ENI - IRAQ

ZUBAIR OIL FIELD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

Final Soil Investigation Report for Hammar DGS - phase 1

CD-FE 00 26.05.11 FINAL ISSUE

Validity Rev.
Prepared Checked Approved Contractor Company
Status number Date Description
by by by Approval Approval
Revision Index
Company logo and business name Project name Company Document ID
ZUBAIR OIL FIELD 00251100BARS95000
DEVELOPMENT
PROJECT
exploration & production division Job N.
Contractor logo and business name Contractor Document ID

Contract N.
Vendor logo and business name Vendor Document ID

Order N.
Facility Name Location Scale Sheet of Sheets
ZUBAIR FIELD – HAMMAR ONSHORE n.a. 1 of 203
DGS
Document Title Supersedes N.

Final Soil Investigation Report for Hammar DGS - phase 1 Superseded by N.

Plant Area Plant
Unit

Software: Microsoft Word 97-2003 File No. 00251100BARS95000_CDFE00_203.pdf

This document is property of Eni S.p.A. Exploration & Production Division.

It shall neither be shown to Third Parties not used for purposes other than those for which it has been sent.
University of Basra
College of Engineering
Engineering Consulting Bureau

Final Report/Phase 1

Soil Investigation for

Hammar DGS/Zubair Field
Basra, IRAQ

Submitted to
eni-Iraq

May/2011

Report No. 2/SI/IC/2011

 Contents

1- Introduction

1.1- General
1.2- Authorization
1.3- Site Location and Description

2- Field Investigation

2.1- General
2.2- Drilling and Sampling of Boreholes
2.3- Standard Penetration Test (SPT)
2.4- Spacing of Soil Samples
2.5- Dynamic Cone Penetration Test (DCPT)
2.6- Crosshole Test
2.7- Thermal Conductivity and Thermal Resistivity.

3- Laboratory Testing For Soils

3.1- General
3.2- Method of Testing
3.3- Moisture Content and Unit Weight
3.4- Atterberg Limits
3.5- Particle Size Analysis
3.6- Shear Strength of Cohesive soil
3.7- Direct Shear Test
3.8- Consolidation test
3.9- Permeability
3.10- Modified Proctor Test
3.11- Chemical Tests

4- Subsurface Conditions

4.1- Subsoil Material Description

4.2- Underground Water Level
5- Geology and Seismicity

5.1- Regional Geology

5.2- Local Subsurface and Surface Geology
5.3- Seismic Hazard
5.4- Other Risks and Hazards
5.5- Liquefaction Potential
5.6- Seismic Design Parameters

6- Earthwork

6.1- Lowering of Groundwater Level

6.2- Excavation Difficulties
6.3- Preparation Works
6.4- Fill Material
6.5- Roads
6.6- Compaction Requirements
6.7- Shrinkage of Soil
6.8- Cut and Filled slopes
6.9- Shoring
6.10- Drainage
6.11- Pavement Design

7- Results and Discussion

7.1- Atterberg Limits

7.2- Shear Strength
7.3- Consolidation Settlement
7.4- Chemical Properties
7.5- Gypsum
7.6- Presence of Deep Soft Clay Layer

8- Analysis and Recommendations

8.1- Allowable Bearing Capacity (ABC) of Shallow Foundations

8.2- Allowable Bearing Capacity for Transient Loads
 8.3- Settlement of Shallow Foundations
8.4- Allowable Settlement
8.5- Modulus of Subgrade Reaction
8.6- Coefficients of Lateral Earth Pressure
8.7- Carrying Capacity of Pile Foundation
8.8- Negative Skin Friction
8.9- Group Effect
8.10- Lateral Resistance of Piles
8.11- Pile Loading Test
8.12- Elastic Properties of Soil
8.13- Surface Drainage
8.14- Design Parameters Summary
8.15- Type of Foundation

References

Appendices

Appendix A: Borehole Logs

Appendix B: SPT and DCPT Results
Appendix C: Lab Tests Results
Appendix D: Crosshole Test Results
Appendix E: Thermal Resistivity Results
Eni-Iraq
Soil Investigation Report for Zubair Field/Hammar DGS
1-Introduction
1.1-General
This report presents the results of a subsurface investigation for proposed
constructions on Zubair Field/Hammar DGS site in Basra Governorate. It summarizes the
data obtained and presents our conclusions and recommendations based on the proposed
construction and the subsurface conditions encountered. Design parameters and a
discussion of engineering conditions related to construction of the proposed constructions
are also included. The assignment was taken on March through May, 2011.

1.2-Authorization
The soil investigation for the mentioned site has been conducted
by the Engineering Consulting Bureau (ECB) – University of Basra at the request by
eni-Iraq.

1.3- Site Location and Description

The proposed site is located in Basra Governorate about 12.65 km from Basra city.
At the time of field works, the site was vacant. The site is relatively flat.

2- Field Investigation
2.1- General
The field work for this study was conducted in March, 2011. Field activities include
the following:

1- 31 boreholes to depths of 15m to 40m below existing ground surface.

2- 3 DCPT to depths of 4.8m to 15m below existing ground surface.
3- 1 Crosshole Test.
4- 42 Thermal Resistivity Tests.

The locations of all field works were setup by the client. All activities were
continuously supervised on site by ECB engineers. UTM coordinates of all field activities
are shown in the attached appendices.

2.2- Drilling and Sampling of Boreholes

Boreholes were advanced using rotary drill method according to ASTM D-5783.
Undisturbed samples were extracted using Shelby tube according to ASTM D-1587.
These samples which represent as closely as the true in- situ structure and water contents
of the soil, are taken from the thin walled tube. The tube (75mm- diameter, 600mm-
length) is drive for its full extent into the soil and then withdraws with its content. After
extraction, the samples were trimmed off, caped with paraffin wax, and sealed properly at
both ends.

1
Eni-Iraq
Soil Investigation Report for Zubair Field/Hammar DGS
2.3- Standard Penetration Test (SPT)
The disturbed samples were collected by driving a 40mm outer diameter split
spoon sampler in general accordance with the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) procedure
described in ASTM D-1586. The number of blows required for a 63.5 kg hammer falling
through 760mm to drive the split spoon sampler for the final 300mm of the total 450mm
penetration is usually referred to as the SPT value. If 50 blows are reached before
penetration of 300mm, no further blows are applied and the actual penetration is
recorded.
The measured SPT values have been corrected for effective overburden pressure,
using the following formula which proposed by Peck, Hanson and Thornburn:

NC = Cn x N
Cn= 0.77 log(2000/qo)

where:
N: the measured SPT value from the field test.
NC: the corrected SPT value.
Cn: the correction factor.
qo: the effective overburden pressure (kN/m2).

If the soil layer is below the water level and consists of silty fine sand, the above
corrected value is further corrected using the below formula suggested by Terzaghi and
Peck, 1967. This formula is used only when N > 15.

N = 15 + 0.5(NC – 15)

The corrected SPT values at different depths are listed in Appendix A. Undisturbed
samples were used for strength and compressibility tests and disturbed or undisturbed
samples as available are used for classification tests.

2.4- Spacing of Soil Samples

It is frequently specified that soil samples should be taken at intervals
(1.5-3.0m) and at each change of strata in boreholes. In this investigation, representative
samples were taken at every 1.5m and at changes in soil properties in the first 6m from
ground level and at every 3m and at changes in soil properties below 6m. The depths at
which the samples were recovered are shown on borehole logs (Appendix A).

2
Eni-Iraq
Soil Investigation Report for Zubair Field/Hammar DGS
2.5- Dynamic Cone Penetration Test (DCPT)
The standard method for DCPT is furnished by the British Standards BS 1377-9
(1990) Part 9: In-situ tests. This test could not be carried out on all types of soils,
therefore, it is conducted only at soft soil layers.
The test covers the determination of the resistance of soils in situ to the intermittent
penetration of a 60° cone when driven dynamically in a standard manner. Continuous
records provided with respect to depth of the penetration test, but there are no sampling
facilities. Different sizes of apparatus are specified according to the driving effort.
The basis of the test with either size of apparatus consist of dropping with a free
fall, a hammer, a standard distance on to an anvil to effect the semi continuous
penetration, normally from the ground surface of a sizes of parallel sided extension rods
carrying 60° pointed cone at the lower end.
The cone is loosely fitted to the driving rod trough cone adopter. The driving head
is then joined to the other end of the driving rod with a coupling. A guide rod of about 1.5
m length is connected to the top of driving head. This whole set up is kept vertical with
the cone seated at the test location and is then driven into the soil by allowing a 30 kg
hammer to fall freely each time, through 75 cm height. The number of blows for every 10
cm penetration are recorded and summed up for each 30 cm penetration of the cone till
the cone is pushed up to the required depth or refusal whichever is earlier.
Data from a DCPT is processed to produce a penetration index (PI), which is
simply the number of blows required for one feet penetration. The variation of
penetration index with depth is shown in Appendix B.

2.6- Crosshole Test

Crosshole seismic test is carried out at the site to evaluate the dynamic elastic
parameters. Two additional boreholes were drilled with five meters apart and on a line
with borehole 1114. The locations of existing and additional boreholes are as follows:

Closest Borehole The Additional Two Boreholes

LOCATION B.H. No. 1 B.H. No.2

No. UTM Coordinates
UTM Coordinates UTM Coordinates

HAMMAR
1114 749797 3375602 749799 3375602 749802 3375602
DGS

This test was conducted on March 20th 2011. The test details and results are shown in
Appendix D.

3
Eni-Iraq
Soil Investigation Report for Zubair Field/Hammar DGS
2.7- Thermal Conductivity and Thermal Resistively
Thermal parameters are usually used in the thermal analysis of underground electrical
transmission lines, oil pipelines, radioactive waste disposal, and solar thermal storage
facilities. In situ thermal conductivity and thermal resistivity have been measured using a
transient heat method according to ASTM-D5334. Single needle-KD2 pro device is used
for this purpose. The rate at which heat flows through a material is a measure of its
thermal conductivity. In this test method the thermal conductivity is determined by
inserting a relatively long needle of small diameter into the material. The needle consists
of both heating and temperature measuring elements. To perform the test a known
amount of current is passed through the heater element and the resulting variation of
temperature is monitored as a function of time.
Thermal conductivity (K) and thermal resistivity (ρ) of the specimen are computed
using the following formulae:

Q
K= ln(t 2 / t1 )
4π (T2 − T1 )

1
ρ =
K

where:
Q: Power consumption of heater wire in Watts per unit length that is assumed to be the
equivalent of heat output per unit length of wire.
T1, T2: initial and final temperatures (oC)
t1, t2: initial and final times (seconds)
K: thermal conductivity (W/m- oC)
ρ: thermal resistivity (m- oC /W)

Locations of the tested samples and test results are shown in Appendix E.

3- Laboratory Testing for Soils

3.1- General:
A Laboratory testing program was carried out to aid classification and to evaluate the
engineering properties of the subsurface soil. The program includes the determination of
natural moisture content, unit weight (natural and dry), Atterberg limits, particle size
distribution, shear strength (unconfined, triaxial UU, direct shear test), consolidation,
permeability, maximum dry density, and chemical tests for soil and water.
The results of laboratory tests are summarized in Appendix C.

4
Eni-Iraq
Soil Investigation Report for Zubair Field/Hammar DGS
3.2- Method of Testing
All tests were carried out according to the recommendations and procedure of ASTM
and BSI. The types and number of laboratory tests are as follows:

Test No. of tests Method of Testing

Moisture content 220 ASTM-D2216
Atterberg limits 20 ASTM-D4318
Grain size analysis 213 ASTM-D422
Unconfined compression strength 5 ASTM-D422
Triaxial (UU) 5 ASTM-D2850
Direct shear test 105 ASTM-D3080
Consolidation 3 ASTM-D2435
Permeability 6 ASTM-D2434
Modified Proctor test 160 ASTM D-1557
Chemical tests / soil 18 BS: 1377-3
Chemical tests / water 4 BS: 1377-3

3.3- Moisture Content and Unit Weight

Water content determination is a routine laboratory test to determine the amount of
water present in a quantity of soil in terms of its dry weight. The oven drying method
(standard method) is used with a procedure as indicated by ASTM D-2216.
The moisture content of the soil, w, is calculated as a percentage of the dry soil mass,
from the equation:

m 2 − m3
w= × 100%
m3 − m1

where:
m1: the mass of container (g).
m2: the mass of container and wet soil (g).
m3: the mass of container and dry soil (g).

Bulk unit weight ( γ b ): is the weight of bulk soil per unit volume:

Wb
γb =
V

5
Eni-Iraq
Soil Investigation Report for Zubair Field/Hammar DGS
Dry unit weight ( γ d ): is the weight of dry soil per unit volume:

Wd γ
γd = =
V 1+ w
where:
Wb: weight of bulk soil (g).
Wd: weight of dry soil (g).
V: volume of soil simple (cm3)
w: moisture content.

3.4- Atterberg Limits

[

The liquid and plastic limits have been used primarily for soil identification and
classification. The potential volume change problem can often be detected from the liquid
and plastic limit tests.
Liquid limit (LL) is defined as the water content at which a pat of soil placed in a
brass cup, cut with a standard groove, and then dropped from a height of 1cm will
undergo a groove closure of 1/2 in. when dropped 25 times.
Plastic limit (PL) is defined as that water content of the soil at which a thread just
crumbles when it is rolled down to a diameter of 1/8 in. or approximately 3mm. The
plastic limit tends to increase in numerical value for decreasing grin size. For equal grain
size, the plastic limit tends to increase for that soil with the more scalelike particles.
Atterberg limits have been conducted according to the ASTM-D4318.

3.5- Particle Size Analysis

The particle size distribution of a coarse-grained soil is determined by the method of
sieving. The soil sample is passed through a series of standard test sieves having
successively smaller mesh sizes. The weight of soil retained in each sieve is determined
and cumulative percentage by weight passing each sieve is calculated.
The particle size distribution of a fine-grained soil is determined by the method of
hydrometer. Full details of the determination of particle size distribution by both sieve
and hydrometer methods are given in ASTM D-422.

3.6- Shear Strength of Cohesive Soil

Unconfined and triaxial compression tests were performed on the undisturbed samples
obtained from boreholes which are cut by a thin walled tube at different depths. The
specimen is prepared with a length to diameter ratio L/d= 2 (L= 7.6 cm, d= 3.8 cm).

Unconfined compressive strength: is the load per unit area at which an unconfined
cylindrical specimen of soil will fail in simple compression test. It is taken as the

6
Eni-Iraq
Soil Investigation Report for Zubair Field/Hammar DGS
maximum load attained per unit area or the load per unit area at 20% axial strain,
whichever is secured first during the performance of a test. The shear strength of a
cohesive soil is one-half of its unconfined strength.

Triaxial compression test (UU): The purpose of this test is to determine the undrained
shear strength of a saturated soil. In this test a cylindrical specimen of soil encased in an
impervious membrane is subjected to confining pressure and then loaded axially to
failure without allowing the pore water pressure to drain. The failure stress is taken as the
stress in the specimen corresponding to the maximum deviator stress (principal stress
difference) attained or the deviator stress at 15% axial strain, whichever is obtained first
during the test.

The unconfined compressive strength and triaxial (UU) test are carried out according
to ASTM-D2166 and ASTM-D2850 respectively.

3.7- Direct Shear Test

Direct shear tests were performed on the samples obtained from boreholes of
different depths below ground level to compute shear resistance. The samples were
compacted in the standard square mould (10x10x3 cm) near the natural moisture content
and density. The shearing device is motorized strain controlled. The normal face is
applied by a lever loading yoke, which is activated by dead weights. Porous stones are
inserted to allow drainage from the soil specimen along the top and bottom boundaries.
This test has been conducted according to ASTM-D3080.

3.8- Consolidation Test

The compressibility of soils as determined from this test is one of the most useful
properties that can be obtained from laboratory testing. The data from the consolidation
test can be used to develop an estimate the rate and the amount of both differential and
total settlement of a structure. Estimate of this type is often of key importance in first
selecting a foundation type and secondary in evaluating its adequacy.

According to ASTM-D2435, a soil specimen is restrained laterally and loaded axially

with total stress increments. Each stress increment is maintained until excess pore water
pressures are completely dissipated. During the consolidation process, measurements are
made of change in the specimen height and these data are used to determine the
relationship between the effective stress and void ratio (e) or strain, and the rate at which
consolidation can occur by evaluating the coefficients of consolidation Cr and Cc. The
values of the recompression index Cr and the compression index Cc are simply the slope
of the compression and the virgin consolidation curve, respectively.

3.9- Permeability
Two standard laboratory tests are used to determine the hydraulic conductivity of soil;
the constant head test and the falling head test.

7
Eni-Iraq
Soil Investigation Report for Zubair Field/Hammar DGS
The constant head test (ASTM-D2434) is used to determine the hydraulic
conductivity of coarse grained soils. Water is allowed to flow through a cylindrical
sample of soil under constant head (h). The outflow (Q) is collected in a measuring
cylinder at a convenient duration (t). The hydraulic conductivity in the vertical direction
is given by:

K z = QL /(t Ah)
where L and A are respectively, the length and cross-sectional area of the soil sample.

The falling head test is used for fine grained soils because the flow of water through
these soils is too slow to get reasonable measurements from the constant head test. Water
is allowed to flow through a sample from a stand pipe attached to the top of the cylinder.
The head of water (h) changes with times as flow occurs through the soil. At different
times, the head of water is recorded. The value of hydraulic conductivity is calculated as
follows:

K z = ((aL ) /( A(t 2 − t1 )) * ln(h1 / h2 )

where:
a: cross sectional area of the tube.
L, A: length and cross sectional area of the soil sample.
h1, h2: the head of water at times t1, t2 respectively.

3.10- Modified Proctor Test

The modified Proctor test (ASTM-D1557) was developed to cover laboratory
compaction method to determine the relationship between molding water content and dry
unit weight of soils. A soil at a selected molding water content is placed in five layers
into a mold of (101.6 mm) diameter, with each layer compacted by 25 blows of (44.48 N)
rammer dropped from a distance of (457.2mm) subjecting the soil to a total compaction
effort of about (2700 kN-m/m3). The resulting dry unit weight is determined. The
procedure is repeated for a sufficient number of molding water contents to establish
relationship between the dry unit weight and the molding water content for the soil. This
data, when plotted, represent a curvilinear relationship known as the compaction curve.
The values of optimum water content and modified maximum dry unit weight are
determined from the compaction curve.

3.11- Chemical Tests

− −
Chemical tests for soil (chlorides Cl , sulphates So4 , gypsum, organic, carbonates,
− −
and PH) and water (chlorides Cl , sulpthates So4 , total dissolved solids TDS, and PH)
are carried out according to BS: 1377-part 3.

8
Eni-Iraq
Soil Investigation Report for Zubair Field/Hammar DGS
4- Subsurface Conditions
4.1- Subsoil Material Description
The subsoil strata encountered at the investigated location are detailed on the borehole
logs. The soil is inhomogeneous in which three different soil profiles were recognized:

1- Borehole BH1219: The soil strata were found to be consisted of two layers. The
top soil layer, which extends from the natural ground surface to a depth of 3.5m,
consists of dense, brown, silty sand. Followed by hard, brown to dark brown,
clayey silt with sand or a little of sand, low plasticity. This layer extends to the
end of boring (15m).

2- Boreholes BH1229 and BH1230: In these boreholes, the soil consists of soft to
medium, gray to brown, clayey silt with a little or trace of sand, low plasticity.
This layer is encountered from the natural ground surface to the end of boring
(15m).

3- All boreholes except above: The majority of site soil consists of medium to very
dense, brown to dark brown, silty sand and sometimes with gravel OR medium
to very dense, brown to dark brown, poorly graded sand with silt and sometimes
with gravel. This layer extends from the natural ground surface to the end of
boring. Within this layer, a lense of very soft to very stiff, gray to brown, clayey
silt with low plasticity is encountered at BH1116 within (0-6m). Another lense
of dense, brown, poorly graded gravel with silt and sand were encountered at
borehole BH1221 within (0-3m) and BH1225 within (8-11m).

4.2- Underground Water Level

At the time of investigation, groundwater table was encountered at depths ranging
from 0.7m to 3.8m below the ground level (see below). This level may be changed by the
effects of rainfall, temperature, tides, dewatering, or by other effects. Therefore
reconfirmation is recommended prior to any works related to the ground water table. For
a long period monitoring, stand pipes or piezometers installed in boreholes are
recommended.

9
Eni-Iraq
Soil Investigation Report for Zubair Field/Hammar DGS

Borehole No. GWL (m) Borehole No. GWL (m)

BH1101 1.3 BH1117 3.7
BH1102 2.8 BH1118 3.8
BH1103 2.3 BH1219 2.0
BH1104 1.7 BH1220 2.2
BH1105 1.75 BH1221 2.5
BH1106 1.2 BH1222 2.2
BH1107 2.2 BH1223 3.0
BH1108 2.2 BH1224 2.7
BH1109 2.35 BH1225 1.3
BH1110 2.35 BH1226 1.2
BH1111 2.0 BH1227 1.0
BH1112 3.3 BH1228 2.1
BH1113 2.15 BH1229 1.0
BH1114 1.1 BH1230 1.2
BH1115 0.75 BH1131 2.7
BH1116 0.7

5- Geology and Seismicity

5.1-Regional Geology
Iraq is located in north-eastern part of Arabian plate. Tectonically, the stable platform
interior of the Arabian plate is surrounded by passive margins from the western and
southern sides which they are located at the spreading ridges of the Red Sea and the Gulf
of Aden. The north-western boundary is represented by Levant transcurrent fault.
Masirah fault zone, in Oman, is in the south eastern boundary of Arabian plate. And the
northern and northeastern boundaries of it are compressional zone due to the Late-
Tertiary collision of the Arabian Plate from one side and Turkish and Iranian contents
form the other side. During the Late-Precambrian Pan African development of the
Arabian Plate, the combined activity of successive subduction of Arabian plate
underneath the Iranian and Anatolian plates and arc accretion has led to form the

10
Eni-Iraq
Soil Investigation Report for Zubair Field/Hammar DGS
basement terranes. The outcrop of these terranes is well defined in Arabian shield of
Western Saudi Arabia. The subsequent development of the Phanerozoic basins of the
Arabian plate was highly affected by the basement terranes so that the tectonic fabric and
evolution of Iraq can be understood because of the extension of these terranes beneath the
sedimentary column of Iraq. The youngest sediments Quaternary and Neoene-aged lie
within the central depression (Fig. 1) while the flanks expose older strata of Palaeogene
to Palaeozoic age. The central depression is defined as a low-topographic cultivated area
and extends from Syria to the Arabian Gulf. Almost all the young sedimentary cover in
Iraq has filled the northwest-southeast oriented trough (central depression) which is
flanked by a gently-inclined plateau to the west and south-west and a series of ridges and
depressions passing into mountainous area in the northeast. In general, the Quaternary
deposits in Iraq can be divided into two zones, the Rutba-Jazira and Salman zone and the
Mesopotamian zone. The site of interest is classified in Mesopotamian zone. The
Mesopotamian plain extends from northwest of Baiji as a narrow area and gradually
becomes much broader toward the Arabian Gulf southeast-ward. The total area covered
by this sedimentary zone is 110,000 km2 (Saad et al., 2006).

5.2- Local Subsurface and Surface Geology

The local stratigraphic sequence can be summarized in (Fig.2). The surface geology
(Fig. 1) is covered by Quaternary deposits. The upper part of the sequence Holocene-
aged comprises fluviatile flood silty clay and/or clayey silt. Most of the sediments are
unconsolidated and finer grained than the underlying pebbly sandstones. These sediments
can be punctuated by Miocene sediments. Also, there are no surface structural features
(e.g., faults, folds, and joints) in this area (OEC, 1996 and Saad et al., 2006).

11
Eni-Iraq
Soil Investigation Report for Zubair Field/Hammar DGS
 

Hammar DGS  m

Figure 1: Topographic Map of Iraq shows the location of Hammar DGS Site.

12
Eni-Iraq
Soil Investigation Report for Zubair Field/Hammar DGS

Formation  Age  Average depth 

Lithology 
  (m) 
Dibdiba    Holocene 

Upper‐Faris   

Tertiary 
AlGa’ar   

Dammam   
1000 
Um‐Rudima   

Tayarat   
Shiranish   
Hartha   
Sa’adi   
Tanuma   
Kaseeb   

Mushrif   
Cretaceous 

Rumaila    3000 
Ahmadi   
Maudud   
Nahar‐Umar   

Shua’iba   
Zubair   
Ratawi   
Yamama    4000 
Sulay   
Qutnia   

Figure 2: Stratigraphic sequence of southern Iraq‐Basra, not to scale                 
(OEC, 1996 and Saad et al., 2006). 

13
Eni-Iraq
Soil Investigation Report for Zubair Field/Hammar DGS
5.3- Seismic Hazard
The seismological records of Iraq show that the annual seismic activity of different
strength. Highest level of seismic activity of Iraq is concentrated in the north and
northeastern parts of Iraq; these seismic activities are strongly diminution in the south
and southwestern parts of Iraq (Fig. 3).

Figure 3: Seismotectonic setting of Iraq and the geographical distribution of seismic 
activities along the eastern border of Iraq. (Earthquakes records are from Advanced 
 
National Seismic System (ANSS) Catalog). 
 

The tectonic and seismic activities are because of the location of Iraq northeastern
boundaries of the Arabian plate. As it is clear from (Fig. 3), the geographical distribution
of seismicity is inhomogeneous and the activity is focused in the high folded and the
Balambo-Tanjero zones. The majority of focal depth is shallow. Alsinawi (2003)
constructed a historical isointensity map of Iraq (Fig.4-a) and a general isointensity map
(Fig.4-b). The potential seismic hazard and risk is always associated with the surface
rupture occurs as a fault breaks to the land surface during an earthquake. The site is not

14
Eni-Iraq
Soil Investigation Report for Zubair Field/Hammar DGS
subject to such scenario because it is required an earthquake greater than 6.5 magnitude.
Therefore, the seismic hazard and risk is small in terms of the historical and current
seismic record of southern part of Iraq.

A  B

Figure 4: A) historical isointensity map of Iraq.    B) General isointesity of Iraq         
(Alsinawi and Alqasrani, 2003) 
 

Bolton (1958) divided the structural framework of Iraq into three prominent zones,
thrust zone, folded zone, and unfolded zone. The southern part of Iraq where located the
proposed site is situated in the unfolded zone so that it is unequivocal that the proposed
site resides in a relatively stable zone seismically and tectonically.

5.4- Other Risks and Hazards

The sits is relatively flat and no slopes were detected, so slope instability and
landslides are unlikely to take place. Moreover no flood hazard is expected in the site
because its location is far away for water masses.

5.5- Liquefaction Potential

The typical subsurface soil condition that is susceptible to liquefaction is loose sand
that has been newly deposited or placed, with a groundwater table near ground surface.
During an earthquake, the application of cyclic shear stresses induced by the propagation
of shear waves causes the loose sand to contract, resulting in an increase in pore water
pressure. Because seismic shaking occurs so quickly the cohesionless soil is subjected to
an undrained loading. The increase in pore water pressure causes an upward flow of

15
Eni-Iraq
Soil Investigation Report for Zubair Field/Hammar DGS
water to the ground surface, where it emerges in the form of mud spouts or sand boils.
The development of high pore water pressures due to the ground shaking and the upward
flow of water my turn the sand into a liquefied condition, which has been termed
liquefaction. For this state of liquefaction, the effective stress is zero and the individual
soil particles are released from any confinement, as if the soil particles were floating in
water.

