GEOTECHNICAL SUB-SURFACE INVESTIGATION AND FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATION REPORT FOR G+4

CONDOMINIUM BUILDINGS

Introduction

Background

- Reported 9 boreholes: BH-380 to BH-406 except from BH-286 to BH-394 (which are sunk in Parcel 24
building area to a maximum depth of 10 meters below the natural ground for G+4 buildings
- The coordinates of each borehole were provided by the client and the ground elevation data
were acquired using hand held GPS
- This report also encompasses foundation recommendation including type of foundation, bearing layer,
foundation depth, and allowable bearing pressure for Parcel 33 building area for 9 boreholes.

Scope and objective of the work

Objective:

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 to determine the strength of the various soil horizons within the influence zone
of foundation.

c) To collect representative samples (disturbed and undisturbed) for subsequent laboratory tests to determine the
engineering properties.

d) 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.

e) To provide safe and economic foundations, that is, type of foundation, bearing layer, depth and width of
foundation, and allowable bearing capacity.

Scope: include core drilling, in-situ tests, collection of representative samples, subsequent laboratory testing and
ground water monitoring

Location

- Addis Ababa, Akaki Kaliti sub-city, around Koye Feche locality

- The site is characterized by flat to rolling ground with an average elevation of 2199m a.s.l. (above sea
level)

Methodology

Rotary core drilling

Rotary core drilling is a method of drilling that involves using a rotating drill bit to create a cylindrical hole in the
ground. The drill bit is typically made up of a series of cylindrical segments, or "cores," that are cut away from the
surrounding rock or soil as the bit rotates. These cores are then brought to the surface and analyzed to determine
the composition and structure of the subsurface materials.
 - It was employed using wire line rig having the capacity too perform boring operation to the required
standard and quality in accordance with ASTM D 2113-93, ASTM D 1452-8(955) and BS 5930:1981. (ASTM-
American society for testing and materials)
- 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.
- 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 stored in a safe place and
carefully transported to BEST Consulting Engineers Plc central laboratory. The core box samples will be
kept for the next six (6) months and then will be disposed if the client didn’t inform the company.

In-situ tests

- The Standard Penetration Test (SPT) is a widely-used in-situ test in geotechnical engineering to determine
the properties of soil and rock at a given location. The test involves driving a standard sampler into the
ground at the bottom of a borehole using a standard weight and drop height. The number of blows
required to drive the sampler a set distance into the ground (typically 15 or 30 cm) is recorded as the "N-
value". The N-value is a measure of the resistance of the soil to penetration and is related to the density,
hardness, and strength of the soil.
- SPT - 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. It was carried out starting from 1.50m depth below NGL (natural
ground level)
- Counts for the first 150mm 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.

Sampling

- Samples were recovered from split spoon sampler after every SPT, Shelby-Tube and from core box.
- Disturbed soil sampling is a method of soil sampling in which the soil is not preserved in its natural state
during the sampling process. This can involve the use of tools such as shovels, augers, or backhoes to
excavate and collect soil samples, which are then transported to a laboratory for analysis.
- 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 NMC (Natural Moisture Content) 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.
- Undisturbed soil sampling is a method of soil sampling in which the soil is preserved in its natural state
during the sampling process. This is typically done using specialized tools that are designed to
extract cylindrical soil samples from the ground without disturbing the surrounding soil. The samples are
then transported to a laboratory for analysis.
- Undisturbed Soil Samples are taken from cohesive materials encountered during drilling by means of
Shelby-Tube sampler. The samples are taken by applying static force and 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 to avoid disturbances.
Laboratory testing
Classification tests: performed on collected representative samples for verification of the field classification of the
major soil types encountered during the investigation. It includes
 Hydrometer and sieve analysis: to determine the gradation of the sample
 Atterberg limit: to identify liquid limit, plastic limit, and plasticity index.
Special tests: are performed on undisturbed soil samples and/or split-spoon samples to obtain additional
information about the soils and their conditions.
 Moisture content test: to determine moisture content
 Unit weight determination- determination of the unit weight by measurement of the length and
diameter
 Unconfined compression strength test of soil: performing the unconfined compression test. It
includes 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.
Groundwater monitoring
- On each borehole, is monitored before starting and after completion of every day drilling activity.
Geologic and seismic settings of the area
Regional and site geology
Regional geology
- The geology of A.A. area is represented by four volcanic units dominated in the lower part of basaltic lava
flows, followed by a pyroclastic sequence, mainly formed by ignimbrites, followed by central composite
volcanoes and finally small spatter cones and lava flows.
- The following volcanic formations are found in the project and the surrounding area:

