Geotechnical Report

Bahir Dar - Tis Esat Design and Build Road Project; Ethiopian Roads Authority
Final Geotechnical Report August, 2020
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................ 1
1.1 Project Background............................................................................................................ 1
1.2 Purpose and scope of investigations..................................................................................1
2 GEOLOGY OF THE PROJECT AREA.......................................................................................3

2.1 Geological Setting..............................................................................................................3
2.1.1 Regional Setting..................................................................................................3
2.1.2 Geology of the Route Corridor............................................................................5
2.2 Seismic Setting.................................................................................................................. 5
3 CENTRELINE CUTS AND EMBANKMENTS............................................................................9

3.1 Existing Condition..............................................................................................................9
3.1.1 Existing Surface and Subsurface Drainage.........................................................9
3.1.2 Springs, Excessively Wet Areas and Swamps....................................................9
3.1.3 Slides, slumps, and faults noted along the alignment........................................17
3.2 General Soil Cut or Fill.....................................................................................................18
3.2.1 Excavation Limits of Unsuitable Materials.........................................................18
3.2.2 Identification of Unsuitable Soils.......................................................................18
3.2.3 Recommended Treatment................................................................................23
3.3 Soil Cut............................................................................................................................ 26
3.3.1 Recommended cut slope design.......................................................................26
3.4 Fills.................................................................................................................................. 27
3.4.1 Recommended fill slope design........................................................................27
4 DRAINAGE.............................................................................................................................. 28
5 FOUNDATIONS OF STRUCTURES........................................................................................30
5.1 Major Drainage Structures...............................................................................................30
5.2 Minor Drainage Structures...............................................................................................32
6 REFERENCES......................................................................................................................... 38
APPENDICES
Appendix 1: Summary of Sub grade Laboratory Tests Results

Appendix 2: DCP Results
Appendix 3: Typical Rock Fill Section on Swamps
Appendix 4: Typical Section for Gully Treatment
Appendix 5: Response to Comments
1 MELCON Construction Plc

LIST OF TABLES
Table 3-1: Summary of Swamps and Wetlands with their Recommendations.................................16

Table 3-2 Summary of Suitable and Unsuitable Sub grade Sections...............................................19
Table 3-3: Recommended Treatment of Unsuitable Sub grade Sections.........................................24
Table 3-4: Safe Slope ratio from ERA's Flexible Pavement/ Geometric Design Manual - 2013,
Vertical to Horizontal......................................................................................................27
Table 5-1: Presumptive Allowable Pressures for Different Foundation materials.............................31
Table 5-2: Allowable Bearing Pressure (Presumptive).....................................................................32
Table 5-3: List of Minor Drainage (Box/ Slab) Structures.................................................................32
Table 5-4: Bearing capacity of foundation material for Culvert @ 0+157.........................................34
Table 5-9: Bearing capacity of foundation material for Culvert @ 11+015.......................................35
Table 5-10: Bearing capacity of foundation material for Culvert @ 11+450.....................................36

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2-1: Geological Map of the Project Area.................................................................................5

Figure 2-2: Seismic Hazard Zoning Map of the Project Area (after GSHAP, 1999)............................7
Figure 3-1: Irrigation water overflow section, 4+000 – 4+300...........................................................10
Figure 3-2: Irrigation water overflow section, 13+000 – 14+100.......................................................10
Figure 3-3: Seasonal Inundation, 4+700 – 5+240............................................................................11
Figure 3-6: Seasonal Inundation, 10+160 – 10+620........................................................................13
Figure 3-7: Seasonal Inundation, 11+800 – 16+000........................................................................14
Figure 3-8: Swampy section, 7+540 – 8+340...................................................................................15
Figure 3-9: Swampy section, 8+960 – 9+360...................................................................................16
Figure 3-10: Cut Slope Profiles........................................................................................................26
Figure 4-1: Gully across & parallel to road.......................................................................................28
Figure 4-2: Failed Gabion................................................................................................................ 29
Figure 5-1: Existing bridges and location of new bridge...................................................................31
Figure 5-2: Conducting DCP at Box/ Slab Culvert Locations............................................................34

1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Project Background
Bahir Dar – Tis Esat Road Design and Build project is located in the Northern part of the country,
and lies entirely in the Amhara Regional State of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia,
particularly, in Bahir Dar Zuria Wereda of West Gojam administration while the end point (Tis Abay
town) is under the administration of Bahir Dar special zone.
The project road starts 7 km East of the city centre of Bahir Dar town. The proposed road is not only
creating enhanced access to the project area to Tis Abay, but it also give access to Tis Abay
(waterfall on the Blue Nile river). The falls are one of Ethiopia's best known tourist attraction site.
The Works under this contract consists of upgrading of the existing gravel road to DC6 standard (as
per ERA’s Geometric Design Manual-2013) with Asphalt Concrete (AC) surfacing. The road is
entirely traversing flat terrain. The project road consists of 10.6km rural cross section with 7 meter
carriageway width with Asphalt Concrete (AC) surfacing and 2.5 m shoulder on both sides with
double surfaced treatment surfacing. The settlement areas stretch in total for 10.6km and shall be
provided with town cross sections as provided in the Employer’s Requirement. The Road way width
is varying according to the type and size of administration seats as per the typical drawings. The
work also includes the design and construction of minor and major drainage structures.
The Project Works include walkway (Spur) of 1.2 km turning left form the main road at km 20+660 to
the TIS ESAT FALL Tourist Destination and shall be provided with a road width of 4.5 meter paved
with 50 mm Concrete tile over sand bedding, sub base, capping over the compacted sub grade
respectively and pedestrian suspension type bridge to cross Abay River.
This report covers the entire section from 0+000 to 21+200 of the project road alignment.
1.2 Purpose and scope of investigations
The purpose of the geotechnical investigations included in this report, in general, is to address the
general geotechnical features of the road alignment with respect to identification of type, extent and
properties of the soils and geologic formation along the route, structures foundation investigation
and, in general, the geotechnical investigations (field and laboratory investigations) conducted to
characterize the soils and materials along the route.
In particular, the purposes of the investigations are:-

 To investigate the sub-surface geology of the proposed construction site and identify the
various soil horizons and to establish the stratiography of the sub-surface geology within
the influence zone of foundation.
 To carry out in-situ tests (such as DCP) on minor structures locations to determine the
strength of the various soil horizons within the influence zone of foundation.
 To collect representative samples (disturbed and/ or undisturbed) for subsequent
laboratory tests to determine the engineering properties.
 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.
 To provide safe and economic foundations for the pavement and minor structures of the
road alignment.

The outcome of the geotechnical investigations is duly employed together with the climate and other
specific features of the route alignment in arriving at a safe and economical road design.
Note that geotechnical investigations for major structures involving deep investigations as core
drilling are covered separately.
The scopes of services with regard to the geotechnical investigation are outlined below:
 To carry out material investigations on sub-grade soils. The samples taken shall be
tested and checked for suitability and checked for compliance with requirements of
design standard and project specifications.
 Visual survey of the alignment.
 Test pitting and sampling of alignment (sub-grade) soils for required tests.
 Investigations regarding land slide prone areas, and/or expansive soils, if any, that may
be encountered along the road, and propose measures.
Based on the field study and laboratory test results, further desk study and analysis has been
carried out. ERA Design Manuals (2013) and other international manuals, standards and hand
books have been referred to perform the analysis and propose recommendations.

