Robe Draft Geotechnical Report - by Zablon

GEOTECHNICAL
INVESTIGATION OF
ROBE AIRPORT
TERMINAL
Zablon Geotechnical and Soil Test Works
September 2021
Site Investigation and Foundation Recommendation Report for Robe Airport Terminal
1 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................................................1
1.1 Background...................................................................................................................................................1
1.2 Objective.......................................................................................................................................................1
1.3 Scope of work................................................................................................................................................2
1.4 Location.........................................................................................................................................................2
1.5 Climate..........................................................................................................................................................4
1.6 Geology.........................................................................................................................................................4
1.6.1 Regional Geology.....................................................................................................................................4
1.6.2 Local Geology...........................................................................................................................................6
1.7 Seismicity......................................................................................................................................................6
2 METHODOLOGY.................................................................................................................................................8
2.1 Rotary core drilling.......................................................................................................................................8
2.2 Test Pit Excavations......................................................................................................................................9
2.3 Sampling........................................................................................................................................................9
2.4 Laboratory testing.........................................................................................................................................9
3 FIELD AND LABORATORY INVESTIGATION.............................................................................................10
3.1 Summary of Drilling...................................................................................................................................10
3.2 Summary of Field Testing and Sampling....................................................................................................10
3.3 Summary of Laboratory Test......................................................................................................................12
3.4 Groundwater monitoring.............................................................................................................................15
3.5 Geological Profile.......................................................................................................................................15
3.6 Geotechnical characteristics........................................................................................................................18
4 FOUNDATION ANALYSIS......................................................................................................................................19
4.1 Introduction.................................................................................................................................................19
4.2 Proposed Structure......................................................................................................................................19
4.3 Bearing capacity Analysis...........................................................................................................................19
4.3.1 Bearing Pressure Analysis Based on SPT N-Values for Isolated Footing..............................................19
4.3.1 Bearing Pressure Analysis Based on SPT N-Values for Mat Footing....................................................23
4.3.2 Bearing Capacity for Isolated footing using settlement criteria.............................................................24
4.3.3 Foundation depth recommendation.........................................................................................................27
4.3.4 other considerations................................................................................................................................28
4.4 Subgrade Soil Foundations..........................................................................................................................28
4.4.1 Introduction.............................................................................................................................................28
4.4.2 Soil Types...............................................................................................................................................29
4.4.3 Subgrade Strength Class Based on Laboratory CBR..............................................................................29
Table of contents
Site Investigation and Foundation Recommendation Report for Robe Airport Terminal.
5 Conclusion............................................................................................................................................................30
6 Annexes.................................................................................................................................................................31
6.1 Annex-I: Borehole Logs..............................................................................................................................31
6.2 Annex-II: Core box Photographs................................................................................................................31
6.3 Annex-III. Test Pit Logs..............................................................................................................................31
6.4 Annex-IV. Test Pit Photographs.................................................................................................................31
6.5 Annex-V. Bearing Capacity Analysis Sheets..............................................................................................31
6.6 Annex-VI. Laboratory Test Results............................................................................................................31
List of Tables
Table 1-1: Seismic Hazard Map of Ethiopia (ES EN 1998:2015) showing the proposed sections................................7
Table 3-1: Coordinates and depths of the investigation................................................................................................10
Table 3-2: Summary of field investigation...................................................................................................................11
Table 3-3: Summary of Laboratory test orders.............................................................................................................12
Table 3-4: Summary of laboratory test results..............................................................................................................13
Table 3-5: Geotechnical depths of each layer...............................................................................................................18
Table 4-1: Measured and adjusted SPT N values.........................................................................................................20
Table 4-2:Allowable Bearing Pressures Based on SPT-N Value.................................................................................22
Table 4-3: ABC for mat foundation Based average corrected SPT N’55.....................................................................23
Table 4-4: Bearing Pressure analysis using immediate settlement criteria at 3.00m depth..........................................26
Table 4-5: Bearing pressure recommendation using isolated footing..........................................................................27
Table 4-6: Bearing pressure recommendation using Mat footings...............................................................................27
Table 4-7: Summarized laboratory data of Subgrade Soil............................................................................................29
List of Figures
Figure 1-1: Location map of the area..............................................................................................................................3
Figure 1-2: Location of the project area and boreholes on Google Image.....................................................................3
Figure 1-3: Regional Geology of the area.......................................................................................................................6
Figure 1-4: Seismic Hazard Map of Ethiopia (ES EN 1998:2015) showing the proposed pits......................................7
Figure 3-1: Layout map of Robe airport Terminal Building........................................................................................16
Figure 3-2:Geological Cross Section (Longitudinal Subsurface Profile) of Robe Airport Boreholes.........................17
Figure 4-1:Graph used to determine Ic.........................................................................................................................26
FIELD AND LABORATORY INVESTIGATION ii

1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND
This report presents the results of the geotechnical investigation works for Robe Airport Terminal
building under the contract A1-EA-7A-ROB-PDD-AR-000001-00 which is located in Robe, Bale Zone.
The consultancy service agreement for this geotechnical investigation was signed between the client
(Ethiopian Airlines Group) and Zablon Girma Geotechnical and soil Test works.
In proportion to the contract agreement Zablon Girma Geotechnical and soil test works has executed the
drilling and test pits for the Robe Airport Terminal building and this report presents the findings and
results of geotechnical investigation carried out. The field work of the geotechnical site investigation was
conducted from August 23 and completed on August 27, 202.
The proposed structures are Terminal and ARFF Buildings, Generator and Transformer rooms, Public and
Bus station parking’s and service roads; six boreholes at the Terminal and ARFF Buildings and Generator
and Transformer room positions were drilled and seven pits at the Public and Bus station parking’s and
service Roads positions were excavated for the geotechnical studies. All drilling/pit point coordinates and
elevations in meter above mean sea level are referenced from the data of pits provided by the client.
The geotechnical investigation comprises of Test pitting, core drilling, in-situ testing such as Standard
Penetration Tests (SPT), monitoring of ground water, collection of representative samples, and
subsequent laboratory tests on representative samples to determine the physical and engineering
properties of the sub-surface materials.
This report deals with the regional geology, site geology, methodology working, laboratory tests
conducted to determine the index and engineering properties of the subsurface strata including analyses
and interpretation of test results. It also involves foundation recommendation including type of
foundation, bearing layer, foundation depth, and allowable bearing pressure for the proposed airport
structures.
1.2 OBJECTIVE
The objective of this exploration was to:
 Determine the type and extent of geological layers;
 Investigate the presence of ground water and identify its level if encountered;
 Determine the engineering properties of the geotechnical layers constituting the sub-surface
geology of the site;
 Develop engineering recommendations to guide design and construction of the project.
We accomplished these purposes by:
 Borehole drilling and excavation of test pits to explore the subsurface soil and ground
water conditions;
 Performing laboratory tests on selected representative soil samples from the boreholes
and test pits to evaluate pertinent engineering properties;
 Reviewing available geologic literature and soil mapping information;
FIELD AND LABORATORY INVESTIGATION 1

