KWAME NKRUMAH UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND

TECHNOLOGY. KUMASI, GHANA

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT ON:

THE PROPOSED KNUST TEACHING HOSPITAL

SUBMITTED TO:

THE DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING, KNUST AND ABP

CONSULT

PREPARED BY:

CED GROUP 5

REPRESENTED BY:

AGYAPONG KWAME McCARTHY

9246317

APRIL 9,2021

1
 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A Geotechnical investigation was carried out at the site planned for the construction of a new
teaching hospital located on the Emena Boadi-Junction road opposite the Ghana Telecom
Exchange Station. It is understood form the Terms of Reference and information provided by
the client that a ward block and a number of roads including a car park will be built at the
proposed project location.

In relation to the ward block, a total of 3 boreholes were drilled. All boreholes were terminated
at an average depth of about 15m from the existing ground level. The top surface (an average
depth of about 3m) was found to be a damp, medium, reddish-brown clayey silty material. The
remaining depth of investigation was found to be a medium to coarse silty clayey sand with the
silt, clay and grain sizes changing with depth. The water table was encountered at an average
depth of about 2m below the existing ground surface. The strength profile of the ward location
indicated a high strength strata that decreases to a depth of about 3m from the existing ground
surface and then rises from 3m downwards. Based on the information obtained from the boring
and the subsequent analysis of the data gathered, the proposed location for the ward block was
found to be suitable for the work.

In relation to the roads and car park, a total of 30 Dynamic Cone Penetration points was tested
and three trial pits dug. Observations from the trial pits indicated a one-layer soil profile on the
proposed entrance road and a two-layer soil profile on the Mango Road-Nursing School road
and the car park. Gravel was found to be the predominant soil at the proposed road and car park
location. Laboratory result on samples taken from the trial pits shows that the in-situ subgrade
material is a water loving one.

Natural material to be borrowed for the subbase and base will be taken from the Ampabame
borrow pit and those of aggregates will be taken from KAS limited.

The depth of placement of the foundation is chosen to be limited to 3m below the existing
ground surface with BH1 location being the reference point. Its recommended that provisions
be made for pumping during excavation for the foundation works. Its also recommended that
soft spots encountered during construction be treated where the cost benefits exceed removal,
otherwise, remove.

2
GLOSSARY SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATION
TOR Terms of Reference

BH Borehole

BS British Standard

CBR California Bearing Ratio D Slope for CBR calculation

DCPT Dynamic Cone Penetration Test

FS Factor of Safety

LL Liquid Limit

MDD Maximum Dry Density

N SPT N-Values

OMC Optimum Moisture Content

LL Liquid Limit

PL Plastic Limit

PI Plasticity Index

qall Allowable Bearing Capacity

Qall Allowable Load

SPT Standard Penetration Test

PSD Particle size distribution

GHA Ghana Highway Authority

TP Trial Pit

ACV Aggregates Crushing Value

LAAV Los Angeles Abrasion Value

3
Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................ 2
GLOSSARY SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATION.......................................................................................... 3
CHAPTER ONE ......................................................................................................................................... 7
1.0.0 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................. 7
1.1.0 BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................ 7
1.2.0 OBJECTIVES ................................................................................................................................ 8
1.3.0 TOR ............................................................................................................................................. 8
1.3.1 Scope of Work ........................................................................................................................ 8
1.3.2 Environmental Impact Assessment Report............................................................................ 9
CHAPTER TWO ...................................................................................................................................... 10
2.0.0 PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................. 10
2.1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................................. 10
2.2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION AND ACCESS ............................................................................................... 10
2.3.0 THE PROJECT LAYOUT .............................................................................................................. 11
2.4.0 GEOLOGY OF THE SITE ............................................................................................................. 12
2.5.0 HISTORY OF EARTHQUAKE AND LANDSLIDES .......................................................................... 13
2.6.0 CLIMATE AND HYDROLOGY OF THE SITE ................................................................................. 13
2.7.0 VEGETATION OF THE SITE ........................................................................................................ 14
CHAPTER THREE .................................................................................................................................... 15
3.0.0 ACTIVITIES UNDERTAKEN ............................................................................................................. 15
3.1.0 CABLE PERCUSSION DRILLING WITH SPT ................................................................................. 15
3.2.0 TRIAL PITTING .......................................................................................................................... 16
3.3.0 DCPT ......................................................................................................................................... 16
3.4.0 LABORATORY WORKS .............................................................................................................. 17
CHAPTER FOUR ..................................................................................................................................... 18
4.0.0 RESULT AND DISCUSSION FOR BUILDING .................................................................................... 18
4.1.0 SOIL PROFILE ............................................................................................................................ 18
4.1.1 Damp Soil. ............................................................................................................................ 18
4.1.2 Layer of Sand ........................................................................................................................ 18
4.2.0 GROUNDWATER LEVEL ............................................................................................................ 18
4.3.0 STRENGTH PROFILE OF THE SOIL AT PROPOSED WARD BLOCK .............................................. 19
4.4.0 FOUNDATION DESIGN .............................................................................................................. 20
CHAPTER FIVE ....................................................................................................................................... 25

4
5.0.0 RESULT AND DISCUSSION FOR ROAD WORKS ............................................................................. 25
5.1.0 SOIL PROFILE ............................................................................................................................ 25
5.2.0 STRENGTH PROFILE .................................................................................................................. 26
5.3.0 BORROWED MATERIALS FOR CONSTRUCTION. ....................................................................... 29
5.3.1 Natural Gravel ...................................................................................................................... 29
5.3.2 Criteria for Selection of Borrow Pit to Be Used. .................................................................. 30
5.3.3 Aggregates for Sealing Works .............................................................................................. 31
5.3.4 Criteria for Selecting Wearing Material. .............................................................................. 32
CHAPTER SIX.......................................................................................................................................... 34
6.0.0 EIA AND BILL OF QUANTITIES ...................................................................................................... 34
6.1.0 EIA OF GEOTECHNICAL SITE INVESTIGATION AND PROJECT. .................................................. 34
6.1.1 EIA of Geotechnical Investigation ........................................................................................ 34
6.1.2 EIA of the Project ................................................................................................................. 36
6.2.0 BILL F QUANTITIES.................................................................................................................... 37
CHAPTER SEVEN .................................................................................................................................... 40
7.0.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION ..................................................................................... 40
7.1.0 CONCLUSION. ........................................................................................................................... 40
7.2.0 RECOMMENDATION ................................................................................................................ 40
7.3.0 LIMITATIONS ............................................................................................................................ 41
7.4.0 DISCLAIMER.............................................................................................................................. 41
REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................................... 41
APPENDICES .......................................................................................................................................... 42

List of Figures

Figure 1: map of Boadi .......................................................................................................................... 11

Figure 2: field programme .................................................................................................................... 11
Figure 3: site layout............................................................................................................................... 12
Figure 4: percussion drilling at the proposed ward block location....................................................... 15
Figure 5: trial pitting on the project site. .............................................................................................. 16
Figure 6: Laboratory works on samples from trial and borrowed pits. ................................................ 17
Figure 7: strength profile of the soil at the proposed ward location. .................................................. 19

5
List of Tables

Table 1: Summary of foundation design at 3m below the existing ground surface .............................. 21
Table 2: Summary of foundation design at 3.5m below existing ground surface. ................................ 23
Table 3: Summary of laboratory test result on trial pits........................................................................ 25
Table 4: summary of DCPt result on road one...................................................................................... 27
Table 5:Summary of DCPt result for road 2. ........................................................................................ 27
Table 6: Summary of DCPT vales on Car Park .................................................................................... 28
Table 7: CBR, percentile computation.................................................................................................. 28
Table 8: Summary of Laboratory test result on natural gravel ............................................................. 29
Table 9: Summary of laborator test result on 10mm single size aggregate .......................................... 31
Table 10: Summary of test result on 14mm single size aggregates ...................................................... 32
Table 11: EIA for geotechnical investigation. ...................................................................................... 35
Table 12: EIA of Project. ...................................................................................................................... 36
Table 13: Bill of quantities. .................................................................................................................. 38

6
 CHAPTER ONE
1.0.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1.0 BACKGROUND

The Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Kumasi (KNUST), the premier
Institution in Ghana responsible for the training of engineers, medical personnel, scientists and
technologists required to support the industrial and socio-economic development of Ghana is
undertaking the construction of a new 800-bed teaching hospital. The site for the new hospital
is located near Boadi, and opposite the Ghana Telecom Exchange Station, along the Boadi
Junction–Emena Road. The new hospital is being constructed in two phases. Phase one, which
has comprehensive structural and building services designs for a teaching hospital, is currently
at the detail design stage and construction is expected to start very soon. Phase two was
originally planned to cater for staff accommodation and it is expected that designs and contract
preparation will start as soon as construction of phase one commences. Complete
infrastructural services including drainage, water supply and waste management for the entire
Phase One of the Teaching Hospital is to be designed.

