CIVIL ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT

COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING

KWAME NKRUMAH UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, KUMASI,

GHANA

PROJECT TITLE:

RE-DEVELOPMENT OF MASTER PLAN FOR COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING,

CIVIL ENGINEERING LABORATORY AT KNUST, KUMASI GHANA.

Client: Development office, KNUST

Consultant: ABP Consult Limited, West Cantonment, Accra, in association with ED IV

Civil Group 34, KNUST

CE 497 CIVIL ENGINEERING DESIGN PROJECT 2023

FINAL REPORT ON GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING FOR THE

ENGINEERING DESIGN OF INFRASTRUCTURE

Report by
Name: Francis Njibiche Nlansong
Index number: 8154219

[April, 2023]

i
 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Development office of KNUST, Kumasi, Ghana, who intends to redevelop the master plan
laboratory building for college of engineering, has commissioned ABP Consult limited to
undertake the general planning and design of the project.

A geotechnical investigation was carried out on the project site to obtain geotechnical
information of the land for the design of the facilities. A field reconnaissance survey was
conducted on the project site. It was observed that the project site and its environs was used
for growing of crops such as lettuce, cabbage, okra and onion.

Standard Penetration Tests was carried out on the project site from 20th March to 24th March
2023, and from the results obtained, competent soil layer was encountered at a depth of 2m
and below. Five boreholes were drilled at the proposed site for the laboratory building. Water
table was encountered during the test, SPT was conducted to a depth of 12 and 15m. The
Meyerhof method of foundation design was implemented using a factor of safety of 3.
Maximum depth of placement of foundation footing should be 3m.

18 Dynamic Cone Penetration Tests alongside 2 trial pits were used for the analysis of the road
pavement and car park subgrade strength. Results indicated a two-layer structure with a weaker
top layer made of mainly loamy soil containing plant roots, underlain by a loose layer of soil
which contains sand and silt and soft clay. Results from trial pits indicates that the soil has a
high affinity for water, hence much efforts must be put in providing adequate sealing and
draining of road surface. Natural material to be borrowed for the base and sub-base will be
taken from Bonwire-Juaben road 15+120 RHS and aggregates will be taken from A. Kannin
Quarry site. Aggregates for concrete work (River sand) will be sourced from ANWOMASO,
Kumasi.

An Environmental Impact Assessment of the geotechnical investigation was made and is

recommended that mitigatory measures are strictly enforced.

i
 GLOSSARY

TOR Terms of Reference

BH Borehole

BS British Standard

CBR California Bearing Ratio

DCPT Dynamic Cone Penetration Test

LL Liquid Limit

PL Plastic Limit

PI Plastic Index

qall Allowable bearing capacity

Qall Allowable Load

SPT Standard Penetration Test

TP Trial Pit

GHA Ghana Highway Authority

MDD Maximum Dry Density

OMC Optimum Moisture Content

ii
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.................................................................................................... i

GLOSSARY ........................................................................................................................... ii

LIST OF FIGURES .............................................................................................................. v

LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................ v

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ................................................................................. 1

1.1 BACKGROUND OF THE PROJECT ...................................................................... 1

1.2 PROJECT OBJECTIVES .......................................................................................... 2

1.3 SCOPE OF WORK ..................................................................................................... 2

1.4 OUTPUT OF ASSIGNMENT.................................................................................... 2

1.4.1 Geotechnical Investigation for the Laboratory Building ................................. 2

1.4.2 Geotechnical Investigation for Road Pavement Design.................................... 2

CHAPTER TWO: DESK STUDY....................................................................................... 4

2.1 BACKGROUND ......................................................................................................... 4

2.2 SITE LOCATION ....................................................................................................... 4

2.3 TERRAIN .................................................................................................................... 4

2.4 VEGETATION COVER ............................................................................................ 4

2.5 GEOLOGY OF THE AREA. ..................................................................................... 5

2.6 EXISTING SITUATION ............................................................................................ 5

2.7 SEISMICITY ............................................................................................................... 6

CHAPTER THREE: FIELD AND LABORATORY TESTS ........................................... 7

3.1 Standard Penetration Test (SPT) .............................................................................. 7

3.2 Dynamic Cone Penetration Test (DCP) .................................................................... 9

3.3 Trial Pits..................................................................................................................... 10

3.4 Laboratory tests ........................................................................................................ 10

iii
 3.5 SOURCES AND QUALITY OF CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS ................... 11

CHAPTER FOUR: DISCUSSION OF RESULTS .......................................................... 13

4.1.1 Summary of field investigation test results on trial pits ..................................... 13

4.2 FOUNDATION DESIGN ......................................................................................... 14

4.3 ROAD PAVEMENT ................................................................................................. 17

4.4 SOURCE OF MATERIALS .................................................................................... 19

4.4.1Natural Gravel..................................................................................................... 19

4.4.2 Aggregates for Pavement Sealing Works......................................................... 21

4.4.3 Aggregates for Concrete mix ............................................................................ 22

4.4.4 Fine Aggregates .................................................................................................. 23

CHAPTER FIVE: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND BILL OF

QUANTITIES ..................................................................................................................... 25

5.1 BACKGROUND ....................................................................................................... 25

5.2 BILL OF QUANTITIES .......................................................................................... 26

CHAPTER SIX: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION ................................... 28

6.1 CONCLUSION.......................................................................................................... 28

6.3 LIMITATIONS ......................................................................................................... 28

6.4 DISCLAIMER ........................................................................................................... 29

REFERENCES .................................................................................................................... 30

APPENDICES ..................................................................................................................... 31

Appendix A Trial pits data and results ......................................................................... 31

Appendix B Materials for project construction ........................................................... 36

Appendix C- DCP and laboratory CBR computation ................................................. 38

Appendix D - Borehole logs and foundation design details ......................................... 48

iv
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Cabbage and water source used for the irrigation of the crops on project site ........ 5
Figure 2: Seismic Hazard Map of Southern Ghana(Ahulu et al., 2018). ................................ 6
Figure 3: Percussion drilling and sample collected ................................................................ 7
Figure 4: DCP points along the proposed road and car park .................................................. 8
Figure 5: SPT boreholes at the building site ........................................................................... 9
Figure 6: Carrying out the DCP test...................................................................................... 10
Figure 7: Trial pits along the proposed road and car park. ................................................... 10
Figure 8: USCS soil classification chart(“Principles of Geotechnical engineering,” n.d.). .. 14
Figure 9: graph of allowable load against foundation width for depth from (1-3) m. .......... 17
Figure 10: Summary data of DCP results along the proposed road ...................................... 18
Figure 11: Soaked CBR data for layer 2 pit 1 ....................................................................... 18
Figure 12: Two layers DCP1 point ....................................................................................... 19
Figure 13 graphs of natural gravel and river sand ................................................................ 36
Figure 14: Graph of chippings .............................................................................................. 37
Figure 15: Summary of compaction result on pit 1 layer 2 .................................................. 46

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Summary description of the trial pits ...................................................................... 13

Table 2: Summary of field investigation test ........................................................................ 13
Table 3: Summary results of laboratory test on the trial pits ................................................ 14
Table 4: Finding the allowable load for a depth of 1.5m ...................................................... 16
Table 5: Calculating for Ndesign for borehole 1 .................................................................. 16
Table 6: Summary laboratory test results on Natural gravel ................................................ 20
Table 7: Summary test results for 10mm chippings ............................................................. 21
Table 8:Summary test results for 14mm chippings .............................................................. 22
Table 9: Summary test results for 20mm chippings ............................................................. 22
Table 10: Summary test results for river sand ...................................................................... 24
Table 11: Environmental impact assessment and mitigation measures ................................ 25
Table 12: Bill of quantities for the proposed project ............................................................ 26
Table 13: Pit 1 layer 2 data and results from lab test ............................................................ 31

v
Table 14: Summary results of grading of aggregates ........................................................... 37
Table 15: Summary data of DCP values ............................................................................... 38
Table 16: DCP values at the proposed car park .................................................................... 39

vi
 CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1.1 BACKGROUND OF THE PROJECT

The Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Kumasi (KNUST), the premier
Institution in Ghana responsible for the training of engineers, medical personnel, scientists, and
technologists required to support the industrial and socio-economic development of Ghana is
undertaking a re-development of its facilities, which includes the expansion of the existing
facilities. The site for the expansion is to the south of the existing facilities for which a Master
Plan has been developed. The objective of the project is to develop the required infrastructure
to support the Master Plan and develop a new Civil Engineering laboratory to replace the
existing facility built some 50 years ago. The development would be done in two phases, as
indicated. Phase One is the several acres of land where the full infrastructure would be
developed, and Phase Two construction is anticipated to commence ten years later.
The Development Office of KNUST, the Client, has commissioned a Planning and
Architectural Consulting Firm to undertake the general planning and the design of the
architectural aspects of the development scheme. Similarly, the Client has engaged the services
of Engineering Consultants to design the mechanical and electrical engineering aspects of the
proposed development scheme. The Client has completed and approved the planning proposals
and architectural designs of the laboratory. However, the design of the site layout has partly
been completed as the Planners are awaiting the engineers' advice, especially regarding the
road layout and other supplementary infrastructure. It is now required to propose conceptual
engineering designs and undertake the design of the Civil Engineering infrastructure structure
Works for the proposed Development Scheme.
To this end, the Client has commissioned M/s EDCIV 2023 Civil Group 27 to design the Civil
Engineering Infrastructure Works for the entire Project Site, emphasizing the development of
Phase One Works for the University in Kumasi

(DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING, KNUST KUMASI, GHANA PROJECT TITLE

RE-DEVELOPMENT OF MASTER PLAN FOR COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING TERMS OF
REFERENCE FOR ENGINEERING DESIGNS OF INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITIES CIVIL

1
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, KNUST CE 497 CIVIL ENGINEERING DESIGN PROJECT
2023, 2023)..

1.2 PROJECT OBJECTIVES

• A suitable road layout that should confirm a suitable entry to the site, suitable traffic
flow, and adequate vehicular parking for Administration Block should be proposed.
• Detailed structural design of the various pavements of roads and vehicular parking
areas must also be carried out.
• Necessary provisions should also be made for walkways and drains.

1.3 SCOPE OF WORK

The scope of work for this design is to;
• Assess the existing conditions of the project site.
• Obtain necessary traffic information from a similar site.
• Design horizontal and vertical alignment and incorporate in the design necessary
structures like walkways, lay-bys, and intersections upon consideration of obtained
data.
• Provide suitable and well-located parking spaces.
• Conduct an Environment Impact Assessment of the project.
• Prepare a bill of quantities and cost estimates for the project.

1.4 OUTPUT OF ASSIGNMENT

As stated in the Terms of Reference, the following are to be fulfilled with respect to the design
of the geotechnical aspect of the project
1.4.1 Geotechnical Investigation for the Laboratory Building
The geotechnical team shall:
• Carry out the appropriate geotechnical investigation to support the safe and economic design
of the foundation of the Laboratory Building.
• Carry out the foundation design of the Laboratory Building.
• Provide the necessary information about the sources and quality of construction materials of
geologic origin.
1.4.2 Geotechnical Investigation for Road Pavement Design
The geotechnical team shall:

2
• Carry out the appropriate investigation to support the safe and economic design of the
pavement of the road network and parking areas.
• Provide the necessary information about the sources and quality of construction materials of
geologic origin required
From the above, tests such as index property tests (Atterberg and Particle Size Distribution
test) will be conducted to classify and identify to check the engineering properties of the soil.
And based on that and other tests which would be clearly discussed later would be used to find
the bearing capacity of the soil on site. This needs to be done to ensure that the building does
not settle appreciably in the soil. Then also for the road pavement design, further tests will be
done to select the appropriate pavement materials and the required thickness needed to oversee
its construction.

3
 CHAPTER TWO

DESK STUDY
2.1 BACKGROUND

The Engineering team (group 27) paid visits to the site on 24th February 2023 in order to be
informed of the prevailing conditions on the site. We traversed the entire site on foot, inspecting
the general conditions of the site. We studied the general ecosystem of the site. The project is
expected to have both environmental and social impacts which will be mitigated if being a
negative one. These visits were needed to inform us on how to accomplish the design task.
2.2 SITE LOCATION
The site for the expansion of phase I development of the master plan is to the south of the
existing facilities of the engineering laboratory of Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and
Technology, Kumasi. The site is a vegetative land used for the growing of crops such as lettuce,
cabbage, okra, and cassava by farmers around the KNUST enclave.
2.3 TERRAIN
The landscape is dotted with lush green vegetation, with rolling hill and valley. This part of the
laboratory is also home to streams that provide a source of water for the surrounding area. The
soil here is good in nutrients and offers great potential for agricultural production.
2.4 VEGETATION COVER
There are not many trees present and the few that are, are spread apart. The distribution of
vegetation on the land is uneven. There exists a farmland present near and around the site, the
farmland is grown with crops such as lettuce, cabbage, okra, and cassava.

4
Figure 1: Cabbage and water source used for the irrigation of the crops on project site

2.5 GEOLOGY OF THE AREA.

Geologically the Kumasi area is underlain by the lower Birimian system which is composed
mainly of schist, phyllites and greywackes intruded by quartz veins and stringers(Acheampong
Aning et al., 2016). Besides these intrusives is a post-Birimian Precambrian age massive
granitic batholiths cut by pegmatite veins (Emmanuel Addai, 2016). According to the World
Geographic System (WGS) 84 with decimal degree units, KNUST is situated in the following
longitudes and latitudes: -1.590 and 6.672, -1.564 and 6.678, -1.543 and 6.680, -1.548 and
6.693, -1.564 and 6.662, forming the five corners of the KNUST precise(Acheampong Aning
et al., 2016). At Kumasi, Ghana, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology's
Faculty of Engineering is situated. The location is in Ghana's forest zone and is a part of the
Ashanti region. There are many streams and rivers, and the topography is often
steep(Acheampong Aning et al., 2016). The Guinea Savannah lowlands' climate, with its mean
annual temperature of roughly 25°C and mean annual rainfall of 1,200 mm, has a significant
impact on the region. The Precambrian basement rocks lie under the sedimentary and
metamorphic rocks that make up the geological substrate, along with certain igneous
intrusions. The region is also home to a variety of historic volcanic structures and is abundant
in gold, bauxite, manganese, and iron ore reserves(Andrews ND et al., 2013).

2.6 EXISTING SITUATION

5
A reconnaissance study was made to the site on 24th February 2023 and the following
conditions were observed:
• Present on site is an ongoing farming of cabbage, lettuce, and okro by the farmers.
• Two test-pit are dug at the site for geotechnical investigation
• There is also a created foot path, which provides access for the farmers and for
conveying their farm products. This foot path leads down into the site and ends at the
center of rehabilitation at KNUST school of business; Therefore, access to the other
parts of the site (for example the to-be residential part) is very difficult since
everywhere is covered with natural vegetation.

2.7 SEISMICITY

The seismic hazard assessment map of Ghana as well as data of previous earthquakes in Ghana
were examined in order to determine the likelihood that an earthquake event will occur at the
project location. The country of Ghana is situated on the southern edge of the West African
Craton. The country normally has a lower risk of earthquakes due to its location far from major
earthquake zones.
The forces that produce seismic activity in the southeast of the nation include the Akwapim
Fault and the Coastal Boundary Fault. In general, the project location is close to Kumasi,
which has a reduced risk of significant seismic activity; as a result, the site may not be
vulnerable to earthquakes. Seismic Risk Map of Ghana(Ahulu et al., 2018).

Figure 2: Seismic Hazard Map of Southern Ghana(Ahulu et al., 2018).

6
 CHAPTER THREE

FIELD AND LABORATORY TEST

To gather the data needed for the foundation design of the laboratory building, parking lot, and
road pavement, several field tests have been conducted.