 Analyzing the field and laboratory data to develop appropriate engineering

recommendation, and
 Preparing this geotechnical investigation report.
1.3 SCOPE OF WORK

The site survey has been carried out by handheld GPS and all the necessary instruments, appliances and
services according to the topographical data in the Drawings and Documents.
The site investigation has been carried out by drilling six (6) exploratory boreholes to a maximum depth
of 14.00 meters and seven (7) test pits to a maximum depth of 3.00 meters at the proposed locations
shown in figure 3-1. Laboratory tests were performed on selected soil samples to identify and determine
their properties. The results of laboratory tests are included (Annex-VI) of this report.
1.4 LOCATION
The project site is located in Oromia Regional state, at the South-Eastern part of the region. It can be
accessed after traveling approximately 400km on Addis Ababa-Adam-Assela asphalt road. The project
site is characterized by flat ground with an average elevation of 2460 m a.s.l.

Figure 1-1: Location map of the area
Figure 1-2: Location of the project area and boreholes on Google Image

1.5 CLIMATE
The Project area belongs to the tropical types of climates in which the first rainy peak occurs in April
which is known as Belg. The second major rainy season is summer. This begins in June and continues to
September. The mean annual rainfall in the highland of the area is relatively high. The temperature in the
valley of Wabe Shebele river is very hot and decreases in the mountains of Chilalo, Kaka, Galema and
Dinsho.
1.6 GEOLOGY
1.6.1 REGIONAL GEOLOGY
Southeastern Ethiopia terrains are comprised of three major categories; the Precambrian Basement, Late
Paleozoic to Early Tertiary sediments and the Cenozoic volcanic and associated sedimentary rocks.
The Precambrian basements comprises a wide variety of sedimentary, volcanic and intrusive rocks which
have been metamorphosed to varying degrees. The tract of land along the Ethio-Sudan border in the west
is underlain by gneisses and migmatites known as Baro Group. It is skirted on the east by a large tract of
land underlain by the relatively low-grade volcano- sedimentary succession known as Birbir, Tulu Dimtu,
Tsaliet, Tambien Groups and Didikama and Shiraro Formations and associated plutonic rocks. The
volcano-sedimentary successions are bordered by a terrain of predominantly gneissic rocks and
migmatites to the east. In the southern part of the country another volcano-sedimentary belt (Adola
Group) with its attendant intrusive occurs enclosed by gneissic terrains of Early Proterozoic to Archaean
age.
Early or pre-tectonic plutonic bodies are internally foliated and concordant with their host rocks. There
are, however, equidimensional and discordant intrusions of Late Proterozoic to Early Paleozoic age. This
intrusive mark the end of tectonic activity in Late Proterozoic to Early Paleozoic and are known as post or
late tectonic intrusions. Intrusions of alkaline magmas (alkali granites and syenites) of Tertiary age are
related to the early phases of rifting in the Afar are also remarkable.
Following the Proterozoic to Early Paleozoic: tectonic and magmatic activity, peneplanation of the
metamorphic basement took place until Carboniferous and Permian (Kazmin 1972). Late Paleozoic to
Early Mesozoic sediments such as Enticho Sandstone, Edaga Arbi Glacials in northern Ethiopia (Dow et
aI., 1971), Permian Sandstones in western and southern Ethiopia (Davidson, 1983), Waju Sandstone in
eastern Ethiopia (Kazmin, 1972 & 1975) and Gura Sandstone in southern Ethiopia (Belay, 1978)
accumulated in shallow basins and narrow channels cut in the Precambrian basement. Paleozoic
continental sediments are also wide spread in Tigray, Harar regions and in the Abay River Gorge
(Kazmin, 1972 &1975).
Two major transgression-regression cycles took place during the Mesozoic era (Kazmin1972). The first
transgression deposited Adigrat Formation, Hamanilei Formation, Abay Formation, Urandab and Antalo
Formation. The regression of the sea deposited Agula Formation, The Gabredare Formation and
Korahe Formation. The second major transgression event deposited Mustahil Formation, Ferfer
Formation) and Beletuen Formation while the second regression event deposited the Amaba Aradom
Formation. A third and less extensive transgressive event deposited Jessoma Formation, Taleh Formation
and Karkar Formation.
The study area situated inside Southeastern Ethiopian plateau of the East African continental flood basalt
(CFB) province, where Tertiary volcanics unconformably overlaid the crystalline basement rocks.

The proposed airport terminal structures mainly found on these volcanic flood basalts consist of mainly
one mapped unit, which is named as plateau Basalt. It also consists Quaternary alluvial sediments (Fig 1-
3).
Pateau Basalt: These basalts are exposed forming major plateau surface extending from Seru to Arsi
Robe, Gobesa to Arsi Robe and Sedeka areas. In Bale zone it extends from Gasera-Ali to Delo Sebero,
and north of Goba town. The area is generally tableland and very rarely dissected and slopes are almost
horizontal.
The basalts are mainly aphanitic, dark grey, fine grained and very slightly weathered. The basalt includes,
porphyritic plagioclase basalts, fine grained basalts, scoriaceous vesicular basalts, pyroxene phyric
basalts, olivine plagioclase phyric basalt. The basalts are rarely columnar and are mainly massive, dense
and compact flows.
Quaternary Alluvial Deposits: The Quaternary alluvial deposits also occur on the study area as dark
brown silty clay soil to considerable depth as revealed in the drilling boreholes. It also occurs regionally
on the plateau they form minor subdued topography, filled with silty-clayey sediments. Within the MER,
they occur in grabens formed as rift-in-rift within main rift and often grades to lacustrine sediments,
which are marshy to bogy silty-clays. In the main Ethiopian rift smaller lakes occur, such as Hora Lake.
They are related to axial graben (rift-in-rift) structures known as the Wonji Fault Belt (Mohr, 1967). This
ascribes down-faulted Main Ethiopian Rift.
Figure 1-3: Regional Geology of the area

1.6.2 LOCAL GEOLOGY

The local geology of the project area is comparable in all the boreholes drilled and excavated pits. Visual
description of core samples was made following widely used and practiced international procedures. The
project site is characterized by the following units, from top to the bottom:
 Firm, dark gray, CLAY;

