Geotechnical Exploration Shahabi Dam FINAL2

Engineering Consultancy Bureau / College of Engineering / AlMustansirya University
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Authorization
This investigation was undertaken according to the contract
signed on May 2009 between the client, General Commission
for Dams and Reservoirs of the Ministry of Water Resources, and
the contractor, Engineering Consultancy Bureau, University of
Al-Mustansiriya.
.
1.2 Site Location

The area of the present study is located in Wassit Governorate in
the south east of Baghdad. The city of Kut, centre of Wassit, is
located about 170 km south east of Baghdad. An earth dam,
Shahabi Dam, is proposed for construction in this location.
Google earth program is used to show a scale picture for the job
site area as shown in Fig. 1.
Fig. 1 Dam Location with respect to the Kut City

(Earth Google Picture with Scale)
1.3 Purpose of Soil Investigation

The main purpose of the site exploration is to determine
1
August, 2009
Shahabi Dam / Wassit Governorate
subsurface conditions at the project site, evaluate these

conditions with respect to the proposed construction and to
make engineering recommendations for site preparation,
and foundations. Furthermore, to obtain soil design
parameters that may be used in the civil and structural
design of facilities at the project site. Consequently, the
purposes of the exploration program can be summarized
as follows:
1. To identify the subsoil engineering, physical and
chemical properties up to certain predetermined depth.
2. To estimate the allowable bearing capacity and the
compressibility of the soil for the purpose of the most
safe and economic foundation design.
3. To suggest the pile type and to estimate the pile

capacity if piles are found to be a suitable alternative for
the foundation in the site.
4. To investigate the validity of the site as a foundation to
support the proposed structure.
5. To fid out the suitable areas to be used as quarries for
the construction of embankments and earth dams.
2. FIELD EXPLORATION
2.1
Boreholes location
The purpose of the present project is to find out the nature

and engineering properties of the soil strata beneath the
proposed dam, also to investigate the soil properties of the
proposed quarries. To achieve this purpose, six boreholes
were drilled in each site. They are numbered 1 to 6. The
depth of the boreholes ranged from 15 to 25 m. Ten test pits
were excavated, three in a site proposed for a quarry
containing gravel, three in a site proposed for a quarry
2
August, 2009
containing sand and four in a site proposed for a quarry

containing clay. Figure 2 shows a layout of the holes in the
dam site.
Fig. 2 Boreholes Location with respect to the Shahabi River

Fig. 2-B Boreholes Location with respect to the Dam Axis
The G.P.S coordination of each borehole is indicated in

Table 1.
3
August, 2009
Table 1. G.P.S Coordination of the Six Boreholes
B.H No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
2.2
G.P.S Coordination
E
N
o
o
46 17.751 32 50.647
46o17.734 32o50.687
46o17.780 32o50.720
46o17.715 32o50.720
46o17.670 32o50.772
46o17.670 32o50.754
Method of Drilling and Sampling
Core rotary driving was used for advancing the hole. Thin
walled samplers, 102 mm diameter (Shelby tubes) as well
as cores were employed for obtaining undisturbed samples
of high quality when a clayey material is encountered. The
tubes were hydraulically jacked into the ground. Disturbed
samples were collected from the auger.
The Shelby tubes were covered from both ends with wax;
disturbed and undisturbed samples were labeled and
placed in wooden boxes.
The core recovery percent (C.R. %) was used earlier to
indicate the quality of rock (Bowles, 1996). Recently the
Rock Quality Designation (RQD %) is being used as an
index of the quality of a rock mass. However these
measures are not used for clay and sand. The ground layers
encountered in the present investigation were silty sand
and silty clay with some gravel. Therefore the C.R. % and
the RQD % were not of significance.
Description of soils (Visual - Manual Procedure) has been
carried out in accordance with local codes and ASTM D
2488.
The test pits were excavated to a depth of around 3 m using
both mechanical and manual methods. Samples were
extracted from the pits in intervals of 1 m in depth.
Photographs of field work are available in Appendix E.
4
August, 2009
2.3
Field Tests
2.3.1 Field Permeability tests

Constant Head Test
A constant head is maintained through an open end pipe
casing as shown in Fig. 3. The test is begun by adding clear
water through a metering system to maintain gravity flow at
a constant head. In tests above the water table (Fig 3-B)
stable, constant level is rarely obtained and a surging of the
level within a few tenths of a foot at a constant rate of flow
for about 5 minutes is considered satisfactory.
If it is desired to apply pressure to the water entering the
hole, the pressure, in units of head, is added to the gravity
head. Measurements of constant head, constant rate of flow
into the hole, size of casing pipe, and elevations of top and
bottom of casing are recorded.
However, in the present procedure the permeability test
was conducted successively during drilling stages. The
water was confined between the hole end and the bottom
level of the casing therefore the following equation was
used to calculate the permeability;
Q
L
L 10r
k
ln
2LH r
where
k = permeability
Q = constant rate of flow into the hole
r = internal radius of casing, and
H = differential head of water
L = length of portion of the hole tested
Table below presents classification of the range of

permeability by various degree adopted after Terzaghi and
Peck.
5
August, 2009
Degree of Permeability
Range Coefficient of
Permeability , k, cm/s
> 10-3
High
Medium
10 -1 10-3
Low
10-3 10-5
Very Low
10-5 10-7
Impervious
< 10-7
Appendix -D- presents the field permeability tests records.
2.3.2 Standard Penetration Test (SPT)

The test is standardized as ASTM D 1586. Technical details
on the equipment are available elsewhere. The procedure
is summarized as:
1) Driving the standard spilt-barrel sampler of dimensions
51mm (OD) a distance of 460 mm (18in) into the soil at the
bottom of the boring using a falling mass.
2) Counting the number of blows to drive the sampler the
last 305 mm (12 in) to obtain the N number.
3) Using a 63.5 kg (140 1b) driving mass (or hammer)
falling free from a height of 760 mm (30 in).
6
August, 2009
The boring log shows refusal and the test is halted if

