Geotechnic Report

GEOTECHNICAL SUB-SURFACE INVESTIGATION
AND FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATION REPORT FOR BRIDGE

CROSSING AT KM 17+386
ALONG BOLE JUNCTION-WATERDINO HORTICULTURAL AND
BOLE-ABOMSA DESIGN AND BUILD ROAD PROJECT
IDCON Infrastructure development consultants PLC
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 1
1.1 Background ............................................................................................................ 1

1.2 Scope of Work and Objective ................................................................................ 1
1.3 Location.................................................................................................................. 1
2 METHODOLOGY .............................................................................................. 3
2.1 Rotary Core Drilling ................................................................................................ 3

2.2 Insitu Test............................................................................................................... 3
2.3 Sampling................................................................................................................. 3
2.3.1 Disturbed Soil Sampling ............................................................................ 3
2.3.2 Undisturbed Soil Sampling ........................................................................ 3
2.3.3 Rock core sampling ................................................................................... 4
2.4 Laboratory Testing ................................................................................................. 4
2.5 Ground water monitoring ...................................................................................... 5
3 GEOLOGIC AND SEISMIC SETTINGS OF THE AREA ............................................. 6
3.1 Regional and Site Geology ..................................................................................... 6

3.1.1 Regional Geology ...................................................................................... 6
3.1.2 Local/Site Geology .................................................................................... 7
3.2 Regional Seismicity of the area............................................................................. 7
3.2.1 Country seismicity overview .................................................................... 8
4 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION AND LABORATORY TESTING......................... 10
4.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................... 10

4.2 Summary of the Geotechnical Investigation........................................................ 10
4.3 Geotechnical characterization of the subsurface material ................................ 10
4.4 In situ Field Testing .............................................................................................. 13
4.5 Sampling............................................................................................................... 13
4.5.1 Disturbed Samples .................................................................................. 13
4.5.2 Undisturbed Soil Samples ....................................................................... 13
4.5.3 Rock Samples .......................................................................................... 13
4.6 Laboratory Testing ............................................................................................... 14
4.7 Ground water Level Measurement...................................................................... 15
4.8 Damage due to expansive soils ............................................................................ 15
4.8.1 Mitigation measures ............................................................................... 15
4.8.2 Treatment of Expansive Soils .................................................................. 16
5 FOUNDATION ANALYSIS ................................................................................ 17
5.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................... 17
Geotechnical Sub-Surface Investigations and Foundation Recommendation Report for bridge crossing Km 17+386
BEST Consulting Engineers plc May 2018
5.2 Isolated Foundation ............................................................................................. 17

5.2.1 Bearing Pressure Based on SPT N-Values for Isolated Footing............... 17
5.2.2 Bearing Capacity of Rock mass based on the Hoek- Brown Failure
Criterion .................................................................................................. 19
5.2.3Allowable Bearing Capacity using Settlement Criterion ................................... 20
6 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION......................................................... 24
6.1 Subsurface geotechnical materials ...................................................................... 24

6.2 Foundation seat and allowable bearing Capacity ................................................ 24
6.3 Material backfill and compaction criteria ............................................................ 25
6.4 Settlement consideration .................................................................................... 25
6.5 Seismic Consideration .......................................................................................... 26
6.6 Other Consideration ............................................................................................ 26
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3-1: Seismic Hazard Rating (Gouin, 1976) ........................................................................8
Table 3-2: Bade rock acceleration ratio αo as per ES EN 1998:2015 ..........................................9
Table 4-1: Coordinate and Depth of Boreholes....................................................................... 10
Table 4-2: Summary of the Geotechnical Investigation Carried Out ...................................... 10
Table 4-3: Distribution of the geotechnical layers in the boreholes ....................................... 11
Table 4-4: Standard Penetration Test Results ......................................................................... 13
Table 4-5: Laboratory test results of disturbed soil samples .................................................. 14
Table 4-6: Summary of UCS Test Result of undisturbed soil Sample ...................................... 14
Table 4-7: Consolidation test result ........................................................................................ 14
Table 4-8: Summary of UCS Test Result of rock core samples ................................................ 14
Table 5-1: Measured and adjusted SPT N values .................................................................... 18
Table 5-2: Allowable Bearing Pressures Based on SPT N-Value .............................................. 19
Table 5-3: Summaries from RocLab Software ......................................................................... 20
Table 5-4: Bearing Pressure analysis using settlement criteria around BH-1 ......................... 22
Table 6-1: Summary of foundation recommendation for bridge Station Km 17+386 ............ 24
APPENDICES
Appendix 1: Borehole Logs
Appendix 2: Laboratory Test Result
Appendix 3: Allowable Bearing Pressure Analysis Sheets
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
BEST Consulting Engineers private limited company has made a contract agreement with
IDCON Infrastructure Development Consultants plc to perform geotechnical investigation
and provide foundation recommendation for a Bridge to be constructed along Bole Junction-
Waterdino Horticultural and Bole-Abomsa design and build Road Project.
In line with the contract agreement BEST consulting engineers has executed the drilling work
for the bridge crossing site located at station Km 17+386 from April 15 to 19, 2018; this
report presents the findings and results of Geotechnical investigation carried out.
The proposed structure is a single span bridge; accordingly, two (2) boreholes were drilled at
the respective abutments of the bridge. All the coordinates and elevation data in meter
above mean sea level are referenced from the data provided by the client.
The geotechnical investigations comprised of core drilling, insitu test, monitoring of ground
water, collection of representative samples and subsequent laboratory tests on
representative samples to determine the engineering properties of the sub-surface
materials.
This report deals with the regional geology, site geology, the methodology employed,
laboratory tests conducted to determine the engineering properties of the subsurface strata
including analyses and interpretations of test results. Finally, the report provides
recommendation on the bearing layer, foundation depth, allowable bearing pressure and
appropriate foundation type for the bridge crossing at station Km 17+386.
1.2 Scope of Work and Objective