 Firm, light brown, silty CLAY; and
 Firm, pale white to light gray, silty CLAY.
Detailed descriptions of the sub-surface geology encountered in all the boreholes and pits are presented
in the log sheets attached with this report (Annex-I).
1.7 SEISMICITY
Earthquake is a geohazard that can activate instabilities and affect any infrastructure. The earthquake
probability is mainly associated with the main Ethiopian Rift (MER) in Ethiopia. MER is a fault-bounded,
long series of depressions extending from the Afar Depression to south-western. As a consequence, the
rift is causing a high level of seismic activity in the tectonic province, which is appropriate geographic
scale for assessing earthquake probability zonation depending on the proximity to the center of the rifting.
The abundance of recent earthquakes along the tectonic margin demonstrates the active zones that is
spreading continuously.
The seismic hazard map of Ethiopia is related to the proximity to the active zone boundaries of the rifting.
Though there are different versions, the one that is adopted by ES EN 8, 2015 (Fig. 1-4) in which the
latest updated one in the country should be considered in this report.It is based on a 475-year return
period or approximately 10 % of being exceeded in 50 years considering the main MER boundary
conditions. According to this map, seismic zones, 1 to 5, are allocated a constant bedrock acceleration
ratio, α, of 0.04, 0.07, 0.10, 0.15 and 0.20, respectively and Zone 5 is considered high seismic risk.
Table 1-1: Seismic Hazard Map of Ethiopia (ES EN 1998:2015) showing the proposed sections
Zone 5 4 3 2 1 0
α0= ag/g 0.20 0.15 0.10 0.07 0.04 0
As indicated on Seismic zone map of Ethiopia, the proposed Robe Airport terminal is located in Zone 0
and hence reduction in soil strength because of the vibratory loading is improbable (see the Table above).
αo is bedrock acceleration ratio of the site and depends on the seismic zone as shown in Table 1-1.

Figure 1-4: Seismic Hazard Map of Ethiopia (ES EN 1998:2015) showing the proposed pits

2 METHODOLOGY
This section presents the general methodology followed while conducting the investigation. It consists of
Test pitting, core drilling, in-situ testing such as Standard Penetration Tests (SPT), monitoring of ground
water, collection of representative samples, and subsequent laboratory tests on representative samples to
determine the physical and engineering properties of the sub-surface materials. The main methods
followed as per the requirements for the geotechnical investigation are:
 Rotary core drilling,

 Test Pit Excavations
 Sampling and
 Laboratory testing
2.1 ROTARY CORE DRILLING

Dry drilling method has been utilized for the soil formations using single core barrels fitted with
appropriate size tungsten carbide bits at the bottom in order to achieve good quality core recovery and
water has been used in case where rock and hard formations encountered during drilling in accordance
with ASTM D 2113 – 93, ASTM D 1452 – 80 (95), and BS 5930: 1981. In conjunction with drilling, the
following activities were performed: Standard Penetration Testing (SPT) and Ground water observation.
The core drilling was carried out by using spindle type rotary core drilling rig. Equipment to conduct in-
situ testing and sampling, such as SPT apparatus including split spoon sampler, water pump, rods, casings
and a wide range of heavy-duty tools were used during the drilling operation.
Standard Penetration Test (SPT) was conducted using a standard hammer, under an impact of an
automatic sliding hammer weighing 63.5kg falling freely from a height of 760mm in accordance with
ASTM D 1586 – 99 and BS 5930: 1981. The test was carried out starting from 1.50m depth below natural
ground level (NGL).
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-values for the last 300mm penetration are
considered for computing the bearing capacity after applying the necessary corrections.
Core samples recovered from core barrels were arranged in partitioned wooden core boxes having 1.0 m
length, and are properly labeled indicating project name, client, borehole designation, depth, etc. The
cores inside core boxes were logged and photographed (colored) and kept as part of the report document.
2.2 TEST PIT EXCAVATIONS

Test pits were manually excavated to represent each substructure foundations of the Public and Bus
station parking’s as well as service Roads of the Terminal. The positions of the test pits were identified
and located through the use of hand-held GPS.

Up on completion, each test pit has been closely inspected, the thickness of the different soil layers was
measured and clearly described and sampled. Photographs showing test pits and their strata were taken
using digital Camera before backfilling
2.3 SAMPLING
Disturbed samples were collected from the drilled bore holes and disturbed samples from the pits at the
required depths and locations. Representative samples were collected as per ASTM and BS standards,
using the relevant samplers.
At the end of each SPT operation, the sampler tube is removed and disassembled to collect representative
disturbed sample for further laboratory tests. The disturbed samples were properly sealed in plastic bags
or small containers for Moisture content (MC) determination and other index tests. When the split spoon
sample is in sufficient and not found for a particular geotechnical layer, disturbed samples are also taken
from core boxes. Undisturbed Soil samples are not collected for the engineering tests using Shelby’s
sampler due to friable nature of the soil.
2.4 LABORATORY TESTING

Representative samples collected from the boreholes were safely brought to Alison Geotechnical Services
general laboratory in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Soil samples recovered from the split spoon sampler
undergone Liquid and Plastic Limits, grading, free swell and specific gravity tests. Each soil sample is
classified on the basis of texture and plasticity in accordance with the AASHTO and Unified Soil
Classification System. The geotechnical engineer grouped the soil and rock types into the major zones on
the basis of their laboratory test results and field investigation. The classification tests performed for this
project includes:
 Sieve Analysis: - consist of determining the gradation of a sample in accordance with AASHTO
T-88.
 Atterberg Limit: - consist of the determination of the liquid limit, Plastic Limit and Plasticity
Index in accordance with AASHTO T89 and T90. If the soil is found to be non-plastic, then the
liquid limit shall not be performed, and the AASHTO group index shall be reported as zero.
 Moisture content Test: determination of moisture content in accordance with AASHTO T265, on
representative samples of soil from each major stratum in each boring

3 FIELD AND LABORATORY INVESTIGATION

This section presents the actual geotechnical investigations followed while conducting the investigation.
It consists of borehole drilling, field tests, general description how the field data were recorded in the
form of boring logs, sample handling and finally the ground water level measurement as well as pit
excavation for checking subgrade soil strength.
3.1 SUMMARY OF DRILLING

