GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION AND

FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATION REPORT

BRIDGE SITE AT KM 12+424 (BONOSHA-ACHAMO
ROAD PROJECT

Draft Report

SUBMITTED TO :YIRGALEM CONSTRUCTION PLC

MARTA ZERIHUN GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION

5/4/2022
Detail Geotechnical Investigation of Bridge Crossing
At Km 12+427(Draft) Yirgalem Construction PLC

CONTENTS
CONTENTS .......................................................................................................................................................... I

LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................................................... II

LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................................................. II

1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND ................................................................................................... 1

1.1 GENERAL ..................................................................................................................................................... 1

1.2. SCOPE OF EXPLORATION ............................................................................................................................. 1
1.3 INVESTIGATION OBJECTIVES........................................................................................................................ 3
1.4 SCOPE OF INVESTIGATION ............................................................................................................................ 3
1.5 GEOLOGICAL SETUP OF THE BRIDGE SITE.................................................................................................... 3
1.5.1: Regional and Site Geology ................................................................................................................. 3
1.6. EXISTING CONDITION OF THE CROSSING SITE............................................................................................. 5

2. INVESTIGATION METHODOLOGY AND PROCEDURES .................................................................. 7

2.1 GEOTECHNICAL CORE DRILLING ................................................................................................................. 7

2.1.1 Drilling Equipment and Operation ...................................................................................................... 8
2.2 FIELD TESTING AND SAMPLING ................................................................................................................... 9
2.3 LABORATORY SAMPLING AND LABORATORY STUDY .................................................................................12

3. GEOTECHNICAL CHARACTERIZATION .............................................................................................14

3.1 OVERVIEW ..................................................................................................................................................14

3.2 MATERIAL CLASS AND PROPERTIES............................................................................................................14
3.3 ENGINEERING GEOLOGICAL CROSS SECTION ..............................................................................................19
3.4 GROUND WATER CONDITION......................................................................................................................20

4. BEARING CAPACITY DETERMINATION .............................................................................................21

4.1. GENERAL ...................................................................................................................................................21

4.2. BEARING CAPACITY ESTIMATION ..............................................................................................................21
4.3 SETTLEMENT ANALYSIS .............................................................................................................................27
4.3.1 Differential Settlement ........................................................................................................................30
4.4 SEISMIC CEFFICIENT AND GROUND ACCELERATION ...................................................................................30

5. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION ............................................................................................32

5.1 CONCLUSION ..........................................................................................................................................32

5.2 RECOMMENDATION ....................................................................................................................................33

i
Detail Geotechnical Investigation of Bridge Crossing
At Km 12+427(Draft) Yirgalem Construction PLC

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: location map of the project and bridge location ...................................................... 2
Figure 2: GEOLOGICAL map of the project and bridge location ........................................... 6
Figure 3: proposed bridge crossing ....................................................................................... 7
Figure 4: GTL-1 (clayey sandy SILT SOIL) ......................................................................... 15
Figure 5: GTL-2 Dark brown clay ........................................................................................ 15
Figure 6: GTL-3 Dark CLAY (black cotton clay) .................................................................. 16
Figure 7: GTL-4 Yellowish/Light Brown silty clay soil .......................................................... 17
Figure 8: PLASTICITY chart ............................................................................................... 18
Figure 9: ENGINEERING geological cross-section 1 .......................................................... 19
Figure 10: ENGINEERING geological cross-section 2 ........................................................ 20
Figure 11: Seismic hazard map of Ethiopia 475 years return period, 10% probability of
exceedance in 50years (Ethiopian Building Code Standard No. 8) .................... 31

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: BOREHOLE location ............................................................................................... 8
Table 2: Summary of Exploration Activities and Tests Performed ......................................... 8
Table 3: Summary of SPT Data ............................................................................................ 9
Table 4: adjusted spt-n70 value .......................................................................................... 11
Table 5: Soil properties Correlated With Standard Penetration Test Values........................ 12
Table 6: Summary of Soil Laboratory test Results .............................................................. 13
Table 8: Summary of Geotechnical layer depths ................................................................. 17
Table 9: boreholeground water level ................................................................................... 21
Table 10: Bearing capacity of foundations from SPT data according to MEYERHOF (rewritten
by Bowls) BH1 .................................................................................................... 23
Table 11: BEARING capacity of foundations from SPT data according to MEYERHOF
(rewritten by Bowls) Bh2.................................................................................... 23
Table 12: summary of bearing capacity of foundation according to MEYERHOF (rewritten by
Bowls) Bh1 ......................................................................................................... 24
Table 13: SUMMARY OF BEARING CAPACITY OF FOUNDATION ACCORDING TO
MEYERHOF (REWRITTEN BY BOWLS) BH2 ................................................. 25
Table 14: summaRY OFbearing capacity of foundation BY MEYERHOF’S “C-F” EMPIRICAL
METHOD BH1 .................................................................................................................... 26
Table 15: SUMMARY OFBEARING CAPACITY OF FOUNDATION BY MEYERHOF’S “C-F”
EMPIRICAL METHOD BH2 ................................................................................ 26
Table 16: SUMMARY OF SETTLEMENT ANALYSIS FOR BOTH bh1 AND bh2 ................ 28
Table 17: allowable bearing capacity for 50mm settlement ................................................. 29
ii
Detail Geotechnical Investigation of Bridge Crossing
At Km 12+427(Draft) Yirgalem Construction PLC

