Main Body - Merged

Augus
t2023
P
roj
ect
:S
TEPWa
kan
ndao
fSi
teNo
,40
806
4-A
C
li
ent
:Sa
far
ic
omT
ele
commu
nic
ati
onsE
thi
opi
aPL
C
L
oca
tio
n:Or
omi
aRe
gio
n,Ar
siZ
one
,Na
noJ
awiKe
bel
Addi
sAbaba,Me
genagnRoad,Wac
hCompl
ex,Se
condFl
oor
;Of
fi
ceNo.s
s/02A
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................. 1
1.1 Project Description ....................................................................................................... 2

1.2 Scope of Work .............................................................................................................. 2
1.3 Purposes of Exploration ................................................................................................ 2
1.4 Location ........................................................................................................................ 2
1.5 Regional and Site Geology ........................................................................................... 3
1.5.1 Regional Geology ............................................................................ 3
1.5.2 Climate ............................................................................................ 4
1.6 Seismicity of the Study Area ........................................................................................ 5
1.7 Local/site Geology ........................................................................................................ 6
1.8 Existing condition for the site ....................................................................................... 6
2. METHODOLOGY OF INVESTIGATION ....................................................... 7
2.1 Test Pits ........................................................................................................................ 7

2.2 IN SITU TESTS, SAMPLING AND LABORATORY TESTS................................... 7
2.2.1 in Situ Tests ..................................................................................... 7
2.2.2 Sampling .......................................................................................... 9
2.2.3 Laboratory Tests ............................................................................ 10
2.3 Ground Water Records ............................................................................................... 10
2.4. Summary of Work ..................................................................................................... 11
3. GEOTECHNICAL CHARACTERISTICS SUB-SURFACE LAYERS .......... 12
3.1 Description of Geotechnical Layer ............................................................................. 12

3.2 Groundwater Observation ........................................................................................... 12
4. FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATION ............................................................... 13
4.1 Foundation Systems Recommended ........................................................................... 14

4.2 Back fill material consideration .................................................................................. 18
4.3 Settlement Analysis ............................................................................................. 18
5. CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................... 20
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT
COMMUNICATION TOWER
List of Tables
Table 1: Climates of Arsi and Around Zones

Table 2: Seismic Zone related to Ground Acceleration
Table 3: Coordinates elevation and depth of test pits with hand held GPS
Table 4: Typical Correlation between DCP and SPT Values After, TRRL, ORN 9.
Table 5: Summary of Laboratory test results
Table 6: Summary of Exploration Activities and Tests Performed
Table 7: Bearing Capacity Calculation
Table 8: Summary of Allowable Bearing Capacity for the Foundations Proposed
List of Figures
Fig 1: Site Photos
Fig 2: Geological Map of Arsi
Fig 3: Seismic risk map of Ethiopia 475 years return period, 10% probability of
exceedance in 50years (Ethiopian Communication tower Code Standard No. 8)
Fig 4: Partial View of the Project Site before and after test pit excavation during site
investigation
Fig 5: Typical Dynamic Cone Penetrometer Test Results
Fig 6: Shear vs. Displacement
List of pictures
Picture 1: Partial view of the project site
Appendices
Appendix 1: Test pits Logs

Appendix 2: Geotechnical Cross-section
Appendix 3: Test pits Locations
Appendix 4: Laboratory Test Results
Appendix 5: DCP Layer Strength Analysis
Appendix 6: Site Activity Photos
Appendix 7: Eligible Documents
SITE NAME: 408064_A_FTK_PH2 SITE ID: 408064_A
August 2023
COMMUNICATION TOWER
List of Abbreviations and symbols
BH - Test pits
BS - British Standards
m - Meters
KPa - Kilo-Pascal (KN/m2)
GWL - Ground water level
N-value - Number of blows for 300mm penetration
NMC - Natural moisture content
LL - Liquid limit
PI - Plasticity index
PL - Plastic limit
UCSC - Unified soil classification system
FS - Free Swell
D - Disturbed sample
UDS - Undisturbed sample
August 2023
COMMUNICATION TOWER
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Location
The project site is located at Oromia Region, Arsi Zone, Nano Jawi Kebele, Site ID
408064_A in GPS location of Latitudes of 8.29081 and Longitudes of 39.79054. Based on
the area to be covered by the structure, two test pits were selected for the investigation and
the field work was conducted on August 02, 2023. The project site is generally
characterized by flat to gently slop in topographical feature.
Fig-1 Site Photos
August 2023
COMMUNICATION TOWER
Site Geology and Subsurface Condition
Sub-surface geotechnical investigation was conducted for Safaricom
Telecommunications Ethiopia PLC, which comprised of test pitting, logging, in-situ and
laboratory tests. From the investigation, two geotechnical soil layers were identified. The
layers are: at the top Black highly expansive low to medium stiff Silty Clay followed by
Whitish medium Stiff high Plastic Silty Clay with Some Sand layer. Ground water was
not encountered at the test pit during the course of excavation.
Foundation Recommendation
Two options of shallow foundation systems are considered to support the proposed
structure. Only shear strength criteria are used to evaluate the recommended allowable
bearing capacity and corresponding values are given in appendix 4 above. The foundation
designer can use any of the recommended options depending on the superstructure loads.
August 2023
COMMUNICATION TOWER
1. INTRODUCTION
Geotechnical investigation is done to obtaining the necessary information about

subsurface conditions for the intended purpose. Geotechnical investigations consist of
determining the profile of the natural soil, in-situ testing of the soils, taking
representative soil samples, laboratory and determining the engineering properties of
the soils. This Document contains the detail investigation report for communication
tower. The geotechnical investigations comprised of test pitting, in situ tests such as
Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) tests, monitoring of ground water, collection of
representative samples, and subsequent laboratory tests on representative samples to
determine the engineering properties of the sub-surface materials. Moreover, the
coordinates of each test pit were acquired using hand held GPS and total station. The
field investigation was conducted on August 02, 2023. This contains and describes the
following main sections
 Soil Testing Method

