IFH Geotechnical Report

IFH ENGINNERING
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
FOR
AKAKI OVER PASS BRIDGE
January,2018
P.O.BOX 62668 Tel. 0114 391065/395955/391617/391733/390689/91/93/94, Fax 0114391230, 391617
E-mail: saba.eng@ethionet.et/saba,eng@ethio.net.et
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

REPORT FOR OVER PASS BRIDGE
Contents
1. INTRODUCTION................................
................................................................................................
..................................1
1.1 Background1
1.2 Scope of Work and Objective ..................................................................................
.................. 1
1.3 Location ……… ………………………………………………………… ………….2
1.4 Regional and Site Geology .......................................................................................
....................... 2
1.4.1 Regional Geology ...............................................................
............................... 2
1.4.2 Local/Site Geology..............................................................
.............................. 3
2. METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................
................................ ................................4
2.1 Drilling…………. ................................................................................................
................................ ..................................... 4
2.2 In Situ Tests, Sampling .............................................................................................
............................. 4
2.2.1 In situ Tests ..............................................................................
................................ .............. 4
2.2.2. Sampling .................................................................................
................................ ................. 8
2.3 Chemical Tests on water and soil samples..............................................................
samples .............................. 12
2.4 Groundwater Records .............................................................................................
............................. 12
2.5 Summary 13
3. GEOTECHNICAL CHARACTERISTICS
CHARACT OF SUB-SURFACE
SURFACE LAYERS ..14
4. FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATION...........................................................
RECOMMEND ...........................15
4.1 Option I-Isolated Footing on silty CLAY soil ..........................................................
.......................... 15
4.1.1 Bearing Pressure Based on SPT Values ..........................................
.......... 15
FIGURE 5.1 PILE LENGTH

LENG VERSUS PILE CARRYING ING CAPACITY OF
1.2M DIAMETER PILE ...........................................................................................
................................ ...........................30
5. SETTLEMENT ANALYSIS ...............................................................................

...............31
6. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................
................................ ....................................34
7. LIMITATIONS ................................................................................................
................................ ....................................36
APPENDICES:
Appendix 1: Borehole Log

Appendix 2: Laboratory Test Result
Appendix 3: Site Layout
January 2018 i
Geotechnical Investigation and Fondation Recommandation Report
List of Tables
Table1-1-1Coordinates
1Coordinates and Depth of Boreholes .......................................................
....................... 2
Table 2-2-1SPT N-value/300mm
value/300mm...............................................................................
............... 4
Table 2-2Summary
2Summary of Laboratory Test Results of Disturbed Soil Samples.............. 9
Table 2-3Summary
3Summary of Laboratory Test Results of Undisturbed Soil Samples ........ 11
Table 2-4Static
4Static Ground Water .................................................................................
................. 12
Table 2-5Summary
5Summary of Geotechnical Investigation Works................................
....................................... 13
Table 4-1Measured
1Measured and Adjusted
Adjust SPT N Values ....................................................
.................... 16
Table 4-2Allowable
2Allowable Bearing Pressures based on SPT Test Values for an allowable
Settlement of 25 mm of natural soil ................................................................
......................................... 21
Table 4-3allowable
3allowable bearing capacity of selected fill after settlement calculation ... 23
Table 5-1Consolidation
1Consolidation Test Result................................................................
Result ......................................... 32
January 2018 ii
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
SABA Engineering PLC has made an agreement with IFH Engineering to conduct geotechnical sub sub-
surface investigation and provide a foundation recommendation report for the construction of over
pass Bridge at Akaki over pass Bridge.
Bridge Accordingly (8) boreholes were drilled to a maximum depth
of 40m to disclose the subsoil condition.
The geotechnical investigations comprised of core drilling, in situ test such as standard penetration
test (SPT), collection of representative samples and subsequent laboratory tests on representative
samples to determine engineering properties of the sub surface materials.
Moreover the coordinates of each borehole were taken using hand held GPS.. The field investigation
was conducted from December 22 and January 12 2018.
201
This report includes the regional, local (site) geology, methodology, laboratory tests conducted to
determine the engineering properties of the sub-surface
sub surface materials including analysis and interpretation
of test results. Finally a recommendation is provided
provided including type of foundation, bearing layers,
foundation depth and allowable bearing pressure.
1.2 Scope of Work and Objective
The scope of the geotechnical investigations include core drilling, collection of representative
samples, subsequent laboratory
ratory testing, and acquiring coordinates and elevations with hand held GPS.
In this drilling activity, in situ tests (SPT) and Shelby for undisturbed samples was taken. The
purposes of the investigation are:-
are:
 To investigate the sub-surface

surface geology of the proposed construction site and identify the
various soil horizons and to establish the stratiography of the sub-surface
sub surface geology within the
influence zone of foundation.
 To carry out in-situ
situ tests to determine the strength of the various soil horizons with within the
influence zone of foundation.
 To collect representative samples (disturbed and undisturbed) for subsequent laboratory tests
to determine the engineering properties.
 To characterize the sub-surface
surface materials into various geotechnical layers based on combined
parameters such as, visual description of soils/rocks, in-situ
in situ tests, and laboratory test results.
 To providee safe and economic foundations that is, typee of foundation, bearing layer, depth and
width of foundation, and allowable bearing capacity.
January, 2018
1

1.3 Location
The project
ject site is located in an area called Akaki Meshualekiya , Akaki Kality sub city, Addis
Ababa, Ethiopia.. The area is characterized by flat land to gentle slope topographic feature
having an average elevation of about 2062 m above sea level.. The elevations and coordinates
of the boreholes are given in the following table.
Table1
Table1-1-1Coordinates and Depth of Boreholes
Sr. No BH-ID Easting Northing Elevation (m) Depth(m)
1 BH-1 40
476535.040
476535 980993.545 2062.627
2 BH-2 476509.762 980994.267 2062.756 30
3 BH-3 476485.857 980995.151 2059.078 30
4 BH-4 476459.613 980998.421 2060.597 30
5 BH-6 476448.826 980977.909 2061.826 30
6 BH-7 476475.110 980976.953 2061.067 30
7 BH-8 476499.774 980976.813 2059.103 30
8 BH-9 476520.426 980975.926 2060.146 40
1.4 Regional and Site Geology