2 GEOLOGY OF THE PROJECT AREA
2.1 Geological Setting
The regional setting and corridor geology of the route is summarized as follows:
2.1.1 Regional Setting
The geological units in Ethiopia fall in to one of the following three major categories;
 the Precambrian Basement,
 the Late Paleozoic to Early Tertiary sediments, and
 the Cenozoic volcanic and associated sedimentary rocks.
The entire project alignment and all of the alternative route alignments fall under the Cenozoic
volcanic and associated sedimentary rocks. According to the Geological Map of Ethiopia
(Mengesha et al. 1996), Mohr (1962) divided the Cenozoic volcanic rocks of Ethiopia in to the Trap
Series and Aden Series. The term Trap Series is still widely used to refer to the whole pile of the
Tertiary flood basalt sequence with intercalation of felsic lava and pyroclastic rocks (commonly on
the upper part) which form the north western and south eastern plateaus and attain a thickness of
up to 3 km.


Figure 2-1: Geological Map of the Project Area
2.1.2 Geology of the Route Corridor
The geology of the route corridor was assessed in conjunction with the Geological Map of Ethiopia
(Ephrem Bashawered et al. 2010). The road alignment traverses on two geological sheets of
1:250,000 scale: the section from 0+000 to 11+600 falls on the Bahir Dar sheet, and the remaining
section from 11+600 to 21+200 lies on the Debre Tabor sheet, as shown in the maps above. It is
identified from the geological map that the route crosses a single geological unit, Quaternary Basalt
(Qpb) in the Bahir Dar sheet or Quaternary Volcanics (QV1) in the Debre Tabor sheet.
Quaternary Basalt (Qpb)/ Volcanics (QV1)
Quaternary volcanic geological unit covers the entire project alignment. According to the Geological
Map of Ethiopia (Mengesha et al. 1996), quaternary alkaline basalts and trachytes were erupted
along pre-existing structures on the north western and south eastern plateaus. Although not dated,
their relatively unmodified geomorphologic features such as the prevalence of prominent cinder
cones and small collapse craters in particular in a region of heavy rainfall and perennial streams
indicate their recent age.
Alkaline basalts and trachytic lavas prevail in the lake Tana Graben which belong to this group.
Field evidence suggests a Pleistocene age to all these rocks. Volcanic cones and flows of
scoriaceous basalts are well preserved in the lake Tana Graben.
The Quaternary basalt flows are characteristically alkaline and represent the final pulse of basaltic
volcanism on the Ethiopian plateau
2.2 Seismic Setting
Only projects found close to the rift system of Ethiopia are prone to high magnitude of earthquakes
and volcanic eruptions; however, the Bahir Dar - Tis Esat road project is far from the rift system.

Furthermore, if a project area is characterized by long-lasting and intense precipitation during the
rainy seasons, and if susceptible to recurrent earthquake shocks, as these are the triggering factors,
variety of landslides might occur on favoured areas of rugged topography, marked by deep valleys
and high steep slopes.
All these processes may induce different levels of risk in relation to the different hazards and
vulnerabilities, especially after the recent development and planning of road networks, dams,
reservoirs, and the establishment of new urban settlements in previously uninhabited areas.
However, the entire route alignment of the project road is clear from all these geological risks stated
above due to the location and topography of the area.
Seismic survey has not been carried out in the project area, or data of projects in the immediate
vicinity couldn't be found. However, the Contractor referred the Global Seismic Hazard Assessment
Program (GSHAP), which was a multi-year project sponsored by the United Nations that assembled
the first consistent worldwide map of earthquake zones (5).
The Global Seismic Hazard Assessment Program (GSHAP) was launched in 1992 by the
International Lithosphere Program (ILP) with the support of the International Council of Scientific
Unions (ICSU), and endorsed as a demonstration Program within the framework of the United
Nations International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction (UN/IDNDR).
As per GSHAP, Africa has far fewer earthquake zones than other continents, with little to no activity
across much of the Sahara and central part of the continent. There are pockets of activity, however.
The eastern Mediterranean coast, including Lebanon, is one noteworthy region. There, the Arabian
plate collides with the Eurasian and African plates.
The region near the Horn of Africa is another active area. One of the most powerful African
earthquakes in recorded history occurred in December 1910, when a 7.8 quake struck western
Tanzania.
Based on the Global Seismic Hazard zoning map, the project area location is indicated in figure 2-2
below. It also shows the peak ground acceleration of each of the seismic zones.

Figure 2-2: Seismic Hazard Zoning Map of the Project Area (after GSHAP, 1999)
In seismic sensitive zones, it is generally the case that extreme events of load combination, taking
into account the seismic load effects, may govern the substructure design. However, as indicated
on the seismic zoning map of the project area shown above, the project site is located in ‘low

hazard’ seismic zone, and hence reduction in soil strength as a result of the vibratory loading is not
necessary.
Hence, the entire route alignment of the project road is found in ‘low hazard’ seismic zone, which is
having 0.0 to 0.2 m/s2 peak ground acceleration.

3 CENTRELINE CUTS AND EMBANKMENTS
3.1 Existing Condition
3.1.1 Existing Surface and Subsurface Drainage
During the reconnaissance site visit and detail site investigation, it is observed that the entire project
alignment is found on a flat topography where flooding is a series problem from Abay, Anadasa and
Tikurit Rivers, specifically from 7+600 to 8+400 and 12+000 to 18+000.
Properly designed and constructed surface and subsurface drainage structures were not obtained
along the existing road; however, irrigation canals are observed at numerous sections of the project
alignment going parallel to the road. In addition, during rainy season, surface water from the
surrounding area is flowing parallel to the road alignment in areas where no irrigation canal exists.
The soil in most sections of the project alignment is black to dark brown silty clay, which has low
water infiltration rate. Thus, flooding of the existing road is an obvious effect when the water level
rises during rainy season.
The proposed road requires provision of proper storm drainage system as per the standard. The
storm drainage system is designed to cater the runoff from the pavement surface as well as to
intercept the runoff from adjacent catchment in the vicinity of the project road depending on the
cross section of the road, where required.
3.1.2 Springs, Excessively Wet Areas and Swamps
During the reconnaissance and successive site visits, and detail site investigation, no evidence of
springs is observed along the project alignment.
However, it has been observed excessively wet areas at numerous locations along the alignment
including the walkway after crossing the proposed pedestrian bridge location on Abay River.
These areas are wet from flooding of Abay, Anadasa and Tikurit Rivers, and from the seasonal
rainfall.
In addition, seasonal swamps and inundated sections are observed along the existing alignment at
the following stretches:
 Overflowing from Irrigation Canal @ 4+000 – 4+300 and 13+200 - 14+100
Overflowing of irrigation water has been observed during the site visit on the section of
4+000 - 4+300.

Pic. 1: Overflow of irrigation water @ 4+000-300 Pic. 2: Overflow of irrigation water @ 4+000-300
Figure 3-3: Irrigation water overflow section, 4+000 – 4+300
It has been understood from the information of the locals that the existing road section from
13+000 - 14+100 is also liable to overflow from irrigation and surface flood during the rainy
season.
Pic. 3: Section liable to overflow @ 13+000-14+100 Pic. 4: Collecting information from locals @ 14
Figure 3-4: Irrigation water overflow section, 13+000 – 14+100
The overflow problem will be solved when the irrigation canals are designed considering the
discharge; however, it is also advisable to raise the road embankments for both sections
considering the drainage characteristics and hydraulic requirements of the areas.
 Seasonal inundated section @ 4+700 - 5+240 (LHS), 7+100 – 7+340 (LHS), 8+420 –
8+900 (LHS), 9+440 – 10+130 (LHS), 10+160 – 10+620 (Both Sides), 11+800 – 16+000
(Both Sides)
a) 4+700 – 5+240 (LHS)
It is observed during the reconnaissance and successive visits, and detailed investigations
that the left hand side of the section from 4+700 to 5+240 has usually been inundated during
the rainy seasons.