Table 18: SUMMARY of differencial settlement and angular distortion estimation .............. 30
Table 19: SEISMIC Zone Related to Ground Acceleration .................................................. 31
Table 20: proposed foundation type, DEPTH and allowable bearing capacity..................... 32

Appendixes:
Appendix 1: Borehole logs and Cross-section
Appendix 2: laboratory test results
Appendix 3: Plates of Borehole Logs

List of Abbreviations:

BH -Boreholes
BS - British standard
Kpa -Kilo –Pascal
N-value - Number of blows for 300mm penetration
GWL -Ground Water Level
LL -Liquid Limit
PI - plasticity Index
M -meter
MM -Millimeter
GTL -Geotechnical Layer

iii
Consultancy service for Detail Engineering Design Draft site and Material Report
Chaka Park Road Project

1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

1.1 General
The project road is found in Southern Peoples Nation and Nationalities Regional State
(SNNPR) aimed to connects two administrative zones namely, Hadiya zone and Silte
zones of the region. The project road starts at Bonosha town located approximately 251
Km from the capital Addis Ababa through the route Addis Ababa –Butajira-Wulbareg -
Alaba Kulito town .From the Woulbareg –Alaba Section Bonosha town is located 8 Km
RHS from the Junction .
Climatic condition of the road project is classified as Weinadega. The mean annual rainfall
of the project area is expected to reach 1000-llOOmm with annual average temperature
is 210 c.
It is well Known that Marta Zerihun Muluneh Geotechnical Investigation had entered a
contract agreement with Yirgalem Construction Plc to carry out geotechnical
investigation of the existing bridge at Km 12+427 proposed to be constructed under part
of Bonosha-Achamo road project .According ,a drilling of two boreholes with an average
depth of 20m each has been conducted .Here, in this report the factual findings of the
geotechnical investigation with foundation recommendation is incorporated. The field
works of the geotechnical site investigation was conducted from February 14 – February
17, 2020.Location map of the project and the proposed bridge location is presented
under figure 1.

1.2. Scope of Exploration

The scope of this exploration work is outlined as follows

 Determine the type and extent of geological layers;

 Investigate the presence of ground water and identify it’s
level if encountered;
 Determine the engineering properties of the geotechnical layers constituting the
sub-surface geology of the bridge sites;
 Develop engineering recommendations to guide design and construction of
the project.
We accomplished these activities by:
1. Drilling total of two exploratory boreholes at bridge site located at
Km 12+427 abutment locations to explore the sub surface soil and
ground water conditions;

1
Detail Geotechnical Investigation of Bridge Crossing
At Km 12+427(Draft) Yirgalem Construction PLC

FIGURE 1: LOCATION MAP OF THE PROJECT AND BRIDGE LOCATION

2
Detail Geotechnical Investigation of Bridge Crossing
At Km 12+427(Draft) Yirgalem Construction PLC

2. Performing laboratory tests on selected representative soil samples collected

from the boreholes to evaluate pertinent engineering properties;
3. Reviewing available geologic literature and soil mapping information;
1.3 Investigation Objectives
The purpose of this exploration is generally to identify and evaluate the sub surfaces
soil profile of the bridge sites and give foundation recommendation for safe and
economic foundation design of bridge structure. This is done based on thorough
understanding of the nature of the required services, careful examination of the TOR.
The geotechnical investigation of the project was planned and implemented to meet
the following major objectives:
 To understand the surface and subsurface geological condition of
proposed project area
 To determine the material class/ type, lateral and vertical extent of earth
materials composing planned bridge sites
 To determine engineering characteristics of soil and rock mass
 To assess geotechnical performance of the planned bridge sites
foundation and thickness of overburden
 Monitoring and characterizing the groundwater condition
within investigation depth if any
 Foundation analysis and recommendations