[
1.4.1 Regional Geology
Addis Ababa city is situated in the western margin of the main Ethiopian Rift and represents a
transition zone between the Ethiopian Plateau and the rift with poorly defined escarpment.
The geology of this area is represented by four volcanic units dominated in the lower part by
basaltic lava flows (Addis Ababa basalt), followed by a pyroclastic sequence, mainly formed
by ignimbrites (Addis Ababa Ignimbrite), followed by central composite volcanoes (Central
Volcanoes unit), and finally small spatter cones and lava flows (Akaki unit).
Addis
ddis Ababa basalt extensively crops out along Akaki, Kebena, and Dukem rivers at the east
to southeastern part of Addis Ababa, and represents the oldest unit of the area. It consists of
essentially sub-horizontal
horizontal lava flows with thickness ranging from few meters
up to 20m. Maximum exposed thickness was found east of Addis Ababa, along the Kebe Kebena
River. Addis Ababa basalt is predominantly constituted by alkaline and olivine basalts with
three main textural attributes, that is, porphyritic, aphyric, and sub-aphyric.
sub aphyric.
Addis Ababa ignimbrite is exposed close to Addis Ababa along the Akaki and KebenKebena rivers.
It overlies the Addis Ababa basalt and locally covers the products of the composite central
January, 2018
2

volcanoes of Wechecha and Furi. The sequence is constituted by different flow units,
consisting of pale-green
green to pale-yellow
pale welded and crystal rich ignimbrites.
brites.
Central volcanoes unit includes the Yerer volcano and the product of the two composite
volcanoes; Wechecha and Furi west and southeast of Addis Ababa, respectively. Wechecha
and Furi volcanoes are two large edifices composed by predominant trachy trachyte with minor
pyroclastics. Yerer represents the largest volcanic edifice in the region, with a relief of 1000m
from the plain and 14 km wide along east-west
east west direction. Products mainly consist of trachytes,
even if pyroclastics are widespread mainly in the central part eastern sector. The highest part
of Yerer volcano was affected by a more recent volcanic activity that produces spatter cones
and associated basalt.
Akaki unit crops out east of Addis Ababa and consists of scoria and spatter cones with
associated
ociated tabular lava flows and phreato-magmatic
phreato magmatic deposits. Alluvial deposits covering these
units consists of regolith, reddish brown soils, talus and alluvium with maximum thickness of
about two meters.
1.4.2 Local/Site Geology
The Sub-surface
surface geology of the proposed over pass bridge site is not much complex. The top
most part is covered with Black highly Plastic Clay. This layer has a maximum thickness of
21 m at Borehole 3 and minimum thickness of 11m at Borehole 7.. Beneath the first layer there
is light brown to dark brown clayey silt with gravels and cobles. The seco
second layer continues
up to the maximum depth of the each borehole drilling depth.
January, 2018
3

2. METHODOLOGY
2.1 Drilling
Rotary core drilling was employed using a rig having the capacity to perfor
perform boring operation
to the required standard and quality in accordance with ASTM D 2113 – 93, ASTM D 1452 –
80 (95), and BS 5930: 1981.
Dry drilling method was employed in soil formations while wet drilling method was
employed in rocky formations using inner
inner lining single core barrels fitted with appropriate
size tungsten carbide bits at the bottom. This will enable the drilling to achieve good quality
core recovery. Equipment’s such as water pumps, rods, casings, and a wide range of heavyheavy-
duty tools were used during the drilling operations.
2.2 In Situ Tests, Sampling

2.2.1 In situ Tests
One Hundred thirty four (134)

( standard penetration test (SPT) was conducted inside boreholes
using a standard hammer, weighing 63.5kg falling freely from a height of 7760mm along a
frictionless guide rod in accordance with test procedure mentioned in test No. 19 of BS 1377;
1975. The test was carried out every 1.50m starting the depth of 1.5m be below natural ground
level (NGL). At some points refusals were observed.
Blow counts for a total penetration depth of 450 mm from the bottom of a cleaned borehole
were recorded. Counts for the first 150 mm penetration were discarded since the ground is
considered to be disturbed during drilling activity prior to the test. SPT N
N-values for the last
300mm penetration are considered for computation the bearing capacity after applying
corrections.
Table 2-2-1SPT N-value/300mm
Sr. No Sample ID Depth(m) SPT N-value/300mm
1 1.50 >50
2 3.00 >50
3 4.50 >50
4 6.50 17
5 8.50 16
BH-1
6 10.50 16
7 12.00 8
8 13.50 6
9 15.00 8
January, 2018
4


10 16.50 9
11 18.50 16
12 20.00 17
13 21.50 15
14 23.00 13
15 24.50 14
16 26.00 13
17 33.50 >50
18 1.50 15
19 3.00 >50
20 4.50 >50
21 6.50 10
22 7.50 9
23 9.00 8
24 11.00 8
25 12.50 7
26 14.00 8
27 BH-2 15.50 5
28 17.00 7
29 18.50 >50
30 20.00 5
31 21.50 6
32 23.00 9
33 24.50 >50
34 26.00 23
35 28.00 24
36 1.50 3
37 3.00 7
38 4.50 7
39 6.50 10
40 8.00 6
41 BH-3 9.50 6
42 11.00 10
43 12.50 9
44 14.00 5
45 15.50 19
January, 2018
5


46 17.00 25
47 18.50 20
48 23.50 8
49 25.00 >50(refusal)
50 1.50 12
51 3.00 13
52 4.50 16
53 6.00 15
54 7.50 16
55 9.00 14
56 10.50 11
BH-4
57 12.00 >50
58 13.50 >50
59 15.00 >50
60 16.50 >50
61 20.00 8
62 21.50 >50
63 23.00 12
64 24.50 8
65 26.50 7
66 28.00 >50
67 1.50 >50
68 3.00 >50
69 4.50 9
70 6.50 11
71 8.00 13
72 9.50 8
73 11.50 9
74 14.10 9
75 BH-6 15.60 12
76 20.00 10
77 21.50 11
78 23.00 9
79 24.50 12
80 26.00 14
81 27.50 >50
January, 2018
6


82 29.00 16
83 1.50 >50
84 3.00 18
85 4.50 12
86 6.00 10
87 8.00 13
88 9.50 13
89 11.00 12
90 12.60 13
91 14.10 15
92 15.60 16
BH-7
93 17.00 15
94 18.60 17
95 20.50 16
96 22.00 17
97 23.50 18
98 25.00 >50
99 26.50 28
100 28.00 27
101 29.50 28
102 1.50 5
103 3.00 5
104 4.50 6
105 6.00 9
106 8.00 5
107 9.50 9
108 11.00 10
109 12.50 7
110 BH-8 14.50 11
111 16.50 13
112 18.00 14
113 19.50 18
114 21.00 14
115 23.00 >50
116 27.00 >50
117 1.50 >50
January, 2018
7