The Development office of KNUST, the Client, has commissioned an Architectural Consulting
Firm to undertake the general planning and the design of the architectural aspects of the
development scheme. Similarly, the Client has engaged the services of Engineering
Consultants for the design of the mechanical and the electrical engineering aspects of the
proposed development scheme. The architectural designs of the various office and residential
units have been completed and approved by the Client. However, the design of the site layout
has partly been completed as the Architect is awaiting advice of the Engineers, especially with
regard to the road layout. It is now required to undertake the design of the Civil Engineering
Infrastructure Works for the proposed Development Scheme.

To this end, the Client has commissioned M/s EDCIV 2021 Civil Groups to undertake the
design of the Civil Engineering Infrastructure Works for the said Phase One of the new
Teaching Hospital project for the University in Kumasi.

7
1.2.0 OBJECTIVES
➢ To assess the general suitability of the site for the proposed development.
➢ To generate suitable geotechnical data relevant for the safe, economic and reliable
design of the foundations and roadworks
➢ To assess the problems associated with the construction of the work arising from the
ground and ground water condition
➢ To assess the quality and quantity of constructional materials suitable for the work
➢ To carry out the foundation design of the ward block

1.3.0 TOR
1.3.1 Scope of Work
A new teaching hospital is being considered at the site. Details of the layout was provided by
the client to our consultum. Upon review of the terms of reference, the group discovered that
structural design of a ward block was provided and not an administration block as initially
stated. In view of this, geotechnical site investigation was carried out at the proposed ward
block and not the administration block.

The Geotech personnel is expected to

i. In relation to Ward Block:

• Carry out the appropriate geotechnical investigation to support the safe and
economic design of the foundation of the ward Block.
• Carry out foundation design of the Ward Block.
• Provide the necessary information about the sources and quality of construction
materials of geologic origin.
ii. In relation to Road Pavement Design:
• Carry out the appropriate investigation to support the safe and economic design
of the pavement of the road network and parking areas.
• Provide the necessary information about the sources and quality of construction
materials of geologic origin required

8
1.3.2 Environmental Impact Assessment Report

The report of each specialisation is expected to cover the following:

• The positive environmental impacts of the project

• The negative environmental impact of the project
• Appropriate mitigation measures to lessen the objectionable impacts
• Appropriate management clauses and actions to be included in the Contract document
during implementation and operation of the facilities
• A monitoring programme for each of the facilities to ensure that mitigation being
implemented is effective
• Traffic impacts, especially at the main entrance from the network of roads around the
development
• The cost of Environmental Management Plan

9
 CHAPTER TWO
2.0.0 PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION
2.1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project is an 800-bed capacity teaching hospital comprising structural and building
services for the teaching hospital and accommodation for staff. It is expected to be constructed
in two phases. Phase one comprises a comprehensive structural and building service for the
teaching hospital and phase two comprises accommodation for staff. The facility will help
improve on the healthcare of the neighbouring communities and the country as a whole. It will
also facilitate training of medical students. Aside its initial employment of labourers at the
construction phase, the project will help improve on the general economy of the neighbouring
communities since users of the facility will engage in some form of trading.

2.2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION AND ACCESS

The site for the proposed project is located near Boadi and opposite the Ghana Telecom
Exchange Station on the Boadi Junction – Emena road. Boadi is a locality situated within the
Oforikrom Municipal Assembly in Ghana. It is some few kilometres from the centre of Kumasi.
Boadi shares boundaries with Anwomaso, Ayeduase, Emena, Kentinkrono and rivers Bokuro
and Twumwaa. Boadi has an entire land area of 657.1km2 with a total population of 28,860 of
which 14,666(50.8%) are males and 14,194(49.2%) are females. It has a population change of
+62.3% between 1975 and 2015 and +5.6% between the years 2000 and 2015. The median age
is about 20.2years old.

Access to the site was not a problem since there are existing infrastructure (roads) leading to
the proposed site for the development. Utility services (electricity, water and telephone) are
readily available at the site (telephone) and close to the site (electricity and water). For purposes
of use, it is recommended to check the adequacy and safety of such services to ensure that it is
up to the desired capacity.

10
Below is the map of the project vicinity and Boadi.

Figure 1: map of Boadi

Figure 2: field programme

2.3.0 THE PROJECT LAYOUT

The topographic survey map for the proposed teaching hospital prepared by the project
architect has been attached herewith. The topographic survey map shows the proposed location
of the following unit:

• The administration/O.P.D.
• Ward blocks
• Kitchen
• Dining

11
 • Maintenance/stores unit
• Morgue
• Laundry unit
• Stepdown transformer and generators
• Effluent chambers/incinerator
• LPG
• Security post

Figure 3: site layout

2.4.0 GEOLOGY OF THE SITE

Ghana lies within the eastern domain of the Man Shield, which occupies the southernmost third
of the West African Craton (Hirdes, et al., 1993, p16). It is largely composed of folded and
metamorphosed rocks of early Proterozoic age that were intruded by granitoids during the
Eburnean Orogeny. Clastic Sedimentary rocks of the Tarkwaian group also occur and are
believed to represent erosional deposits of earlier Birimian rocks.

The Kumasi metropolitan area is dominated by the middle Precambrian rock. The district is
underlain by the lower birimian rocks, which consist of phyllites greywaches, achist and gneiss

12
and cape coast granite. The effect of this unique geological structure in the metropolis has both
positive and negative impacts on the local economy. The very existence of the precambrian
rock has led to the development of the construction industry in the metropolis.

The Square-like landscape of the site is relatively flat at the proposed ward location but slopes
gently towards the eastern, western and southern sides.

During our field reconnaissance survey, the group observe that the soil in front of the proposed
administration block is made up of some visible fused laterites. However, moving away from
the administration block towards the ward location is made up of some loam soil. The surface
is a completely weathered one with no traces of the parent material.

2.5.0 HISTORY OF EARTHQUAKE AND LANDSLIDES

Ghana is located on the south-eastern margin of the west Africa craton and is far away from
the major earthquake zones that marks the present-day lithospheric plate boundaries. However,
a number of major and minor earthquakes have struck the country in the past in present
(Seismic activity in Ghana: present, past and future, Paulina Ekua Amponsah,
(April/June2004). A resent review of geological and instrumental recordings by Amponsah
(2002) shows that earthquakes has occurred in the past and are still liable to occur within the
vicinity of the intersection of the Akwapim fault zone and the coastal boundary fault.

Ambraseys and Adams (1986) studied the history of earthquake in West Africa and were of
the view that Accra, the capital city of Ghana is the most seismically active area in the region.
Kumasi does not have any history of earthquake and so the proposed location for the project
can be said to be a safe zone from earthquake loads.

Issues of landslides is not also a problem related to the site under consideration and so the site
investigation will not consider this aspect of loads.

2.6.0 CLIMATE AND HYDROLOGY OF THE SITE

Kumasi, Ghana is at 66°43′ 𝑁 1°36′𝑊 287m (942ft). Kumasi has a tropical wet and
dry/savanna climate with pronounced dry season in the low- sun months, no cold season, wet
season is in the high- sun months. According to the hold ridge life zones systems of the
bioclimatic classification, Kumasi is situated in or near the tropical dry forest biome.