 Drilling test pits (number, Spacing and depth )
 Sampling, Transport and Storing Method
 Laboratory soil test
 Foundation Recommendations
ES EN 1997-1-2015, ES EN 7 Part 1-1 and Part 1-2 are used for the preparation of
this geotechnical design report. Guidelines used for Planning, Drilling, Sampling,
transporting, storing, laboratory testing and foundation recommendation are based
ES EN 1997-1-2015.
In order to obtain reliable data and sufficient information, the following activities
were executed. The investigation designed for field investigation method and
geotechnical properties are referring EBCS EN 1997-1-2-2014 Section 2. The Design
includes
 Planning of office and field work (ES EN 2015 ES part 1-2 section 2.1)
 Locating test pits and elevation measurement (ES EN 2015 ES part 1-2
section 2.4.1.3)
 Test pits drilling, in situ testing and sampling (ES EN 2015 ES part 1-2
section 2.4.1.4)
 Laboratory testing and finalizing the investigation report (ES EN 2015 ES EN
part 1-2 section 5.1 , 5.2, 5.4 , 5.6, 5.7, 5.8 ,5.9 )
 Provide foundation recommendations, including bearing capacity,
foundation type and foundation layer. (EBCS EN 2015 EBCS part 1-2 section
6.1 and 6.2)
SITE NAME: 408064_A_FTK_PH2 SITE ID: 408064
August 2023
COMMUNICATION TOWER
1.1 Project Description
This report presents the results of the geotechnical investigation for communication
tower which is located in Oromia Region, Arsi Zone, Nano Jawi Kebele. The
proposed development consists of the construction of communication tower. The field
work of the geotechnical site investigation was conducted on August, 2023.
1.2 Scope of Work
The scope of the geotechnical investigations includes test pitting, in situ tests,
collection of representative samples and subsequent laboratory tests to determine the
engineering properties, ground water measurements, and acquiring coordinates and
elevations with total station.
1.3 Purposes of Exploration
The purposes of this exploration were to:
 Investigate the presence of ground water and identify its level if encountered;
 Determine the engineering properties of the geotechnical layers constituting
the sub-surface geology of the site;
 Develop engineering recommendations to guide design and construction of the
project.
We accomplished these purposes by:
1. Test pits drilling to explore the subsurface soil and ground water conditions;
2. Performing laboratory tests on selected representative soil samples from the
test pits to evaluate pertinent engineering properties;
3. Analyzing the field and laboratory data to develop appropriate engineering
recommendation, and
4. Preparing geotechnical investigation report.
1.4 Location
The project site is located at Oromia Region,Arsi Zone,Nano Jawi Kebele, Site ID
408064_A in GPS location of Latitudes of 8.93156 and Longitudes of 38.667348.
Based on the area to be covered by structure; two (2) test pits were selected for the
investigation. The project site is generally characterized by nearly flat topographic
feature.
August 2023
COMMUNICATION TOWER
1.5 Regional and Site Geology
1.5.1 Regional Geology
Soils play an important role in groundwater potential and its characteristics are varied,
with respect to grain size and types. Soils in the study area can be classified into clay,
clay loam, loamy sand, sand, sandy clay, sandy-clay-loam and sandy loam, as shown
in Figure 9. Along the beaches, sand and sandy clay loam types are present, and these
formations are permeable and can work as an aquifer. These formations are
extensively found along the East Coast Road (ECR) and are useful for agricultural
activities. The geology of Arsi and nearby area is represented by four volcanic units
dominated in the lower part by basaltic lava flows (Arsi basalt), followed by a
pyroclastic sequence, mainly formed by ignimbrites (Arsi Ignimbrite), followed by
central composite volcanoes (Central Volcanoes unit), and finally small spatter cones
and lava flows. Clayey soils are found in the northern region, namely
Gummidipoondi, Ponneri, Minjur, Madhavaram and Manali, and in the western
portion of the East Coast Road around Thiruporur. These soils have much lower
infiltration rates. Weights assigned for the soil layer are mainly based on the
infiltration rate. As a result, clayey soils have been given the lowest weights, while
sandy soil receives the highest.
Depth to bed rock is a representation of the thickness of unconsolidated or weathered
formations in the area. The depth to bed rock in the CRB varied from 11 to 829 m
(Figure 13). Southern coastal regions and the western part of the CRB has weathered
thickness up to 45 m. The deepest depth to bed rock is found in the extreme northern
region. Based on these values, three major categories, such as poor, moderate and
very good, with corresponding weights 5, 6 and 8 were assigned for the layer.
The maximum weightage shows the most influential parameter, and the minimum
weightage represents the least influential parameter. In the CRB, depth to bed rock, or
aquifer thickness, play the most important roles, with 20.33% weightage; with 15%,
geomorphology was the second most important parameter. The relative importance of
the other parameters is as follows: lineament (12.37%), land use (12%), soil (9%),
drainage (8.2%), geology (6.6%), rainfall (4.9%), aspect (4.5%), water level (4.2%),
and slope (2.6%).
Lineaments are rectilinear alignments observed on the surface of the earth, which are
representations of geological or geomorphological events. They can be observed as
straight lines in digital data, which represent a continuous series of pixels, having
similar terrain values. Large scale lineaments can be identified from remotely sensed
images. Lineaments are the primary indicators of secondary porosity and also for
potential sources of water supply. The presence of lineaments is observed in all
directions in the study area. The lineament density seems to be very high in
Takkolam, Cooum, Sriperumbudur, Thiruvallur, Thiruthani, etc.
August 2023
COMMUNICATION TOWER
Fig 2: Geological Map of Arsi and around
1.5.2 Climate
Timely, adequate rainfall is important in enhancing the groundwater potential of any

study area. In this study, rainfall was considered an important factor and, thus, made
it a thematic layer. Rainfall data for the past 44 years has been collected by the India
Meteorological Department (IMD). A spatial variation map of the rainfall was
created with the IDW interpolation method. The minimum and maximum rainfall
received in the Chennai Basin were 770 and 1570 mm, respectively.
Table 1 Climates of Arsi and Around Zones

August 2023
COMMUNICATION TOWER
1.6 Seismicity of the Study Area
The seismic hazard in Ethiopia is governed by the tectonic activities in and around
the great East African Rift System (EARS), which crosses the countries in the
region over a total estimated stretch of 3000 km. The seismicity of Ethiopia is quite
significant in the neighborhood of the Ethiopian Rift valley of several tens of
kilometers wide and nearly oriented in the northeast-southwest direction. It generally
dwindles with increasing distance away from the margins of the rift valley.
According to final code seismic risk map of Ethiopia (Fig. 6) 475-year return period,
10% probability of exceedance in 50 years by Ethiopian Communication tower Code
Standard No. 8 (EBCS EN 1998-1:2015), the country is divided into zones of
approximately equal seismic risks based on the known distribution of past
earthquakes and these seismic zones are related to the ground acceleration as follows
in table 2.
Zone 5 4 3 2 1 0
Ground
0.20 0.15 0.10 0.07 0.04 0
Acceleration (g).
Fig 3: Seismic risk map of Ethiopia 475 years return period, 10% probability of exceedance in
50 years (Ethiopian Communication tower Code Standard No. 8)
Accordingly, the project area is delineated as zone 3 a bed rock pick ground
acceleration of 0.10g factor shall be taken for safe design of the proposed structures.
The investigation depth is not sufficient to characterize the seismic stratification
profile which requires 15.00m depth. However, preliminary design may consider the
site stratigraphic profile grouped under subsoil class C with shear wave velocity of
less than 180m/s – 360m/s.
August 2023
COMMUNICATION TOWER
1.7 Local/site Geology
The subsurface geology of the project site has two main geotechnical soil layers in
TP-1 and TP-2 were identified. The top most part of the project site is covered by,
Dominantly Dark highly expansive low to medium stiff Silty Clay layer found from
top to 1.80m depth, Light Gray Medium Stiff High Plastic with Some Gravel with
layer is found cover from 1.80m to the end of test pits. During site investigation no
sign of land slide or subsidence were seen in the project site.
The detailed sub-surface geological strata of the proposed project site are presented in
the test pit log sheets attached with this report in Appendices B.
1.8 Existing condition for the site
The project area of the proposed site for Communication Tower of ID No. 408064_A
is generally characterized with flat undulating topographical feature.
Figure 4 Partial View of the Project Site before and after test pit excavation during site investigation
August 2023
COMMUNICATION TOWER
2. METHODOLOGY OF INVESTIGATION
2.1 Test Pits
Test Pits with 1.20m with 1.0m size were manually dug to a depth of 3.00meters. The
Test Pits were dug manually using hand tools and representative samples were
collected for laboratory tests. Upon completion of logging and sampling, the Test Pits
are photographically documented using digital camera followed by backfilling of the
Test Pits by the excavated material. A total of two test pit were manually dug and
relevant information pertinent to the Test Pits are presented in Table 2-1 and location
map of selected test pits are presented in Appendix 3.
Table 3 Coordinates elevation and depth of test pits with hand held GPS
No.
TP-ID Easting Northing Elevation Depth (m)
1 TP-01 39.790508 8.290925 2811.1 3.00m
2 TP-02 39.790511 8.291125 2812.2 3.00m
2.2 IN SITU TESTS, SAMPLING AND LABORATORY TESTS
2.2.1 in Situ Tests
Dynamic Cone Penetrometer tests were conducted every one (1.00) meter starting at
0.0m inside test pits to determine the resistance of various soil horizons underlying
the Communication tower Sites. A total of two (2layers x1Test Pits) DCP tests were
conducted in tower Sites at the surface and inside test pits every 1.0m in order to
determine the resistance these soil horizons. To assess the relative density/consistency
of these soils TRRL DCP (Dynamic Cone Penetrometer A2465) with hammer weight
of 8kg dropping freely through a height of 575mm and a 60° cone having a diameter
of 20mm was used. After assembling the apparatus, the zero reading is recorded
followed by raising the hammer and lets it to fall freely. 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 are 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. Refer to Figure 2-1 for typical DCP plot and Appendix E for
detail DCP analysis result.
August 2023
COMMUNICATION TOWER
The rate of change of the slope of the curves or the penetration depth per number of
blows revealed the different soil layers and their relative density or consistency. The
DCP values obtained for different soil types then converted to SPT N-values/300mm
following the correlation developed by Transport Road Research Laboratory (TRRL).
Figure 5 Typical Dynamic Cone Penetrometer Test Results
Overseas road Note (ORN) 9, Design of small bridges (Table 2-2), to compute the
bearing capacity using Meyerhof’s equation (cited in Bowels, 1988). The DCP
values obtained its equivalent SPT-N values are shown in Table 2-3.
Table 4 Typical Correlation between DCP and SPT Values After, TRRL, ORN 9.
DCP value mm/blow SPT N value blows/300mm