1- 50 blows are required for any 150 mm increment.
2- 100 blows are obtained.
3- 10 successive blows produce no advance.
The results of this test are widely correlated to the various
soil properties. Bowles (1996) reported that 85 to 90 percent
of conventional foundation design in North and South
America is made using the SPT.
2.4 Standards
Table (2) presents the standards that have been adopted for
field works.
Table (2) Standards for Field Exploration
Work description
Practice for using hollow stem
augers for Geotechnical
Exploration and Sampling
ASTM D-6151
Test method for penetration Test

and Split-Barrel sampling of soil
ASTM D-1586
Practice for thin walled tube

Sampling of cohesive soils
ASTM D-1587
Practice of Preserving and

Transporting soil samples
ASTM D-4220
Practice for description and

Identification of soils
ASTM D-2488
Field permeability tests in

boreholes
3.
The Standard
Earth Manual
Designation E-18
LABORATORY TESTING
3.1 Types of Tests

The soil tests were selected to cover the information
required for adequate design of the dam. Soil
characteristics such as, index properties, grading, shear
7
August, 2009
strength, compressibility, compaction and chemical

contents were obtained using the following types of testing:
1) Classification tests
- Liquid Limit (L.L)
- Plastic Limit (P.L)
finegrained soil
-Hydrometer testing
- Sieve testing
- Water content (w) and density () determination
2) Consolidation (compressibility) test (for fine-grained
soil)
3) Shear strength tests
- Unconfined compressive test (qu) (for finegrained soil)
4) Chemical tests
- CaCO3 content
- Organic matter content (OM)
- Gypsum Content
- Total Soluble Salts
5) Compaction tests (only for samples from the test pits).
Photographs of Laboratory work are available in Appendix
E.
3.2 Standards
Laboratory tests were carried out in accordance with the
standards given in Table (3)
Table (3) Standards for Laboratory Testing.
Test
Naturel Moisture Content (wc)
Unit Weight (wet , dry ).
Specific Gravity ( GS)
Liquid and Plastic Limits ( L.L ,
P.L )
Grain Size Analysis
One- Dimensional
Consolidation (e , cc , cr , Pc )
Unconfined Compression Test
Organic content
SO3
CO3
August, 2009
The Standard
ASTM D-2488
ASTM D-2488
ASTM D-854
ASTM D-4318
ASTM D-422
ASTM D-2435
ASTM D-2166
ASTM D-2974
BS 1377
ASTM D4373
3.3 Presentation of Test Results

A description of the type of soil encountered together with
the values of the measured permeability and the standard
penetration resistance is given in the Borehole Logs of
Appendix A. A soil profile (geological section) is also given.
The test results for each borehole are presented in the form
of a data sheet (table) and given in Appendix B.
4. ANALYSIS of RESULTS
4.1 Subsurface Condition
The relative density of sand and the consistency of clay
(Table 4) are determined using SPT results in accordance
with the recommendation of Terzaghi and Peck.
Table (4) Correlation of N- Values with Soil Properties
Sands
No. of
blows per
30 cm (1 ft)
0-4
4-10
10-30
30-50
>50
Relative
Density
Very loose
Loose
Medium
Dense
Very
Dense
Clays
No. of blows
per 30 cm (1
Consistency
ft)
0-2
Very soft
2-4
Soft
4-8
Medium
8-15
Stiff
15-30
Very Stiff
>30
Hard
Figure 2 shows that Bhs 1, 2, 4, and 5 are located on the dam

axis; BH6 is slightly shifted toward the downstream whereas
BH3 is located in the upstream area. The borehole logs of
Appendix A indicate that the soil layers beneath the dam
axis are characterized by heterogeneity. While the silty
clay (with sand) dominates the ground in the location of BH1
with the permeability (k) slightly higher than 10-5 cm/s,
sandy silt and silty sand (with gravel) take over in the
location of BHs 2 and 4 with k in the range of approximately
10-3 to 10-5 cm/s. Silty clay (with sand) appears again in the
9
August, 2009
location of BHs 6 and 5 with k approximately in the range of

10-4 to 10-6 cm/s. The designer should take this
heterogeneity beneath the axis into account. Cement
injection may be carried out in the zones where k is less
than 10-4 cm/s. The soil profile along the dam axis, given in
Appendix A, demonstrates a clear picture of this
configuration.
In the upstream the picture is different, down to 10 m depth
the soil is either "silty gravel with sand" or "silty sand with
gravel" with permeability (k) in the range of approximately
10-2 to 10-3 cm/s. As it is generally known, if the coefficient
of permeability of the soil lies between about 10-4 and 10-6
cm/sec, no injection procedure is satisfactory; this indicates
that cement injection should be considered in the upstream
area. However, the employment of an impermeable
upstream blanket is recommended to further reduce the
seepage underneath the dam. Any measure designed to
lengthen the seepage path will result in a partial reduction
in under seepage. In the depth 10 to 15 m the soil upstream
is silty clay (with sand and gravel) with k about 10-6 cm/s.
The SPT results reflected the same heterogeneity noted
above. On right and left of the dam axis (zones dominated
by silty clay) the SPT count (N) is mostly higher than 50
marking a hard consistency. Mid of the dam axis (zones
dominated by silty sand), the value of N is in the range of 13
to 38 marking a medium to dense continuum
A filter should be used in the downstream end to act as an
interceptor, keeping the downstream slope in an
unsaturated state. The use of a clay core is highly
dependent on the dam size, head and the detailed design.
The difference between water table depths is attributed to
the difference between the natural ground elevations
between boreholes. In addition, it appears that the
measured water level does not always represent a true
underground water level. The existence of pockets of low
permeability may cause the confinement of water at
different levels.
10
August, 2009
4.2 Test Results