When liquefaction occurs, the soil can become a liquid and thus the shear strength of
the soil can be decreased to essentially zero. Without any shear strength, the liquefied soil
will be unable to support the foundations for buildings.

The potential for liquefaction increases as the earthquake intensity and duration of
shaking increases. According to the '' National Research Council , Ishihara 1985" , a
liquefaction analysis would typically not be needed for those sites having a peak ground
acceleration amax less than 0.1 g or a local magnitude ML less than 5.

The most common type of analysis to determine the liquefaction potential is to use the
standard penetration test (SPT). The analysis is based on the simplified method proposed
by Seed and Idriss (1971). This method has been implemented as “Guidelines for
Analyzing and mitigating Liquefaction in California” SP 117.

Based on the above guideline procedures, liquefaction is unlikely to take place for this
site.

5.6- Seismic Design Parameters

Based of the soil type and site location and conditions described in this report, we
recommend the following values to be used for seismic design of the project in
accordance with section 1613.5.3 of IBC/2006.

1- Region of boreholes BH1116, BH1229, and BH1230

Table (1A): IBC/2006 Seismic Design Values

Parameter Value

Soil profile site class E

0.2 second Spectral Acceleration Ss 0.3g

1.0 second Spectral Acceleration S1 0.12g

Site Coefficient Fa 2.43

Site Coefficient Fv 3.44

16
Eni-Iraq
Soil Investigation Report for Zubair Field/Hammar DGS
2- All site except that in (1) above:

Table (1B): IBC/2006 Seismic Design Values

Parameter Value

Soil profile site class D

0.2 second Spectral Acceleration Ss 0.3g

1.0 second Spectral Acceleration S1 0.12g

Site Coefficient Fa 1.6

Site Coefficient Fv 2.4

6- Earthwork
6.1- Lowering of Groundwater Level
The field tests indicate that the groundwater level is ranged between 0.7m – 3.8m
below the natural ground level. Therefore the excavation works of the upper unsuitable
soil and the construction of shallow foundation does not require the ground water table to
be lowering. However, construction of foundations at depths below the groundwater level
requires the use of dewatering system. Based on the depth of footing and local site
conditions, either open trenches or well points system should be used.

6.2- Excavation Difficulties

Based on the excavation field works of boreholes and, we anticipate no significant
excavation difficulties in the site with conventional heavy-duty excavation equipment in
good working condition.

6.3- Preparation Works

Prior to placement of fill, the top soil layer should be removed to a depth not less than
0.3 m. All debris, organic matter, salts, unsuitable soils and deleterious material shall be
removed and disposed out of the site. Excavated top soil should not be incorporated into
fills. Instead, it may be stockpiled during initial grading operations for placement in areas
to be landscaped or for other approved uses. Excavation for more than 0.3 m depth shall
be made where removal of unsuitable material is required. Material excavated below
designed levels shall be replaced with engineering fill (subbase) and placed and
compacted as specified below.

17
Eni-Iraq
Soil Investigation Report for Zubair Field/Hammar DGS
Prior to filling, the top 0.2 - 0.3 m of subgrade layer on which fill soils will be placed
should be scarified, moisture conditioned and properly compacted in accordance with the
recommendations below to provide a uniform base for fill placement. For regions of
compressible soils, the field density cannot be reaching the required degree of
compaction. Such soils should be removed to a depth of about 0.3-0.5m and replaced
with a mixture of cobbles and coarse aggregate (particle size ranged between 50 – 150
mm) and compacted before placement of fill materials.

6.4- Fill Material

The material for earth filling may be taken from approved borrows pits. These
materials cannot be used until they are sampled, tested and submitted to and approved by
client. The filling material is a mixture of sand and gravel and shall be free of organic
materials, soluble salts, sulphate and gypsum. However, subbase type A or B may be
used as filling materials. The grading of these types should be in accordance with
SORB/R6 (Table 2). The fill material shall be compacted in layers not more than 0.25m
thickness (before compaction). The existing native soils that are free of trash, organic
materials, construction debris and other deleterious material and meet the grading
requirements could be used for placement as compacted fill.

Table (2): Engineering fill gradation according to (SORB/R6)

Sieve size Passing %

(mm)
Type A Type B Type C Type D

75 100 -

50 95-100 100

25 75-95 100 100

9 30-65 50-85 50-85 60-100

4.75 25-55 35-65 35-65 50-85

2.36 16-42 26-52 26-52 42-72

0.30 7-18 14-28 14-28 23-42

0.075 2-8 5-15 5-15 5-20

18
Eni-Iraq
Soil Investigation Report for Zubair Field/Hammar DGS
6.5- Roads
Soils beneath any proposed traffic-bearing pavement, including minimum lateral
distance of at least 0.6 m beyond pavement edges, should be excavated a minimum of 0.6
m below the existing grade. The bottom of excavation should then be scarified 0.15 m, be
moisture conditioned to near optimum moisture content and be uniformly compacted to at
least 95% of maximum dry density using mechanical compaction equipment.
Compaction should be verified by testing.

6.6- Compaction Requirements

1. The subgrade soil, after cleaning and removal of unsuitable soil, shall be compacted
to 95% of maximum dry density.

2. Fill material shall be compacted to at least 95% of maximum dry density.

3. Maximum dry density shall be obtained according to modified Proctor test (ASTM-
D1557)

4. In place density test shall be determined by method accordance with ASTM-D 1556
or ASTM-D 2922.

5. Laboratory determination of moisture content of soil shall be calculated according

to ASTM-D2216.

6. Sheeps foot roller is recommend for fine grained subgrade layer and rubber-tired
rollers or vibrating compacters are recommended for coarse grained subgrade and
fill layers.

6.7- Shrinkage of Soil

Shrinkage because of excavation and compaction of the upper site soils is expected to
be approximately 25 percent of any excavated site soils. This estimate is based upon
compaction effort needed to produce an average degree of relative compaction of
approximately 96 percent. Losses for site clearing and grubbing operations may affect
quantity calculations and should also be taken into account.

6.8 Cut and Filled Slopes

Permanent site slopes supported by on-site cohesionless soils up to 3 m in height, or
up to the groundwater level whichever is smaller, may be constructed no steeper than 2:1
(horizontal:vertical). We recommend 1.5:1 slope for temporary excavations. For cohesive
soils, the slopes become 1.5:1 and 1:1 for permanent and temporary excavations,
respectively. For deeper excavations or when seepage is encountered, the Geotechnical
Engineer should be retained to evaluate the conditions and provided additional
recommendations, as appropriate. The risk of slope instability will be significantly
increased in areas of seepage along excavating slopes.

19
Eni-Iraq
Soil Investigation Report for Zubair Field/Hammar DGS
6.9- Shoring
Should site constraints prohibit the use of the recommended slope angles, temporary
shoring should be used. The shoring should be designed to resist the lateral earth pressure
exerted by structure, hydrostatic pressure, traffic, equipment, and stock piles.

6.10- Drainage
Good surface drainage should be provided around temporary excavation slopes to
direct surface runoff from the slope faces. A properly designed swale should be provided
at the top of the excavations. In no case should water be allowed to pond at the site.

6.11- Pavement Design

Referring to Fig.(5), the pavement layer consists of:
1- Subgrade:
The subgrade layer represents the natural material located along the horizontal
alignment of the pavement and serves as the foundation of the pavement structure. Soil
which contains the following materials is not suitable as subgrade layer;

- More than 12% organic materials.

- Branches, roots, and all decomposition vegetation.
- More than10% of gypsum.
- Liquid limit and plasticity index more than 70 and 45, respectively.

- Surface layer
- Base layer

- SubBase layer

- Subgrade layer

Fig.(5): The pavement layers

2- Subbase Layer:
The specification of subbase layer according to the general Specifications Of Roads
and Bridges (SORB/R6):

20
Eni-Iraq
Soil Investigation Report for Zubair Field/Hammar DGS
(a) Gravel (retained on sieve 4.75mm)
- Percent of corrosion not exceed 45% according to the test (AASHTO T74-96).
- Texture index not more than 35%.
- Protraction index not more than 15%
.
(b) Fine materials ( passing on 4.75 mm)
- Organic materials not more than 2%
- For the materials passing on 0.425mm: LL ≤ 25, PI ≤ 6.
- Materials passing on 0.075 mm ≤ 2/3 of that passing on 0.425mm.
- Total soluble salt not more than 10%.
- SO4 not more than 5%.
- Gradation according to table (2).

(c) CBR:
The CBR not less than 35% for type B, 30 for type C, and 20% for type D at 95%
of maximum dry density.
(d) Climatic border:
- Materials must not be spread when the temperature equal to or less than 3oC.
- Thickness of subbase layer not more than 20 cm, and the degree of compaction
not less than 95% for maximum dry density.
3- Base Layer
This layer supports the surface layer and carries and distributes the traffic loads to
bottom layers. Also, it protects the surface road from swelling or depression of natural
soil and leaks of ground water. Therefore, this layer must have good properties of
durability and resistance. The CBR should not be less than 40%.

4- Surface Layer:
In designing pavement thickness, the following factors should be considered:

- Design axle load.

- Material characteristics.
- Climate or environment.
-
For roads using by heavy trucks, we suggest 10cm surface layer, 10 cm asphalt base
layer, 10 cm stone base layer, and 30cm subbase layer. For roads using by small cars and
light weight tracks, we suggest 5cm surface layer, 7.5 cm asphalt base layer, 7.5 cm stone
base layer, and 20 cm subbase layer. The minimum thickness of the pavement layers for
different types of axle loads are given in table (3).

21
 Eni-Iraq
Soil Investigation Report for Zubair Field/Hammar DGS
Table (3): Minimum thickness of pavement layers

The type of sub grade layer Local street Collector street Arterial street

5cm surface layer 5cm surface layer

5cm surface layer
Excellent sub grade layer (CBR>9%) 5cm asphalt base layer 5cm asphalt base layer
15 cm base layer
20 cm base layer 25 cm base layer

5cm surface 5cm surface layer 5cm surface layer

Moderate sub grade layer (CBR 5-9%) layer 5cm asphalt base layer 5cm asphalt base layer

15 cm base layer 25 cm base layer 30 cm base layer

5cm surface layer 5cm surface layer

5cm surface layer
Weak sub grade layer (CBR 2-5%) 5cm asphalt base layer 7cm asphalt base layer
30 cm base layer
30 cm base layer 35 cm base layer

7- Results and Discussion

7.1- Atterberg Limits
The physical and mechanical behavior of fine-groined soils is linked to four distinct
states: solid, semisolid, plastic and liquid in order of increasing water content. If a soil
initially in a liquid state, it locates at point A in Fig. (6). As the soil dries, its water
content reduces and consequently, its volume.

Figure (6): Change in soil states as a function of water content

At point B, the soil becomes so stiff that it can no longer flow as a liquid. The
boundary water content at point B is called the liquid limit LL. As the soil continues to

22
Eni-Iraq
Soil Investigation Report for Zubair Field/Hammar DGS
dry, there is a range of water content at which the soil can be molded into any desired
shape without rupture. The soil at this state is said to exhibit plastic behavior – the ability
to deform continuously without rupture. But if drying is continued beyond the range of
water content for plastic behavior, the soil becomes a semisolid. The soil cannot be
molded now without visible cracks appearing. The water content at which the soil
changes from a plastic to a semisolid is known as the plastic limit PL. The range of water
contents over which the soil deforms plastically is known as the plasticity index, PI;

PI = LL - PL

As the soil continues to dry, it comes to a final state called the solid state, at this state,
no further volume change occurs since nearly all the water in the soil has been removed.
The water content at which the soil changes from a semisolid to a solid is called the
shrinkage limit SL. The shrinkage limit is useful for the determination of the swelling and
shrinking capacity of soils. The liquid and plastic limits are called the Atterberg limits
named after their originator, Swedish soil scientist, Atterberg (1911).

Since engineers are interested in the strength and deformation of materials, we can
associate specific strength characteristic to each of the soil states. At one extreme, the
liquid state, the soil has the lowest strength and the largest deformation. At the other
extreme, the solid state, the soil has the largest strength and the lowest deformation. A
measure of soil strength using the Atterberg limits is known as the liquidity index (LI)
and is expressed as:

w − PL
LI =
PI
The liquidity index is the ratio of the difference in water content between the natural
or insitu water content of a soil and its plastic limit to its plasticity index. Table (4) shows
a description of soil strength based on values of LI.

TABLE (4) Description of soil strength based on Liquidity Index

Values of LI Description of soil strength

LI < 0 Semisolid state – high strength , brittle , (sudden) fracture is expected

0 < LI < 1 Plastic state – intermediate strength, soil deforms like a plastic material

LI > 1 Liquid state – low strength , soil deforms like a viscous fluid

23
Eni-Iraq
Soil Investigation Report for Zubair Field/Hammar DGS
The values of liquid limit, plastic limit, and plasticity index at different depths, of the
proposed site are shown in Appendix C. The results indicate to a plastic state of the
cohesive soil with low plasticity (LL <50). The LI values are close to unity which implies
low to intermediate strength.

7.2- Shear Strength

a- Cohesive Soils
The consistency of cohesive soils can be described qualitatively by terms such as very
soft, soft, medium …. etc. The classification is based on the undrained shear strength (Su)
as shown in the table below. There is a very approximate correlation between the shear
strength and N-values quoted by Terzaghi and Peck. This correlation should only be used
for classification purposes and never be used as this basis for engineering design
parameters.

Undrained shear strength

Consistency N-value
(kN/m2)

Very soft 0-2 <12

Soft 2-4 12-25

Medium 4-8 25-50

Stiff 8-15 50-100

Very stiff 15-30 100-200

Hard >30 ≥200

If the shear strength of the soil has not been determined the consistency of the clay can
be estimated in the field or laboratory based on the following:

Very soft: The clay is easily penetrated several centimeters by the thumb. The clay oozes
out between the fingers when squeezed in the hand.

Soft: The clay is easily penetrated about 1 in. (2 to 3 cm) by the thumb with clay cane be
molded by slight finger pressure.

Medium: The clay can be penetrated about 0.4 in ( 1cm) by the thumb with moderate
effort. The clay can be molded by strong finger pressure.

Stiff: The clay can be indented about 0.2 in. (0.5 cm) by the thumb with great effort.

24
Eni-Iraq
Soil Investigation Report for Zubair Field/Hammar DGS
Very stiff: The clay cannot be indented by the thumb, but can only be indented with the
thumbnail.

Back to the results of unconfined compression test, triaxial compression test as well as
number of blows (SPT-values), the consistency of cohesive soil at boreholes BH1229 and
BH1230 is very soft to medium. However, at boreholes BH1116 and BH1119 it reaches
to very stiff to hard at some depths.

b- Cohesionless Soils
Shear strength of cohesionless soils is usually described in terms of relative density.
The relative density is an index that quantifies the degree of packing between the loosest
and densest state of coarse grained soils. The density state of cohesionless soil can be
described as very loose, loose, medium, dense, and very dense. Some standards (like BS
5930) give the following relationship between N-value and the relative density of
cohesionless soils.

N-value
Relative density
(blows/300mm of penetration)

Below 4 Very loose

4-10 Loose

10-30 Medium-dense

30-50 Dense

Over 50 Very dense

Referring to the results of Direct Shear Test and SPT values, the relative density of the
cohesionless soil layers is ranged between medium to very dense.

7.3- Consolidation Settlement

To estimate consolidation settlement, various parameters are required. These are found
from a one dimensional consolidation test, called the Odometer test (ASTM D2435). The
key settlement parameters are compression index Cc, recompression index Cr,
preconsolidation pressure Pc, void ratio e and over consolidation ratio OCR.

The plot of void ratio e versus vertical stress log P is often referred to as the
"consolidation curve”. Cc represents the slope of the compression part while Cr
represents the slope of the expansion or reloading part. The history of loading of a soil is
locked in its fabric. For example, an estimate of the past maximum vertical effective

25
Eni-Iraq
Soil Investigation Report for Zubair Field/Hammar DGS
stress, called the precansolidation pressure Pc that the soil has experienced. If the current
vertical effective stress is less than the preconsolidation vertical effective stress, the soil
is overconsolidated, otherwise it is normally consolidated.

The overconsolidation ratio OCR is defined as the ratio of the preconsolidation

vertical effective stress Pc to the current vertical effective overburden pressure Po:

Pc
OCR =
Po

For normally consolidated soils OCR = 1. For lightly overconsolidated soils

1<OCR≤2, and for heavily overconsolidated soils, OCR > 2.

Based on the results of consolidation test given in Appendix C, the data indicate that
the cohesive soil layer in general is lightly overconsolidated.

The saturated soil condition below the water table makes the problem of settlement
significant as consolidation is a process of gradually decrease of the water content from
saturated soil under the applied loading. Therefore, the settlement computations need to
be considered in design.

7.4- Chemical Properties

The primary cause of serious deterioration in reinforced concrete is corrosion of the
reinforcement due to attack by chlorides, present in concrete either within concrete
aggregate and mixing water, or through penetration from surrounding environment. Since
chloride induced reinforcement corrosion can only occur in the presence of oxygen and
water, the risk of corrosion can be reduced by control of chloride in concreting materials
and by ensuring adequacy, integrity and impermeability of the concrete cover.

It may be noted that as per CIRIA special publication 31, there is no widely accepted
view on the concentration at which chlorides become significant in soil or ground water,
but limited experience in the Gulf Region suggests it may be as low as 0.05% particularly
in situations where wetting and drying or capillary rise effect the concrete.

Sulphate attack to concrete is caused by the presence of a high sulphate content either
by the ingress from the sulphate of the surrounding environment such as foundations soils
or groundwater, or by the presence of sulphate in the concrete ingredients. The attack
results in a considerable internal expansion which may lead to crack and disintegration of
the concrete. This effect can be reduced by use of selected cements or by suitable
protection of the concrete.

The results of chemical analysis are given in Appendix C. Based on the requirements
of the International Building Code/2006 for concrete exposed to chlorides and sulphates,

26
Eni-Iraq
Soil Investigation Report for Zubair Field/Hammar DGS
we recommend to use sulphate resisting Portland Cement (Type V) with maximum water
/
cement ratio of 0.45 and minimum concrete strength f c =31 N/mm2. Also adequate
coating of inert materials such as asphalt should protect all concrete works that are in
contact with subsoil.

7.5- Gypsum
The chemical tests of soil indicate to slightly-to-moderately gypsum content. The
gypsum particles are dense to the overburden and the applied loads. But after the site is
developed, there can be infiltration of water into the ground from rainfall, irrigation,
leaky water pipes or groundwater fluctuation. As this water penetrates the gypsum soils,
two types of settlement can occur:

1. The collapse of the soil structure due to weakening of salt cemented bonds at particle
contacts.

2. The water can dissolve away the gypsum resulting in ground surface settlement.

Ground surface settlement due to the dissolution of gypsum particles can be calculated
from the following equation:

Gs
S = SL Ho
Gg

where:
S: settlement of the soil layer due to loss of soluble soil particles (m).
SL: gypsum content expressed in decimal form.
Ho: initial thickness of the soil layer (m)
Gs: specific gravity of the insoluble soil minerals
Gg: specific gravity of gypsum (Gg=2.35)

Due to presence of appreciable amount of gypsum, we recommend to consider the

requirements given in section (8.13).

7.6- Presence of Deep Soft Clay Layer

The area of Basra city is one of the world's land surface which so soft that it does not
land itself readily for construction due to poor strength and excessive settlement. These
soft soils are usually very compressible and should be improved to meet criteria for
adequate bearing capacity and admissible settlement. Such soil is encountered at BH1229
and BH1230. The values of undrained shear strength for the soft layers were found to be
in the range of about (10.9 to 23.6 kPa).

In the case of construction on soft soils, three options are available to ensure that there
will not be significant problems during the design life of the structure. These are:

27
Eni-Iraq
Soil Investigation Report for Zubair Field/Hammar DGS
1. Replacement of the soft soil.
2. Using pile foundation.
3. Stabilization or improvement of soft soil.
For more cases, it has been found that soil replacement and use of pile foundations are
both expensive and time consuming. In vast areas in the world, soil stabilization is found
to be the most economical solution.
Several techniques are presently in use for improving the load-bearing capacity and
settlement of shallow foundations constructed on soft clay soils. One of these techniques
is the use of stone columns. The use and analyses of the stone columns are treated in
published studies by several authors such as Hughes and Withers (1974), Hughes,
Writhers and Green Wood (1975), and others.

Similar to stone columns construction, granular trenches (which are plane strain
variations of stone columns) in soft clayey soils can also be used to support shallow
foundations.

For the last few decades improvement of soft soils has been achieved by reinforcing
them by densificated granular pile (such as stone columns). This reinforcement is found
to benefit the foundation in many respects, which are:

i- increasing the bearing capacity.

ii- acceleration of consolidation.

iii- improvement of the settlement response of the foundation so that the final
settlement meets the criteria of admissible settlement.

8- Analysis and Recommendations

8.1- Allowable Bearing Capacity (ABC) for Shallow Foundations
Loads from structure are transferred to the soil through a foundation. A geotechnical
engineer must ensure that a foundation satisfies the following stability conditions:

1- The foundation must be safe agonist bearing capacity failure.

2- The foundation must not settle to such an extent that it damages the structure.

The allowable bearing capacity for shallow foundations could be evaluated from one
of the following methods:

1- Bering capacity equation.

The most commonly used bearing capacity equation is that equation developed by
Terzaghi:

28
Eni-Iraq
Soil Investigation Report for Zubair Field/Hammar DGS

q ult = C N c S c + 0 .5 γ B N γ S γ + γ D N q S q

where:

qult : ultimate bearing capacity (kPa).

B, L: width and length of the footing (m).

γ : unit weight of the soil (kN/m3).

D: depth of the footing (m).

C: Cohesion of the soil (kPa).

N c , N γ , N q : dimensionless bearing capacity factors.

S c , S γ , S q : dimensionless shape factors.

For strip footing, all of the shape factors equal 1.0. For rectangular footing of width B
and length L, commonly used shape factors are:

Sc = [1+0.3(B/L)], S γ = 0.8, Sq = 1.0

For cohesive soil, one should use the undrained shear strength in the ''Total Stress
Analysis’’. For such condition, the following parameters should be used:

φ = 0 , C = Su , Nc = 5.5 , N γ = 0 , Nq = 1 , and hence the bearing capacity equation

reduces to:

qult = 5.5 Su Sc + γ D

For cohesionless soils, the bearing capacity equation becomes:

q ult = 0.5 γB N γ S γ + γ D N q S q

The bearing capacity factor Nq is:

φ
N q = e π tan φ tan 2 ( 45 + )
2

29
Eni-Iraq
Soil Investigation Report for Zubair Field/Hammar DGS

Various equations have been proposed for N γ in the literature. The one proposed by
Davis and Booker (1973) is based on a refined plasticity method and gives conservative
values compared with the others.

N γ = 0.1054 exp (9.6 φ ) for rough footing

N γ = 0.0663 exp (9.6 φ ) for smooth footing

The allowable bearing capacity ( qall ) , which is used to determine the size of
footing is given by the following equation .

qult
q all =
F
where:
qall : allowable bearing capacity (kPa).
F : factor of safety ( commonly F = 3).

2- The net allowable bearing capacity of cohesive soils is approximately equal to the
unconfined compressive strength ( qu ) with factor of safely F=3:

qall = qu

where qu is the unconfined compressive strength (kPa).

3- From SPT, AASHTO (2004) recommended that;

D
qult = 32 N B ( C w1 + C w 2 )
B

where:
N = SPT value (average value for a depth up to 1.5B below footing base).
B = foundation width.
Cw1, Cw2 = ground water factors given as:

30
Eni-Iraq
Soil Investigation Report for Zubair Field/Hammar DGS
Depth of groundwater
Cw1 Cw2
Below finished grade

0 0.5 0.5

Df 0.5 1.0

1.5B + Df 1.0 1.0

Source AASHTO,2004.

4- For cohesionless material, the allowable bearing capacity could be estimated

based on the relationship between standard penetration resistance and the allowable
bearing capacity (Reproduced from K. Terzaghi and R.B. Peck-1967).

31
 Eni-Iraq
Soil Investigation Report for Zubair Field/Hammar DGS
5- Extrapotation of allowable bearing capacity for a full-size footing from the results
of plate loading test. For clay soils it is common to note that BNγ term is zero , so that
one might say that qult is independent of footing size, giving :

(qult) foundation = ( qult )plate

For cohesionless material one can use the following formula (J.E.Bowles);
B founndation
q ult = ( q ult ) plate ( )
B plate

The use of this equation is not recommended unless BFoundation / Bplate is not much more
than 3.

Based on the above equations, the allowable bearing capacity has been calculated
and the most critical values (minimum) among them were adopted. The recommended
allowable bearing capacity for shallow foundation is as listed below. The following
assumptions were adopted in calculations:

1- The groundwater level is at foundation level.

2- Maximum settlement is 25mm.

3- Due to presence of slightly to moderately gypsum content, the factor of safety is

taken equal to 4.

ABC at 1.0m Depth Alternative values of ABC at depth d

Borehole No
qall (kN/m2) qall (kN/m2) d (m)

BH1101 60 120 3.5

BH1102 140 160 2.5
BH1103 60 140 2.5
BH1104 50 110 8.5
BH1105 85 160 3.0
BH1106 125 160 3.0
BH1107 40 100 2.5
BH1108 125 150 2.5
BH1109 70 160 2.0
BH1110 80 160 2.5

32
 Eni-Iraq
Soil Investigation Report for Zubair Field/Hammar DGS

ABC at 1.0m Depth Alternative values of ABC at depth d

Borehole No
qall (kN/m2) qall (kN/m2) d (m)

BH1111 150 160 2.5

BH1112 125 140 5.5
BH1113 60 160 3.5
BH1114 50 100 4.5
BH1115 85 130 2.5
BH1116 30 160 6.5
BH1117 100 135 2.0
BH1118 40 150 4.0
BH1219 140 150 2.5
BH1220 150 160 3.5
BH1221 110 160 2.5
BH1222 90 120 2.0
BH1223 110 150 2.5
BH1224 90 160 4.5
BH1225 110 135 2.0
BH1226 80 100 4.0
BH1227 80 160 3.0
BH1228 90 155 2.5
BH1229 30 - -
BH1230 20 - -
BH1131 130 160 2.0

33
Eni-Iraq
Soil Investigation Report for Zubair Field/Hammar DGS
8.2- Allowable Bearing Capacity for Transient Loads
The indicated allowable bearing capacity values for shallow foundation (section 8.1)
were based on a safety factor of (4). These values may be increased by 1/3 when
transient loads, such as wind and seismic forces are included.

8.3- Settlement of Shallow Foundations

(a) Consolidation Settlement:
Using the calculated values or Cr and Cc and the maximum past pressure pc from the
laboratory consolidation curve (e - log P curve), the consolidation settlement Sc due to
an increase in pressure ΔP can be determined from the following equations.

1- For normally consolidated clays (N.C.C):

C c .H P + ΔP
Sc = log o
1 + eo Po

2- For overconsolidated clays (O.C.C.):

i- If Po+ΔP < Pc :

Cr H P + ΔP
Sc= log o
1 + eo Po

ii- If Po+ΔP > Pc :

Cr H P Cc H P + ΔP
Sc = log c + log o
1 + eo Po 1 + eo Pc

where;
Sc: consolidation settlement (final).
Cc: compression index.
Cr: recompression index.
H: thickness of clay layer.
eo: initial voids ratio.
Po: effective overburden pressure at the center of clay layer.
Pc: preconsolidation pressure.
ΔP: increase in pressure induced at the center of clay layer.