1. Quaternary Olivine phyric Basalt (Qb): this unit is exposed in the northern central and southern part of Addis
Ababa geologic map. It is grey in color on fresh outcrop and becomes reddish brown up on weathering.

2. Quaternary Scoria (QSc): These scoria cones are found as either cones or simple domes. Mostly, they are
layered and sometimes contain grey Scoraceous basalt bombs. This unit is mainly cut by basaltic dyke of different
orientation.

3. Quaternary black cotton soil (Qs):

4. Chelekleka BASALT (Tb2): the oldest geological unit, found along the river course (e.g. Akaki River and its
tributaries). It is represented by layered BASALT intercalated with scoria pyroclastic rock.

5. Tertiary sediments (Ts): Out crops are mainly observed at the banks of the river and small creeks. It generally
forms very gentle slope and lower topography. It is overlain by the young Quaternary basalt and overlay the
Repi basalt. The maximum thickness is about 9 m which is around Akaki area.

6. Wechecha Yerer-Furi IGNIMBRITE (Ti3): locally covers the products of the composite central volcanoes of
Wechecha and Furi. The sequence is constituted by different flow units, consisting of pale-green to pale-yellow
welded and crystal rich ignimbrites.

7. Lower ignimbrite and pyroclastic rock (Ti2): it is grey and black colored and shows columnar jointing. The rock is
medium to fine grained and is composed of sanidine phenocrysts and fine-grained ground mass. The top layer is
very loose massive ash deposit which is whitish in color.

Subsurface/site geology
- The sub-surface geology of the proposed building sites is simple and fairly correlated in all the boreholes
sunk.
 - Visual description of core samples was made following widely used and the top part of the project site is
represented predominantly by soft to medium stiff, dark grey, highly plastic CLAY with thickness ranging
from 0.30m to 2.50m.
- This unit is underlain by, dominantly, medium stiff to stiff, light brownish gray, moist and highly plastic
Silty CLAY soil and it is encountered in all of the boreholes drilled; underlying this layer, the site is
characterized by, dominantly, medium Clayey Silty SAND and it is found in most of the boreholes
investigated. Light gray, fresh to slightly weathered basalt is encountered also at the bottom BH-392 and
BH-393 only.
Regional seismicity of the area
- Information on the seismicity 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.
Country seismicity overview
- 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.
- This zone is also under earthquake magnitude (I100) of 7.4 to 6.5 on Richter scales and with ground
acceleration 10.0 to 4.6% g (Table 3-1). On both scales show that with this magnitude seismic motion has
minor damage.
-
Regional seismicity overview
- As per GSHAP (Global Seismic Hazard Assessment Program) the project site is also located on the
2
moderate seismic area of the country characterized by a PAG of 0.8to 1.0m/s (Fig.4-2) over 50 years’
time.