The scopes of the geotechnical investigation include core drilling, in-situ tests, collection of
representative samples, subsequent laboratory testing and ground water monitoring. The
prime objectives of the investigation are:-
a) To investigate the sub-surface geology of the proposed construction site and

identify the various soil horizons within the influence zone of foundation
b) To carry out in-situ tests for determining the strength of the various soil horizons
within the influence zone of foundation
c) To collect representative samples (soil, rock and water) for subsequent
laboratory tests for determining the index and engineering properties.
d) Ground water monitoring
e) To characterize the sub-surface materials into various geotechnical layers based
on combined parameters such as visual description of soils/rocks, in-situ tests
and laboratory test results.
f) To provide safe and economic foundations, that is, type of foundation, bearing
layer, depth and width of foundation, and allowable bearing capacity.
1.3 Location
The bridge site is located close to Abomsa town about 200Km from Addis Ababa; it can be
accessed through Addis-Adama-Welenchity-hamesaamist (55)-Abomsa road. The road up to
hamsaamist (55) town is asphalt road, whereas the road from hamsaamist (55) to Abomsa
town is all whether gravel road. The project site It characterized by dominantly flat to rolling
ground with average elevation of 1522 m.a.s.l.
1
Figure 1-1: Location Map of the project area on topographic map
Figure 1-2: Location of the bridge site on Google image
2
2 METHODOLOGY
2.1 Rotary Core Drilling
Rotary core drilling was employed using wire line rig having the capacity to perform boring
operation to the required standard and quality in accordance with ASTM D 2113 – 93, ASTM
D 1452 – 80 (95), and BS 5930: 1981. The rigs have a capacity to drill up to 300m and 150m
depth with NQ and HQ size, respectively.
Dry drilling method was employed in soil formations using inner lining single core barrels
fitted with appropriate size tungsten carbide bits at the bottom. This will enable the drilling
to achieve good quality core recovery. In rocky section, double core barrel fitted with
diamond bit was utilized. Water was pumped down to the bit through hollow drill rods to
cool the bit and flushing the cuttings up the borehole.
Equipment to conduct in-situ tests and sampling such as Standard Penetration Test (SPT)
apparatus with automatic hammer and split spoon sampler, Shelby tubes, water pump, rods,
core barrel casings, drill bits and a wide range of heavy-duty tools were used during the
drilling operations. An electric water meter was utilized in monitoring the ground water
level.
Materials recovered from the boreholes were placed in core boxes, labeled, logged and
photographed by digital camera according to their depths of recoveries. Core boxes were
submitted to IDCON for future reference.
2.2 Insitu Test

Standard Penetration Test (SPT) was conducted using a standard hammer, under an impact
of an automatic sliding hammer weighing 63.5kg falling freely from a height of 760mm in
accordance with ASTM D 1586 – 99 and BS 5930: 1981. The test was carried out starting
from 1.50m depth below natural ground level (NGL).
Blow counts for a total penetration depth of 450 mm from the bottom of a cleaned borehole
were recorded. Counts for the first 150 mm penetration were discarded since the ground is
considered to be disturbed during drilling activity prior to the test. SPT N-values for the last
300mm penetration are considered for computing the bearing capacity after applying the
necessary corrections.
2.3 Sampling
Disturbed and undisturbed soil and Rock core samples were collected from the drilled
boreholes at the required depths and locations. Representative soil and rock core samples
were collected as per ASTM and BS standards, using the relevant samplers. Samples were
recovered from split spoon sampler after every SPT, Shelby-Tube and from core box.
2.3.1 Disturbed Soil Sampling

At the end of each SPT operation, the sampler tube is removed and disassembled to collect
representative disturbed sample for further laboratory tests. The disturbed samples were
properly sealed in plastic bags or small containers for Moisture content (MC) determination
and other index tests. When the split spoon sample is in sufficient and not found for a
particular geotechnical layer, disturbed samples are also taken from core boxes.
2.3.2 Undisturbed Soil Sampling
Undisturbed Soil Samples were taken from cohesive materials encountered during drilling by
means of Shelby-Tube sampler. The samples were taken by applying static force and
3
pressing a Shelby Tube having an internal diameter of 80mm and length of 600mm. The top
and bottom of the Shelby tube samples were immediately wax -sealed and covered with
polyethylene bags and labeled with necessary information for subsequent laboratory testing
to determine the engineering properties which are essential for providing the foundation
recommendations. All undisturbed samples were taken after dry boring and before SPT tests
in order to avoid disturbances.
2.3.3 Rock core sampling

Rock core samples were taken from the drilled boreholes to measure their intact strengths
and unit weight in the laboratory. The sample selected for this purpose must have core
length 2 times greater than the core diameter.
2.4 Laboratory Testing

BEST Consulting Engineers PLC has a material testing laboratory staffed with well-trained
technician and engineers, at Addis Ababa. The laboratory is well equipped by calibrated and
certified ELE branded laboratory equipment to conduct various index and engineering
laboratory tests.
The following laboratory tests were conducted on different type of samples recovered from
boreholes in accordance with acceptable standards (such as ASTM, AASHTO and BS
Standards).
Classification Tests
Classification tests are performed on collected representative samples for verification of the
field classification of the major soil types encountered during the investigation. A minor soil
type, if not critical, may be given a visual classification, instead of performing classification
test for reference. The classification tests performed for this project includes:
- Sieve Analysis: - consist of determining the gradation of a sample in accordance
with AASHTO T- 88.
- Atterberg Limit: - consist of the determination of the Liquid Limit (LL), Plastic
Limit (PL) and Plasticity Index (PI) in accordance with AASHTO T89 and T90. If the
soil is found to be non-plastic, then the liquid limit shall not be performed, and
the AASHTO group index shall be reported as zero.
Special Tests
These tests are performed on undisturbed soil samples, and/or split-spoon samples to
obtain additional information about the soils and their condition. In addition special tests
also include the analysis of rock core and water samples. This information is used in analysis
of conditions and preparation of recommendations for design and construction. The special
tests performed for this project includes:
- Moisture Content Test: determination of moisture content in accordance with
AASHTO T265, on representative samples of soil from each major stratum in each
boring.
- Unit Weight Determination: consist of the determination of the unit weight by

measurement of the length and diameter as performed in accordance with the
appropriate part of ASTM D-2937.
4
- Unconfined Compression Strength Test of soil: consist of performing the

unconfined compression test in accordance with ASTM D-2166. The test include
initial and final moisture content test, unit weight determination, visual description
of the soil, average strain at failure and average rate of strain of failure. This test
shall be performed on 3-inch undisturbed samples unless other types are specifically
approved in advance.
- Consolidation Test: consist of performing the consolidation test in accordance with

ASTM D-2435, except the load increment shall be 1/16,1/8,¼, ½, 1,2,4 and 16
ton/square foot. This test also includes specific gravity, initial and final moisture
content test, initial and final degrees of saturation and unit weights (density). Time
curves for all load increments and E-log-p curve shall be also furnished.
- Unconfined Compression Strength Test of rock: involves performing the unconfined
compression strength test in accordance with ASTM D2938. This was made by
electrically operated, Unconfined Compressive strength (UCS) apparatus. Both ends
of the core sample were cut by a diamond saw, so as to acquire flat surfaces to put
in the UCS testing machine. The core sample is then subjected to a continuous
uniaxial compression until it breaks. Along with, bulk density and dry density of the
specimen can also be determined.
- Unit Weight Determination of rock
It is the determination of the unit weight by measurement of the length and
diameter as performed in accordance with the appropriate part of ASTM D2938.
2.5 Ground water monitoring
The water level in each borehole was monitored before starting and after completion of
every day drilling activity. Presence of drilling water in boreholes, particularly in cased ones,
is often misleading with actual ground water level. Ground water level measurements will
only be reliable if measured for a reasonable period of times after completion of the
borehole.
5
3 GEOLOGIC AND SEISMIC SETTINGS OF THE AREA
3.1 Regional and Site Geology