34
Eni-Iraq
Soil Investigation Report for Zubair Field/Hammar DGS
(b) Elastic Settlement
It is difficult to obtain undisturbed samples of coarse grained soils for testing in the
laboratory. Consequently, the settlement of footings on coarse-grained soils is obtained
based on empirical methods using test data from field tests. Meyerhof (1965) suggested
that the settlement under a shallow foundation can be estimated from SPT value using:

2q all
S e ( mm) = ; B ≤ 1.2m ; q all ( kPa)
N

3.2q all 1
S e (mm) = (1 + ) −2 ; B > 1.2m ; q all (kPa)
N 3.28 B

where qall is the allowable bearing capacity.

The elastic settlement could also be estimated from the results of plate loading test.

For D ≤ B and B≤ 6m:

4q B2
Se =
k v ( B + 0.3) 2

For D ≤ B and B ≥ 12m:

2q B2
Se =
k v ( B + 0.3) 2

where:
Se : elastic settlement of the footing (m).
q : vertical footing pressure (kPa)
B : footing width (m).
Kv : Subgrade modulus from the plate load test (kN/m3).
D : depth of the footing below the ground surface (m).

It is necessary to interpolate between the above two equations for footing width between
6m and 12m.

35
Eni-Iraq
Soil Investigation Report for Zubair Field/Hammar DGS
8.4- Allowable Settlement

The excessive amount of differential settlement causes extra forces in the

superstructure. To reduce the amount of differential settlement (max. =12mm), the
maximum total settlement should be limited to a specific value. We recommend the
tolerable total settlement should not exceed 25mm for isolated footing or 50mm for raft
foundation.

8.5- Modulus of Subgrade Reaction

The modulus of vertical subgrade reaction required for design a continuous or raft
foundation may be computed using the following formulae (Bowles, J.E.):

Kv = 20 F qall kN/m3 [Mat foundation for settlement of 50mm]

Kv = 40 F qall kN/m3 [Spread or continuous footing for settlement 25mm]

where qall is the allowable bearing capacity of the soil and F is the factor of safety.

8.6- Coefficients of Lateral Earth Pressure

The lateral earth pressure is a significant design parameter in retaining and
underground structures. Therefore, a quantitative estimate of the total lateral pressure on
structural members is required for either a design or stability analysis.

Based on the Rankine earth pressure theory, the horizontal earth pressure (active and
passive) is defined by the following formulae:

σ A = γz K A − 2c K A

σ p = γz K p + 2c K p

where:
σA: active soil pressure (kN/m2)
σP: passive soil pressure (kN/m2)
KA, KP :coefficients of lateral soil pressure of active and passive states, respectively.

φ/ φ/
KA = tan ( 45 −
2
) KP = tan ( 45 +
2
)
2 2
γ : effective unit weight of the soil (kN/m3).
Z : depth of the soil (m).
c : cohesion (kN/m2).
Ǿ : angle of internal friction (effective).

36
Eni-Iraq
Soil Investigation Report for Zubair Field/Hammar DGS
For the case of at rest condition, Ko should be used instead of KA or Kp. The
lateral earth pressure coefficient (Ko) is defined as the ratio between the lateral and
vertical principal effective stresses when an earth retaining structure is at rest.

For overconsolidated soil (OCR > 1), Ko is calculated by;

K o = (1 − sin φ / ) (OCR ) sin φ

/

and for normally consolidated soil (OCR =1) the above equation reduced to:

K o = (1 − sin φ / )

The typical values of (Ko) for different types of soils is as listed below (R.F. Grieg,
2002).

Soil Ko

Dense sand 0.35

Loose sand 0.6

Normally consolidated clays (Norway) 0.5-0.6

Clay, OCR=3.5 (London) 1.0

Clay ,OCR=20 (London) 2.8

8.7- Carrying Capacity of Pile Foundation

(a) Point Bearing Capacity:

For piles driven into cohesionless soils, the point bearing capacity can be expressed
as:
__
Qb = A p ( q Nq / ) ≤ A p (11000) kN

where:
Ap: Pile cross sectional area (m2).
q : Effective overburden pressure at pile point (kN/m2).
Nq' : Berezantev's bearing capacity factor.

37
Eni-Iraq
Soil Investigation Report for Zubair Field/Hammar DGS
For piles driven into cohesive soils, the point bearing capacity can be expressed as .

Qb=Ap(C Nc')

where:
C : cohesion (or undrained shear strength).
Nc' : deep foundation bearing capacity factor for cohesion.
Nc' = 9.0 for C > 25 kPa
Nc' = 6.0 for C ≤ 25 kPa

For standard penetration test (SPT) data, Meyerhof (1976) proposed:

Lb
Qb = Ap (40 N) ≤ Ap (380 N) kN
B
where:
N : average value taken in a zone of about 8B above to 3B below the pile point.
B : width or diameter of pile point.
Lb: pile penetration depth into point bearing stratum.

(b) Skin Friction Capacity:

In general, skin friction resistance is computed as;

_
Q s = ∑ As (α c + p k s tan δ ) = ∑ As f s

where:
As: Effective pile surface area (m2)
α : Adhesion factor.
c : Average cohesion (kN/m2)
P: Average effective overburden pressure (kN/m2)
ks: Coefficient of lateral earth pressure.
δ : Effective friction angle between soil and pile material.

Skin friction could also be estimated based an SPT data for piles in sand. Meyerhof
(1976) suggested obtaining fs as ;

a. For piles with large-volume displacement (solid piles);

fs = 2N ≤ 100 kPa

b. For piles with small-volume displacement (H-piles)

38
Eni-Iraq
Soil Investigation Report for Zubair Field/Hammar DGS
fs = 1N ≤ 50 kPa

Shioi and Fukui (1982) suggest the following :

a. For driven piles:

fs = 2 N for sand = 10 N for clay

b. For bored piles:

fs = 1 N for sand = 5 N for clay

where:
N= average blow count in the material indicated for the pile or pile segment length.

(c) Uplift Resistance:

Piles are not only subjected to compression forces but also to uplift forces from
applied loads and moments. An estimation of the uplift resistance can be obtained by
applying a reduction factor for the skin frictional stress Qs for compressive loads as:

(Qult) uplift = C × Q s

where:
C = 0.5 – 0.7 for sand and silt
C = 0.7 – 1.0 for clay

Based on the above analysis, the allowable carrying capacity, with factor of safety
F=3, of the precast concrete pile, driven and cast in place piles, and bored piles extending
to the bearing layer are calculated and the results are listed below. Lower limits
correspond to the weakest soil profile (BH1117) and upper limits correspond to the
strongest soil profile (BH1111). Boreholes BH1229 and BH1230 were not considered in
the analysis because the depth of boring doesn’t reach the bearing layer. We recommend
a performance of pile loading test at the location of these boreholes. The expected pile
length at this region is (18-24m).

39
 Eni-Iraq
Soil Investigation Report for Zubair Field/Hammar DGS
Allowable Carrying Allowable
Pile
Pile Capacity (kN) Lateral
Pile Type Length
Dimensions (m) Resistance
(m)
Compression Tension (kN)

Precast Concrete
0.285 x 0.285 9 375-475 130-140 85-100
Pile (Square)

φ 0.5 10 675-800 110 185-220

Driven and Cast in
Place (Round)
φ 0.8 10 1650-2000 225 400-470

φ 0.7 10 600 190 320-380

Bored Pile (Round)
φ 1.0 10 1150 330 570-670

8.8- Negative Skin Friction

Piles located in soft soils or fills are subjected to negative skin friction called
downdrag. The settlement of the soil layer causes the friction forces to act in the same
direction as the vertical loading on the pile. Rather than providing resistance, the negative
skin friction imposes additional loads on the pile. The net effect is that the pile load
capacity is reduced and pile settlement increases.

The allowable load capacity for piles subjected to negative skin friction is given as:

Qb
Qa = − Qnf
F
Where:
Qa : allowable carrying capacity of pile (kN).
Qb : point bearing capacity of pile (kN).
F : factor of safety.
Qnf : negative skin friction (kN).

The term Qnf is calculated in a similar way as skin friction Qs (section 8.7).

Negative skin friction for piles installed in the region of BH1229 and BH1230 should be
considered in estimating the allowable carrying capacity.

40
Eni-Iraq
Soil Investigation Report for Zubair Field/Hammar DGS
8.9- Group Effect
A 15% - 20% reduction should be applied to the allowable carrying capacity of piles
given in section (8.7) due to pile group effect.

8.10- Lateral Resistance of Piles

Generalized solutions for laterally loaded vertical piles are given by Matlock and
Reese (1960). The solution involves the concept of modulus of subgrade reaction which
is based on Winkler's assumption that soil medium may be approximated by a series of
closely spaced independent elastic springs.

The key to the solution lies in the determination of the value of the modulus of
subgrade reaction Es (soil modulus) with respect to depth along the pile. In general, the
variation of Es with depth may be expressed as:

Es = Kh Xn

In which Kh is termed the coefficient of soil modulus variation. The value of the power n
depends upon the type of soil. The most useful form of variation of Es is the linear
relationship expressed as:

Es = Kh X

which is normally used by investigators of vertical piles. Typical values of Kh for

cohesive and cohesionless soils are as follows:

Soil type Kh (MN/m3) Reference

0.16 – 3.45 Reese and Matlock , 1956

Soft NC clay
0.27 – 0.54 Davisson and Prakash , 1963

0.11 – 0.27 Peck and Davisson , 1962

NC organic clay
0.11 – 0.81 Davisson , 1970

0.05 Davisson , 1970

Peat
0.027 – 0.11 Wilson and Hills, 1967

41
Eni-Iraq
Soil Investigation Report for Zubair Field/Hammar DGS

Soil type Kh (MN/m3) Reference

Dry sand

Loose 2.8 – 12.4 Reese , 1975

Medium 12.4 – 44.3 Reese , 1975

Dense 44.3 – 76.8 Reese , 1975

Submerged sand

Loose 2.8 – 8.8 Reese, 1975

Medium 8.8 – 25.9 Reese, 1975

Dense 25.9 – 43.4 Reese, 1975

Matlock and Reese (1960) have given equations for the determination of y, S, M, V,
and P at a point x along the pile based on dimensional analysis. The equations are.

Pt T 3 M tT 2
Deflection y =[ ] Ay + [ ]B y
EI EI

Pt T 2 MT
Slope S =[ ] As + [ t ]Bs
EI EI
Moment M = [ Pt T ] Am + [ M t ]Bm

Mt
Shear V = [ Pt ] Av + [ ]Bv
T

Pt M
Soil reaction P= AP + 2t B p
T T
Where T is the relative stiffness factor expressed as :
1
EI
T = [ ]5
Kh

42
Eni-Iraq
Soil Investigation Report for Zubair Field/Hammar DGS
Es = K h x

In the above equations, A and B are the set of non-dimensional coefficients whose values
are function of the depth coefficient, Z, expressed as

X
Z=
T
At ground level, the values of Ay and By are 2.43 and 1.62 respectively. Hence,
the corresponding deflection equation will be;

Pt T 3 M T2
y g = 2.43 + 1.62 t
EI EI

yg for fixed head is :

Pt T 3
yg = 0.93
EI
Moment at ground level for fixed head is :

Mt = – 0.93 Pt . T

Using the above equations, the lateral pile capacity, for 12mm lateral movement
at the top of the pile, has been calculated and the results were listed in the table-section
8.7.

8.11- Pile Loading Test

Theoretical design methods provide an approximate working load and settlement of
the pile. The contractor should also demonstrate by load test the pile performance and its
load-settlement characteristics. Pile loading test gives:

1. The maximum permissible settlement in the region of the anticipated working load.
2. The ultimate carrying capacity as a check on the value calculated from theatrical
methods.
3. The final decision for pile length.

Therefore, it is recommended to perform sufficient pile tests before starting the general
construction works of pile installation.

43
Eni-Iraq
Soil Investigation Report for Zubair Field/Hammar DGS
8.12- Elastic Properties of Soil
The elastic properties of soil are described by three characteristics , modulus of elasticity
E , shear modulus G, and poisons ratio υ , but only two needs to be known, since the
third one can be determined from the relation :

E
G=
2(1 + υ )

(a) Static Properties:

Typical values for Poisson’s ratio and modulus of elasticity are as shown below (M.
Budhu, 2007):

Soil Type Description υ E (MPa)

Soft 0.35-0.40 1-15

Clay Medium 0.30-0.35 15-30

Stiff 0.20-0.30 30-100

Loose 0.15-0.25 10-20

Sand Medium 0.25-0.30 20-40

Dense 0.25-0.35 40-80

(b) Dynamic Properties:

Crosshole seismic test were carried out at the site to evaluate the dynamic properties at
location of borehole BH1114. The test results show that the Poisson's ratio ranges from
0.16 to 0.45 for the sand layer which extends from the ground surface to the end of tested
depth. The dynamic modulus of elasticity ranges from 758 to 12740.

The recommended values of elastic properties of soil are given in section 8.14.

8.13- Surface Drainage

The following drainage measures are recommended for design, construction and
should be maintained all times after the project has been completed:

1. Avoid the installation of service pipes inside the building.

2. All water supply and sewerage connections should be well embedded in
concrete to reduce possibility of damage.

44
Eni-Iraq
Soil Investigation Report for Zubair Field/Hammar DGS
3. Wetting or drying of excavation should be avoided during construction.
Permitting increases / variations in moisture to the adjacent or supporting soils
may result in a decrease in bearing capacity and an increase in volume change
of the underlying soils and / or differential movement.
4. Seepage of surface water should be prevented to reach the foundation and the
adjacent zone using impervious paving material such as asphalt or concrete
with mastic joints with a minimum 3 percent slope in the first 3m.
5. In no case should water be permitted to pond adjacent to or on sidewalks,
landscaping or other improvements as well as utility trench alignments, which
are likely to be adversely affected by moisture-volume changes in the
underlying soils or flow of infiltrating water.
6. Roof downspouts and drains should discharge well beyond the perimeters of
the structure foundations, or be provided with positive conveyance off-site for
collected waters.
7. Vegetation that may require watering should ideally be located 3m or more
from building perimeters, flatwork, or other site improvements. As minimum,
vegetation requiring irrigation should not be located within 3m of structure
perimeters. Irrigation sprinkler heads should be deployed so that applied water
is not introduced near or into foundation/subgrade soils. Landscape irrigation
outside that 3m limit should be limited to the minimum quantities necessary to
sustain healthy plant growth.

8.14- Design Parameters Summary

According to the field and laboratory tests results, the following soil parameters are
recommended for the design of shallow, deep, and retaining structures:

A- Cohesive Soil Layer:-

Parameter Recommended Value

Bulk Unit Weight (g/cm3) 2.03

Dry Unit Weight (g/cm3) 1.50

Undrained Shear Strength (kN/m2) 15

Angle of Interior Friction 0

45
Eni-Iraq
Soil Investigation Report for Zubair Field/Hammar DGS
 

Parameter Recommended Value

Cohesion Parameters:-

Cc 0.25

Cr 0.06

eo 0.98

Elastic Parameters:-

Es (MPa) 15

ν 0.4

Coefficient of Lateral Earth Pressure:-

KA 1.0

KP 1.0

KO 0.6

B- Cohesionless Soil Layer:

Parameter Recommended Value

Bulk Unit Weight (g/cm3) 2.00

Dry Unit Weight (g/cm3) 1.70

Undrained Shear Strength (kN/m2) 0

Angle of Interior Friction 36-40

Coefficient of permeability (cm/s) 5.96 x 10-4

46
Eni-Iraq
Soil Investigation Report for Zubair Field/Hammar DGS
 

Parameter Recommended Value

Elastic Parameters:-

Es (MPa) 100

Ed (MPa) 4300

ν 0.30

Coefficient of Lateral Earth Pressure:-

KA 0.22-0.26

KP 3.85-4.6

KO 0.35-0.4

8.15- Type of Foundation

The selection of appropriate type of foundation will normally depend on the

magnitude and distribution of structural loads (column loads), the bearing capacity, and
the settlement characteristics. No information regarding the magnitude and distribution of
column loads were available as of this writing. However, the following guidelines should
be considered in the selection of appropriate type of foundation:

(a) Region of boreholes BH1116, BH1229 and BH1230:

1- Foe ordinary one story building, we recommend strip footing.

2- For pipe-rack steel structures, we recommend strip footing or pile foundation

depending on the magnitude of applied loads.

3- For equipment foundations, we recommend pile foundations.

4- For minor structures (lighting poles foundations, minor equipment foundations,

etc), we recommend isolated footing.

5- For elevated tank, we recommend piles on mat foundation.

6- Consolidation settlement has been calculated for both isolated and strip footings
for different footing widths. It is found that consolidation settlement exceeds the
permissible limits (25mm) for footing widths greater than 1.6m and 1.0m for

47
Eni-Iraq
Soil Investigation Report for Zubair Field/Hammar DGS
isolated footing and strip footing, respectively. Accordingly, we recommend using
pile foundation when the required width of footing exceeds the above values.

7- If pile foundation is selected for a specific structure, we recommend driven

precast concrete piles due to existence of groundwater table near the ground
surface.

8- Because of the presence of soft surface layer, a layer of engineering fill (subbase)
of 0.3-0.5m suggested to be laid underneath the base of shallow foundations. This
layer will decrease the problems of compressibility and minimize settlement.

(b) Region of all boreholes except that in (a) above:

1- For ordinary one story buildings, we recommend shallow foundation (isolated or

strip footing).

2- For pipe-rack steel structures, we recommend shallow foundation (isolated or

strip footing).

3- For equipment foundations, we recommend shallow foundation (isolated, strip, or

mat) or pile foundation depending on the magnitude, distribution, and nature of
the applied loads.

4- For minor structures (lighting poles, minor equipment foundations, etc), we

recommend isolated footing.

5- For elevated tank, we recommend ring foundation, mat foundation, or piles on

mat foundation depending on the magnitude and distribution of applied loads.

6- When precast concrete pile is used, it should be provided with shoe to reduce the
effect of driving stresses.

Due to presence of gypsum material, the following additional recommendations

should be considered:

1- For structures supported by shallow foundations, the provisions given in section

(8-13) should be considered.

2- It is recommended to connect the isolated footings with tie beams to reduce the
effect of differential settlement.

3- Shallow foundations are not recommended for structures exposed to liquid like
cooling towers, ground storage tanks, etc, even when the bearing capacity and
settlement requirements are satisfied, instead piles should be used.

48
 References
1- Peck, R.B, Hanson, W.E, and Thornburn. T. H , Foundation Engineering , 2nd ed, John Wiley ,
New York , 1967.

2- Terzaghi, K. and Peck, R.B, Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice, 2nd ed, John Wiley , New
York , 1967.

3- Advanced National Seismic System (ANSS) Catalog.

4- Alsinawi, S.A, and Alqasrani, Z.O, 2003, Earthquake Hazards Considerations for Iraq.

5- Bolton, C.M, 1958, The Geology of Rania Area. Sight Investigations Co. Rep.Geol.Surv.Min.
Investigation. Lib, Report No. 271 Baghdad.

6- Saad,Z,J., Jeremy, C.G, and Layout, L.N,2006, Geology of Iraq. Hlavni 2732, Prague and
Moravian Museum, Zelny trh 6.brno, Czech Republic.

7- National Iraq Oil Exploration Company, 1996, Seismic Exploration Interpretations of Nahar-
Umr-Zubiar Area.

8- Seed, J.B. and Idriss, I.M.(1971), Simplified Procedure for Evaluating Soil Liquefaction
Potential, Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE, Vol.97, No. SM9,
pp.1249-1273.

9- Ishihara, K. (1985), Stability of Natural Deposits During Earthquakes, Proceedings of the

Eleventh International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Vol. 1, San
Francisco, pp. 321-376.

10- "Recommended Procedures for Implementation of DMG" Special Publication. A guidelines for
Analyzing and Mitigating Liquefaction Hazards in California

11- Construction Industry Research and Information Association (CIRIA), The CIRIA Guide to
Concrete Construction in the Gulf Region, Special Publication 31,London , 1984, pp. 1-95

12- Hughes, I.M.O, and withers, N.I, (1974), Reinforcing of Soft Cohesive Soils with Stone
Columns," Ground Engineering, Vol.7, No.3, pp: 42-49.

13- Hughes, J.M.O, Withers, N.J., and Greenwood, D.A, 1975, A Field Trial of the Reinforcing
Effect of a Stone Column in Soil”, Geotechnique, 25, (1):31-44.

14- Davis, E.H. and Booker, J.R. (1973), The Bearing Capacity of Strip Footings from Plasticity
Theory. " Proc. First Australia –New Zealand Conference on Geomechaincs, Vol .1,276-282.

15- Bowles, J.E, Foundation Analysis and Design, 5th –Edition, McGraw-Hill, 1996.

16- Craig, R.F., Soil Mechanics, 6th –Edition, Spon Press, 2002.
17- Matlock, H, and L.C Reese: Generalized Solutions for Laterally Loaded Piles, Journal of the
Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, Proceedings of the A Mercian Society of Civil
Engineers, Vol. 86, No .SM5, October, 1960.

18- Budhu, M., Foundations and Earth Retaining Structures ", John Wiley & Sons, Inc, 2008.

19- Budhu, M., Soil Mechanics and Foundations, John Wiley & Sons, Inc, 2007.

20- Day, R.W, Foundation Engineering Handbook, ASCE Press, 2nd edition, 2010.

21- Tomlinson, M.J., Foundation Design and Construction, 5th edition , Longman Scientific
Technical, 1986

22- ASTM Standards, Section 4-Construction. Volume 4.08, Soil and Rock (I), 2009.

23- ASTM Standards, Section 4-Construction, Volume 4-09, Soil and Rock (II), 2009.

24- International Building Code, 2006, ASCE.

25- Minimum Design Loads for Building and Other Structures, ASCE 7-05.
 Appendix A

Borehole Logs
 BOREHOLES UTM COORDINATES
Zubair Oil Field Development Project / Phase 1
(Hammar DGS)

UTM Coordinates
BH No.
X ± 10m Y ± 10m
1101 750013 3375700
1102 750197 3375491
1103 750015 3375370
1104 749797 3375602
1105 749956 3375759
1106 749877 3375711
1107 749950 3375304
1108 749913 3375449
1109 749970 3375471
1110 750023 3375432
1111 750029 3375700
1112 750197 3375491
1113 750015 3375370
1114 749797 3375602
1115 749956 3375759
1116 749854 3376328
1117 750985 3375024
1118 750709 3374850
1219 750293 3374947
1220 750327 3374796
1221 749914 3374910
1222 749872 3374811
1223 749789 3375082
1224 749817 3374987
1225 749471 3375093
1226 749223 3375112
1227 749350 3375649
1228 749488 3375661
1229 749417 3375786
1230 749361 3375934
1131 750455 3375345
 Key to Boring Logs

PARTICLE SIZE LIMITS

Clay Silt Sand Gravel Cobbles Boulders
Fine Medium Coarse Fine Coarse

0.002mm #200 #40 #10 #4 ¾ inch 3 inch 12 inch

STANDARD PENETRATION CLASSIFCATION*

Granular Soil Clayey Soil
Blows / Ft Density Blows / Ft Consistency
0–4 Very Loose 0–1 Very Soft
5 – 10 Loose 2–4 Soft
11 – 30 Medium Dense 4–8 Medium Stiff
31 – 50 Dense 8– 15 Stiff
Over 50 Very Dense 15 – 30 Very Stiff
* Standard Penetration Test (N), 140 Ib hammer 30 31 – 60 Hard
inch free fall on 2 inch O.D. x 1.4 I.D. sampler Over 60 Very Hard

Unified Soil Classification System (USCS)

Group Legend Typical Soil Description
GW Well graded gravels, gravel – sand mixtures, little or no fines
GP Poorly graded gravels, gravel-sand mixtures, little or no fines
GC Clayey gravels, poorly graded gravel – sand – clay mixtures
SW Well graded sands, gravelly sands, little or no fines
SP Poorly graded sands, gravelly sands, little or no fines
SM Silty sands, poorly graded sand – silt mixtures
SC Clayey sands, poorly graded sand – clay mixtures
Inorganic silts and very fine sands, rock flour, silty or clayey fine sands with
ML
slight plasticity
Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity, gravelly clays, sandy clays, silty
CL
clays, lean clays
MH Inorganic silts, micaceous or diatomaceous fine sandy or silty soils, elastic silt
CH Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat clays
OL Organic silts and organic silt – clays of low plasticity
OH Organic clays of medium to high plasticity
PT Peat and other highly organic soils
 Borehole Log
Project Zubair Oil Field Development Project / Phase 1 Site Hammar DGS
B.H. No. 1101 Date 7 – 3 – 2011 Method of Boring Rotary
Depth 25 m W.T. Depth 1.30m
Type
Scale Depth
& SPT Legend Description of Soil
(m) (m)
Number
D1 0.5
1.0 Medium, brown, silty sand with fine gravel. The
top part of this layer (about 1.0m depth)
2.0 SPT 2 2.0 (22)
contaminated with oil material
3.0
SPT 3 3.5 (37)
4.0

5.0 SPT 4 5.0 (50/29)

6.0
SPT 5 6.5 (47)
7.0

8.0

9.0 SPT 6 9.0 (50/27)

10.0

11.0

12.0 SPT 7 12.0 (50/28)

13.0

14.0 Dense to very dense, brown, silty sand with or

SPT 8 14.5 50
15.0 without gravel

16.0

17.0
SPT 9 17.5 (47)
18.0

19.0

20.0 SPT 10 20.0 (49)

21.0

22.0
SPT 11 22.5 (46)
23.0

24.0

25.0 SPT 12 25.0 (48)

U : Undisturbed Sample, D : Disturbed Sample, ( ) : SPT – Value

 Borehole Log
Project Zubair Oil Field Development Project / Phase 1 Site Hammar DGS
B.H. No. 1102 Date 6 – 3 – 2011 Method of Boring Rotary
Depth 25 m W.T. Depth 2.80m
Type
Scale Depth
& SPT Legend Description of Soil
(m) (m)
Number
1.0 SPT 1 1.0 (44)

2.0 Dense, brown, silty sand

SPT 2 2.5 (50)
3.0

4.0 D3 4.0

5.0 SPT 4 5.0 (50/25)

Very dense, brown, poorly graded sand with silt

6.0
SPT 5 6.5 (45)
7.0

8.0

9.0
SPT 6 9.5 (38)
10.0

11.0

12.0
SPT 7 12.5 (50/29)
13.0

14.0

15.0
SPT 8 15.5 (38)
16.0
Dense to very dense, brown, silty sand

17.0

18.0 SPT 9 18.0 (45)

19.0

20.0

21.0 SPT 10 21.0 (49)

22.0

23.0 D 11 23.0

24.0

25.0 SPT 12 25.0 (44)

U : Undisturbed Sample, D : Disturbed Sample, ( ) : SPT – Value

 Borehole Log
Project Zubair Oil Field Development Project / Phase 1 Site Hammar DGS
B.H. No. 1103 Date 5 – 3 – 2011 Method of Boring Rotary
Depth 25 m W.T. Depth 2.30m
Type
Scale Depth
& SPT Legend Description of Soil
(m) (m)
Number
1.0 D1 1.0