3.1 Standard Penetration Test (SPT)

To ascertain the soil's bearing capability at the project site, SPT tests were carried out from
March 20, 2023 through March 24, 2023. Boreholes were created using cable percussion
drilling so that the testing could be carried out underground. There were five boreholes created.
SPT tests were carried out and recorded at intervals of 1 m and 1.5 m during drillings to a depth
of 12 and 15 m. SPT-N readings and the visual features of soil samples were documented and
recorded for analysis. Using the Dando 2500 drilling equipment, five boreholes were created
at the location of the laboratory building, and samples were then taking to the laboratory for
testing and categorization. See the borehole log in the appendix.

Figure 3: Percussion drilling and sample

collected

7
Figure 4: DCP points along the proposed road and car park

8
Figure 5: SPT boreholes at the building site

3.2 Dynamic Cone Penetration Test (DCP)

In order to ascertain the in situ CBR of the subgrade soil, DCP tests were carried out on Friday,
May 6, 2022, at the location that would be used for the automobile parking lots and the network
of paved roads. To span the length of the proposed road pavements, 13 DCPTs were performed
on the site at predetermined intervals, 8 along the proposed road and 5 at the car park. For the
purpose of calculating the in situ CBR, the number of blows needed to drive the cone 100 mm
into the earth was noted(Ampadu, 2023).

9
Figure 6: Carrying out the DCP test

3.3 Trial Pits

Two trial pits were excavated on Saturday, March 18, 2022, at specific DCP locations to
evaluate the soil layers and their qualities in a laboratory setting.

The trenches were excavated to a depth of 0.5 m by 1.2 m by 1.0 m.

The pit's visual features were noted, and disturbed samples were brought to the lab for analysis.

3.4 Laboratory tests

Samples taken from the boreholes, trial pits, borrow pits, quarry sites and river sand were tested
in the lab to determine its composition and classification. The Test conducted were;

• Compaction Test
Figure 7: Trial pits along the proposed road and car park.
• Flakiness index

• Elongation index

• Particles Size Distribution

• Atterberg Limit tests

• Los Angeles Abrasion

• Aggregate Crushing Test

• Absorption Test

10
 These tests are conducted with reference to(REPUBLIC OF GHANA Ministry of
Transportation STANDARD SPECIFICATION FOR ROAD AND BRIDGE WORKS,
2007).

3.5 SOURCES AND QUALITY OF CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS

A.Kanin Quarry site was selected as the source of chippings for both concrete mixes and for
road pavement construction. Results obtained from tests conducted by GHA on samples taken
from the site were obtained and used for the analysis. Natural Gravel and river sand located at
Bonwire and Anwomaso respectively was selected and results obtained from tests conducted
by GHA was used for analysis.

11
12
 CHAPTER FOUR

DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
4. 1 SOIL PROFILE DESCRIPTION

Table 1: Summary description of the trial pits

TRIAL PIT 1
DATE: 18-Mar-2023 18-Mar-2023 LOCATION: KNUST
Latitude: 6.670406° N Longitude: 1.566268°E

DEPTH (m) LAYER GROUNDWATER DESCRIPTION

0.00 - 0.18 LAYER 1 No Damp, loose, greyish - brown, Sandy SILT with plant roots
0.18 - 0.84 LAYER 2 groundwateDamp to moist, loose, dark brown, clayey SAND with plant roots
0.84 - 1.20 LAYER 3 r Moist, soft, reddish, greyish, brown, sandy CLAY

TRIAL PIT 2
DATE: 18-Mar-2023
LOCATION: KNUST
Latitude: 6.6707622° N Longitude: 1.5649704°E

DEPTH (m) LAYER GROUNDWATER DESCRIPTION

Groundwater
0.00-0.49 LAYER1 encountered Moist, loose, whitish-brown with black spots, silty-SAND
@
0.49-1.00 LAYER2 0.67mWet-very wet, loose, alternating between brwonish dark and whitish brown, silty-SAND

4.1.1 Summary of field investigation test results on trial pits

Table 2: Summary of field investigation test

LOCATION/ INVESTIGATION TYPE

FACILITY Borehole DCPT Trial
with SPT Pits
Laboratory 5 - -
building
Entry Road - 13 1
Car Park - 5 1

13
 Figure 8: USCS soil classification chart(“Principles of Geotechnical engineering,” n.d.).

Table 3: Summary results of laboratory test on the trial pits

SUMMARY OF TEST ON TRIAL PITS

DATE: 20th March, 2023 Project: Re-development of master plan for COE
Personnel: Francis Njibiche Nlansong Client: ABP Consult
TRIAL DEPTH COMPACTION CBR (%) Atterberg limits
PIT (m) OMC MDD 10 25 55 LL PL PI
(%) (kg/m3) blows blows blows (%) (%) (%)
1 0.18-0.84 10.66 2.082 32.4 40.33 58.6 26.63 13.72 12.91
0.84-1.00 10.14 2.288 52.28 72.96 89.62 30.10 17.35 12.75
2 0.00-0.49 9.12 2.331 33.09 40.33 72.85 22.31 - -
0.49-1.00 23.78 - -

4.2 FOUNDATION DESIGN

As sand made up the majority of the soil at the predicted depth, it made it rather trustworthy to
estimate the soil carrying capacity using the N values acquired from the SPT test. The
foundation of the proposed structure was developed in collaboration with my structural
engineer. Based on the predicted bearing capacity, each footing will be isolated and the width
of the footing fixed.

14
In order to determine the bearing capacity of the soil, the Meyerhof approach was adopted.
This requires the computation of soil bearing capacities using the parameters.

• Depth of foundation (Df)

• Breadth or width of foundation (B)

• And Ndes which is the average of the corrected SPT N values.

The Meyerhof equation can be written as;

𝑆𝑒
𝑞𝑎𝑙𝑙 = 19.16𝑁𝑑𝑒𝑠 𝑥𝐹𝑑 ( ) 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝐵 ≤ 1.22
25.4

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

𝐷
𝐹𝑑 = 1 + 0.33 ≤ 1.33
𝐵

In the determination of the design N, SPT N values obtained from the SPT tests needs to be
corrected. Skempton’s formula was used. The formula can be written as;

2
𝑁𝑐𝑜𝑟 = ( )𝑁
1 + 0.01044𝛿

Where, N=SPT value at a given depth Ncor= corrected N value and 𝜎𝑣 ′ = effective overburden
pressure

This approach allows the determination of soil bearing capacity, using an allowable settlement
of 25mm and a factor of safety of 3(Fundamentals of Geotechnical Engineering, n.d.;
“Principles of Geotechnical engineering,” n.d.). Design of the foundation was based on
borehole 1, 3 and 5 since they have similarities in the properties of soil encountered at the trial
pits. An isolated footing

15
Table 4: Finding the allowable load for a depth of 1.5m

d=1.5
B(m) D/B fd Q (kN/m2) Area (m2) Q all (KN)
1.25 1.200 1.006 256.99 1.5625 401.54
1.3 1.154 1.006 253.09 1.69 427.73
1.4 1.071 1.006 246.21 1.96 482.57
1.5 1.000 1.330 317.87 2.25 715.22
1.6 0.938 1.309 306.37 2.56 784.31
1.7 0.882 1.291 296.45 2.89 856.75
1.8 0.833 1.275 287.81 3.24 932.51
1.9 0.789 1.261 280.22 3.61 1011.61
2 0.750 1.248 273.51 4 1094.03
2.1 0.714 1.236 267.52 4.41 1179.76
2.2 0.682 1.225 262.15 4.84 1268.82
2.3 0.652 1.215 257.31 5.29 1361.19
2.4 0.625 1.206 252.93 5.76 1456.88
2.5 0.600 1.198 248.94 6.25 1555.88

Table 5: Calculating for Ndesign for borehole 1

Depth SPT N- Layer Unit Overburde Pore- Effective

(m) value Thickne weight of n water overburd
N corrected N
ss soil layer Pressure pressure en
design
(m) (KN/m3) of of soil Pressure
Layer layer (KN/m2)
(KN/m2) (KN/m2)
1 9 1 17 17 0 17 15 20
2 2 1 16 16 0 33 3

16
3 3 1 16 16 9.81 39.19 4
5.12 12 2.12 18 38.16 20.7972 56.5528 15
6 8 0.88 18 15.84 8.6328 63.76 10
7.5 9 1.5 18 27 14.715 76.045 10
9 10 1.5 18 27 14.715 88.33 10
10.5 29 1.5 22 33 14.715 106.615 27
12 50 1.5 22 33 14.715 124.9 43
13.5 50 1.5 22 33 14.715 143.185 40
15 50 1.5 22 33 14.715 161.47 37

Allowable load for foundation width

2000
1800
1600
1400
1200
Load(kn)

1.5m
1000
2m
800
2.5m
600
3m
400
200
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Width(m)

Figure 9: graph of allowable load against foundation width for depth from (1-3) m.