3.1.1 Regional Geology
V. Kazmin and Seifemichael Berhe (1979) published the geological map of Nazareth map
sheet. They studied the geology and development of Nazareth area, Northern Ethiopian Rift.
They clarified the stratigraphy and correlation of the pre-rift and rift volcanics. They also
provided grounds for structural interpretations and reconstruction of the geologic history of
the portion of the Ethiopian Rift. In addition, they mapped the volcanic succession of
Nazareth area on northern Main Ethiopian Rift and pinpointed four stages of rifting that
took place at 14, 10, and 1.6-1.8 Ma. Each rifting phase was accompanied by eruption of
trachytic volcanism on its rift shoulder and stressed the presence of left lateral displacement
of the axial zone, Wonji Fault Belt.Di Paola (1972), Juch(1975,1978) and Meyer et al. (1975)
also carried out several regional studies in the map sheet.
B.Zanettin (1977) stated Tertiary Ethiopian volcanism occurred in three main volcanic and
tectonic stages, separated by periods of quiescence and erosion. The evolution of the last
two stages was similar, beginning with the emission of transitional (tholeiitic) flood basalts,
followed by ignimbritic alkaline rhyolites and ending with alkali basalts. The chemistry of the
basaltic magmas was controlled neither by the age of the volcanism nor by the structural
setting of the eruptive sites, but by the intensity of accompanying extensional movements.
By contrast, the fissural silicic volcanism was controlled by the structural setting, being
connected with the formation of the afar and Ethiopian rifts
Based on the works done by V.Kazmin and Seife Michael Barhe (1979) and Getahun Kebede
(1987) the geological units in the Nazareth map sheet are discussed below:-
1. Lacustrine sediments (Ql): The lacustrine sediments in the rift floor comprise
clay, silt, tuff, travertine, diatomite with intercalation of pumice. They are
deposited from extensive lakes during Pleistocene pluvial, and are Pleistocene to
Holocene in age. They are exposed in Nazareth, Welenchit, Wonji and Koka up to
Goriya Mountain having thickness that varies from 30-40m. The thickness of
lacustrine sediments is about 200m around Dera, and 41m around Wadecha
area, north east of Debrezeit (Getahun Kebede, 1987).
2. Dino Ignimbrite (Qwi): this unit covers considerable portion of the rift floor and
comprises a number of flows of compact fiamme Ignimbrites in places
intercalated with aphyric Basalts and unwelded Pyroclastics. In the Awash gorge
this Ignimbrite rests on the Bofa Basalts with a palaeosol horizon at the base.
3. Nazareth group (Nn): A thick succession of ignimbrites, unwelded tuffs, ash-
flows, rhyolites and trachytes collectively known as Nazareth group constitute
the larger part of the rift floor and also outcrop in the rift escarpments and on the
adjacent plateau margins.
4. Bofa Basalts (N2Qb): In the rift the silicics of Nazret group are overlapped by a
unit of fissure flood basalts which was named after it type locality at Bofa village.
The Bofa basalts constitute the lower most unit of Pliocene volcanics having a
thickness of about 40 m in the Wanga River. The age of Bofa basalt is estimated
to be 3.5 million years.
6
Figure 3-1: Regional Geology of the area

3.1.2 Local/Site Geology
The sub-surface geology of the proposed bridge site is simply and fairly correlated in all the
boreholes sunk. Visual description of core samples was made following widely used and
practiced international procedures (such as, ASTM D 2488 – 93, BS 5930: 1981).
From top to bottom, the project site is represented predominantly by the following units.
Stiff to very stiff, dark to brownish gray, highly plastic Silty CLAY
Very stiff to hard, yellowish brown Sandy SILT with little gravels.
Brownish grey, slightly weathered, dominantly closely space jointed IGNIMBRITE
Very dense, dark to light grey, Silty SAND with gravels.
Detailed descriptions of the sub-surface geology encountered in all the boreholes are
presented in the log sheets attached with this report (Appendix 1).
3.2 Regional Seismicity of the area

The foundation of any civil engineering structure should be evaluated for seismic stability.
Information on the seismicity of the area can be obtained from different sources that are
either from seismicity history of Ethiopia (seismicity zone map), regional location of the
country or localized or site specific study, if it is needed. To do site specific earthquake
hazard analysis it demands detail study of faults by measuring slip rate, rupture length and
depth of energy release which are non-existence for this particular case.
7
3.2.1 Country seismicity overview

Earthquake is a common phenomenon that frequently occurs with different magnitudes in
most parts of the world. In Ethiopia the afar depression and the Main Ethiopian Rift (MER),
which is part of the East African Rift is where these earthquake epicenters were aligned.
Among them the 1960 Awasa earthquake (M=6.1), the 1961 Kara Kore earthquake, the 1969
Serdo earthquake (M=6.3), the 1983 Wendo Genet earthquake, the 1985 Langano
earthquake and the 1989 Dobigraben earthquake (M=6.5) were the significant ones and
some of them were fatal. The current volcanic activities and the resulting geologic
phenomena’s in Afar and Main Ethiopian Rift (MER) are good manifestations for tectonically
dynamic nature of the zone.
Figure 3.1: Seismic zoning map of Ethiopia
The zones specified in the above seismic map of Ethiopia are under earthquake magnitude
of 7.4 to 6.5 on Richter scales and with ground acceleration 10.0 to 4.6% g (Table 3-1), based
on the Previous Local Code of Practice.
Table 3-3-1: Seismic Hazard Rating (Gouin, 1976)
8
Due to the active tectonic processes in the East African Region, several earth quake
occurrences were recorded in the Afar depression in the 20th century. Assessment of
seismic zones by seismologists suggests very high ground acceleration to the main Ethiopian
Rift even though it is not higher than the Afar depression. Accordingly, the mean Peak
Ground Acceleration (PGA in gals) values computed for 10% probability of exceedance in 50
years ranges between 2-2.40 m/s2, in the Afar depression.
According to Seismic Hazard Map of Ethiopia as per Ethiopian Standards based on Euro
Norms (ES EN 1998:2015), the Seismic hazard map is divided into 5 zones and the project
site is located within seismic zone 4 (Figure 3-3). Where the ratio of the design bedrock
acceleration to the acceleration of gravity g = αo for the respective zone is located in Table 3-
2.
Figure 3-3: Ethiopia Seismic Hazard Map in terms of Peak Ground Acceleration (ES EN 1998:2015)
Table 3-3-2: Bade rock acceleration ratio αo as per ES EN 1998:2015

Zone 5 4 3 2 1 0
αo =ag/g 0.20 0.15 0.10 0.07 0.04 0.00
9
4 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION AND LABORATORY TESTING