The field geotechnical investigation had been accomplished with the help of test pit excavation, core
drilling, sampling, insitu and laboratory testing. A total of six (6) boreholes (P-01 to P-06) were drilled in
the Terminal and ARFF Buildings as well as in the Generator and Transformer room positions and seven
pits (P-07 to P-13) were excavated in the Public and Bus station parking’s and service Roads positions for
the geotechnical studies. The coordinates and elevation data provided by the client and depths of the
drilled boreholes and pits are presented in Table 3-1.
Table 3-2: Coordinates and depths of the investigation
S.No. Pit-No Easting (X) Northing (y) Elevation (z) Depth drilled(m) Remark
I. Drilled Boreholes
1 P-01 614995.23 786671.75 2460 14.0
2 P-02 614976.43 786661.81 2461 14.0
3 P-03 615017.57 786639.97 2460 14.0
4 P-04 614997.20 786629.04 2460 14.0
5 P-05 615062.85 786572.69 2459 14.0
6 P-06 615019.08 86554.19 2461 14.0
II. Excavated Test Pits
7 P-07 614987.18 786574.33 2461 3.00
8 P-08 614924.11 786669.63 2461 3.00
9 P-09 614894.90 786639.12 2462 3.00
10 P-10 614910.01 786613.24 2462 3.00
11 P-11 614936.25 786594.80 2461 3.00
12 P-12 614885.36 786562.25 2462 3.00
13 P-13 614826.13 786523.54 2462 3.00

3.2 SUMMARY OF FIELD TESTING AND SAMPLING

 Standard Penetration Tests (SPT) was carried out in accordance with ASTM D 1586 – 99 and BS
5930: 1981. The penetrometer equipment used for performing SPT is a standard device. i.e., 63.5kg-
hammer weight with automatic free drop height of 760mm. The total depth of penetration per test is
450mm and the number of blows per 300mm penetration is recorded disregarding the penetration
value for the first 150mm depth.
 The driving of the split-spoon was terminated when N is > 50 blows for any of the 15cm of
penetration or when no advancement in penetration for 10 consecutive blows is recorded. N-values
obtained are reported in the borehole logs without any correction for overburden, water table and
other correction factor. Standard Penetration Test was conducted inside each borehole as per
approved standard at 1.5m intervals or at every identifiable change of strata.
 The formation encountered on all boreholes is dominantly soil so that field in situ tests such as
Standard Penetration Tests were carried out at a depth interval of 1.50m starting from the ground
surface level. Thus, a total of 54 SPT tests were conducted in all of the boreholes for the estimation
of bearing capacity (Table 3-2).
 Disturbed samples can be recovered from the split-spoon of the Standard Penetration Test (SPT)
apparatus for soil classification tests and field identification. A total of 54 disturbed and no
undisturbed samples were collected. Rock is not encountered during drilling and no laboratory test
as well.
 During the field investigation, representative soil sampling was collected from the excavated test pit.
Soil classification test was done for all subgrade samples and Soaked CBR at 100% MDD
(AASHTO T99) and Swell for subgrade samples taken.
 Field coring, test activities, the type and number of samples collected for laboratory determination of
index properties are summarized in Table 3-3.
Table 3-3: Summary of field investigation
Depth, No. of Standard Disturbed Undisturbed Ground water level

Pit-No.
m Penetration Test SPT Sample Sample measurement
I. Drilled Boreholes
P-01 14 9 9 - 1
P-02 14 9 9 _ 1
P-03 14 9 9 _ 1
P-04 14 9 9 _ 1
P-05 14 9 9 _ 1
P-06 14 9 9 _ 1
II. Excavated Pits
P-07 3 _ 1 _ 1
P-08 3 _ 1 _ 1
P-09 3 _ 1 _ 1
Depth, No. of Standard Disturbed Undisturbed Ground water level

Pit-No.
m Penetration Test SPT Sample Sample measurement
P-10 3 _ 1 _ 1
P-11 3 _ 1 _ 1
P-12 3 _ 1 _ 1
P-13 3 _ 1 _ 1
13 54 61 _ 13
3.3 SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST

Laboratory tests were performed to determine the index and engineering properties of selected soil
samples. The laboratory test results are annexed at the end of the report. The following table summarizes
the laboratory tests carried out for Robe Airport Terminal.
Table 3-4: Summary of Laboratory test orders
S. No. Laboratory tests No of Tests

I. For Boreholes
1 Grin size analysis 28
2 Atterberg limit 28
3 Natural moisture content 28
4 Specific Gravity 28
5 Free swell 28
6 Consolidation test -
7 Direct shear test -
II. For Test Pits
1 Atterberg limit 7
2 Natural moisture content 7
3 Specific Gravity 7
4 Free swell 7
5 CBR 7

Table 3-5: Summary of laboratory test results
Depth (m) Sieve Analysis Atterberg Limit

Pit AASHTO Soil Unified Soil Classification
NO 2.00 0.425 0.075 AASHTO T-89 & T-90
No Sample Total Classification D2487-06
mm mm mm LL (%) PL (%) PI (%)
I. Summary of laboratory test results of Boreholes
1 1 1.80 14.00 76.89 51.69 39.68 44.00 26.00 18.00 A-7-6(1) CH (Highly plastic clay)
2 1 5.00 14.00 79.86 53.97 41.23 46.00 28.00 18.00 A-7-6(1) CH (Highly plastic clay

II. Summary of laboratory test results for test pits

3.4 GROUNDWATER MONITORING

As ground water level affects the bearing capacity, and determines the construction techniques, it was an
integral part of the geotechnical investigation. At the time of our drilling operations a static ground water
elevation was not encountered in in all boreholes and pits holes. For this reason, the effect of ground
water on the bearing capacity has no problem and it’s not considered in the analysis part.
However, water seepage was observed in some boreholes at a depth when water used for drilling. At the
completion of our drilling operations borings was left open for a relatively short period and measured
using deep meter for each borehole and gets nil. It should also be considered that the use of drilling fluids
during rotary drilling in drilling boreholes may also have hindered the development of water seepage at
depth in these borings.
To be safe, it should be considered that it is possible to encounter perched water zones where relatively
high permeability soils (clay) overlay low permeability soils. In the event that perched water is
encountered at shallower depths during construction at this site, the water seepage should be completely
and appropriately pumped out or removed.
In the event that dewatering is required, the dewatering system should be designed by a licensed
professional structural engineer or professional geologist who is familiar with the hydrogeological
conditions of the area. In addition, groundwater water drawdown rates and reestablishment rates should
be carefully considered by the dewatering system designer and dewatering contractor and potential impact
to surrounding structures. It may be necessary for the general contractor to establish a contingency plan
for potential observed movements within nearby adjacent structures and/or issued claims.
3.5 GEOLOGICAL PROFILE

As previously mentioned in section 3.2, the subsurface layer conditions were generally evaluated based
on site observations and laboratory tests of borings drilled and excavated pits within the Terminal area. In
general, the subsurface vertical profile encountered at the site may be described by three (3) major
geotechnical layers as indicated in the Geological/geotechnical Cross Section of the boreholes. The
boundaries of contacts are only inferred and approximate.