During the current site visit (August 4 – 5, 2020), it has been observed that road excavation
started at this stretch just on the left hand side of the existing road between the inundated
area and existing road. The excavation work has changed the morphology of the area in
such a way that the previously stagnant (logged) water on this stretch is drained to the
excavated area.
This shows that, if properly designed, side ditch can relieve the area from inundation.
Therefore, provision of longitudinal side ditch on the left hand side is recommended for this
stretch.
Pic.5 : Previous Seasonal inundation on LHS Pic.6 : Current Condition

Figure 3-5: Seasonal Inundation, 4+700 – 5+240
b) 7+100 – 7+340 (LHS)
Due to the lowland nature of the locality, the left hand side of the stretch from 7+100 to
7+340 has been observed to have localized water from the preceding side ditch and rain
water. It is recommended to provide a side ditch that will take the water from the preceding
ditch and collect the rainwater, and guide it to the existing turn out located at 7+320.
Pic.7 : Seasonal inundation on LHS Pic.8 : Existing Ditch out @ 7+320

c) 8+420 – 8+900 (LHS)
The left hand side of the stretch from 8+420 to 8+900 has been observed to be a wetland
from bank overflow of Andasa River connected to the swamp section from 7+540 to 8+340
and rainwater on the area.

Since channelizing away the flooding of the swamp section from 7+540 to 8+340 is
proposed as one of the treatment options in that section, the flooding from this swamp will
appreciably reduce the inundation on 8+420 to 8+900. In addition, by providing a side ditch,
it is possible to prevent accumulation of the rainwater at the stretch, and also turn out at
8+660 (which seems an existing turn out) is proposed. Channelization might be required to
guide the water away from the road.
Pic.9 : Seasonal inundation on LHS Pic.10 : Existing Ditch out @ 8+660

d) 9+440 – 10+130 (LHS)
From bank overflow of Tikurit River and rainwater, the stretch on the left hand side from
9+440 to 10+130 (up to Andasa River) is noticed to be inundated. It is proposed to provide
side ditch along the stretch in order to prevent water logging, and guide the water to Andasa
River.
e) 10+160 – 10+620 (Both Sides)
The source of the wetland on the right hand side of the stretch from 10+160 to 10+620 is
bank overflow of Andasa River and rainwater, while the source on the left hand side of same
stretch is rainwater. The existing road has a raised embankment on this section, noticed to
be enough for the flood risk.

Pic.11 : Seasonal inundation on RHS

The proposed mitigation measures for this stretch are:
 It is recommended to provide relief cross drainage structures at optimal intervals

depending on the flooding,
 It is proposed to provide rock fill to a height above the anticipated maximum
water level. The rock fill shall not be used in the top 400mm of the embankment.
 Levies through the dyke, which is built to prevent bank overflow, will be
strengthened.
f) 11+800 – 16+000 (Both Sides)
From storm water/ overland flow (rain), the stretch on both sides of 11+800 to 16+000 is
noticed to be inundated. Particularly, the section from 15+200 to 16+000 is affected by the
bank overflow from Musheme River.
Pic.12 : Seasonal inundation, 11+800 – 15+200 Pic.13 : Section from 15+200 to 16+000

There is an irrigation canal to be constructed on the right hand side of this stretch, which can
do a dual purpose: as irrigation canal and side ditch to collect overland/ storm water flow, if
designed considering the two purposes.
There is an existing irrigation canal on the left hand side of the road on most of this stretch,
placed some distance away from the road. Thus, it is recommended to provide side ditch in
between the road and the existing irrigation canal to collect and guide the surface water to
the next ditch out/ crossing structure.
In addition, for the section from 15+200 to 16+000, it is recommended to raise the
embankment to a height above the anticipated maximum water level with rock fill. The rock
fill shall not be used in the top 400mm of the embankment.
 Swamps @ 7+540 - 8+340 (Both sides) and 8+960 - 9+360 (LHS)
The Employer's Requirement states the following:
'The Design Builder shall identify Swampy sections (water-logged or soft clay ground
sections which exhibit excessive movement under normal compaction equipment
and hauling vehicles, and preclude the effective compaction of the bottom fill layers),
and treat them as follows [particular attention shall be given for the section from km
12+000 to km 18+000]:
a) The sub grade shall be raised to a minimum fill height of 2 meters above the
natural ground including the pavement layers.
b) The bottom fill to above the anticipated maximum water level, but not less
than 600 mm, shall be constructed with rock fill which consists of boulders
and gravels and the embankment above the rock fill shall be constructed with
a suitable material with a minimum CBR value of 5%. The fill shall be
constructed in such a way that relatively coarser materials are placed on top
of the rock fill.
c) Rock fill shall not be used in the top 400mm of the embankment.'
However, no swamp section is observed from km 12+000 to km 18+000, except a weak sub
grade and uncontrolled overland flow from surface and River going parallel to the road on
the RHS is a treat observed, which is addressed on the respective sections.
Swampy and marshy lands have been observed along the project alignment at the
mentioned stretches of 7+540 - 8+340 (Both sides) and 8+960 - 9+360 (LHS), and
compared with ordinary soil, for construction of roads in swamps/ marshy areas, treatment is
needed on those stretches.
These areas are characterized by flat terrain that are being wet from flooding (Andasa River
bank overflow), and the seasonal rainfall.

a) 7+540 - 8+340 (Both sides)
The source of the water for the swampy land for the section from 7+540 to 8+340 is bank
overflow from Andasa and Tikurit Rivers, and seasonal rainwater.
Pic. 14: Swamp @ 7+540 - 8+340 (LHS) Pic. 15: Swamp @ 7+540 - 8+340 (RHS)
Figure 3-10: Swampy section, 7+540 – 8+340
The proposed mitigation measures, as required in the Employer’s Requirement, for this
stretch are:
 The sub grade will be raised to a minimum fill height of 2 meters above the
 The bottom fill to above the anticipated maximum water level, but not less than
600 mm, will be constructed with rock fill which consists of boulders and gravels
and the embankment above the rock fill will be constructed with a suitable
material with a minimum CBR value of 5%. The fill will be constructed in such a
way that relatively coarser materials are placed on top of the rock fill. Rock fill will
not be used in the top 400mm of the embankment (Typical section shown in
Appendix 3).
 Provision of side ditch on the right hand side of the road to collect and guide the
flood and rainwater to the nearest cross drainage structure at 8+340.
 Embankment material shall be used for the 400 mm thickness on top of the rock
fill just below the sub grade.
 In accordance with ERA's Geotechnical Design Manual - 2013, the free-draining
granular material rock fragments should have a Point Load strength of 2.0 MPa
or greater. In addition, the maximum size of the coarse particles and lift
thicknesses are limited to 300mm.
b) 8+960 - 9+360 (LHS)
The source of the water for the swampy land for the section from 8+960 to 9+360 is
seasonal rainwater.