4.1 Introduction
The field geotechnical investigation had been performed with the help of rotary core drilling,
sampling, insitu and laboratory testing. A total of two (2) boreholes were drilled at KM
17+386, the coordinates and elevation data provided by the client and depths of the drilled
boreholes are presented in Table 4-1, below.
Table 4-1: Coordinate and Depth of Boreholes
Coordinate, UTM Elevation, Drilled
BH-ID
Easting, m Northing, m m a.s.l. Depth, m
BH-1(Bole side abutment) 590354.1930 941003.9600 1522.415 20.00
BH-2(Abomsa side Abutment) 590354.236 940991.824 1522.479 20.00
4.2 Summary of the Geotechnical Investigation
The detail geotechnical investigation carried out including drilling, insitu tests, and
laboratory tests were summarized and presented in Table 4-2.
Table 4-2: Summary of the Geotechnical Investigation Carried Out
Geotechnical investigations carried out Quantity
Inter borehole movement and setup of drilling equipment 1
Drilling in all formation up to 10m depth 20
Drilling in all formation 10-20m depth 20
Standard Penetration Tests (SPT) 13
Undisturbed soil sampling 2
Rock sampling 5
Ground water level measurement 2
Core boxes and photographing of cores in core boxes (colored)
8
and log data
Laboratory Tests
Grain size analysis 10
Atterberg Limits 10
Specific gravity 8
Unit weight 6
Free swell 4
Natural Moisture Content (NMC) 8
Compressive strength of Soil 2
consolidation 1
Compressive strength of rock 5
4.3 Geotechnical characterization of the subsurface material

Based on visual description, insitu and laboratory test results, the sub-surface geology is sub-
divided into various geotechnical layers. Generally, the geotechnical investigation revealed
the occurrence of four quasi homogenous geotechnical layers.
10
Layer 1: Stiff to very stiff Silty CLAY

This layer is characterized by Stiff to very stiff, dark to brownish gray, highly plastic
Silty CLAY. It is encountered in all the boreholes drilled with a maximum thickness of
4.70m around BH-1.
The field SPT N-values/300mm is in the range of 15 to 20 suggesting that the soil is
dominantly Stiff to very stiff in consistency (Table 4-4).
Layer 2: Very stiff to hard Sandy SILT with little gravel
This layer is characterized by Very stiff to hard, yellowish brown Sandy SILT with little
gravels. It is encountered in boreholes drilled with thickness ranging from 1.75m
around BH-1 to 2.20m around BH-2.
The field SPT N-values/300mm is in the range of 20 to 38 suggesting that the soil is
dominantly Very stiff to hard in consistency (Table 4-4).
Layer 3: Slightly weathered IGNIMBRITE
This layer is characterized by Brownish grey, slightly weathered, dominantly closely
space jointed IGNIMBRITE. It is encountered from 6.45m to 15.80m around BH-1 and
from 6.00m to 16.30m around BH-3.
The laboratory unconfined compressive strength test conducted on representative
rock samples taken from this layer ranges from 10.6Mpa to 23.7Mpa.
Layer 4: Very Dense Silty SAND with gravel
This layer is characterized by Very dense, dark to light grey, Silty SAND with gravels. It
is encountered from 15.80m and 16.30m to 20.00m around BH-1 and BH-2
respectively.
The field SPT N-values/300mm gave a refusal value suggesting that the soil is very
dense in consistency (Table 4-4).
Table 4-3: Distribution of the geotechnical layers in the boreholes
Depth of occurrence (m)

BH-ID
Layer 1 Layer 2 Layer 3 Layer 4
BH-1(Bole side abutment) 0.00-4.70 4.70-6.45 6.45-15.80 15.80-20.00
BH-2(Abomsa side Abutment) 0.00-3.80 3.80-6.00 6.00-16.30 16.30-20.0
11
Figure 4-1: Possible Cross-Section along BH-1 to BH-2
12
4.4 In situ Field Testing

The insitu test conducted in the drilled boreholes is Standard Penetration Test (SPT) using a
standard hammer, under the impact of an automatic sliding hammer. The test was carried
out starting from 1.55m depth below natural ground level (NGL). Accordingly, a total of
thirteen (13) SPT tests were carried out. Summary of the SPT test results are given in Table
4-4.
Table 4-4: Standard Penetration Test Results
SPT N-values/
Sr. No. BH-ID SPT at depth (m) Field Description SPT value
300mm
1 1.55-2.00 5/9/11 20
Silty CLAY
2 3.00-3.45 5/6/12 18
3 BH-1 4.55-5.00 5/10/10 20
Sandy SILT
4 (Bole 6.00-6.20 17/R 50
5 side) 16.55-16.68 R 50
Silty SAND with
6 18.00-18.04 R 50
gravel
7 19.55-19.62 R 50
8 1.55-2.00 5/7/8 15
Silty CLAY
9 3.00-3.45 5/9/11 20
BH-2
10 4.55-5.00 Sandy SILT 9/18/20 38
(Abomsa
11 6.00-6.04 Rock head R 50
side)
12 17.55-17.63 Silty SAND with R 50
13 19.00-19.03 gravel R 50
4.5 Sampling
A total of seventeen representative samples were collected from all drilled boreholes for
subsequent laboratory tests.
4.5.1 Disturbed Samples
A total of ten (10) representative disturbed soil samples were collected from split spoon
sampler and core box. At the end of each SPT operation, the sampler tube is removed and
disassembled to collect representative disturbed sample for further laboratory tests.
4.5.2 Undisturbed Soil Samples

Two (2) undisturbed soil samples were collected by applying static force and pressing a
Shelby Tube having an internal diameter of 80mm and length of 600mm (in accordance with
ASTM D 1587 – 94 and BS 5930: 1981). The top and bottom of the Shelby Tube samples
were immediately wax sealed and covered with polyethylene bags and labeled with all
relevant information for subsequent laboratory testing to determine their geotechnical
properties. To avoid disturbances, all undisturbed samples were taken after dry boring and
before SPT.
4.5.3 Rock Samples

Five (5) rock core samples were taken from the drilled boreholes to measure their intact
strengths and unit weight in the laboratory. The sample selected for this purpose has core
length 2 times greater than the core diameter.
Geotechnical Sub-Surface Investigations and Foundation Recommendation Report Km 17+386