2.0
SPT 2 2.5 (50/27)
3.0

4.0 SPT 3 4.0 (43)

5.0
SPT 4 5.5 (50/24) Dense to very dense, brown, poorly graded sand
6.0
with silt
7.0 SPT 5 7.0 (50/25)

8.0

9.0

10.0 SPT 6 10.0 (50/24)

11.0

12.0

13.0 SPT 7 13.0 (50/29)

14.0

15.0

16.0 SPT 8 16.0 (45)

17.0

18.0

19.0 SPT 9 19.0 (42)

Dense to very dense, brown, silty sand

20.0

21.0

22.0 SPT 10 22.0 (43)

23.0

24.0

25.0 SPT 11 25.0 (42)

U : Undisturbed Sample, D : Disturbed Sample, ( ) : SPT – Value

 Borehole Log
Project Zubair Oil Field Development Project / Phase 1 Site Hammar DGS
B.H. No. 1104 Date 5 – 3 – 2011 Method of Boring Rotary
Depth 25 m W.T. Depth 1.70m
Type
Scale Depth
& SPT Legend Description of Soil
(m) (m)
Number
1.0 D1 1.0
Medium, brown, poorly graded sand with silt
2.0
SPT 2 2.5 (25)
3.0

4.0 SPT 3 4.0 (22)

Medium, brown, silty sand
5.0
SPT 4 5.5 (23)
6.0
Medium, brown, poorly graded sand with silt
7.0

8.0
SPT 5 8.5 (34)
9.0

10.0

11.0
SPT 6 11.5 (50/28)
12.0

13.0

14.0
SPT 7 14.5 (50/27)
15.0

16.0
Dense to very dense, brown, silty sand
17.0
SPT 8 17.5 (47)
18.0

19.0

20.0 SPT 9 20.0 (31)

21.0

22.0
D 10 22.5
23.0

24.0

25.0 SPT 11 25.0 (49)

U : Undisturbed Sample, D : Disturbed Sample, ( ) : SPT – Value

 Borehole Log
Project Zubair Oil Field Development Project / Phase 1 Site Hammar DGS
B.H. No. 1105 Date 5 – 3 – 2011 Method of Boring Rotary
Depth 25 m W.T. Depth 1.75m
Type
Scale Depth
& SPT Legend Description of Soil
(m) (m)
Number
D1 0.5
1.0 SPT 2 1.0 (28) Medium, brown, silty sand (subbase layer)
2.0

3.0 SPT 3 3.0 (50/24)

4.0
SPT 4 4.5 (50/27)
5.0

6.0 SPT 5 6.0 (50/25)

Very dense, brown, poorly graded sand with silt
7.0

8.0

9.0 SPT 6 9.0 (50/25)

10.0

11.0

12.0 SPT 7 12.0 (40)

13.0

14.0

15.0 SPT 8 15.0 (33)

16.0

17.0

18.0 SPT 9 18.0 (40)

Dense, brown, silty sand
19.0

20.0
SPT 10 20.5 (44)
21.0

22.0

23.0 D 11 23.0

24.0

25.0 SPT 12 25.0 (46)

U : Undisturbed Sample, D : Disturbed Sample, ( ) : SPT – Value

 Borehole Log
Project Zubair Oil Field Development Project / Phase 1 Site Hammar DGS
B.H. No. 1106 Date 5 – 3 – 2011 Method of Boring Rotary
Depth 25 m W.T. Depth 1.20m
Type
Scale Depth
& SPT Legend Description of Soil
(m) (m)
Number
D1 0.5
1.0
SPT 2 1..5 (42)
2.0

3.0 SPT 3 3.0 (50/28)

4.0
SPT 4 4.5 (50/28)
5.0

6.0 SPT 5 6.0 (50/28)

7.0

8.0

9.0 SPT 6 9.0 (50/25)

10.0

11.0

12.0 SPT 7 12.0 (50/27)

13.0 Dense to very dense, brown, silty sand

14.0
D8 14.5
15.0

16.0

17.0 SPT 9 17.0 (42)

18.0

19.0

20.0 SPT 10 20.0 (41)

21.0

22.0
SPT 11 22.5 (43)
23.0

24.0

25.0 SPT 12 25.0 (47)

U : Undisturbed Sample, D : Disturbed Sample, ( ) : SPT – Value

 Borehole Log
Project Zubair Oil Field Development Project / Phase 1 Site Hammar DGS
B.H. No. 1107 Date 3 – 3 – 2011 Method of Boring Rotary
Depth 40 m W.T. Depth 2.20m
Type
Scale Depth
& SPT Legend Description of Soil
(m) (m)
Number
1.0 SPT 1 1.0 (15)
Medium, brown, silty sand
2.0
SPT 2 2.5 (320
3.0

4.0
SPT 3 4.5 (45)
5.0

6.0 SPT 4 6.0 (50/27)

7.0

8.0

9.0 SPT 5 9.0 (50/25)

10.0

11.0

12.0 SPT 6 12.0 (50/29)

13.0
Dense to very dense, brown, poorly graded sand
14.0
with silt and sometimes with gravel
15.0 SPT 7 15.0 (39)

16.0

17.0

18.0 SPT 8 18.0 (47)

19.0

20.0

21.0 SPT 9 21.0 (36)

22.0

23.0

24.0 SPT 10 24.0 (43)

25.0

U : Undisturbed Sample, D : Disturbed Sample, ( ) : SPT – Value

 Borehole Log
Project Zubair Oil Field Development Project / Phase 1 Site Hammar DGS
B.H. No. 1107 Date 3 – 3 – 2011 Method of Boring Rotary
Depth 40 m W.T. Depth 2.20 m
Type
Scale Depth
& SPT Legend Description of Soil
(m) (m)
Number
26.0

27.0 SPT 11 27.0 (40)

28.0

29.0 D 12 29.0

30.0

31.0
SPT 13 31.5 (43)
32.0

33.0
D 14 33.5
Dense, brown, silty sand
34.0

35.0

36.0 SPT 15 36.0 (38)

37.0

38.0 SPT 16 38.0 (41)

39.0

40.0 SPT 17 40.0 (47)

U : Undisturbed Sample, D : Disturbed Sample, ( ) : SPT – Value

 Borehole Log
Project Zubair Oil Field Development Project / Phase 1 Site Hammar DGS
B.H. No. 1108 Date 3 – 3 – 2011 Method of Boring Rotary
Depth 40 m W.T. Depth 2.20m
Type
Scale Depth
& SPT Legend Description of Soil
(m) (m)
Number
1.0 D1 1.0

2.0 Dense, brown, poorly graded sand with silt

SPT 2 2.5 (46)
3.0

4.0 SPT 3 4.0 (50/25)

5.0
SPT 4 5.5 (49)
6.0

7.0 Dense to very dense, brown, silty sand

8.0
SPT 5 8.5 (50/26)
9.0

10.0

11.0
SPT 6 11.5 (50/27)
12.0

13.0

14.0
SPT 7 14.5 (44) Dense to very dense, brown, poorly graded sand
15.0 with silt and sometimes with gravel
16.0

17.0
SPT 8 17.5 (50/28)
18.0

19.0

20.0
SPT 9 20.5 (44)
21.0

22.0
Dense, brown, silty sand
23.0 D 10 23.0

24.0

25.0 SPT 11 25.0 (49)

U : Undisturbed Sample, D : Disturbed Sample, ( ) : SPT – Value

 Borehole Log
Project Zubair Oil Field Development Project / Phase 1 Site Hammar DGS
B.H. No. 1108 Date 3 – 3 – 2011 Method of Boring Rotary
Depth 40 m W.T. Depth 2.20 m
Type
Scale Depth
& SPT Legend Description of Soil
(m) (m)
Number

26.0

27.0

28.0 SPT 12 28.0 (44)

29.0

30.0

31.0 SPT 13 31.0 (41)

32.0

33.0 Dense, brown, silty sand

34.0 SPT 14 34.0 (40)

35.0

36.0

37.0 SPT 15 37.0 (42)

38.0

39.0

40.0 SPT 16 40..0 (45)

U : Undisturbed Sample, D : Disturbed Sample, ( ) : SPT – Value

 Borehole Log
Project Zubair Oil Field Development Project / Phase 1 Site Hammar DGS
B.H. No. 1109 Date 5 – 3 – 2011 Method of Boring Rotary
Depth 25 m W.T. Depth 2.35m
Type
Scale Depth
& SPT Legend Description of Soil
(m) (m)
Number
SPT 1 0.5 (23)
1.0

2.0 SPT 2 2.0 (50/29)

3.0
SPT 3 3.5 (49)
4.0

5.0 SPT 4 5.0 (59/26)

6.0
SPT 5 6.5 (50/24)
7.0

8.0

9.0
SPT 6 9.5 (50/26)
10.0

11.0

12.0 SPT 7 12.0 (49)

Medium to very dense, brown to dark brown,
13.0
silty sand
14.0 D8 14.0

15.0

16.0 SPT 9 16.0 (45)

17.0

18.0

19.0 SPT 10 19.0 (41)

20.0

21.0

22.0 SPT 11 22.0 (42)

23.0

24.0

25.0 SPT 12 25.0 (49)

U : Undisturbed Sample, D : Disturbed Sample, ( ) : SPT – Value

 Borehole Log
Project Zubair Oil Field Development Project / Phase 1 Site Hammar DGS
B.H. No. 1110 Date 5 – 3 – 2011 Method of Boring Rotary
Depth 25 m W.T. Depth 2.35m
Type
Scale Depth
& SPT Legend Description of Soil
(m) (m)
Number

1.0 SPT 1 1.0 (27)

2.0
SPT 2 2.5 (50/29)
3.0

4.0 SPT 3 4.0 (50/24)

5.0
SPT 4 5.5 (50/25)
6.0

7.0

8.0
SPT 5 8.5 (50/25)
9.0

10.0

11.0
SPT 6 11.5 (50/29)
12.0
Medium to very dense, brown to dark brown,
13.0
silty sand
14.0
SPT 7 14.5 (49)
15.0

16.0

17.0
SPT 8 17.5 (47)
18.0

19.0

20.0
SPT 9 20.5 (42)
21.0

22.0

23.0 SPT 10 23.0 (42)

24.0

25.0 SPT 11 25.0 (44)

U : Undisturbed Sample, D : Disturbed Sample, ( ) : SPT – Value

 Borehole Log
Project Zubair Oil Field Development Project / Phase 1 Site Hammar DGS
B.H. No. 1111 Date 6 – 3 – 2011 Method of Boring Rotary
Depth 40 m W.T. Depth 2.00m
Type
Scale Depth
& SPT Legend Description of Soil
(m) (m)
Number
1.0 SPT 1 1.0 (46)

2.0
SPT 2 2.5 (50/27)
3.0

4.0
SPT 3 4.5 (50/28)
5.0

6.0 SPT 4 6.0 (50/26)

7.0

8.0 Dense to very dense, brown, poorly graded sand

9.0 SPT 5 9.0 (50/29)
with silt and sometimes with gravel

10.0

11.0

12.0 SPT 6 12.0 (50)

13.0

14.0

15.0 SPT 7 15.0 (49)

16.0

17.0

18.0 SPT 8 18.0 (48)

19.0

20.0

21.0 SPT 9 21.0 (50)

Dense, brown to dark brown, silty sand
22.0

23.0

24.0 SPT 10 24.0 (49)

25.0

U : Undisturbed Sample, D : Disturbed Sample, ( ) : SPT – Value

 Borehole Log
Project Zubair Oil Field Development Project / Phase 1 Site Hammar DGS
B.H. No. 1111 Date 6 – 3 – 2011 Method of Boring Rotary
Depth 40 m W.T. Depth 2.00 m
Type
Scale Depth
& SPT Legend Description of Soil
(m) (m)
Number

26.0

27.0 SPT 11 27.0 (48)

28.0 Dense, brown to dark brown, silty sand

29.0 D 12 29.0

30.0

31.0
SPT 13 31.5 (44)
32.0

33.0

34.0
SPT 14 34.5 (37)
35.0
Dense, brown to dark brown, poorly graded
36.0 sand with silt
37.0
SPT 15 37.5 (43)
38.0

39.0

40.0 SPT 16 40.0 (45)

U : Undisturbed Sample, D : Disturbed Sample, ( ) : SPT – Value

 Borehole Log
Project Zubair Oil Field Development Project / Phase 1 Site Hammar DGS
B.H. No. 1112 Date 7 – 3 – 2011 Method of Boring Rotary
Depth 40 m W.T. Depth 3.30m
Type
Scale Depth
& SPT Legend Description of Soil
(m) (m)
Number

1.0 SPT 1 1.0 (45)

2.0
D2 2.5
3.0

4.0 SPT 3 4.0 (31)

5.0
SPT 4 5.5 (47)
6.0

7.0

8.0
SPT 5 8.5 (41)
9.0

10.0

11.0
SPT 6 11.5 (50/28)
12.0

13.0 Dense to very dense, yellow to brown, silty sand

14.0
SPT 7 14.5 (48)
15.0

16.0

17.0
SPT 8 17.5 (46)
18.0

19.0

20.0
SPT 9 20.5 (41)
21.0

22.0

23.0
SPT 10 23.5 (49)
24.0

25.0

U : Undisturbed Sample, D : Disturbed Sample, ( ) : SPT – Value

 Borehole Log
Project Zubair Oil Field Development Project / Phase 1 Site Hammar DGS
B.H. No. 1112 Date 7 – 3 – 2011 Method of Boring Rotary
Depth 40 m W.T. Depth 3.30m
Type
Scale Depth
& SPT Legend Description of Soil
(m) (m)
Number
26.0
SPT 11 26.5 (44)
27.0

28.0

29.0
SPT 12 29.5 (46)
30.0

31.0

32.0 SPT 13 32.0 (47)

Dense to very dense, yellow to brown, silty
33.0
sand
34.0
SPT 14 34.5 (46)
35.0

36.0

37.0 SPT 15 37.0 (45)

38.0

39.0

40.0 SPT 16 40.0 (48)

U : Undisturbed Sample, D : Disturbed Sample, ( ) : SPT – Value

 Borehole Log
Project Zubair Oil Field Development Project / Phase 1 Site Hammar DGS
B.H. No. 1113 Date 5 – 3 – 2011 Method of Boring Rotary
Depth 25 m W.T. Depth 2.15m
Type
Scale Depth
& SPT Legend Description of Soil
(m) (m)
Number
SPT 1 0.5 (13)
1.0

2.0 SPT 2 2.0 (22)

3.0
SPT 3 3.5 (50/25)
4.0

5.0 SPT 4 5.0 (50/25)

6.0

7.0 SPT 5 7.0 (45)

8.0

9.0

10.0 SPT 6 10.0 (50/29)

11.0

12.0

13.0 SPT 7 13.0 (48) Medium to very dense, brown, silty sand
14.0

15.0

16.0 SPT 8 16.0 (49)

17.0

18.0

19.0 SPT 9 19.0 (46)

20.0

21.0

22.0 SPT 10 22.0 (41)

23.0

24.0

25.0 SPT 11 25.0 (47)

U : Undisturbed Sample, D : Disturbed Sample, ( ) : SPT – Value

 Borehole Log
Project Zubair Oil Field Development Project / Phase 1 Site Hammar DGS
B.H. No. 1114 Date 5 – 3 – 2011 Method of Boring Rotary
Depth 25 m W.T. Depth 1.10m
Type
Scale Depth
& SPT Legend Description of Soil
(m) (m)
Number
1.0 D1 1.0

2.0
Medium, brown, poorly graded sand with silt
SPT 2 2.5 (13)
3.0

4.0
SPT 3 4.5 (50)
5.0

6.0 SPT 4 6.0 (26)

7.0

8.0

9.0 SPT 5 9.0 (50/27)

10.0

11.0

12.0 SPT 6 12.0 (50/29)

13.0

14.0 Medium to very dense, brown to dark brown,

silty sand
15.0 SPT 7 15.0 (37)

16.0

17.0

18.0 SPT 8 18.0 (42)

19.0

20.0

21.0 SPT 9 21.0 (31)

22.0

23.0 D 10 23.0

24.0
Dense, brown, poorly graded sand with silt and
25.0 SPT 11 25.0 (50)
gravel

U : Undisturbed Sample, D : Disturbed Sample, ( ) : SPT – Value

 Borehole Log
Project Zubair Oil Field Development Project / Phase 1 Site Hammar DGS
B.H. No. 1115 Date 5 – 3 – 2011 Method of Boring Rotary
Depth 15 m W.T. Depth 0.75m
Type
Scale Depth
& SPT Legend Description of Soil
(m) (m)
Number
1.0 D1 1.0

2.0
SPT 2 2.5 (41)
3.0
Dense to very dense, brown, poorly graded sand
4.0 SPT 3 4.0 (50/25)
with silt
5.0

6.0 SPT 4 6.0 (50/29)

7.0

8.0

9.0 SPT 5 9.0 (46)

10.0

11.0
Dense, brown, silty sand

12.0 SPT 6 12.0 (37)

13.0

14.0

15.0 SPT 7 15.0 (42)

Dense, brown, poorly graded sand with silt

U : Undisturbed Sample, D : Disturbed Sample, ( ) : SPT – Value

 Borehole Log
Project Zubair Oil Field Development Project / Phase 1 Site Hammar DGS
B.H. No. 1116 Date 6 – 3 – 2011 Method of Boring Rotary
Depth 15 m W.T. Depth 0.70m
Type
Scale Depth
& SPT Legend Description of Soil
(m) (m)
Number
U1 0.5
1.0

2.0 SPT 2 2.0 (10)

3.0 Very soft to very stiff, gray to brown, clayey silt

SPT 3 3.5 (1) with low plasticity
4.0

5.0 SPT 4 5.0 (26)

6.0
SPT 5 6.5 (50/28)
7.0

8.0

9.0
SPT 6 9.5 (50/26)
10.0 Dense to very dense, brown, silty sand
11.0

12.0
SPT 7 12.5 (48)
13.0

14.0

15.0 SPT 8 15.0 (46)

Dense, brown, poorly graded sand with silt

U : Undisturbed Sample, D : Disturbed Sample, ( ) : SPT – Value

 Borehole Log
Project Zubair Oil Field Development Project / Phase 1 Site Hammar DGS
B.H. No. 1117 Date 1 – 3 – 2011 Method of Boring Rotary
Depth 15 m W.T. Depth 3.70m
Type
Scale Depth
& SPT Legend Description of Soil
(m) (m)
Number
D1 0.5
1.0

2.0 SPT 2 2.0 (42)

3.0
SPT 3 3.5 (50/28)
4.0

5.0 SPT 4 5.0 (36)

6.0
SPT 5 6.5 (25)
7.0
Medium to very dense, brown, silty sand and
8.0
sometimes with gravel
9.0
SPT 6 9.5 (36)
10.0

11.0

12.0
SPT 7 12.5 (48)
13.0

14.0

15.0 SPT 8 15.0 (48)

U : Undisturbed Sample, D : Disturbed Sample, ( ) : SPT – Value

 Borehole Log
Project Zubair Oil Field Development Project / Phase 1 Site Hammar DGS
B.H. No. 1118 Date 1 – 3 – 2011 Method of Boring Rotary
Depth 15 m W.T. Depth 3.80m
Type
Scale Depth
& SPT Legend Description of Soil
(m) (m)
Number

1.0 D1 1.0

2.0
SPT 2 2.5 (18)
3.0

4.0 SPT 3 4.0 (50/29)

5.0

6.0 SPT 4 6.0 (50/24)

7.0

8.0 D5 8.0 Medium to very dense, brown, silty sand

9.0

10.0 SPT 6 10.0 (44)

11.0

12.0 SPT 7 12.0 (35)

13.0

14.0

15.0 SPT 8 15.0 (39)

U : Undisturbed Sample, D : Disturbed Sample, ( ) : SPT – Value

 Borehole Log
Project Zubair Oil Field Development Project / Phase 1 Site Hammar DGS
B.H. No. 1219 Date 1 – 3 – 2011 Method of Boring Rotary
Depth 15 m W.T. Depth 2.00m
Type
Scale Depth
& SPT Legend Description of Soil
(m) (m)
Number
1.0 SPT 1 1.0 (44)

2.0 Dense, brown, silty sand

SPT 2 2.5 (50)
3.0

4.0
SPT 3 4.5 (49)
5.0

6.0 SPT 4 6.0 (45)

7.0

8.0

9.0 SPT 5 9.0 (50)

Hard, brown to dark brown, clayey silt with
10.0 sand or a little of sand, low plasticity
11.0

12.0 SPT 6 12.0 (43)

13.0

14.0

15.0 SPT 7 15.0 (45)

U : Undisturbed Sample, D : Disturbed Sample, ( ) : SPT – Value

 Borehole Log
Project Zubair Oil Field Development Project / Phase 1 Site Hammar DGS
B.H. No. 1220 Date 2 – 3 – 2011 Method of Boring Rotary
Depth 15 m W.T. Depth 2.20m
Type
Scale Depth
& SPT Legend Description of Soil
(m) (m)
Number
1.0 SPT 1 1.0 (46)

2.0 D2 2.0
Dense to very dense, brown to dark brown,
3.0
SPT 3 3.5 (50/26)
poorly graded with silt and sometimes with
4.0 gravel

5.0 SPT 4 5.0 (50/29)

6.0
SPT 5 6.5 (50/28)
7.0

8.0

9.0
SPT 6 9.5 (44)
10.0
Dense to very dense, brown, silty sand and
11.0
sometimes with gravel.
12.0 SPT 7 12.0 (50/28)

13.0

14.0

15.0 SPT 8 15.0 (49)

U : Undisturbed Sample, D : Disturbed Sample, ( ) : SPT – Value

 Borehole Log
Project Zubair Oil Field Development Project / Phase 1 Site Hammar DGS
B.H. No. 1221 Date 2 – 3 – 2011 Method of Boring Rotary
Depth 15 m W.T. Depth 2.50m
Type
Scale Depth
& SPT Legend Description of Soil
(m) (m)
Number
1.0 D1 1.0
Dense, brown, poorly graded gravel with silt
2.0 and sand
SPT 2 2.5 (50)
3.0

4.0 SPT 3 4.0 (50/27)

Very dense, brown, silty sand
5.0
SPT 4 5.5 (50/26)
6.0

7.0

8.0 SPT 5 8.0 (50/28)

9.0

10.0 Dense to very dense, brown, poorly graded sand

SPT 6 10.5 (50/27)
11.0 with silt and sometimes with gravel

12.0
D7 12.5
13.0

14.0

15.0 SPT 8 15.0 (47)

U : Undisturbed Sample, D : Disturbed Sample, ( ) : SPT – Value

 Borehole Log
Project Zubair Oil Field Development Project / Phase 1 Site Hammar DGS
B.H. No. 1222 Date 2 – 3 – 2011 Method of Boring Rotary
Depth 15 m W.T. Depth 2.20m
Type
Scale Depth
& SPT Legend Description of Soil
(m) (m)
Number
SPT 1 0.5 (26)
1.0

2.0 SPT 2 2.0 (44)

3.0
SPT 3 3.5 (39)
4.0

5.0 SPT 4 5.0 (35)

6.0
SPT 5 6.5 (50/29)
7.0

8.0 Medium to very dense, brown, silty sand

9.0
SPT 6 9.5 (50/26)
10.0

11.0

12.0 SPT 7 12.0 (45)

13.0

14.0

15.0 SPT 8 15.0 (48)

U : Undisturbed Sample, D : Disturbed Sample, ( ) : SPT – Value

 Borehole Log
Project Zubair Oil Field Development Project / Phase 1 Site Hammar DGS
B.H. No. 1223 Date 2 – 3 – 2011 Method of Boring Rotary
Depth 15 m W.T. Depth 3.00m
Type
Scale Depth
& SPT Legend Description of Soil
(m) (m)
Number
1.0 D1 1.0

2.0
SPT 2 2.5 (46)
3.0

4.0 SPT 3 4.0 (47)

5.0
SPT 4 5.5 (50/27)
6.0

7.0

8.0 Dense to very dense, brown to red, silty sand

SPT 5 8.5 (50/29)
9.0

10.0

11.0
SPT 6 11.5 (47)
12.0

13.0
D7 13.5
14.0

15.0 SPT 8 15.0 (49)

U : Undisturbed Sample, D : Disturbed Sample, ( ) : SPT – Value

 Borehole Log
Project Zubair Oil Field Development Project / Phase 1 Site Hammar DGS
B.H. No. 1224 Date 2 – 3 – 2011 Method of Boring Rotary
Depth 15 m W.T. Depth 2.70m
Type
Scale Depth
& SPT Legend Description of Soil
(m) (m)
Number
1.0 D1 1.0

2.0
SPT 2 2.5 (29)
3.0

4.0 Medium to very dense, brown, silty sand

SPT 3 4.5 (49)
5.0

6.0 SPT 4 6.0 (50/27)

7.0

8.0

9.0 SPT 5 9.0 (50/26) Very dense, brown, poorly graded sand with silt
and gravel
10.0

11.0

12.0 SPT 6 12.0 (50)

13.0
Dense, brown, silty sand
14.0

15.0 SPT 7 15.0 (44)

U : Undisturbed Sample, D : Disturbed Sample, ( ) : SPT – Value

 Borehole Log
Project Zubair Oil Field Development Project / Phase 1 Site Hammar DGS
B.H. No. 1225 Date 3 – 3 – 2011 Method of Boring Rotary
Depth 15 m W.T. Depth 1.30m
Type
Scale Depth
& SPT Legend Description of Soil
(m) (m)
Number
D1 0.5
1.0

2.0 SPT 2 2.0 (42)

3.0
SPT 3 3.5 (50/29)
4.0 Dense to very dense, brown to red, poorly
graded sand with silt and sometimes with gravel
5.0 SPT 4 5.0 (50)

6.0
SPT 5 6.5 (50/28)
7.0

8.0

9.0
SPT 6 9.5 (50/27) Very dense, brown, poorly graded gravel with
10.0 silt and sand
11.0

12.0
SPT 7 12.5 (44)
13.0
Dense, brown, poorly graded sand with silt
14.0

15.0 SPT 8 15.0 (45)

U : Undisturbed Sample, D : Disturbed Sample, ( ) : SPT – Value

 Borehole Log
Project Zubair Oil Field Development Project / Phase 1 Site Hammar DGS
B.H. No. 1226 Date 3 – 3 – 2011 Method of Boring Rotary
Depth 15 m W.T. Depth 1.20m
Type
Scale Depth
& SPT Legend Description of Soil
(m) (m)
Number
1.0 SPT 1 1.0 (26)

2.0
Medium, brown to dark brown, silty sand
D2 2.5
3.0

4.0 SPT 3 4.0 (33)

5.0
SPT 4 5.5 (50/28)
6.0

7.0 SPT 5 7.0 (45)

8.0

9.0 Dense to very dense, brown, poorly graded sand

10.0 SPT 6 10.0 (46) with silt

11.0

12.0

13.0 SPT 7 13.0 (42)

14.0

15.0 SPT 8 15.0 (43)

U : Undisturbed Sample, D : Disturbed Sample, ( ) : SPT – Value

 Borehole Log
Project Zubair Oil Field Development Project / Phase 1 Site Hammar DGS
B.H. No. 1227 Date 3 – 3 – 2011 Method of Boring Rotary
Depth 15 m W.T. Depth 1.00m
Type
Scale Depth
& SPT Legend Description of Soil
(m) (m)
Number
D1 0.5
1.0
SPT 2 1.5 (27)
2.0 Medium to dense, brown to dark brown, silty
sand
3.0 SPT 3 3.0 (49)

4.0
SPT 4 4.5 (50/29)
5.0

6.0 SPT 5 6.0 (50/29)

7.0
SPT 6 7.5 (50/28)
8.0

9.0
Dense to very dense, brown, poorly graded sand
10.0
SPT 7 10.5 (50/27) with silt and sometimes with gravel
11.0

12.0

13.0 D8 13.0

14.0

15.0 SPT 9 15.0 (43)

U : Undisturbed Sample, D : Disturbed Sample, ( ) : SPT – Value

 Borehole Log
Project Zubair Oil Field Development Project / Phase 1 Site Hammar DGS
B.H. No. 1228 Date 2 – 3 – 2011 Method of Boring Rotary
Depth 15 m W.T. Depth 2.10m
Type
Scale Depth
& SPT Legend Description of Soil
(m) (m)
Number
1.0 D1 1.0