118 3.00 12
119 4.50 10
120 BH-9 6.10 6
121 7.50 7
122 9.00 5
123 10.50 7
124 12.50 12
125 13.50 7
126 15.00 8
127 16.50 10
128 18.00 10
129 19.50 18
130 21.00 13
131 22.50 18
132 24.00 19
133 25.50 17
134 27.00 >50
2.2.2. Sampling
Representative samples from favorable geological layers were taken from each boreholes for
subsequent laboratory tests to determine
de the geotechnical (index,, and mechanical) properties
following BS standards which is an internationally practiced procedures.
2.2.2.1 Disturbed Soil Samples
Fifty two(52) representative disturbed soil samples were collected from required depth to
determine the geotechnical properties of the existing layer. Summary of laboratory test results
of disturbed soil samples are presented below in table 2.2
January, 2018
8

Table 2-2Summary
Summary of Laboratory Test Results of Disturbed Soil Samples
Unified Soil Moisture

Sr. Sample ID Depth(m) Atterberg limit Classification Content%
No.
LL (%) PI (%)
1 BH-1 3.00
3.00-3.50 51 20 MH
2 BH-1 6.50
6.50-7.00 93 30 MH 37.61
3 BH-1 10.50
10.50-11.00 78 16 MH 37.57
4 BH-1 13.50
13.50-14.00 90 40 MH 52.98
5 BH-1 16.50
16.50-17.00 86 37 MH 46.01
6 BH-1 21.00
21.00-21.50 94 43 MH 188.58
7 BH-1 23.00
23.00-23.50 85 31 MH 44.20
8 BH-1 26.00
26.00-26.50 85 30 MH 36.58
9 BH-1 33.50
33.50-34.00 34 12 ML 18.98
10 BH-2 7.50
7.50-8.00 104 52 MH 38.85
11 BH-2 12.50
12.50-13.00 87 32 MH 4.35
12 BH-2 17.00
17.00-17.50 70 26 CH 56.94
13 BH-2 20.00
20.00-20.50 80 29 MH 47.43
14 BH-2 23.00
23.00-23.50 74 22 MH 42.60
15 BH-2 26.00
26.00-26.50 49 13 MH 43.19
16 BH-2 28.00
28.00-28.50 54 16 MH 39.78
17 BH-3 3.00
3.00-3.50 104 50 MH 46.48
18 BH-3 6.00
6.00-7.00 103 46 MH 45.48
19 BH-3 9.50
9.50-10.00 87 40 MH 51.98
20 BH-3 17.00
17.00-17.50 58 25 MH 32.37
21 BH-3 23.50
23.50-24.00 78 32 MH 38.50
22 BH-3 26.00
26.00-26.50 57 17 MH 22.09
23 BH-4 3.00
3.00-3.50 78 26 MH 36.71
24 BH-4 10.50
10.50-11.00 94 48 MH 42.18
25 BH-4 16.50
16.50-17.00 N.P N.P GM -
26 BH-4 23.00
23.00-23.50 40 11 ML 40.20
January, 2018
9

27 BH-6 - 56 20 MH
28 BH-6 4.50
4.50-5.50 80 33 MH 37.75
29 BH-6 9.50
9.50-10.00 75 33 MH 30.52
30 BH-6 15.50
15.50-16.00 78 34 MH 45.82
31 BH-6 20.00
20.00-20.50 N.P N.P - 31.13
32 BH-6 26.50
26.50-27.00 54 18 MH 35.94
33 BH-7 4.50
4.50-5.00 100 42 MH 47.65
34 BH-7 8
8.00-8.50 98 39 MH 54.90
35 BH-7 14.00
14.00-14.50 71 31 MH 53.70
36 BH-7 20.00.20.50 55 16 MH 39.55
37 BH-7 23.00
23.00-23.50 70 31 MH 33.44
38 BH-7 26.50.27.00 70 28 MH 40.41
39 BH-7 29.50
29.50-30.00 58 23 MH 35.37
40 BH-8 3.00
3.00-3.45 106 46 MH 55.96
41 BH-8 6.00
6.00-6.45 96 45 MH 47.29
42 BH-8 9.00
9.00-9.45 99 40 MH 55.96
43 BH-8 18.00
18.00-18.45 94 40 MH 51.70
44 BH-8 23.00
23.00-23.45 60 16 MH 25.71
45 BH-9 3.00
3.00-3.50 93 23 MH 34.03
46 BH-9 6.00
6.00-6.50 98 43 MH 54.08
47 BH-9 9.00
9.00-9.50 90 39 MH 57.60
48 BH-9 13.50
13.50-14.00 87 35 MH 48.93
49 BH-9 16.50
16.50-17.00 75 28 MH 42.44
50 BH-9 22.50
22.50-23.00 70 29 MH 23.57
51 BH-9 24.00
24.00-24.50 88 38 MH 30.51
52 BH-9 29.50
29.50-30.00 71 31 MH
5
January, 2018
10

2.2.2.2 Undisturbed Soil Samples
Twenty one (21) undisturbed soil samples were collected from required depth to determine the
geotechnical properties of the existing layers.
layer
Table 2-3Summary
Summary of Laboratory Test Results of Undisturbed Soil Samples
Dry Consolidation UCS
BH ID Depth Bulk UCS Cohesion
Density
Sr.No Density 3 Void ratio (qu) Value (qu/2)
(gm/cm )
(gm/cm3) (er) (Kg/cm2) (Kg/cm2
1 BH-1 6.00-6.50 1.565 1.132 0.692 - -

2 BH-1 6.00-6.50 2.018 1.533 - 0.90 0.45
3 BH-1 10.00-10.50 2.184 1.561 - 0.36 0.18
4 BH-1 16.00-16.50 2.215 1.576 - 0.86 0.43
5 BH-1 18.00-18.60 1.755 1.210 0.538 - -
6 BH-2 5.50-6.10 1.784 1.311 0.504 - -
7 BH-2 6.00-6.50 1.842 1.064 - 0.36 0.18
8 BH-2 10.50-11.00 2.148 1.509 - 0.630 0.315
9 BH-2 11.50-12.10 1.679 1.324 0.078
10 BH-3 4.00-4.60 1.654 1.126 0.774 - -
11 BH-3 4.00-4.60 2.058 1.472 - 0.36 0.18
12 BH-3 12.00-12.60 1.761 1.209 1.134 - -
13 BH-4 8.50-9.00 1.813 1.285 1.915 - -
14 BH-6 6.00-6.40 2.390 1.777 - 0.96 0.48
15 BH-6 9.00-9.50 2.310 1.625 - 0.420 0.210
16 BH-6 13.50-14.00 1.993 1.424 0.683 - -
17 BH-7 6.00-6.60 2.123 1.508 - 0.730 0.365
18 BH-7 9.00-9.60 2.239 1.575 - 0.882 0.441
19 BH-7 12.00-12.60 1.653 1.034 0.890 - -
20 BH-8 7.50-8.00 1.852 1.305 1.245 - -
21 BH-8 15.50-16.00 2.630 1.835 0.862 - -
22 BH-9 5.50-6.10 2.247 1.626 - 0.90 0.45
23 BH-9 10.50-11.00 1.532 1.082 0.105 - -
January, 2018
11