The mean temperature is 25.6 degrees Celsius. Average month temperatures vary by 3 degree
Celsius. This indicates that the continentality type is hyper oceanic (a climate that has a small

13
difference between the mean temperatures of the warmest and coldest month of the year,
typically less than ten degrees Celsius). Precipitation averages 1484mm (58.4 in) per year or
123.7mm (4.9 in) per month

The city almost features two different rainy seasons, a longer rainy season from March through
July and a shorter rainy season from September to November. In actuality, the month of
February through to November is one long wet season, with a relative lull in precipitation in
August. Similar to the rest of West Africa, Kumasi experiences the Harmattan during the “low
sun” months. Lasting from December to February, the Harmattan is the primary source of the
city’s dry season.

2.7.0 VEGETATION OF THE SITE

At the time of conducting our site investigation, the vegetation of the site was basically some
tall grasses with scared trees. This made access to the site a bit easier. A large proportion of the
landscape was farmlands.

14
 CHAPTER THREE
3.0.0 ACTIVITIES UNDERTAKEN
In order to obtain the suitable information for the design of the ward, roads and car park, a
number of tests (field and laboratory) were carried out. All field works were carried out in
accordance to BS 5930 whereas laboratory works were carried out in accordance to BS1377.

3.1.0 CABLE PERCUSSION DRILLING WITH SPT

Our field exploration was performed between 13th February 2021 and 20th February, 2021, and
consisted of drilling and logging three boreholes at the proposed ward block location. The
borings were carried out to a depth of about 15m (where refusal was generally encountered in
all boreholes) below the existing ground surface using Dando 2500 percussion driller. Materials
encountered in each boring was visually classified in the field and a log was recorded. See
boring log in the appendix.

Figure 4: percussion drilling at the proposed ward block location

15
3.2.0 TRIAL PITTING
For the two roads and parking lot, three trial pits were dug in order to observe the extent of
weathering, the different strata encountered, the existence or otherwise of shearing planes and
to obtain samples for laboratory tests. Trial pits of 1m by 1.5m was dug to a depth of 1m and
it was discovered that the strata did not change for the first trial pit (on road one). However, for
the car park and road two, visual observation of the pit indicated a two layered soil profile to
the depth of investigation (1m). From trial pit two (on road two), the first layer is a moist
reddish-brown clayey GRAVEL to a depth of about 0.4m. the second layer which extends from
0.4m to 1m below the existing ground surface was found to be moist, reddish clayey GRAVEL.

The subsurface soil as observed to the depth of 1m from the existing ground surface was found
to have completely weathered (no traces of parent rock). Samples were taking to the laboratory
for the index property tests and CBR test to ascertain its suitability for other use such as sub
base.

Figure 5: trial pitting on the project site.

3.3.0 DCPT
Our group carried out the DCPT on the proposed road and parking lots on the 13th March, 2021.

This was carried out in order to obtain the in-situ California Bearing Ratio (CBR) of the
subgrade material so as to enable the structural design of the roads and car park.

16
3.4.0 LABORATORY WORKS
For the purposes of quality control, laboratory tests of materials to be built in/with the
construction was carried out. Laboratory works began on the 13th February, 2021 through to
the time of writing this report. Samples were taken at each stage of the field work (From SPT,
through to trial pitting and to borrowed material acquisition) and brought to the laboratory to
be tested.

Figure 6: Laboratory works on samples from trial and borrowed pits.

17
 CHAPTER FOUR
4.0.0 RESULT AND DISCUSSION FOR BUILDING
4.1.0 SOIL PROFILE
The subsurface soil profile generally consists of a layer of damp clayey silty gravel overlaying
a layer of wet, medium dense silty and clayey medium sand to moist, dense silty and clayey
coarse sand. Details of the soil profile is summarised in the log sheet attached in the appendix

4.1.1 Damp Soil.

Sufficient damp, stiff, reddish-brawn micaceous clayey silty GRAVEL was encountered up to
a depth of about 3m below the existing ground level. The damp layer terminates at 2m in
borehole one and at around 2.8m in borehole two and at 3m in BH3. From the SPT N values,
the damp material can be said to be of a medium dense to dense material (SPT N values of 12
to 24)

4.1.2 Layer of Sand

The sand ranges from wet, loose, brownish-grey micaceous silty coarse sand at 3m to moist,
dense, brownish-grey micaceous silty sand at 15m. the sand layer was observed to be an
alternation of clay and silt as the content varies at each depth.

A water bearing silty, clayey medium to coarse sand was encountered at an average depth of
about 3m from the existing ground surface. The entire depth form 3m to the depth of
investigation (15m) is a predominantly sand material except for the changes in the clay and silt
contents at different depths. The grain size of the sand was also varying with depth from
medium to coarse sand.

Form the SPT N values, the entire depth from 3m can be said to be a medium dense to dense
and very dense material (SPT N value of 13-74).

To accurately classify and describe the soil at each depth, samples were taken from the
boreholes to the laboratory for the moisture content and index property tests. These tests are
currently underway in the laboratory.

4.2.0 GROUNDWATER LEVEL

The groundwater was encountered at an average depth of about 2m from the existing ground
level.in BH1 and BH2, the dynamic water table was observed to be at 2m below the existing
ground surface whilst the static water table was observed to be at about 3m. For BH3, the

18
dynamic water table was observed to be at about 3m. The level of the groundwater table is
important to ascertain the chemical environment of the groundwater and its degrading effect
on the cement to be used in the foundation. Laboratory tests are still underway to determine
the PH, Chlorine and Sulphate contents of the groundwater.

4.3.0 STRENGTH PROFILE OF THE SOIL AT PROPOSED WARD BLOCK

From the SPT N values, it was observed that the top surface (1m from the ground surface) is
generally strong with a minimum SPT N Values of 24 from boreholes (BH) two and three. The
strength then reduced at a depth of 2m below the existing ground level (SPT N-value of 12 in
all three BH) and then begins to increase at 3m below the existing ground surface. The strength
profile is shown in the graph below. The team observed that the site for the proposed ward
block was once a fill site and so the BH result in all BH showed the natural ground level at an
average depth 3m below the existing ground level. This might be part of the reasons for a
sudden rise in the strength from the 3m.

Figure 7: strength profile of the soil at the proposed ward location.

19
4.4.0 FOUNDATION DESIGN
The Meyerhoff method of design was adopted for the design of the foundation. Meyerhoff’s
method of design allows for the determination of the allowable bearing capacity of foundations
given a tolerable settlement. The method applies a factor of safety of 3.

From Meyerhoff’s method,

𝑆𝑒
qall = 19.16*Ndes *Fd*(25.4), for B≤1.22m

3.28𝐵+1 2 𝑆𝑒
qall = 11.98*Ndes*( ) *Fd*(25.4), for B>1.22
3.28𝐵

𝐷
Fd = 1+ 0.33*(𝐵) ≤ 1.33

Assume a tolerable foundation settlement of 25mm

To correct the SPT-N values for overburden, the Peck, Hansen and Thorburn (1974) approach
of correction was adopted.