5 50
6 44
7 38
8 33
9 28
10 24
12 22
14 18
16 16
18 15
20 14
August 2023
COMMUNICATION TOWER
Depth Range(m) Measured DCP SPT N-

Sr. No. TP-ID
(mm/blow) value/300mm
A B
1 0.00 0.21 64 4
2 0.21 0.35 28.3 8
3 0.35 0.83 24.3 11
4 0.92 1.01 43.75 6
5 1.01 1.23 32.25 7
6 1.89 1.74 43 28
7 1.94 1.93 29.2 8
TP-1
8 2.03 2.09 20.3 14
9 2.12 2.18 11.18 24
10 2.20 2.27 38.21 27
11 2.28 2.34 37.5 33
12 2.34 2.38 19.21 35
13 2.39 2.40 33.56 30
14 2.43 2.46 34.21 32
15 2.49 2.51 18.3 15
1 0.00 0.16 22.22 12

2 0.16 0.25 10.00 27
3 0.25 0.45 25.00 9
4 0.45 0.83 31 10
5 0.83 0.99 7.14 27
6 2.00 1.06 4.44 38
TP-2
7 2.01 2.00 7.14 61
8 2.19 2.09 10.00 38
9 2.29 2.14 39.33 27
10 2.44 2.30 43.67 28
11 2.50 2.38 37.5 33
12 2.58 2.52 19 35
August 2023
COMMUNICATION TOWER
2.2.2 Sampling
A total of two representative soil samples were collected in polyethylene bags from
the test pits to determine the index properties and free swell. Summary of laboratory
test results on disturbed samples are presented in Table 2-4 and details.
2.2.3 Laboratory Tests
The following laboratory tests were performed to determine the engineering property
of soils collected during the site investigation, following widely accepted and
practiced procedures such as ASTM D 422 and ASTM D 4318:
 Two samples were tested for grain size analyses
 Two soil samples were tested for Atterberg limit
 Two soil samples were tested for Free swell
 One soil sample were tested for direct shear test
Table 2.3 Summary of Laboratory test results
% age Pass this Sieve (mm) Free Soil

No. Depth LL PI
TP-ID Swell type
(m) (%) (%)
4.75 2.0 0.425 0.075 , (USCS
%
1 TP-1 1.00-1.50m 87.1 77.0 69.9 65.8 76.6 20.9 41 MH
2 TP-2 0.70-1.30m 84.9 73.4 66.0 58.4 64.1 15.5 35 MH
2.3 Ground Water Records
The ground water measurement is done at the end of pitting and 24 hours later in test
pits and ground water was not found within 24 hours. However, variation in the
location of the long-term water table may be occur as Test pits so it changes in
precipitation, evaporation, seepage and other factors immediately apparent at the time
of this exploration.
August 2023
COMMUNICATION TOWER
2.4. Summary of Work
In general, the following in situ and laboratory tests were conducted on representative
samples and the following Table summarizes the geotechnical investigations carried
out.
Table 6 Summary of Exploration Activities and Tests Performed
Type of Exploration/Test Unit Quantity
Field investigation
 Drilling
TP-1 m 3.00
TP-2 m 3.00
- Number of Dynamic Cone Penetrometer tests (DCP) No. 2

Laboratory Tests
 Grain size analysis, including hydrometer No. 2
 Natural moisture content No. 2
 Density and specific gravity, unit weight tests No. 2
 Atterberg limit No. 2
 Free swell No. 2
 Plasticity Index No. 2
August 2023
COMMUNICATION TOWER
3. GEOTECHNICAL CHARACTERISTICS SUB-SURFACE LAYERS
3.1 Description of Geotechnical Layer
Descriptive analysis was made on the soil samples derived from the three test pits.
This was used together with the classification tests and relative compactions as
indicated from the SPT tests, and the following generalized geo-technical layers are
identified. Visual descriptions of soil samples recovered from all exploratory test pits
described following widely accepted and practiced procedures following BS 5930:
1981. This was supplemented by classifying the soils in to different groups following
Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) based on mostly DCP values and
Atterberg limit test conducted in the laboratory on representative samples. Details on
type and extent of the geotechnical layers are given in Appendix 1 (Test pits logs).
 Dominantly Dark Low to Medium Stiff High Plastic Silty Clay

The project site Dominantly Dark Low to Medium Stiff High Plastic Silty Clay layer
was encountered in test pits of starting from top to 1.80m depth in the site. This layer
covers depth from 0.00-1.80m.
 Light Gray Medium Stiff to Stiff High Plastic Silty Clay with Some
Gravel Layer
This layer is characterized by Light Gray Medium Stiff to Stiff High Plastic Silty Clay
with Some Gravel. This layer extends up starting from 1.80m depths up to 3.00m
around TP-1 and TP-2.
3.2 Groundwater Observation
Ground water is not encountered during the course of drilling at. Variation in location
of the long-term water table may occur as a result of changes in precipitation,
evaporation, seepage and other factors not immediately apparent at the time of this
exploration. Install subsurface drainage around the Communication tower such as
intercepting sand drain and peripheral drain to avoid gravity flow of free water and
arrest capillary moisture movement. The end user shall take care during service of the
structure and avoiding sprinkling near the Communication tower. Avoid vegetation
near, to avoid the desiccating action of plant.
August 2023
COMMUNICATION TOWER
4. FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATION
Foundation recommendations refer to the determination of the bearing layer, width,