1.4 Scope of Investigation

The Geotechnical investigation has addressed the following scopes:
 Geotechnical core drilling to at each bridge pier and abutment
 Standard penetration tests on soil mass
 Representative samples were collected and tested in the laboratory for index
and engineering properties
 Seismic Hazard Assessment and
 Geotechnical investigation report of the study is produced

1.5 Geological Setup of the Bridge Site

1.5.1: Regional and Site Geology

The lithology which the proposed road alignment and the bridge site found is dominantly
coved with is tuff and ignimbrite formation (Qig) .The existing geological formations within
and nearby the project site are;

3
Detail Geotechnical Investigation of Bridge Crossing
At Km 12+427(Draft) Yirgalem Construction PLC

Rhyolitic Volcanic Complexes (Qr)

The Quaternary central volcanic complexes which are situated along the axial zone~ of
the Main Ethiopian Rift (Wonji Fault Belt) and Afar have produced peralkaline lavas and
pyroclastics. On most of the volcanoes recent stages of activity are marked by obsidian
flows, pumice, and ignimbrite, tuff and scoriaceous basalt eruptions. However, most of
the basalt flows have fissural origin from later fractures of the Wonji Fault Belt, which in
some instances dissect even the volcanoes. The products of the volcanoes range from
trachytes to peralkaline rhyolites (pantellerites and commendites). The oldest reported
KIAr age from the central volcanoes of the Wonji Fault Belt are, from Bosete Volcano is
1.6 Ma (Morbeddelli et a!., 1975). In the project area this unit comprised of large volumes
of rhyolitic lava flows and domes, and obsidians with interlayers of pyroclastics.

Ignimbrites (Nig)
This Ignimbrite rock is characterized by brownish and grayish green, crystal rich,
commonly contains crystals of anorthoclase, quartz, and trace amphiboles and
pyroxenes. Locally showing cooling joints, with exposed thickness of up to 100 m. A good
exposure of ignimbrite flows are found as faulted block exposed along west Abaya fault.
Here, the ignimbrite is vertically jointed, laterally fissured and fractured with thermal
manifestations along the weak zones. The reported isotopic age for the ignimbrites is 4.4
Ma (EIGS-GEP, 1981) which makes them correlable with Nazret Group Ignimbrites of the
northern and central MER.

Tuff and Ignimbrites (Qig)

This unit comprised of both tuff and ignimbrites, which the study area and bridge location
is represented and forming hill and flat top ridges dissected by rivers and valleys. The tuff
is represented by alternate lithic and crystal tuffs. The lithic tuffs are banded, dark grey in
color and composed mainly of lithic fragments, up to 15 mm across, and less crystal
fragments set in a finer-grained tuffaceous matrix. Lithic tuffs are mainly composed of
rock fragments with minor crystal and glass fragments embedded in a fine tuffaceous
groundmass. The rock fragments are represented by rhyolites. The crystal fragments are
usually angular in shape and mainly represented by plagioclase, quartz and rare
feldspars. The crystal tuffs are banded and greyish buff in color. The crystal fragments
are represented by plagioclase, hornblende, quartz, and feldspars. The crystal tuffs
consist essentially of quartz, plagioclase and potash feldspar crystal fragments
embedded in reddish brown aphanitic matrix. The phenocrysts occur either as discrete
crystals or as aggregates.
Ignimbrite is grayish brown, weakly welded and lithic rich, which consist of pumice
fragments, fiamme, glass shards and lithic fragments. The lithic fragments comprise
mainly volcanics, which are embedded in fine microcrystalline ash-rich matrix. The
4
Detail Geotechnical Investigation of Bridge Crossing
At Km 12+427(Draft) Yirgalem Construction PLC

fiamme reach up to 5 cm length and show regular orientation. At places, ignimbrite is

welded, in which the matrix shows well-developed welding around crystals and lithic
fragments. In river valleys the ignimbrites are mantled by Quaternary volcaniclastic
sediments (unit Qvs), which may suggest that the ignimbrites are older than the
sediments.

Basalts (Q)

This unit is exposed either covering flat lying plains or discontinuous hills. In areas crop
out as plains and discontinuous hills and knops, these basaltic flows are observed as
interlayers of vesicular, amygdaloidal and aphanitic basalts. They are commonly fresh
and massive; but at places they are moderately to highly weathered and jointed. The
vesicular basalts contain oval to irregular vesicles, which makes up to 30 % of the volume
of the rock. The amygdaloidal basalts contain amygdules dominantly calcite filled with few
silica filled.