2.0
SPT 2 2.5 (48)
3.0

4.0 SPT 3 4.0 (50/29)

5.0
SPT 4 5.5 (41)
6.0

7.0
SPT 5 7.5 (50/27)
8.0 Dense to very dense, brown to red, silty sand
9.0

10.0 SPT 6 10.0 (50/28)

11.0

12.0
SPT 7 12.5 (47)
13.0

14.0

15.0 SPT 8 15.0 (46)

U : Undisturbed Sample, D : Disturbed Sample, ( ) : SPT – Value

 Borehole Log
Project Zubair Oil Field Development Project / Phase 1 Site Hammar DGS
B.H. No. 1229 Date 3 – 3 – 2011 Method of Boring Rotary
Depth 15 m W.T. Depth 1.00m
Type
Scale Depth
& SPT Legend Description of Soil
(m) (m)
Number
U1 0.5
1.0

2.0
U2 2.5
3.0

4.0 SPT 3 4.0 (4)

5.0
SPT 4 5.5 (2)
6.0

7.0
Soft to medium, gray to brown, clayey silt with
8.0 SPT 5 8.0 (2)
a little or trace of sand, low plasticity
9.0

10.0

11.0 SPT 6 11.0 (3)

12.0

13.0 D7 13.0

14.0

15.0 SPT 8 15.0 (5)

U : Undisturbed Sample, D : Disturbed Sample, ( ) : SPT – Value

 Borehole Log
Project Zubair Oil Field Development Project / Phase 1 Site Hammar DGS
B.H. No. 1230 Date 3 – 3 – 2011 Method of Boring Rotary
Depth 15 m W.T. Depth 1.20m
Type
Scale Depth
& SPT Legend Description of Soil
(m) (m)
Number
1.0 U1 1.0

2.0
U2 2.5
3.0

4.0 SPT 3 4.0 (1)

5.0
SPT 4 5.5 (1)
6.0

7.0 SPT 5 7.0 (2)

Very soft to medium, gray to brown, clayey silt
8.0
with a little or trace of sand, low plasticity
9.0

10.0 SPT 6 10.0 (2)

11.0

12.0

13.0 SPT 7 13.0 (4)

14.0

15.0 SPT 8 15.0 (7)

U : Undisturbed Sample, D : Disturbed Sample, ( ) : SPT – Value

 Borehole Log
Project Zubair Oil Field Development Project / Phase 1 Site Hammar DGS
B.H. No. 1131 Date 1 – 3 – 2011 Method of Boring Rotary
Depth 15 m W.T. Depth 2.70m
Type
Scale Depth
& SPT Legend Description of Soil
(m) (m)
Number
D1 0.5
1.0

2.0 SPT 2 2.0 (50/28)

3.0
SPT 3 3.5 (50/27)
4.0

5.0 SPT 4 5.0 (50/27)

6.0
SPT 5 6.5 (50/28)
7.0

8.0 Dense to very dense, brown, silty sand

9.0
SPT 6 9.5 (50/29)
10.0

11.0

12.0 SPT 7 12.0 (46)

13.0

14.0

15.0 SPT 8 15.0 (43)

U : Undisturbed Sample, D : Disturbed Sample, ( ) : SPT – Value

 Appendix B

SPT and DCPT Results

 SPT and DCPT Results
Zubair Oil Field Development Project / Phase 1
Site: Hammar DGS
BH or Test Pit No.: 1101
X ± 10m Y± 10m
UTM Coordinates:
750013 3375700

0 10 20 30 40 ≥ 50 60 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
0 0

5 5

10 10

15 15
Depth (m)

Depth (m)

20 20

25 25

30 30

35 35

40 40
SPT (N - Values) DCPT (PI)
 SPT and DCPT Results
Zubair Oil Field Development Project / Phase 1
Site: Hammar DGS
BH or Test Pit No.: 1102
X ± 10m Y± 10m
UTM Coordinates:
750197 3375491

0 10 20 30 40 ≥ 50 60 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
0 0

5 5

10 10

15 15
Depth (m)
Depth (m)

20 20

25 25

30 30

35 35

40 40
SPT (N - Values) DCPT (PI)
 SPT and DCPT Results
Zubair Oil Field Development Project / Phase 1
Site: Hammar DGS
BH or Test Pit No.: 1103
X ± 10m Y± 10m
UTM Coordinates:
750015 3375370

0 10 20 30 40 ≥ 50 60 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
0 0

5 5

10 10

15 15
Depth (m)
Depth (m)

20 20

25 25

30 30

35 35

40 40
SPT (N - Values) DCPT (PI)
 SPT and DCPT Results
Zubair Oil Field Development Project / Phase 1
Site: Hammar DGS
BH or Test Pit No.: 1104
X ± 10m Y± 10m
UTM Coordinates:
749797 3375602

0 10 20 30 40 ≥ 50 60 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
0 0

5 5

10 10

15 15
Depth (m)
Depth (m)

20 20

25 25

30 30

35 35

40 40
SPT (N - Values) DCPT (PI)
 SPT and DCPT Results
Zubair Oil Field Development Project / Phase 1
Site: Hammar DGS
BH or Test Pit No.: 1105
X ± 10m Y± 10m
UTM Coordinates:
749956 3375759

0 10 20 30 40 ≥ 50 60 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
0 0

5 5

10 10

15 15
Depth (m)
Depth (m)

20 20

25 25

30 30

35 35

40 40
SPT (N - Values) DCPT (PI)
 SPT and DCPT Results
Zubair Oil Field Development Project / Phase 1
Site: Hammar DGS
BH or Test Pit No.: 1106
X ± 10m Y± 10m
UTM Coordinates:
749877 3375711

0 10 20 30 40 ≥ 50 60 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
0 0

5 5

10 10

15 15
Depth (m)
Depth (m)

20 20

25 25

30 30

35 35

40 40
SPT (N - Values) DCPT (PI)
 SPT and DCPT Results
Zubair Oil Field Development Project / Phase 1
Site: Hammar DGS
BH or Test Pit No.: 1107
X ± 10m Y± 10m
UTM Coordinates:
749950 3375304

0 10 20 30 40 ≥ 50 60 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
0 0

5 5

10 10

15 15
Depth (m)
Depth (m)

20 20

25 25

30 30

35 35

40 40
SPT (N - Values) DCPT (PI)
 SPT and DCPT Results
Zubair Oil Field Development Project / Phase 1
Site: Hammar DGS
BH or Test Pit No.: 1108
X ± 10m Y± 10m
UTM Coordinates:
749913 3375449

0 10 20 30 40 ≥ 50 60 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
0 0

5 5

10 10

15 15
Depth (m)
Depth (m)

20 20

25 25

30 30

35 35

40 40
SPT (N - Values) DCPT (PI)
 SPT and DCPT Results
Zubair Oil Field Development Project / Phase 1
Site: Hammar DGS
BH or Test Pit No.: 1109
X ± 10m Y± 10m
UTM Coordinates:
749970 3375471

0 10 20 30 40 ≥ 50 60 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
0 0

5 5

10 10

15 15
Depth (m)

Depth (m)

20 20

25 25

30 30

35 35

40 40
SPT (N - Values) DCPT (PI)
 SPT and DCPT Results
Zubair Oil Field Development Project / Phase 1
Site: Hammar DGS
BH or Test Pit No.: 1110
X ± 10m Y± 10m
UTM Coordinates:
750023 3375432

0 10 20 30 40 ≥ 50 60 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
0 0

5 5

10 10

15 15
Depth (m)
Depth (m)

20 20

25 25

30 30

35 35

40 40
SPT (N - Values) DCPT (PI)
 SPT and DCPT Results
Zubair Oil Field Development Project / Phase 1
Site: Hammar DGS
BH or Test Pit No.: 1111
X ± 10m Y± 10m
UTM Coordinates:
750029 3375700

0 10 20 30 40 ≥ 50 60 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
0 0

5 5

10 10

15 15
Depth (m)

Depth (m)

20 20

25 25

30 30

35 35

40 40
SPT (N - Values) DCPT (PI)
 SPT and DCPT Results
Zubair Oil Field Development Project / Phase 1
Site: Hammar DGS
BH or Test Pit No.: 1112
X ± 10m Y± 10m
UTM Coordinates:
750197 3375491

0 10 20 30 40 ≥ 50 60 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
0 0

5 5

10 10

15 15
Depth (m)
Depth (m)

20 20

25 25

30 30

35 35

40 40
SPT (N - Values) DCPT (PI)
 SPT and DCPT Results
Zubair Oil Field Development Project / Phase 1
Site: Hammar DGS
BH or Test Pit No.: 1113
X ± 10m Y± 10m
UTM Coordinates:
750015 3375370

0 10 20 30 40 ≥ 50 60 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
0 0

5 5

10 10

15 15
Depth (m)
Depth (m)

20 20

25 25

30 30

35 35

40 40
SPT (N - Values) DCPT (PI)
 SPT and DCPT Results
Zubair Oil Field Development Project / Phase 1
Site: Hammar DGS
BH or Test Pit No.: 1114
X ± 10m Y± 10m
UTM Coordinates:
749797 3375602

0 10 20 30 40 ≥ 50 60 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
0 0

5 5

10 10

15 15
Depth (m)
Depth (m)

20 20

25 25

30 30

35 35

40 40
SPT (N - Values) DCPT (PI)
 SPT and DCPT Results
Zubair Oil Field Development Project / Phase 1
Site: Hammar DGS
BH or Test Pit No.: 1115
X ± 10m Y± 10m
UTM Coordinates:
749956 3375759

0 10 20 30 40 ≥ 50 60 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
0 0

5 5

10 10

15 15
Depth (m)
Depth (m)

20 20

25 25

30 30

35 35

40 40
SPT (N - Values) DCPT (PI)
 SPT and DCPT Results
Zubair Oil Field Development Project / Phase 1
Site: Hammar DGS
BH or Test Pit No.: 1116
X ± 10m Y± 10m
UTM Coordinates:
749854 3376328

0 10 20 30 40 ≥ 50 60 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
0 0

5 5

10 10

15 15
Depth (m)
Depth (m)

20 20

25 25

30 30

35 35

40 40
SPT (N - Values) DCPT (PI)
 SPT and DCPT Results
Zubair Oil Field Development Project / Phase 1
Site: Hammar DGS
BH or Test Pit No.: 1117
X ± 10m Y± 10m
UTM Coordinates:
750985 3375024

0 10 20 30 40 ≥ 50 60 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
0 0

5 5

10 10

15 15
Depth (m)
Depth (m)

20 20

25 25

30 30

35 35

40 40
SPT (N - Values) DCPT (PI)
 SPT and DCPT Results
Zubair Oil Field Development Project / Phase 1
Site: Hammar DGS
BH or Test Pit No.: 1118
X ± 10m Y± 10m
UTM Coordinates:
750709 3374850

0 10 20 30 40 ≥ 50 60 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
0 0

5 5

10 10

15 15
Depth (m)
Depth (m)

20 20

25 25

30 30

35 35

40 40
SPT (N - Values) DCPT (PI)
 SPT and DCPT Results
Zubair Oil Field Development Project / Phase 1
Site: Hammar DGS
BH or Test Pit No.: 1219
X ± 10m Y± 10m
UTM Coordinates:
750293 3374947

0 10 20 30 40 ≥ 50 60 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
0 0

5 5

10 10

15 15
Depth (m)
Depth (m)

20 20

25 25

30 30

35 35

40 40
SPT (N - Values) DCPT (PI)
 SPT and DCPT Results
Zubair Oil Field Development Project / Phase 1
Site: Hammar DGS
BH or Test Pit No.: 1220
X ± 10m Y± 10m
UTM Coordinates:
750327 3374796

0 10 20 30 40 ≥ 50 60 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
0 0

5 5

10 10

15 15
Depth (m)
Depth (m)

20 20

25 25

30 30

35 35

40 40
SPT (N - Values) DCPT (PI)
 SPT and DCPT Results
Zubair Oil Field Development Project / Phase 1
Site: Hammar DGS
BH or Test Pit No.: 1221
X ± 10m Y± 10m
UTM Coordinates:
749914 3374910

0 10 20 30 40 ≥ 50 60 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
0 0

5 5

10 10

15 15
Depth (m)
Depth (m)

20 20

25 25

30 30

35 35

40 40
SPT (N - Values) DCPT (PI)
 SPT and DCPT Results
Zubair Oil Field Development Project / Phase 1
Site: Hammar DGS
BH or Test Pit No.: 1222
X ± 10m Y± 10m
UTM Coordinates:
749872 3374811

0 10 20 30 40 ≥ 50 60 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
0 0

5 5

10 10

15 15
Depth (m)
Depth (m)

20 20

25 25

30 30

35 35

40 40
SPT (N - Values) DCPT (PI)
 SPT and DCPT Results
Zubair Oil Field Development Project / Phase 1
Site: Hammar DGS
BH or Test Pit No.: 1223
X ± 10m Y± 10m
UTM Coordinates:
749789 3375082

0 10 20 30 40 ≥ 50 60 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
0 0

5 5

10 10

15 15
Depth (m)
Depth (m)

20 20

25 25

30 30

35 35

40 40
SPT (N - Values) DCPT (PI)
 SPT and DCPT Results
Zubair Oil Field Development Project / Phase 1
Site: Hammar DGS
BH or Test Pit No.: 1224
X ± 10m Y± 10m
UTM Coordinates:
749817 3374987

0 10 20 30 40 ≥ 50 60 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
0 0

5 5

10 10

15 15
Depth (m)

Depth (m)

20 20

25 25

30 30

35 35

40 40
SPT (N - Values) DCPT (PI)
 SPT and DCPT Results
Zubair Oil Field Development Project / Phase 1
Site: Hammar DGS
BH or Test Pit No.: 1225
X ± 10m Y± 10m
UTM Coordinates:
749471 3375093

0 10 20 30 40 ≥ 50 60 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
0 0

5 5

10 10

15 15
Depth (m)
Depth (m)

20 20

25 25

30 30

35 35

40 40
SPT (N - Values) DCPT (PI)
 SPT and DCPT Results
Zubair Oil Field Development Project / Phase 1
Site: Hammar DGS
BH or Test Pit No.: 1226
X ± 10m Y± 10m
UTM Coordinates:
749223 3375112

0 10 20 30 40 ≥ 50 60 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
0 0

5 5

10 10

15 15
Depth (m)

Depth (m)

20 20

25 25

30 30

35 35

40 40
SPT (N - Values) DCPT (PI)
 SPT and DCPT Results
Zubair Oil Field Development Project / Phase 1
Site: Hammar DGS
BH or Test Pit No.: 1227
X ± 10m Y± 10m
UTM Coordinates:
749350 3375649

0 10 20 30 40 ≥ 50 60 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
0 0

5 5

10 10

15 15
Depth (m)
Depth (m)

20 20

25 25

30 30

35 35

40 40
SPT (N - Values) DCPT (PI)
 SPT and DCPT Results
Zubair Oil Field Development Project / Phase 1
Site: Hammar DGS
BH or Test Pit No.: 1228
X ± 10m Y± 10m
UTM Coordinates:
749488 3375661

0 10 20 30 40 ≥ 50 60 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
0 0

5 5

10 10

15 15
Depth (m)
Depth (m)

20 20

25 25

30 30

35 35

40 40
SPT (N - Values) DCPT (PI)
 SPT and DCPT Results
Zubair Oil Field Development Project / Phase 1
Site: Hammar DGS
BH or Test Pit No.: 1229
X ± 10m Y± 10m
UTM Coordinates:
749417 3375786

0 10 20 30 40 ≥ 50 60 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
0 0

5 5

10 10

15 15
Depth (m)
Depth (m)

20 20

25 25

30 30

35 35

40 40
SPT (N - Values) DCPT (PI)
 SPT and DCPT Results
Zubair Oil Field Development Project / Phase 1
Site: Hammar DGS
BH or Test Pit No.: 1230
X ± 10m Y± 10m
UTM Coordinates:
749361 3375934

0 10 20 30 40 ≥ 50 60 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
0 0

5 5

10 10

15 15
Depth (m)

Depth (m)

20 20

25 25

30 30

35 35

40 40
SPT (N - Values) DCPT (PI)
 SPT and DCPT Results
Zubair Oil Field Development Project / Phase 1
Site: Hammar DGS
BH or Test Pit No.: 1131
X ± 10m Y± 10m
UTM Coordinates:
750455 3375345

0 10 20 30 40 ≥ 50 60 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
0 0

5 5

10 10

15 15
Depth (m)
Depth (m)

20 20

25 25

30 30

35 35

40 40
SPT (N - Values) DCPT (PI)
 Appendix C

Lab Tests Results

 Zubair Oil Field Development Project / Phase 1
Site: Hammar DGS Borehole No.: 1101 Depth: 25m Date: 7 – 3 – 2011

Unit
Index Modified

Moisture Content
Specimen Depth (m) Weight Particle Size Analysis Unified Soil Classification System (USCS)
Properties Procter Test
(g /cm3)

Content %
Gravel %

Optimum
Max. Dry

Moisture
Sand %
Clay %

Symbol

Density
(g/cm3)
Silt %
LL %

PL %
From

PI %
Type

Bulk

Dry
No.

To

Description of Soil

1 D 0.5 1.0
2 SPT 2.0 2.5 15.8 1.91 1.65 46 29 25 SM Silty sand with gravel 1.99 10
3 SPT 3.5 4.0 18.1 2.00 1.69 19 78 3 SM Silty sand
4 SPT 5.0 5.5 20.0 2.08 1.73 17 56 27 SM Silty sand with gravel 2.04 11
5 SPT 6.5 7.0 20.2 2.03 1.69 27 70 3 SM Silty sand
6 SPT 9.0 9.5 23.7 2.13 1.72 16 71 13 SM Silty sand 2.03 9
7 SPT 12.0 12.5
8 SPT 14.5 15.0 18 74 8 SM Silty sand 1.98 11
9 SPT 17.5 18.0
10 SPT 20.0 20.5 21 72 7 SM Silty sand 1.96 10
11 SPT 22.5 23.0
12 SPT 25.0 25.5 19 76 5 SM Silty sand 2.01 11
 Zubair Oil Field Development Project / Phase 1
Site: Hammar DGS Borehole No.: 1101 Depth: 25m Date: 7 – 3 – 2011

Shear Strength Parameters

Permeability K (cm/s)
Specimen

Depth Consolidation Test Chemical Test Results Chemical Test Results

Triaxial
Unconf-

Shear
(UU)
ined

Test
Box
(m) VST Results (Soil) (Water)

x 10-6
× 10-3
CC × 10-3

Org. %
Cr × 10-3

Gyp %
CaCO3
SO4 %

(ppm)

(ppm)

(ppm)
(KPa)

(KPa)

(KPa)

(KPa)

(KPa)
From

Cl %
Type

TDS
SO4
ø°
No.

pH

pH
Cu
To

PC

Cl
C

e 0
1 D 0.5 1.0
2 SPT 2.0 2.5
3 SPT 3.5 4.0
4 SPT 5.0 5.5
5 SPT 6.5 7.0 7 39
6 SPT 9.0 9.5
7 SPT 12.0 12.5 2 43
8 SPT 14.5 15.0
9 SPT 17.5 18.0
10 SPT 20.0 20.5 4 40
11 SPT 22.5 23.0
12 SPT 25.0 25.5 3 40
 Zubair Oil Field Development Project / Phase 1
Site: Hammar DGS Borehole No.: 1102 Depth: 25m Date: 6 – 3 – 2011

Unit
Index Modified

Moisture Content
Specimen Depth (m) Weight Particle Size Analysis Unified Soil Classification System (USCS)
Properties Procter Test
(g /cm3)

Content %
Gravel %

Optimum
Max. Dry

Moisture
Sand %
Clay %

Symbol

Density
(g/cm3)
Silt %
LL %

PL %
From

PI %
Type

Bulk

Dry
No.

To

Description of Soil

1 SPT 1.0 1.5 17.7 1.89 1.61 16 82 2 SM Silty sand

2 SPT 2.5 3.0
3 D 4.0 4.5 23.6 2.03 1.64 12 85 3 SP Poorly graded sand with silt 1.94 14
4 SPT 5.0 5.5
5 SPT 6.5 7.0 20.3 2.07 1.72 13 75 12 SM Silty sand 2.03 10
6 SPT 9.5 10.0 22.8 2.06 1.68 2.04 10
7 SPT 12.5 13.0 24.2 2.12 1.71
8 SPT 15.5 16.0 19.6 2.00 1.67 13 82 5 SM Silty sand 2.04 11
9 SPT 18.0 18.5 22.6 2.04 1.66 17 83 0 SM Silty sand
10 SPT 21.0 21.5 1.98 13
11 D 23.0 23.5 19 78 3 SM Silty sand 2.01 10
12 SPT 25.0 25.5 26.2 2.09 1.66 16 80 4 SM Silty sand
 Zubair Oil Field Development Project / Phase 1
Site: Hammar DGS Borehole No.: 1102 Depth: 25m Date: 6 – 3 – 2011

Shear Strength Parameters

Permeability K (cm/s)
Specimen

Depth Consolidation Test Chemical Test Results Chemical Test Results

Triaxial
Unconf-

Shear
(UU)
ined

Test
Box
(m) VST Results (Soil) (Water)

x 10-6
× 10-3
CC × 10-3

Org. %
Cr × 10-3

Gyp %
CaCO3
SO4 %

(ppm)

(ppm)

(ppm)
(KPa)

(KPa)

(KPa)

(KPa)

(KPa)
From

Cl %
Type

TDS
SO4
ø°
No.

pH

pH
Cu
To

PC

Cl
C

e 0
1 SPT 1.0 1.5 4960 36400 1980 7.0
2 SPT 2.5 3.0
3 D 4.0 4.5 5 38
4 SPT 5.0 5.5
5 SPT 6.5 7.0
6 SPT 9.5 10.0 4 39
7 SPT 12.5 13.0
8 SPT 15.5 16.0
9 SPT 18.0 18.5 4 41
10 SPT 21.0 21.5
11 D 23.0 23.5 3 40
12 SPT 25.0 25.5
 Zubair Oil Field Development Project / Phase 1
Site: Hammar DGS Borehole No.: 1103 Depth: 25m Date: 5 – 3 – 2011

Unit
Index Modified

Moisture Content
Specimen Depth (m) Weight Particle Size Analysis Unified Soil Classification System (USCS)
Properties Procter Test
(g /cm3)

Content %
Gravel %

Optimum
Max. Dry

Moisture
Sand %
Clay %

Symbol

Density
(g/cm3)
Silt %
LL %

PL %
From

PI %
Type

Bulk

Dry
No.

To

Description of Soil

1 D 1.0 1.5 18.6 2.01 1.69 2.01 10

2 SPT 2.5 3.0 17.4 2.16 1.84 11 85 4 SP Poorly graded sand with silt
3 SPT 4.0 4.5 19.7 1.97 1.65 10 87 3 SP Poorly graded sand with silt 1.97 13
4 SPT 5.5 6.0 22.3 2.01 1.64 12 81 7 SP Poorly graded sand with silt
5 SPT 7.0 7.5 23.3 2.06 1.67 12 80 8 SP Poorly graded sand with silt 1.99 11
6 SPT 10.0 10.5 25.1 2.11 1.69
7 SPT 13.0 13.5 15 75 10 SM Silty sand 2.03 10
8 SPT 16.0 16.5 21 73 6 SM Silty sand
9 SPT 19.0 19.5 2.00 12
10 SPT 22.0 22.5 18 77 5 SM Silty sand
11 SPT 25.0 25.5 1.95 11
 Zubair Oil Field Development Project / Phase 1
Site: Hammar DGS Borehole No.: 1103 Depth: 25m Date: 5 – 3 – 2011

Shear Strength Parameters

Permeability K (cm/s)
Specimen

Depth Consolidation Test Chemical Test Results Chemical Test Results

Triaxial
Unconf-

Shear
(UU)
ined

Test
Box
(m) VST Results (Soil) (Water)

x 10-6
× 10-3
CC × 10-3

Org. %
Cr × 10-3

Gyp %
CaCO3
SO4 %

(ppm)

(ppm)

(ppm)
(KPa)

(KPa)

(KPa)

(KPa)

(KPa)
From

Cl %
Type

TDS
SO4
ø°
No.

pH

pH
Cu
To

PC

Cl
C

e 0
1 D 1.0 1.5 6 37
2 SPT 2.5 3.0
3 SPT 4.0 4.5
4 SPT 5.5 6.0 0 44
5 SPT 7.0 7.5
6 SPT 10.0 10.5
7 SPT 13.0 13.5 3 42
8 SPT 16.0 16.5
9 SPT 19.0 19.5
10 SPT 22.0 22.5 4 38
11 SPT 25.0 25.5
 Zubair Oil Field Development Project / Phase 1
Site: Hammar DGS Borehole No.: 1104 Depth: 25m Date: 5 – 2 – 2011

Unit
Index Modified

Moisture Content
Specimen Depth (m) Weight Particle Size Analysis Unified Soil Classification System (USCS)
Properties Procter Test
(g /cm3)

Content %
Gravel %

Optimum
Max. Dry

Moisture
Sand %
Clay %

Symbol

Density
(g/cm3)
Silt %
LL %

PL %
From

PI %
Type

Bulk

Dry
No.

To

Description of Soil

1 D 1.0 1.5 14.1 1.95 1.71 1.93 12

2 SPT 2.5 3.0 19.6 1.98 1.66 12 88 0 SP Poorly graded sand with silt
3 SPT 4.0 4.5 19.3 2.00 1.68 17 79 4 SM Silty sand 1.97 14
4 SPT 5.5 6.0 20.7 2.02 1.67 12 85 3 SP Poorly graded sand with silt
5 SPT 8.5 9.0 23.4 2.09 1.69 13 82 5 SM Silty sand 2.01 10
6 SPT 11.5 12.0 22.5 2.01 1.64 24 73 3 SM Silty sand
7 SPT 14.5 15.0 26.4 2.07 1.64 26 71 3 SM Silty sand 1.99 10
8 SPT 17.5 18.0 20.8 2.18 1.80 16 78 6 SM Silty sand
9 SPT 20.0 20.5 24.2 2.08 1.67 15 80 5 SM Silty sand
10 D 22.5 23.0 25.1 2.14 1.71 1.93 11
11 SPT 25.0 25.5 22.9 2.09 1.70 13 79 8 SM Silty sand
 Zubair Oil Field Development Project / Phase 1
Site: Hammar DGS Borehole No.: 1104 Depth: 25m Date: 7 – 3 – 2011

Shear Strength Parameters

Permeability K (cm/s)
Specimen

Depth Consolidation Test Chemical Test Results Chemical Test Results

Triaxial
Unconf-

Shear
(UU)
ined

Test
Box
(m) VST Results (Soil) (Water)

x 10-6
× 10-3
CC × 10-3

Org. %
Cr × 10-3

Gyp %
CaCO3
SO4 %

(ppm)

(ppm)

(ppm)
(KPa)

(KPa)

(KPa)

(KPa)

(KPa)
From

Cl %
Type

TDS
SO4
ø°
No.

pH

pH
Cu
To

PC

Cl
C

e 0
1 D 1.0 1.5
2 SPT 2.5 3.0 5 34
3 SPT 4.0 4.5
4 SPT 5.5 6.0
5 SPT 8.5 9.0 4 36
6 SPT 11.5 12.0
7 SPT 14.5 15.0
8 SPT 17.5 18.0 3 40
9 SPT 20.0 20.5
10 D 22.5 23.0 5 37
11 SPT 25.0 25.5
 Zubair Oil Field Development Project / Phase 1
Site: Hammar DGS Borehole No.: 1105 Depth: 25m Date: 5 – 3 – 2011

Unit
Index Modified

Moisture Content
Specimen Depth (m) Weight Particle Size Analysis Unified Soil Classification System (USCS)
Properties Procter Test
(g /cm3)

Content %
Gravel %

Optimum
Max. Dry

Moisture
Sand %
Clay %

Symbol

Density
(g/cm3)
Silt %
LL %

PL %
From

PI %
Type

Bulk

Dry
No.