and depth, allowable pressure on the bearing layer and type of foundation that could
be adopted safely and economically. The allowable bearing pressures of foundation
layers of site were calculated based on DCP test results. However, presumptive value
for some foundation layers which are underlain by slightly to highly weathered rock
layers or compacted granular backfill widely accepted and practiced procedures (such
as, Foundation Analysis and Design, Bowles,1988; Naval Facilities Engineering
Command (NAVFAC), Foundations and Earth Structures DM-7.02, 1986; Ethiopian
Communication tower Code of Standards, EBCS, 1995). As it can be observed from
the detailed geotechnical logging, the subsurface formation of the project site which
comprises of dominantly SILT material that is grouped into two geotechnical layers
based on the SPT N values, the engineering properties obtained from laboratory test
results and visual description.
The laboratory test results show that the main layers may undergo volume change
upon wetting and drying, thereby causing:
 Differential settlement (as the wetting/drying is not going to be uniform

throughout the soil mass)
 Induce swelling/expansion pressures on the foundation structure
The foundation and superstructures, thus, have to be able to withstand these adverse
movements and stresses and should have sufficient flexibility as well as rigidity to
avoid cracks and other associated damages and subsequent failure of the structure.
In selecting the appropriate type of foundation on such soils, numerous factors have to
be taken into account. Basic design considerations include eliminating/ removing the
expansive soil or minimizing the expansion effects. Some of the considerations are:
 Placement of footing below the depth of active swelling could be considered if it

has sufficient bearing capacity to carry the superstructure loads,
 Where it is not economically feasible to remove the potentially expansive layer or

to support foundations below depth of possible expansion, minimizing the effects
of such soils is recommended, which may be attained as follows:
August 2023
COMMUNICATION TOWER
 Where large seasonal changes in soil moisture are responsible for swelling,
schedule construction during or immediately after the rainy season, when there
will be less potential volume change in the future,
 Provide impervious blankets and surface grading around the foundations to

prevent infiltration of surface water. Efficient drainage system should be designed
and implemented to quickly drain any surface water away from the
Communication tower structures and without infiltrating into the underlying soils
 Locate water and drainage lines so that if any leakage occurs, water will not be
readily accessible to foundation soils thereby causing damage. If green area is
considered within the compound, it has to be located far from the Communication
towers.
One options for foundation systems and depths were considered for placing the
foundation on the bearing layer. The option is to place the foundation at different
depth from1.00m depth below the ground level. The allowable bearing capacity of
these types of footings can be determined from different methods. Converted DCP to
SPT tests with the supplement of the classification tests and visual identification are
used to determine the allowable bearing capacities. We have considered the tests that
were conducted in all the test pits in order to determine the equivalent SPT N-values
to be used for evaluating bearing pressures of the sub-surface foundation materials.
We have used the typical correlations between DCP and SPT values as given in the.
Overseas Road Note 9, a Design Manual for Small Bridges, TRRL, 1992. After
converting the DCP data to SPT N-values based on Overseas Road Note 9, A Design
Manual for Small Bridges, TRRL, 1992, 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.
4.1 Foundation Systems Recommended
OPTION-I
BEARING PRESSURE FOR MAT FOUNDATION FROM DCPT ON LIGHT

GRAY MEDIUM STIFF TO STIFF HIGH PLASTIC SILTY CLAY WITH SOME
GRAVEL (DOMINANTLY DARK COTTON) SOIL (3.00m DEPTH)
August 2023
COMMUNICATION TOWER
Stiffened mat foundation system may be considered if it is found to be economically
viable. A mat or raft foundation is a flat structural slab occupying the plan area of the
Communication tower and requires both positive and negative reinforcement (Bowels,
1988). The mat foundation can be placed from 2.50 meters depth below NGL. The
extra plan area of the mat, combined with the reduction in differential settlements
arising from the flexural stiffness of the mat, is sufficient to reduce anticipated
settlements to be within tolerable values. According to Bowles, 1988, a mat
foundation may be used where the base soil has a low bearing capacity and/or the
column loads are so large that more than 50 percent of the area is covered by
conventional spread footings. It is common to use mat foundations for deep Structure
both to spread the column loads to a more uniform pressure distribution and to
provide the floor slab for the basement. “Box” construction has been used in cases
where Structure are included. In this technique the foundation walls form the “box”
and are heavily reinforced so that they can span unsupported distances and resist
cracking due to differential movement. A mat foundation must be designed to limit
settlements to a tolerable amount. When the bearing capacity is established on the
basis of penetration tests (SPT), the following equation may be used for different
allowable settlement, (Bowles, 1997).
Where:
Qall = allowable bearing capacity Kd = 1+0.33D/B <1.33
ΔHa = allowable settlement B = Width of foundation
D = Depth of foundation
The following allowable bearing pressures are calculated for different foundation
widths starting from a depth of 3.00m below the ground level for settlement limited
to 25mm.
Proposed Width B (m)
foundati 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 8.5
on Depth
Level 221.51 216.26 212.25 201.2 189.6 184.3 174.9 167.6 159.1 156.54
3.00m
August 2023
COMMUNICATION TOWER
From the above analyses, one can see that an Average allowable bearing pressure
189.59Kpa obtained using bearing capacity equations from SPT tests result at a depth
of 3.00m of Light Gray Medium Stiff to Stiff High Plastic Silty Clay with Some
Gravel. The allowable bearing pressures obtained from the analysis based on SPT test
result varies from as Shown on the table above for different width.
OPTION 2
BEARING PRESSURE BASED ON DIRECT SHEAR TEST ON (LIGHT GRAY

MEDIUM STIFF TO STIFF HIGH PLASTIC SILTY CLAY WITH SOME
GRAVEL)
We have considered direct shear tests that were conducted in all the test pits in order
to determine the consolidated-drained shear strength of a sandy silty soil to be used
for evaluating bearing pressures of the sub-surface foundation materials. The shear
strength is one of the most important engineering properties of a soil, because it is
required whenever a structure is dependent on the soil’s shearing resistance. Direct
shear tests were conducted on one disturbed soil samples taken from Site ID 408071-
A site from the light Gray dry medium plastic dry firm silty clay soil layer. The test
results are shown below. Direct shear tests were conducted to derive the untrained
shear strength value, C of the soil and angle of internal friction, Ø. Taking the
average of the above values one obtains
Shear Stress Vs Displacement