4.3 ROAD PAVEMENT

Two trial pits were dug for examination of the soil profile of the subgrade. Each one of them
was used in classifying and estimating the strength of each of the two roads. Three layers of
soil was encountered in trial pit 1 at DCP point 9 with other.

17
 DCP NO OF AV.
ALONG THE ROAD DCP POINTS
POITS LAYERS CBR PERCENTILE%
100.00%
1 2 4 8.3 90.00%
80.00%
2 3 5 41.6 70.00%

PERCENTILE%
60.00% ALONG THE
3 2 6 83.3 ROAD
50.00%
4 2 7 100 40.00%
30.00% 10th
5 2 6 83.3 20.00% percentile at
4.1
10.00%
6 2 4 8.3
0.00%
2 0.00 5.00 10.00
7 5 41.6
CBR VALUES
8 2 5 41.6

9 3 5 41.6

10 2 5 41.6

11 2 4 8.3

12 2 4 8.3

13 2 3 0
Figure 10: Summary data of DCP results along the proposed road

15
SOAKED CBR
5.00 14
55 BLOWS
4.50 13
25 BLOWS
4.00 12
10 BLOWS
3.50 11
CBR (%)

3.00
10
LOAD(kN)

2.50
9
2.00
8
1.50
7
1.00
6
0.50
5
0.00 80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96 98 100
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 MDD (%)
PENETRATION(mm)

Figure 11: Soaked CBR data for layer 2 pit 1

18
 1
-100 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
0
100
y = 80.124x - 3.7267
200
Layer 1
300 Layer 2
400
500
y = 50x + 200
600
700
800
900
1000

Figure 12: Two layers DCP1 point

Two layers of soil were encountered in trial pit 2, where DCP point 5 for car park was
conducted. The results are shown below.

The site investigation revealed that the top soil contained lots of organic matter and is an
unsuitable material for the job. It was observed that the soil in trial pit 1 is predominantly
clayey-SAND and sandy Clay material after stripping of the top soil, whiles the soil in trial pit
2 is silty-SAND with no gravel, water was encountered at a depth of 0.69m with the top soil
caving, this suggest that the soil is unable to support itself weight. The average CBR values
from the proposed road and the car park from the DCP computations are respectively 4 and 3.
This shows that the sub-grade strength is weak hence fill materials has to be imported.

4.4 SOURCE OF MATERIALS

4.4.1 Natural Gravel

Materials required for the base layer and sub-base for the pavement structure for the road and
the car park, as recommended by the Highway engineer was of the class G60 and G80 as
specified by the Standard Specification for Road and Bridge Works. Information about borrow
pit locations for the project was acquired from the Ghana Highway Authority (GHA), Kumasi.
A borrow pit located at Bonwire was selected due to its closeness to the project site. Results
of lab tests conducted on samples from the borrow pit by the GHA was obtained. The results

19
indicated that it met the required standards for Material class G60 and G80. Summary of the
results is shown in the table below.

Table 6: Summary laboratory test results on Natural gravel

GHANA HIGHWAY AUTHORITY

REGIONAL MATERIAL LABORATORY - KUMASI
PROJECT: Re-development of master plan for college of engineering
PERSONNEL: Francis Njibiche Nlansong
EMBANKMENT @ GHA BASE
TYPE: NATURAL GRAVEL BONWIRE (CH. 15 + MATERIAL
120 RHS) G80 G60

75 mm 100 100 100

53 mm 100
80 - 100 100 - 80
37.5 mm 99.3
19 mm 83.8 60 - 85 100 - 75
% Passing 10 mm 69.0 45 - 70 90 - 45
4.75 mm 49.5 30 - 55 75 - 30
2.00 mm 38.7 20 - 45 50 - 20
425 µm 26.5 8 - 26 33 - 8
75 µm 8.4 5 - 15 22 - 5
LL % 24.0 ≤25 ≤30
ATTERBERG
PI % 11.0 ≤10 ≤12
100% 73.0
96Hrs 98% 69.0 ≥80 ≥60
CBR TEST
Soaked 95% 65.0
93% 61.0

20
 4.4.2 Aggregates for Pavement Sealing Works
The A. Kanin Quarry, which is close to Bonwire, was chosen. Due to time restrictions, GHA
provided the findings of lab tests performed on samples from the quarry site for evaluation.
The findings demonstrate that the materials adhere to the given requirements. The results
collected are summarized in the table below.
Table 7: Summary test results for 10mm chippings

GHANA HIGHWAY AUTHORITY

REGIONAL MATERIAL LABORATORY - KUMASI
QUARRY SITE: A. KANNIN QUARRY SITE
PROJECT: RE-DEVELOPMENT OF MASTER PLAN FOR COE LABORATORY
SIZE: 10mm chippings
TEST RESULTS STATED SPECIFICATION
BULK DENSITY (Kg/M³ 1.30g/cm^3
Flakiness Index Test Fi
34.20 MAX 35%
Test
Elongation Index 11.20 MAX 30%
Particle Size Distribution
Refer attachment Refer attachment
(Grading)
10% Fines (Dry) (Standard
161.85KN Min 160KN
Test)
Aggregate Impact Value
22.30% MAX 25%
Standard Test

Aggregate Crushing Value 22.60% MAX 25%

Water Absorption 2.1 2.5

Los Angeles Abrasion Value 21.8 MAX 40%

21
Table 8:Summary test results for 14mm chippings

GHANA HIGHWAY AUTHORITY

REGIONAL MATERIAL LABORATORY - KUMASI

QUARRY SITE: A. KANNIN QUARRY SITE

PROJECT: RE-DEVELOPMENT OF MASTER PLAN FOR COE LABORATORY

SIZE: 14mm chippings

STATED
TEST RESULTS
SPECIFICATION
BULK DENSITY (Kg/M³ 1.38g/cm^3
Flakiness Index Test Fi
24.20 MAX 35%
Test
Elongation Index 11.40 MAX 30%
Particle Size Distribution (Grading) Refer attachment Refer attachment

10% Fines (Dry) (Standard

162.23KN Min 160KN
Test)
Aggregate Impact Value Standard
23.40% MAX 25%
Test

Aggregate Crushing Value 24.90% MAX 25%

Water Absorption 1.61 2.5%

Los Angeles Abrasion Value 34.1 MAX 40%

4.4.3 Aggregates for Concrete mix

Chippings for concrete mix will be sourced from A. Kanin Quarry. Summary of laboratory
results is tabulated below.

Table 9: Summary test results for 20mm chippings

GHANA HIGHWAY AUTHORITY

REGIONAL MATERIAL LABORATORY - KUMASI
QUARRY SITE: A. KANNIN QUARRY SITE
PROJECT: RE-DEVELOPMENT OF MASTER PLAN FOR COE LABORATORY

22
 SIZE: 20mm chippings
TEST RESULTS STATED SPECIFICATION
BULK DENSITY (Kg/M³ 1.36 g/cm^3
Flakiness Index Test Fi
13.29 MAX 35%
Test
Elongation Index 28.12 MAX 30%
Particle Size Distribution (Grading)
refer attachment refer attachment

10% Fines (Dry) (Standard

173.16KN Min 160KN
Test)
Aggregate Impact Value Standard
23.10% MAX 25%
Test

Aggregate Crushing Value 23.91% MAX 25%

Water Absorption 1.03 2.5

Los Angeles Abrasion Value 8.4 MAX 40%

Surface Sounding (SSS) 5.4

4.4.4 Fine Aggregates

The project site (trial pit 2) was surrounded by pit sand. The project layout plan was made
careful to avoid conflicting with the area where sand would be dug up for the concrete mixes
hence had to be hauled from a different place, Anwomaso, Kumasi was chosen for the river
sand. The results of the lab tests on the samples showed that they fulfil the necessary
requirements. The A. Kanin Quarry will provide quarry dust. The findings of the laboratory
tests are summarized in the table below.