Sediments (Qpw)

The sediments are horizontally bedded poorly to moderately indurated fluvio-lacustrine

sediments (siltstone, mudstone), with interbedded reworked and water-lain pumice and
ash crop. The sediments are Mio-Pliocene to Quaternary in age.

Geological map of the project site is presented under figure 2.

1.6. Existing Condition of the Crossing Site

The bridge site where it crosses the river is generally characterized by nearly flat to
rolling/mountainous topographical feature. The crossing is located on straight channel
and the river is characterized by an intermittent flow type. The river bed materials in most
cases are dominantly constituted of silty clay and clayey soil.

The existing bridge is located nearly 300 m LHS of the newly proposed crossing site .The
masonry abutment found at Achamo side is under failure and the timely construction of
this proposed structure is crucial.

The proposed crossing and field investigation activity is presented under figure 3.
5
Detail Geotechnical Investigation of Bridge Crossing
At Km 12+427(Draft) Yirgalem Construction PLC

FIGURE 2: GEOLOGICAL MAP OF THE PROJECT AND BRIDGE LOCATION

6
Detail Geotechnical Investigation of Bridge Crossing
At Km 12+427(Draft) Yirgalem Construction PLC

Newly proposed crossing site at km 12+427

FIGURE 3: PROPOSED BRIDGE CROSSING

2. INVESTIGATION METHODOLOGY AND PROCEDURES

The site investigation was conducted by deploying one Spindle type core drilling rigs
having the capacity to perform boring operations to the required standard and quality.
Main tasks undertaken as per the requirements for the geotechnical investigation are;
1. Rotary core drilling,
2. Field testing and sampling
3. Laboratory testing

2.1 Geotechnical Core Drilling

For the existing soil formation dry drilling method has been utilized using single core
barrels fitted with appropriate size tungsten carbide bits (locally named Jambo bit) at the
bottom in order to achieve good quality core recovery. Telescopic drilling was used where
by the drilling size was reduced progressively starting from 108mm hole for the first 1
meter drilling and reduced to HQ diameter 89mm is used till completion depth.
Geotechnical core drilling of the current project is associated with such purposes as:
obtaining subsurface material stratification to reasonable depths, to obtain samples of
7
Detail Geotechnical Investigation of Bridge Crossing
At Km 12+427(Draft) Yirgalem Construction PLC

subsurface materials for direct physical examination and laboratory studies, and to assess
ground water condition of the site.
Dry drilling method has been utilized for soil formation. When the formation is rock, water
was pumped down through hollow drill rods in order to lubricate the bit and flushing the
cuttings up the borehole.
For the current project, two boreholes are drilled, 20m each. Accordingly, a total depth of
40m core drilling has been carried out for the project site investigation.
In conjunction with drilling, the following activities were performed:
 Standard Penetration Testing (SPT)
 Shelby sampler with 89mm used to collect undisturbed samples and
 Ground water observation,
The co-ordinates of drilled boreholes are tabulated as follow;
TABLE 1: BOREHOLE LOCATION

Borehole Structure Easting Northing Elevation amsl,m

ID

BH1 Abutment Bonosha Side 37+397946 840115 1920

BH2 Abutment Achamo Siede 37+397931 840099 1907

2.1.1 Drilling Equipment and Operation

Equipment to conduct in-situ testing and sampling, such as SPT apparatus including split
spoon sampler, Shelby sampler used to collect undisturbed samples, water pump, rods,
casings and a wide range of heavy-duty tools were used during the drilling operation.
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 presented under Annex
3.
Table 2: Summary of Exploration Activities and Tests Performed

Type of Investigation /Test Unit Quantity

Field Investigation (Drilling at Km 12+427
BH-1: Bonosha Side Abutment m 20
BH2: Achamo Side Abutment m 20.8
8
Detail Geotechnical Investigation of Bridge Crossing
At Km 12+427(Draft) Yirgalem Construction PLC

Laboratory Tests
Atterberg Limit No. 22
No.
Grain Size Analysis 22
No.
Natural Moisture Content 22
No.
Hydrometer 2
No.
Consolidation 4
No.
Direct Shear 4
No.
UCS Soil 4
No.
Triaxial (Cu) 2
Chemical Analysis of water :PH ,Sulphate Content ,Cloride Content No. 1
and TDS
2.2 Field Testing and Sampling
The Standard Penetration Test (SPT) utilizes a 51mm external diameter and 450mm long
thick-walled split spoon tube sampler driven into the ground under the impact of semi-
automatic sliding hammer weighing 63.5kg through a free fall height of 760mm in
accordance with test procedure mentioned in test No. 19 of BS 1377; 19750. The 'N'
value, which is the measure of the density or consistency of the ground under testing is
recorded as the number of hammer blows required to achieve penetration of the last
300mm. The initial blows required to penetrate the first 150mm are normally regarded as
seating blows to allow for any disturbed materials at the bottom of the borehole, and are
discarded. Upon completion of the test, the sampler tube is removed and disassembled
to obtain disturbed' but representative sample of the tested ground.
In occasions where the SPT is not feasible, i.e. where the gravelly soils are encountered,
CPT test was performed in some boreholes. The test is performed in a similar procedure
with the SPT except replacing the cutting shoe of the SPT apparatus with a 60 degree
cone.
TABLE 3: SUMMARY OF SPT DATA