To

Description of Soil

1 D 0.5 1.0
2 SPT 1.0 1.5 16.3 1.98 1.70 24 73 3 SM Silty sand 2.00 12
3 SPT 3.0 3.5 20.1 2.06 1.72
4 SPT 4.5 5.0 19.8 2.09 1.74 12 85 3 SP Poorly graded sand with silt 2.04 10
5 SPT 6.0 6.5 18.9 2.01 1.69 10 84 6 SP Poorly graded sand with silt
6 SPT 9.0 9.5 24.2 2.11 1.70 2.05 12
7 SPT 12.0 12.5 22.9 2.00 1.63 16 84 0 SM Silty sand
8 SPT 15.0 15.5 20.7 1.99 1.65
9 SPT 18.0 18.5 19.0 1.98 1.66 14 81 5 SM Silty sand 1.98 14
10 SPT 20.5 21.0
11 D 23.0 23.5 18 76 6 SM Silty sand 1.96 12
12 SPT 25.0 25.5 23.6 2.04 1.65 13 83 4 SM Silty sand
 Zubair Oil Field Development Project / Phase 1
Site: Hammar DGS Borehole No.: 1105 Depth: 25m Date: 5 – 3 – 2011

Shear Strength Parameters

Permeability K (cm/s)
Specimen

Depth Consolidation Test Chemical Test Results Chemical Test Results

Triaxial
Unconf-

Shear
(UU)
ined

Test
Box
(m) VST Results (Soil) (Water)

x 10-6
× 10-3
CC × 10-3

Org. %
Cr × 10-3

Gyp %
CaCO3
SO4 %

(ppm)

(ppm)

(ppm)
(KPa)

(KPa)

(KPa)

(KPa)

(KPa)
From

Cl %
Type

TDS
SO4
ø°
No.

pH

pH
Cu
To

PC

Cl
C

e 0
1 D 0.5 1.0
2 SPT 1.0 1.5
3 SPT 3.0 3.5 2 43
4 SPT 4.5 5.0
5 SPT 6.0 6.5
6 SPT 9.0 9.5 4 42
7 SPT 12.0 12.5
8 SPT 15.0 15.5
9 SPT 18.0 18.5 5 38
10 SPT 20.5 21.0
11 D 23.0 23.5 4 39
12 SPT 25.0 25.5
 Zubair Oil Field Development Project / Phase 1
Site: Hammar DGS Borehole No.: 1106 Depth: 25m Date: 5 – 3 – 2011

Unit
Index Modified

Moisture Content
Specimen Depth (m) Weight Particle Size Analysis Unified Soil Classification System (USCS)
Properties Procter Test
(g /cm3)

Content %
Gravel %

Optimum
Max. Dry

Moisture
Sand %
Clay %

Symbol

Density
(g/cm3)
Silt %
LL %

PL %
From

PI %
Type

Bulk

Dry
No.

To

Description of Soil

1 D 0.5 1.0
2 SPT 1.5 2.0 16.2 1.95 1.68 23 77 0 SM Silty sand
3 SPT 3.0 3.5 22.3 2.10 1.72 1.94 12
4 SPT 4.5 5.0 23.4 2.16 1.75 20 74 6 SM Silty sand
5 SPT 6.0 6.5 26.7 2.19 1.73 2.07 11
6 SPT 9.0 9.5 21.4 2.17 1.79 14 79 7 SM Silty sand
7 SPT 12.0 12.5 22.9 2.11 1.72
8 D 14.5 15.0 23.7 2.09 1.69 19 77 4 SM Silty sand 2.01 12
9 SPT 17.0 17.5
10 SPT 20.0 20.5 25.1 2.14 1.71 23 72 5 SM Silty sand 2.03 10
11 SPT 22.5 23.0 23.2 2.06 1.67
12 SPT 25.0 25.5 23.4 2.01 1.63 15 81 4 SM Silty sand 1.92 13
 Zubair Oil Field Development Project / Phase 1
Site: Hammar DGS Borehole No.: 1106 Depth: 25m Date: 5 – 3 – 2011

Shear Strength Parameters

Permeability K (cm/s)
Specimen

Depth Consolidation Test Chemical Test Results Chemical Test Results

Triaxial
Unconf-

Shear
(UU)
ined

Test
Box
(m) VST Results (Soil) (Water)

x 10-6
× 10-3
CC × 10-3

Org. %
Cr × 10-3

Gyp %
CaCO3
SO4 %

(ppm)

(ppm)

(ppm)
(KPa)

(KPa)

(KPa)

(KPa)

(KPa)
From

Cl %
Type

TDS
SO4
ø°
No.

pH

pH
Cu
To

PC

Cl
C

e 0
1 D 0.5 1.0 4 40
2 SPT 1.5 2.0
3 SPT 3.0 3.5
4 SPT 4.5 5.0
5 SPT 6.0 6.5 3 41
6 SPT 9.0 9.5
7 SPT 12.0 12.5
8 D 14.5 15.0 4 41
9 SPT 17.0 17.5
10 SPT 20.0 20.5
11 SPT 22.5 23.0 3 38
12 SPT 25.0 25.5
 Zubair Oil Field Development Project / Phase 1
Site: Hammar DGS Borehole No.: 1107 Depth: 40m Date: 3 – 3 – 2011

Unit
Index Modified

Moisture Content
Specimen Depth (m) Weight Particle Size Analysis Unified Soil Classification System (USCS)
Properties Procter Test
(g /cm3)

Content %
Gravel %

Optimum
Max. Dry

Moisture
Sand %
Clay %

Symbol

Density
(g/cm3)
Silt %
LL %

PL %
From

PI %
Type

Bulk

Dry
No.

To

Description of Soil

1 SPT 1.0 1.5 18.8 1.92 1.62 14 81 5 SM Silty sand

2 SPT 2.5 3.0 20.3 2.02 1.68 11 86 3 SP Poorly graded sand with silt 2.01 12
3 SPT 4.5 5.0 21.6 2.04 1.68 12 85 3 SP Poorly graded sand with silt
4 SPT 6.0 6.5 18.3 2.07 1.75 10 87 3 SP Poorly graded sand with silt 2.05 10
5 SPT 9.0 9.5 24.2 2.16 1.74 12 52 36 SP Poorly graded sand with silt and gravel
6 SPT 12.0 12.5 23.9 2.19 1.77 11 54 35 SP Poorly graded sand with silt and gravel 2.10 10
7 SPT 15.0 15.5 20.2 2.09 1.74 8 85 7 SP Poorly graded sand with silt
8 SPT 18.0 18.5 19.6 2.09 1.75 12 64 24 SP Poorly graded sand with silt and gravel 2.03 11
9 SPT 21.0 21.5 21.2 2.08 1.72
10 SPT 24.0 24.5 24.4 2.15 1.73 9 91 0 SP Poorly graded sand with silt 2.03 12
11 SPT 27.0 27.5 18.5 2.07 1.75 14 82 4 SM Silty sand
12 D 29.0 29.5 22.9 2.11 1.72 1.95 14
13 SPT 31.5 32.0 19.1 2.10 1.76 13 81 6 SM Silty sand
14 D 33.5 34.0 21.7 2.11 1.73 14 82 4 SM Silty sand 1.89 16
15 SPT 36.0 36.5 19.8 2.07 1.73
16 SPT 38.0 38.5 14 79 7 SM Silty sand 1.94 13
17 SPT 40.0 40.5 15 77 8 SM Silty sand
 Zubair Oil Field Development Project / Phase 1
Site: Hammar DGS Borehole No.: 1107 Depth: 40m Date: 3 – 3 – 2011

Shear Strength Parameters

Permeability K (cm/s)
Specimen

Depth Consolidation Test Chemical Test Results Chemical Test Results

Triaxial
Unconf-

Shear
(UU)
ined

Test
Box
(m) VST Results (Soil) (Water)

x 10-6
× 10-3
CC × 10-3

Org. %
Cr × 10-3

Gyp %
CaCO3
SO4 %

(ppm)

(ppm)

(ppm)
(KPa)

(KPa)

(KPa)

(KPa)

(KPa)
From

Cl %
Type

TDS
SO4
ø°
No.

pH

pH
Cu
To

PC

Cl
C

e 0
1 SPT 1.0 1.5
2 SPT 2.5 3.0 1.03 7.12 3.62 0.11 3.78 6.8
3 SPT 4.5 5.0 7 38
4 SPT 6.0 6.5
5 SPT 9.0 9.5
6 SPT 12.0 12.5 3 41
7 SPT 15.0 15.5 0.81 6.19 1.43 0.09 1.02 7.1
8 SPT 18.0 18.5 0.60 9.82 1.07 0.11 0.71 6.8
9 SPT 21.0 21.5 3 36 0.91 8.15 1.26 0.17 0.46 6.7
10 SPT 24.0 24.5
11 SPT 27.0 27.5 0.71 8.63 1.27 0.12 0.51 6.8
12 D 29.0 29.5 4 40
13 SPT 31.5 32.0
14 D 33.5 34.0 5 38 0.97 9.62 2.87 0.08 0.44 6.8
15 SPT 36.0 36.5
16 SPT 38.0 38.5 3 39
17 SPT 40.0 40.5
 Zubair Oil Field Development Project / Phase 1
Site: Hammar DGS Borehole No.: 1108 Depth: 40m Date: 3 – 3 – 2011

Unit
Index Modified

Moisture Content
Specimen Depth (m) Weight Particle Size Analysis Unified Soil Classification System (USCS)
Properties Procter Test
(g /cm3)

Content %
Gravel %

Optimum
Max. Dry

Moisture
Sand %
Clay %

Symbol

Density
(g/cm3)
Silt %
LL %

PL %
From

PI %
Type

Bulk

Dry
No.

To

Description of Soil

1 D 1.0 1.5 1.91 13

2 SPT 2.5 3.0 14.9 1.96 1.71 11 76 13 SP Poorly graded sand with silt
3 SPT 4.0 4.5 21.8 2.11 1.73 13 83 4 SM Silty sand 2.03 11
4 SPT 5.5 6.0 17.7 2.04 1.73 17 76 7 SM Silty sand
5 SPT 8.5 9.0 26.3 2.21 1.75 2.05 12
6 SPT 11.5 12.0 26.6 2.20 1.74 12 88 0 SP Poorly graded sand with silt
7 SPT 14.5 15.0 1.98 14
8 SPT 17.5 18.0 8 63 29 SP Poorly graded sand with silt and gravel
9 SPT 20.5 21.0 21.2 2.12 1.75
10 D 23.0 23.5 15 79 6 SM Silty sand 1.95 13
11 SPT 25.0 25.5 19.6 2.05 1.71
12 SPT 28.0 28.5 17 78 5 SM Silty sand 1.92 16
13 SPT 31.0 31.5
14 SPT 34.0 34.5 20 76 4 SM Silty sand 1.89 15
15 SPT 37.0 37.5
16 SPT 40.0 40.5 19 75 6 SM Silty sand 1.94 13
 Zubair Oil Field Development Project / Phase 1
Site: Hammar DGS Borehole No.: 1108 Depth: 40m Date: 3 – 3 – 2011

Shear Strength Parameters

Permeability K (cm/s)
Specimen

Depth Consolidation Test Chemical Test Results Chemical Test Results

Triaxial
Unconf-

Shear
(UU)
ined

Test
Box
(m) VST Results (Soil) (Water)

x 10-6
× 10-3
CC × 10-3

Org. %
Cr × 10-3

Gyp %
CaCO3
SO4 %

(ppm)

(ppm)

(ppm)
(KPa)

(KPa)

(KPa)

(KPa)

(KPa)
From

Cl %
Type

TDS
SO4
ø°
No.

pH

pH
Cu
To

PC

Cl
C

e 0
1 D 1.0 1.5 4 38 645 5430 39300 2450 7.0
2 SPT 2.5 3.0
3 SPT 4.0 4.5 745
4 SPT 5.5 6.0 4 40
5 SPT 8.5 9.0
6 SPT 11.5 12.0
7 SPT 14.5 15.0 3 39
8 SPT 17.5 18.0
9 SPT 20.5 21.0
10 D 23.0 23.5 5 37
11 SPT 25.0 25.5
12 SPT 28.0 28.5
13 SPT 31.0 31.5 4 41
14 SPT 34.0 34.5
15 SPT 37.0 37.5
16 SPT 40.0 40.5 2 41
 Zubair Oil Field Development Project / Phase 1
Site: Hammar DGS Borehole No.: 1109 Depth: 25m Date: 5 – 3 – 2011

Unit
Index Modified

Moisture Content
Specimen Depth (m) Weight Particle Size Analysis Unified Soil Classification System (USCS)
Properties Procter Test
(g /cm3)

Content %
Gravel %

Optimum
Max. Dry

Moisture
Sand %
Clay %

Symbol

Density
(g/cm3)
Silt %
LL %

PL %
From

PI %
Type

Bulk

Dry
No.

To

Description of Soil

1 SPT 0.5 1.0 18.9 1.92 1.62 13 84 3 SM Silty sand

2 SPT 2.0 2.5 20.5 2.04 1.69 15 73 12 SM Silty sand 1.97 12
3 SPT 3.5 4.0 20.6 2.05 1.70 17 79 4 SM Silty sand 2.00 12
4 SPT 5.0 5.5
5 SPT 6.5 7.0 15.8 2.06 1.78 14 76 10 SM Silty sand 2.06 10
6 SPT 9.5 10.0 16.8 2.07 1.77 33 62 5 SM Silty sand
7 SPT 12.0 12.5
8 D 14.0 14.5 18.9 2.05 1.72 23 73 4 SM Silty sand 1.97 11
9 SPT 16.0 16.5
10 SPT 19.0 19.5 21.7 2.07 1.70 18 77 5 SM Silty sand 1.91 13
11 SPT 22.0 22.5
12 SPT 25.0 25.5 19.8 2.06 1.72 21 70 9 SM Silty sand 1.95 12
 Zubair Oil Field Development Project / Phase 1
Site: Hammar DGS Borehole No.: 1109 Depth: 25m Date: 5 – 3 – 2011

Shear Strength Parameters

Permeability K (cm/s)
Specimen

Depth Consolidation Test Chemical Test Results Chemical Test Results

Triaxial
Unconf-

Shear
(UU)
ined

Test
Box
(m) VST Results (Soil) (Water)

x 10-6
× 10-3
CC × 10-3

Org. %
Cr × 10-3

Gyp %
CaCO3
SO4 %

(ppm)

(ppm)

(ppm)
(KPa)

(KPa)

(KPa)

(KPa)

(KPa)
From

Cl %
Type

TDS
SO4
ø°
No.

pH

pH
Cu
To

PC

Cl
C

e 0
1 SPT 0.5 1.0
2 SPT 2.0 2.5
3 SPT 3.5 4.0 4 42
4 SPT 5.0 5.5
5 SPT 6.5 7.0
6 SPT 9.5 10.0 9 43
7 SPT 12.0 12.5
8 D 14.0 14.5 6 38
9 SPT 16.0 16.5
10 SPT 19.0 19.5
11 SPT 22.0 22.5 5 39
12 SPT 25.0 25.5
 Zubair Oil Field Development Project / Phase 1
Site: Hammar DGS Borehole No.: 1110 Depth: 25m Date: 5 – 3 – 2011

Unit
Index Modified

Moisture Content
Specimen Depth (m) Weight Particle Size Analysis Unified Soil Classification System (USCS)
Properties Procter Test
(g /cm3)

Content %
Gravel %

Optimum
Max. Dry

Moisture
Sand %
Clay %

Symbol

Density
(g/cm3)
Silt %
LL %

PL %
From

PI %
Type

Bulk

Dry
No.

To

Description of Soil

1 SPT 1.0 1.5 15 76 9 SM Silty sand 1.90 12

2 SPT 2.5 3.0 15.3 2.03 1.76
3 SPT 4.0 4.5 17.6 2.07 1.76 17 80 3 SM Silty sand 1.97 13
4 SPT 5.5 6.0 16.6 2.08 1.78
5 SPT 8.5 9.0 18.9 2.08 1.75 13 81 6 SM Silty sand 2.02 10
6 SPT 11.5 12.0 19.5 2.04 1.71 15 71 14 SM Silty sand
7 SPT 14.5 15.0 1.99 10
8 SPT 17.5 18.0 21.8 2.03 1.67 16 76 8 SM Silty sand
9 SPT 20.5 21.0 1.95 12
10 SPT 23.0 23.5 23.1 2.03 1.65 21 72 7 SM Silty sand
11 SPT 25.0 25.5 19 71 10 SM Silty sand 1.98 11
 Zubair Oil Field Development Project / Phase 1
Site: Hammar DGS Borehole No.: 1110 Depth: 25m Date: 5 – 3 – 2011

Shear Strength Parameters

Permeability K (cm/s)
Specimen

Depth Consolidation Test Chemical Test Results Chemical Test Results

Triaxial
Unconf-

Shear
(UU)
ined

Test
Box
(m) VST Results (Soil) (Water)

x 10-6
× 10-3
CC × 10-3

Org. %
Cr × 10-3

Gyp %
CaCO3
SO4 %

(ppm)

(ppm)

(ppm)
(KPa)

(KPa)

(KPa)

(KPa)

(KPa)
From

Cl %
Type

TDS
SO4
ø°
No.

pH

pH
Cu
To

PC

Cl
C

e 0
1 SPT 1.0 1.5
2 SPT 2.5 3.0 4 44
3 SPT 4.0 4.5
4 SPT 5.5 6.0
5 SPT 8.5 9.0 3 42
6 SPT 11.5 12.0
7 SPT 14.5 15.0
8 SPT 17.5 18.0 5 39
9 SPT 20.5 21.0
10 SPT 23.0 23.5
11 SPT 25.0 25.5 6 39
 Zubair Oil Field Development Project / Phase 1
Site: Hammar DGS Borehole No.: 1111 Depth: 40m Date: 6 – 3 – 2011

Unit
Index Modified

Moisture Content
Specimen Depth (m) Weight Particle Size Analysis Unified Soil Classification System (USCS)
Properties Procter Test
(g /cm3)

Content %
Gravel %

Optimum
Max. Dry

Moisture
Sand %
Clay %

Symbol

Density
(g/cm3)
Silt %
LL %

PL %
From

PI %
Type

Bulk

Dry
No.

To

Description of Soil

1 SPT 1.0 1.5 16.1 1.92 1.65 12 77 11 SP Poorly graded sand with silt
2 SPT 2.5 3.0 19.9 2.12 1.77 1.99 13
3 SPT 4.5 5.0 11 86 3 SP Poorly graded sand with silt
4 SPT 6.0 6.5 24.8 2.17 1.74 12 84 4 SP Poorly graded sand with silt 2.01 11
5 SPT 9.0 9.5 19.4 2.09 1.75
6 SPT 12.0 12.5 21.1 2.10 1.73 11 79 10 SP Poorly graded sand with silt 2.03 12
7 SPT 15.0 15.5 20.3 2.05 1.70 9 76 15 SP Poorly graded sand with silt and gravel
8 SPT 18.0 18.5 18.7 2.04 1.72 14 77 9 SM Silty sand 1.96 13
9 SPT 21.0 21.5 19.1 2.01 1.69 16 81 3 SM Silty sand
10 SPT 24.0 24.5 21.6 2.08 1.71 13 84 3 SM Silty sand 1.93 15
11 SPT 27.0 27.5 25.2 2.09 1.67 13 87 0 SM Silty sand
12 D 29.0 29.5 1.92 14
13 SPT 31.5 32.0 22.4 2.06 1.68 11 89 0 SP Poorly graded sand with silt
14 SPT 34.5 35.0 19.1 2.03 1.70 1.95 15
15 SPT 37.5 38.0 8 86 6 SP Poorly graded sand with silt
16 SPT 40.0 40.5 23.5 2.09 1.69 1.97 13
 Zubair Oil Field Development Project / Phase 1
Site: Hammar DGS Borehole No.: 1111 Depth: 40m Date: 6 – 3 – 2011

Shear Strength Parameters

Permeability K (cm/s)
Specimen

Depth Consolidation Test Chemical Test Results Chemical Test Results

Triaxial
Unconf-

Shear
(UU)
ined

Test
Box
(m) VST Results (Soil) (Water)

x 10-6
× 10-3
CC × 10-3

Org. %
Cr × 10-3

Gyp %
CaCO3
SO4 %

(ppm)

(ppm)

(ppm)
(KPa)

(KPa)

(KPa)

(KPa)

(KPa)
From

Cl %
Type

TDS
SO4
ø°
No.

pH

pH
Cu
To

PC

Cl
C

e 0
1 SPT 1.0 1.5 4 39
2 SPT 2.5 3.0
3 SPT 4.5 5.0 1.17 9.12 4.80 0.10 2.19 7.0
4 SPT 6.0 6.5 541
5 SPT 9.0 9.5 3 43 0.98 8.76 1.58 0.10 1.76 6.8
6 SPT 12.0 12.5
7 SPT 15.0 15.5 2 39 0.79 8.13 1.07 0.08 1.82 6.9
8 SPT 18.0 18.5
9 SPT 21.0 21.5 4 41
10 SPT 24.0 24.5 0.83 9.11 1.31 0.13 0.93 6.9
11 SPT 27.0 27.5
12 D 29.0 29.5 5 39
13 SPT 31.5 32.0 0.86 7.62 1.18 0.09 0.62 6.8
14 SPT 34.5 35.0 3 36
15 SPT 37.5 38.0
16 SPT 40.0 40.5 2 40
 Zubair Oil Field Development Project / Phase 1
Site: Hammar DGS Borehole No.: 1112 Depth: 40m Date: 7 – 3 – 2011

Unit
Index Modified

Moisture Content
Specimen Depth (m) Weight Particle Size Analysis Unified Soil Classification System (USCS)
Properties Procter Test
(g /cm3)

Content %
Gravel %

Optimum
Max. Dry

Moisture
Sand %
Clay %

Symbol

Density
(g/cm3)
Silt %
LL %

PL %
From

PI %
Type

Bulk

Dry
No.

To

Description of Soil

1 SPT 1.0 1.5 10.3 1.82 1.65 15 81 4 SM Silty sand

2 D 2.5 3.0 15.4 1.87 1.62 16 72 12 SM Silty sand 1.94 11
3 SPT 4.0 4.5 20.3 1.98 1.65 18 75 7 SM Silty sand
4 SPT 5.5 6.0 17.2 2.02 1.72 28 67 5 SM Silty sand 1.96 13
5 SPT 8.5 9.0 20.1 2.03 1.69 33 61 6 SM Silty sand
6 SPT 11.5 12.0 16.9 2.03 1.74 16 81 3 SM Silty sand 1.99 10
7 SPT 14.5 15.0
8 SPT 17.5 18.0 20.4 2.07 1.72 15 80 5 SM Silty sand 1.92 12
9 SPT 20.5 21.0
10 SPT 23.5 24.0 18.7 2.07 1.74 19 77 4 SM Silty sand 1.95 12
11 SPT 26.5 27.0 19.5 2.08 1.74 16 84 0 SM Silty sand
12 SPT 29.5 30.0 21.0 2.09 1.73 14 81 5 SM Silty sand 1.93 14
13 SPT 32.5 33.0
14 SPT 34.5 35.0 20.9 2.12 1.75 14 82 4 SM Silty sand 1.96 11
15 SPT 37.0 37.5
16 SPT 40.0 40.5 22.1 2.11 1.73 13 82 5 SM Silty sand 1.95 12
 Zubair Oil Field Development Project / Phase 1
Site: Hammar DGS Borehole No.: 1112 Depth: 40m Date: 7 – 3 – 2011

Shear Strength Parameters

Permeability K (cm/s)
Specimen

Depth Consolidation Test Chemical Test Results Chemical Test Results

Triaxial
Unconf-

Shear
(UU)
ined

Test
Box
(m) VST Results (Soil) (Water)

x 10-6
× 10-3
CC × 10-3

Org. %
Cr × 10-3

Gyp %
CaCO3
SO4 %

(ppm)

(ppm)

(ppm)
(KPa)

(KPa)

(KPa)

(KPa)

(KPa)
From

Cl %
Type

TDS
SO4
ø°
No.

pH

pH
Cu
To

PC

Cl
C

e 0
1 SPT 1.0 1.5
2 D 2.5 3.0 4 37
3 SPT 4.0 4.5
4 SPT 5.5 6.0
5 SPT 8.5 9.0 6 38
6 SPT 11.5 12.0
7 SPT 14.5 15.0
8 SPT 17.5 18.0 3 40
9 SPT 20.5 21.0
10 SPT 23.5 24.0
11 SPT 26.5 27.0 4 38
12 SPT 29.5 30.0
13 SPT 32.5 33.0
14 SPT 34.5 35.0 2 39
15 SPT 37.0 37.5
16 SPT 40.0 40.5
 Zubair Oil Field Development Project / Phase 1
Site: Hammar DGS Borehole No.: 1113 Depth: 25m Date: 5 – 3 – 2011

Unit
Index Modified

Moisture Content
Specimen Depth (m) Weight Particle Size Analysis Unified Soil Classification System (USCS)
Properties Procter Test
(g /cm3)

Content %
Gravel %

Optimum
Max. Dry

Moisture
Sand %
Clay %

Symbol

Density
(g/cm3)
Silt %
LL %

PL %
From

PI %
Type

Bulk

Dry
No.

To

Description of Soil

1 SPT 0.5 1.0 13.3 1.85 1.63 20 77 3 SM Silty sand 1.94 14

2 SPT 2.0 2.5 16.0 1.95 1.68 23 72 5 SM Silty sand
3 SPT 3.5 4.0 2.04 10
4 SPT 5.0 5.5 20.4 2.06 1.71 33 60 7 SM Silty sand
5 SPT 7.0 7.5 21.5 2.05 1.69 1.97 12
6 SPT 10.0 10.5 21.2 2.06 1.70 40 60 0 SM Silty sand
7 SPT 13.0 13.5 1.95 11
8 SPT 16.0 16.5 22.6 2.08 1.70 19 74 7 SM Silty sand
9 SPT 19.0 19.5 1.97 13
10 SPT 22.0 22.5 21.9 2.05 1.68 21 74 5 SM Silty sand
11 SPT 25.0 25.5 16 77 7 SM Silty sand 1.93 15
 Zubair Oil Field Development Project / Phase 1
Site: Hammar DGS Borehole No.: 1113 Depth: 25m Date: 5 – 3 – 2011

Shear Strength Parameters

Permeability K (cm/s)
Specimen

Depth Consolidation Test Chemical Test Results Chemical Test Results

Triaxial
Unconf-

Shear
(UU)
ined

Test
Box
(m) VST Results (Soil) (Water)

x 10-6
× 10-3
CC × 10-3

Org. %
Cr × 10-3

Gyp %
CaCO3
SO4 %

(ppm)

(ppm)

(ppm)
(KPa)

(KPa)

(KPa)

(KPa)

(KPa)
From

Cl %
Type

TDS
SO4
ø°
No.

pH

pH
Cu
To

PC

Cl
C

e 0
1 SPT 0.5 1.0
2 SPT 2.0 2.5 6 33
3 SPT 3.5 4.0
4 SPT 5.0 5.5
5 SPT 7.0 7.5 7 37
6 SPT 10.0 10.5
7 SPT 13.0 13.5
8 SPT 16.0 16.5 4 40
9 SPT 19.0 19.5
10 SPT 22.0 22.5 5 39
11 SPT 25.0 25.5
 Zubair Oil Field Development Project / Phase 1
Site: Hammar DGS Borehole No.: 1114 Depth: 25m Date: 5 – 3 – 2011

Unit
Index Modified

Moisture Content
Specimen Depth (m) Weight Particle Size Analysis Unified Soil Classification System (USCS)
Properties Procter Test
(g /cm3)

Content %
Gravel %

Optimum
Max. Dry

Moisture
Sand %
Clay %

Symbol

Density
(g/cm3)
Silt %
LL %

PL %
From

PI %
Type

Bulk

Dry
No.