Pic. 16: Swamp @ 8+960 - 9+360 (LHS) Pic. 17: Existing ditch out @ 9+360
Figure 3-11: Swampy section, 8+960 – 9+360
The proposed mitigation measures, as required in the Employer’s Requirement, for this
stretch are:
 The sub grade will be raised to a minimum fill height of 2 meters above the
 The bottom fill to above the anticipated maximum water level, but not less than
600 mm, will be constructed with rock fill which consists of boulders and gravels
and the embankment above the rock fill will be constructed with a suitable
material with a minimum CBR value of 5%. The fill will be constructed in such a
way that relatively coarser materials are placed on top of the rock fill. Rock fill will
not be used in the top 400mm of the embankment (Typical section shown in
Appendix 3).
 Provision of side ditch on the left hand side of the road to collect and guide the
rainwater and ditch out at 9+360.
 Embankment material shall be used for the 400 mm thickness on top of the rock
fill just below the sub grade.
 In accordance with ERA's Geotechnical Design Manual - 2013, the free-draining
granular material rock fragments should have a Point Load strength of 2.0 MPa
or greater. In addition, the maximum size of the coarse particles and lift
thicknesses are limited to 300mm.
Table 3-1: Summary of Swamps and Wetlands with their Recommendations
S.
Stretch (Extent) Problem Source Management
No.
Inundation from
1 4+700 to 5+240  Seasonal rainwater  Provision of side ditch
(LHS)
 Area is lowland
Inundation from
 Water from preceding  Provision of side ditch
2 7+100 to 7+340
side ditch  Turn out @ 7+320
(LHS)
 Seasonal rainwater
 Bank overflow from
Swamp from  Raising the embankment
Andasa and Tikurit
3 7+540 to 8+340  Provision of rock fill
Rivers
(Both sides)  Provision of side ditch on the RHS

S.
Stretch (Extent) Problem Source Management
No.
Inundation from  Bank overflow of  Provision of side ditch
4 8+420 to 8+900 Andasa River  Turn out @ 8+660
(LHS)  Seasonal rainwater  Channelization
 Raising the embankment
8+960 - 9+360
5  Seasonal rainwater  Provision of rock fill
(LHS)
 Provision of side ditch on the LHS
 Bank overflow of
9+440 – 10+130  Provision of side ditch up to
6 Tikurit River
(LHS) Andasa River
 Provision of relief cross drainage
 Bank overflow of structures
10+160 – 10+620
7 Andasa River  Provision of rock fill
(Both Sides)
 Seasonal rainwater  Levies on the existing dyke will be
strengthened
 Irrigation canal on the RHS can
 Overland flow (rain) prevent overland flow
 Bank overflow from  Provision of side ditch on the LHS
11+800 – 16+000
8 Musheme River for  Raise the embankment from
(Both Sides)
15+200 to 16+000 15+200 – 16+000
section  Provision of rock fill from 15+200 –
16+000
3.1.3 Slides, slumps, and faults noted along the alignment
Slide refers to several forms of mass wasting that include a wide range of ground movements, such
as rock falls, deep-seated slope failures, mudflows, and debris flows. Slides occur in a variety of
environments, characterized by either steep or gentle slope gradients. Gravity is the primary driving
force for a landslide to occur, but there are other factors affecting slope stability that produce
specific conditions that make a slope prone to failure. In many cases, the landslide is triggered by a
specific event (such as a heavy rainfall, an earthquake, a slope cut to build a road, and many
others), although this is not always identifiable.
A slump is a form of mass wasting that occurs when a coherent mass of loosely consolidated
materials or a rock layer moves a short distance down a slope. Movement is characterized by
sliding along a concave-upward or planar surface. Causes of slumping include earthquake shocks,
thorough wetting, undercutting, and loading of a slope.
Slides and slumps are not observed along the entire existing alignment, and is not expected to
occur on the designed alignment as there aren't any sign of such risks of earthquake, deep slope
cut, high embankments.
A fault is a fracture across which two blocks have slipped; the displacement of adjacent blocks is
parallel to the fault plane. Faulting corresponds to the brittle failure of an un-deformed rock
formation or, alternatively, involves frictional sliding on a pre-existing fault plane. Faulting occurs
when the maximum differential stress (i.e., maximum stress minus minimum stress) exceeds the
shear strength of an intact rock formation, or the frictional strength of a pre-existing fault.

As per 1:250,000 scale geological maps of the project area, no lineament or normal fault that
crosses the project alignment is found for the entire alignment.
3.2 General Soil Cut or Fill
3.2.1 Excavation Limits of Unsuitable Materials
During the evaluation of the sub-grade, the material bearing capacity (laboratory-CBR) of different
soil groups found along the project road sections were analyzed. The CBR has been performed
after 4 days soaking taking into account the estimated moisture content of the project area, possible
worst field moisture conditions and effects of shallow ground water table. Sub-grade soils are
usually compacted to proctor density (AASHTO T-193) and the design CBR values are selected
from 4-days soaked CBR values.
To examine the engineering behavior of the native sub-grade soils, verification tests have been
conducted on samples recovered from test pits excavated to a minimum depth of 1.5m below
ground surface at intervals of 500m (unless there is a soil variation within a short interval).
Accordingly, samples have been recovered and the necessary tests have been conducted for the
entire project alignment.
3.2.2 Identification of Unsuitable Soils
As per ERA Standard Technical Specification - 2013, the Contractor first identified the unsuitable
material sections that consists of:
 Peat and other organic materials from swamps, marshes and bogs that contain
compressible soils and excessive amounts of degradable organic matter such as
decomposing wood and other vegetation;
 Clay material having a Liquid Limit (LL) exceeding 60; or a Plasticity Index (PI) exceeding
30; or CBR value less than 3% at 95% of modified AASHTO compaction (AASHTO method
T-180) after 4 days soaking; or a swell value of more than 3% (with two surcharge rings)
when determined in accordance with AASHTO T-193 at 95% of modified AASHTO
compaction;
 Other problem soils such as expansive clays; collapsible sands; dispersive soils; saline soils;
micaceous soils; and low strength soils.
 Any material that is sufficiently wet and soft to prevent it from being trafficked or excavated
by normal bulk earth-moving equipment.
Accordingly, the Contractor has identified the suitable and unsuitable subgrade material sections for
the entire project alignment as follows:

Table 3-2 Summary of Suitable and Unsuitable Sub grade Sections
Gradation/sieve size mm/ Suitability

%pass Soil CBR % Material
Sr. Represented Sampling LL PI Swell as per
Classification @95% Description
No. section station % % % ERA STS
2.00 0.425 0.075 (AASHTO) MDD (Visual)
2013
Dark gray silty clay
1 0+000 0+500 0+250 79 76 70 51 24 A-7-6(14) 5 2.27 Suitable
soil
2 0+500 1+000 0+750 99 98 96 55 23 A-7-5(16) - - Red clay soil Suitable
Dark red silty clay
3 1+000 1+500 1+250 77 73 65 48 20 A-7-6(11) 4 2.79 Suitable
soil
Dark red silty clay
4 1+500 2+000 1+750 86 82 77 48 18 A-7-5(13) - - mixed with gravel Suitable
and boulders
Reddish brown
5 2+000 2+500 2+250 57 53 47 51 23 A-7-6(7) 8 1.34 silty clay soil with Suitable
traces of gravels
Dark red silty clay
6 2+500 3+000 2+750 82 79 71 49 20 A-7-6(13) - - Suitable
with some gravels
Granular soil
7 3+000 3+500 3+250 49 45 39 45 18 A-7-6(3) 9 1.25 embedded with Suitable
dark red clay
Red silty clay with
8 3+500 4+000 3+750 70 67 60 49 19 A-7-5(10) - - Suitable
gravels
9 4+000 4+500 4+250 99 98 95 62 30 A-7-5(20) 4 3.96 Dark brown clay Unsuitable
Dark brown to
10 4+500 5+000 4+750 97 95 93 76 38 A-7-5(20) - - Unsuitable
black, wet clay
Dark brown to Suitable but
11 5+000 5+500 5+250 59 57 54 48 23 A-7-6(10) 4 2.74
black, wet clay marginal
Dark brown to
12 5+500 6+000 5+750 52 51 49 76 38 A-7-5(11) - - Unsuitable
black, moist clay
Dark brown to
13 6+000 6+500 6+250 99 98 97 71 35 A-7-5(20) 1 9.07 Unsuitable
black, moist clay
Dark brown to
14 6+500 7+000 6+750 98 96 95 68 34 A-7-5(20) - - Unsuitable
black, wet clay