The tables of test results are given in Appendix B.
The unified soil classification of the tested ground at the left
and right of the dam axis is mostly of the CL (clay of low
plasticity) type. At the middle of the axis the ground is
mostly of the SM (silty sand) type. Upstream, the ground is
mostly of the SM and GM (silty gravel) type
The grading details are given in the tables besides the
Atterberg limits. The values of the plasticity index do not
indicate significantly expansive clay specially when taken
into consideration that the Atterberg limit tests are
conducted on the clayey part excluding the gravels.
The carbonate content is generally within 10% except few
locations where it exceeded 20% which indicates that the
soil is somewhat calcareous. The total soluble salts are
generally within 10%; this may cause slight gradual
subsidence during the service life of the dam.
. The percents of organic material are acceptable.
Therefore, future creep (secondary compression) is not
expected. However, tie beams for isolated shallow
foundations, if required, are recommended to account for
environmental changes or accidents which may cause
differential settlement.
In reference to gypsum content, BHs 2, 3, 4 and 5 did not
show appreciable content. However, at depths of 10 and15
m in BH 1, the laboratory Engineer noted pockets of
accumulated white material which upon testing appeared to
be gypsum (up to 56.9%). Other tested samples in the same
hole did not reveal significant content except at 13.5 m
where the content was 12.47%. High amounts of gypsum
(e.g. 27.5% at 10 m and 45.5% at 19.5 m) are also noted in
BH 6 but not all the tested specimens. It appears that only
the clayey soil showed localities of high gypsum content. It
is not possible to judge if the gypsum exists or not in the
zone between the present boreholes unless more holes are
executed or may be relied to some geophysical
procedures. The latter are not accurate for this purpose.
11
August, 2009
It is recommended to use sulphate-resisting cement for

foundation work.
The high gypsum content, the ground heterogeneity and
the total soluble sulphate, all these lead us to the
recommendation of employing an advanced monitoring
system to record the movements of the dam during the
service life.
4.3 Bearing Capacity

The standard penetration results of all boreholes have been
considered. As mentioned in section 4.1 the values of N at
the middle of the dam are less than those at the right and
left, reasonable representative value should be adopted.
The value of (N) has been employed to calculate the
allowable bearing capacity (qa) using the chart of Terzaghi
and Peck given below (Fig. 4). The obtained value has been
incorporated with the value calculated from Terzaghi
Theory based on the angle of internal friction () as
estimated from the value of N using the correlation chart
also shown below.
Terzaghi equation takes the form;
q u cN c 0.5BN DN q
where q u ultimate bearing capacity
c cohesion
density
N c , N and N q are bearing capacity factors
B footing width
D footing depth
The calculated values should be considered in conjunction
with engineering judgment and taking into account the site
heterogeneity and the existence of gypsum.
The value of the recommended net allowable bearing
capacity is:
qa = 120 kN/m2 ~ 12 Ton/m2
12
August, 2009
However, it is also recommended for all the main shallow

foundations to be placed below 1.5 m depth otherwise strict
measures should be taken to ensure the rigidity of the
foundations.
45
o
40
35
30
25
10
20
30
40
50
60
Approximate relation between N and
Fig. 4 Correlations for estimation of allowable bearing capacity

from SPT
4.4 Soil Compressibility and Collapsibility

SPT results indicate that the encountered layers possess
significantly varied strength ranging from hard clayey soil
to medium sandy soil. Thus, immediate settlement may
vary along the dam axis.
It is known that the SPT allowable bearing pressure chart is
based on settlement considerations. The immediate
settlement will then remain less than 25 mm as far as the
pressure is less than that specified in the chart unless salt
dissolution takes place.
Immediately after construction and application of loads the
differential settlement will primarily depend on the rigidity
of the structure. For isolated footings the differential
settlement primarily depends on the tie beams. However,
most building codes specify the tolerable differential
13
August, 2009
settlement as being more than 25 mm. Such a value is not

presently expected because the total settlement is already
less than 25 mm.
Time after construction differential settlement may result
due to leak of water from tanks or broken pipes, thereby
high maintenance performance should be provided.
The values of the compression index obtained from the
consolidation tests are low; therefore the consolidation
settlement is not expected to be significant. Also, the soil
has no indication of significant swelling characteristics.
The collapsibility of the soil results from the existence of
cementing materials which softens or dissolves on the
arrival of water. Collapsible behavior may take place due to
the existence of high gypsum content in certain zones.
Therefore, movements of the dam should be monitored in
order to take fast actions, when necessary, like soil grouting
during the service life of the dam.
5. QUARRIES
In order to ascertain the existence of nearby raw materials
for the construction of the dam, an investigation was
conducted to find out the available quarries near the dam.
The number of quarries test pits was ten. The depth of each
pit was bout 3m. Gravelly, sandy and clayey quarries were
found.
Samples were extracted every 1m. Grading tests have been
conducted on all the samples. In addition, compaction and
chemical tests have been performed on the clay in order to
determine the maximum dry density and optimum moisture
content and ascertain the suitability of the material. The test
results are given in Appendix C. The designer of the dam
may review this information in order to approach an
economical design according to the requirements of each
dam. Fig. 5 below shows the location of gravel, sand and
clay quarries and their approximately area with respect to
the shahabi dam location.
14
August, 2009
Fig. 5 Quarries Location with respect to the Shahabi Dam

15
August, 2009
6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

1) The ground of the dam site is characterized by
heterogeneity. Both the type of soil and the strength
varies significantly along the dam axis. Hard silty
clay dominates on the right and left whereas medium
to dense silty sand dominates on the middle of the
dam axis.
2) The permeability coefficient also varies along the
dam axis but generally of low value. Differently the
upstream permeability is in the range of
approximately 10-2 to 10-3 cm/s with the ground
being sandy and gravelly.
3) Cement injection should be considered particularly
in the upstream area.
4) It is recommended to use an impermeable upstream
blanket extending a sufficient distance on the
upstream side.
5) The net allowable bearing capacity of the site may be
taken as 120 kN/m2. The depth of main footings is
preferably deeper than 1.5 m.
6) In two of the boreholes the gypsum content is high,
up to 56.9 %, at certain depths below the dam axis.
The total soluble salts are generally within 10%.
7)
It is recommended to employ an advanced

monitoring system to record the movements of the
dam during the service life.
8) It is recommended to use sulphate-resisting cement

for foundation work; the shallow foundation in contact
with soil may also be protected using two layers of
tar coat. The strength (fc`) of the used concrete is
preferably not less than 30 MPa.
16
August, 2009
9) Near to the site of each dam, clayey, sandy and

gravelly quarries are found.
10) No significant amount of gypsum was found in the
clay quarries soil. Therefore; may the quarries
material be used, as convenient.
Geotechnical Eng.
Gitath A. S. Al-Sharifi
Geotechnical Eng.
Mohammed H. Al-Dahalki
Prof. Geotecnical Eng.