1905
Ncor = 0.77*N*Log ( ), 𝜎′ effective overburden stress, N is SPT-N value
𝜎′

For SPT-N value of 13, and a depth of 3m, water table at 2m from existing ground surface,

Assume γs for 1m 21.5kN/m3, 2m 17.5 kN/m3 and for 3m, 18 kN/m3 (for N value between 10-
25, γs = 17-22),

𝜎′ = (21.5*1) + (17.5*1) + (18*1) - (9.81*1) = 47.19 kN/m2

1905
Ncor = = 0.77*13*Log (47.19), =16.217blows

3
Fd = 1+ 0.33*(0.8) = 2.328 ≤ 1.33, Fd = 1.33, b=0.8m, d=3m

25
qall = 19.16*16.217 *1.33*(25.4), = 406.747kN/m2, B≤1.22m

Qall = B2*qall = 0.82*406.747 = 260.316kN

For b>1.22, say b=1.3m,

3.281.3+1 𝑆𝑒
qall = 11.98*16.217*( 3.28∗1.3 )2*1.33*(25.4), = 387.599kN/m2

20
At depth of 3m from existing ground, SPT-N value to be adopted is 13 blows (BH1). N
corrected is 16.217 blows. Below is a summary of the foundation design criteria

Table 1: Summary of foundation design at 3m below the existing ground surface

Depth B(m) qall Area Qall

(BH1) N-values Foundation D/B Fd (kN/m2) (m2) (kN)
1.00 27 0.80 3.750 2.238 406.747 0.64 260.318
2.00 12 0.90 3.333 2.100 455.813 0.81 369.209
3.00 13 1.00 3.000 1.990 433.037 1.00 433.037
5.12 36 1.10 2.727 1.900 414.837 1.21 501.953
6.00 24 1.20 2.500 1.825 399.968 1.44 575.954
7.50 27 1.30 2.308 1.762 387.599 1.69 655.042
9.00 30 1.40 2.143 1.707 377.151 1.96 739.216
10.50 58 1.50 2.000 1.660 368.212 2.25 828.477
12.00 59 1.60 1.875 1.619 360.479 2.56 922.826
13.50 74 1.70 1.765 1.582 353.723 2.89 1022.260
15.00 50 1.80 1.667 1.550 347.772 3.24 1126.780
1.90 1.579 1.521 342.489 3.61 1236.390
2.00 1.500 1.495 337.770 4.00 1351.080
2.10 1.429 1.472 333.528 4.41 1470.860
2.20 1.364 1.450 329.696 4.84 1595.730
2.30 1.304 1.430 326.215 5.29 1725.680
2.40 1.250 1.413 323.041 5.76 1860.720
2.50 1.200 1.396 320.135 6.25 2000.840
2.60 1.154 1.381 317.464 6.76 2146.060
2.70 1.111 1.367 315.001 7.29 2296.360
2.80 1.071 1.353 312.722 7.84 2451.740
2.90 1.034 1.341 310.608 8.41 2612.210
3.00 1.000 1.330 308.641 9.00 2777.770

21
 Allowable foundation load against
Allowable width of foundation
3000

2500

2000
Allowable Load Q(kN)

1500

1000

500

0
Assumed Width B(m)
0.8 1.3 1.8 2.3 2.8 3.3

22
At depth of 3.5m from existing ground, SPT-N value to be adopted is 18 blows (BH2). N
corrected is 18.185blows

Table 2: Summary of foundation design at 3.5m below existing ground surface.

Depth N- B(m) qall Area Qall

(BH2) values Foundation D/B Fd (kN/m2) (m2) (kN)
1.00 24 0.80 4.375 2.444 456.107 0.64 291.908
2.00 12 0.90 3.889 2.283 456.107 0.81 369.447
3.00 14 1.00 3.500 2.155 456.107 1.00 456.107
4.50 15 1.10 3.182 2.050 456.107 1.21 551.889
6.00 33 1.20 2.917 1.963 456.107 1.44 656.794
7.50 21 1.30 2.692 1.888 434.636 1.69 734.535
10.20 39 1.40 2.500 1.825 422.920 1.96 828.923
11.02 42 1.50 2.333 1.770 412.897 2.25 929.018
12.00 51 1.60 2.188 1.722 404.224 2.56 1034.810
13.50 50 1.70 2.059 1.679 396.649 2.89 1146.320
15.00 50 1.80 1.944 1.642 389.975 3.24 1263.520
1.90 1.842 1.608 384.052 3.61 1386.430
2.00 1.750 1.578 378.760 4.00 1515.040
2.10 1.667 1.550 374.003 4.41 1649.350
2.20 1.591 1.525 369.705 4.84 1789.370
2.30 1.522 1.502 365.803 5.29 1935.10
2.40 1.458 1.481 362.244 5.76 2086.530
2.50 1.400 1.462 358.985 6.25 2243.660
2.60 1.346 1.444 355.989 6.76 2406.490
2.70 1.296 1.428 353.227 7.29 2575.020

23
 Allowable foundation load against Allowable
width of foundation
3000

2500

2000
Allowable load Q(kN)

1500

1000

500

0
0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8
Assume width B(m)

24
 CHAPTER FIVE
5.0.0 RESULT AND DISCUSSION FOR ROAD WORKS
5.1.0 SOIL PROFILE
Observation from trial pits and result from the DCPT graphs gave an indication of a one layered
material of moist reddish clayey gravel on road one to the depth of investigation (1m for trial
pit and o.7m for DCPT). For road two and the car park, two layers were observed with the
change in layer occurring at a depth of 0.4m from the existing ground surface. The fist layer
was observed to be a moist reddish-brown clayey gravel and the second layer indicated a moist
reddish clayey gravel. The material was observed to almost be the same except for the change
in colour.

The site investigation revealed that the subgrade material is a predominantly gravel soil after
stripping the top soil of fill material and any organic and unsuitable materials.

Summary of laboratory test result of samples from the trial pits is as shown below.

Table 3: Summary of laboratory test result on trial pits.

Summary of Laboratory Test on Trial pits

Date:7th April, 2021 Project: CED
Personnel: Agyapong Kwame McCarthy Client: KNUST
compaction CBR (%) Atterberg limits
LL PL PI
Trial pit OMC (%) MDD (kg/m3) 10 blows 25 blows 56 blows (%) (%) (%)
1 13.2 2.09 1.47 6.13 30.66 59.9 28.9 31
2 12.27 2.01 2.8 6.88 10.11 54 27 27
3 15.36 1.94 1.56 5.78 7.21 56.2 27.4 28.8

The laboratory result of the trial pits indicated very high liquid limits for all three trial pits.
This therefore means that the subgrade material is a water loving material and hence should be
adequately protected from water intrusion. It can also be improved by adding lime to stabilise
it. It is unfortunate that hydrometer tests were not carried out to help determine the actual
percentage of clay. However, the higher percentage of the liquid limits is an indication of a
higher clay content of the in-situ soil.

It is advised that during construction, all soft spots as identified by the resident materials
engineer be replaced with materials of similar properties as the other stable subgrade and
compacted to about 93% of the laboratory MDD of the subgrade and cambered towards the

25
side drains to ensure that there is proper drainage of the road. Otherwise, any water that is
trapped in the subbase (where need be) and base could be trapped into the subgrade and will
eventually cause undesirable consequences. This is particularly important based on the
observation from the laboratory test result that indicated an in-situ subgrade material that is
water loving. All efforts should therefore be geared towards preventing water from gaining
access to the subgrade material.

5.2.0 STRENGTH PROFILE

For the proposed entrance road, the DCPT graphs indicated a one-layer soil profile from the
existing ground surface to a depth of 0.7m. (the depth of investigation). This was confirmed
by the visual observation of the trial pit on road one. With the exception of the DCPT conducted
at chainage 000+350 which showed a two-layer soil profile with the second layer starting from
a depth of about .5m. The in situ CBR values obtained indicates a relatively stronger subgrade
strength with the least being 35.82%. From the GHA manual, there might not be the need for
the importation of any sub base material for the proposed entrance road since the in situ CBR
(minimum, 35.82%) is greater that the required CBR for subgrade materials (G30). Samples
were taken from the trial pits for laboratory test to ascertain whether the assertion is true.

The DCPT result for the three proposed location indicated a relatively strong subgrade at the
proposed road one location. However, that for the car park and the road two was found to be a
weaker one. Sub base material will therefore have to be borrowed for the construction of the
road two and the car park.

Summary of the DCPT result for the three areas (road one, road two and the car park) is
attached herewith.

See appendix for sample graphs for the DCP plots.