To

Description of Soil

1 D 1.0 1.5 15.0 1.89 1.64 10 77 13 SP Poorly graded sand with silt 1.97 12
2 SPT 2.5 3.0 18.2 1.91 1.62 11 82 7 SP Poorly graded sand with silt 1.94 14
3 SPT 4.5 5.0 20.0 2.00 1.67 14 78 8 SM Silty sand
4 SPT 6.0 6.5 18.1 1.95 1.65 1.95 12
5 SPT 9.0 9.5 19.6 2.06 1.72
6 SPT 12.0 12.5 19.3 2.06 1.73 20 74 6 SM Silty sand 2.03 11
7 SPT 15.0 15.5 18.9 2.02 1.70
8 SPT 18.0 18.5 20.3 2.05 1.70 15 77 8 SM Silty sand 2.01 10
9 SPT 21.0 21.5 20.5 2.02 1.68 23 77 0 SM Silty sand
10 D 23.0 23.5 18.9 2.02 1.70 1.94 13
11 SPT 25.0 25.5 19.1 2.01 1.69 9 74 17 SP Poorly graded sand with silt and gravel 1.95 12
 Zubair Oil Field Development Project / Phase 1
Site: Hammar DGS Borehole No.: 1114 Depth: 25m Date: 5 – 3 – 2011

Shear Strength Parameters

Permeability K (cm/s)
Specimen

Depth Consolidation Test Chemical Test Results Chemical Test Results

Triaxial
Unconf-

Shear
(UU)
ined

Test
Box
(m) VST Results (Soil) (Water)

x 10-6
× 10-3
CC × 10-3

Org. %
Cr × 10-3

Gyp %
CaCO3
SO4 %

(ppm)

(ppm)

(ppm)
(KPa)

(KPa)

(KPa)

(KPa)

(KPa)
From

Cl %
Type

TDS
SO4
ø°
No.

pH

pH
Cu
To

PC

Cl
C

e 0
1 D 1.0 1.5 4 32 4870 33100 2270 6.8
2 SPT 2.5 3.0
3 SPT 4.5 5.0
4 SPT 6.0 6.5 5 35
5 SPT 9.0 9.5
6 SPT 12.0 12.5
7 SPT 15.0 15.5 5 39
8 SPT 18.0 18.5
9 SPT 21.0 21.5
10 D 23.0 23.5 3 38
11 SPT 25.0 25.5
 Zubair Oil Field Development Project / Phase 1
Site: Hammar DGS Borehole No.: 1115 Depth: 15m Date: 5 – 3 – 2011

Unit
Index Modified

Moisture Content
Specimen Depth (m) Weight Particle Size Analysis Unified Soil Classification System (USCS)
Properties Procter Test
(g /cm3)

Content %
Gravel %

Optimum
Max. Dry

Moisture
Sand %
Clay %

Symbol

Density
(g/cm3)
Silt %
LL %

PL %
From

PI %
Type

Bulk

Dry
No.

To

Description of Soil

1 D 1.0 1.5 7 93 0 SP Poorly graded sand with silt 1.88 14

2 SPT 2.5 3.0 23.1 1.98 1.61
3 SPT 4.0 4.5 17.4 2.07 1.76 11 86 3 SP Poorly graded sand with silt 1.96 12
4 SPT 6.0 6.5 21.0 2.12 1.75
5 SPT 9.0 9.5 22.3 2.08 1.70 13 87 0 SM Silty sand 1.99 12
6 SPT 12.0 12.5 18.4 2.02 1.71 15 80 5 SM Silty sand
7 SPT 15.0 15.5 20.2 2.03 1.69 10 83 7 SP Poorly graded sand with silt 1.97 13
 Zubair Oil Field Development Project / Phase 1
Site: Hammar DGS Borehole No.: 1115 Depth: 15m Date: 5 – 3 – 2011

Shear Strength Parameters

Permeability K (cm/s)
Specimen

Depth Consolidation Test Chemical Test Results Chemical Test Results

Triaxial
Unconf-

Shear
(UU)
ined

Test
Box
(m) VST Results (Soil) (Water)

x 10-6
× 10-3
CC × 10-3

Org. %
Cr × 10-3

Gyp %
CaCO3
SO4 %

(ppm)

(ppm)

(ppm)
(KPa)

(KPa)

(KPa)

(KPa)

(KPa)
From

Cl %
Type

TDS
SO4
ø°
No.

pH

pH
Cu
To

PC

Cl
C

e 0
1 D 1.0 1.5 4 37
2 SPT 2.5 3.0
3 SPT 4.0 4.5
4 SPT 6.0 6.5 2 44
5 SPT 9.0 9.5
6 SPT 12.0 12.5
7 SPT 15.0 15.5 6 36
 Zubair Oil Field Development Project / Phase 1
Site: Hammar DGS Borehole No.: 1116 Depth: 15m Date: 6 – 3 – 2011

Unit
Index Modified

Moisture Content
Specimen Depth (m) Weight Particle Size Analysis Unified Soil Classification System (USCS)
Properties Procter Test
(g /cm3)

Content %
Gravel %

Optimum
Max. Dry

Moisture
Sand %
Clay %

Symbol

Density
(g/cm3)
Silt %
LL %

PL %
From

PI %
Type

Bulk

Dry
No.

To

Description of Soil

1 U 0.5 1.0 38 24 14 30.0 1.93 1.48 1.72 17

2 SPT 2.0 2.5 41 29 12 35.4 2.00 1.48 17 78 5 0 ML Clayey silt with trace of sand, low plasticity
3 SPT 3.5 4.0 37 25 12 12 88 0 0 ML Clayey silt, low plasticity 1.66 19
4 SPT 5.0 5.5 35 26 9 25.9 2.01 1.60 26 64 10 0 ML Clayey silt with a little of sand, low plasticity
5 SPT 6.5 7.0 17.8 2.06 1.75 18 78 4 SM Silty sand 1.95 13
6 SPT 9.5 10.0 18.7 2.08 1.75
7 SPT 12.5 13.0 19.3 2.05 1.72 15 77 8 SM Silty sand 1.96 11
8 SPT 15.0 15.5 19.6 2.05 1.71 12 82 6 SP Poorly graded sand with silt
 Zubair Oil Field Development Project / Phase 1
Site: Hammar DGS Borehole No.: 1116 Depth: 15m Date: 6 – 3 – 2011

Shear Strength Parameters

Permeability K (cm/s)
Specimen

Depth Consolidation Test Chemical Test Results Chemical Test Results

Triaxial
Unconf-

Shear
(UU)
ined

Test
Box
(m) VST Results (Soil) (Water)

x 10-6
× 10-3
CC × 10-3

Org. %
Cr × 10-3

Gyp %
CaCO3
SO4 %

(ppm)

(ppm)

(ppm)
(KPa)

(KPa)

(KPa)

(KPa)

(KPa)
From

Cl %
Type

TDS
SO4
ø°
No.

pH

pH
Cu
To

PC

Cl
C

e 0
1 U 0.5 1.0 33.8 23.6 17.3 260 58 973
2 SPT 2.0 2.5
3 SPT 3.5 4.0
4 SPT 5.0 5.5
5 SPT 6.5 7.0
6 SPT 9.5 10.0 4 44
7 SPT 12.5 13.0
8 SPT 15.0 15.5 3 38
 Zubair Oil Field Development Project / Phase 1
Site: Hammar DGS Borehole No.: 1117 Depth: 15m Date: 1 – 3 – 2011

Unit
Index Modified

Moisture Content
Specimen Depth (m) Weight Particle Size Analysis Unified Soil Classification System (USCS)
Properties Procter Test
(g /cm3)

Content %
Gravel %

Optimum
Max. Dry

Moisture
Sand %
Clay %

Symbol

Density
(g/cm3)
Silt %
LL %

PL %
From

PI %
Type

Bulk

Dry
No.

To

Description of Soil

1 D 0.5 1.0 1.90 13

2 SPT 2.0 2.5 37 60 3 SM Silty sand
3 SPT 3.5 4.0 19.3 2.10 1.76
4 SPT 5.0 5.5 15 73 12 SM Silty sand 1.93 13
5 SPT 6.5 7.0 22.8 2.06 1.68
6 SPT 9.5 10.0 18.2 2.01 1.70 14 70 16 SM Silty sand with gravel 1.91 14
7 SPT 12.5 13.0 21.6 2.07 1.70 19 65 16 SM Silty sand with gravel
8 SPT 15.0 15.5 19.9 2.06 1.72 32 63 5 SM Silty sand 1.95 12
 Zubair Oil Field Development Project / Phase 1
Site: Hammar DGS Borehole No.: 1117 Depth: 15m Date: 1 – 3 – 2011

Shear Strength Parameters

Permeability K (cm/s)
Specimen

Depth Consolidation Test Chemical Test Results Chemical Test Results

Triaxial
Unconf-

Shear
(UU)
ined

Test
Box
(m) VST Results (Soil) (Water)

x 10-6
× 10-3
CC × 10-3

Org. %
Cr × 10-3

Gyp %
CaCO3
SO4 %

(ppm)

(ppm)

(ppm)
(KPa)

(KPa)

(KPa)

(KPa)

(KPa)
From

Cl %
Type

TDS
SO4
ø°
No.

pH

pH
Cu
To

PC

Cl
C

e 0
1 D 0.5 1.0
2 SPT 2.0 2.5 8 37
3 SPT 3.5 4.0
4 SPT 5.0 5.5
5 SPT 6.5 7.0 3 34
6 SPT 9.5 10.0
7 SPT 12.5 13.0 5 41
8 SPT 15.0 15.5
 Zubair Oil Field Development Project / Phase 1
Site: Hammar DGS Borehole No.: 1118 Depth: 15m Date: 1 – 3 – 2011

Unit
Index Modified

Moisture Content
Specimen Depth (m) Weight Particle Size Analysis Unified Soil Classification System (USCS)
Properties Procter Test
(g /cm3)

Content %
Gravel %

Optimum
Max. Dry

Moisture
Sand %
Clay %

Symbol

Density
(g/cm3)
Silt %
LL %

PL %
From

PI %
Type

Bulk

Dry
No.

To

Description of Soil

1 D 1.0 1.5 1.87 13

2 SPT 2.5 3.0 18.0 1.92 1.63 17 80 3 SM Silty sand 1.90 14
3 SPT 4.0 4.5 16.9 2.07 1.77 18 82 0 SM Silty sand
4 SPT 6.0 6.5
5 D 8.0 8.5 21.3 2.12 1.75 1.97 12
6 SPT 10.0 10.5 20.8 2.09 1.73 38 62 0 SM Silty sand
7 SPT 12.0 12.5 26 74 0 SM Silty sand 1.95 12
8 SPT 15.0 15.5 29 71 0 SM Silty sand
 Zubair Oil Field Development Project / Phase 1
Site: Hammar DGS Borehole No.: 1118 Depth: 15m Date: 1 – 3 – 2011

Shear Strength Parameters

Permeability K (cm/s)
Specimen

Depth Consolidation Test Chemical Test Results Chemical Test Results

Triaxial
Unconf-

Shear
(UU)
ined

Test
Box
(m) VST Results (Soil) (Water)

x 10-6
× 10-3
CC × 10-3

Org. %
Cr × 10-3

Gyp %
CaCO3
SO4 %

(ppm)

(ppm)

(ppm)
(KPa)

(KPa)

(KPa)

(KPa)

(KPa)
From

Cl %
Type

TDS
SO4
ø°
No.

pH

pH
Cu
To

PC

Cl
C

e 0
1 D 1.0 1.5 5 31
2 SPT 2.5 3.0 1.39 6.18 5.80 0.15 4.03 6.9
3 SPT 4.0 4.5
4 SPT 6.0 6.5 1.08 8.37 4.10 0.11 1.95 7.0
5 D 8.0 8.5 6 39
6 SPT 10.0 10.5 0.84 8.12 2.20 0.08 0.63 7.0
7 SPT 12.0 12.5
8 SPT 15.0 15.5 7 38 0.93 7.09 0.85 0.12 0.89 6.8
 Zubair Oil Field Development Project / Phase 1
Site: Hammar DGS Borehole No.: 1219 Depth: 15m Date: 1 – 3 – 2011

Unit
Index Modified

Moisture Content
Specimen Depth (m) Weight Particle Size Analysis Unified Soil Classification System (USCS)
Properties Procter Test
(g /cm3)

Content %
Gravel %

Optimum
Max. Dry

Moisture
Sand %
Clay %

Symbol

Density
(g/cm3)
Silt %
LL %

PL %
From

PI %
Type

Bulk

Dry
No.

To

Description of Soil

1 SPT 1.0 1.5 16.5 1.96 1.68 20 76 4 SM Silty sand 1.90 14

2 SPT 2.5 3.0 22.2 2.09 1.71 23 77 0 SM Silty sand
3 SPT 4.5 5.0 20.9 2.09 1.73 17 48 35 0 ML Sandy silt, low plasticity 2.00 10
4 SPT 6.0 6.5 25.7 2.13 1.70 25 60 15 0 ML Clayey silt with sand, low plasticity
5 SPT 9.0 9.5 15 65 18 0 ML Clayey silt with sand, low plasticity 1.98 13
6 SPT 12.0 12.5 23.1 2.11 1.71
7 SPT 15.0 15.5 21 66 13 0 ML Clayey silt with a little of sand, low plasticity 1.99 12
 Zubair Oil Field Development Project / Phase 1
Site: Hammar DGS Borehole No.: 1219 Depth: 15m Date: 1 – 3 – 2011

Shear Strength Parameters

Permeability K (cm/s)
Specimen

Depth Consolidation Test Chemical Test Results Chemical Test Results

Triaxial
Unconf-

Shear
(UU)
ined

Test
Box
(m) VST Results (Soil) (Water)

x 10-6
× 10-3
CC × 10-3

Org. %
Cr × 10-3

Gyp %
CaCO3
SO4 %

(ppm)

(ppm)

(ppm)
(KPa)

(KPa)

(KPa)

(KPa)

(KPa)
From

Cl %
Type

TDS
SO4
ø°
No.

pH

pH
Cu
To

PC

Cl
C

e 0
1 SPT 1.0 1.5
2 SPT 2.5 3.0 6 40
3 SPT 4.5 5.0
4 SPT 6.0 6.5
5 SPT 9.0 9.5
6 SPT 12.0 12.5
7 SPT 15.0 15.5
 Zubair Oil Field Development Project / Phase 1
Site: Hammar DGS Borehole No.: 1220 Depth: 15m Date: 2 – 3 – 2011

Unit
Index Modified

Moisture Content
Specimen Depth (m) Weight Particle Size Analysis Unified Soil Classification System (USCS)
Properties Procter Test
(g /cm3)

Content %
Gravel %

Optimum
Max. Dry

Moisture
Sand %
Clay %

Symbol

Density
(g/cm3)
Silt %
LL %

PL %
From

PI %
Type

Bulk

Dry
No.

To

Description of Soil

1 SPT 1.0 1.5 11.7 1.97 1.76 10 72 18 SP Poorly graded sand with silt and gravel
2 D 2.0 2.5 1.95 13
3 SPT 3.5 4.0 15.5 2.06 1.78 8 83 9 SP Poorly graded sand with silt
4 SPT 5.0 5.5 17.0 2.06 1.76 12 78 10 SP Poorly graded sand with silt 2.03 11
5 SPT 6.5 7.0 19.3 2.09 1.75 14 62 24 SM Silty sand with gravel
6 SPT 9.5 10.0 18.4 2.02 1.71 15 80 5 SM Silty sand 1.97 12
7 SPT 12.0 12.5 19.7 2.08 1.74 16 76 8 SM Silty sand 2.01 12
8 SPT 15.0 15.5 18.2 2.01 1.70 13 77 10 SM Silty sand
 Zubair Oil Field Development Project / Phase 1
Site: Hammar DGS Borehole No.: 1220 Depth: 15m Date: 2 – 3 – 2011

Shear Strength Parameters

Permeability K (cm/s)
Specimen

Depth Consolidation Test Chemical Test Results Chemical Test Results

Triaxial
Unconf-

Shear
(UU)
ined

Test
Box
(m) VST Results (Soil) (Water)

x 10-6
× 10-3
CC × 10-3

Org. %
Cr × 10-3

Gyp %
CaCO3
SO4 %

(ppm)

(ppm)

(ppm)
(KPa)

(KPa)

(KPa)

(KPa)

(KPa)
From

Cl %
Type

TDS
SO4
ø°
No.

pH

pH
Cu
To

PC

Cl
C

e 0
1 SPT 1.0 1.5
2 D 2.0 2.5 3 41
3 SPT 3.5 4.0
4 SPT 5.0 5.5
5 SPT 6.5 7.0
6 SPT 9.5 10.0 4 40
7 SPT 12.0 12.5
8 SPT 15.0 15.5 3 43
 Zubair Oil Field Development Project / Phase 1
Site: Hammar DGS Borehole No.: 1221 Depth: 15m Date: 2 – 3 – 2011

Unit
Index Modified

Moisture Content
Specimen Depth (m) Weight Particle Size Analysis Unified Soil Classification System (USCS)
Properties Procter Test
(g /cm3)

Content %
Gravel %

Optimum
Max. Dry

Moisture
Sand %
Clay %

Symbol

Density
(g/cm3)
Silt %
LL %

PL %
From

PI %
Type

Bulk

Dry
No.

To

Description of Soil

1 D 1.0 1.5 1.91 12

2 SPT 2.5 3.0 18.4 1.95 1.65 9 32 59 GP Poorly graded gravel with silt and sand
3 SPT 4.0 4.5 17.9 2.04 1.73 14 78 8 SM Silty sand 1.95 13
4 SPT 5.5 6.0 17.6 2.04 1.74 12 73 15 SP Poorly graded sand with silt and gravel
5 SPT 8.0 8.5 20.4 2.07 1.72 2.02 11
6 SPT 10.5 11.0 12 81 7 SP Poorly graded sand with silt
7 D 12.5 13.0 19.3 2.02 1.69 1.94 12
8 SPT 15.0 15.5 11 85 4 SP Poorly graded sand with silt
 Zubair Oil Field Development Project / Phase 1
Site: Hammar DGS Borehole No.: 1221 Depth: 15m Date: 2 – 3 – 2011

Shear Strength Parameters

Permeability K (cm/s)
Specimen

Depth Consolidation Test Chemical Test Results Chemical Test Results

Triaxial
Unconf-

Shear
(UU)
ined

Test
Box
(m) VST Results (Soil) (Water)

x 10-6
× 10-3
CC × 10-3

Org. %
Cr × 10-3

Gyp %
CaCO3
SO4 %

(ppm)

(ppm)

(ppm)
(KPa)

(KPa)

(KPa)

(KPa)

(KPa)
From

Cl %
Type

TDS
SO4
ø°
No.

pH

pH
Cu
To

PC

Cl
C

e 0
1 D 1.0 1.5 5 39
2 SPT 2.5 3.0
3 SPT 4.0 4.5
4 SPT 5.5 6.0
5 SPT 8.0 8.5 2 43
6 SPT 10.5 11.0
7 D 12.5 13.0 4 40
8 SPT 15.0 15.5
 Zubair Oil Field Development Project / Phase 1
Site: Hammar DGS Borehole No.: 1222 Depth: 15m Date: 2 – 3 – 2011

Unit
Index Modified

Moisture Content
Specimen Depth (m) Weight Particle Size Analysis Unified Soil Classification System (USCS)
Properties Procter Test
(g /cm3)

Content %
Gravel %

Optimum
Max. Dry

Moisture
Sand %
Clay %

Symbol

Density
(g/cm3)
Silt %
LL %

PL %
From

PI %
Type

Bulk

Dry
No.

To

Description of Soil

1 SPT 0.5 1.0 12.9 1.84 1.63

2 SPT 2.0 2.5 16.8 1.97 1.69 18 73 9 SM Silty sand 1.95 14
3 SPT 3.5 4.0 15.4 1.96 1.70 15 79 6 SM Silty sand
4 SPT 5.0 5.5 1.95 15
5 SPT 6.5 7.0 28 65 7 SM Silty sand
6 SPT 9.5 10.0 16.7 2.04 1.75 17 75 8 SM Silty sand 1.99 12
7 SPT 12.0 12.5
8 SPT 15.0 15.5 18.7 2.08 1.75 13 83 4 SM Silty sand 2.01 10
 Zubair Oil Field Development Project / Phase 1
Site: Hammar DGS Borehole No.: 1222 Depth: 15m Date: 2 – 3 – 2011

Shear Strength Parameters

Permeability K (cm/s)
Specimen

Depth Consolidation Test Chemical Test Results Chemical Test Results

Triaxial
Unconf-

Shear
(UU)
ined

Test
Box
(m) VST Results (Soil) (Water)

x 10-6
× 10-3
CC × 10-3

Org. %
Cr × 10-3

Gyp %
CaCO3
SO4 %

(ppm)

(ppm)

(ppm)
(KPa)

(KPa)

(KPa)

(KPa)

(KPa)
From

Cl %
Type

TDS
SO4
ø°
No.

pH

pH
Cu
To

PC

Cl
C

e 0
1 SPT 0.5 1.0
2 SPT 2.0 2.5 4 38
3 SPT 3.5 4.0
4 SPT 5.0 5.5 5 36
5 SPT 6.5 7.0
6 SPT 9.5 10.0
7 SPT 12.0 12.5
8 SPT 15.0 15.5 3 42
 Zubair Oil Field Development Project / Phase 1
Site: Hammar DGS Borehole No.: 1223 Depth: 15m Date: 2 – 3 – 2011

Unit
Index Modified

Moisture Content
Specimen Depth (m) Weight Particle Size Analysis Unified Soil Classification System (USCS)
Properties Procter Test
(g /cm3)

Content %
Gravel %

Optimum
Max. Dry

Moisture
Sand %
Clay %

Symbol

Density
(g/cm3)
Silt %
LL %

PL %
From

PI %
Type

Bulk

Dry
No.

To

Description of Soil

1 D 1.0 1.5 1.90 12

2 SPT 2.5 3.0 20 77 3 SM Silty sand
3 SPT 4.0 4.5 1.94 13
4 SPT 5.5 6.0 15 81 4 SM Silty sand
5 SPT 8.5 9.0 13 78 9 SM Silty sand 2.05 10
6 SPT 11.5 12.0
7 D 13.5 14.0 15 80 5 SM Silty sand 1.98 12
8 SPT 15.0 15.5 14 73 13 SM Silty sand
 Zubair Oil Field Development Project / Phase 1
Site: Hammar DGS Borehole No.: 1223 Depth: 15m Date: 2 – 3 – 2011

Shear Strength Parameters

Permeability K (cm/s)
Specimen

Depth Consolidation Test Chemical Test Results Chemical Test Results

Triaxial
Unconf-

Shear
(UU)
ined

Test
Box
(m) VST Results (Soil) (Water)

x 10-6
× 10-3
CC × 10-3

Org. %
Cr × 10-3

Gyp %
CaCO3
SO4 %

(ppm)

(ppm)

(ppm)
(KPa)

(KPa)

(KPa)

(KPa)

(KPa)
From

Cl %
Type

TDS
SO4
ø°
No.

pH

pH
Cu
To

PC

Cl
C

e 0
1 D 1.0 1.5 3 37
2 SPT 2.5 3.0
3 SPT 4.0 4.5 3 41
4 SPT 5.5 6.0
5 SPT 8.5 9.0
6 SPT 11.5 12.0
7 D 13.5 14.0 4 39
8 SPT 15.0 15.5
 Zubair Oil Field Development Project / Phase 1
Site: Hammar DGS Borehole No.: 1224 Depth: 15m Date: 2 – 3 – 2011

Unit
Index Modified

Moisture Content
Specimen Depth (m) Weight Particle Size Analysis Unified Soil Classification System (USCS)
Properties Procter Test
(g /cm3)

Content %
Gravel %

Optimum
Max. Dry

Moisture
Sand %
Clay %

Symbol

Density
(g/cm3)
Silt %
LL %

PL %
From

PI %
Type

Bulk

Dry
No.

To

Description of Soil

1 D 1.0 1.5 1.93 15

2 SPT 2.5 3.0 17.2 1.92 1.64 14 83 3 SM Silty sand
3 SPT 4.5 5.0 15.4 1.94 1.68 16 80 4 SM Silty sand 1.95 13
4 SPT 6.0 6.5 18.8 2.06 1.73 17 80 3 SM Silty sand
5 SPT 9.0 9.5 11 70 19 SP Poorly graded sand with silt and gravel 2.01 12
6 SPT 12.0 12.5 21.3 2.09 1.72
7 SPT 15.0 15.5 13 81 6 SM Silty sand 2.00 12
 Zubair Oil Field Development Project / Phase 1
Site: Hammar DGS Borehole No.: 1224 Depth: 15m Date: 2 – 3 – 2011

Shear Strength Parameters

Permeability K (cm/s)
Specimen

Depth Consolidation Test Chemical Test Results Chemical Test Results

Triaxial
Unconf-

Shear
(UU)
ined

Test
Box
(m) VST Results (Soil) (Water)

x 10-6
× 10-3
CC × 10-3

Org. %
Cr × 10-3

Gyp %
CaCO3
SO4 %

(ppm)

(ppm)

(ppm)
(KPa)

(KPa)

(KPa)

(KPa)

(KPa)
From

Cl %
Type

TDS
SO4
ø°
No.

pH

pH
Cu
To

PC

Cl
C

e 0
1 D 1.0 1.5
2 SPT 2.5 3.0 6 34
3 SPT 4.5 5.0
4 SPT 6.0 6.5
5 SPT 9.0 9.5 3 43
6 SPT 12.0 12.5
7 SPT 15.0 15.5 3 38
 Zubair Oil Field Development Project / Phase 1
Site: Hammar DGS Borehole No.: 1225 Depth: 15m Date: 3 – 3 – 2011

Unit
Index Modified

Moisture Content
Specimen Depth (m) Weight Particle Size Analysis Unified Soil Classification System (USCS)
Properties Procter Test
(g /cm3)

Content %
Gravel %

Optimum
Max. Dry

Moisture
Sand %
Clay %

Symbol

Density
(g/cm3)
Silt %
LL %

PL %
From

PI %
Type

Bulk

Dry
No.