 To generalize, the project site is located within the western rift margin of the country with moderate
seismic activity. Based on the Ethiopian Seismic Hazard Map (Gouin P 1976), the area falls under Zone 2
corresponding moderate damage with VII MM intensity scale and based on GSHAP it is located within a
2
Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) zone ranging from 0.8 to 1.0m/s which is classified as seismically
moderately vulnerable for potential damage.
Geotechnical investigation and laboratory testing
Introduction
Table- coordinate and depth of boreholes
Sr. No BH-ID Easting Northing Elevation (m.a.s.l) Depth drilled(m)
1 BH-388 481408.2 984937.3 2201 10
2 BH-389 481420.3 984918.3 2200 10
3 BH-390 481429.8 984895.4 2199 10
Summary of the geotechnical investigation
Geotechnical investigations carried out Quantity
Inter borehole movement and setup of drilling equipment 9
Core drilling in all formation 30
Standard penetration test 60
Disturbed soil samples 44
Undisturbed samples 9
Ground water level measurement 9
Relative surface elevation of boreholes using hand help GPS 9
Core boxes and photographing of cores in core boxes 24

Laboratory tests
Grain size analysis 44
Hydrometer analysis 2
Atterberg limits 44
Free swell 41
Natural moisture content (NMC) 44
Unit weight 27
Specific gravity 44
Swelling pressure 2

Unconfined compressive strength of soil 9

Geotechnical characterization of the subsurface materials

 - Accordingly, the geotechnical investigation reveals the occurrence of four homogenous geotechnical
layers. Accordingly, the geotechnical investigation reveals the occurrence of four homogenous
geotechnical layers.
Layer 1: Soft to Medium stiff, highly plastic CLAY

- The top most part of the building site is covered by soft to medium stiff, dark grey, highly plastic CLAY
with a maximum thickness of 2.50m (Table 4-3).

Layer 2: Medium stiff to stiff, Silty CLAY

- This layer is characterized by medium stiff to stiff, light brownish gray, moist and highly plastic Silty CLAY
soil. It is encountered in all of the boreholes drilled underlying the top layer. The average field SPT N-
values/300mm is 11.5, suggesting that the soil is dominantly medium stiff too stiff in consistency (Table 4-
4).
- Even if the soil is class is MH in USCS, after having discussion with the client and by considering the nature
of the soil type and the hydrometer analysis result, it has been decided to set the soil in CH soil class.

Layer 3: Medium dense to dense, Clayey Silty SAND with gravel

- This layer is dominantly characterized by medium dense to dense, reddish to light yellowish brown, Clayey
Silty SAND soil (completely decomposed rock). It is encountered underlying layer 2 in most of the
boreholes (Table 4-3); field SPT N-values/300mm ranges from 15 to refusal (Table 4-4).

Layer 4: Fresh to slightly weathered, fine-grained BASALT

- This layer is characterized by light gray, slightly weathered, dominantly very closely to closely jointed, fine-
grained BASALT. It is encountered in around BH-392 and 393 only

BH-ID Depth of occurrence(m)

Layer 1 Layer 2 Layer 3 Layer 4
BH-388 0.00-2.10 2.10-10.00 - -
BH-389 0.00-2.00 2.00-10.00 - -
BH-390 0.00-0.30 0.30-8.50 8.50-10.00 -

In situ field testing

- The only in situ test that was carried out was standard penetration test
- The test was carried out starting from 1.5m depth below natural ground level (NGL). Accordingly, a total
of sixty (60) SPT tests were carried out. Summary of the SPT test results is given in Table 5-4 below.

Sr. No BH-ID Top (m) Base (m) Material Measured SPT N-

description SPT values values/300mm
1 BH-388 1.55 2.00 CLAY 3/6/6 12
3.10 3.55 Silty CLAY 5/7/9 16
4.55 5.00 3/4/5 9
6.00 6.45 3/4/6 10
7.55 8.00 4/4/5 9
9.00 9.45 4/5/7 12
2 BH-389 1.55 2.00 CLAY 2/3/5 8
3.10 3.55 Silty CLAY 4/5/6 11
4.55 5.00 4/6/6 12
6.00 6.45 3/4/6 10
 7.55 8.00 4/5/6 11
9.00 9.45 5/6/8 14
3 BH-390 1.55 2.15 Silty CLAY 3/3/4 7
3.10 3.55 3/4/5 9
4.55 5.00 3/4/5 9
6.00 6.45 4/4/6 10
7.55 8.00 4/5/8 13
9.00 9.45 Clayey Silty 5/6/9 15
sand

Sampling

Disturbed samples

- A total of forty-four (44) 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.