150
100
50
0
0 2 4 6
Figure 6 Shear V s Displacement
August 2023
COMMUNICATION TOWER
Ø =10, and Cu =25.32 kPa [average]
The net ultimate bearing pressure for vertical loads on sandy silt soils is normally
computed as a simplification of either the Meyerhof or Hansen equations as follows
(Bowles, 1996).
Qult = CNcScdcic+ ϒD*Nq*Sqdqiq +0.5BϒNϒSϒiϒdϒ………………………… 4.1
For vertical load, ic=iq=iϒ=1
In undrained condition, (c and Ø =?),
When Ø =10, Nc = 25.33, Nq = 2.47 and Nϒ=0.37
When 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 footing foundations, a factor
of safety of 2 to 3 is commonly used under normal loading conditions. Thus, for our
condition we have taken a factor of safety 2.5 and assuming square footing.
August 2023
COMMUNICATION TOWER
Net Allowable Bearing Pressure Based on direct shear for various foundation widths
B. Hence, ultimate bearing pressure for different widths of square footing can be
calculated as shown in the following table.
Table 7 Bearing Capacity Calculation
Footing Footing
Kp c Sc dc Sq=1+0.2*Kp*B/L dq=1+0.2*Kp*D/B Qu(KN/m2)
Depth Width
2.50 4.0 1.73 25.3 1.57 1.12 1.3640 1.22 728.77
1.73
2.50 4.5 25.3 1.51 1.11 1.3640 1.20 703.15
1.73
2.50 5.0 25.3 25.3 1.10 1.3640 1.18 658.15
1.73
2.50 5.5 25.3 25.3 1.09 1.3640 1.16 600.5
1.73
2.50 6.0 25.3 1.43 1.08 1.3640 1.15 584.6
1.73
2.50 6.5 25.3 1.41 1.07 1.3640 1.40 506.75
From the above analysis, one can see that the average allowable bearing pressure of
Light Gray Medium Stiff to Stiff High Plastic Silty Clay with Some Gravel
determined from direct shear test results, average allowable soil bearing pressure is
229.9Kpa for FS of 2.5 below the lowest ground level depending on the foundation
width.
4.2 Back fill material consideration
Back fill Material for such purposes will be a granular material with few fines, i.e.,
Gravel, Gravel – sand mixtures with few silt/clay–GW-GC/SW-SC, etc. Compacted
gravel and sand mixtures with proper compaction degree of compaction. For this site,
the excavated soil in the test pit cannot be used as a backfill material.
4.3 Settlement Analysis
Settlement is another criterion for evaluating the performance of a communication

tower. Excessive settlements will result in poor performance of the Communication
tower structure. Different Communication tower codes set the limiting settlement for
the type of the structure and foundations. The proposed foundation type shall also
meet this criterion.
For saturated fine-grained soils, the major part of the settlement is contributed by
consolidation settlement. Hence, the calculation of consolidation settlement is
presented below.
Consolidation settlement computed using the following formula:
August 2023
COMMUNICATION TOWER
∆H = [CcH/(1 + eo)] [log (p'o + ∆p/ p'o)]
Where,
Cc = compression index from e vs log p plot
eo = in-situ void ratio in the stratum
H = thickness of stratum
p'o = effective overburden pressure at mid-height of H
∆p = average increase in pressure from foundation in
Layer H in Same unit as p'o
In order to estimate the settlement properties of sandy Elastic LIGTH GREY/ sandy
Fat CLAY soil layer beneath the foundation, compression index correlation is used as
shown in Bowles, 5th edition, 1997. We have used Al-Khafaji and Ander land, 1992 to
compute Cc (compression index).
Cc = -0.156+0.411e0 + 0.00058WL
The following data are used for calculating the settlement:
 The foundation shall be placed at 3.00m below the lowest ground

level.
 The settlement is thus calculated for compressible layer (Light Gray
Medium Stiff to Stiff High Plastic Silty Clay with Some Gravel) below
the foundation 3.00m depth which is the bearing layer under the
foundation depth.
 eo = average in situ void ratio in the stratum for which Cc applies. The
in-situ void ratio is computed as eo = WNGs as suggested by Bowles.
 WN=14.78%, Gs=2.63
 Initial void ratio, eo = 0.39(calculated value)
 Compression index, Cc, taken as 0.03 (calculated value)
The following primary consolidation settlements are estimated for allowable bearing
capacities determined for the maximum contact pressure value. Maximum tolerable
settlement for Mat foundation is up to 100mm for framed structures (U.S Army Corps
of Engineers, 1990). From the above analysis, calculated settlements are above
tolerable limit hence results found from SPT values would further be reduced until the
desired settlements are achieved.
August 2023
COMMUNICATION TOWER
5. CONCLUSION
Sub-surface geotechnical investigation was conducted for Communication Tower for

Safaricom Telecommunications Ethiopia PLC located at Oromia Region, Arsi Zone,
Nano Jawi Kebele, Site ID 408064_A in GPS location of TP-1(Latitudes of 8.290811
and Longitudes of 39.79521) and TP-2(Latitudes of 8.290813 and Longitudes of
39.795231) which included two test pits digging, in-situ and laboratory tests. From
this investigation, the following major geotechnical layers are identified;
 Dominantly Dark Low to Medium Stiff High Plastic Silty Clay
 Light Gray Medium Stiff to Stiff High Plastic Silty Clay with Some Gravel
For the proposed structure mat foundation is proposed with three foundation depth
options and allowable bearing capacity values are recommended based on the worst-
case scenario of shear failure and settlement. The foundation designer can use any of
the recommended values presented depending on the superstructure loads. Based on
the laboratory and in-situ test, settlement analysis and bearing capacity of the site
isolated footing is proposed for supporting the Communication tower. This foundation
shall be safely placed on the Light Gray Medium Stiff to Stiff High Plastic Silty Clay
with Some Gravel soil layer.
Table 8 Summary of Allowable Bearing Capacity for the Foundations Proposed
Foundation on Light Gray Medium Stiff to Stiff High Plastic Silty Clay with Some
Gravel
Bearing Depth 3.00m below the NGL
Allowable bearing pressure 189.59Kpa
The foundation shall be on 0.80m thick select back fill granular Material with
few fines, such as Gravel, Gravel – sand mixtures with few silt/clay–GW-
GC/SW-SC, etc. Compacted gravel and sand mixtures with proper compaction
degree of compaction. The Geotechnical Engineer in charge shall conduct
intermittent supervision of the foundation excavation works during construction to
verify/check the actual subsurface conditions, and shall make adjustments to the
foundation recommendation as given in this report, where actual site conditions
warrant such changes.
August 2023
COMMUNICATION TOWER
APPENDICES
August 2023
COMMUNICATION TOWER
Appendix 1
Test pits Logs
August 2023
Addis Ababa, Megenagn Road, Wach Complex, Second Floor; Office No. ss/02A
PI Geotechnical Engineering Service Tel: +251 911 584 384 / +251 913 484 982 E-mail: piconsulting@gmail.com
Project: Geotechnical Investigation of Communication Tower

Ground Elevation (m): 2811.5
Client: Safaricom Telecommunications Ethiopia PLC
Location: Oromia Region, Arsi Zone, Nano Jawi Kebele TP Inclination: Vertical
BH Coordinates (UTM- Adindam Datum) Date started: 02-August-2023
Latitudes of 8.290925 and Longitudes of 39.790511 Date completed: 03-August-202323
PITS LOGO
Sheet 1 of 02
PT-01
Safe Bearing Capasity Field Description of

(KN/m2) Soil/rock Graphic Log Photographs
0.00
0.40 100
0.50 0.60 100
0.50 100
1.00 0.50 100 1.00m 145.20KN/m2
Dominantly Dark Low to Medium
0.45 100 Stiff High Plastic Silty Clay
1.50 0.55 100 1.50m 141.25KN/m2 *From (0.00-1.80m)
2.00 1.00 100 2.00m 136.54KN/m2

0.45 100 Light Gray Medium Stiff to Stiff High
Plastic Silty Clay With Some Gravel
2.50 0.55 100 2.50m 133.62KN/m2
*From (1.80m-2.50m)
3.00 1.00 100
END OF TEST PIT
3.50 1.00 100
4.00 1.00 100
4.50 1.00 100
5.00 1.00 100
5.50 1.00 100
6.00 1.00 100
6.50 1.00 100
7.00 1.00 100
1.00 100
N=Blows/30cm Rock sample

RQD=Rock Quality Designation
TCR=Total Core Recovery Undisturbed sample
AFS=Averge Fracture Spacing
SPT = Standard Penetration Testing Static groundwater level
Geotechnical Investigation Report For
Communication Tower
Appendix 2
Geological Cross Section
August 2023
TEST PIT LOG