Site Investigation and Foundation Recommendation Report for Robe Airport Terminal building
Figure 3-5: Layout map of Robe airport Terminal Building

Figure 3-6:Geological Cross Section (Longitudinal Subsurface Profile) of Robe Airport Boreholes
Zablon Girma Geotechnical & Soil Test Works 17

Site Investigation and Foundation Recommendation Report for Robe Airport Terminal building
3.6 GEOTECHNICAL CHARACTERISTICS

Based on close field description, core drilling, in-situ and laboratory test results, the sub-surface soil is
sub-divided into various geotechnical layers. Accordingly, the geotechnical investigation revealed the
occurrence of three homogenous geotechnical layers.
Layer 1: Firm dark gray CLAY
 This layer is characterized by firm, dark gray, CLAY. It is encountered from 0.0-3.50m
in P-01, from 0.00-3.00 in P-02, from 0.00-2.00m in P-03, from 0.00-1.50m in
P-04, from 0.00-2.00m in P-05 and from 0.00-1.50 m in P-06 (Table 3-3).
 The field SPT N-value/300mm on this layer is ranges from 6-9 suggesting that the soil is firm
in consistency (Table 4-1).
Layer 2: Firm to stiff light brown silty CLAY
 This layer is characterized by Firm to stiff light brown silty CLAY. It is encountered from
3.50-6.00m in P-01, from 3.00-7.00m in P-02, from 2.00-10.00m in P-03, from 1.50-10.00m
in P-04, from 2.00-5.00m in P-05 and from 1.50-10.00m in P-06 (Table 3-3).
 The field SPT N-value/300mm on this layer i s r a n g e s f r o m 7 - 1 3 suggesting that the
soil is firm to stiff in consistency (Table 4-1).
Layer 3: Firm to stiff pale white to light gray silty CLAY
 This layer is characterized by firm pale white to light gray silty CLAY. It is encountered from
6.00-14.00m in P-01, from 7.00-14.00m in P-02, from 10.00-14.00m in P-03, from 10.00-
14.00m in P-04, from 5.00-14.00m in P-05 and from 10.00-14.00m in P-06.
 The field SPT N-value/300mm on this layer is ranges from 7-12 suggesting that the soil is firm
to stiff in consistency (Table 4-1).
Table 3-6: Geotechnical depths of each layer
Depth of occurrence (m)

PIT-ID(BH-ID)
Layer-1 Layer-2 Layer-3
P-01 0.0-3.50 3.50-6.00 6.00-14.00
P-02 0.00-3.00 3.00-7.00 7.00-14.00
P-03 0.00-2.00 2.00-10.00 10.00-14.00
P-04 0.00-1.50 1.50-10.00 10.00-14.00
P-05 0.00-2.00 2.00-5.00 5.00-14.00
P-06 0.00-1.50 1.50-10.00 10.00-14.00

4 FOUNDATION ANALYSIS
4.1 INTRODUCTION
Foundation analysis refers to the determination of the bearing layer and depth, allowable bearing
pressure and type of foundation that could be adopted safely and economically. 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.
In terms of their seating depths within subsurface, these are boldly categorized as shallow and deep (pile)
foundations. For reasons of economy, shallow foundation is the first logical choice unless it is
considered adequate bearing capacity.
As can be observed from the detailed geotechnical logging, the subsurface formation of the terminal
building site comprises of three different geotechnical layers based on engineering properties obtained
from field observation and laboratory test result.
Allowable bearing pressures for each foundation layers shall be discussed based on correlation of the
relative compaction of the in-situ ground as indicated from SPT N-value, laboratory test results of
samples and visual identification in the following sections:
4.2 PROPOSED STRUCTURE

The proposed structure is G+0 Terminal and ARFF buildings. Borehole points for analysis in this report
are representative of the subsurface conditions of building site, as shown on the site plan. The imposed
foundation loads are not at hand and hence initial foundation type selection based on the load and
presumptive bearing value estimated above is not possible. However, from the knowledge of the area,
economy and experience on similar projects, shallow foundation is considered for an initial foundation
type assessment. Whereas the excavated pits are representative of the subgrade soil strength conditions
of the services roads and parking’s.
4.3 BEARING CAPACITY ANALYSIS

Among the shallow foundations two options are used for this project namely; isolated and mat footings.
They are the simplest to construct and economical type of foundations. The allowable bearing capacity
of these types of footings can be determined from different methods. Among the different methods
laboratory tests and visual identification can be used to determine the allowable bearing capacities for
this project.
4.3.1 BEARING PRESSURE ANALYSIS BASED ON SPT N-VALUES FOR ISOLATED FOOTING
The SPT N-values should be adjusted for different factors before employing them for computing the
allowable bearing pressure. The SPT N-values are converted to N’55 standard energy ratio value as
follows:
N’55= Cn *N *n1*n2 *n3 *n4 -----------------------1

Where N’55 = adjusted N using the subscript for the Erb, and the ' to indicate it has been adjusted
Cn = adjustment for effective overburden pressure p'o (kPa) computed [Liao and
1/2
Whitman (1986)] as adjustment for overburden pressure as (95.76/p'o)
Conclusion 19
p'o = overburden pressure

95.76 = reference overburden pressure
N = Measured SPT N-Value
N1 = adjustment factors for energy as Ce= Er/Erb, Ce= Er/60
N2 = Rod Length correction: Rod length > 10 m = 1, Rod length 6-10 m = 0.95, Rod
length 4-6 m = 0.85, and Rod length 0-4 m = 0.75
N3 = Sampler correction;1.0 in this case
N4 = Borehole diameter correction; use 1.0 in this case
The depths below NGL, SPT N-Values and adjusted N-values (i.e., N’55 after all correction is given in
the table below;
Table 4-7: Measured and adjusted SPT N values
Depth (m) Measured SPT N- Adjusted N-

S.No. Pit -ID
From To Value/30cm Values/N’55
1 1.50 1.95 7 8
2 3.00 3.45 9 7
3 4.50 4.95 9 7
4 6.00 6.45 8 5
5 P-01 7.50 7.95 7 4
6 9.00 9.45 7 4
7 10.5 10.95 7 4
8 12.00 12.45 9 5
9 13.50 13.95 8 4
10 1.50 1.95 6 4
11 3.00 3.45 8 6
12 4.50 4.95 11 8
13 6.00 6.45 9 6
14 P-02 7.50 7.95 9 5
15 9.00 9.45 9 5
16 10.5 10.95 8 4
17 12.00 12.45 8 4
18 13.50 13.95 9 4
19 1.50 1.95 9 10
20 3.00 3.45 12 9
21 4.50 4.95 10 7
22 6.00 6.45 8 5
23 P-03 7.50 7.95 9 5
24 9.00 9.45 10 5
25 10.5 10.95 8 4
26 12.00 12.45 8 4
27 13.50 13.95 7 3
28 P-04 1.50 1.95 7 8
29 3.00 3.45 9 7
30 4.50 4.95 13 9
31 6.00 6.45 9 6
32 7.50 7.95 7 4
Conclusion 20
Depth (m) Measured SPT N- Adjusted N-