Dr. Raid R. Al-Omari
7. REFERENCES
1. American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM),
1989.
2. Peck, R., Hansen, W. and Thornburn, T. Foundation
Engineering. John Wiley & Sons, 1974.
3. Bowles, J.E., Foundation Analysis and Design, 5th
Edition, 1996.
4. Lambe, T.W.and Whitman, R.V., Soil Mechanicals
John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1969.
5. Teng,W.C. " Foundation Design ", Prentice Hall ,
New Jersey , 1974.
6. Terzaghi , K.and Peck , R.,B.,"Soil Mechanics in
Engineering Practice" ,1967
7. Tomlinson, M.J., Foundation Design & Construction,
Pitman, 3rd Edition, 1975.
10. Singh, B. and Prakash, S. (1970). Soil mechanics
and Foundation Engineering. New Chand and Bros
Rookee.
11. Earth Manual (1980) U.S. Department of the Interior
Water and Power Resources Service.
12. "Dam Foundations" Commission International des
Grands. Bds Haussmann, 75008 Paris, 2000.
17
August, 2009
Engineering Consultancy Bureau / College of Engineering / Al-Mustansirya University
APPENDIX A
Borehole Logs
(Boreholes + Quarries)
&
Geological Cross Section
for Dam Axis
A0
August, 2009
Al-Shahabi Dam / Wassit Governorate
A1
August, 2009
A2
August, 2009
A3
August, 2009
A4
August, 2009
A5
August, 2009
A6
August, 2009
A7
August, 2009
A8
August, 2009
A9
August, 2009
A10
August, 2009
A11
August, 2009
A12
August, 2009
A13
August, 2009
A14
August, 2009
A15
August, 2009
A16
August, 2009
A17
August, 2009
A18
August, 2009
APPENDIX B
Tables of Test Results
BOREHOLES (1-6)
&
SPT Records
U Undisturbed Sample
D- Disturbed Sample
SS- Split Spoon Sample
C Core Sample
B0
August, 2009
Borhole No. :1
Depth:25
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Sample
Depth
(m)
Typ
e
0.0-1.5
1.5-3.0
3.0-3.5
3.5-4.0
4.0-5.5
5.5-6.0
6.0-6.5
6.5-8.0
8.0-9.5
9.5-10
10-11.5
11.5-13
13-13.5
13.5-15
15-16.5
16.5-17
17-18.5
18.5-20
20-20.5
20.5-22
22-23.5
23.5-24
24-25.5
C
C
US
SS
C
US
SS
C
C
SS
C
C
SS
C
C
SS
C
C
SS
C
C
SS
C
Index properties
L.L
P.I
USCS
%
%
w.c
%
Dry
Density
kN/m3
Gs
46.81
40.32
45.24
38.86
39.62
39.93
40.86
40.84
34.84
-
15.3
17.1
-
16.74
17.07
-
2.66
2.69
2.68
2.67
2.68
2.67
2.67
2.68
2.68
-
25.01
20.9
23.08
20.66
20.72
19.82
21.04
20.18
17.54
-
SM
CL
CL
CL
CL
CL
CL
CL
CL
CL
CL
CL
CL
CL
CL
CL
CL
CL
CL
CL
CL
CL
CL
Grain size analysis

Grav. San Silt Cla
%
d
%
y
%
%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
65.2
34.8
12.6 55.6 31.8
12.4
87.6
41.4
58.6
23.5
76.5
33.6
66.4
28.2 36.4 35.4
44.9
55.1
7.1
92.9
12.1 48.6 39.3
5.4
94.6
6.7
93.3
W.T = 12.0 m
qu
kPa
Chemicals tests
T.S.S CaCo3 O.M Gyp.
%
%
%
%
134
145
-
8.02
7.82
13.04
12.05
9.08
-
Consolidation Test
eo
Pc,
kPa
Cc
Cr
0.576
115
0.102
0.009
0.534
121
0.113
0.012
24.03
10.71
7.12
13.65
8.34
-
2.31
1.73
6.0
2.36
1.81
-
B1
August, 2009
1.93
2.08
28.2
12.47
56.9
6.77
1.30
-
Borhole No. :2
Depth:20
Sample
Index properties
No.
Depth
(m)
Typ
e
L.L
%
P.I
%
USCS
w.c
%
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
0.0-1.5
1.5-3.0
3.0-3.5
3.5-5.0
5.0-6.5
6.5-7.0
7.0-8.5
8.5-10
10-10.5
10.5-12
12-13.5
13.5-14
14-15.5
15.5-17
17-17.5
17.5-19
19-20.5
C
C
SS
C
C
SS
C
C
SS
C
C
SS
C
C
SS
C
C
36.32
-
18.78
-
SM
SM
SM
SM
SM
SM
SM
SM
SM
SM
SM
SM
SM
CL
CL
CL
CL
Grain size analysis
Dry
Density
kN/m3
Gs
2.66
2.67
2.67
2.68
2.68
-
Grav.
%
2.9
30.0
8.5
1.2
15.2
29.6
24.8
-
Sand
%
Silt
%
Clay
%
51.2
48.8
78.3
18.8
79.6
20.4
56.6
15.4
75.4
16.1
76.3
23.7
77.1
21.7
73.4
26.6
74.4
25.6
62.6
22.2
11.2
32.8
26.4
9.4
65.8
W.T = 5.20 m
eo
-
Consolidation
Test
Pc,
Cr
Cc
kPa
-
qu
kPa
-
Chemicals tests
T.S.S
%
CaCo3
%
O.M
%
Gyp.
%
7.19
9.53
7.66
-
8.32
9.43
13.65
-
2.05
0.71
1.82
-
4.73
2.61
1.91
-
B2
August, 2009
Borhole No. :3
Depth:15
No.
Sample
Depth
(m)
Typ
e
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
0.0-1.5
1.5-3.0
3.0-3.5
3.5-5.0
5.0-6.5
6.5-7.0
7.0-8.5
8.5-10
10-10.5
10.5-12
12-13.5
13.5-14
14-15.5
C
C
SS
C
C
SS
C
C
SS
C
C
SS
C
Index properties
L.L
P.I
USCS
%
%
39.99
-
20.91
-
GM
SM
GM
SM
GM
GM
SM
SM
SM
CL
CL
CL
CL
w.c
%
Dry
Density
kN/m3
Gs
2.68
2.68
Grain size analysis