2013
Dark brown to
15 7+000 7+500 7+250 96 94 92 69 33 A-7-5(20) 1 9.36 Unsuitable
black, wet clay
Dark brown to
16 7+500 8+000 7+750 97 96 95 76 37 A-7-5(20) - - Unsuitable
black, wet clay
Black, wet, fat clay
17 8+000 8+500 8+250 99 99 98 95 47 A-7-5(20) 1 9.34 Unsuitable
soil
18 8+500 9+000 8+750 98 96 94 67 31 A-7-5(20) - - Unsuitable
soil
19 9+000 9+500 9+250 95 94 92 75 36 A-7-5(20) 1 8.65 Unsuitable
soil
20 9+500 10+000 9+750 99 98 97 75 37 A-7-5(20) - - Unsuitable
soil
Dark brown silty
10+00
21 10+500 10+250 90 87 82 59 28 A-7-5(19) 1 8.79 clay soil (Fill Unsuitable
0
section material)
Red granular silty
10+50
22 11+000 10+750 29 27 24 47 21 A-2-7(1) - - clay soil embedded Suitable
0
in boulders
Reddish brown
11+00
23 11+500 11+250 96 95 94 63 33 A-7-5(20) 2 5.73 clay soil (Fill Unsuitable
0
section material)
Black, moist fat
11+50
24 12+000 11+750 96 95 94 67 31 A-7-5(20) - - clay soil with some Unsuitable
0
reddish gravels
12+00 Black, moist fat
25 12+500 12+250 94 92 90 75 36 A-7-5(20) 1 8.24 Unsuitable
0 clay soil
12+50 Dark brown to
26 13+000 12+750 91 90 88 83 42 A-7-5(20) - - Unsuitable
0 black clay
13+00 Dark brown, moist
27 13+500 13+250 99 97 93 62 31 A-7-5(20) 1 6.23 Unsuitable
0 clay soil
13+50 Red, moist clay Suitable but
28 14+000 13+750 97 95 88 59 29 A-7-5(19) - -
0 soil marginal
29 14+00 14+500 14+250 98 96 93 88 41 A-7-5(20) 1 8.86 Black, wet, fat clay Unsuitable


2013
0 soil
14+50 Black, wet, fat clay
30 15+000 14+750 84 82 79 87 42 A-7-5(20) - - Unsuitable
0 with sand
Clayey sand mixed
15+00
31 15+500 15+250 57 54 49 67 33 A-7-5(11) 2 9.05 with black, wet clay Unsuitable
0
soil
32 16+000 15+750 84 80 76 73 36 A-7-5(20) - - Unsuitable
0 with sand
Black clay soil with
16+00
33 16+500 16+250 94 92 89 76 37 A-7-5(20) 1 8.2 some reddish Unsuitable
0
gravels
34 17+000 16+750 88 86 84 76 36 A-7-5(20) - - Unsuitable
0 soil
35 17+500 17+250 97 95 94 75 38 A-7-5(20) 1 8.64 Unsuitable
0 soil
36 18+000 17+750 99 98 96 84 42 A-7-5(20) - - Unsuitable
0 soil
37 18+500 18+250 92 90 88 84 41 A-7-5(20) 1 9.22 Unsuitable
0 soil
38 19+000 18+750 82 82 81 71 38 A-7-5(20) - - Unsuitable
0 soil
19+00 Red to black, wet
39 19+500 19+250 98 96 93 89 43 A-7-5(20) 1 9.58 Unsuitable
0 clay soil
40 20+000 19+750 84 83 81 82 41 A-7-5(20) - - Unsuitable
0 soil with sand
41 20+500 20+250 76 75 74 76 38 A-7-5(20) 1 8.41 Unsuitable
0 soil with sand
42 21+000 20+750 97 96 95 87 44 A-7-5(20) - - Unsuitable
0 soil
43 21+200 21+100 63 62 60 79 40 A-7-5(20) 1 7.39 Unsuitable
0 soil with sand
44 Walkway 21+200, 94 92 90 88 43 A-7-5(20) 1 9.25 Dark brown to Unsuitable
offset black clay


2013
150m

3.2.3 Recommended Treatment
The Employer's Requirement of the project states:
'The Design Builder shall identify sections with expansive soils and shall excavate to the
required depth (including the existing fill) in line with ERA Standard Technical Specification,
2013, Section 4106, and replace with suitable fill material with minimum CBR of 5% at 95%
of MDD (AASHTO 180). The specified treatment shall apply for all expansive soils in the
project road irrespective of degree of expansiveness.'
For unsuitable soils, according to ERA Standard Technical Specification - 2013, Clause 4106, the
following minimum treatment shall apply:
 Removal of the problem soil:

 Where the finished road level is designed to be less than 2m above ground
level, remove the problem soil to a minimum depth of 600mm over the full
width of the road
 Where the finished road level is designed to be greater than 2m above ground
level, remove the problem soil to a depth of 600mm below the ground level
under the unsurfaced area of the road structure; or
 Where the expansive soil does not exceed 1m in depth, remove it to its full
depth.
 Stockpile the excavated material on either side of the excavation for subsequent spreading
on the fill slopes so as to produce as flat a slope as possible (1V:6H).
 The excavated area shall be backfilled with a non-expansive material of CBR value greater
or equal to 5% and compacted to a density of 93% modified AASHTO.
 After the excavated material has been replaced with non-expansive material in 150mm lifts
to 93% modified AASHTO density, the road shall be brought to finished level in approved
materials, with a side slope of 1:2 or as indicated on the Drawing. All other
requirements for pavement layers shall be complied with as specified.
In addition, for unsuitable sub grade sections, which have high expansiveness potential, according
to ERA Geotechnical Design Manual-2013, section 2.3.1.4, one of the proposed treatment option for
expansive soil sections is 'Loading expansive soils with a stress greater than the swelling pressure
is also a way of preventing swelling. Although pavement loads are generally insufficient, using
relatively thick bases and sub-bases (or capping layers) may also be useful to reduce the effect of
swelling to a certain extent. In addition, pre-loading or placing 1.0m or more of permanent
compacted fill on the existing ground surface prior to pavement construction will reduce the
negative (suction) pore-water pressure and thereby decrease the potential for swell. With pre-
loading, swelling tends to be more uniform.'
Therefore, it is recommended to remove all unsuitable sub grade material and replace it with
approved material to a depth so that the compacted fill below the sub grade level shall be 1.0m.