2.3 Chemical Tests on water and soil samples

In order to assess the corrosive
corrosiv nature of the foundation soil, Five Soil and five water samples
were taken from the different boreholes and tested for
for PH value, chloride and sulphate content
Table 2-4Chemical Test Result of soil

Chloride Sulphate
No Borehole Depth (m) PH TDS (mg/l)
Content (mg/l) Content (mg/l)
1 BH-1 9.50-10.00
10.00 8.81 267 5.40 5.0
2 BH-3 6.50-7.00
7.00 8.22 314 3.20 9.0
3 BH-6 9.50-10.00
10.00 8.13 560 2.50 8.0
4 BH-7 4.50-5.00
5.00 8.24 693 3.80 13.0
5 BH-9 13.50-14.00
14.00 8.30 575 3.60 15.00
2.4 Groundwater Records

The depth of water level
evel in each borehole was measured after drilling was executed aat around
9:00AM on the next day;; and on the completion of the final borehole.
Dip meter was used to measure the ground water level depth. In some of the boreholes
natural ground water levels were not found.
found
Table 2-5Static Ground Water

BH
BH-ID Water Level(m)
BH
BH-1 10.20
BH
BH-2 10.50
BH
BH-3 3.40
January, 2018
12

BH
BH-ID Water Level(m)
BH
BH-4 4.00
BH
BH-6 8.00
BH
BH-7 7.00
BH
BH-8 4.00
BH
BH-9 12.00
2.5 Summary
In general, the following in-situ

in situ and laboratory tests were conducted on representative samples and the
following table summarizes the geotechnical investigations carried out.
Table 2--6Summary
Summary of Geotechnical Investigation Works
Geotechnical Investigations carried out Quantity

Drilling up to 40m
m depth below the Natural
Na Ground Level 260
Number of standard penetration tests 134
Number of disturbed samples 53
Number of undisturbed samples 21
Ground water level measurement 8
Photographing of cores on core boxes (colored) 56
Laboratory Tests
Grain size analysis 52
Atterberg limit 52
Moisture content 52
Consolidation test 8
PH value, Chloride and Sulphate content of soil and ware 10
January, 2018
13

3. GEOTECHNICAL
EOTECHNICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF SUB-SURFACE
SUB SURFACE LAYERS
Descriptive analysis was made on the soil samples recovered from all all boreholes. This was
used together with the classification and index tests and relative compactions as indicated
from the SPT test and the following generalized geotechnical layers are identified.
Details on the type and extent of the geotechnical layers

layers are given on borehole log sheets.
Based on field visual description and laboratory test results, the drilled boreholes depth
geological formations are categorized in to two layers;
Layer 1. Black highly plastic Silty Clay
This layer is found in all boreholes.. This layer has a maximum thickness of 21 m at Borehole
3 and minimum thickness of 11m at Borehole
Borehole 7 and it has LL ranges From 51 To 100 and PI
value Ranges From 16 to 52
Layer 2. Light brown to dark brown clayey SILT

This layer covers up to maximum
maximum drilled depth of all boreholes. The layer characterized by
clayey SILT with some gravels (Cobles), Light Brown to Dark brown color. The In In-situ test
Conducted on this layer shows that SPT N value ranging from 7 up to 50 shows that the layer
has Loosee to high Density as Per TRL.
TRL
January, 2018
14

4. FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATION
Foundation recommendation refers to the determination of the bearing layer, its depth and
allowable pressure. It also considers the type of foundation that could be adopted safely and
economically.
omically. Factors such as the load to be transmitted to the foundation and the subsurface
condition of the soil have been considered in selecting the foundation type.
4.1 Option I-Isolated

Isolated Footing on silty CLAY soil
Isolated footings are the simplest

simplest to construct and economical type of foundations. The first
option is to place the foundation at 3.50 meters depth below the lowest ground level on the
medium to stiff CLAY layer. We have used the SPT tests for determining the bearing capacity
of the layer. Placing the foundation below 3.50 m depth from the lowest ground level is
required in order to go beyond the moisture fluctuation zone. In reference to lowest ground
level and existence of back fill on the existing road.
road The following foundation dep
depths are used
start form the elevation where the boring begins.
BH-ID Depth, m
BH-1 7.00
BH-2 7.00
BH-3 3.50
BH-4 5.00
BH-6 6.00
BH-7 6.00
BH-8 3.50
BH-9 4.00
The allowable bearing capacity of these types of footings can be determined from different
methods. Standard penetration tests with the supplement of the classification tests and visual
identification are used to determine the allowable bearing capacities.
4.1.1 Bearing Pressure Based on SPT Values
The SPT N-values/300mm

values/300mm are adjusted
adjusted using Equation (4.1) for different factors before
employing them for computing the allowable bearing pressure. The SPT N N-values are
converted to N70 standard energy ratio value (Bowles, 1988) using:
N’70 = CN x N x n1 x n2 x n3 x n4 ………………. (4.1)

Where,
N’70 = adjusted N
CN =adjustment for overburden pressure (p’’o/p’o)1/2
January, 2018
15

p’o = overburden pressure

p’’o = reference overburden pressure (95.76 kPa or 1.0 kg/cm2)
n1 = Er/Erb (where Er is average energy ratio that depends on the drill system and Erb is
the standard energy ratio). Er is taken as 80 and Erb as 70.
n2= rod length correction
rod length > 10 m =1
rod length 6-10
6 m = 0.95
rod length
len 4-6 m = 0.85
rod length 0-4
0 m = 0.75
n3= sampler correction (1.00 in this case)
n4=borehole diameter correction (1.00 in this case)
After adjusting the N-values
values based
base on the above formula, the design N-values
values are calculated as the
average of N-values
values which are found in between ½ B above and 2B below the proposed foundation
depth. B is the width of the foundation. The depths below NGL, SPT N-values
N values and adjusted NN-values
(i.e., N’70) are given below
Table 4-1Measured and Adjusted SPT N Values