Log (CBR) = 2.48 - 1.057log (DCP)

For chainage 0+000 on road one

CBR = 102.48 – 1.057*log (7.51)

CBR = 35.82%

26
Table 4: summary of DCPt result on road one.

Summary of DCPT Values Road 1

Date: 6th March,2021 Project: CED
Personnel: Agyapong Kwame McCarthy Client: KNUST
Number of Percentil
DCP Depth Ranked CBR>Ranke e
Chainages (mm/blow) (mm) CBR (%) CBR (%) Frequency d CBR (%)
0+000 7.51 10 35.82 35.82 1 10 100
0+050 4.29 50 64.73 51.62 1 9 90
0+100 3.8 10 73.58 60.58 1 8 80
0+150 4.44 40 62.47 62.47 1 7 70
0+200 5.32 50 51.62 64.73 1 6 60
0+250 4.12 40 67.68 67.68 1 5 50
0+300 4.57 0 60.58 73.58 1 4 40
0+350 2.65 500 107.78 98.1 1 3 30
0+400 2.76 20 103.24 103.24 1 2 20
0+450 2.9 40 98.1 107.78 1 1 10
10

Table 5:Summary of DCPt result for road 2.

Summary of DCPT Values for Road 2

Date: 6th March,2021 Project: CED
Personnel: Agyapong Kwame McCarthy Client: KNUST
Number of
DCP Depth CBR Ranked CBR>Ranke Percentile
Chainages (mm/blows) (mm) (%) CBR (%) Frequency d CBR (%)
0+050 13.41 100 19.42 10.5 1 10 100
0+100 16.67 300 24.13 12.24 1 9 90
0+150 17.65 400 17.17 14.51 1 8 80
0+200 11.78 300 24.29 17.17 1 7 70
0+250 13.52 100 19.25 17.77 1 6 60
0+300 15.7 600 34.95 19.25 1 5 50
0+350 24 300 10.5 19.42 1 4 40
0+400 20.75 20 12.24 24.13 1 3 30
0+450 17.66 40 14.51 24.29 1 2 20
0+500 14.59 30 17.77 34.95 1 1 10
10

27
Table 6: Summary of DCPT vales on Car Park

Summary of DCPT Values Car Park

Date: 6th March,2021 Project: CED
Personnel: Agyapong Kwame McCarthy Client: KNUST
Number of
DCP Depth CBR Ranked CBR>Ranked
Chainages (mm/blow) (mm) (%) CBR (%) Frequency CBR Percentile
0+000 16.67 600 15.43 5.22 1 10 100
0+020 46.46 300 5.22 9.68 1 9 90
0+040 12.5 600 20.92 11.25 1 8 80
0+060 25.89 200 9.68 12.78 1 7 70
0+080 22.47 200 11.25 13.6 1 6 60
0+100 19.92 300 12.78 14.85 1 5 50
0+120 18.79 0 13.6 15.43 1 4 40
0+140 14.97 0 17.29 16.16 1 3 30
0+160 15.96 0 16.16 17.29 1 2 20
0+180 17.44 200 14.85 20.92 1 1 10
10

Depending on the functional class of the road and parking lots, the design CBR will have to be
selected. The design CBR for the various roads are summarised in the table below. For a
medium traffic road, the recommended CBR to be adopted for design are; 62% for road one,
16.5% for road two and 12.8% for the car park.

Table 7: CBR, percentile computation

Traffic Design Percentile Design CBR
Name Category (%) (%)
Heavy 87.5 53
Road 1 Medium 75 62
Light 60 65
Heavy 87.5 13.2
Road
Medium 75 16.5
Two
Light 60 18
Heavy 87.5 11.5
Parking
Medium 75 12.8
Lot
Light 60 13.9

28
5.3.0 BORROWED MATERIALS FOR CONSTRUCTION.
5.3.1 Natural Gravel
Materials for the construction of the were tested to ensure that they meet the GHA specification for the various layers of the road and car park
structure. Information about possible borrow pits was obtained from the Department of Feeder Road – Kumasi and Ghana highway Authority -
Kumasi. The team then visited those sites and samples were taken to the lab and tested. The criteria for selecting borrow pits was based on
proximity of the pit to the proposed project site and the quality of material.

Below is a summary of the test result of the borrow pits.

Table 8: Summary of Laboratory test result on natural gravel

Summary of Laboratory Test Result on Natural Gravel

Date: 7th April 2021 Project: CED
Personnel: Agyapong Kwame McCarthy Client: KNUST
Atterberg
Location Grading Limits Compaction CBR
Sieve
Size
(mm) 75 53 37.5 25 19 10 4.75 2 0.425 0.075 LL PL OMC MDD 100 98 95 93
Passing
Timeabu (%) 100 100 94.8 90.5 81.7 69.1 47.5 31.7 24.3 19.9 29 5.1 5.5 2.29 77 60 43 32
Passing
Ampabame (%) 100 100 92 88 79 66 45 30 24 20 27.5 12 10 1.96 90 70 31 20
100- 100- 100- 100- 90- 75- 50- 22-
GHA G60 100 80 80 80 75 45 30 20 33-8 May ≤30 ≤12 ≥60

29
5.3.2 Criteria for Selection of Borrow Pit to Be Used.
The fist criterial for selection was based on whether or not the material meets the specification
according to GHA standards.

All two borrow pits were observed to have passed for use as base material for light traffic
according to the GHA specification(G60). The criterial therefore adopted to select the borrow
pit was then based on the haulage distance which will influence cost, the ease of extraction of
the material and the availability of material at the selected borrow pit to meet the quantity
required for the construction.

On the three criteria left, the bases f availability and possible ease of excavation, all borrow
pits were found to be okay.

The final criterion to be used is the proximity of the borrow pit to the project site. Timeabu was
found to be 27km away from the project site whereas Ampabame was approximately 15km.
The team therefore recommends Ampabame borrow pit to be used for the proposed work (for
both base and subbase)

Should any undesired challenge arise during the excavation, the contractor may consider the
Timeabu borrow pit (bearing in mind the cost implications) or consider another pit close to the
project site. Should the contractor choose a different pit, all tests must be carried out by the
resident engineer to ascertain the quality of the material and the necessary recommendation
given.

During the borrow material prospecting, the team dug to a depth of about 1.5m below the
ground surface. And so, test result available is up to a depth of about 1.5m.

The team therefore advice that during actual excavation, after stripping the top soil (about 0.2
to 0.3m) the depth of excavation should be limited to 1.3 from the stripped surface. However,
if it is desired that the depth of excavation exceeds 1.3m, then the resident engineer is advised
to observe for any changes is the soil beyond 1.3m. if there is evidence of material change, then
laboratory test should be carried out on the new material to ascertain its quality before use. Soft
spots material should also be avoided during excavation.

30
5.3.3 Aggregates for Sealing Works
Upon obtaining information from GHA on the possible source of aggregate for wearing coarse.
Three different quarry sites were proposed by the Materials Engineer. This includes; Naachiaa
Quarry, Northern Mines, and KAS Limited. He explained that Naachiaa happens to have the
best aggregates per his assessment and based on some test result he had. The team therefore
visited the three sites in other to obtain samples for Laboratory test and to ascertain the
preparedness of the quarries to supply materials for the construction.

Information obtained from Naachiaa Quarry indicated that they are unable to supply materials
to our outfit because they have run out of resource and so they only produce in little quantity
to one contractor they are in a contract with. And so, the other options available was KAS
Limited and Northern Mines.

Aggregates obtain ware 14mm and 10mm for seal and primer seal respectively

Samples from the two quarry sites were then obtained and laboratory tests carried out. Below
is a summary of the Laboratory test result.