23
Table 10: Summary test results for river sand

GHANA HIGHWAY AUTHORITY

REGIONAL MATERIAL LABORATORY - KUMASI

TEST ON FINE AGGREGATES

CONTRACTOR : APS CONSULT

PROJECT: RE-DEVELOMENT OF MASTER PLAN FOR COE LAB

SOURCE OF MATERIAL: ANWOMASO

DESCRIPTION: AGGREGATE FOR CONCRETE WORKS
SUMMARISED RESULTS: FINE AGGREGATE ( RIVER SAND )

REFERENCE STATED
TEST RESULTS TEST METHOD
SPECIFICATION SPECIFICATION

WATER ABSORPTION 0.6 GSSRB ≤ 2.5% BS EN 1097 - 6

ORGANIC IMPURITIES
GLASS ≤ GLASS
STANDARD GSSRB STANDARD AASHTO T21
COLOUR NO. 2 COLOUR NO. 3

FINENESS MODULUS
3.36 BS 882 BS 812 - PART 112

SPECIFIC GRAVITY 2.52 BS EN 1097 - 6

SILT CONTENT 21% BS 812 6% BS 812 - CLAUSE 15

LOOSE BULK DENSITY 1.65 BS EN 1097 - 3

24
 CHAPTER FIVE

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND BILL OF

QUANTITIES
5.1 BACKGROUND
The environmental effect of geotechnical investigations often includes digging, drilling, and
other actions with varying degrees of impact. The following table lists some of these activities,
their effects, and mitigating methods.
Table 11: Environmental impact assessment and mitigation measures

ACTIVITY ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION

IMPACT

Clearing of site for Destruction of Vegetational Cleared surface has been

investigation. cover of the area. dressed and left for natural
recovery of vegetation.

Bore Hole Drilling Noise and Air pollution from Site is location is remote, and
drilling machinery hence noise pollution may have
little or no impact on residents
Holes
Proper serviced machinery was
used to reduce emissions.

Trial Pitting Degradation of land surface Pits shall be covered.

25
5.2 BILL OF QUANTITIES

Table 12: Bill of quantities for the proposed project

CESMM DESCRIPTION UNITS QUANTITY RATE(GHC/item) AMOUNT(GHC)

CODE

TRIAL PITS

B11 Number in nr 2 250 500

materials other
than rock, not
exceeding 1m

SITE TESTS

B213 Percussion nr 5 6000 30000

boreholes with
SPT N
B523 Dynamic Cone nr 18 100 1800
Penetrometer
test

SAMPLES

B422 Disturbed nr 70 10 700

samples from
boreholes
B412 Disturbed nr 4 10 40
samples of soft
materials
from trial pits

LABORATORY TEST
B712 Atterberg Limits nr 6 150 900
Classification
B714 Particle Size nr 8 150 1200
Distribution
Analysis
B741 Compaction nr 3 250 750
Test

26
B768 Soil Strength by nr 3 400 1200
CBR

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
B831 Preparation and Lump 200 200
submission of Sum
reports

B840 Visit to project nr 3 10 30

site
GRAND TOTAL 37320.00

27
 CHAPTER SIX

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

6.1 CONCLUSION

• Foundation footing should be placed at a depth between (1-3m) from ground surface.
• For other loading otherwise stated, minimum footing sizing should be determined
from graph provided.
• Sub-grade strength was found to be weak, hence need fill material
• At the car par, water was encountered, hence geotextiles should be used before
building the pavement
• Source of natural gravel for road works is the Bonwire borrow pit

• Aggregates for road works and concrete mixes shall be obtained from A.Kanin
Quarry Products.
• River bed Sand for concrete mix shall be sourced from sand pits at Anwomaso

6.2 RECOMMENDATION

• Due to the limited site exploration conducted on the site, required investigations
should be conducted on site on the event of discovery of features not covered in this
report.
• Recommended depth for foundation footing is 2m

• Borrowed materials should be periodically tested to ensure they meet the standard
specifications.
• It must be ensured that pavement surface is properly sealed and drained.

• Mitigatory measured prescribed in the Environmental Impact Assessment must be

strictly adhered to.

6.3 LIMITATIONS

This report's conclusions are solely based on data supplied by ABP Consult and a little
amount of site exploration and research at the project site per current geotechnical standards.
Investigations must be carried out if aspects not included in this report are found during the
project's construction phase.

28
6.4 DISCLAIMER

This geotechnical site study report was created exclusively for KNUST's development office
for the redevelopment of the college of engineering laboratory's master plan. Any test on the
soil only provides a snapshot of the soil that was being created at the time of the
examination. There is no promise or assurance that soils tested on multiple dates will match
due to differences in nutrients, pH, the composition of soils, the volume of soil generated,
and other variables. In light of the fact that anybody who utilizes this report somewhere other
than the suggested place does so at their own risk and will be held responsible for the results.

29
 REFERENCES

Acheampong Aning, A., Addai, E., Sarpong Asare, V.-D., 2016. Application of Shallow
Seismic Refraction and 2D Electrical Resistivity Imaging to Site Investigations.
International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications 6, 357.

Ahulu, S.T., Danuor, S.K., Asiedu, D.K., 2018. Probabilistic seismic hazard assessment of
southern part of Ghana. J Seismol 22, 539–557. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10950-017-
9721-x

Ampadu, S.I.K., 2023. CE 477 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINERING Chapter 1 Site

Investigation.

Andrews ND, Aning AA, Danuor SK, Noye RM, 2013. Geophysical investigations at the
proposed site of the KNUST teaching Hospital building using the 2D and 3D resistivity
imaging techniques, International Research Journal of Geology and Mining (IRJGM.

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING, KNUST KUMASI, GHANA PROJECT TITLE

RE-DEVELOPMENT OF MASTER PLAN FOR COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING
TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR ENGINEERING DESIGNS OF INFRASTRUCTURE
FACILITIES CIVIL ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, KNUST CE 497 CIVIL
ENGINEERING DESIGN PROJECT 2023, 2023.

Fundamentals of Geotechnical Engineering, n.d.

Principles of Geotechnical engineering, n.d.

REPUBLIC OF GHANA Ministry of Transportation STANDARD SPECIFICATION FOR

ROAD AND BRIDGE WORKS, 2007.

30
 APPENDICES

Appendix A Trial pits data and results

Table 13: Pit 1 layer 2 data and results from lab test

CED Pit 1 Layer 2

Liquid limit
Container No gm B19 A2 B5X X97 B25
Mass of Container gm 3.84 3.77 3.74 3.8 3.69
Penetration mm 9.5 12.7 17.6 21.7 25
Mass of Container
&Wet Sample gm 17.12 18.84 27.31 20 29.26
Mass of Container
LL 26.63
& Dry Sample gm 14.73 15.85 22.57 16.5 23.63
PL 13.72
Mass of Water gm 2.39 2.99 4.74 3.5 5.63
Mass of Dry
PI 12.91
Sample gm 10.89 12.08 18.83 12.7 19.94
Water content % 21.95 24.75 25.17 27.56 28.23
Plastic limit
1 2
Container No gm A20 B42
Mass of Container gm 3.66 3.76
Mass of Container &
Wet Sample gm 14.16 13.48
Mass of Container &
Dry Sample gm 12.89 12.31
Mass of Water gm 1.27 1.17
Mass of Dry Sample gm 9.23 8.55
Water content % 13.76 13.68
Average Water content % 13.7