S.No. Pit -ID
From To Value/30cm Values/N’55
33 9.00 9.45 7 4
34 10.5 10.95 8 4
35 12.00 12.45 7 3
36 13.50 13.95 7 3
37 1.50 1.95 9 10
38 3.00 3.45 7 5
39 4.50 4.95 8 6
40 6.00 6.45 9 6
41 P-05 7.50 7.95 10 6
42 9.00 9.45 12 6
43 10.5 10.95 11 6
44 12.00 12.45 9 4
45 13.50 13.95 10 5
46 1.50 1.95 10 11
47 3.00 3.45 13 10
48 4.50 4.95 12 9
49 6.00 6.45 11 7
50 P-06 7.50 7.95 9 5
51 9.00 9.45 10 5
52 10.5 10.95 11 6
53 12.00 12.45 10 5
54 13.50 13.95 11 5
After adjusting the N-values based on the equation (1) above, the design N-values are calculated as the
average of N-values which are found in between ½ B above and 2B below the proposed foundation
depth. B is the width of the foundation.
The bearing capacity for the soil layer is calculated from the SPT N- values based on Meyerhof’s
equation as follows (Bowles, 1997):
2
N B+ F 3
qa= ( ) Kd , B> 4−−−−−−−−−−2
F2 B
Where qa = Allowable bearing pressure for
Settlement limited to 25 mm.
Kd = 1+0.33D/B < 1.33
F2 = 0.06
F3 = 0.3
F4 = 1.2
B = Width of foundation
D = Depth of foundation
Conclusion 21
The following allowable bearing pressures are calculated at different de pt hs and width below the
ground level for settlement limited to 25mm as shown in table below; for detailed analysis see
Annex V.
Table 4-8:Allowable Bearing Pressures Based on SPT-N Value
Width of foundation (B), m

Depth of foundation 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0
BH-ID
below NGL (m) Allowable Bearing Capacity (qall) in Kpa
1.0 236 185 169 161 149 141
2.0 222 174 159 152 148 136
P-01 3.0 203 159 146 139 135 133
4.0 190 148 136 130 126 124
5.0 186 145 133 127 123 121
1.0 230 180 165 157 145 138
2.0 216 169 155 148 144 132
P-02 3.0 217 170 155 148 144 141
4.0 210 164 150 144 140 137
5.0 207 162 148 141 137 135
1.0 273 214 195 187 172 163
2.0 255 200 183 174 170 156
P-03 3.0 219 171 157 150 146 143
4.0 202 158 144 138 134 132
5.0 192 150 137 131 128 125
1.0 259 203 185 177 164 155
2.0 236 185 169 161 157 144
P-04 3.0 220 172 158 151 147 144
4.0 204 160 146 140 136 133
5.0 197 154 141 135 131 128
1.0 244 191 175 167 154 146
2.0 237 185 169 162 157 145
P-05 3.0 221 173 158 151 147 144
4.0 217 170 156 149 144 142
5.0 216 169 155 148 144 141
1.0 320 251 229 219 202 192
2.0 299 234 214 204 199 183
3.0 270 212 194 185 180 176
P-06 4.0 249 195 178 170 166 163
5.0 242 189 173 165 161 141
4.3.1 BEARING PRESSURE ANALYSIS BASED ON SPT N-VALUES FOR MAT FOOTING
As the foundation soil has very low shear strength resulting low bearing capacities, it may be difficult to
accommodate the Terminal building with isolated footings depending on the load of the Terminal. Thus,
an alternative mat foundation is addressed below.
Mat foundation can be considered a large footing extending over a great area, frequently under the entire
building. All vertical structural loadings from columns and walls are supported on the common
foundation. Typically, the mat is utilized for conditions where a foundation design indicates that isolated
footings would be undesirably close together or try to overlap. A mat foundation is typically used when
there are poor and weak soil conditions.
Conclusion 22
For the case of mat foundation, the total building load is computed as the sum of the column loads plus
the weight of the mat itself. The mat is assumed to have a thickness of 0.7m and unit weight of 24KN.
The design N-values is taken as the average of the corrected N-values from each the boreholes.
Accordingly, Meyerhof’s equation (Bowles, 1997) is employed to calculate the allowable bearing
capacity of the mat foundation. The length and width are estimated from site plan provided.
q N 55 ∆ H a
a=¿ K ¿
0.06 25 d
Where: qall = allowable bearing capacity

Kd = 1+0.33D/B 1.33
Ha = allowable settlement
B = Foundation width
D = Foundation depth
For an allowable settlement of 50mm, the following table presents the computed allowable bearing
pressures.
Table 4-9: ABC for mat foundation Based average corrected SPT N’55

BH-ID Depth 10 16 24 32 40 48
Allowable Bearing Capacity (qall) in Kpa
1.5 123 121 120 119 119 118
2 125 122 120 120 119 119
P-01 3 172 166 163 161 160 160
4 177 169 165 163 161 161
5 137 129 125 123 122 121
1.5 125 123 122 121 121 121
2 127 124 123 122 121 121
P-02 3 175 169 166 164 163 163
4 180 172 168 166 165 164
5 139 132 128 126 124 124
1.5 123 121 120 119 119 118
2 125 122 120 120 119 119
P-03 3 172 166 163 161 160 160
4 177 169 165 163 161 161
5 137 129 125 123 122 121
1.5 114 112 111 111 110 110
2 116 113 112 111 111 110
P-04 3 160 154 151 150 149 148
4 164 157 153 151 150 149
5 127 120 116 115 113 113
1.5 144 141 140 139 139 139
2 146 143 141 140 139 139
P-05 3 201 194 191 189 187 187
4 207 198 193 191 189 188
5 160 151 147 144 143 142
P-06 1.5 156 153 152 151 151 150
Conclusion 23