The sections that need removal and replacement for 7+000 to 21+190 section of the project
alignment are tabulated as follows:
Table 3-3: Recommended Treatment of Unsuitable Sub grade Sections

Station Avg. Sub
Sub grade Recommended Treatment of
S. No. grade Level
From To suitability Sub grade
from NGL
Excavate and replace full
1 4+000 4+500 0.73 Unsuitable
road width to a depth of 0.6m
2 4+500 4+640 0.11 Unsuitable road width for minimum
earthwork cover of 1.0m
3 4+640 5+400 1.04 Unsuitable
5 5+600 5+820 0.66 Unsuitable
7 6+260 6+360 -0.19 Unsuitable
9 6+480 7+560 1.03 Unsuitable
Excavate and replace part of
10 7+560 7+700 2.17 Unsuitable the width that is not sealed, to
a depth of 0.6m
11 7+700 7+940 1.73 Unsuitable
a depth of 0.6m

13 8+000 8+420 1.26 Unsuitable

a depth of 0.6m
15 8+760 8+840 1.77 Unsuitable
16 8+840 10+500 2.84 Unsuitable Excavate and replace part of

the width that is not sealed, to

Station Avg. Sub Sub grade Recommended Treatment of

S. No. grade Level
from NGL
a depth of 0.6m
17 11+020 11+160 0.01 Unsuitable

18 11+160 11+260 0.58 Unsuitable


20 11+720 13+360 0.48 Unsuitable

a depth of 0.6m

22 13+520 14+100 0.86 Unsuitable

a depth of 0.6m

24 14+320 15+220 1.23 Unsuitable

a depth of 0.6m

26 16+100 18+280 1.12 Unsuitable

a depth of 0.6m

28 18+380 18+680 1.77 Unsuitable

a depth of 0.6m

30 18+800 20+080 1.12 Unsuitable

a depth of 0.6m

Station Avg. Sub Sub grade Recommended Treatment of

S. No. grade Level
from NGL
32 20+220 20+920 1.06 Unsuitable

As required in the Employer's Requirement, side drains in areas where expansive soils exist will be
avoided. Where this is not possible, the side ditches will be placed at a minimum distance away
from the toe of the side slope, as indicated in the typical cross-section drawings. Sufficient grade will
be provided to ensure that no water ponding can occur.
3.3 Soil Cut

3.3.1 Recommended cut slope design
Based on the new design, widening of the route corridor is inevitable. According to ERA
Geotechnical Design Manual-2013, Cut slope profiles can be single-sloped, multi-sloped or
benched. Single-sloped profiles are usually cut in dense soils with enough resistance against
failure. Their height is often limited to 6 m. Multi-sloped profiles are cut where an excavation
encounters soil overlying rock or where the stratigraphy consists of two or more soil or rock layers
with different strength characteristics. Benched slopes are designed when there is a need to slow
down and intercept surface runoff, or to contain falling debris from one bench to another, as would
be the case for an excavation in jointed rock.
Various Cut Slope Profiles Taken from ERA Geotechnical Design Manual-2013
Figure 3-12: Cut Slope Profiles
Furthermore the guide line recommended for a safe slope ratio by ERA's Flexible Pavement/
Geometric Design Manual - 2013 should be followed.

Table 3-4: Safe Slope ratio from ERA's Flexible Pavement/ Geometric Design Manual - 2013,
Vertical to Horizontal
However, as per the profile of the new design of the road, major (deep) cuts are not involved on the
entire project alignment.
3.4 Fills
3.4.1 Recommended fill slope design
The slope ratio of a fill depends on the type of material used for the fill. Since the material used for
the fill is usually an imported material the slope ratio can be selected on the availability of the
imported material. Slope ratios are given in Table 3-4 above in accordance with ERA Flexible
Pavement/ Geometric Design Manual-2013.
Thus, during construction the slope ratios for embankment can be chosen from Table 3-4 above
depending on the material used and the slope height. This will also apply for high fill on bridge
approaches.
If the foundation of an embankment with fill height greater than 2m is found to be an expansive thick
soft soil, it should be checked for settlement and, if it is greater than the allowable, shall be replaced
with a free-draining granular material prior to the placement of the fill.

4 DRAINAGE
Development of erosion gullies across and parallel to the road side from River has been a treat
observed on the existing road from 15+400 to 18+300 that could have affected affect the stability of
the road along the project route. The gullies have been developed across and parallel to the road
side.
Pic. 18: Gully across & parallel the road Pic. 19: Gully across road
Figure 4-13: Gully across & parallel to road
Propagation of the gully from the river water perpendicular to the road side has been observed on a
few sections of the existing road. It shows the pressure of the water at times during the rainy
season.
The water source for the development of the gullies has been the channelled and the bank overflow
from Musheme River.
In order to avoid or minimize the propagation of the gully across the road side, it is important to
control the river water from the road reserve area effectively. This water should be properly
channelized (using structures) and directed into existing watercourse. It has been observed during
the site visit that, in order to protect the road from the propagation of the gully, at one section
around km 18, gabion structure was built, which has been observed to be failed.

Pic. 20: Failed gabion structure around km 18 Pic. 21: Failed gabion structure around km 18
Figure 4-14: Failed Gabion
Propagation of the gully from the river water parallel to the road side has been observed all along
the section from 15+400 to 18+300 of the existing road. As the river water is meandering along the
road alignment, serious scouring of the soil has been observed. The soil is observed to be erodible
and collapsible type.
The Employer's Requirement states the following:
'The Design Builder shall identify Erodible soil stretches and shall treat them as follows:
 In places where gullies are already formed, they need to be backfilled layer by layer
with suitable fill material and the side drains (longitudinal ditches) in these sections
shall be lined with grouted stone pitching irrespective of the longitudinal slope.
 Turn outs shall be constructed at shortest possible intervals to avoid concentrated
flow of water. Secondary ditches and check dams shall be constructed to dissipate
the energy of storm water running parallel to the road.
 Proper protection works and energy dissipating facilities shall be constructed at
culvert inlets and outlets and at culvert approaches.'
It has been observed that there was an existing channel that has been blocked by the existing road
embankment. Consequently, as per the new design drainage schedule, the flow of the Musheme
river has been guided to the old channel (turn outs are provided) using cross drainage structures
(slab culvert) at station 15+400 and a new channel at 15+980. Therefore, this proposal avoids the
active gully propagation (across and parallel to the road alignment) on the RHS up to 18+300, and
the land can be reinstated and used for other purposes.
The new alignment of the road is shifted to the left hand side for the entire stretch from 15+400 to
18+300, except the stretch from 17+980 to 18+120, in order to avoid the gully formed. Thus, there
will not be any formed gully in the road reserve area. Consequently, no gully treatment is needed for
the section from 15+400 to 17+980 and 18+120 to 18+300 as turn outs are provided @ 15+400 and
15+980, and no water will exist for the development of new gully.

For the erosion gullies developed parallel to the road side from 17+980 to 18+120, in addition to
protecting the sections with gabion structures (as shown in Appendix 4), it needs to be backfilled
layer by layer with suitable fill material, and construction of check dams and paved ditches should
be provided. As required, side drains (longitudinal ditches) lined with grouted stone pitching for the
section from 17+980 to 18+120 is recommended.