Description
0 Depth (m)
0.0
0.5
1.0 Dominantly Dark Low to Medium

Stiff High Plastic Silty Clay
*From (0.00-1.80m)
1.5
Light Gray Medium Stiff to Stiff High

2.0 Plastic Silty Clay With Some Gravel
*From (1.80m-3.00m)
2.5
3.0 END OF TEST PIT
X = 1.50m
Y = 1.00m
Z = 2.50m
Legend:
SILT
Clay
TP-1
0.00 0.00
TP-2
0.50 0.50
1.00 1.00
1.50 1.50
2.00 2.00
2.50 2.50
3.00 3.00
LEGEND
CLAY Silty Clay
SILT
Communication Tower
Appendix 3
Test pits Locations
August 2023
N
Latitudes of 8.290925
TP-2 Longitudes of 39.79058
Z: 2811.5
Latitudes of 8.291125
TP-1 Longitudes of 39.790511
Z: 2812.2
Communication Tower
Appendix 4
Laboratory Test Results
August 2023
Hydrometer Analysis
ASTM D422-63(2007)
Project: STEP Wakannda of Site No, 408064-A Muluken M Date: 2/8/2023
Location: Oromia Region,Arsi Zone,Nano Jawi Kebele Yakob M
Client Safaricom Telecommunications Ethiopia PLC
USCS Soil Classification:
Hydrometer No.: 152H Mass of Soil Sample (g): 50.00

Specific Gravity of Solids (Gs): 2.65 Zero Correction: 6
Dispering Agent: 4% (NaPO3)6 Meiscus Correction: 1
L K CT a
DT Temp %
Date Time Ra Ra,corr D (mm) Rc
(min) (°C) Table 2, Table 4, Lab Table 1, Finer
Table 3, D422
D422 Manual D422
8/1 16:06 0 25 55 56 7.1 0.01326 1.3 1.120

8/1 16:07 1 25 47 48 8.6 0.01326 0.05254 1.3 1.120 43.3 97.0
8/2 16:08 1442 25 42 43 9.2 0.01326 0.05134 1.3 1.120 38.3 85.8
8/2 16:10 1444 25 40 41 9.6 0.01326 0.05014 1.3 1.120 36.3 81.3
8/3 16:14 2888 25 37 38 10.1 0.01326 0.04894 1.3 1.120 33.3 74.6
8/3 16:22 2896 25 32 33 10.9 0.01326 0.04774 1.3 1.120 28.3 63.4
8/4 16:40 4354 25 28 29 11.5 0.01326 0.04654 1.3 1.120 24.3 54.4
8/4 18:22 4456 25 22 23 12.5 0.01326 0.04534 1.3 1.120 18.3 41.0
8/4 17:24 4398 25 15 16 13.7 0.01326 0.04414 1.3 1.120 11.3 25.3
Coarse Medium Fine

Siev Diamete
GRAVEL % SAND SILT/CLAY
#4 SAND #10 SAND
#40
4.75000 #200100.00000 Msoil,#200 wash (g):
e 100r (mm) Passin
2.00000 100.00000
4 90 4.75 100 0.42500 97.00000
10 2 100 0.15000 92.00000 SIEVE RESULTS:
40 80 0.425 100 0.07500 90.00000 See Sheet __
200 0.075 100 0.05254 97.0
70
%
0.05134 85.8 Sieve D (mm)
% Passing
Finer
60 0.05014 81.3 4 4.75 100
0.04894 74.6 10 2 100
50
0.04774 63.4 40 0.425 97
40
0.04654 54.4 100 0.15 92
0.04534 41.0 200 0.075 90
30 0.04414 25.3
0.00000 0.0
20 0.00000 0.0
0.00000 0.0
10 0.00000 0.0
0
10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 0.0001
Particle Diameter (mm)

Specific Gravity Determination
ASTM D854-10
Project STEP Wakannda of Site No, 408046-A Tested By: Muluken M Date: 2/8/2023
Location: Oromia Region,Arsi Zone,Nano Jawi Kebele Checked By: Yakob M
USCS Soil Classification: High Plastic Silty Clay(CH)
PYCNOMETER CALIBRATION
Mass of Pycnometer (Mp) (g): 456.2
Mass of Pycnometer + Water (Mpw) (g): 175641
Observed Water Temperature (Ti) (°C): 21.1
SPECIFIC GRAVITY DETERMINATION
Trials
Measurement/Calculation Variable Units
1 2 3
Mass of Pycnometer Mp (g) 450 450 450

Mass of Pycnometer + surface
Mps (g) 864.2 854.9 860.2
dry Soil
Mass of surface dry Soil Ms (g) 503 501 500
Mass of Pycnometer + Water +
Mpws (g) 1856.2 1856.20 1855.90
Soil
Mass of Pycnometer + Water Mpw (g) 1598.20 1598.30 1598.30
Mass of Oven Dry Soil Ms (g) 490.00 489.70 489.80
Specific Gravity of Soil Gs --- 2.00 2.01 2.02
Apparent Specific Gravity 2.11 2.11 2.11
Water Absorption % 2.65 2.31 2.08
g w @Tx
M pw =
g w @Ti
[ M pw @Ti - M p ] + M p
KM s
Gs =
M s+ M pw - M pws
NOTES:
Atterberg Limits Data Sheet
ASTM D4318-10
Location: Oromia Region,Arsi Zone,Nano Jawi Kebele Yakob M
USCS Soil Classification: Silty Clay (CH)
TEST PLASTIC LIMIT LIQUID LIMIT

NO
Variable 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
Var. Units
Number of Blows N blows 30 28 24 19
Can Number --- --- 35 37 35 37 27 28 31 34
Mass of Empty Can MC (g) 22.30 23.60 22.60 23.10 18.30 18.20 18.25 19.06
Mass Can & Soil (Wet) MCMS (g) 33.25 35.22 36.54 32.10 56.20 58.30 54.20 59.40
Mass Can & Soil (Dry) MCDS (g) 27.90 28.53 27.90 28.53 41.19 46.05 42.98 41.54
Mass of Soil MS (g) 5.60 4.93 5.30 5.43 22.89 27.85 24.73 22.48
Mass of Water MW (g) 5.35 6.69 8.64 3.57 15.01 12.25 11.22 17.86
Water Content w (%) 95.5 135.7 163.0 65.7 65.6 44.0 45.4 79.4
70
Liquid Limit (LL or w L ) (%): 33 LL PI
60
Plasticity Index (PI)
U Line
Plastic Limit (PL or w P ) (%): 115 4 4 A Line
50 CH or OH
Plasticity Index (PI) (%): -82 25.5 4
40
USCS Classification: CL 115.89 70
30
CL or OL
MH or OH
PI at "A" Line = 0.73(LL-20) 20 0 0
One Point Liquid Limit Calculation: 10 70 70
0.12
CL-ML ML or OL
LL = w n (N/25) 0
0 7 25 7 50 75 100 125 150
PROCEDURE USED 29.6 7Liquid Limit (LL or wL)
38
Wet Preperation 50 0
X Multipoint
37
50 70
Water Content (%)
36 y = -8.406ln(x) + 60.659
15.8 7 R² = 0.9828
Dry Preperation
Multipoint
35
85.778 70
34
Procedure A 25 0
Multipoint 33
25 40
32
Procedure B One-
Point 31
30
10 100
Number of Blows (N)
Sieve Analysis data Sheet
ASTM D422-63(2007)
USCS Soil Classification: Light Gray Sity soil