Grav. Sand Silt Clay
%
%
%
%
47.3
37.1
41.6
31.4
43.7
42.5
50.8
45.2
56.1
39.9
10.2
12.1
13.2
12.5
-
16.4
33.6
45.5
20.9
17.2
14.8
33.3
34.7
15.3
14.6
70.1
13.1
13.8
34.1
39.0
W.T = At the Ground Surface
Consolidation Test
Pc,
Cr
eo
Cc
kPa
-
qu
kPa
-
T.S.S
%
8.04
7.61
9.27
-
Chemicals tests
CaCo3 O.M Gyp.
%
%
%
11.01
8.73
10.66
-
0.52
1.28
1.05
-
B3
August, 2009
1.02
3.71
2.06
-
Borhole No. :4
Depth:15
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Sample
Depth
Type
(m)
Index properties
L.L
P.I
USCS
%
%
0.0-1.5
1.5-3.0
3.0-3.5
3.5-5.0
5.0-6.5
6.5-7.0
7.0-8.5
8.5-10
10-10.5
10.5-12
12-13.5
13.5-14
14-15.5
36.20
37.42
-
C
C
SS
C
C
SS
C
C
SS
C
C
SS
C
18.31
19.01
-
SM
SM
SM
SM
SM
SM
SM
GM
SM
CL
CL
CL
CL
w.c
%
Dry
Density
kN/m3
Gs
2.68
2.68
Grain size analysis

%
%
%
%
39.1
51.2
9.7
37.8
48.9
13.3
35.6
49.6
14.8
47.1
40.2
12.7
42.5
41.3
16.2
33.2
52.3
14.5
34.5
52.4
13.1
52.7
39.1
8.2
23.6
33.6
42.8
6.8
18.3
43.7
31.2
8.9
14.8
46.7
29.6
W.T = At the Ground Surface
Consolidation Test
Pc,
Cr
eo
Cc
kPa
-
qu
kPa
-
T.S.S
%
7.91
8.24
6.28
5.13
-
Chemicals tests
CaCo3
O.M
%
%
8.33
4.02
7.41
24.99
-
0.83
1.01
1.15
3.00
-
B4
August, 2009
Gyp.
%
2.09
3.62
2.03
1.72
-
Borhole No. :5
Depth:25
No
.
Sample
Depth
(m)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
0.0-1.5
1.5-3.0
3.0-3.5
3.5-4.0
4.0-5.5
5.5-7.0
7.0-7.5
7.5-8.0
8.0-9.5
9.5-11
11-11.5
11.5-12
12-13.5
13.5-15
15-15.5
15.5-16
16-17.5
17.5-19
19-19.5
19.5-21
21-22.5
22.5-23
23-24.5
24.5-25
25-25.5
Typ
e
C
C
US
SS
C
C
US
SS
C
C
US
SS
C
C
US
SS
C
C
SS
C
C
SS
C
US
SS
Index properties
L.L
P.I
USCS
%
%
w.c
%
Dry
Density
kN/m3
36.62
35.35
42.91
44.96
39.9
36.47
41.5
-
12.4
21.7
20.7
21.2
23.4
-
18.01
16.63
16.92
16.16
-
19.21
18.76
22.65
23.98
20.1
18.85
21.05
-
CL
CL
CL
CL
CL
CL
CL
CL
CL
CL
CL
CL
CL
CL
SM
SM
CL
CL
CL
CL
CL
CL
CL
CL
CL
Gs
2.68
2.66
2.69
2.68
2.67
2.68
2.69
2.66
2.67
2.69
2.66
2.68
2.67
Grain size analysis

Grav Sand Silt Cla
%
%
%
y
%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
21.3
49.2 29.5
33.4
66.6
22.7
77.3
20.8
45.8 33.4
6.7
53.0 40.3
12.9
87.1
14.3
45.5 40.2
17.4
82.6
54.7
45.3
20.4
43.8 35.8
22.7
77.3
25.0
44.2 30.8
38.1
40.3 21.6
W.T = 6.50 m
Consolidation Test
eo
Pc,
kPa
Cc
Cr
qu
kPa
0.449
0.581
0.554
0.627
-
88
109
138
154
-
0.101
0.138
0.147
0.176
-
0.008
0.011
0.010
0.012
-
100
141
176
196
-
Chemicals tests
%
%
%
%
8.66
8.71
7.74
9.75
4.52
17.07
7.57
12.31
10.02
9.72
28.42
18.87
2.01
1.02
1.25
2.06
2.33
1.39
B5
August, 2009
3.03
1.51
2.19
1.31
1.29
15.98
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Borhole No. :6
Depth:20
Sample
Index properties
Depth Typ L.L
P.I
USCS
(m)
e
%
%
0.0-1.5
1.5-3.0
3.0-3.5
3.5-4.0
4.0-5.5
5.5-7.0
7.0-7.5
7.5-8.0
8.0-9.5
9.5-10
10-11.5
11.5-13
13-13.5
13.5-14
14-15.5
15.5-16
16-17.5
17.5-19
19-19.5
19.5-21
21-21.5
21.5-22
C
C
US
SS
C
C
US
SS
C
SS
C
C
US
SS
C
SS
C
C
SS
C
US
SS
32.98
44.94
48.16
42.58
48.67
37.99
39.82
-
16.18
22.84
23.92
21.97
24.56
19.79
20.11
-
CL
CL
CL
CL
CL
CL
CL
CL
CL
CL
CL
CL
CL
CL
CL
SM
CL
CL
SM
SM
SM
SM
w.c
%
Dry
Density
kN/m3
Gs
14.8
24.9
23.7
23.6
-
16.61
15.73
16.15
-
2.68
2.67
2.68
2.69
2.67
2.69
2.70
2.69
2.68
-
Grain size analysis