Northern Mines

Table 9: Summary of laborator test result on 10mm single size aggregate

Summary of test result on 10mm single sized aggregates

Location: Asonomaso Nkwanta
29th March, 2021 Project: CED
Inspector: Agyapong Kwame McCarthy Client: KNUST
Test Results Specification
bulk density (kg/m³ 1.33
flakiness index test 29.00 MAX 30%
elongation index 9.60 MAX 30%
PSD refer to attachment refer attachment
ACV 19.05% MAX 25%
10% fines (dry) 231 Min 210kN
Aggregate impact value 15.01 MAX 25%
water absorption 1.52 MAX 2.0
LAAV 22.08 MAX 30%

31
Table 10: Summary of test result on 14mm single size aggregates

Summary of test result on 14mm

Location: Asonomaso Nkwanta
29th March, 2021 Project: CED
Personnel: Agyapong Kwame McCarthy Client: KNUST
Test Results Specification
Bulk density (kg/m³ 1.35

Flakiness index test 15.30

Max 25%
Elongation index 8.50 Max 35%
PSD Refer attachment Refer attachment
ACV 22.96% Max 25%
10% fines (dry) 208 Min 210kn
Aggregate Impact value 19.25 Max 25%
Water absorption 1.09 Max 2.0
LAAV 23.66 Max 30%

5.3.4 Criteria for Selecting Wearing Material.

The most critical consideration was given to whether or not the material meets the required
standards according to GHA’s specification. Along this criterion, two quarries have passed.
The next consideration was the cost per truck and the haulage distance/cost, and the availability
of material at all times during the construction phase.

All quarries assured the team of their preparedness to supply materials for the proposed
construction.

Considering the distance to the project site, Northern mines was found to be approximately
24km whilst KAS limited was some 17km. The team therefore recommends that aggregates
for the construction of the road be taken form KAS Limited baring any challenge. In case any
challenge is encountered, then the contractor can fall on Northern Mines (bearing in mind the
cost adjustments).

The team also recommends that routine tests be carried out on aggregates supplied by KAS
Limited.

32
If desired for the aggregates to be used for the construction of the ward block, then the
following tests are recommended to ascertain the chemical properties of the aggregates so as
to check for good bond, durability and strength: sulphate content, Alkaline Silica reaction,
Chloride test, Organic impurities and pH.

33
 CHAPTER SIX
6.0.0 EIA AND BILL OF QUANTITIES
6.1.0 EIA OF GEOTECHNICAL SITE INVESTIGATION AND PROJECT.
To ensure that development is sustainable, it is important that the burden or negative impact of
such development on the environment is reduced. This is even more important as resources are
becoming increasingly limited. EIA has therefore become an ever-increasing demand in most
developmental projects. EIA comprises basically two categories. The first category is to aid
planning by identifying the potentially significant environmental effects and risk of projects.
And the second category is to allow for the ultimate long-term sustainability of projects by
ensuring that the execution of projects does not undermine critical resources and ecological
wellbeing, lifestyle and livelihood of people who depend on them.

The Environmental protection Agency’s Act, Act 490,1994 expects that all major projects be
backed by proper EIA before the commencement of construction.

To this end, EIA for the geotechnical site investigation and the project as a whole has become
necessary.

6.1.1 EIA of Geotechnical Investigation

Geotechnical site investigation which generally will involve digging, boring, coring amongst
other several activities has a very pronounce impact on the environment. Below is a summary
of activities that impacts the environment.

Below is a summary of the Environmental Impact Assessment of the geotechnical site

investigation.

34
Short term = period of investigation. Medium term = six months and two years. Long term =
2yers and above

Table 11: EIA for geotechnical investigation.

Activity Impact Classification Mitigation

Clearing of Destruction of Negative, Cleared surface was dressed and
site for BH flora and fauna of short to allowed for natural recovery
drilling, trial the area medium term
pitting and
borrow pit
BH drilling 1. Noise Negative, 1. Test was carried out on
pollution. Short term weekends to reduce impact on
2. Air academic activities at school of
pollution veterinary medicine and the
(emission new nursing school.
from 2. We ensured that the machine
machine). was serviced and in good
condition before used and
relatively clean fuel was also
used.
Trial pitting Land degradation Negative, All pits were covered after inspection
Short term and recovery of test samples.
Trial pitting, Employment for Positive,
BH drilling labourers and short term
and economic boost to
laboratory food and water
tests sellers
Acquisition Help in the safe, Positive, long
of economic and term
geotechnical practical planning
data and design of
foundations and
other works

35
6.1.2 EIA of the Project
Short term = less than a year. Medium term = one to five years. Long term = Above five years.
Reference year is with respect to the commencement of construction

Table 12: EIA of Project.

Activity Impact Classification Mitigation

Preparation of Destruction of flora and Negative, Lawns and other areas will be
land for fauna. long term dressed with vegetations.
construction Land degradation
Clearance and Destruction pf flora and Negative, Liaise with the Kumasi
excavation of fauna. medium to metropolis to facilitate the
borrowed Land degradation long term disposal of organic waste to the
materials for pit and to dress the surface with
road works plantations when full
Excavation, Noise and air pollution. Negative To prevent accidents, speed
and haulage of Possible vehicular short to limits will be strictly adhered
constructional accident medium term to.
material To prevent air pollution,
vehicles will be serviced
regularly to reduce the extent of
emissions. Trucks carrying
gravels will also be covered to
prevent particles from falling
off by wind effect.
construction Employment of labour Positive,
(Skilled and unskilled) short to
Economic boost to medium term
businesses supplying
both consumables and
unconsumable (cement,
aggregates iron rods etc)
Operation of Employment of skilled Positive, long
facility labour. term

36
 Economic boost to
businesses in the supply
chains (consumables
and other medical
equipment)
Improve healthcare of
users of the facility.
Improve training of
medical officers

Operation of Generation of waste Negative, All medical waste will be

the facility long term treated to meet the required
standards.
Dust bins will be provided at
vantage positions and waste
management programmes
implemented and monitored to
ensure strict adherence
Operation of Improved infrastructure Positive, long
facility and aesthetics of the term
neighbouring
community

6.2.0 BILL F QUANTITIES

For the purposes of evaluating the cost of projects and tendering, bill of quantities is a very
important tool. Below is a bill of quantity for the geotechnical site investigation.

37
Table 13: Bill of quantities.

ITEM
CESMM CODE DESCRIPTION UNITS QUANTITY RATE AMOUNT
GENERAL
CLEARANCE
D111 Clearing of test
locations for borrow
m2 10 5 GH₵50.00
pits + trial pits +
borehole
TRIAL PITS
B111 Number in material
other than rock, not nr 7 70 GH₵490.00
exceeding 1m
SAMPLES
B412 Disturbed samples of
soft materials from nr 14 5 GH₵ 70.00
trial pits
B422
Disturbed samples
nr 15 10 GH₵ 150.00
from the boreholes

SITE TESTS
B213
Light weight
nr 3 3000 GH₵ 9,000.00
percussion boreholes

B523 CBR using the

Dynamic Cone nr 30 10 GH₵ 300.00
Penetrometer
LABORATORY
TEST
B712
Atterberg limits -
nr 5 20 GH₵ 100.00
classification

38
B714
PSD b nr 5 20 GH₵ 100.00

B741
Compaction -standard nr 5 20 GH₵ 100.00

B768
Soil strength by CBR nr 5 20 GH₵ 100.00

Aggregate Crushing
nr 2 150 GH₵ 300.00
value
Aggregate impact
nr 2 150 GH₵ 300.00
value
Elongation nr 2 100 GH₵ 200.00
Los Angeles Abrasion
nr 2 200 GH₵ 400.00
Test
Flakiness nr 2 100 GH₵ 200.00
10% Fines nr 2 150 GH₵ 300.00
Water Absorption nr 2 150 GH₵ 300.00
PROFESSIONAL
SERVICES
B831
Preparation and
lump sum 200 GH₵ 200.00
submission of reports

B840
visit to the project site
nr 12 50 GH₵ 600.00
and borrow site

GRAND TOTAL GH₵13,260.00

39
 CHAPTER SEVEN
7.0.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
7.1.0 CONCLUSION.
In conclusion, we state that the site for the proposed development is suitable for the project and
that;

1. The depth of placement of foundation should be limited to 3m from the existing ground
using BH1 as the reference.
2. For loads less than 750kN, an allowable bearing capacity of 368.212kN/m2 with a
foundation width not less than 1.5m of a square footing. For loads less than 1500kN,
use a bearing capacity of 329.696kN/m2 with a foundation width not less than 2.2m of
square footing. For foundation loads less than 2100kN, an allowable bearing capacity
of 317.464kN/m2 with a foundation width not less than 2.6m of a square footing.
3. The subgrade strength to be used for design of medium traffic will be 62%CBR for road
one, 16.5%(CBR) for road two and 12.8% CBR for car park.
4. Natural gravel to be used for the road works shall be from Ampabame borrow pit
5. Aggregates for road works shall be taken from KAS Limited.
6. Water table is at an average depth of 2m below the existing ground surface at the
proposed ward block.