5 FOUNDATIONS OF STRUCTURES
The choice of the appropriate required depth of foundation depends on some important factors like:
subsoil characteristics, nature of the structure, loads exerted by the structure, depth of top soil, and
zone of volume change.
The allowable bearing pressure imposed by a foundation is a function of the characteristics of the
ground, the depth and dimensions of the foundation, and the degree of settlement which can be
tolerated by the structure.
The allowable bearing capacity on major structures can be analyzed based on SPT for soil
foundation materials and UCS values for rock foundation materials. Thus, detailed geotechnical
investigations (using core drilling) are mandatory to determine the bearing capacity of the
foundations. Terms of Reference for the detailed geotechnical investigation for the entire project
alignment is prepared, and will be submitted separately.
Consequently, only preliminary visual assessment has been conducted and presumptive values are
adopted on the major drainage structures for this report, and a separate geotechnical investigation
and foundation recommendation report will be prepared and submitted later on.
DCP testing has been carried out on the minor drainage structure (Box/ Slab Culvert) locations for
the entire alignment to determine the bearing capacity of the foundations.
5.1 Major Drainage Structures
In addition to a newly designed pedestrian bridge to be built on the Abay River, there are two major
drainage structures along the entire project alignment, where the existing two span bridge on
Andassa River found at 10+130 proposed to be retained while the existing single span bridge on
Mendel River found at 18+310 proposed to be replaced.
Pic. 22: Andassa River bridge @ 10+130 Pic. 23: Mendel River bridge @ 18+310

Pic. 24: Failed wing wall on BD side abutment Pic 25: Crossing site for Abay pedestrian bridge
(@18+310)
Figure 5-15: Existing bridges and location of new bridge
It is common to use building code values for the allowable bearing capacity of rock; however,
geology, rock type, and quality (as RQD) are significant parameters, which should be used together
with the recommended code values.
The presumptive bearing pressure values for the foundation materials have been adopted from the
following code of standards, design manuals and reference texts:
 Foundation Analysis and Design, 4th Edition, 1988, by J. E. Bowles

 Naval Facilities Engineering Command Design Manual (NAVFAC DM - 7.02, Sec.4, Table1:
Foundations and Earth Structures, 1986),
 Ethiopian Building Code Standard for Foundations (EBCS EN 1997-1:2013).
Table 5-5: Presumptive Allowable Pressures for Different Foundation materials

Recommended Allowable Bearing
Consistency in Pressure (kPa)
Type of Bearing Material
place EBCS EN 1997- NAVFAC Bowles
1:2013
Massive igneous and metamorphic Hard and sound
7,600 9,600
rock (basalt, granite, gneiss)
Foliated metamorphic rock and Medium hard and
3,300 -
sedimentary rocks (un-weathered) sound
Weathered or broken bed rock of Soft rock
1,000 1,400
any kind
Weak or broken rock, igneous Weak, medium 2,500
spaced

Recommended Allowable Bearing

Consistency in Pressure (kPa)
Type of Bearing Material
place EBCS EN 1997- NAVFAC Bowles
1:2013
discontinuities
Gravel, gravel-sand mixtures,
boulder gravel mixtures, and sand 600 400
-Dense/very
with little gravel
compact
[Non-cohesive Soils]
480 380
-Medium dense
280 200
- Loose
Clay -Hard 200
-Stiff 150
[Cohesive Soils]
Silt -Hard 200
-Stiff 150
Table 5-2 presents the allowable bearing pressure from building codes (presumptive bearing
capacity) for the materials where the foundations of the proposed structures be placed.
Table 5-6: Allowable Bearing Pressure (Presumptive)

Structure Foundatio Foundation Material
Station Presumptive Bearing Capacity (kPa)
Location n Depth(m) Description
Pile/ Pier foundation is expected (Up to
Black, wet, fat clay soil
Abutments 6.0m, presumed bearing capacity =
10+130 >3 deposit underlain by
and Pier 150kPa, and below 6.0m presumed
basalt rock.
bearing capacity = 1,000 - 1,400kPa
Pile/ Pier foundation is expected (Up to

Black, wet, fat clay soil
6.0m, presumed bearing capacity =
18+310 Abutments >3 deposit underlain by
150kPa, and below 6.0m presumed
basalt rock.
bearing capacity = 1,000 - 1,400kPa
21+200, Light gray, slightly to

Abutments
offset 1.5 moderately weathered, 1,000 - 1,400
and Piers
~200m Basaltic rock
5.2 Minor Drainage Structures
The following are the minor structures found along the entire project road alignment:

Table 5-7: List of Minor Drainage (Box/ Slab) Structures

UTM Coordinates
Station, Crossing
S. No. Easting, Northing, Remark
km Structure Type
m m
1 0+157 325862 1275253 Slab Culvert DCP Test has been conducted
5 8+170 333455 1273116 Slab/Box Culvert DCP Test has been conducted
6 DCP Test has been conducted

11+015 336102 1272575 Slab culvert
11+450 336467 1272338 Slab culvert
12+125 337037 1271978 Slab culvert
Box DCP Test has been conducted
9 culvert/Covered
12+555 337401 1271748 Ditch
13+518 338238 1271275 Slab/Box culvert
15+390 340036 1270789 Slab/Box Culvert
15+970 340599 1270650 Slab/Box Culvert
20+170 344657 1269951 Slab culvert
21+189 345673 1269914 Slab culvert
The procedures that are followed for the determination of the bearing capacity of the foundations for
the minor drainage structures using DCP is presented as follows:
Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) tests are conducted at locations of culverts to determine the
resistance of various soil horizons.
To assess the relative density/consistency of these soils DCP (Dynamic Cone Penetrometer) with
hammer weight of 10kg dropping freely through a height of 500mm and a 60° cone having a
diameter of 21.5mm was used. After assembling the apparatus, the hammer is raised followed by
letting it to fall freely, and the number of blows required to penetrate 100mm depth of the soil is
recorded. A scale reading is taken after a set number of blows and the number of blows is changed
between readings according to the strength of the layer being penetrated. All the DCP test results
recorded on a field data sheet will be plotted with the depth of penetration against number of blows
using a spreadsheet. The slopes of the curves represent the penetration depth per number of
blows.
The rate of change of the slope of the curves or the penetration depth per number of blows reveals
the different soil layers and their relative density or consistency.
The equation to determine undrained shear strength, Cu, from the dynamic point resistance is
shown in equation 1 below [8]. The dynamic point resistance (qd) can be calculated using the Dutch
formula [7]. Using the simplifying assumption of constant acceleration, the following relationships
can be determined [6]:

Cu = qd/20 -------------- (1)

M1
qd = M 1+ M 2 rd -------------- (2)
M 1 gh
rd = Ae
-------------- (3)
Where:
Cu - Undrained Shear Strength (kPa),
qd - dynamic point resistance (kPa),
rd - is the unit point resistance (Pa),
M1 - mass of the hammer (kg),
M2 - the total mass of the extension rods, the anvil and the guide rods (kg),
g - the acceleration due to gravity (9.81 m/sec2),
h - the height of fall of the hammer (m),
A - the area at the base of the cone (m2),
e - the average penetration in m per blow, and
M - the number of blows per 100 mm penetration.
Consequently, the following are the input values:
M1 = 10kg (for Light Dynamic Penetration Test),

Cone weight = 0.48kg,
Anvil and guide rod weight = 6.00kg,
Extension rod weight = 2.10kg,
h = 0.5m (for Light Dynamic Penetration Test),
A = 0.001m2 (for Light Dynamic Penetration Test, cone diameter = 35.7mm)
e = 0.1/M (for Light Dynamic Penetration Test)
Pic. 26: DCP @ 11+015 Pic. 27: DCP @ 12+125

Figure 5-16: Conducting DCP at Box/ Slab Culvert Locations
The following allowable bearing pressures are calculated for the obtained layers at different depths
below the ground level for the minor drainage structures found along the entire project alignment.
Table 5-8: Bearing capacity of foundation material for Culvert @ 0+157
Layer Average Soil Bearing