31
 PIT 1 LAYER 2
30

Penetration depth (mm)

y = 0.7649x + 1.8106
25
20
15
10
5
0
0 10 20 30 40
Moisture content%

CED Pit 1 Layer 3

Liquid limit
Container No gm E1 A16 K1 A37 C35
Mass of Container gm 3.71 3.76 3.82 3.83 3.73
Penetration mm 10.5 13.9 19.6 24.6 30.9
Mass of Container & Wet
LL 30.10
Sample gm 30.36 31.05 37.45 37.04 35.35
Mass of Container & Dry
PL 17.35
Sample gm 25.07 25.15 29.6 28.84 27.21
PI 12.75
Mass of Water gm 5.29 5.9 7.85 8.2 8.14
Mass of Dry Sample gm 21.36 21.39 25.78 25.01 23.48
Water content % 24.77 27.58 30.45 32.79 34.67

Plastic limit 1 2
Container No gm A25 C18
Mass of Container gm 3.75 3.73
Mass of Container & Wet
Sample gm 13.44 11.4

32
Mass of Container & Dry
Sample gm 11.94 10.32
Mass of Water gm 1.5 1.08
Mass of Dry Sample gm 8.19 6.59
Water content % 18.32 16.39
Average Water content % 17.4

PIT 1 LAYER 3
30
y = 0.7649x + 1.8106
Penetration depth (mm)

25

20

15

10

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Moisture content%

CED Pit 2 Layer 1

Liquid limit
Container No gm A27 B24 K3 K6 B26
Mass of Container gm 3.58 3.64 3.7 3.73 3.66
LL 22.31
Penetration mm 9.2 12.5 15.6 20 26.8
Mass of Container & Wet
PL 0.00
Sample gm 20.31 34.31 25.16 27.02 38.22
Mass of Container & Dry
PI 0.00
Sample gm 17.57 28.97 21.43 22.75 31.6
Mass of Water gm 2.74 5.34 3.73 4.27 6.62

33
 Mass of Dry Sample gm 13.99 25.33 17.73 19.02 27.94
Water content % 19.59 21.08 21.04 22.45 23.69

PIT 2 LAYER 1
30
y = 0.7649x + 1.8106
Penetration depth (mm)

25

20

15

10

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Moisture content%

This soil would be classified as Clay according to the AASHTO system

CED Pit 2 Layer 2

Liquid limit
Container No gm K4 A41 B5 A9 H12
Mass of Container gm 3.64 3.68 3.56 8.55 3.78
LL 23.78
Penetration mm 13.1 17.6 21.6 24.7 28.1
Mass of Container & Wet
PL 0.00
Sample gm 25.65 27.31 21.15 25.42 25.63
Mass of Container & Dry
PI 0.00
Sample gm 21.71 22.96 17.81 21.25 21.27
Mass of Water gm 3.94 4.35 3.34 4.17 4.36
Mass of Dry Sample gm 18.07 19.28 14.25 12.7 17.49
Water content % 21.80 22.56 23.44 32.83 24.93

34
 PIT 2 LAYER 2
30
y = 0.7649x + 1.8106
Penetration depth (mm)

25

20

15

10

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Moisture content%

35
Appendix B Materials for project construction

RIVER SAND
120

100

PERCENTAAGE PASSING %
80
SIEVE SIZE (mm)
60
LOWER
BOUNDARY
40
UPPER BOUNDARY

20

0
0.1 1 10
SIEVE SIZE (mm)

Figure 13 graphs of natural gravel and river sand

36
Figure 14: Graph of chippings

Table 14: Summary results of grading of aggregates

SIEVE SIZE (14mm) 5.00 10.00 14.00 20.00 37.50

% PASSING BS SIEVE 0 12 98 100 100

LOWER BOUNDARY 0 0 85 100 100

UPPER BOUNDARY 10 50 100 100 100

SIEVE SIZE (20mm) 5.00 10.00 14.00 20.00 37.50

% PASSING BS SIEVE 6 29 93 100 100

LOWER BOUNDARY 0 0 85 100 100

UPPER BOUNDARY 10 50 100 100 100

SIEVE SIZE 10(mm) 5.00 10.00 14.00 20.00 37.50

% PASSING BS SIEVE 3 48 92 100 100

LOWER BOUNDARY 0 0 85 100 100

UPPER BOUNDARY 10 50 100 100 100

SIEVE SIZE (mm) 0.075 0.425 2.36 4.75 9.50 19.0 37.0
natural gravel

37
 % PASSING BS SIEVE 8 14 37 59 85 97 99
LOWER BOUNDARY 5 8 20 30 45 75 80
UPPER BOUNDARY 22 33 50 75 90 100 100
SIEVE SIZE (mm) River
Sand 0.15 0.3 0.6 1.18 2.36 5 10
98.156
% PASSING BS SIEVE 8 21 40 64 86 95 682
LOWER BOUNDARY 0 5 15 30 60 89 100
UPPER BOUNDARY 15 70 100 100 100 100 100

Appendix C- DCP and laboratory CBR computation

Table 15: Summary data of DCP values

Penetration DCP 1 CUMM1 BLOWS DCP2 CUMM2 DCP3 CUMM3 DCP4 CUMM4 DCP5 CUMM5 DCP6 CUMM6 DCP7 CUMM7 DCP8 CUMM8 DCP9 CUMM9 DCP10 CUMM10 DCP11 CUMM11 DCP12 CUMM12 DCP13 CUMM13
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
100 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 3 3 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1
200 2 3 3 5 2 4 4 6 3 5 2 3 3 5 4 7 2 3 2 4 2 3 2 3 1 2
300 1 4 2 7 1 5 2 8 2 7 1 4 2 7 2 9 2 5 3 7 2 5 1 4 1 3
400 1 5 1 8 1 6 3 11 2 9 2 6 1 8 2 11 3 8 2 9 3 8 1 5 2 5
500 1 6 1 9 2 8 2 13 1 10 1 7 1 9 1 12 2 10 3 12 1 9 1 6 2 7
600 2 8 1 10 3 11 2 15 1 11 1 8 1 10 1 13 1 11 2 14 1 10 2 8 2 9
700 2 10 2 12 2 13 3 18 1 12 1 9 2 12 1 14 1 12 1 15 1 11 2 10 1 10
800 2 12 2 14 3 16 4 22 2 14 2 11 1 13 2 16 3 15 1 16 2 13 1 11 2 12
900 2 14 2 16 3 19 2 24 1 15 2 13 1 14 1 17 2 17 2 18 2 15 1 12 1 13

DCP POINTS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
CBR
LAYERS 1 3 4 4 6 6 4 6 7 5 6 5 3 2
2 5 5 7 8 6 3 3 3 5 3 3 4 4
3 7 4

DCP
POINTS AV.CBR%
1 4.00
2 5.00
3 6.00
4 7.00

38
 5 6.00
6 4.00
7 5.00
8 5.00
9 5.00
10 5.00
11 4.00
12 4.00
13 3.00

Table 16: DCP values at the proposed car park

DCP AT CAR PARK
NO OF AV.CBR PERCENTIL 80

PERCENTILE%
DCP POINT LAYERS VALUES E% 60
DCP AT
40 CAR
1 2 4 75
PARK
20
2 2 3 0
0
3 2 3 0 0 1 2 3 4 5
AVERAGE CBR VALUES
4 2 3 0
5 2 4 75

Point 1 Point 2 Point 3 Point 4 Point 5

Penetration Depth Blows Count Cum. Penetration DepthBlows Count Cum. Penetration DepthBlows Count Cum. Penetration Depth
Blows CountCum. Penetration depth
Blows CountCum.
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
100 2 2 100 1 1 100 1 1 100 1 1 100 2 2
200 2 4 200 1 2 200 1 2 200 1 2 200 2 4
300 2 6 300 1 3 300 1 3 300 1 3 300 2 6
400 1 7 400 2 5 400 1 4 400 1 4 400 2 8
500 1 8 500 1 6 500 2 6 500 2 6 500 1 9
600 1 9 600 1 7 600 1 7 600 1 7 600 1 10
700 1 10 700 1 8 700 1 8 700 1 8 700 1 11
800 1 11 800 1 9 800 1 9 800 1 9 800 1 12

39
 CAR PARK DCP1 CAR PARK DCP2

Cummulative blows cummulative blows

0 5 10 15 0 5 10
0 0
100 100
Penetration depth(mm)