BH-ID
Adjusted SPT
Depth (m) SPT N-values
Values
6.50 17 17
8.50 16 13
10.50 16 13
12.00 8 6
13.50 6 5
15.00 8 6
BH-01 16.50 9 7
18.50 16 11
20.00 17 12
21.50 15 10
23.00 13 9
24.50 14 8
26.00 13 8
33.50 >50 31
6.50 10 10
7.50 9 8
9.00 8 7
11.00 8 7
January, 2018
16

BH-ID
Adjusted SPT
Values
12.50 7 6
14.00 8 6
BH-02
15.50 5 4
17.00 7 5
18.50 5 4
20.00 5 3
21.50 6 4
23.00 9 6
24.50 >50 32
26.00 23 15
28.00 24 15
1.50 3 3
3.00 7 7
4.50 7 7
6.50 10 10
8.00 6 6
9.50 6 6
11.00 10 10
BH-3
12.50 9 6
14.00 5 5
15.50 19 17
17.00 25 17
18.50 20 6
23.50 8 37
25.00 >50(refusal) 36
1.50 12 12
3.00 13 13
4.50 16 16
BH-4
6.00 15 15
7.50 16 16
9.00 14 14
10.50 11 11
January, 2018
17

BH-ID
Adjusted SPT
Values
12.00 >50 49
13.50 >50 47
15.00 >50 45
16.50 >50 43
BH-4 20.00 8 6
21.50 >50 39
23.00 12 9
24.50 8 6
26.50 7 5
28.00 >50 35
4.50 9 9
6.50 11 11
8.00 13 12
9.50 8 7
11.50 9 8
14.10 9 10
15.60 12 7
BH-6
20.00 10 7
21.50 11 8
23.00 9 6
24.50 12 8
26.00 14 9
24.50 12 8
26.00 14 9
3.00 18 18
4.50 12 12
6.00 10 10
BH-7
8.00 13 12
9.50 13 12
11.00 12 11
12.60 13 11
January, 2018
18

BH-ID
Adjusted SPT
Values
14.10 15 13
15.60 16 12
17.00 15 13
18.60 17 12
20.50 16 12
22.00 17 12
BH-7
23.50 18 35
25.00 >50 19
26.50 28 18
28.00 27 18
29.50 28 32
1.50 5 5
3.00 5 5
4.50 6 6
6.00 9 9
8.00 5 5
9.50 9 9
11.00 10 10
BH-8 12.50 7 7
14.50 11 10
16.50 13 11
18.00 14 12
19.50 18 15
21.00 14 11
23.00 >50 38
27.00 >50 37
3.00 12 12
4.50 10 10
BH-9
6.10 6 6
7.50 7 6
9.00 5 4
January, 2018
19

BH-ID
Adjusted SPT
Values
10.50 7 6
12.50 12 9
13.50 7 5
15.00 8 6
16.50 10 7
18.00 10 7
BH-9
19.50 18 12
21.00 13 9
22.50 18 12
24.00 19 12
25.50 17 11
27.00 >50 31
27.00 >50 17
After adjusting the N-values

values based on the above formula, the design N-values
N values are calculated as the
average of N-values
values which are found in between ½ B above and 2B below the proposed foundation
depth. B is the width of the foundation.
The bearing capacity for the soil layer is calculated from the SPT N-
N values using the following
equation suggested by Meyerhof’s (Bowles, 1997):
……………… (4.2)
For B >1.2--------------- (4.3)
Where, qall = allowable bearing capacity

Kd = 1+0.33D/B 1.33
Ha = allowable settlement
B = Width of foundation
D = Depth of foundation
January, 2018
20

The following allowable bearing pressures are calculated for different foundation
foundation widths at a depth of
3.50 m below the lowest ground level le for settlement limited to 25 mm. Foundation width is a
significant parameter since a large foundation
foundation width will affect the soil to a greater depth and strains
integrated over a greater depth will produce a larger settlement.
Table 4-2Allowable
Allowable Bearing Pressures based on SPT Test Values for an allow
allowable
Settlement of 25 mm of natural soil
Depth of
Foundation Width of Foundation (B) in m,
BH-ID below EGL ,m 6 6.3 7 8 9 10
BH-2 7.00 123 120 108 97 90 112
BH-3 3.50 84 83 81 88 86 82
BH-4 5.00 315 310 278 281 271 252
BH-7 6.00 176 173 165 155 148 162
BH-8 3.50 87 86 87 95 94 113
BH-9 4.00 159 157 153 157 147 148
BH-ID Width of Foundation (B) in m,

11 12 13 14 15 16
BH-1 7.00 171 179 186 162 158 154
BH-6 6.00 127 148 144 141 138 136
The above
ove analysis indicates that the allowable bearing pressure of the bearing layer results in values
which range from 81 to 310 kPaa for different foundation width.
January, 2018
21

4..1.2 Option II-Foundation

Foundation on compacted fill
The second option is to place the foundation on compacted granular material .Since the bearing capacity of
the foundation soil is low and the determination of depth of zone of moisture fluctuation requires
monitoring of the moisture conditions of the subsoil for sufficiently long time, and cannot hence be
determined with sufficient accuracy at this stage, this second option is advisable.
To avoid the risk of placing the foundation in an active zone , to reduce the amount of settlement and to
avoid large footing size, the material beneath
beneath the footing can be removed and replaced by an appropriate
well compacted granular material for sufficient depth. When expansive and swelling clay soils are
encountered it is usually advised to load the soil to sufficient pressure intensity to balance the swelling
pressure. The depth of replacement below the footing may extend up to 1.5m1.5m to 2.0m of the width of the
footing, B, but shall not be less than 1.5 meter unless rock or other competent strata is encountered .
Compacted fill, placed with control of moisture, density and lift thickness, has allowable bearing pressure
of equivalent natural soil (NAVFAC DM 7.02, 1986 (Naval Facilities Command).
An appropriate 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, SC, etc. Compacted gravel and sand mixtures can have
allowable bearing capacity of 4 to 7 kg/cm2.
For this option compacted fill thickness of 3 to 12 meters is considered (i.e 1.5B to 2B), The footing shall
be placed below moisture fluctuation zone (2.0m to 3.0
3. m) on the compacted granular material. The depth
of foundation for each bore hole and the allowable bearing pressure given in the table below
January, 2018
22

Table 4-3allowable
allowable bearing capacity of selected fill after settlement calculation
Selected
fill Foundation
Foundation Depth
S. No. BH-ID Bearing Capacity (kPa)
Thickness
Type (m)
(m)
B=6.0m B=6.3m B=7.0m B=8.0m B=9.0m B=10.0m