Undisturbed samples

- Nine (9) undisturbed 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.

Laboratory testing

- The laboratory testing on the disturbed soil samples include Atterberg Limits, sieve analyses, hydrometer
analysis, moisture content, specific gravity and free swell tests. Undisturbed samples collected were also
subjected to Unconfined Compressive Strength (UCS) tests, Swelling pressure and Bulk density
measurements.
Table: summary of UCS test result of undisturbed soil samples

BH ID Depth(m) Bulk unit Dry unit Moisture UCS(KPa) Cu (KPa)

weight weight content (%)
(KN/m3) (KN/m3)
BH-388 2.50-3.10 15.97 10.28 55.24 93.15 46.58
BH-389 2.50-3.10 17.13 11.18 53.22 74.10 37.05
BH-390 2.50-3.10 16.65 11.81 40.96 78.40 39.20

Table: laboratory test results of disturbed soil samples

Sr BH ID Depth(m) NMC Gs Wet sieve analysis Atterberg limit USCS Free

No 2mm 0.425 0.075 LL PL PI swell
mm mm
1 BH-388 3.10-3.70 36.06 2.63 99.8 99.5 98.3 76 46 30 CH 140
2 BH-388 4.50-5.10 39.13 2.62 99.9 99.6 99.0 71 42 29 CH 120
3 BH-388 6.00-6.60 29.27 2.60 99.9 99.3 98.4 85 48 37 CH 130
4 BH-388 9.00-9.60 39.64 2.63 99.9 99.4 97.1 71 44 27 CH 120
5 BH-389 1.50-2.10 34.51 2.64 99.8 99.4 99.0 89 50 39 CH 160
6 BH-389 3.10-3.70 28.96 2.62 99.9 99.3 97.2 76 45 31 CH 110
7 BH-389 4.50-5.10 30.43 2.63 99.9 99.8 99.5 63 39 24 CH 90
8 BH-389 7.50-8.10 43.63 2.60 99.7 99.6 99.4 86 45 41 CH 150
9 BH-390 1.70-2.30 45.62 2.63 98.9 98.0 97.0 70 46 24 CH 120
10 BH-390 3.10-3.70 45.15 2.62 96.1 93.9 92.6 95 54 41 CH 170
11 BH-390 4.50-5.10 39.62 2.63 100.0 99.8 99.2 83 50 33 CH 130
12 BH-390 7.50-8.10 34.31 2.61 99.5 98.8 97.5 46 34 12 ML 60

Ground water level measurement

- When encountered, ground water level is measured every day before and after 24 hours from completion
of drilling activity. There was no groundwater occurrence in all the drilled boreholes up to the target
depth.

Damage due to expansive soils

- Potentially expansive soils were identified in the building 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 building 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 building 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.

Mitigation measures

- The best way to avoid damage from expansive soils is to extend building 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.

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.
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 used.

Foundation analysis

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
- As can be observed from the detailed geotechnical logging, the subsurface formation of the project site
comprises of:
 The top most part of the building site is covered by medium stiff, dark grey, highly plastic Silty
CLAY with a maximum thickness of 2.50m (Layer 1).
 Medium stiff to very stiff, grayish brown, moist and highly plastic Silty CLAY soil. It is
encountered in all the boreholes underlying the top layer (Layer 2).
 Medium dense, grayish to yellowish brown, Clayey Silty SAND soil (completely decomposed
rock); it is in countered in most of the boreholes drilled (Layer 3).
 Light gray, slightly weathered, dominantly very closely to closely jointed, fine-grained BASALT; it
is encountered at BH-392 and BH-393 only (Layer 4).
- Layer 1 is high plastic CLAY soil which is unsuitable as foundation soil as far as the nature of the material is
concerned and Layer 3 and Layer 4 are found at a relatively deeper depth. Among the four layers the
possible seat of the foundation footings is Layer 2, which is also a highly plastic and expansive Silty CLAY
soil; however, the impact of the expansive soil on the foundation shall be considered and appropriate
mitigation measures and treatment techniques shall be adopted

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 using different methods; in the different methods
in situ tests (SPT N-Values), laboratory tests and visual identification can be used to determine the
allowable bearing capacities for this project.