BH-ID Depth 10 16 24 32 40 48
2 159 155 153 152 151 151
3 218 211 207 205 203 203
4 225 215 209 207 205 204
5 173 164 159 157 155 154
4.3.2 BEARING CAPACITY FOR ISOLATED FOOTING USING SETTLEMENT CRITERIA
In the design of any foundation, one must consider the safety against bearing capacity failure as well as
against excessive settlement of the foundation. In the design of most foundations, there are specifications
for allowable levels of settlement. As far as the properties of the foundation soils are concerned, as
depicted from laboratory tests settlement shall have to be addressed properly.
Compressibility and stiffness of cohesive soil is strongly strain level dependent. But in addition, it is also
influenced by the relative rates of loading and drainage of excess pore pressure. Compressibility and
stiffness of cohesive soil is commonly expressed in a number of ways: Compression Index (Cc),
Coefficient of volume compressibility (mv), Undrained Young’s Modulus (Eu) and Drained Young’s
Modulus (E’).
The Compression Index (Cc) is routinely used in the calculation of settlements of normally and lightly
over-consolidated clays. The predicted compression of such materials is strongly dependent on the value
of pre-consolidation pressure used in the calculation.
The settlement of a foundation can has three components: (a) elastic settlement Se, (b)primary
consolidation settlement Sc, and (c) secondary consolidation settlement Ss. The total settlement St can
be expressed as:
St= Se + Sc + Ss
For any given foundation, one or more of the components may be zero or negligible. Consolidation
settlement, Sc, is a time-dependent process that occurs due to the expulsion of excess pore water
pressure in saturated clayey soils below the groundwater table and is created by the increase in stress
created by the foundation load.
Immediate (Short term) Settlement
Immediate Settlement analysis was performed based on the N-values obtained from SPT test. The
settlement analysis is done using Canadian Foundation Manual immediate settlement analysis method.
Input parameters considered for of the analysis are:
- Width, B
- Depth of embedment, D
- Es = equivalent young’s modulus of the soil,
- Ic = Influence Coefficient
The average settlement of a foundation on an elastic soil may be given by
Conclusion 24
S = qo*B* Ic /Es
Where,
s = settlement
q0 = applied net footing stress
B = footing width
Es = apparent modulus elasticity and it is determined based on Bowel’s ic = influence factor
According to bowels:
Es = 300(N+6), for Sandy SILT, SILT or Clayey SILT soils
Es = 320(N+15) for Clayey SAND soils
Es = 600(N+6) for Gravelly Sand, N<15
Es = 600(N+6) +2000 for Gravelly Sand, N>15
Figure 4-7:Graph used to determine Ic
Based on this method the settlement analysis is performed for different widths of foundation, B and
depth of embedment 3.00m. The following table presents the immediate settlements that occur for
placing the loads q indicated (considering possible range of loads to be placed) at a depth of 3.00m from
the natural ground level; the maximum settlement limit taken is 60mm.
Table 4-10: Bearing Pressure analysis using immediate settlement criteria at 3.00m depth
Footing resting directly on Layer 2 of the foundation soil at depth of 3.0-7.0m bgl.
5000 4000 3000 2000 1000
q, in KN
P, in P, in P, in P, in ∆H, in P, in ∆H, in
B, in m Kpa ∆H, in mm Kpa ∆H, in mm Kpa ∆H, in mm Kpa mm Kpa mm
3 556 133 444 107 333 80 222 53 111 27
Conclusion 25
4 313 100 250 80 188 60 125 40 63 14

5 200 69 160 55 120 42 80 28 40 14
6 139 48 111 39 83 29 56 19 28 10
7 102 35 82 28 61 21 41 14 20 7
Permitted both in terms of shear and settlement criteria
4.3.3 FOUNDATION DEPTH RECOMMENDATION

Definite recommendation with respect to foundation depth is difficult without knowledge of the actual
structural load imposed to the ground. However, it is clear from the boring logs in most of the boreholes
that the top 1.50m, high expansive clay, cannot be bearing layer due to the low bearing capacity and
swell/shrinkage associated problems. Hence, bearing level at least below 1.50m from the natural ground
surface is recommended to take into account this and exclude the depth of moisture fluctuation in most
of the cases. 2.0m footing depths for each respective borehole location with recommended width of 2.0m
for the isolated footing are presented in table below. After excavating 3.0m depth below the NGL
replace 1.0m selected materials up to the recommended depth, 2.0m.
Table 4-11: Bearing pressure recommendation using isolated footing
Bearing Footing
BH. Bearing Footing
Building Capacity Dimension Remark
No. Layer Depth (m)
(KPa) (m)
Terminal and P-01 2 174 2 Average bearing capacity of

ARFF 191KPa
P-02 2 169 2 is recommended for the
design of the footings of the
P-03 2 200 2 Terminal buildings (1.0m
Silty CLAY selected fill up to 3.0m)
P-04 2 185 2
Generator P-05 2 185 2

&Transformer
P-06 2 234 2
Mat foundation on 1.50m selected suitable fill material at 2.50m below ground level (excavating down to
2.50m and filling up to 1.50m) is recommended for the design of the footing.
Table 4-12: Bearing pressure recommendation using Mat footings

BH-ID Depth 10 16 24 32 40 48
P-01 1.5 123 121 120 119 119 118
P-02 1.5 125 123 122 121 121 121
Conclusion 26

BH-ID Depth 10 16 24 32 40 48
P-03 1.5 123 121 120 119 119 118
P-04 1.5 114 112 111 111 110 110
P-05 1.5 144 141 140 139 139 139
P-06 1.5 156 153 152 151 151 150
From the above analysis, the allowable bearing pressure values based on SPT test results ranges in value
from 156 to 110 KN/m2; Indicating, almost similar lateral variation within the project site.
4.3.4 OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
It is evident from the above table that the foundation soil has low bearing capacities and may have high
swelling pressure. The following particulars can be considered to reduce the effect of the expansive soil:
 After excavating up to footing level, replace at least 1.0m thick selected non-swelling material
for both cases; preferably impervious and granular material and compact. It should be
compacted at least 90% standard proctor for supporting slab (under hardcore) and 100%
standard proctor for supporting footing.
 Pave peripheral areas to minimize subsoil moisture content change.
 Collect rainwater falling on the structure and surrounding areas and convey runoff away from
structure.
 Minimize the effect of swelling by scheduling construction during or immediately after a
prolonged rain period when there will be less potential volume change in the future. Before
placement of fill, care should be taken to avoid excessive wetting of natural soil.
The investigations did not indicate groundwater at shallow depth. Hence, groundwater associated
problem during the construction is not an issue. All the excavations may be constructed with
unsupported slope by maintaining a gradient of 1 horizontal to 4 vertical or flatter.
At last, it is worth mentioning that all the above recommendations are derived from the subsurface
information obtained from borehole locations and site geology. Due to the variable nature of ground, the
actual condition during construction may be different from the observed. In this case, the project
Geotechnical Engineer must be appraised of the variations so that proper evaluation can be made.
4.4 SUBGRADE SOIL FOUNDATIONS