13
4.6 Laboratory Testing

Representative soil and Rock samples collected from the boreholes were brought to BEST
Consulting Engineers Plc central laboratory and subjected to different kind of quantitative
and qualitative tests.
The laboratory testing for disturbed soil samples include Atterberg Limits, sieve analysis, free
swell, moisture content, specific gravity and related tests. Summary of all the laboratory test
results are presented in Table 4-5 to 4-8 and details presented in Appendix 2.
Table 4-5: Laboratory test results of disturbed soil samples
BH-ID Atterberg Limit
Wet Sieve Analysis
(AASHTO
Sr (AASHTO T88) Free
NMC T89&90)
No Depth (m) Gs USCS Swel,
% 0.42 0.07
. 2.00 %
5m 5m LL PL PI
mm
m m
1 1.50-2.10 34.13 - 99.79 99.2 97.6 81 49 32 MH 80
2 3.00-3.60 36.17 2.70 99.69 98.6 95.7 75 43 32 MH 80
3 BH-1 Bole 4.50-5.10 26.94 - 39.93 28.9 21.3 NP NP NP SM -
4 Side 5.80-6.40 13.88 2.66 18.82 13.6 9.5 NP NP NP SM -
5 Abutment 16.50-17.10 21.51 2.67 33.10 24.3 15.3 NP NP NP SM -
6 18.00-18.60 - - 15.97 11.5 7.2 NP NP NP SM -
7 BH-2 1.50-2.10 25.12 2.70 95.82 94.2 90.8 76 48 28 MH 75
8 Abomsa 3.00-3.60 34.30 2.68 97.84 96.9 94.7 73 42 31 MH 80
9 Side 4.50-5.10 12.06 2.66 54.19 43.1 34.3 NP NP NP SM -
10 Abutment 17.50-18.10 - - 22.52 16.5 10.3 NP NP NP SM -
Table 4-6: Summary of UCS Test Result of undisturbed soil Sample
Bulk Unit Dry Unit Moisture

Sr No Depth UCS Cu
BH ID. Weight Weight Content
(m) (KPa) (KPa)
(KN/m3) (KN/m3) (%)
1 BH-1 2.50-2.80 17.50 12.95 35.12 171.80 85.90

2 BH-2 2.50-2.80 17.06 12.75 33.77 57.00 28.50
Table 4-7: Consolidation test result
Sr. Bulk density Moisture
BH-ID Depth (m) eo Cc
No. (gm/cc) Content (%)
1 BH-1 2.50 – 2.80 1.763 36.62 1.0609 0.112
Table 4-8: Summary of UCS Test Result of rock core samples

Unit Compressive
Compressive
Sr. No. BH-ID Depth(m) Weight Strength
Strength (Mpa)
(gm/cc) (Kg/cm2)
1 BH - 1 9.30-9.55 1.95 152.9 15.3
2 BH – 1 12.20-12.55 2.02 115.5 11.6
3 BH - 1 14.20-14.50 2.22 236.7 23.7
4 BH – 2 13.60-13.80 2.28 187.4 18.7
5 BH - 2 14.50-14.70 1.95 106.0 10.6

14
4.7 Ground water Level Measurement

The ground water level in each borehole was monitored before starting and after
completion of every day drilling activity. Presence of drilling water in boreholes, particularly
in cased ones, is often misleading with actual ground water level. Ground water level
measurements will only be reliable if measured for a reasonable period of times after
completion drilling. In this project, there was no ground water encountered in the drilled
boreholes.
4.8 Damage due to expansive soils

Potentially thick expansive soils were identified in the bridge site during the geotechnical
investigation. Expansive soils are prone to change in volume because of the presence or
absence of moisture, which can cause the soils to shrink or swell, resulting in damage to
structures or infrastructure. The change in volume exerts stress on bridge foundations and
other loads placed on these soils.
The most obvious way in which expansive soils can damage foundations is by uplift as they
swell with moisture increases. Swelling soils lift up and crack lightly-loaded, continuous strip
footings, and frequently cause distress in floor slabs and because of the different bridge
loads on different portions of a structure's foundation, the resultant uplift will vary in
different areas; such differential movement of the foundation can also cause distress to the
framing of a structure. Besides, Shallow pipes buried in the zone of seasonal moisture
fluctuation, are exposed to enormous stresses by shrinking soils. If water or sewage pipes
break, then the resultant leaking moisture can aggravate swelling damage to the nearby
structures.
4.8.1 Mitigation measures
The best way to avoid damage from expansive soils is to extend bridge foundations beneath
the zone of water content fluctuation. The reason is twofold: first, to provide for sufficient
skin friction adhesion below the zone of drying; and second, to resist upward movement
when the surface soils become wet and begin to swell.
Another way of mitigating expansive soil problems is to collect surface runoff and to limit
surface infiltration during the rainy season; proper design and construction of surface
drainage systems will be crucial.
Soils shrink and swell - because the moisture content changes from dry to moist and vice
versa. Thus, shrinking and swelling can be reduced if the moisture content is kept stable.
Damage from shrinking and swelling soils can also be reduced or prevented with proper
foundation design. Several design alternatives are:
– Drilled pier and beam: Drilled pier and beam systems are designed to isolate
the structure from expansive soil movements.
– Stiffened slab-on-grade: Designed to provide a rigid foundation to protect
the structure from differential soil movement.
– Monolithic wall and slab: Designed to provide a rigid foundation to resist
differential soil movement.
– Modified continuous footings, walls, and basement construction. Design to
provide a rigid foundation to resist differential soil movement.

15
4.8.2 Treatment of Expansive Soils

To avoid damage from the expansive soils, soils can also be treated in different ways, both
before and after construction. The different treatment techniques are:
• Removal of expansive soil and replacement with a non-expansive material is a
common method of reducing shrink-swell risk. If the expansive soil or stratum is
thin, then the entire layer can be removed.
• Pre-wetting a site can eliminate an expansive soil problem if the high moisture
content can be maintained.
• Chemical treatment: Lime stabilization can be use

16
5 FOUNDATION ANALYSIS
5.1 Introduction
Foundation analysis refers to the determination of the bearing layer and depth, allowable
bearing pressure and type of foundation that could be adopted safely and economically.
Factors such as the load to be transmitted to the foundation and the subsurface condition of
the soil have been considered in selecting the foundation type.
As can be observed from the geotechnical logging, the subsurface formation of the project
site comprises of different geotechnical layers, from top to bottom:
Silty CLAY. It is encountered in all the boreholes drilled with a maximum thickness of
4.70m around BH-1.
gravels. It is encountered in boreholes drilled with thickness ranging from 1.75m
around BH-1 to 2.20m around BH-2.
space jointed IGNIMBRITE. It is encountered from 6.45m to 15.80m around BH-1 and
from 6.00m to 16.30m around BH-3.
This layer is characterized by Very dense, dark to light grey, Silty SAND with gravels. It
is encountered from 15.80m and 16.30m to 20.00m around BH-1 and BH-2
respectively.
5.2 Isolated Foundation

Isolated footings are the simplest to construct and economical type of foundations. The
allowable bearing capacity of these types of footings can be determined from different
methods. Among the different methods insitu tests (SPT N-Values) and visual identification
can be used to determine the allowable bearing capacities for this project.
Layer 1 is highly plastic and expansive soil which is problematic for any civil engineering
structure as a foundation material; hence, either Layer 2 or Layer 3 shall be considered as a
seat for the foundation footings.
5.2.1 Bearing Pressure Based on SPT N-Values for Isolated Footing