Depth Range blow/100m
Layers Thickness Capacity
(m) m pen.
(mm) (kPa)
1 0.0 - 0.4 400 17 218
0.4 - 1.0 600 13 171
2
1.0 - 2.0 1000 13 154
3 2.0 - 2.5 500 24 253

(m) m pen.
(mm) (kPa)
1 0.0 - 0.9 900 7 94
2 0.9 - 1.5 231
600 20

(m) m pen.
(mm) (kPa)
0.0 - 0.9 900 15 194
1 174
0.9 - 1.8 900 15
1.8 - 1.9 509
100 43
2
1.9- 2.9 462
1000 43

(m) m pen.
(mm) (kPa)
1.0 - 1.8 800 6 81
1 73
1.8 - 1.9 100 6
2 1.9 - 2.4 223
500 19

(m) m pen.
(mm) (kPa)
1.0 - 1.9 900 8 103
1


(m) m pen.
(mm) (kPa)
2.9- 3.9 200
1000 19

(m) m pen.
(mm) (kPa)
1 1.0 - 1.5 500 13 177
1.5 - 1.9 373
400 28
2
1.9 - 2.3 335
400 28
3 2.3 - 2.7 258
400 22
2.7 - 2.8 333
100 28
4
2.8- 3.5 302
700 28

(m) m pen.
(mm) (kPa)
1 0.0 - 0.9 900 7 97
2 0.9 - 1.9 312
1000 26

(m) m pen.
(mm) (kPa)
1 1.0 - 1.5 500 9 113
2 1.5 - 1.6 237
100 20

Depth Range blow/100mm
Layers Thickness Capacity Remark
(m) pen.
(mm) (kPa)
1 0.0 - 0.6 600 49 644 Fill Material
2 0.6 - 0.9 457 Fill Material
300 35
3 0.9 - 1.9 191
1000 16
4 1.9- 2.9 287
1000 27


(m) m pen.
(mm) (kPa)
1 0.0 - 0.5 500 3 40
0.5 - 0.9 99
400 8
2
0.9 - 1.1 89
200 8
3 1.1- 1.4 67
300 6

(m) m pen.
(mm) (kPa)
0.0 - 0.9 900 3 44
1 39
0.9 - 1.9 1000 3
2 1.9 - 2.9 110
1000 10

(m) m pen.
(mm) (kPa)
1 0.0 - 0.5 500 5 71
2 0.5 - 0.8 273
300 21
0.8 - 0.9 215
100 16
3
0.9 - 1.1 194
200 16

(m) m pen.
(mm) (kPa)
1 1.0 - 1.3 300 10 136

(m) m pen.
(mm) (kPa)
0.0 - 0.9 900 4 49
1 44
0.9 - 1.0 100 4
2 1.0 - 1.8 163
800 14

6 REFERENCES
[1] ERA Site Investigation Manual, 2013.

[2] ERA Pavement Design Manual, Flexible Pavements, 2013.
[3] ERA Geotechnical Design Manual, 2013.
[4] ERA Standard Technical Specifications and Methods of Measurements for Road Works,
2013.
[5] Giardini, D., Grunthal, G., Shedlock, K. M. and Zhang, P.: The GSHAP Global Seismic
Hazard Map. In: Lee, W., Kanamori, H., Jennings, P. and Kisslinger, C. (eds.): International
Handbook of Earthquake and Engineering Seismology, International Geophysics Series
81B, Academic Press, Amsterdam, 1233 – 1239, 2003.
[6] Butcher AP, McElmeel K, Powell JJM. Dynamic probing and its use in clay soils, In
Proceedings of the International Conference on Advances in Site Investigation Practice, ICE
London, Thomas Telford, 1996, pp. 383-395.
[7] Cassn M. Les essays in situ en méchanique des sols, Réalisation et Interprétation, Eyrolles,
1988, Vol. 1, pp. 146-151.
[8] Langton DD. The panda light-weight penetrometer for soil investigation and monitoring
material compaction, Soil Solution Ltd, 8 Marlowe court, Macclsfield, Cheshire, SK118AY,
2000.

APPENDICES
MELCON Construction Plc

Appendix 1
Summary of Subgrade Laboratory
Test Results

Appendix 2
DCP Test Results

Appendix 3
Typical Rock Fill Section on
Swamps

Appendix 4
Typical Section for Gully Treatment

Appendix 5
Response to Comments

Geotechnical 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

Geotechnical Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bahir Dar - Tis Esat Design and Build Road Project; Ethiopian Roads Authority

Final Geotechnical Report August, 2020

2 GEOLOGY OF THE PROJECT AREA.......................................................................................3

3 CENTRELINE CUTS AND EMBANKMENTS............................................................................9

Appendix 1: Summary of Sub grade Laboratory Tests Results

1 MELCON Construction Plc

Table 3-1: Summary of Swamps and Wetlands with their Recommendations.................................16

2 MELCON Construction Plc

Figure 2-1: Geological Map of the Project Area.................................................................................5

3 MELCON Construction Plc

1.1 Project Background

1.2 Purpose and scope of investigations

In particular, the purposes of the investigations are:-

1 MELCON Construction Plc

2 MELCON Construction Plc

2 GEOLOGY OF THE PROJECT AREA

2.1 Geological Setting

2.1.1 Regional Setting

3 MELCON Construction Plc

4 MELCON Construction Plc

Figure 2-1: Geological Map of the Project Area

2.1.2 Geology of the Route Corridor

Quaternary Basalt (Qpb)/ Volcanics (QV1)

2.2 Seismic Setting

5 MELCON Construction Plc

6 MELCON Construction Plc

7 MELCON Construction Plc

8 MELCON Construction Plc

3 CENTRELINE CUTS AND EMBANKMENTS

3.1 Existing Condition

3.1.1 Existing Surface and Subsurface Drainage

3.1.2 Springs, Excessively Wet Areas and Swamps

 Overflowing from Irrigation Canal @ 4+000 – 4+300 and 13+200 - 14+100

9 MELCON Construction Plc

a) 4+700 – 5+240 (LHS)

10 MELCON Construction Plc

Pic.5 : Previous Seasonal inundation on LHS Pic.6 : Current Condition

b) 7+100 – 7+340 (LHS)

Pic.7 : Seasonal inundation on LHS Pic.8 : Existing Ditch out @ 7+320

c) 8+420 – 8+900 (LHS)

11 MELCON Construction Plc

Pic.9 : Seasonal inundation on LHS Pic.10 : Existing Ditch out @ 8+660

d) 9+440 – 10+130 (LHS)

e) 10+160 – 10+620 (Both Sides)

12 MELCON Construction Plc

Pic.11 : Seasonal inundation on RHS

The proposed mitigation measures for this stretch are:

 It is recommended to provide relief cross drainage structures at optimal intervals

f) 11+800 – 16+000 (Both Sides)

13 MELCON Construction Plc

Figure 3-9: Seasonal Inundation, 11+800 – 16+000

 Swamps @ 7+540 - 8+340 (Both sides) and 8+960 - 9+360 (LHS)

The Employer's Requirement states the following:

14 MELCON Construction Plc

a) 7+540 - 8+340 (Both sides)

b) 8+960 - 9+360 (LHS)

15 MELCON Construction Plc

Table 3-1: Summary of Swamps and Wetlands with their Recommendations

16 MELCON Construction Plc

3.1.3 Slides, slumps, and faults noted along the alignment

17 MELCON Construction Plc

3.2 General Soil Cut or Fill

3.2.1 Excavation Limits of Unsuitable Materials