Bearing pressure based on UCS

- Unconfined compression tests are conducted to determine the undrained shear strength value, Cu of the
soil. The undrained shear strength of the soil, C , can be determined from unconfined compressive
u
strength (UCS) of soil as follows:
Cu= ½ UCS

= ½ UCS
- For cohesive soils, changes in ground water levels do not affect theoretical ultimate bearing capacity. For
the most critical stability state (Ø = 0), which is created when the foundation load is applied so rapidly, the
immediate bearing capacity is independent of the location of the water table. This is in contrast to the
 long-term stability in which the value of the drained shear strength cd, and drained friction angle Ød
should be considered. The ultimate bearing capacity of the footings can be calculated using:
qult = 5.14Cu(l + s'c + d'c) + q

Where qult = Ultimate bearing capacity in unit of Cu

Cu = Undrained shear strength of soil
s'c = Shape factor = 0.2(B/L)
d'c = Depth factor = 0.4(D/B)
q = Overburden pressure which is neglected since there will probably be footing excavation.
B = Width of the foundation
L = Length of the foundation
D = Depth of the foundation
- Designing a foundation on the basis of ultimate bearing capacity, a suitable factor of safety should be
used to determine the allowable pressure so that the foundation system may be safe against shear
failure. For isolated footing foundations, a factor of safety of 2 to 3 is commonly used under normal
loading conditions. Thus, for the project buildings we have taken a factor of safety 3.0. The allowable
bearing capacity is determined using:

qall = qult/FS

- The allowable bearing capacities calculated from UCS results are presented in Table 5-1 below. Here, the
bearing capacity is computed for different widths of foundation at a depth of 2.5m on Layer 2; average Cu
value within the blocks has been taken for the bearing capacity analysis.
BH-ID Block No Width B Depth(m) OB, mean Mean Cu OB. Qa(KPa)
in m Y’ bulk in (KPa) Press.q Hansen
KN/m3) (KPa)
Average of B-391 2.0 2.5 16.85 40.94 42 123
BH- 2.5 126
388,389,390 3.0 122

Bearing pressure based on SPT N-values for isolated square footing

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 N70 standard energy ratio value (Bowles, 1988)
using:
Where N'70 = CN x N x n1 x n2 x n3 x n4
N'70 = 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/E rb (where Er is average energy ratio that depends on the drill system and Erb is the standard
energy ratio).
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)
Table 5-2: Measured and adjusted SPT N values

Sr No BH-ID Top(m) Base(m) SPT N- Adjusted N

values/300mm values
1 BH-388 1.55 2.00 12 12
3.10 3.55 16 16
 4.55 5.00 9 8
6.00 6.45 10 8
7.55 8.00 9 6
9.00 9.45 12 9
2 BH-389 1.55 2.00 8 8
3.10 3.55 11 11
4.55 5.00 12 11
6.00 6.45 10 8
7.55 8.00 11 8
9.00 9.45 14 9
3 BH--390 1.55 2.15 7 7
3.10 3.55 9 9
4.55 5.00 9 8
6.00 6.45 10 8
7.55 8.00 13 9
9.00 9.45 15 10
After adjusting the N-values based on the above formula, the design N-values are 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 = 0.06
F3 = 0.3
F4= 1.2
B = Width of foundation
D = Depth of foundation
The following allowable bearing pressures are calculated from a depth of 2.0 to 3.0m below the ground level
for different width for settlement limited to 25mm. Here, the SPT on rock head is considered as refusal and
given N value of 50 for bearing capacity computation, for other depths see Annex 3.
Table 5-3: Allowable Bearing Pressures Based on SPT N-Value
BH-ID Block Depth of foundation Width of foundation (B), m
no below NGL (m) Allowable bearing capacity (Qall) in KPa
2 2.5 3 4 5
Average of B-391 222 211 202 191 181 222
BH-388,389 234 228 211 198 186 234
and 390 243 237 229 205 191 243
249 246 237 226 202 249

Bearing capacity using settlement criterion

- 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.