4.4.1 INTRODUCTION
The main aim of the subgrade soil study is to investigate the suitability of the subgrade soil for
construction of road in carrying the load of vehicle within the allowable stress. The soil type, which is
not suitable for subgrade material according ERA specs master 2013 manual as given below:
 Soaked CBR at 100% MDD (AASHTO T99) < 3% at 95% of modified AASHTO
compaction (AASHTO method T-180) after 4 days soaking
 swell value of more than 3% (with two surcharge rings) when determined in
accordance with AASHTO T-193 at 95% of modified AASHTO compaction
Conclusion 27
The subgrade soils and their basic properties in relation to load bearing are discussed in the following
subsections.
4.4.2 SOIL TYPES

Based on the field observation and laboratory tests, the Swell and CBR soil properties are presented in
the table below:
Table 4-13: Summarized laboratory data of Subgrade Soil
Modified Proctor Density CBR

TP Depth, m
MDD, Kg/m3 OMC, % CBR, % Swell CBR, %
7 0.00-3.00 1650.0 20.4 6.90 1.91
8 0.00-3.00 1735.0 20.0 7.80 1.49
9 0.00-3.00 1678.0 18.3 8.30 1.20
10 0.00-3.00 1700.0 19.6 9.50 1.17
11 0.00-3.00 1659.0 16.9 7.50 1.55
12 0.00-3.00 1646.0 21.2 6.20 1.83
13 0.00-3.00 1592.0 23.3 5.00 1.46
The subgrade soil, dark gray silty clay soil, is having higher CBR values (5.0-9.50%), higher and lower
CBR swell values (1.17-1.91%). These show that the soil subgrade is suitable subgrade soil.
4.4.3 SUBGRADE STRENGTH CLASS BASED ON LABORATORY CBR

The subgrade soil groups are classified further based on their laboratory CBR values at MDD (AASHTO
T99). The subgrade strength classes are classified according to ERA Pavement Design Manual (2013).
The subgrade strength class for the subgrade soil is shown in table below.
Subgrade Strength class based on laboratory CBR

Subgrade Strength Class as for Value as subgrade
CBR (%)
(ERA 2013 Pavement Design
range
Manual)
>5 S3 and S4 Poor to fair
Conclusion 28
5 CONCLUSION
Sub-surface geotechnical investigation was conducted for Robe airport terminal Building. The
investigation included drilling of six exploratory boreholes and seven pits, visual identification,
sampling, in-situ and laboratory tests. From the investigation, the following geotechnical layers are
identified.
 Firm, dark gray.

 Firm, light brown, silty CLAY and
 Firm to stiff, pale white to light gray, silty CLAY.
Recommendations are made on the type, depth and allowable bearing capacity values under section 4 of
this report. The foundation designer can use any of the recommended foundation footings and their
values depending on the superstructure loads. After choosing one of them, it must be considered 1.0m
selected fill below the recommended depth.
Additional consideration must be done to verify the nature and actual depth of occurrence of the bearing
layer when construction of the terminal buildings starts and make adjustment if necessary.
The Geotechnical Engineer in charge shall conduct thorough supervision of the foundation excavation
works during construction to verify/check the actual subsurface conditions, and shall make adjustments
to the foundation recommendation as given in this report, where actual site conditions warrant such
changes.
Conclusion 29
6 ANNEXES
6.1 ANNEX-I: BOREHOLE LOGS
6.2 ANNEX-II: CORE BOX PHOTOGRAPHS
6.3 ANNEX-III. TEST PIT LOGS
6.4 ANNEX-IV. TEST PIT PHOTOGRAPHS
6.5 ANNEX-V. BEARING CAPACITY ANALYSIS SHEETS
6.6 ANNEX-VI. LABORATORY TEST RESULTS

Robe Draft Geotechnical Report - by Zablon

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Robe Draft Geotechnical Report - by Zablon

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Robe Draft Geotechnical Report - by Zablon

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

GEOTECHNICAL

FIELD AND LABORATORY INVESTIGATION ii

FIELD AND LABORATORY INVESTIGATION 1

 Analyzing the field and laboratory data to develop appropriate engineering

1.3 SCOPE OF WORK

FIELD AND LABORATORY INVESTIGATION 2

Figure 1-1: Location map of the area

FIELD AND LABORATORY INVESTIGATION 3

FIELD AND LABORATORY INVESTIGATION 4

Figure 1-3: Regional Geology of the area

FIELD AND LABORATORY INVESTIGATION 5

1.6.2 LOCAL GEOLOGY

 Firm, dark gray, CLAY;

α0= ag/g 0.20 0.15 0.10 0.07 0.04 0

FIELD AND LABORATORY INVESTIGATION 6

FIELD AND LABORATORY INVESTIGATION 7

 Rotary core drilling,

2.1 ROTARY CORE DRILLING

2.2 TEST PIT EXCAVATIONS

FIELD AND LABORATORY INVESTIGATION 8

2.4 LABORATORY TESTING

FIELD AND LABORATORY INVESTIGATION 9

3 FIELD AND LABORATORY INVESTIGATION

3.1 SUMMARY OF DRILLING

FIELD AND LABORATORY INVESTIGATION 10

3.2 SUMMARY OF FIELD TESTING AND SAMPLING

Table 3-3: Summary of field investigation

Depth, No. of Standard Disturbed Undisturbed Ground water level

Depth, No. of Standard Disturbed Undisturbed Ground water level

3.3 SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST

S. No. Laboratory tests No of Tests

FIELD AND LABORATORY INVESTIGATION 12

Table 3-5: Summary of laboratory test results

Depth (m) Sieve Analysis Atterberg Limit

FIELD AND LABORATORY INVESTIGATION 13

FIELD AND LABORATORY INVESTIGATION 14

3.4 GROUNDWATER MONITORING

3.5 GEOLOGICAL PROFILE

FIELD AND LABORATORY INVESTIGATION 15

Figure 3-5: Layout map of Robe airport Terminal Building

FIELD AND LABORATORY INVESTIGATION 16

Zablon Girma Geotechnical & Soil Test Works 17

3.6 GEOTECHNICAL CHARACTERISTICS

Depth of occurrence (m)

FIELD AND LABORATORY INVESTIGATION 18

4.2 PROPOSED STRUCTURE

4.3 BEARING CAPACITY ANALYSIS

N’55= Cn *N *n1*n2 *n3 *n4 -----------------------1

p'o = overburden pressure

Depth (m) Measured SPT N- Adjusted N-

Depth (m) Measured SPT N- Adjusted N-

Width of foundation (B), m

Where: qall = allowable bearing capacity

Width of foundation (B), m

Width of foundation (B), m

4.3.2 BEARING CAPACITY FOR ISOLATED FOOTING USING SETTLEMENT CRITERIA

Immediate (Short term) Settlement

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

Figure 4-7:Graph used to determine Ic

N’55= Cn N n1n2 n3 *n4 -----------------------1