Penetration(mm)
200 200
300 300
400 400
500
500
600
600
700
700 800
800 900
900

CAR PARK DCP3 CAR PARK DCP4

cummulative blows cummulative blows
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 5 10
0 0

penetration depth (mm)

100 100
penetration depth(mm)

200 200
300
300
400
400
500
500 600
600 700
700 800
800 900
900

CAR PARK DCP5

Cummulative blows
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
0
100
Penetration depth(mm)

200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900

40
 1 2
-200
-100 0 5 10 15
0
0
100 y = 80.124x - 3.7267 y = 57.627x - 8.4746
200
Layer 1 200
300 Layer 2
400
400 y = 47.619x + 92.857
500
y = 50x + 200
600
600 layer
700 y = 36.735x + 208.16
1
800
800
900
1000
1000

3 4
-200
0 5 10 15 20 -200
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
0
y = 64.898x - 20.408 0

200 layer
200
1
400
400
y = 36.885x + 205.74 600 y = 38.532x - 2.7523

600 800
y = 31.795x + 122.05
1000
800

1000

41
 0 5 5 10 15 20 6
0
y = 43.233x + 1.1278 Axis Title
200 0 5 10 15
y = 65.789x
0 + 15.789
400 laye…
200 y = 70.588x + 14.706

Axis Title
600 y = 80.124x - 298.14 400
600
800
800
1000 1000

7 -200 8
0 5 10 15 20
0 5 10 15
0
0
y = 41.379x + 5.1724 y = 35x - 10
100
200
200
300
400 400
y = 80.124x - 458.39
500 y = 81.507x - 250
600 600
700
800 800
900
1000 1000

10
9
0 5 10 15 20
0 5 10 15 20 0
0 y = 41.447x + 15.132
100
100 y = 47.097x + 38.065
200
200
300 300
400 400
500 y = 52.941x + 11.765 500 y = 70x - 350
600 600
700 700
800 800
900 900
1000 1000

42
 11 12
0 5 10 15 20 -200
0 5 10 15
y0 = 48.544x + 34.951 0
y = 80.124x - 3.7267
200 200
400 400
y = 64.655x + 92.241
y = 70.588x - 126.47
600 600

800
800
1000
1000

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
0 13
100 y = 100x
200

300

400
y = 58.961x + 103.05
500

600

700

800

900

1000

43
44
45
 15
SOAKED CBR
5.00 14
55 BLOWS
4.50 13
25 BLOWS
4.00 12
10 BLOWS
3.50 11

CBR (%)
3.00
10
LOAD(kN)

2.50
9
2.00
8
1.50
7
1.00
6
0.50
5
0.00 80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96 98 100
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 MDD (%)
PENETRATION(mm)

Pit 1, Layer 2.
2.05

2
MDD=1.986
Maximum dry density(kg/cc)

OMC=10.985
1.95

1.9

1.85

1.8

1.75

1.7
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Water content%

Figure 15: Summary of compaction result on pit 1 layer 2

46
 60

50

40

30

20

10

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Liquid Limit (LL or wL)

The best recommendation for a foundation footing for a three-story laboratory building
in a waterlogged area is a pile foundation. Pile foundations are deep foundations that
use long, slender foundation elements (sometimes called piles) to transfer the load
from the building to a more stable stratum. This type of foundation is best suited for
waterlogged areas, as it is designed to penetrate deep into the ground, bypassing the
waterlogged layers and reaching the stable strata below. Pile foundations also provide
good lateral stability, which is especially important for taller structures like a laboratory
buildings.

47
Appendix D - Borehole logs and foundation design details

Borehole No. BH 1
PROJECT NAME: REDEVELOPMENT MAS TER PLAN FOR COE LAB N 6.670608
LOCATION: KNUS T - KUMAS I GPS Coordinates E 1.565231
DRILLING METHOD: Cable Percus s ion Z
EQUIPMENT TYPE/NO. Dando 2500 Logged by: FRANCIS Checked by: Date: 20TH MARCH,2023

SOIL SAMPLE SPT

Depth (m)

Depth (m)
Elevation

Symbol
Ground

Casing
Water Soil Description
Depth
Sample
Ty pe
Sample
No.
Test N-v alue
Comments

0.00 - 0.00

Damp, medium, reddish brown,

1.00 - 1.0 1.00
clayey silty GRAVEL 1.0-1.45 SS 1 9
DS 2

2.00 - 2.0 2.00

2.00-2.45 2 1
DS 3

2.91
Moist, loose, greyish, clayey
3.00 - 3.0 3.00
silty SAND 3.00-3.45 3 2
3

4.00 - 4.0 4.00

Moist, medium, grey ish, clay ey , DS 4 Transition zone
micaeous coarse SAND from sand to silt
U100 5
Shoe 6

5.00 - 5.0 5.00

5.12-5.57 SS 7 12
DS 8

6.00 - 6.0 6.00

6.00-6.45 SS 9 8 4
DS 10

7.00 - 7.0 Moist, stiff, yellowish grey, DS 11 7.00

clayey SILT (micaeous)

7.50-7.95 SS 12 9 5

8.00 - 8.0 8.00

9.00 - 9.0 9.00

9.00-9.45 SS 13 10 6

10.00 - 10.0 10.00

DS 14 7

10.50-10.95 SS 15 29 8

11.00 - 11.0 11.00

DS 16

12.00 - 12.0 12.00

12.00-12.45 SS 17 59 9

Moist, dense, brownish grey,

micaeous silty SAND
13.00 - 13.0 13.00

13.50-13.95 SS 18 74

14.00 - 14.0 14.00

DS 19
15.00 - 15.0 15.00
15.00-15.45 SS 20 Refusal

Hole terminated at 15.45m

NOTES:
SS Split spoon sample Static groundw ater level
DS Disturbed sample Dynamic groundw ater level
US Undisturbed sample

48
 Borehole No. BH3
PROJECT NAME: REDEVELOPMENT MASTER PLAN FOR COE LAB N 6.67065
LOCATION: KNUST - KUMASI GPS Coordinates E 1.564811
DRILLING METHOD: Cable Percussion Z
EQUIPMENT TYPE/NO. Dando 2500 Logged by: FRANCIS Checked by: Date: 20TH MARCH,2023
SOIL SAMPLE SPT
Depth (m)

Depth (m)
Elevation

Symbol
Ground

Casing
Water
Soil Description Sample Sample Comments
Depth Test N-value
Type No.
0.00 - 0.00

1.00 - 1.0 1.00

1.0-1.45 SS 1 8
DS 2
Damp, medium, reddish brown,
clayey silty GRAVEL

2.00 - 2.0 2.00

2.00-2.45 SS 3 4
DS 4

3.00 - 3.0 3.00

3.00-3.45 SS 5 8 1
DS 6 2
3

4.00 - 4.0 4.00

DS 7

4.50-4.95 SS 8 11

5.00 - 5.0 5.00

DS 9

6.00 - 6.0 6.00

6.00-6.45 SS 10 6 4
Moist, loose to dense, brownish DS 11
grey, micaceous silty coarse
SAND
7.00 - 7.0 DS 12 7.00

7.50-7.95 SS 13 10 5
6
8.00 - 8.0 8.00

9.00 - 9.0 9.00

9.00-9.45 SS 14 8
DS 15

10.00 - 10.0 10.00

DS 16

Moist, dense, greyish brown,

silty fine SAND 10.50-10.95 SS 17 18

11.00 - 11.0 11.00

Hole terminated at 11.00m

12.00 - 12.0 12.00

49
 Borehole No. BH5
PROJECT NAME: REDEVELOPMENT MASTER PLAN FOR COE LAB N 6.670482
LOCATION: KNUST - KUMASI GPS Coordinates E 1.565025
DRILLING METHOD: Cable Percussion Z
EQUIPMENT TYPE/NO. Dando 2500 Logged by: FRANCIS Checked by: Date: 20TH MARCH,2023

SOIL SAMPLE SPT

Depth (m)