Based on the geotechnical investigation, the subsurface formation can be grouped into five
different geotechnical layers at Overpass Bridge station Km 17+386. After considering the
nature of the soil, it is decided to compute the bearing capacity values using SPT-N values.
For bearing capacity analysis, the SPT-N value on rock heads is considered as refusal.
The SPT N-values/300mm should be adjusted for different factors before employing them
for computing the allowable bearing pressure. The SPT N-values are converted to N55
standard energy ratio value (Bowles, 1988) using:
N'55 = CN x N x n1 x n2 x n3 x n4
17
Where N'55 = adjusted N

CN = adjustment for overburden pressure
(p''o/p'o)1/2
p'o = overburden pressure
p''o = reference overburden pressure (95.76kPa or 1.0kg/cm2)
n1 = Er/Erb (where Er is average energy ratio that depends on
the drill system and Erb is the standard energy ratio). Er is
taken as 45 and Erb as 55.
n2 = Rod length correction
Rod length > 10 m = 1,
Rod length 6-10 m = 0.95,
Rod length 4-6 m = 0.85,
Rod length 0-4 m = 0.75
n3 = sampler correction (1.00 in this case)
n4 = borehole diameter correction (1.00 in this case)
The depths below NGL, SPT N-values, adjusted N-values (i.e., N’55) and the calculated design
N-values are given below.
Table 5-1: Measured and adjusted SPT N values
SPT N-values/ Adjusted SPT N-
Sr. No. BH-ID SPT at depth (m)
300mm values/ 300mm
1 1.55-2.00 20 20
2 3.00-3.45 18 17
3 4.55-5.00 20 15
BH-1 (Bole
4 6.00-6.20 50 37
side)
5 16.55-16.68 50 39
6 18.00-18.04 50 38
7 19.55-19.62 50 35
8 1.55-2.00 15 15
9 3.00-3.45 20 19
10 BH-2 4.55-5.00 38 29
11 (Abomsa side) 6.00-6.04 50 37
12 17.55-17.63 50 33
13 19.00-19.03 50 31
After adjusting the N-values based on the above formula, the design N-values were
calculated as the average of N-values which are found in between ½ B above and 2B below
the proposed foundation depth. B is the width of the foundation.
The bearing capacity for the soil layer is calculated from the SPT N- values using Meyerhof’s
equation as follows (Bowles, 1997):
qa = N'/F2(1 + F3/B)2Kd , B>F4
Where qa = Allowable bearing pressure for
Settlement limited to 25 mm.
Kd = 1+0.33D/B < 1.33
F2 = 0.08
F3 = 0.3
F4 = 1.2
B = Width of foundation
D = Depth of foundation

18
The following allowable bearing pressures are calculated from a depth of 2.5 to 5.0m below
the ground level for different widths settlement limited to 25mm; for other depths see
Annex 3.
Table 5-2: Allowable Bearing Pressures Based on SPT N-Value
Depth of Width of foundation (B), m
BH-ID foundation below 1.5 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0
NGL (m) Allowable Bearing Capacity (Qall) in Kpa
2.5 413 486 492 480 468 449
3.0 381 486 514 516 482 460
BH-1
4.0 546 592 585 550 508 562
5.0 726 667 585 577 561 555
2.5 497 477 533 511 493 472
3.0 566 497 556 543 507 484
BH-2
4.0 669 619 647 579 535 530
5.0 737 701 647 627 610 564
5.2.2 Bearing Capacity of Rock mass based on the Hoek- Brown Failure Criterion
The site investigation revealed that the bridge site is underlain by thick rock layer. This rock
layer is considered as safe bearing layer for the seat of foundation footings due to its
strength and exposure at convenient depth. The following bearing capacity analysis was
presented on the basis of the visual observation (rock type, fracture, weathering and other
factor) and Hoek-Brown Criterion.
When the rock mass forming the unit is considered, it is inferior to that of rock material due
to the joint spacing and variation in weathering. In order to consider the overall behavior of
the rock mass rather than the detailed failure of the individual intact rock specimen, the
main geotechnical parameters of the Basalt have been evaluated in accordance with the
Hoek-Brown Criterion, 2002, using minimum values measured insitu and RocLab software
developed for this purpose by Rocscience.
The criterion starts from the properties of intact rock and then introduces factors to reduce
those properties on the basis of the characteristics of the joints, and then estimate
acceptable equivalent frictional angle and cohesive strength for a given rock mass.
The criterion correlates the parameters as:
UCS = Uniaxial Compressive Strength
GSI = Geological Strength Index
mi = Material constant
D = Disturbance factor
Ei = intact modules = Material Ratio (MR) x UCS
c = Cohesion
φ = Frictional angle
The assessment of the characteristics of the rock masses that form foundation ground of the
crossing is done on the basis of:
• Borehole core logs, RQD, AFS, weathering condition and field observations as
described in the previous section and
19
• Laboratory Measurements of Intact Rock Strengths of representative core samples
To determine the global rock mass strength, minimum UCS value among the boreholes is
taken to consider the worst condition of the site.
Based on field description, Hoek – Brown Classification data, the Hoek - Brown Criterion
material constants, Mohr-Coulomb Fit and Rock Mass Parameters are derived and shown
in Figures, below.
Figure 5-1: Analysis of rock mass strength

The global rock mass strength is 1.931MPa; by taking factor of safety 2.5, the allowable
bearing capacity obtained on the rock layer is 772KPa.
Table 5-3: Summaries from RocLab Software
BH. ID Layer No. Global Mass Safety Allowable Bearing
Strength, KPa Factor Capacity, KPa
BH-1 and BH-2 Layer 3 1931 2.5 772
5.2.3 Allowable Bearing Capacity using Settlement Criterion

As far as the properties of the project soils are concerned, as depicted from laboratory tests
settlement shall have to be addressed properly.

