00

7.00

8.00

9.00

10.00

11.00

12.00

13.00

14.00

15.00

16.00

17.00

18.00

19.00

20.00 qun ST

F.C. C

RQD WS

GWTDescription

Sheet (1/1)

DEPTH

(m) STRATA

CLIENT: TERRACON

Y: ( 823686.49 )X: ( 607393.83 )Elevation: ( +161.94 m )

INSPECTOR:

Eng. MEDHAT HANNA

DATE COMPLETED:

12-12-2016

RIG TYPE: Rotary

DRILLER:

MAHMOUD ELSAID

TOTAL DEPTH: 3.45 m

DATE STARTED:

07-12-2016

BOREHOLE No.

BH ( 09 )

GWT:

NO G.W.T

DRILLING FLUID: BENTONITE SLURRY

checked by

Eng.A.K Dr.A.H

Prepared by

Washed Sample

Core Sample

Undisturbed Shelby tube Sample

Percent Passing Through ASTM Sieve 200

Rock Quality Designation %

SPT

N

DS

Unconfi…