AASHTO Soil Classification:
Weight of Container (g): 350.1 Weight of Container & Soil (g): 650.0
Weight of Dry Sample (g): 299.9
Mass of
Sieve Soil Retained Soil Retained Soil Passing
Diameter (mm) Mass of Empty Sieve (g) Sieve & Soil
Number (g) (%) (%)
(g)
10 2 503.7 533.2 29.5 9.8 90.2
20 0.85 609.4 623.2 13.8 4.6 85.6
40 0.425 463 498.3 35.3 11.8 73.8
50 0.355 446.7 456.2 9.5 3.2 70.6
100 0.15 422.2 422.9 0.7 0.2 70.4
140 0.106 351.9 398.3 46.4 15.5 54.9
200 0.075 517.9 534.3 16.4 5.5 49.4
Pan 441.3 472.2 30.9 10.3 0.0
TOTAL: 182.5 60.9
Coarse Medium Fine SILT/CLAY
GRAVEL #4 SAND #10 SAND #40 SAND #200
100
Sieve
90 Diameter (mm) % Passing
80
4 4.75 100
10
70 2 100
% Passing
40 0.425 100
60
200 0.075 100
50
40
30
20
10
0
10 1 0.1 0.01
Particle Diameter (mm)
Grain Size Distribution Curve Results:
% Gravel: 64.3 D10: NA Cu: NA
% Sand: 24.6 D30: Cc: NA
% Fines: 11.8 D60:
DETERMINIATION OF LIQUID LIMIT & PLASTIC LIMIT ASTM D 423/424 AASHTO T89/T90
PROJECT STEP Wakannda of Site No, 408046-A LOCATION Oromia Region,Arsi Zone,Nano Jawi Kebele
Client Safaricom Telecommunications Ethiopia PLC PIT NO 1 From All Pits DATE SAMPLE 1/8/2023
Contractor Fireside Communication Ltd. Ref. Lab. No. PI 318 DATE TESTED 02/08/203
LIQUID LIMIT
Number of blows 35 31 28
Container No. 1A 1B 1C
Mass of wet soil + container (a) g 37.10 33.20 31.40
Mass of dry soil + container (b) g 31.20 29.80 27.90
Mass of container (c ) g 15.28 14.85 15.19
Mass of moisture (a-b) g 5.9 3.4 3.5
Mass of dry soil (b-c) g 15.92 14.95 12.71
Moisture content (w=a-b/b-c x 100) % 37.1 22.7 27.5
PLASTIC LIMIT
Container No. 1D 1E
Mass of wet soil + container (a) g 16.80 16.81
Mass of dry soil + container (b) g 16.39 16.50
Mass of container (c ) g 15.23 15.64
Mass of moisture (a-b) g 0.41 0.31
Mass of dry soil (b-c) g 1.16 0.86
Moisture content (w=a-b/b-c x 100) g 35.3 36.0
Average moisture content (wa) % 35.7
45.0
40.0
Moisture Content
35.0
liqiud limit
30.0
Linear (liqiud limit)
25.0
20.0
10 100
No of blows
Liquid Limit % 29.1

Plastic Limit % 35.7
Plastic Index %. -6.6
PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION BY SIEVING
TOTAL SAMPLE
540
WEIGHT (GRAM)
WEIGHT RETAINED CUMMULATIVE % %

SIEVE SIZES
TOTAL(GRAM) PASS(GRAM) PASS RETAINED
4.75 mm 79.00 461.00 85.4% 14.6

2 mm 58.00 403.00 74.6% 10.7
0.425 mm 39.00 364.00 67.4% 7.2
0.075 mm 22.00 342.00 63.3% 4.1
100.0%
90.0%
80.0%
70.0%
PERCENT PASSING
60.0%
50.0%
40.0% Series1
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
10.00 1.00 0.10 0.01
GRAIN SIZE mm
DETERMINIATION OF LIQUID LIMIT & PLASTIC LIMIT ASTM D 423/424 AASHTO T89/T90
LIQUID LIMIT
Number of blows 36 34 36
Container No. 1A 1B 1C
Mass of wet soil + container (a) g 46.30 44.20 43.90
Mass of dry soil + container (b) g 39.40 38.20 37.40
Mass of container (c ) g 15.28 14.85 15.19
Mass of moisture (a-b) g 6.9 6 6.5
Mass of dry soil (b-c) g 24.12 23.35 22.21
Moisture content (w=a-b/b-c x 100) % 28.6 25.7 29.3
PLASTIC LIMIT
Container No. 1D 1E
Mass of wet soil + container (a) g 15.73 15.45
Mass of dry soil + container (b) g 15.35 15.14
Mass of container (c ) g 13.94 13.97
Mass of moisture (a-b) g 0.38 0.31
Mass of dry soil (b-c) g 1.41 1.17
Moisture content (w=a-b/b-c x 100) g 27.0 26.5
Average moisture content (wa) % 26.7
45.0
40.0
Moisture Content
35.0
liqiud limit
30.0
Linear (liqiud limit)
25.0
20.0
10 100
No of blows
PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION BY SIEVING
TOTAL SAMPLE
565
WEIGHT (GRAM)
WEIGHT RETAINED CUMMULATIVE % %