20
Compressibility and stiffness of cohesive soil is strongly strain level dependent. But in
addition, it is also influenced by the relative rates of loading and drainage of excess pore
pressure. Compressibility and stiffness of cohesive soil is commonly expressed in a number
of ways:
• Compression Index (Cc)
• Coefficient of volume compressibility (mv)
• Undrained Young’s Modulus (Eu)
• Drained Young’s Modulus (E’)
The Compression Index (Cc) is routinely used in the calculation of settlements of normally
and lightly over-consolidated clays. The predicted compression of such materials is strongly
dependent on the value of pre-consolidation pressure used in the calculation.
In the design of any foundation, one must consider the safety against bearing capacity
failure as well as against excessive settlement of the foundation. In the design of most
foundations, there are specifications for allowable levels of settlement.
The settlement of a foundation can have three components: (a) elastic settlement Se, (b)
primary consolidation settlement Sc, and (c) secondary consolidation settlement Ss. The
total settlement St can be expressed as:
St= Se + Sc + Ss
For any given foundation, one or more of the components may be zero or negligible.
Consolidation settlement, Sc, is a time-dependent process that occurs due to the expulsion
of excess pore water pressure in saturated clayey soils below the groundwater table and is
created by the increase in stress created by the foundation load.
Immediate (Short term) Settlement

Immediate settlement analysis is done based on improved Janbu’s method of for cohesive
soils using N-Values.
Input parameters considered for the analysis are:
- Width, B
- Es = equivalent Young’s modulus of the soil,
The average settlement of a foundation on an elastic soil is given by:
Si = µo*µ1*qB/Es
Where, µo = influence factor for depth D of foundation below ground surface,
µ1 = influence factor for foundation shape,
Es = equivalent Young’s modulus of the soil and it is determined based on Bowel’s
method.
According to bowels:
Es = 300(N+6), for Sandy SILT, SILT or Clayey SILT soils
Based on this method the settlement analysis is performed for different widths of
foundation, B and depth of embedment 2.50m. The following table presents the immediate
settlements that occur for placing the loads q indicated (considering possible range of loads
to be placed) at a depth of 2.50m from the natural ground level.

21
Figure 5-2: Graph used to determine µo and µ1
Table 5-4: Bearing Pressure analysis using settlement criteria around BH-1
Footing resting at depth of 2.50mbgl.
q, in
KN 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000
∆H, P, ∆H, P, ∆H, ∆H, P, ∆H,
P, in ∆H, in P, in in in in in in P, in in in in
B, in m Kpa mm Kpa mm Kpa mm Kpa mm Kpa mm Kpa mm
2 875 138 750 118 625 99 500 79 375 59 250 39
3 389 55 333 47 278 39 222 31 167 23 111 16
4 219 25 188 21 156 18 125 14 94 11 63 7
5 140 20 120 17 100 14 80 11 60 9 40 6
6 97 17 83 14 69 12 56 9 42 7 28 5
Consolidation Settlement
The consolidation settlement Sc due to the average stress increase can be calculated as
follows:
Dh=Ɖ
ƉCc'H[log(Pf/Po)]/(1+eo)
Consolidation test had been conducted on one undisturbed soil sample collected from BH-01
and used for consolidation settlement analysis. Tables below show settlements estimated
based on consolidation test result for different square footings with width, B and at a depth
of 2.50m. The settlement is computed for Allowable Bearing Capacities ranging from 100 to
540Kpa around as shown in the Table below.

22
Table 5-5: Bearing Pressure analysis using settlement criteria around BH-01
Remark: table 5-4 and table 5-5 show the result of immediate and consolidation settlement around BH-01, respectively. The settlement analysis is done
for foundation footings resting at a depth of 2.50m below the natural ground level, for different widths and possible contact pressures; the
orange shaded parts in table 5-5 show the total consolidation settlement and the blue shaded part in table 5-4 shows the immediate settlement
for the different widths and possible contact pressures. It is highly recommended to consider both immediate and consolidation settlements.

23
6 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

As a result of field and laboratory activities carried out and the analysis of the available data
and test results, the following engineering recommendations can be made.
6.1 Subsurface geotechnical materials
Sub-surface geotechnical investigation was conducted for the overpass bridge crosses at
station 17+386 site that include drilling of two (2) boreholes, sampling, insitu and laboratory
testing. Based on visual description, insitu and laboratory test results, the sub-surface
geology is sub-divided into various geotechnical layers. Accordingly, the geotechnical
investigation revealed the occurrence of the following geotechnical layers:

Silty CLAY.
gravels.
space jointed IGNIMBRITE.
This layer is characterized by Very dense, dark to light grey, Silty SAND with gravels.
6.2 Foundation seat and allowable bearing Capacity
Based on the geotechnical investigation, the subsurface formation can be grouped into four
different geotechnical layers at Bridge station Km 17+386. Layer 1 is highly plastic and
expansive soil which is problematic for any civil engineering structure as a foundation
material; hence, either Layer 2 or Layer 3 shall be considered as a seat for the foundation
footings.
The bearing capacity of the bearing layers is computed based on the SPT N-Value of soil
samples and using the laboratory UCS of rock samples. The allowable bearing capacity
results obtained for isolated foundation on the soil layer, Layer 2 is given in Table 5-2 and
the rock layer, Layer 3, presented in Table 5-3.
Table 6-1: Summary of foundation recommendation for bridge Station Km 17+386
BH-ID BH-01 BH-02
Bearing Layer Layer 2 or Layer 3
Allowable bearing capacity (ABC) Refer Table 5-2
Minimum recommended depth
4.00m 4.00m
for the above ABC
Minimum Recommended elevation
1518.415m a.s.l. 1518.479m a.s.l.
w. r. t. the top of borehole
Footing Type Isolated/ wall footing Isolated/ wall footing

24
Remarks:
While selecting the foundation width and depth, it is highly recommended to
consider the total settlement, both immediate and consolidation settlements, to
avoid excessive settlement; the maximum settlement is recommended not to
exceed 60mm.
6.3 Material backfill and compaction criteria
In general, materials for the backfilling should be non-expansive granular, not containing
rocks or lumps over 150mm in greatest dimension, free from organic matter, with plasticity
index (PI) not more than 10. The backfill material should be laid in lifts not exceeding 250mm
in loose thickness and compacted to at least 95% of the maximum dry density at optimum
moisture content as determined by modified compaction test (Proctor) (ASTM D-1557).
In case of improving the foundation by imported selected material, following any excavation
activity, and prior to any fill placement, proof rolling should be performed. It is commonly
recommend to a vibratory roller use with appropriate static weight. Compaction of the fill
materials should continue until the roller has made at least ten passes over all areas of the
site and the soils appear to be relatively firm and unyielding. Half of the roller passes should
be perpendicular to the direction of travel of the other passes. Proof rolling should be
closely monitored by the concerned engineers to observe for unusual deflection of the soils
beneath the compacting equipment. If unusual or excessive deflection is observed, then the
areas should be undercut to firm soils and backfilled with structural fill placed in maximum
one-foot thick lifts. Backfill soils should be of the same composition and be compacted to
the same criteria as structural fill soils.
In confined construction areas, proof rolling and compaction of fill materials can be
compacted with manually operated vibratory compaction equipment. But, it should meet
the compaction criteria.
The following issues should also be addresses in the compaction processes:
- The compaction work shall be checked by inspecting or testing in order to insure
that the nature of the fill material, its placement water content and the
compaction procedures are consistent with those prescribed. The common
insitu compaction checking tests are dry density and moisture content.
- The procedures for fill placement and compaction shall be selected in such a
way that stability of the fill is ensuring during the entire construction period and
the natural subsoil is not adversely affected.
The source of fill material shall be appropriately tested to ensure that it is suitable and
adequate for the intended purpose. The type, number and frequency of the tests shall be
selected according to the type and heterogeneity of the material.
6.4 Settlement consideration
In the design of any foundation, one must consider the safety against bearing capacity
failure as well as against excessive settlement of the foundation. In the design of most
foundations, there are specifications for allowable levels of settlement.
Settlement analysis was done for both immediate and consolidation settlements and
presented in Tables 5-4 and Table 5-5. It is highly recommended to consider the total
settlement (immediate and consolidation settlements) while selecting the foundation
depth and the foundation widths; the maximum settlement is recommended not to
exceed 60mm.