0
122 119 108 96 122 123
BH-2 3 215 210 185 152 136 145
6 7 307 300 262 210 186 188
9 496 486 423 338 297 295
12 614 600 521 411 360 346
B=6.0m B=6.3m B=7.0m B=8.0m B=9.0m B=10.0m
0 84 83 81 88 86 82
3 202 200 195 187 183 169
BH-3 6 3.5 304 300 293 274 268 246
9 411 406 396 366 358 327
12 489 483 471 432 423 385
B=6.0m B=6.3m B=7.0m B=8.0m B=9.0m B=10.0m
BH-4 0 183 180 161 163 157 146
3 5 413 407 359 353 332 310
6 493 486 424 411 382 355
B=6.0m B=6.3m B=7.0m B=8.0m B=9.0m B=10.0m
0 176 173 165 155 148 162
BH-7 3 347 323 308 269 249 252
6 6 453 416 397 339 311 308
9 497 455 434 368 337 331
12 543 531 506 425 387 376
January, 2018
23

Selected
fill Foundation
Foundation Depth
S. No. BH-ID Bearing Capacity (kPa)
Thickness
Type (m)
(m)
B=6.0m B=6.3m B=7.0m B=8.0m B=9.0m B=10.0m
0 87 86 87 95 94 113
3 193 190 175 159 149 156
BH-8 6 3.5 295 290 263 230 214 216
9 479 471 423 364 336 333
12 526 518 464 397 365 359
B=6.0m B=6.3m B=7.0m B=8.0m B=9.0m B=10.0m
0 152 150 149 147 140 141
BH-9 3 4 293 270 248 233 207 186
6 493 450 409 379 333 292
9 661 600 542 499 436 377
B=11m B=12m B=13m B=14m B=15m B=16m
0 100 105 109 95 92 90
BH-1 3 7 143 145 147 127 124 122
6 202 200 198 172 168 164
9 317 311 306 266 259 254
12 356 347 302 295 288 283
B=11m B=12m B=13m B=14m B=15m B=16m
0 120 140 136 133 131 129
BH-6 3 211 210 205 200 196 193
6 6 262 254 248 242 238 234
9 323 302 294 288 282 277
12 343 338 329 322 316 311
January, 2018
24

GEOTECHNICAL IN
REPORT FOR OVE
The above analysis indicates that the allowable

all bearing pressure of the bearing layer results in
values which range
ge from 82 to 661 kPa for different foundation width.
January, 2018
25

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT FOR
MELES ZENAWI LEADER SHIP ACADEMY
YOUR PARTNER FOR DEVELOPMENT
4.1.3 Option III-Pile

Pile Foundation
Pile foundation is commonly used where the foundation soil strata has low bearing capacity.
Piles are relatively long and slender members used to transmit foundation loads through soil
strata of low bearing capacity to deeper soil or rock strata having high bearing capacity
If the bearing stratum for foundation piles is a hard and relatively impenetrable
impenetrable material such as
rock or a very dense sand and gravel, the piles derive most of their carrying capacity from the
resistance of the stratum at the toe of the piles. In these conditions they are called end
end-bearing
piles. On the other hand, if the piles do not reach an impenetrable stratum but are driven for some
distance in to a penetrable soil, their carrying capacity is derived partly from end
end-bearing and
partly from the skin friction between the embedded surface of the pile and the surrounding ssoil.
Piles which obtain the greater part of their carrying capacity by skin friction or adhesion are
called friction piles.
The study of the field tests and laboratory tests clearly indicate that a soft soil is present up to a
depth of 11m to 21 m below the he existing ground level. The soil can be described as ““Highly
Compressible Soft Clayey SILT”SILT” based on the laboratory test results. Such soils can’t bear the
loads of high magnitudes and also undergoes a large amount of settlements even under the
application of very small load.
Moreover the foundation has to sustain heavy loads from the structure. Hence the bored cast cast-in-
situ piles shall used to transfer the load of structure to the very stiff clay with gravel layer
layer.
Selection of Pile Length and Depth
The piles can be terminated at after embedding the pile in refusal strata by 5times
times the diameter of
pile. The refusal stratum
atum was encountered between 23 and 27m 27 depth form the he existing ground
level. Considering the cutoff level of piles as 1.5m below the existing xisting ground level the
approximate length of pile will be about 28-32
28 m.
As per the client’s information, the pile diameter considered in calculation of bearing capacity is
1.2m.The
The bearing capacity calculated by considering both skin resistance and en end bearing
resistance.
Load carrying capacity
The bearing capacity of pile from end-bearing

end and skin-friction is calculated using the following
formula (Donald P. Coduto):
Pa = Pult/F, and
Pult = qt’At + Asfs
Where:
Pult = Ultimate load capacity
Pa = Allowable downward load capacity
qt’ = Net unit end-bearing
end resistance
January , 2018 26
Geotechnical investigation and Foundation Recommandation Report
At = End-bearing
bearing contact area
fs = Unit skin-friction
friction resistance
As = Skin-friction
friction contact area
F = Factor of safety
Side friction resistance in clay can be analysis using total stress

s method (a method) based on
undrained strength.
The skin friction can be evaluated by using the following equation using alpha method:
fs = asu, and
Where:
fs = Unit side friction resistance
a=adhesion
adhesion factor
su= undrained shear strength in soil adjacent to the foundation
For su<25 Kpa , a=1
For 25 Kpa <su < 75 Kpa , a=
For su> 75Kpa, a=0.5
In clays,the side friction resistance of 1.5 m of the ground surface was ignored due to the clay
shrinkage caused by drying and foundation movement produced by lateral loads.
Ultimate static pile point load capacity
Clay
Because of their low hydraulic conductivity, we assumed undrained conditions
conditions exist in the clay
beneath the toe of deep foundation q’t is compute using undrained shear strength su clays with
Su< 250 KPa
q’t=N*c Su
Where:
q’t =net unit toe bearing resistance
N*c=bearing capacity factor (O’Neill and Reese, 1999)
6.5=at Su=25Kpa
8= at Su=50Kpa
9= at Su>100 Kpa
Su=undrained
undrained shear strength of soil between the toe and 2B below the toe
Based on laboratory result the following average values are used : Su =22 KPa for 0 to 8m depth
, Su=32Kpa for 10 to 16m and Su=43 KPa for depth >16m
January , 2018 27
For noncohesive intermediate geomaterials

materials (SPT N value >50), O’neill and Reese use
0.8 ’
qt’=0.59[(N1)60] s zD
Where:
qt’=net unit toe-bearing resistance
(N1)60=SPT N-value
value corrected for field procedures and overburden stress 100
’
s zD=vertical effective stress at base of foundation.
BH-1 and BH-99 are considered to evaluate the safe bearing capacity of pile summery of pile load capacity is given below
Average (N1)60=35
Table 4.6: Summary of carrying capacity val