%
%
%
%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
28.1
13.2
11.8
10.5
38.8
20.1
22.2
51.4
31.8
59.6
51.9
Consolidation Test
Pc,
eo
Cc
Cr
kPa
71.9
86.8
61.2 38.2
51.2 37.0
89.5
61.2
49.8 30.1
77.8
48.6
68.2
40.4
48.9
0.577
97
0.101
0.007
0.665
90
0.175
0.011
0.640
86
0.151
0.010
qu
kPa
Chemicals tests
%
%
%
%
115
101
95
-
7.54
8.25
15.87
20.22
16.37
8.22
6.31
20.7
12.03
11.81
1.59
2.5
2.4
0.98
1.47
W.T = 6.70 m
B6
August, 2009
1.29
27.5
11.39
45.5
12.04
SPT - Records
B.H. No
Depth m
S.P.T Number
3.5-4.0
6.0-6.5
9.5-10
13-13.5
16.5-17
20-20.5
23.5-24
3.0-3.5
6.5-7.0
10-10.5
13.5-14
17-17.5
3.0-3.5
6.5-7.0
10-10.5
13.5-14
46
51
57
74
51
83
82
28
13
28
26
33
22
27
29
32
B.H. No
4
Depth m
S.P.T Number
3.0-3.5
6.5-7.0
10-10.5
13.5-14
3.5-4.0
7.5-8.0
11.5-12
15.5-16
19-19.5
22.5-23
25-25.5
27
29
38
34
34
54
70
41
78
80
87
3.5-4.0
7.5-8.0
9.5-10
13.5-14
15.5-16
19-19.5
21.5-22
39
60
40
34
37
69
53
B7
August, 2009
APPENDIX C
Tables of Test Results

QUARRIES (1-10)
U Undisturbed Sample
D- Disturbed Sample
SS- Split Spoon Sample
C Core Sample
C0
August, 2009
Table -1- Gravel quarries

% Finer
Diameter
Quarry N0.1
Quarry N0.2
Quarry N0.3
mm
Depth1 Depth Depth Depth Depth Depth Depth Depth Depth
m
2m
3m
1m
2m
3m
1m
2m
3m
75
100
100
100
100
82.69
100
100
100
100
50
87.45
93.94 91.15 87.36 66.56 82.38
87.9
84.18 94.37
25
62.32
85.84 63.47 74.58 46.85 60.44 79.17 48.24
70.1
9.5
31.97
56.84 24.26 46.94 26.98 35.21 50.07 25.92
38
4.75
20.5
30.53 11.78 27.16 15.98
21.3
34.27 15.46 21.56
2.36
14.06
17.85
7.87
17.89
9.84
14.78 24.47 10.21 14.04
0.3
3.09
5.47
3.85
8.12
3.42
5.34
7.67
3.99
5.65
0.075
0.47
0.99
0.32
0.54
0.42
0.38
0.81
0.64
0.46
C1
August, 2009
Table -2- Sand quarries

% Finer
Diameter.
Quarry N0.1
Quarry N0.2
Quarry N0.3
mm
Depth1 Depth Depth Depth Depth Depth Depth Depth Depth
m
2m
3m
1m
2m
3m
1m
2m
3m
25
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
9.5
98.47
98.3
98.35 98.55 99.27
99
98.81 98.68
98.5
4.75
78.6
85.66 82.53
83
84.82 78.18 84.93 86.41 79.34
2.36
66.52
77.84 73.89 75.52
74.2
63.35 76.52 77.92 65.87
1.18
60.19
72.41 68.31 69.42 67.98 55.88 68.49 70.67 58.07
0.6
51.82
61.14 50.76 52.69 56.99 46.64 55.48 55.58 45.75
0.3
19.5
23.47 15.26 17.56 21.18 15.28 19.72 20.63 26.25
0.15
4.17
5.12
3.61
3.63
3.83
3.29
4.19
3.12
6.81
0.075
2.5
2.91
1.71
2.02
1.71
1.33
2.04
0.81
3.48
C2
August, 2009
Table -3- Clay quarries

Properties
Consolida
tion Test
Triaxi
al
Test
Max. dry
density kN/m3
O.M.C%
L.L%
P.L%
P.I%
c,
kPa
qu kPa 238
eo
Pc
Cc
Cr
F.S,
Swelling %
Char.
S.P.,
kPa
USCS
Gravel %
Sand %
Silt & Clay
T.S.S %
CaCo3%
O.M %
Gyp. %
Quarry N0.1
Quarry N0.2
Quarry N0.3
Quarry N0.4
Depth1 Depth Depth Depth Depth Depth Depth Depth Depth Depth Depth Depth
1m
2m
3m
1m
2m
3m
1m
2m
3m
1m
2m
3m
1.761
1.848
1.791
1.698
1.799
1.779
1.658
1.844
1.908
1.865
1.868
1.881
18.10
45.65
23.89
21.76
15.48
31.54
15.01
16.53
17.07
41.55
20.04
21.51
18.02
48.02
24.66
23.36
16.61
36.49
16.56
19.93
17.43
38.46
18.05
20.41
18.13
54.22
26.71
27.51
13.23
34.87
16.81
18.06
12.20
33.01
16.02
16.81
14.04
32.81
15.88
16.93
14.12
33.03
17.32
15.71
13.18
28.65
14.23
14.42
208
225
205
218
188
193
131
3.8
285
0.439
178
0.096
0.010
262
-
278
-
3.1
226
0.500
142
0.116
0.014
0.628
119
0.132
0.017
7.6
-
8.3
-
5.5
0.426
123
0.084
0.009
5.7
-
9.8
10.3
8.7
7.8
13.5
10.8
24.2
17.6
21.4
33.7
19.5
CL
5.4
9.3
85.3
-
CL
12.3
87.7
7.81
7.02
1.35
1.75
CL
8.7
10.2
81.1
-
CL
3.8
96.2
-
CL
1.4
98.6
7.22
5.60
2.53
1.94
CL
4.9
95.1
-
CH
0.9
99.1
-s
CL
23.7
76.3
5.27
11.9
2.90
2.06
CL
22.2
77.8
-
CL
14.9
85.1
-
CL
15.2
84.8
8.93
7.01
1.54
2.79
CL
39.2
60.8
-
C3
August, 2009
100
100
90
90
Gravel quarry No.2
Gravel quarry No.1
80
Depth = 1 m
Depth = 1 m
70
Depth = 2 m
70
Depth = 2 m
60
Depth = 3 m
60
Depth = 3 m
% Finer
% Finer
80
50
50
40
40
30
30
20
20
10
10
0
0
0.01
0.10
1.00
Graine Diameter mm
10.00
100.00
0.01
0.10
1.00
Graine Diameter mm
10.00
100.00
C4
August, 2009
100
100
90
90
Gravel quarry No.3
Sand Quarry No.1
Depth = 1 m
80
70
Depth = 2 m
70
60
Depth = 3 m
60
% Finer
% Finer
80
50
40
Depth = 1 m
Depth = 2 m
Depth = 3 m
50
40
30
30
20
20
10
10
0
0.01
0.10
1.00
Graine Diameter mm
10.00
100.00
0
0.01
0.10
1.00
Grain Diameter mm
10.00
100.00
C5
August, 2009
100
100
90
90
Sand Quarry No.2
70
% Finer
60
Sand Quarry No.3