25
Based on settlement analysis, generally, the foundation ground fails by settlement before
shear; therefore, to avoid any excessive settlement, it is highly recommended to make the
seat of the foundation footings to be either Layer 2 or Layer 3.
6.5 Seismic Consideration
In Ethiopia the afar depression and the Main Ethiopian Rift (MER) which is part of the East
African rift is where earthquake epicenters were aligned. The current volcanic activities and
the resulting geologic phenomena’s in Afar Depression and Main Ethiopian Rift (MER) are
good manifestations for tectonically dynamic nature of the zone.
Though seismic activity in the region (Addis) has not witnessed any serious earthquakes, the
project site is situated in a seismically medium dangerous part of the country. So that it
cannot rule out of the possibility of damaging earthquake from the adjacent rift.
To generalize, the project site is located within the western rift margin of the country with
major seismic activity. Based on the Ethiopian Seismic Hazard Map (as per ES EN 1998-
1:2015), the area falls under Zone 3.
6.6 Other Consideration

This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of IDCON for specific application of the
geotechnical aspects for bridge crossing site at station KM 17+386 along Kality Ring Road
Interchange-Tulu Dimtu RBT & Kality Bulbula - Kilinto RBT Road Project. Our conclusions and
recommendations have been rendered using generally accepted standards of geotechnical
engineering and geological practice.
As a general remark, the following supplementary consideration shall be considered during
foundation construction:
• It is advisable to verify the nature and actual depth of occurrence of the bearing
layer when construction of the bridge starts and make adjustments if necessary.
Our conclusion and recommendation do not reflect variations in the subsurface
conditions that are likely to exist in the region of our borings and in unexplored
areas of the site. These variations are due to the inherent variability of the
subsurface conditions of the geology of the area. Should variations become
apparent during construction, it will be necessary to re-evaluate our conclusions
and recommendations based upon our on-site observations of the conditions.
• Exposure to the environment may weaken the subsurface material at the
foundation bearing level if the foundation excavations remain open for long
time.
• It is recommended to design an effective rainwater drainage system to get rid of
the consequences of the rainwater percolation into the layers. The site should
be graded so as to direct rainwater and water away from all planned structures.
If drastic changes are found on the subsurface geology and also if there is a change in the
design or the location of the proposed substructures, the recommendations presented in
this report must not be considered valid unless the changes are reviewed whether the
changes are consistent with the intent of our recommendations.
Finally, it should be noted that the results and recommendations of this report are solely
based on the site geotechnical investigation through core drilling of three boreholes from
March 24 to March 28, 2018 that include insitu SPT test, sample collection and laboratory
testing and assuming that the subsurface conditions do not significantly deviate from those
encountered.

26

Geotechnic Report

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Geotechnic Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

GEOTECHNICAL SUB-SURFACE INVESTIGATION

AND FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATION REPORT FOR BRIDGE

1.1 Background ............................................................................................................ 1

2.1 Rotary Core Drilling ................................................................................................ 3

3 GEOLOGIC AND SEISMIC SETTINGS OF THE AREA ............................................. 6

3.1 Regional and Site Geology ..................................................................................... 6

4 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION AND LABORATORY TESTING......................... 10

4.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................... 10

5 FOUNDATION ANALYSIS ................................................................................ 17

5.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................... 17

5.2 Isolated Foundation ............................................................................................. 17

6 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION......................................................... 24

6.1 Subsurface geotechnical materials ...................................................................... 24

1.2 Scope of Work and Objective

a) To investigate the sub-surface geology of the proposed construction site and

Figure 1-1: Location Map of the project area on topographic map

Figure 1-2: Location of the bridge site on Google image

2.2 Insitu Test

2.3.1 Disturbed Soil Sampling

2.3.2 Undisturbed Soil Sampling

2.3.3 Rock core sampling

2.4 Laboratory Testing

- Unit Weight Determination: consist of the determination of the unit weight by

- Unconfined Compression Strength Test of soil: consist of performing the

- Consolidation Test: consist of performing the consolidation test in accordance with

3 GEOLOGIC AND SEISMIC SETTINGS OF THE AREA

3.1 Regional and Site Geology

Figure 3-1: Regional Geology of the area

3.2 Regional Seismicity of the area

3.2.1 Country seismicity overview

Figure 3.1: Seismic zoning map of Ethiopia

Table 3-3-1: Seismic Hazard Rating (Gouin, 1976)

Table 3-3-2: Bade rock acceleration ratio αo as per ES EN 1998:2015

4 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION AND LABORATORY TESTING

4.3 Geotechnical characterization of the subsurface material

Layer 1: Stiff to very stiff Silty CLAY

Depth of occurrence (m)

Figure 4-1: Possible Cross-Section along BH-1 to BH-2

4.4 In situ Field Testing

4.5.2 Undisturbed Soil Samples

4.5.3 Rock Samples

Geotechnical Sub-Surface Investigations and Foundation Recommendation Report Km 17+386

4.6 Laboratory Testing

Table 4-6: Summary of UCS Test Result of undisturbed soil Sample

Bulk Unit Dry Unit Moisture

1 BH-1 2.50-2.80 17.50 12.95 35.12 171.80 85.90

Table 4-8: Summary of UCS Test Result of rock core samples

Geotechnical Sub-Surface Investigations and Foundation Recommendation Report Km 17+386

4.7 Ground water Level Measurement

4.8 Damage due to expansive soils

Geotechnical Sub-Surface Investigations and Foundation Recommendation Report Km 17+386

4.8.2 Treatment of Expansive Soils

Geotechnical Sub-Surface Investigations and Foundation Recommendation Report Km 17+386

5.2 Isolated Foundation

5.2.1 Bearing Pressure Based on SPT N-Values for Isolated Footing

Where N'55 = adjusted N

Geotechnical Sub-Surface Investigations and Foundation Recommendation Report Km 17+386

• Laboratory Measurements of Intact Rock Strengths of representative core samples

Figure 5-1: Analysis of rock mass strength

5.2.3 Allowable Bearing Capacity using Settlement Criterion

Geotechnical Sub-Surface Investigations and Foundation Recommendation Report Km 17+386

Immediate (Short term) Settlement

Geotechnical Sub-Surface Investigations and Foundation Recommendation Report Km 17+386