Depth (m)
Elevation

Symbol
Ground

Casing
Water
Soil Description Sample Sample Comments
Depth Test N-value
Type No.
0.00 - 0.00

1.00 - 1.0 1.00

1.0-1.45 SS 1 2
Moist,very soft,reddish DS 2
brown,clayey coarse SAND (fill
materials)
2.00 - 2.0 2.00
2.00-2.45 SS 3 4 1
DS 4

3.00 - 3.0 3.00

3.00-3.45 SS 5 14
DS 6
Moist, stiff, reddish brown with
greyish patches, clayey
4.00 - 4.0 GRAVEL (natural ground) 4.00
DS 7

4.50-4.95 SS 8 3
Moist, very soft, brownish grey,
5.00 - 5.0 silty CLAY 5.00
DS 9 2
3
4

6.00 - 6.0 6.00

6.00-6.45 SS 10 9 5
DS 11

7.00 - 7.0 DS 12 7.00

7.50-7.95 SS 13 10
Moist, medium, yellowish grey,
8.00 - 8.0 clayey SILT 8.00
DS 14

9.00 - 9.0 9.00

9.00-9.45 SS 15 9
DS 16

10.00 - 10.0 10.00

10.00-10.45 SS 18 11
DS 17

Hole terminated at 10.45m

11.00 - 11.0 11.00

12.00 - 12.0 12.00

50
 BH1 BH2 BH3 BH4 BH5
SPT SPT SPT SPT SPT
Depth n- Depth n- Depth n- Depth n- Depth n- Average
(m) values (m) values (m) values (m) values (m) values n-value Refusal
1 9 1 12 1 8 1 16 1 2 9 50
2 2 2 3 2 4 2 7 2 4 4 50
3 3 3 4 3 8 3 9 3 14 8 50
5.12 12 4.5 5 4.5 11 4.5 4 4.5 3 7 50
6 8 6 11 6 6 6 12 6 9 9 50
7.5 9 7.5 7 7.5 10 7.5 11 7.5 10 9 50
9 10 10.02 13 9 8 9 12 9 9 10 50
10.86 29 11.07 14 10.5 17 10 16 10 11 17 50
12 59 12 17 38 50
13.5 74 13.5 28 51 50
15 50 15 37 44 50

51
 SPT N-value
0 20 40 60 80
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Depth (m)

8
9 BH1
10 BH2
11
BH3
12
Average n-value
13
Refusal
14
BH4
15
BH5
16

B3

Depth SPT N- Layer Unit Overburde Pore- Effective

(m) value Thicknes weight of n water overburden
N corrected N design
s soil layer Pressure of pressure Pressure
(m) (KN/m3) Layer of soil (KN/m2)
(KN/m2) layer
(KN/m2)
1 8 1 18 18 0 18 13 10

52
2 4 1 18 18 0 36 6
3 8 1 19 19 0 55 10
4.5 11 1.5 19 28.5 14.715 68.785 13
6 6 1.5 19 28.5 14.715 82.57 6
7.5 10 1.5 19 28.5 14.715 96.355 10
9 8 2.52 19 47.88 24.7212 119.5138 7
10.5 18 1.05 20 21 10.3005 130.2133 15
B4.

B5

Depth SPT N- Layer Unit Overburd Pore- Effective

(m) value Thickne weight en water overburde
N corrected N
ss of soil Pressure pressur n
design
(m) layer of e of soil Pressure
(KN/m3) Layer layer (KN/m2)
(KN/m2) (KN/m2
)
1 2 1 15 15 0 15 3 9
2 4 1 15 15 0 30 6
3 14 1 18 18 0 48 19
4.5 3 1.5 15 22.5 0 70.5 3
6 9 1.5 18 27 14.715 82.785 10
7.5 10 1.5 18 27 14.715 95.07 10
9 9 1.5 18 27 14.715 107.355 8
10 11 1 18 18 9.81 115.545 10

for d=2
B D/B Fd q all(net) (kN/m2) Area (m2) Qall (net) (KN)
1.25 1.600 1.007 257.23 1.5625 401.92
1.3 1.538 1.007 253.33 1.69 428.13
1.4 1.429 1.007 246.45 1.96 483.04
1.5 1.333 1.006 240.55 2.25 541.24
1.6 1.250 1.006 235.45 2.56 602.75

53
 1.7 1.176 1.006 230.99 2.89 667.55
1.8 1.111 1.006 227.06 3.24 735.66
1.9 1.053 1.006 223.57 3.61 807.07
2 1.000 1.330 291.59 4 1166.38
2.1 0.952 1.314 284.53 4.41 1254.78
2.2 0.909 1.300 278.20 4.84 1346.50
2.3 0.870 1.287 272.50 5.29 1441.55
2.4 0.833 1.275 267.35 5.76 1539.91
2.5 0.800 1.264 262.66 6.25 1641.60

d=2.5
B D/B Fd q all(net) (kN/m2) Area (m2) Qall(net) (KN)
1.25 2.000 1.008 257.40 1.5625 402.19
1.3 1.923 1.008 253.50 1.69 428.42
1.4 1.786 1.007 246.62 1.96 483.37
1.5 1.667 1.007 240.72 2.25 541.63
1.6 1.563 1.007 235.62 2.56 603.19
1.7 1.471 1.007 231.16 2.89 668.05
1.8 1.389 1.007 227.23 3.24 736.22
1.9 1.316 1.006 223.74 3.61 807.69
2 1.250 1.006 220.62 4 882.46

54
 2.1 1.190 1.006 217.81 4.41 960.54
2.2 1.136 1.006 215.27 4.84 1041.91
2.3 1.087 1.006 212.97 5.29 1126.59
2.4 1.042 1.006 210.86 5.76 1214.57
2.5 1.000 1.330 276.37 6.25 1727.31

D=3
B D/B Fd q all(net) (kN/m2) Area (m2) Qall(net) (KN)
1.25 2.400 1.008 257.52 1.5625 402.38
1.3 2.308 1.008 253.63 1.69 428.63
1.4 2.143 1.008 246.74 1.96 483.62
1.5 2.000 1.008 240.85 2.25 541.91
1.6 1.875 1.008 235.75 2.56 603.52
1.7 1.765 1.007 231.29 2.89 668.43
1.8 1.667 1.007 227.36 3.24 736.64
1.9 1.579 1.007 223.87 3.61 808.17
2 1.500 1.007 220.75 4 882.99
2.1 1.429 1.007 217.94 4.41 961.12
2.2 1.364 1.007 215.40 4.84 1042.56
2.3 1.304 1.006 213.10 5.29 1127.29
2.4 1.250 1.006 211.00 5.76 1215.33
2.5 1.200 1.006 209.07 6.25 1306.67

D=1.5 D=2 D=2.5 D=3

Qall
B (KN) Qall (KN) Qall (KN) Qall (KN)
1.25 401.54 401.922 402.19 402.3785667
1.3 427.73 428.134 428.42 428.6312134
1.4 482.57 483.035 483.37 483.6185857
1.5 715.22 541.239 541.63 541.914513
1.6 784.31 602.745 603.19 603.5180246
1.7 856.75 667.553 668.05 668.4282467
1.8 932.51 735.662 736.22 736.6443963

55
 1.9 1011.61 807.072 807.69 808.1657752
2 1094.03 1166.376 882.46 882.9917632
2.1 1179.76 1254.778 960.54 961.1218119
2.2 1268.82 1346.504 1041.91 1042.555438
2.3 1361.19 1441.550 1126.59 1127.292218
2.4 1456.88 1539.915 1214.57 1215.331782
2.5 1555.88 1641.596 1727.31 1306.673807

My suggestion for a new road design with a field CBR of 4% and a laboratory CBR of 12% is
to combine soil stabilizing methods with pavement reinforcing methods. While pavement
reinforcement techniques like the use of geotextiles, geogrids, and paving fabric can be used
to strengthen the road surface and increase the laboratory CBR, stabilizing techniques like lime
stabilization, cement stabilization, and bituminous stabilization can be used to improve the
field CBR of the soil. To guarantee that the road surface stays dry and does not get flooded, a
sufficient drainage system should also be provided.

56