Advertisement

Three-dimensional geotechnical modeling of the soils in Riyadh city, KSA

  • Alaa A. MasoudEmail author
  • Ahmed Khalaf Abdel Aal
Original Paper
First Online:

Abstract

A standard penetration test (SPT) was carried out for 700 samples from 143 boreholes in four districts in Riyadh city, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA). Rock quality designation (RQD) and unconfined compression strength (UCS) tests were also performed for 238 samples from 154 boreholes in 15 districts of the city. Three-dimensional (3D) models of the SPT, RQD, and UCS were produced using the Voxler 3 software package. Further, 333 soil samples collected from 106 boreholes in 11 districts were examined to spatially model the distinctive geotechnical patterns of the alluvial soils in two dimensions. Tests were carried out to determine the soil grain size distribution, natural water content (NWC%), Atterberg’s consistency limits [liquid limit (LL%), plastic limit (PL%), and plasticity index (PI%)], and soil–water chemical components (pH Cl−, SO32−, and CO3−). Spatial maps of the geotechnical parameters were produced by applying the geostatistical ordinary kriging implemented in ArcGIS. Soil samples were classified according to the unified soil classification system (USCS), and a thickness of the silty clay layer was produced. Plasticity charts indicated that the soils are inorganic cohesive clays with low and moderate plasticity (CL). Soil strength parameters showed wide ranges of UCS (average 220, range 21.3–618 kg/cm2), SPT (average 39, 0–100 N), and RQD (average 44, 11–78%). UCS and SPT 3D models clarified a regional southeastward trend of increase. RQD 3D models showed poor to fair engineering quality of rocks (25–75%). The results presented here can help to establish geohazard zonation maps with construction favorability ratings for safe urban expansion.

Keywords

Alluvial soils Geotechnical modeling GIS 3D models Riyadh KSA 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors are greatly indebted to Prof Dr Martin G. Culshaw, Editor-in-Chief, Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the Environment, and the two anonymous reviewers for the given time and expertise to comment on the paper and for their constructive comments, which contributed to the improvement of the manuscript.

References

  1. Al-Refai T, Al-Ghamdy D (1994) Geological and geotechnical aspects of Saudi Arabia. Geotech Geol Eng 12:253–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Al-Solai SA (1983) Compressibility characteristics of desert soils used for highway embankments. BSc Project, Civil Engineering Department, King Saud University, RiyadhGoogle Scholar
  3. ASTM (2005) Standard test method for specific gravity of soil solids by gas pycnometer. ASTM standard D5550-06. Annual Book of ASTM Standards, vol 04.08. American Society for Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, PA, pp 1–4Google Scholar
  4. Cameron DA (2006) The role of vegetation in stabilizing highly plastic clay subgrades. In: Ghataora GS, Burrow MPN (eds) Proceedings of Railway Foundations, Rail Found 06, Birmingham, Sept., pp 165–186Google Scholar
  5. Casagrande A (1932) Research on the Atterberg limits of soils. Public Roads 13(8):121–136Google Scholar
  6. Chrétien M, Fabre R, Denis A, Marache A (2007) Recherche des paramètres d’identification géotechnique optimaux pour une classification des sols sensibles au retrait gonflement. Rev Fr Géotech 120–121:91–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Clayton CRI, Xu M, Whiter JT, Ham A, Rust M (2010) Stresses in cast-iron pipes due to seasonal shrink-swell of clay soils. Proc Inst Civ Eng Water Manag 163(WM3):157–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dakhil FH, Al Gahtani AS (1982) The deterioration of concrete structures in the environment of Eastern of Saudi Arabia. Arabia J Sci Eng 7(3):191–209Google Scholar
  9. De Rienzo F, Oreste P, Pelizza S (2008) Subsurface geological–geotechnical modelling to sustain underground civil planning. Eng Geol 96:187–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Deere DU (1964) Technical description of rock cores. Rock Mech Eng Geol 1:16–22Google Scholar
  11. Deere DU (1989) Rock quality designation (RQD) after twenty years. US Army Corps of Engineers Contract Report GL-89-1. Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS, 67Google Scholar
  12. Dhowian AW, Touma FT (1991) Water sensitive soils in Saudi Arabia. In: Proceedings of the third Saudi Engineering conference, vol 1, King Saud University, Riyadh, pp 110–115Google Scholar
  13. Dhowian A, Ruwiah I, Erol A (1985) The distribution and evaluation of expansive soils in Saudi Arabia. In: Proceedings of the Second Saudi Engineering Conference, vol 4. King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals, Dhahran, 1969–1990Google Scholar
  14. Dhowian A, Erol Orhan, Abdulfattah Y (1988) Evaluation of expansive soils and foundation methodology in the kingdom of Saudi Arabia. King Abdula-ziz City for Science and Technology, RiyadGoogle Scholar
  15. Donghee K, Kyu-Sun K, Seongkwon K, Youngmin C, Woojin L (2012) Assessment of geotechnical variability of Songdo silty clay. Eng Geol 133–134:1–8Google Scholar
  16. Elsheshtawy Y (2008) The evolving Arab City: tradition, modernity and urban development. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-134-12821-1Google Scholar
  17. Hack R, Orlic B, Ozmutlu S, Zhu S, Rengers N (2006) Three and more dimensional modelling in geoengineering. Bull Eng Geol Environ 65:143–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hyndman D, Hyndman D (2009) Natural hazards and disasters. Brooks/Cole, Cengage Learning, Belmont, CAGoogle Scholar
  19. Kolat Ç, Ulusay R, Lütfi Süzen M (2012) Development of geotechnical microzonation model for Yenisehir (Bursa, Turkey) located at a seismically active region. Eng Geol 127:36–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Parsons RL, Frost JD (2002) Evaluating site investigation quality using GIS and geostatistics. J Geotechn Geoenviron Eng 128(6):451–461CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Phien-wej N, Giao PH, Nutalaya P (2006) Land subsidence in Bangkok, Thailand. Eng Geol 82:187–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Rahim KSA (1981) Strength and formation characteristics of sedimentary rocks. In: Proceedings of the symposium on geotechnical problems in Saudi Arabia, vol II, King Saud University, Riyadh, pp 169–200Google Scholar
  23. Royse KR, Rutter H, Entwisle D (2009) Property attribution of 3D geological models in the Thames Gateway, London: new ways of visualising geoscientific information. Bull Eng Geol Environ 68:1–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Stavridakis EI (2006) Assessment of anisotropic behaviour of swelling soils on ground and construction work. In:Al-Rawas AA, Goosen MFA (eds) Expansive soils:recent advances in characterization and treatment. Taylor and Francis, London, pp 371–384Google Scholar
  25. Thierry P, Prunier-Leparmentier A, Lembezat C, Vanoudheusden E, Vernous J (2009) 3D geological modeling at urban scale and mapping of ground movement susceptibility from gypsum dissolution: the Paris example (France). Eng Geol 105:51–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Zeleii AHE (1984) Linear shrinkage characteristics of aeolian desert deposits. Project Report for BSc in Civil Engineering, King Saud University, RiyadhGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Geology Department, Faculty of ScienceTanta UniversityTantaEgypt
  2. 2.Geology Department, Faculty of ScienceAl-Azhar University, Assiut BranchAssiutEgypt
  3. 3.Civil Engineering Department, Faculty of EngineeringNajran UniversityNajranSaudi Arabia

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options