80
Depth = 1 m
70
Depth = 2 m
Depth = 3 m
60
% Finer
80
50
40
30
30
20
20
10
10
0
0.10
1.00
Grain Diameter mm
10.00
100.00
Depth = 2 m
Depth = 3 m
50
40
0.01
Depth = 1 m
0.01
0.10
1.00
Grain Diameter mm
10.00
100.00
C6
August, 2009
APPENDIX D
Field Permeability Tests Records

BOREHOLES (1-6)
D0
August, 2009
Permeability Test
Sample of calculations
B.H. No. 2 depth 19-20 m
H =5.2 m
(deferential head of water)
L = 1.0 m
(Length of the portion of hole tested)
r = 6.35 cm
(radius of hole)
Q = 0.42 liter/5min. (Constant rate of flow)

k = Q/(2 x 3.14 x L x H) ln (L/r)
k = (0.42x 1000/60)/(2x3.14x100x520) ln(100/6.35)
= 1.18 x 10-5 cm /s
D1
August, 2009
B.H. No. 1
Test No. (1)
Tested depth- 4 to 5m
Head = 6.5m
Time
Discharge
"minute"
"liter"
0-5
15.8
5-10
10.5
10-15
4.3
15-20
3.1
20-25
2.5
25-30
2.3
Test No. (2)

Head = 6.5m
Time
Discharge
"minute"
"liter"
0-5
4.1
5-10
3.2
10-15
2.1
15-20
1.8
20-25
1.44
25-30
1.30
Test No. (3)

Head = 7.5m
Time
Discharge
"minute"
"liter"
0-5
3.1
5-10
2.5
10-15
1.5
15-20
1.2
20-25
0.94
25-30
0.91
Test No. (4)

Head = 7.5m
Time
Discharge
"minute"
"liter"
0-5
2.1
5-10
1.5
10-15
1.3
15-20
1.1
20-25
0.76
25-30
0.61
Test No. (5)

Head = 6.5
Time
Discharge
"minute"
"liter"
0-5
1.8
5-10
1.6
10-15
0.8
15-20
0.9
20-25
0.65
25-30
0.60
k (cm/s) = 5.40 x 10-5
k (cm/s) = 3.08 x 10-5
k (cm/s) = 1.81 x 10-5
k (cm/s) = 1.34 x 10-5
k (cm/s) = 1.41 x 10-5
D2
August, 2009
B.H. No. 2
Test No. (1)
Head = 6.5m
Time
Discharge
"minute"
"liter"
0-5
75.3
5-10
50.4
10-15
33.8
15-20
25.7
20-25
21.5
25-30
18.6
Test No. (2)

Head = 5.2m
Time
Discharge
"minute"
"liter"
0-5
40.8
5-10
29.6
10-15
23.9
15-20
18.3
20-25
19.8
25-30
17.3
Test No. (3)

Head = 6.2m
Time
Discharge
"minute"
"liter"
0-5
18.5
5-10
19.7
10-15
16.8
15-20
15.1
20-25
13.4
25-30
12.9
Test No. (4)

Head = 6.2m
Time
Discharge
"minute"
"liter"
0-5
2.4
5-10
0.8
10-15
1.1
15-20
0.3
20-25
0.4
25-30
0.4
k (cm/s) = 4.51 x 10-4
k (cm/s) = 5.22 x 10-4
k (cm/s) = 3.10 x 10-4
k (cm/s) = 1.18 x 10-5
D3
August, 2009
B.H. No. 3
Test No. (1)
Head = 2.0m
Time
Discharge
"minute"
"liter"
0-5
157
5-10
155
10-15
149
15-20
139
20-25
142
25-30
137
Test No. (2)

Head = 2.0m
Time
Discharge
"minute"
"liter"
0-5
46.9
5-10
47.8
10-15
45.3
15-20
42.9
20-25
41.8
25-30
43.2
Test No. (3)

Head = 2.0m
Time
Discharge
"minute"
"liter"
0-5
0.93
5-10
0.26
10-15
0.31
15-20
0.19
20-25
0.10
25-30
0.11
k (cm/s) = 1.02 x 10-2
k (cm/s) = 3.11 x 10-3
k (cm/s) = 7.81 x 10-6
D4
August, 2009
B.H. No. 4
Test No. (1)
Head = 2.0m
Time
Discharge
"minute"
"liter"
0-5
77.3
5-10
82.2
10-15
78.8
15-20
71.2
20-25
71.6
25-30
70.9
Test No. (2)

Head = 2.0m
Time
Discharge
"minute"
"liter"
0-5
32.1
5-10
35.9
10-15
29.7
15-20
24.9
20-25
25.4
25-30
25.8
Test No. (3)

Head = 2.0m
Time
Discharge
"minute"
"liter"
0-5
1.10
5-10
0.61
10-15
0.81
15-20
0.35
20-25
0.28
25-30
0.27
k (cm/s) = 5.21 x 10-3
k (cm/s) = 1.87 x 10-3
k (cm/s) = 2.01 x 10-5
D5
August, 2009
B.H. No. 5
Test No. (1)
Head = 6.5m
Time
Discharge
"minute"
"liter"
0-5
12.3
5-10
5.2
10-15
3.1
15-20
1.0
20-25
0.83
25-30
0.84
Test No. (2)

Head = 6.5m
Time
Discharge
"minute"
"liter"
0-5
2.2
5-10
0.93
10-15
1.21
15-20
0.77
20-25
0.49
25-30
0.51
Test No. (3)

Head = 7.5m
Time
Discharge
"minute"
"liter"
0-5
5.8
5-10
3.9
10-15
4.3
15-20
3.7
20-25
3.5
25-30
3.5
Test No. (4)