- 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= St + Sc + S s

- 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. The consolidation settlement Sc due to this average stress increase can be
calculated as follows:

Dh=ƩCc'H[log(Pf/Po)]/(1+eo)

- Consolidation test had been conducted on similar soil sample collected from the surrounding area for
consolidation settlement analysis. Table below show total settlement estimated based on consolidation
test result for different square footings with width, B located within Layer 2. The settlement is computed
for Allowable Bearing Capacities ranging from 125 to 350Kpa around BH-389. If maximum total settlement
of 50mm is considered, it can be selected any footing widths for any required load excreted on the
foundation soil without causing unwanted settlement. From the settlement analysis of the foundation soil
(See table below), the shaded areas are permitted both in terms of shear and settlement for the given
depths and widths (taking the maximum settlement limit i.e., 50mm).
- Around most of the boreholes, due to the sandy nature of the soil, there will be immediate settlement.
Hence, settlement analyses were performed based on the N-values obtained SPT tests. The analysis done
based on improved Janbu’s method of immediate settlement analysis for cohesive soils using the N-
Values. Input parameters considered for of the analysis are:
 Width, B
 Depth of embedment, D
 E s = equivalent Young’s modulus of the soil,

The average settlement of a foundation on an elastic soil may be 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,

E s = equivalent Young’s modulus of the soil,

Es is obtained from the relation that considers width B, depth of embedment, D and N-value

Es=320 (N+15), according to Bowel’s

- Based on this method the settlement analysis is performed for different widths of foundation, B and
depth of embedment, D. The following table presents the settlements that occur for placing the loads qall
indicated (estimation considering possible range of loads to be placed). From the settlement analysis of
the foundation soil (See tables below), the settlement is permissible taking the maximum settlement limit
i.e. 60mm

Conclusion and recommendation

Subsurface geotechnical materials

- Accordingly, the geotechnical investigation revealed the occurrence of four quasi homogenous
geotechnical layers.

Layer 1: Soft to Medium stiff, highly plastic CLAY

- The top most part of the building site is covered by soft to medium stiff, dark grey, highly plastic CLAY
with a maximum thickness of 2.50m (Table 4-3).

Layer 2: Medium stiff to stiff, Silty CLAY

- This layer is characterized by medium stiff to stiff, light brownish gray, moist and highly plastic Silty CLAY
soil. It is encountered in all of the boreholes drilled underlying the top layer.

Layer 3: Medium dense to dense, Clayey Silty SAND with gravel

- This layer is dominantly characterized by medium dense to dense, reddish to light yellowish brown, Clayey
Silty SAND soil (completely decomposed rock). It is encountered underlying layer 2 in most of the
boreholes (Table 4-3).

Layer 4: Fresh to slightly weathered, fine-grained BASALT

- This layer is characterized by light gray, slightly weathered, dominantly very closely to closely jointed, fine-
grained BASALT. It is encountered in around BH-392 and 393 only (Table 4-3).