7.2.0 RECOMMENDATION
Based our limited exploration, the following recommendations are made.

1. Provisions should be made for pumping groundwater, during the excavation for the
foundation of the ward block and when need be, bracings should be provided to stabilise
the excavations.
2. Where soft spots are encountered in the foundation and road works, the resident
engineer should make a proper engineering judgment.
3. For borrowed material, if there is the desire to take materials beyond the depth of
investigation, then the resident materials engineer should observe for changes in the
material and should test the sample where necessary.
4. Given the limitations of in-situ tests, an experienced engineer should be employed to
supervise the project construction.
5. Aggregates should periodically be tested to ensure that they meet the specifications.

40
 6. All the layers of the road materials should be compacted to achieve a relative
compaction that meets the standards of GHA
7. The mitigation measures for the EIA should be implemented and closely monitored
routinely.

7.3.0 LIMITATIONS
The conclusions and recommendations in this report are based on the information provided by
the client and our field exploration and laboratory tests. The study was carried out in accordance
with current geotechnical standards. In the event that marked changes in the features identified
by our field explorations and laboratory analysis are observed during the construction phase of
the project, then, such features should be investigated before construction begins.

7.4.0 DISCLAIMER
This report is a product of MEMARA Consult presented to the department of Civil Engineering
in KNUST and ABP consult for the proposed development of teaching hospital located near
Boadi, and opposite the Ghana Telecom Exchange Station, along the Boadi Junction–Emena
Road. Anyone who uses this report at another location different from the proposed location
does so at his/her own risk.

REFERENCES

Terzaghi, Karl (1843), Theoretical Soil Mechanics. New York: John Wiley and Sons Inc.

Principles of foundation design,7th edition

DR.K R Arora soil mechanics

Materials, A. S. (n.d.). ASTM C131.634-17.

Materials, A. S. (n.d.). ASTM C882.634-85.

GHA. (n.d.). Aggregates for Road Works.

GHA. (December 2007,). Standard Specification for Road and Bridge Work.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boadi

https://www.city-facts.com/boadi

41
 APPENDICES

CIVIL ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT - KNUST Borehole No. BH 1

PROJECT NAME: NEW TEACHING HOSPITAL PHASE II DEVELOPMENT N 6040’52.43’’

LOCATION: KNUST - KUMASI E 1032’46.26’’

GPS Coordinates
DRILLING METHOD: Cable Percussion Z 276.25

EQUIPMENT TYPE/NO. Dando 2500 Logged by: Agyapong McCarthy Checked by: Agyapong Date: 13-Feb-21
McCarthy

42
CIVIL ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT - KNUST Borehole No. BH 2

PROJECT NAME: NEW TEACHING HOSPITAL PHASE II DEVELOPMENT N 6040’54.66’’

LOCATION: KNUST - KUMASI W 1032’45.03’’

GPS Coordinates
DRILLING METHOD: Cable Percussion Z 277.04

EQUIPMENT TYPE/NO. Dando 2500 Logged by: Agyapong McCarthy Checked by: Agyapong Date: 18-Feb-21
McCarthy

43
CIVIL ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT - KNUST Borehole No. BH3

PROJECT NAME: NEW TEACHING HOSPITAL PHASE II DEVELOPMENT N 6040’52.2’’

LOCATION: KNUST - KUMASI GPS Coordinates E 1032’46.13’’

DRILLING METHOD: Cable Percussion Z 277.54

EQUIPMENT TYPE/NO. Dando 2500 Logged by: Agyapong Checked by: Date: 20-Feb-21
McCarthy Agyapong McCarthy

44
 Road 2
Plot of CBR Versus Percentile
120
100
Percentile (%)

80
60
40
20
0
10 15 20 25 30 35 40
CBR (%)

Road 1
Plot of CBR Versus Percentile
120
100
Percentile (%)

80
60
40
20
0
30 50 70 90 110 130
CBR (%)

Parking Lot
Plot of CBR Versus Percentile
120

100

80
Percentil (%)

60

40

20

0
0 5 10 15 20 25
CBR (%)

45
0+050 Road 1
CUMULATIVE BLOWS PENETRATION
0 0 0
12 12 100
29 17 200
50 21 300
79 29 400
103 24 500
130 27 600
156 26 700

PENETRATION
800
y = 4.2935x + 49.993
Depth (mm)

600
400
200
0
0 50 100 150 200
Cummulative Blows

0+100 Road 2
CUMULATIVE BLOWS PENETRATION
0 0 0
18 18 100
43 25 200
73 30 300
98 25 400
126 28 500
156 30 600
177 21 700

800
700 y = 3.8033x + 21.492
600
Depth (mm)

500
400
300
200
100
0
0 50 100 150 200
Cummulative Blows

46
CAR PARK
0+125
CUMULATIVE BLOWS PENETRATION
0 0 0
5 5 100
12 7 200
18 6 300
24 6 400
31 7 500
38 7 600
51 13 700

800
700 y = 7.6923x + 307.69
600 y = 15.705x + 12.831
Depth(mm)

500
400
300
200
100
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Cummulative Blows

Plastic Limit TP1

container number B4 B13
Mass of Container g 3.87 6.84
Mass of container &wet soil g 13.92 15.34
Mass of container & dry soil g 11.69 13.42
Mass of water g 2.23 1.92
Mass of dry soil g 7.82 6.58
water content % 28.52 29.18
Average water content % 28.85

47
Liquid Limit TP1
Container Number O19 K14 42 V13
Mass of container (g) 9.62 7.3 8.6 3.6
depth of Penetration(mm) 9.2 14.4 22.9 32.2
Mass of container &wet soil (g) 25.17 22.13 30.6 28.7
Mass of container & dry soil (g) 20.52 17.33 22.7 18.45
Mass of water (g) 4.65 4.8 7.9 10.25
Mass of dry soil (g) 10.9 10.03 14.1 14.85
Water content (%) 42.66 47.86 56.03 69.02
LL = 59.94%
PI = LL-PL = 31.46%

Water content Against Blows

75

70
y = 1.1346x + 31.57

65
Water cont(%)

60

55

50

45

40
8 13 18 23 28 33 38
Blows

48
Compaction for TP1
Date:19th March,2021 Project: CED
Personnel: Agyapong Kwame McCarthy Client: KNUST
Mass of Cylinder +Wet Soil(g) 11119 11471 11779 11819 11768
Mass of Cylinder (g) 7320 7320 7320 7320 7320
Mass wet soil (g) 3799 4151 4459 4499 4448
Bulk Density (g/cm3) 2.01 2.2 2.36 2.38 2.36

Container Number OK8 F20 F28 OK2 JA3

Mass of container & wet soil (g) 120.4 106.11 96.85 109.83 133.66
Mass of Container & dry soil (g) 113.88 97.72 88.66 97.9 116.86
Mass of Wet Soil (g) 26.20 25.86 25.82 25.95 26.93
Mass of dry Soil (g) 87.68 71.86 62.84 71.95 89.93
Mass of Water (g) 6.52 8.39 8.19 11.93 16.80
Water Content (%) 7.44 11.68 13.03 16.58 18.68
Dry Density (g/cm^3) 1.87 1.97 2.09 2.04 1.99
Height of Mould (cm) 10.40 10.40 10.40 10.40 10.40
Diameter of Mould (cm) 15.20 15.20 15.20 15.20 15.20
Volume of Mould (cm^3) 1887.93 1887.93 1887.93 1887.93 1887.93
OMC = 13.2
MDD = 2.09

Compaction curve for TP1

2.15

2.1
Dry density (g/cm^3)

2.05

1.95

1.9

1.85
5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21
Moisture Content (%)