To

Description of Soil

1 D 0.5 1.0 17.0 1.88 1.61 12 66 22 SP Poorly graded sand with silt and gravel 1.93 13
2 SPT 2.0 2.5 19.9 2.00 1.67 11 84 5 SP Poorly graded sand with silt
3 SPT 3.5 4.0 17.8 2.07 1.76 12 82 6 SP Poorly graded sand with silt 2.05 11
4 SPT 5.0 5.5 19.7 2.08 1.74 9 88 3 SP Poorly graded sand with silt
5 SPT 6.5 7.0 21.3 2.11 1.74 2.01 10
6 SPT 9.5 10.0 8 40 52 GP Poorly graded gravel with silt and sand
7 SPT 12.5 13.0 1.96 12
8 SPT 15.0 15.5 20.9 2.04 1.69 12 75 13 SP Poorly graded sand with silt
 Zubair Oil Field Development Project / Phase 1
Site: Hammar DGS Borehole No.: 1225 Depth: 15m Date: 3 – 3 – 2011

Shear Strength Parameters

Permeability K (cm/s)
Specimen

Depth Consolidation Test Chemical Test Results Chemical Test Results

Triaxial
Unconf-

Shear
(UU)
ined

Test
Box
(m) VST Results (Soil) (Water)

x 10-6
× 10-3
CC × 10-3

Org. %
Cr × 10-3

Gyp %
CaCO3
SO4 %

(ppm)

(ppm)

(ppm)
(KPa)

(KPa)

(KPa)

(KPa)

(KPa)
From

Cl %
Type

TDS
SO4
ø°
No.

pH

pH
Cu
To

PC

Cl
C

e 0
1 D 0.5 1.0 559
2 SPT 2.0 2.5
3 SPT 3.5 4.0 4 41
4 SPT 5.0 5.5
5 SPT 6.5 7.0 0 44
6 SPT 9.5 10.0
7 SPT 12.5 13.0 4 38
8 SPT 15.0 15.5
 Zubair Oil Field Development Project / Phase 1
Site: Hammar DGS Borehole No.: 1226 Depth: 15m Date: 3 – 3 – 2011

Unit
Index Modified

Moisture Content
Specimen Depth (m) Weight Particle Size Analysis Unified Soil Classification System (USCS)
Properties Procter Test
(g /cm3)

Content %
Gravel %

Optimum
Max. Dry

Moisture
Sand %
Clay %

Symbol

Density
(g/cm3)
Silt %
LL %

PL %
From

PI %
Type

Bulk

Dry
No.

To

Description of Soil

1 SPT 1.0 1.5 16.7 1.95 1.67 1.89 14

2 D 2.5 3.0 23.4 2.04 1.65 43 57 0 SM Silty sand 1.90 12
3 SPT 4.0 4.5 17.6 1.98 1.68 11 86 3 SP Poorly graded sand with silt
4 SPT 5.5 6.0 20.5 2.08 1.73 9 85 6 SP Poorly graded sand with silt 1.97 13
5 SPT 7.0 7.5 20.0 2.05 1.71 12 84 4 SP Poorly graded sand with silt
6 SPT 10.0 10.5 21.7 2.07 1.70 10 87 3 SP Poorly graded sand with silt 1.93 12
7 SPT 13.0 13.5
8 SPT 15.0 15.5 19.3 2.04 1.71 8 92 0 SP Poorly graded sand with silt 1.95 12
 Zubair Oil Field Development Project / Phase 1
Site: Hammar DGS Borehole No.: 1226 Depth: 15m Date: 3 – 3 – 2011

Shear Strength Parameters

Permeability K (cm/s)
Specimen

Depth Consolidation Test Chemical Test Results Chemical Test Results

Triaxial
Unconf-

Shear
(UU)
ined

Test
Box
(m) VST Results (Soil) (Water)

x 10-6
× 10-3
CC × 10-3

Org. %
Cr × 10-3

Gyp %
CaCO3
SO4 %

(ppm)

(ppm)

(ppm)
(KPa)

(KPa)

(KPa)

(KPa)

(KPa)
From

Cl %
Type

TDS
SO4
ø°
No.

pH

pH
Cu
To

PC

Cl
C

e 0
1 SPT 1.0 1.5
2 D 2.5 3.0 7 34
3 SPT 4.0 4.5
4 SPT 5.5 6.0
5 SPT 7.0 7.5 3 41
6 SPT 10.0 10.5
7 SPT 13.0 13.5 4 37
8 SPT 15.0 15.5
 Zubair Oil Field Development Project / Phase 1
Site: Hammar DGS Borehole No.: 1227 Depth: 15m Date: 3 – 3 – 2011

Unit
Index Modified

Moisture Content
Specimen Depth (m) Weight Particle Size Analysis Unified Soil Classification System (USCS)
Properties Procter Test
(g /cm3)

Content %
Gravel %

Optimum
Max. Dry

Moisture
Sand %
Clay %

Symbol

Density
(g/cm3)
Silt %
LL %

PL %
From

PI %
Type

Bulk

Dry
No.

To

Description of Soil

1 D 0.5 1.0 37 63 0 SM Silty sand 1.91 16

2 SPT 1.5 2.0 16.8 1.95 1.67
3 SPT 3.0 3.5 13 76 11 SM Silty sand 1.93 13
4 SPT 4.5 5.0 18.2 2.08 1.76 10 87 3 SP Poorly graded sand with silt
5 SPT 6.0 6.5 18.5 2.06 1.74 11 86 3 SP Poorly graded sand with silt 2.04 10
6 SPT 7.5 8.0 17.9 2.09 1.77 8 83 9 SP Poorly graded sand with silt
7 SPT 10.5 11.0 10 68 22 SP Poorly graded sand with silt and gravel 2.02 11
8 D 13.0 13.5 19.5 2.06 1.72
9 SPT 15.0 15.5 10 86 4 SP Poorly graded sand with silt 1.97 13
 Zubair Oil Field Development Project / Phase 1
Site: Hammar DGS Borehole No.: 1227 Depth: 15m Date: 3 – 3 – 2011

Shear Strength Parameters

Permeability K (cm/s)
Specimen

Depth Consolidation Chemical Test Results Chemical Test Results

Triaxial
Unconf-

Shear
(UU)
ined

Test
Box
(m) VST Test Results (Soil) (Water)

x 10-6
× 10-3
CC × 10-3

Org. %
Cr × 10-3

Gyp %
CaCO3
SO4 %

(ppm)

(ppm)

(ppm)
(KPa)

(KPa)

(KPa)

(KPa)

(KPa)
From

Cl %
Type

TDS
SO4
ø°
No.

pH

pH
Cu
To

PC

Cl
C

e 0
1 D 0.5 1.0 5220 31200 2130 6.9
2 SPT 1.5 2.0 5 33 0.84 6.73 3.96 0.12 4.24 7.1
3 SPT 3.0 3.5
4 SPT 4.5 5.0
5 SPT 6.0 6.5 2 42 0.61 5.82 3.42 0.14 0.87 6.9
6 SPT 7.5 8.0
7 SPT 10.5 11.0
8 D 13.0 13.5 3 40 0.31 6.16 1.61 0.17 0.82 6.8
9 SPT 15.0 15.5
 Zubair Oil Field Development Project / Phase 1
Site: Hammar DGS Borehole No.: 1228 Depth: 15m Date: 2 – 3 – 2011

Unit
Index Modified

Moisture Content
Specimen Depth (m) Weight Particle Size Analysis Unified Soil Classification System (USCS)
Properties Procter Test
(g /cm3)

Content %
Gravel %

Optimum
Max. Dry

Moisture
Sand %
Clay %

Symbol

Density
(g/cm3)
Silt %
LL %

PL %
From

PI %
Type

Bulk

Dry
No.

To

Description of Soil

1 D 1.0 1.5 15.9 1.91 1.65 23 77 0 SM Silty sand 1.94 14

2 SPT 2.5 3.0 21.7 2.01 1.65 18 79 3 SM Silty sand
3 SPT 4.0 4.5 20.8 2.08 1.72 19 77 4 SM Silty sand
4 SPT 5.5 6.0 21.2 2.04 1.68 23 77 0 SM Silty sand 1.95 12
5 SPT 7.5 8.0 19.5 2.08 1.74 19 76 5 SM Silty sand
6 SPT 10.0 10.5 22.1 2.10 1.72 18 78 4 SM Silty sand 2.00 11
7 SPT 12.5 13.0
8 SPT 15.0 15.5 18.6 2.03 1.71 13 84 3 SM Silty sand 1.98 12
 Zubair Oil Field Development Project / Phase 1
Site: Hammar DGS Borehole No.: 1228 Depth: 15m Date: 2 – 3 – 2011

Shear Strength Parameters

Permeability K (cm/s)
Specimen

Depth Consolidation Test Chemical Test Results Chemical Test Results

Triaxial
Unconf-

Shear
(UU)
ined

Test
Box
(m) VST Results (Soil) (Water)

x 10-6
× 10-3
CC × 10-3

Org. %
Cr × 10-3

Gyp %
CaCO3
SO4 %

(ppm)

(ppm)

(ppm)
(KPa)

(KPa)

(KPa)

(KPa)

(KPa)
From

Cl %
Type

TDS
SO4
ø°
No.

pH

pH
Cu
To

PC

Cl
C

e 0
1 D 1.0 1.5 6 37
2 SPT 2.5 3.0
3 SPT 4.0 4.5
4 SPT 5.5 6.0 5 39
5 SPT 7.5 8.0
6 SPT 10.0 10.5
7 SPT 12.5 13.0
8 SPT 15.0 15.5 2 41
 Zubair Oil Field Development Project / Phase 1
Site: Hammar DGS Borehole No.: 1229 Depth: 15m Date: 3 – 3 – 2011

Unit
Index Modified

Moisture Content
Specimen Depth (m) Weight Particle Size Analysis Unified Soil Classification System (USCS)
Properties Procter Test
(g /cm3)

Content %
Gravel %

Optimum
Max. Dry

Moisture
Sand %
Clay %

Symbol

Density
(g/cm3)
Silt %
LL %

PL %
From

PI %
Type

Bulk

Dry
No.

To

Description of Soil

1 U 0.5 1.0 42 29 13 28.1 2.02 1.58 1.69 18

2 U 2.5 3.0 44 33 11 36.3 2.05 1.50 19 73 8 0 ML Clayey silt with a little of sand, low plasticity
3 SPT 4.0 4.5 45 32 13 37.4 2.01 1.46 1.70 16
4 SPT 5.5 6.0 40 28 12 33.3 1.97 1.48
5 SPT 8.0 8.5 41 30 11 36.9 2.03 1.48 29 68 3 0 ML Clayey silt with trace of sand, low plasticity 1.67 16
6 SPT 11.0 11.5 43 34 9 37.8 2.05 1.49 16 84 0 0 ML Clayey silt, low plasticity
7 D 13.0 13.5 42 31 11 35.9 2.05 1.51 1.69 15
8 SPT 15.0 15.5 39 29 10 23 73 4 0 ML Clayey silt with trace of sand, low plasticity
 Zubair Oil Field Development Project / Phase 1
Site: Hammar DGS Borehole No.: 1229 Depth: 15m Date: 3 – 3 – 2011

Shear Strength Parameters

Permeability K (cm/s)
Specimen

Depth Consolidation Test Chemical Test Results Chemical Test Results

Triaxial
Unconf-

Shear
(UU)
ined

Test
Box
(m) VST Results (Soil) (Water)

x 10-6
× 10-3
CC × 10-3

Org. %
Cr × 10-3

Gyp %
CaCO3
SO4 %

(ppm)

(ppm)

(ppm)
(KPa)

(KPa)

(KPa)

(KPa)

(KPa)
From

Cl %
Type

TDS
SO4
ø°
No.

pH

pH
Cu
To

PC

Cl
C

e 0
1 U 0.5 1.0 28.7 17.9
2 U 2.5 3.0 31.2 15.3 39.4 180 51 871
3 SPT 4.0 4.5 568
4 SPT 5.5 6.0
5 SPT 8.0 8.5 516
6 SPT 11.0 11.5
7 D 13.0 13.5
8 SPT 15.0 15.5
 Zubair Oil Field Development Project / Phase 1
Site: Hammar DGS Borehole No.: 1230 Depth: 15m Date: 3 – 3 – 2011

Unit
Index Modified

Moisture Content
Specimen Depth (m) Weight Particle Size Analysis Unified Soil Classification System (USCS)
Properties Procter Test
(g /cm3)

Content %
Gravel %

Optimum
Max. Dry

Moisture
Sand %
Clay %

Symbol

Density
(g/cm3)
Silt %
LL %

PL %
From

PI %
Type

Bulk

Dry
No.

To

Description of Soil

1 U 1.0 1.5 37 25 12 26.8 1.97 1.55 35 58 7 0 Clayey silt with a little of sand, low plasticity 1.68 15
2 U 2.5 3.0 43 29 14 38.0 2.00 1.45
3 SPT 4.0 4.5 42 31 11 36.3 1.99 1.56 31 66 3 0 Clayey silt with trace of sand, low plasticity 1.62 17
4 SPT 5.5 6.0 44 32 12 34.2 2.02 1.45 27 70 3 0 Clayey silt with trace of sand, low plasticity
5 SPT 7.0 7.5 44 34 10 40.7 2.09 1.49 1.66 15
6 SPT 10.0 10.5 42 30 12 37.5 2.09 1.52 21 75 4 0 Clayey silt with trace of sand, low plasticity
7 SPT 13.0 13.5 41 32 9 1.71 14
8 SPT 15.0 15.5 42 30 12 35.9 2.04 1.50 29 64 7 0 Clayey silt with trace of sand, low plasticity
 Zubair Oil Field Development Project / Phase 1
Site: Hammar DGS Borehole No.: 1230 Depth: 15m Date: 3 – 3 – 2011

Shear Strength Parameters

Permeability K (cm/s)
Specimen

Depth Consolidation Test Chemical Test Results Chemical Test Results

Triaxial
Unconf-

Shear
(UU)
ined

Test
Box
(m) VST Results (Soil) (Water)

x 10-6
× 10-3
CC × 10-3

Org. %
Cr × 10-3

Gyp %
CaCO3
SO4 %

(ppm)

(ppm)

(ppm)
(KPa)

(KPa)

(KPa)

(KPa)

(KPa)
From

Cl %
Type

TDS
SO4
ø°
No.

pH

pH
Cu
To

PC

Cl
C

e 0
1 U 1.0 1.5 28.7 14.2
2 U 2.5 3.0 17.9 10.9 46.6 230 55 1107
3 SPT 4.0 4.5
4 SPT 5.5 6.0
5 SPT 7.0 7.5
6 SPT 10.0 10.5
7 SPT 13.0 13.5
8 SPT 15.0 15.5
 Zubair Oil Field Development Project / Phase 1
Site: Hammar DGS Borehole No.: 1131 Depth: 15m Date: 1 – 3 – 2011

Unit
Index Modified

Moisture Content
Specimen Depth (m) Weight Particle Size Analysis Unified Soil Classification System (USCS)
Properties Procter Test
(g /cm3)

Content %
Gravel %

Optimum
Max. Dry

Moisture
Sand %
Clay %

Symbol

Density
(g/cm3)
Silt %
LL %

PL %
From

PI %
Type

Bulk

Dry
No.

To

Description of Soil

1 D 0.5 1.0 32 65 3 SM Silty sand 1.91 13

2 SPT 2.0 2.5 17.6 2.08 1.77
3 SPT 3.5 4.0 18.8 2.08 1.75 19 76 5 SM Silty sand 2.02 9
4 SPT 5.0 5.5
5 SPT 6.5 7.0 21.2 2.12 1.75 23 71 6 SM Silty sand
6 SPT 9.5 10.0 19.6 2.10 1.76 20 80 0 SM Silty sand 2.03 10
7 SPT 12.0 12.5
8 SPT 15.0 15.5 20.3 2.07 1.72 16 84 0 SM Silty sand 2.00 12
 Zubair Oil Field Development Project / Phase 1
Site: Hammar DGS Borehole No.: 1131 Depth: 15m Date: 1 – 3 – 2011

Shear Strength Parameters

Permeability K (cm/s)
Specimen

Depth Consolidation Test Chemical Test Results Chemical Test Results

Triaxial
Unconf-

Shear
(UU)
ined

Test
Box
(m) VST Results (Soil) (Water)

x 10-6
× 10-3
CC × 10-3

Org. %
Cr × 10-3

Gyp %
CaCO3
SO4 %

(ppm)

(ppm)

(ppm)
(KPa)

(KPa)

(KPa)

(KPa)

(KPa)
From

Cl %
Type

TDS
SO4
ø°
No.

pH

pH
Cu
To

PC

Cl
C

e 0
1 D 0.5 1.0 7 41
2 SPT 2.0 2.5
3 SPT 3.5 4.0
4 SPT 5.0 5.5
5 SPT 6.5 7.0 5 42
6 SPT 9.5 10.0
7 SPT 12.0 12.5
8 SPT 15.0 15.5 4 39
 Appendix D

Cross-hole Test Results

Introduction
The crosshole seismic method determines shear and compressional wave velocities
versus depth profile. From these measurements, parameters, such as Poisson's ratio and
elastic moduli, can be easily determined. The downhole system is comprised of a
borehole source capable of generating shear and compressional waves and a three
component triaxial geophone receivers. These instruments are lowered to the same depth
in two boreholes at about 5.0 meters apart in a line (Fig. 1).

Crosshole Seismic Test Equipment

The Geotomographie (Germany) borehole seismic equipment's were used in this test.
The seismic measuring instrument (seismograph) was the Terraloc MK6 (ABEM,
Sweden). The details of these instruments are listed here below:

1- Seismograph instruments: Terraloc MK6 (Fig.2), 24 channels seismograph.

2-Borehole Sparker Equipment comprises (Fig. 3):

A- Basic Sparker Equipment comprises

• Impulse generator SWG 1005 (1000 J)
• Remote control RCU
• Common source adapter CSA with downhole cable (operational depth 100 m)
• P-wave probe SBS-42
• Carrier rope on drum
• Spares [ HV-cable(1), control cables (2), grounding cable (1), grounding hook(1),
power cable (1) , IPG tool box (1) ]
B- Downhole source SH-66 for SH-wave generation.
• SH-66 probe (outer diameter ~65 mm)
• Magnetic compass with cable on drum and surface display unit (better 5° resolution)
• Air hose on rum with valve and gauge (110 m)
• Rotary pipe string (10 m pcs)
• Pulley with winch and clamping device
• Spares [ clamping adaptor (1), window tube (1), air bladder (1), Air compressor (1),
SH66 tool box (1) ]
 3-Borehole Receiver Equipment comprises (Fig. 4):
Borehole Geophone BGK 3 for 100 m with clamping device.
Specifications:-
• outer tool diameter approx. 50 mm
• tool length ~ 550 mm
• 3 standard geophons (28 Hz)
• (2 horizontal geophones with 90° angular positioning and 1 vertical geophone)
• 100 m pressure hose and downhole cable on drum for pneumatic clamping
• applicable borehole size max. 90 mm
• magnetic compass with surface display unit (5° azimutal resolution)
• female connector to seismograph
• toolbox and manual, air pump
• cable marker every two meter
• cable on drum

Field Work and Measurements

Two boreholes of 22.0 to 23.0 meters depths were drilled with a diameter of 4 to 5
inches. The drilling was in early hours of the morning which directly followed by PVC
casing of 3.0 inches (Fig. 5). This is to minimize the borehole wall collapsing. For this
reason the borehole drilling was 22.0 – 23.0 meters depths, just to ensure the right depth
for the crosshole test of 20.0 meters. The PVC casing was filled by water which is needed
by the sparker to keep the hydrostatic pressure during the sparking pulses.
Both the sparker and geophone probes were lowered inside the PVC at depth of one
meter. They were oriented toward each other by using the magnetic compass (Fig 6).
Both probes were anchored to the PVC wall by air pressed into clamping unit (the rubber
expands in direction to counter side the reference direction). The measurement was done
by at least three sparks pulses and sometimes reaches ten pulses (stacking) for the signal
enhancement. The spark probe is designed to generate horizontal shear and
compressional seismic waves. The traveling times for both seismic waves were detected
and measured by the seismograph as a single seismic record (Fig.7).
The work continued with other depths. The probes lowering were in stepwise at every
one meter down to 20.0 meters depth. At each depth there is a seismic record which is
usually saved in the seismograph hard disc memory. The measured readings are shown in
table (1).
Data Processing and Results
The picking of the first arrival times for both P-wave and S-wave was done for the 20
seismic records. The picking and filtering were done using the Terraloc instrument
software in addition to ReFlexw ver. 5 software. The velocities of P-Wave and S-wave
were calculated depending on the first arrival and the known distance between the two
boreholes PVC walls, which was measured after the PVC installation. Table (1) shows
the calculated compressional and shear velocities.

Elasto – Dyanmic Properties

The elasto – dynamic moduli of subsurface soil layers were calculated using the recorded
P-wave and S-wave velocities at each depth with their related densities. Table (2) shows
the P-wave and S-Wave velocities and the calculated moduli parameters. The related
familiar equations were used (listed below) for elastic moduli calculations.

V p
2
− 2V s
2

υ =
(
2V p
2
−V s
2
) Poisson's Ratio

Gd = P . Vs2 Shear Modulus

Ed = 2 . Gd (1 + V) Young's Modulus

Bd = Ed / (3 * (1 – 2 . V)) Bulk Modulus

Where:
Vp is the propagation velocity of the compressional waves
Vs is the propagation velocity of the shear waves
P is the bulk density of the material
 Table 1 Compressional and shear waves velocities
Propagation Propagation Distance
Record Depth traveling time P- traveling time between two Vs
wave S-wave Vp (m/sec)
No. (meters) boreholes (m/sec)
(m sec) (m sec) (m)

1 1 4.5 12.5 4.7 1044.4 376.0

2 2 3.5 10.5 4.7 1342.8 447.6

3 3 2.8 9.5 4.7 1678.6 494.7

4 4 2.7 7.5 4.7 1740.7 626.6

5 5 3.0 8.0 4.7 1566.6 587.5

6 6 3.0 8.0 4.7 1566.6 587.5

7 7 2.3 4.2 4.7 2043.5 1119.0

8 8 2.0 3.7 4.7 2350.0 1270.3

9 9 2.3 4.2 4.7 2043.5 1119.0

10 10 2.2 3.6 4.7 2136.3 1305.5

11 11 2.0 3.7 4.7 2350 1270.3

12 12 1.7 3.0 4.7 2764.7 1566.6

13 13 2.0 3.4 4.7 2350.0 1382.3

14 14 2.6 4.1 4.7 1807.7 1146.3

15 15 2.9 5.5 4.7 1620.7 854.5

16 16 3.2 6.1 4.7 1468.7 770.5

17 17 3.5 6.4 4.7 1342.8 734.4

18 18 3.5 6.7 4.7 1342.8 701.5

19 19 3.7 6.8 4.7 1270.3 691.2

20 20 3.9 7.2 4.7 1205.1 652.8

 Table -2 Crosshole Seismic Test Results of Hammar Mishrif
Shear Young Bulk
Record Depth Vp VS Density Poisson’s Modulus Modulus Modulus
No. (meters) (m/sec) (m/sec) (Kg/m3) Ratio Gd Ed Bd
(MPas) (MPas) (MPas)

1 1 1044.4 376.0 1890 0.42 267.2 758.8 1580.9

2 2 1342.8 447.6 1890 0.43 378.7 1082.9 2578.4

3 3 1678.6 494.7 1910 0.45 467.4 1355.5 4518.5

4 4 1740.7 626.6 1910 0.42 749.9 2129.8 4437.0

5 5 1566.6 587.5 2000 0.42 690.3 1960.5 4084.3

6 6 1566.6 587.5 1950 0.42 673.1 1911.5 3982.2

7 7 2043.5 1119.0 1950 0.28 2441.7 6250.8 4735.4

8 8 2350.0 1270.3 1950 0.29 3146.6 8118.3 6443.1

9 9 2043.5 1119.0 2060 0.28 2579.5 6603.4 5002.6

10 10 2136.3 1305.5 2060 0.20 3510.9 8426.2 4681.2

11 11 2350 1270.3 2060 0.29 3324.1 8576.3 6806.6

12 12 2764.7 1566.6 2060 0.26 5055.7 12740.4 8847.5

13 13 2350.0 1382.3 2060 0.23 3936.2 9682.9 5977.1

14 14 1807.7 1146.3 2020 0.16 2654.3 6157.9 3018.6

15 15 1620.7 854.5 2020 0.31 1474.9 3864.4 3389.8

16 16 1468.7 770.5 2020 0.31 1199.2 3141.9 2756.1

17 17 1342.8 734.4 2050 0.28 1105.7 2830.5 2144.3

18 18 1342.8 701.5 2050 0.31 1008.8 2643.1 2318.5

19 19 1270.3 691.2 2050 0.29 979.4 2526.9 2005.4

20 20 1205.1 652.8 2020 0.29 860.8 2220.9 1762.6

Fig.1: Sketch for the crosshole seismic test.
Fig.2: Seismograph ABEM Terraloc

1
Fig.3: Borehole sparker system

8
Fig.4: BKG3 borehole geophone

9
Fig. 5: The additional two boreholes which were drilled.

10
Fig. 6: Field measurement for the crosshole seismic test.

11
Fig. 7: Seismic records for records No. 2 and 9.

12
 Appendix E

Thermal Resistivity Results

 Thermal Resistivity Result

Thermal Thermal
T. R. UTM Coordinates Temperature. Moisture
Resistivity Conductivity(
No. °C Content %
X±10 m Y±10 m (°C.cm /W) w/m°c)
1 750322 3374747 18.5 2.00 49.7 9
2 750272 3374654 19.5 1.26 78.87 4
3 750099 3374581 19.2 1.461 68.44 16
4 749945 3374657 19.8 1.615 61.94 16
5 749858 3374888 20.5 1.96 50.95 12
6 749821 3375099 19.7 1.88 53.15 10
7 749824 3375268 20.4 2.010 49.76 9
8 749789 3375497 21.13 1.732 57.74 4
9 749819 3375374 19.9 1.814 55.13 11
10 749955 3375116 20.48 2.059 48.60 4
11 749387 3375545 22.4 1.426 70.11 31
12 749406 3375392 22.5 1.250 80.07 32
13 749497 3375264 19.29 1.158 86.30 19
14 749530 3375117 18.34 1.222 81.80 5
15 749260 3375007 18.02 0.813 123.0 27
16 750164 3375711 32.47 1.440 69.3 22
17 750105 3375589 37.04 1.330 75.92 16
18 750021 3375718 38.81 1.705 58.65 4
19 749845 3375631 22.07 1.852 54.6 9
20 749882 3375503 20.83 1.387 72.07 15
21 749940 3375465 21.83 1.464 68.37 7
22 749447 3375733 22.45 1.171 85.37 24
23 749854 3375772 21.85 1.318 75.88 33
24 749962 3375770 21.37 1.450 68.70 19
25 749987 3349987 20.77 1.226 81.55 24
26 750126 3375663 22.14 0.950 105.3 6
27 750809 3374924 16.38 0.720 137.8 10
28 750621 3374846 20.42 0.609 164.3 12
29 749929 3375889 19.10 1.260 79.3 14
30 749883 3375973 20.73 1.148 87.10 29
31 756077 3375730 20.42 1.259 79.40 12
32 750216 3375595 19.94 1.898 52.70 10
33 750258 3375402 18.40 2.103 47.50 13
34 750451 3375350 19.12 1.321 75.70 28
35 750542 3375218 19.91 1.490 67.10 15
36 750629 3375004 20.44 1.327 75.40 10
37 750628 3375134 20.49 0.929 107.7 13
38 750693 3374860 19.67 0.994 100.6 11
39 750306 3374945 19.19 1.368 73.1 5
40 749951 3375315 18.89 1.548 64.6 14
41 750328 3375315 16.26 1.174 85.2 10
42 749916 3375449 15.57 1.419 70.5 12