SIEVE SIZES
TOTAL(GRAM) PASS(GRAM) PASS RETAINED
4.75 mm 84.00 481.00 85.1% 14.9

2 mm 69.00 412.00 72.9% 12.2
0.425 mm 46.00 366.00 64.8% 8.1
0.075 mm 31.00 335.00 59.3% 5.5
100.0%
90.0%
80.0%
70.0%
PERCENT PASSING
60.0%
50.0%
40.0% Series1
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
10.00 1.00 0.10 0.01
GRAIN SIZE mm
Attachment 1 = Direct Shear Test
Project STEP Wakannda of Site No, 408064_A Tested By: Muluken M
Client Safaricom Telecommunications Ethiopia PLC Date:02/08/2023
Sample No. 1 Sample Depth, m: 2.80
3
Thickness of sample: 25 mm Ring Calib. Factor: 0.70 N/div Wet unit weight, kN/M : 18.90
3
Length of sample : 60 mm Rate of strain : 2.01 mm/min Dry Unit Weight, kN/M : 10.30
Width of sample: 60 mm Moisture content, % 66.1 Sample Condition: Remolded
Applied Vertical Stress Applied Vertical Stress Applied Vertical Stress
100 kPa 200 kPa 300 kPa
Horizontal Corrected Proving Shear Shear Proving Shear Shear Proving Shear Shear
Displacement Area Ring Load Stress Ring Load Stress Ring Load Stress
[mm] [mm2] Reading [N] [kPa] Reading [N] [kPa] Reading [N] [kPa]
0.0 3600 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.2 3588 18.00 12.60 3.51 20.00 14.00 3.90 48.00 33.60 9.36
0.4 3576 41.00 28.70 8.03 40.00 28.00 7.83 83.00 58.10 16.25
0.6 3564 59.00 41.30 11.59 85.00 59.50 16.69 94.00 65.80 18.46
0.8 3552 84.00 58.80 16.55 123.00 86.10 24.24 134.00 93.80 26.41
1.0 3540 103.00 72.10 20.37 149.00 104.30 29.46 166.00 116.20 32.82
1.2 3528 113.00 79.10 22.42 165.00 115.50 32.74 205.00 143.50 40.67
1.4 3516 140.00 98.00 27.87 177.00 123.90 35.24 250.00 175.00 49.77
1.6 3504 156.00 109.20 31.16 190.00 133.00 37.96 280.00 196.00 55.94
1.8 3492 182.00 127.40 36.48 222.00 155.40 44.50 305.00 213.50 61.14
2.0 3480 200.00 140.00 40.23 240.00 168.00 48.28 340.00 238.00 68.39
2.2 3468 213.00 149.10 42.99 255.00 178.50 51.47 370.00 259.00 74.68
2.4 3456 231.00 161.70 46.79 260.00 182.00 52.66 405.00 283.50 82.03
2.6 3444 247.00 172.90 50.20 295.00 206.50 59.96 440.00 308.00 89.43
2.8 3432 263.00 184.10 53.64 320.00 224.00 65.27 470.00 329.00 95.86
3.0 3420 277.00 193.90 56.70 340.00 238.00 69.59 508.00 355.60 103.98
3.2 3408 289.00 202.30 59.36 345.00 241.50 70.86 535.00 374.50 109.89
3.4 3396 300.00 210.00 61.84 370.00 259.00 76.27 560.00 392.00 115.43
3.6 3384 312.00 218.40 64.54 385.00 269.50 79.64 575.00 402.50 118.94
3.8 3372 320.00 224.00 66.43 395.00 276.50 82.00 590.00 413.00 122.48
4.0 3360 329.00 230.30 68.54 407.00 284.90 84.79 544.00 380.80 113.33
4.2 3348 335.00 234.50 70.04 413.00 289.10 86.35 553.00 387.10 115.62
4.4 3336 340.00 238.00 71.34 413.00 289.10 86.66 560.00 392.00 117.51
4.6 3324 344.00 240.80 72.44 415.00 290.50 87.39
4.8 3312 346.00 242.20 73.13 366.00 256.20 77.36
5.0 3300 347.00 242.90 73.61 375.00 262.50 79.55
5.2 3288 350.00 245.00 74.51 380.00 266.00 80.90
5.4 3276 320.00 224.00 68.38
5.6 3264
5.8 3252
6.0 3240
6.2 3228
Maximum shear stress, kPa 74.51 Maximum shear stress, kPa 87.39 122.48
Shear Stress Vs Displacement Maximum Shear Stress Vs Applied Vertical Load
150 130
100
y = 0.24x + 46.83
80 R² = 0.93
50
0 30
0 2 4 6 0 100 200 300 400
Angle of internal friction, f = 10.0 Cohesion , C (kN/m2) = 30
Tested by: Checked by: Approved by:
_____________________ ____________________________ _________________________

Tenaw workie
Communication Tower
Appendix 5
DCP Layer Strength Analysis
August 2023
DCP Layer Strength Analysis Report
Project Name: STEP Wakanda of Site No, 408064-A
TP: 1 Surface Type: Unpaved

Direction: Depth (m) 3.00
Location/Offset: Lay-by / other/ Base Type:
Cone Angle: 60 degrees Thickness (mm):
Zero Error (mm): 0 Surface Moisture: Moderate
Test Date: 02/08/2023 Moisture adjustment factor: Not adjusted
Layer Boundaries Chart CBR Chart
Layer Properties
No. Penetration CBR Thickness Depth to
Rate (%) (mm) layer bottom
(mm/blow) (mm)
1 36.00 8 360 360
2 18.00 13 180 540
3 10.00 21 100 640
4 8.5 35 85 725
5 7.4 18 74 800
CBR Relationship:
TRL equation: log (CBR) = 2.48 - 1.057 x log (Strength)
10 10
Report produced by ...................................................................
Report Date: 02-August-2023 Page 1 of 1

Communication Tower
Appendix 6
Site Activities Photos
August 2023
August 2023
Communication Tower
Appendix 7
Eligible Documents
August 2023

Main Body - Merged

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

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

Main Body - Merged

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Augus

1.1 Project Description ....................................................................................................... 2

2. METHODOLOGY OF INVESTIGATION ....................................................... 7

2.1 Test Pits ........................................................................................................................ 7

3. GEOTECHNICAL CHARACTERISTICS SUB-SURFACE LAYERS .......... 12

3.1 Description of Geotechnical Layer ............................................................................. 12

4. FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATION ............................................................... 13

4.1 Foundation Systems Recommended ........................................................................... 14

Table 1: Climates of Arsi and Around Zones

Appendix 1: Test pits Logs

SITE NAME: 408064_A_FTK_PH2 SITE ID: 408064_A

List of Abbreviations and symbols

SITE NAME: 408064_A_FTK_PH2 SITE ID: 408064_A

Fig-1 Site Photos

SITE NAME: 408064_A_FTK_PH2 SITE ID: 408064_A

SITE NAME: 408064_A_FTK_PH2 SITE ID: 408064_A

Geotechnical investigation is done to obtaining the necessary information about

 Soil Testing Method

1.3 Purposes of Exploration

The purposes of this exploration were to:

We accomplished these purposes by:

1.5.1 Regional Geology

SITE NAME: 408064_A_FTK_PH2 SITE ID: 408064

Fig 2: Geological Map of Arsi and around

Timely, adequate rainfall is important in enhancing the groundwater potential of any

Table 1 Climates of Arsi and Around Zones

SITE NAME: 408064_A_FTK_PH2 SITE ID: 408064

SITE NAME: 408064_A_FTK_PH2 SITE ID: 408064

2.1 Test Pits

2.2 IN SITU TESTS, SAMPLING AND LABORATORY TESTS

2.2.1 in Situ Tests

Figure 5 Typical Dynamic Cone Penetrometer Test Results

DCP value mm/blow SPT N value blows/300mm

Depth Range(m) Measured DCP SPT N-

1 0.00 0.16 22.22 12

SITE NAME: 408064_A_FTK_PH2 SITE ID: 408064

2.2.3 Laboratory Tests

 Two samples were tested for grain size analyses

 Two soil samples were tested for Atterberg limit

 Two soil samples were tested for Free swell

 One soil sample were tested for direct shear test

Table 2.3 Summary of Laboratory test results

% age Pass this Sieve (mm) Free Soil

2.3 Ground Water Records

SITE NAME: 408064_A_FTK_PH2 SITE ID: 408064

Table 6 Summary of Exploration Activities and Tests Performed

Type of Exploration/Test Unit Quantity

- Number of Dynamic Cone Penetrometer tests (DCP) No. 2

SITE NAME: 408064_A_FTK_PH2 SITE ID: 408064

3.1 Description of Geotechnical Layer

 Dominantly Dark Low to Medium Stiff High Plastic Silty Clay

3.2 Groundwater Observation

SITE NAME: 408064_A_FTK_PH2 SITE ID: 408064

Foundation recommendations refer to the determination of the bearing layer, width,

 Differential settlement (as the wetting/drying is not going to be uniform

 Induce swelling/expansion pressures on the foundation structure

 Placement of footing below the depth of active swelling could be considered if it

 Where it is not economically feasible to remove the potentially expansive layer or

 Provide impervious blankets and surface grading around the foundations to

4.1 Foundation Systems Recommended

BEARING PRESSURE FOR MAT FOUNDATION FROM DCPT ON LIGHT

SITE NAME: 408064_A_FTK_PH2 SITE ID: 408064

Qult = CNcScdcic+ ϒDNqSqdqiq +0.5BϒNϒSϒiϒdϒ………………………… 4.1