Foundation seat and allowable bearing capacity

- For G+4 and G+7 buildings: Based on the geotechnical site investigation and bearing capacity analysis, it is
recommended that the foundation footings shall seat on either layer 2 or Layer 3 starting from 2.0m from
the surface after considering the bearing capacities appropriate for the design load according to table 5.3;
however, the impacts of the expansive soil shall be considered and appropriate mitigation measures
and/or treatment techniques (discussed in section 4.8) shall be adopted to protect the buildings from
damage due to the expansive nature of the subsurface material.
- To avoid the damage due to the expansive soil on the buildings, it is highly recommended either to
improve the foundation ground by replacing at least 1.5m of the subsurface material, starting from the
bearing depth (the bearing depth is about 2.0m from the surface), with suitable non-expansive material
with a compaction of 95% standard proctor density for every 25cm fill or to make the depth of the
foundation footings seat about 3.0m from the bearing depth (bearing depth is about 2.0m from the
surface) to pass the moisture fluctuation zone. In addition, proper drainage system shall be constructed to
collect surface runoff and to limit surface infiltration during the rainy season.
- Remark: the building area is characterized by the presence of highly expansive, thick clay soil; therefore,
proper mitigation measures and/or treatment techniques shall be adopted to avoid any differential
settlement that may happen in the building area. Besides, there is also lateral variation in bearing
capacities between the boreholes within a block; it is highly recommended to check the actual in situ
condition of the subsurface material during construction and avoid any differential settlements that may
happen in the future

Material for backfill and compaction criteria

- 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 recommended 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.
- 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.

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. Here, the maximum settlement is recommended not to exceed 50mm.
- Settlement analysis was done around BH-389 based on consolidation test result. Based on the settlement
analysis of the foundation soil (tables 5-4 in previous chapter), around BH-389, for foundation depth less
than or equal to 2m, the foundation fails by settlement before shear, i.e. settlement is critical; for
foundation depth greater than 2.0m, the settlement will be permissible taking the maximum settlement
limit i.e. 50mm.
- Generally, it can be concluded that the foundation fails by shear before settlement for foundation depth
greater than 2.0m (settlement is not critical). Therefore, based on settlement analysis, it is highly
recommended to put the foundation footings at or below 3.0m depth from the surface to avoid excessive
settlement; the same is true also around the other boreholes except for boreholes where there is no
sandy and rock layer.
- Remark: Around most of the boreholes, there is thick Clayey Silty SAND soil which is susceptible for
immediate settlement. Immediate settlement analysis was done for BH-394. According to the analysis,
around boreholes where there is thick Clayey Silty SAND soil, the foundation soil fails by settlement
before shear. Table 5-5, in previous chapter, shows settlement analysis result; the blue shaded parts are
permitted both in terms of shear and settlement.

Seismic consideration

- To generalize, the project site is located within the western rift margin of the country with moderate
seismic activity. Based on the Ethiopian Seismic Hazard Map (Gouin P 1976), the area falls under Zone 2
corresponding earthquake magnitude (I100) of 7.4 to 6.5 on Richter scales and with ground
acceleration
10.0 to 4.6% g and based on GSHAP it is located within a Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) zone ranging
from 0.8 to 1.0m/s2 which is also classified as seismically moderately vulnerable for potential damage.

Consideration to minimize expansion effect

- To minimize Expansion effects where it is not economically feasible to remove expansive materials or to
support foundations below depths of possible expansion, the effects can be minimized as follows:
 Since large seasonal changes in soil moisture are responsible for swelling, schedule construction
during or immediately after a prolonged rainy period when there will be less potential volume
change in the future.
  Grade beams should contain sufficient steel reinforcement to resist the horizontal and vertical
thrust of swelling soils.
 Provide impervious blankets and surface grading around the foundations to prevent infiltration
of surface water.
 Locate water and drainage lines so that if any leakage occurs, water will not be readily accessible
to foundation soils thereby causing damage.
 Construct proper drainage system to collect surface runoff and to limit surface infiltration during
the rainy season.
 Avoid planting deep rooted trees since they will extract the moisture of the subsurface
material and cause differential settlement.
 Maintenance programs shall be directed toward promoting uniform soil moisture beneath the
foundation during and after construction.
 Consider stabilization of the foundation soils.

Other consideration

- 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 layers when construction
of the building 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. If 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.

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 nine boreholes including insitu SPT test, collected samples
and laboratory testing and assuming that the subsurface conditions do not significantly deviate from those
encountered.