Head = 7.5m
Time
Discharge
"minute"
"liter"
0-5
0.91
5-10
1.20
10-15
0.56
15-20
0.66
20-25
0.48
25-30
0.45
Test No. (5)

Head = 6.5
Time
Discharge
"minute"
"liter"
0-5
0.72
5-10
0.69
10-15
0.77
15-20
0.59
20-25
0.54
25-30
0.57
k (cm/s) = 1.88 x 10-5
k (cm/s) = 1.12 x 10-5
k (cm/s) = 6.82 x 10-5
k (cm/s) = 9.11 x 10-6
k (cm/s) = 1.25 x 10-5
D6
August, 2009
B.H. No. 6
Test No. (1)
Head = 6.5m
Time
Discharge
"minute"
"liter"
0-5
5.5
5-10
4.1
10-15
1.8
15-20
1.21
20-25
0.77
25-30
0.81
Test No. (2)

Head = 6.7m
Time
Discharge
"minute"
"liter"
0-5
4.55
5-10
2.81
10-15
3.35
15-20
2.92
20-25
2.07
25-30
2.10
Test No. (3)

Head = 7.7m
Time
Discharge
"minute"
"liter"
0-5
1.53
5-10
1.21
10-15
0.81
15-20
0.66
20-25
0.40
25-30
0.40
Test No. (4)

Head = 7.7m
Time
Discharge
"minute"
"liter"
0-5
5.5
5-10
4.1
10-15
4.5
15-20
3.2
20-25
3.1
25-30
2.9
k (cm/s) = 6.48 x 10-4
k (cm/s) = 3.80 x 10-4
k (cm/s) = 4.70 x 10-4
k (cm/s) = 3.62 x 10-4
D7
August, 2009
Appendix E
Documentation of
Field
&
Laboratory Works
August, 2009
1 Field Works:
Plate # 1: View for the Job Site Area
Plate # 2: Another View for the Job Site Area showing

Soil Section
August, 2009
Plate # 3: Shahabi River
Plate # 4 : Site Preparation for Boring
August, 2009
Plate # 5: Site Preparation for Boring and Drilling Setting
Plate # 6: Drilling Process with Core Chopping Pit
August, 2009
Plate # 7: Double Core used in Core Samples Extraction
Plate # 8: Drilling Process Setting
August, 2009
Plate # 9: Standard Penetration Test (S.P.T)
Plate # 10: Core Sample Using Double Core Technique
August, 2009
Plate # 11: Split Spoon Sampler (S.P.T)
Plate # 12: Core Samples for visual inspection in laboratory

Under Geologist Supervision
August, 2009
Plate # 13: Samples collected Spread for Visual Testing
Plate # 14: Core Samples for visual insection in laboratory

Under Geologist Supervision
August, 2009
2 Laboratory Works
Plate # 15: Samples Extruder
Plate # 16: Sieve Analyses using Shaker
August, 2009
Plate # 17: OneDimensional Consolidation Test
Plate # 18 : Triaxial Test (Unconfined Compression Test)
August, 2009

Geotechnical Exploration Shahabi Dam FINAL2

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Geotechnical Exploration Shahabi Dam FINAL2

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Engineering Consultancy Bureau / College of Engineering / AlMustansirya University

1.2 Site Location

Fig. 1 Dam Location with respect to the Kut City

1.3 Purpose of Soil Investigation

Shahabi Dam / Wassit Governorate

Engineering Consultancy Bureau / College of Engineering / AlMustansirya University

subsurface conditions at the project site, evaluate these

3. To suggest the pile type and to estimate the pile

The purpose of the present project is to find out the nature

Shahabi Dam / Wassit Governorate

Engineering Consultancy Bureau / College of Engineering / AlMustansirya University

containing sand and four in a site proposed for a quarry

Fig. 2 Boreholes Location with respect to the Shahabi River

Fig. 2-B Boreholes Location with respect to the Dam Axis

The G.P.S coordination of each borehole is indicated in

Shahabi Dam / Wassit Governorate

Engineering Consultancy Bureau / College of Engineering / AlMustansirya University

Table 1. G.P.S Coordination of the Six Boreholes

Method of Drilling and Sampling

Shahabi Dam / Wassit Governorate

Engineering Consultancy Bureau / College of Engineering / AlMustansirya University

2.3.1 Field Permeability tests

Table below presents classification of the range of

Shahabi Dam / Wassit Governorate

Engineering Consultancy Bureau / College of Engineering / AlMustansirya University

Appendix -D- presents the field permeability tests records.

2.3.2 Standard Penetration Test (SPT)

Shahabi Dam / Wassit Governorate

Engineering Consultancy Bureau / College of Engineering / AlMustansirya University

The boring log shows refusal and the test is halted if

Test method for penetration Test

Practice for thin walled tube

Practice of Preserving and

Practice for description and

Field permeability tests in

3.1 Types of Tests

Shahabi Dam / Wassit Governorate

Engineering Consultancy Bureau / College of Engineering / AlMustansirya University

strength, compressibility, compaction and chemical

Shahabi Dam / Wassit Governorate

Engineering Consultancy Bureau / College of Engineering / AlMustansirya University

3.3 Presentation of Test Results

Table (4) Correlation of N- Values with Soil Properties

Figure 2 shows that Bhs 1, 2, 4, and 5 are located on the dam

Shahabi Dam / Wassit Governorate

Engineering Consultancy Bureau / College of Engineering / AlMustansirya University

location of BHs 6 and 5 with k approximately in the range of

Shahabi Dam / Wassit Governorate

Engineering Consultancy Bureau / College of Engineering / AlMustansirya University

4.2 Test Results

Shahabi Dam / Wassit Governorate

Engineering Consultancy Bureau / College of Engineering / AlMustansirya University

It is recommended to use sulphate-resisting cement for

4.3 Bearing Capacity

Shahabi Dam / Wassit Governorate

Engineering Consultancy Bureau / College of Engineering / AlMustansirya University

However, it is also recommended for all the main shallow

Approximate relation between N and

Fig. 4 Correlations for estimation of allowable bearing capacity

4.4 Soil Compressibility and Collapsibility

Shahabi Dam / Wassit Governorate

Engineering Consultancy Bureau / College of Engineering / AlMustansirya University

settlement as being more than 25 mm. Such a value is not

Shahabi Dam / Wassit Governorate