49
CBR 56 Blows TP1
Date:20th March, 2021 Project: CED
Personnel: Agyapong Kwame McCarthy Client: KNUST
Penetration
56 blows/layer
BEFORE SOAKING (mm)
Mould No. A4 Load
No. of blows per layer 56 (div) (KN) (CBR)%
Mass of wet sample + Mould (g) 11435 0.25 5 0.135
Mass of Mould (g) 7067 0.5 11.5 0.299
Mass of wet sample (g) 4368 0.75 20.5 0.533
Volume of mould (cc) 2059.404 1 32 0.832
Bulk density (g/cc) 2.12 1.25 47 1.222
BEFORE SOAKING 1.5 63 1.638
Test 1 2 1.75 83 2.158
Container No. A12 E2 2 102 2.652
Mass of wet sample + Container (g) 114.46 116.15 2.25 122 3.172
Mass of dry sample + Container (g) 104.44 105.9 2.5 140.5 3.653 27.36%
Mass of container (g) 26.93 25.86 2.75 157 4.082
Mass of water (g) 10.02 10.25 3 172 4.472
Mass of dry sample (g) 77.51 80.04 3.5 195.5 5.083
Water content (%) 12.93 12.81 4 213.5 5.551
Average water content (%) 12.87 4.5 226 5.876
Dry density (g/cc) 1.88 5 235 6.11 30.66%
AFTER SOAKING 5.5 243 6.318
Mass of wet sample + Mould (g) 11628 6 248.5 6.461
Mass of mould (g) 7067 6.5 253 6.578
Mass of wet sample (g) 4561 7 256 6.656
Bulk density (g/cc) 2.21
AFTER SOAKING
Test 1 2
Container No. C12 A12
Mass of wet + container (g) 105.49 103.48
Mass of dry + container (g) 92.68 90.31
Mass of container (g) 26.91 25.8
Mass of water (g) 12.81 13.17
Mass of dry sample (g) 65.77 64.51
Water content (%) 19.48 20.41544
Average water content (%) 19.95
Dry density (g/cc) 1.741541585

50
 56 blows
7

4
Load (kN)

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Penetration(mm)

51
CBR 25 Blows TP1
Date:20th March, 2021 Project: CED
Personnel: Agyapong Kwame McCarthy Client: KNUST
Penetration
25 blows/layer
BEFORE SOAKING (mm)
Mould No. A4 Load
No. of blows per layer 25 (div) (KN) (CBR)%
Mass of wet sample + Mould (g) 11296 0.25 12 0.324
Mass of Mould (g) 7395 0.5 15 0.39
Mass of wet sample (g) 3901 0.75 18 0.468
Volume of mould (cc) 2059.404 1 20 0.52
Bulk density (g/cc) 1.89 1.25 22 0.572
BEFORE SOAKING 1.5 24 0.624
Test 1 2 1.75 26 0.676
Container No. A12 E2 2 28 0.728
Mass of wet + container (g) 130.32 146.34 2.25 30 0.78
Mass of dry sample + Container (g) 120.04 133.76 2.5 31.5 0.819 6.13%
Mass of container (g) 25.74 26.2 2.75 33 0.858
Mass of water (g) 10.28 12.58 3 34.5 0.897
Mass of dry sample (g) 94.3 107.56 3.5 37.5 0.975
Water content (%) 10.90 11.70 4 40 1.04
Average water content (%) 11.30 4.5 43 1.118
Dry density (g/cc) 1.70 5 45 1.17 5.87%
AFTER SOAKING 5.5 48 1.248
Mass of wet sample + Mould (g) 11648 6 50.5 1.313
Mass of mould (g) 7395 6.5 53 1.378
Mass of wet sample (g) 4253 7 55 1.43
Bulk density (g/cc) 2.07
AFTER SOAKING
Test 1 2
Container No. C12 A12
Mass of wet + container (g) 147.2 157.51
Mass of dry + container (g) 125.87 134.24
Mass of container (g) 25.7 25.77
Mass of water (g) 21.33 23.27
Mass of dry sample (g) 100.17 108.47
Water content (%) 21.29 21.45294
Average water content (%) 21.37
Dry density (g/cc) 1.70

52
 25 BLOWS
1.5

1.3

1.1
Load (kN)

0.9

0.7

0.5

0.3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Penetration (mm)

53
CBR 10 Blows TP1
Date:20th March, 2021 Project: CED
Personnel: Agyapong Kwame McCarthy Client: KNUST
Penetration
25 blows/layer
BEFORE SOAKING (mm)
Mould No. A4 Load
No. of blows per layer 10 (div) (KN) (CBR)%
Mass of wet sample + Mould (g) 10971 0.25 1 0.027
Mass of Mould (g) 7320 0.5 2 0.052
Mass of wet sample (g) 3651 0.75 3 0.078
Volume of mould (cc) 2059.404 1 3.5 0.091
Bulk density (g/cc) 1.77 1.25 4 0.104
BEFORE SOAKING 1.5 4.75 0.1235
Test 1 2 1.75 5.5 0.143
Container No. A12 E2 2 6 0.156
Mass of wet + container (g) 121.65 129.13 2.25 6.75 0.1755
Mass of dry sample + Container (g) 111.96 119.58 2.5 7 0.182 1.36%
Mass of container (g) 23.94 25.75 2.75 7.75 0.2015
Mass of water (g) 9.69 9.55 3 8 0.208
Mass of dry sample (g) 88.02 93.83 3.5 9 0.234
Water content (%) 11.01 10.18 4 9.75 0.2535
Average water content (%) 10.59 4.5 10.5 0.273
Dry density (g/cc) 1.60 5 11.25 0.2925 1.47%
AFTER SOAKING 5.5 12 0.312
Mass of wet sample + Mould (g) 11432 6 13 0.338
Mass of mould (g) 7320 6.5 13.75 0.3575
Mass of wet sample (g) 4112 7 14.5 0.377
Bulk density (g/cc) 2.00
AFTER SOAKING
Test 1 2
Container No. C12 A12
Mass of wet + container (g) 198.13 175.12
Mass of dry + container (g) 163.36 146.64
Mass of container (g) 27.56 25.53
Mass of water (g) 34.77 28.48
Mass of dry sample (g) 135.8 121.11
Water content (%) 25.60 23.51581
Average water content (%) 24.55982062
Dry density (g/cc) 1.603000213

54
 10 BLOWS
0.4

0.35

0.3

0.25
Load(kN)

0.2

0.15

0.1

0.05

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Penetration (mm)

Blows 56 25 10
Dry density (CBR) 2.21 2.07 1.6
RC 105.74 99.04 76.56
CBR 30.66 6.13 1.47
RC (%) 93 95 98 100
CBR (%) 5 5.2 6 9.5

CBR
35

30

25

20
CBR(%)

15

10

0
75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110
Relative Compaction (%)

55
Northern mines. Grading for 10mm

Sieve Size (mm) 2.36 5.00 10.00 14.00

% Passing bs Sieve 0 4 100 100
Lower Boundary 0 0 85 100
Upper Boundary 5 25 100 100

100

90

80

70

60
% Passing

50

40

30

20

10

0
2.00 20.00
Sieve Size (mm)

% PASSING BS SIEVE LOWER BOUNDARY UPPER BOUNDARY

56
Northern Mines.

Grading for 14mm

Sieve size (mm) 5.00 10.00 14.00 20.00

% Passing bs sieve 0 29 99 100
Lower boundary 0 0 85 100
Upper boundary 10 50 100 100

100

90

80

70

60
% passing

50

40

30

20

10

0
2.00 20.00
Sieve size (mm)

% PASSING BS SIEVE LOWER BOUNDARY UPPER BOUNDARY

57
 Timeabu Borrow Pit PSD curve
120

100

80
%passing

60

40

20

0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Sieve Size (mm)

Passing(%) Upper Boundary Lower Boundarey

Ampabame Borrow Pit PSD curve

120

100

80
%passing

60

40

20

0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Seive size (mm)

Passing(%) Upper Boundary Lower Boundarey

58