values for 1.2m diameter pile
Depth Effective
Pile
from overburde As1, m2 Ps2=fs As2,  fsAs2, qt', Kpa qt' At,kN
length, c Su a fs, kPa Pall, kN
EGL,m n pressure, (1.2m dia.) kN kN
m
(BH-1) kPa
6 0 25.5 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
7.5 1.5 51 0 0 1 0 5.652 0 0
10 4 93.5 8 32 0.93 29.76 9.42 280.3492 280.34 256 289.38 189.91
12 6 107.88 8 32 0.93 29.76 7.536 224.2714 504.61 256 289.38 264.66
14 8 122.26 8 32 0.93 29.76 7.536 224.2714 728.88 256 289.38 339.42
16 10 136.64 8 32 0.93 29.76 7.536 224.2714 953.15 256 289.38 414.18
18 12 151.02 8 43 0.82 35.26 7.536 265.7194 1218.87 344 388.86 535.91
January , 2018 28
20 14 165.4 8 43 0.82 35.26 7.536 265.7194 1484.59 344 388.86 624.48

22 16 179.78 8 43 0.82 35.26 7.536 265.7194 1750.31 344 388.86 713.06
24 18 194.16 8 43 0.82 35.26 7.536 265.7194 2016.03 344 388.86 801.63
27 21 215.73 8 43 0.82 35.26 11.304 398.579 2414.61 344 388.86 934.49
29 23 230.11 2333.68 2638.00 1684.20
31 25 244.49 2479.52 2802.85 1739.15
33 27 258.87 2625.36 2967.70 1794.10
Pile length =27m (pile will terminated at depth 33m from existing gground
round elevation of BH-1(imbedded
BH 5D in refusal starum)
Total cut off= 4.5 m existing Back fill+1.5m =6.0m
January , 2018 29
Pile length, m
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30
0
100
200
300
400
500
Pall, kN
600
700
800
900
1000
1100
1200
1300
1400
1500
1600
1700
1800
1900
Figure 5.1 pile length versus pile carrying capacity of 1.2m diameter pile
January , 2018 30
5. SETTLEMENT ANALYSIS
Settlement
tlement is another criterion for evaluating the performance of a structure. Excessive
settlements will result in poor performance of the structure. Different codes set the
limiting settlement depending on the type of the structure and the foundation. Hence
Hence, it is
essential to design a foundation system, which ensures that settlements do not exceed
allowable values.
Settlements are usually classified as immediate settlement, (settlement which can take
place as the load is applied or within a time period of about 7 days) and consolidation
settlement, (settlement which is time dependent and taking months to years to develop).
The principal settlements for most projects occur in 1 to 5 years. According to Bowles,
1988, immediate settlement analysis is used for all fine grained soils including silts and
clays with a degree of saturation S <90% and for all coarse grained soils with a large
coefficient of permeability. Consolidation settlement analysis is used for all saturated, or
nearly saturated, fine-grained
grained soils
soils where the consolidation theory applies. The
consolidation settlement mostly happens in cohesive soils and contributes the major part
of the total settlement and it is the one that is considered here.
Footing founded at a depth Df below the surface settlettle under the imposed loads due to the
compressibility characteristics of the subsoil. The depth through which the soil is
compressed depends upon the the distribution of effective vertical pressure p’o of the
overburden and the vertical induced stress Δp resulting from net foundation pressure.
In the case of deep compressible soils, the lowest level consider in settlement analysis is a
point where the vertical
rtical induced stress Δp is of the order of 0.1 to 0.2 qn, where qn is the
net pressure at the base of foundation. This depth works out to be about 1.5 to 2 times the
width of the footing. The soil lying within this depth get compressed due to the imposed
foundation pressure and cause more than 80 % of settlement of the structure.
Settlement check for the project is done by considering the High Plastic silty CLAY layer
below the selected fill level. Consolidation test result plots curve and calculated
settlements
lements are attached in (Appendix C).
The amount of consolidation settlement is computed using the following equations
depending on weather the soil is normally consolidated or over consolidated.
January , 2018 31
Normally Consolidated (p'o≥

(p'o pc)
Over consolidated Case 1 (p'o≤

(p'o ∆p’+ p'o≤ pc)
Over consolidated Case 2 (p'o ≤ pc ≤ ∆p’+ p'o)
Where,
ΔH = Settlement
Cc = compression index
Cr = recompression index
eo = average in-situ
in void ratio in the stratum
H =Thickness
hickness of stratum
p'o = Effective
ffective overburden pressure at mid-height
mid of H
∆p = Average
verage increase in pressure from foundation in layer H
Pc = pre-consolidation
consolidation pressure
The recompression and compression indices obtained from consolidation test results (e vs.
log p plot) are tabulated below with the initial void ratio values
Table 5-0-1Consolidation
5 Test Result
Initial
BH No Depth (m) Void Ratio Recompressi Compression
,eo on Index, Cr Index, Cc
BH-3 4.00-4.60
4.60 1.1525 0.093 0.520
BH-3 12.00-12.60
12.60 1.7127 0.1494 0.301
January , 2018 32
BH-8 7.50-8.00
8.00 1.2452 0.150 0.355
BH-8 15.50-16.00
16.00 1.2982 0.1461 0.3056
BH-6 13.50-14.00
14.00 1.1588 0.1727 0.508
508
BH-4 8.50-9.00
9.00 1.3300 0.096 0.355
355
BH-7 12.00-12.60
12.60 1.4170 - 0.349
BH-1 6.00-6.50
6.50 1.1322 0.2126 0.46839
In order to select the appropriate consolidation parameters, we have considered the

laboratory consolidation
solidation test result data below the proposed foundation depth. The
settlement is checked for a 12 m thick High plastic SILT found beneath the bearing
layer. The calculated settlement was corrected for rigidity factor which is 0.85.The
amount of settlement
ement calculated using the above formula are attached in appendix
According to EBCS 7 the total allowable settlement in clay is up to75mm.
January , 2018 33
6. CONCLUSION
Sub-surface
surface geotechnical investigation
inves was conducted for the IFH Engineering Aka
Akaki
Bridge Overpass project. This investigation
invest included drilling of 8 boreholes to a
maximum depth of 40mm and conducting different field laboratory tests.
te
From the investigation, two geotechnical layers were identified.
Groundwater
ndwater was encountered in BH-1,BH-2,BH-3,BH-4,BH-6,BH-7,BH
BH 7,BH-8 and BH-9 at
a depth of 10.20m,10.50m,3.40m,4.00m,8.00m,7.00m,4.000m and12.00m
and12.00m respectively
below NGL.
Selection of foundation type for structure is dependent on type of structure, the soil’s
ability to support the planned
planned structure under loads, and on the settlement of the
foundation due to structural loads.
Based on the bearing capacity considerations, we have provided two options of

foundation for the bridge overpass foundation .Option
. 1:: Isolated footing rested on
selected
lected engineering fill at different foundation depth Option 2:: foundation to be
constructed on pile foundations.
Excavation sides within the overburden soils should be sloped at a maximum slope of 2:1
(horizontal: vertical) or flatter. If this space is not available for side sloping then
excavation shoring should be provided. Groundwater was encountered at shallow depth.
In our opinion, dewatering will be necessary in order to install the foundation.
Foundation excavations should be cleaned of all loose soil, leveled, and protected from
water. Footing excavations should be kept free of water at all times. Each foundation
excavation should be evaluated by a qualified geotechnical engineer to confirm suitable
bearing conditions and to determine that all
all loose materials have been removed. This
should be accomplished prior to placement of concrete on the working surface.
Foundation construction activity should be observed by a competent field inspector.
Deficiencies and irregularities observed in the contractor’s
contractor’s work and unanticipated
subsurface conditions encountered during construction should be brought to the attention
of our office.
As a general remark, the following supplementary points shall be considered during the
foundation construction:
January , 2018 34
 It is advisable to verify the nature and actual depth of occurrence of the bearing layer when
construction of the building starts and make adjustments if necessary.
 Exposure to the environment may weaken the soils at the foundation bearing level if
the foundationn excavations remain open for long time.
 Appropriate supporting mechanism should be considered during construction, as cave
in is a possibility.
 Subsurface drainage system should be provided to control seepage and percolating
water in to the basement.
January , 2018 35
7. LIMITATIONS
The analyses and recommendations discussed herein are based in part on the project
information provided to us at the time of our investigation and the actual conditions
encountered at the test boring locations at that time. They only apply to the specific
project and site location(s) discussed in this report. If the project information section in
this report contains incorrect information or if additional information is available, you
should convey the correct or additional information to us and retain us to review our
analyses and recommendations.
Regardless of the thoroughness of a geotechnical exploration, there is always a possibility

that conditions between test locations will be different from those encountered at the
specific test locations
ations and that conditions will not be as anticipated by the designers or
contractors. In addition, soil and groundwater conditions may become altered by
construction activity, adjacent development and the passage of time. Unanticipated
conditions should bee reported to the design team so that recommendations to deal with
the conditions that are encountered can be formulated and implemented.
It is considered that adequate recommendations have been provided to serve as a basis for
design and preparation of plans and specifications. This report does not contain
environmental considerations for the proposed construction as the scope of this work did
not include an environmental investigation at the sites of our interest.
SABA Engineering PLC has performed its services expressly for IFH Engineering using
that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised under similar conditions by reputable
membersrs of our profession practicing in the same or similar locality. No other warranty is
expressed or implied by this report. Third parties that rely on this report recognize that
environmental and geologic conditions can vary from those encountered at the ti times and
locations where data are obtained, and that the limitation on available data may result in
some level of uncertainty with respect to the interpretation of those conditions, despite
due professional care.
January , 2018 36
Appendi
Appendices
May 2017 i
Appendix 1
Log sheet
May 2017 ii
Appendix 2
Laboratory Result
May 2017 iii

Appendix 3
Site Layout
May 2017 iv
Appendix 4
Selected settlement calculations
May 2017 v

IFH Geotechnical Report

Uploaded by

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Copyright:

Available Formats

IFH Geotechnical Report

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

IFH Geotechnical Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IFH ENGINNERING

P.O.BOX 62668 Tel. 0114 391065/395955/391617/391733/390689/91/93/94, Fax 0114391230, 391617

Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

FIGURE 5.1 PILE LENGTH

5. SETTLEMENT ANALYSIS ...............................................................................

Appendix 1: Borehole Log

1.2 Scope of Work and Objective

 To investigate the sub-surface

Geotechnical Investigation and Fondation Recommandation Report

1.4 Regional and Site Geology

1.4.1 Regional Geology

Geotechnical Investigation and Fondation Recommandation Report

1.4.2 Local/Site Geology

Geotechnical Investigation and Fondation Recommandation Report

2.2 In Situ Tests, Sampling

One Hundred thirty four (134)

Geotechnical Investigation and Fondation Recommandation Report

Sr. No Sample ID Depth(m) SPT N-value/300mm

Geotechnical Investigation and Fondation Recommandation Report

Sr. No Sample ID Depth(m) SPT N-value/300mm

Geotechnical Investigation and Fondation Recommandation Report

Sr. No Sample ID Depth(m) SPT N-value/300mm

Geotechnical Investigation and Fondation Recommandation Report

Sr. No Sample ID Depth(m) SPT N-value/300mm

2.2.2.1 Disturbed Soil Samples

Geotechnical Investigation and Fondation Recommandation Report

Unified Soil Moisture

Geotechnical Investigation and Fondation Recommandation Report

Geotechnical Investigation and Fondation Recommandation Report

2.2.2.2 Undisturbed Soil Samples

1 BH-1 6.00-6.50 1.565 1.132 0.692 - -

Geotechnical Investigation and Fondation Recommandation Report

2.3 Chemical Tests on water and soil samples

Table 2-4Chemical Test Result of soil

2.4 Groundwater Records

Table 2-5Static Ground Water

Geotechnical Investigation and Fondation Recommandation Report

In general, the following in-situ

Geotechnical Investigations carried out Quantity

Geotechnical Investigation and Fondation Recommandation Report

Details on the type and extent of the geotechnical layers

Layer 1. Black highly plastic Silty Clay

Layer 2. Light brown to dark brown clayey SILT

Geotechnical Investigation and Fondation Recommandation Report

4.1 Option I-Isolated

Isolated footings are the simplest

4.1.1 Bearing Pressure Based on SPT Values

The SPT N-values/300mm

N’70 = CN x N x n1 x n2 x n3 x n4 ………………. (4.1)

Geotechnical Investigation and Fondation Recommandation Report

p’o = overburden pressure

Table 4-1Measured and Adjusted SPT N Values

Geotechnical Investigation and Fondation Recommandation Report

Geotechnical Investigation and Fondation Recommandation Report

Geotechnical Investigation and Fondation Recommandation Report

Geotechnical Investigation and Fondation Recommandation Report

After adjusting the N-values

For B >1.2--------------- (4.3)