BH Depth of N SPT N-value /300m N count

count
2.00 3/7/8 15
4.00 2/2/3 5
BH-1 6.00 5/8/13 21
8.00 5/7/7 14
9
Detail Geotechnical Investigation of Bridge Crossing
At Km 12+427(Draft) Yirgalem Construction PLC

(12+427)
10.00 7/10/13 23

Bonsha side 12.00 8/12/14 26

14.00 10/11/15 26
16.00 10/13/16 29
18.00 10/15/20 35
3.00 4/6/7 13
5.00 6/8/12 20
BH-2
7.00 5/6/8 14
9.00 8/9/12 21

(12+427) 11.00 9/10/13 23

13.00 7/11/13 24
Achamo side
15.00 8/11/15 26
17.00 10/14/15 29
19.00 13/8/21 29
20.00 10/12/15 27

The measured penetration resistance (N) could not be directly used for further
geotechnical evaluations as the theoretical input energy is believed to be affected by
several factors. The hammer efficiency, diameter of borehole, drill rod length, the type of
sampler involved, and the over burden pressure are known factors to be considered in
the approximation of the amount of energy which is transferred to the actual penetration
driving energy.

Er = (actual hammer energy to sampler, Ea/ Input energy, Ein) x 100, or

Er = (Ea/Ein)*100
The standard blow count is adjusted by correcting the N/300mm -values to the hammer
type (ŋ1), the rod length (ŋ2), the sampler (ŋ3), the borehole diameter (ŋ)4, and the
overburden pressure (CN) of the foundation level as:

N'70 = CN x (N/300mm) x ŋ1xŋ2xŋ3xŋ4 …………………………………………………………..Eq.1

Where: CN = (p"o/p'o) 0.5 = (95.76kPa/γD)0.5

γ= Unit weight of the soil
D = Footing level of the foundation
Hammer type (ŋ1)
10
Detail Geotechnical Investigation of Bridge Crossing
At Km 12+427(Draft) Yirgalem Construction PLC

Rod length (ŋ2) correction: if 0-4m= 0.75

4-6m=0.85
6-10=0.95
>10=1
Sampler correction (ŋ3): Without liner=1
With liner, dense sand, clay= 0.8
Loose sand=0.9
B.H. diameter correction (ŋ4): If 60-120mm=1
150mm=1.05
00mm=1.15

The average N'70 values in the zone of interest between 1/2B above and 2B below the
footing depth will be considered in the computation of bearing capacity. The corrected
SPT N value is tabulated under table 4.

TABLE 4: ADJUSTED SPT-N70 VALUE

Depth of N Adjusted-
BH count Er Rod length Hole diam. N count Cn η1 η2 η3 η4 N N70
2.45 55 4.95 89 15 18 1.47 0.79 .85 1 1.0 14.76 15
89
4.45 55 6.95 5 18 1.09 0.79 .95 1 1.0 4.08 4
89
6.45 55 8.95 21 18 0.91 0.79 .95 1 1.0 14.24 14
89
8.45 55 10.95 14 18 0.79 0.79 1 1 1.0 8.73 9
BH- 89
1 10.45 55 12.95 23 18 0.71 0.79 1 1 1.0 12.89 13
89
12.45 55 14.95 26 18 0.65 0.79 1 1 1.0 13.35 13
89
14.45 55 16.95 26 18 0.61 0.79 1 1 1.0 12.40 12
89
16.45 55 18.95 29 18 0.57 0.79 1 1 1.0 12.96 13
89
18.45 55 20.95 35 18 0.54 0.79 1 1 1.0 14.77 15
89
3.45 55 5.95 13 18 1.24 0.79 0.85 1 1.0 10.78 11
89
5.45 55 7.95 20 18 0.99 0.79 0.85 1 1.0 13.20 13
9.95 89
7.45 55 14 18 0.85 0.79 0.85 1 1.0 7.90 8
11.95 89
9.45 55 21 18 0.75 0.79 0.85 1 1.0 10.52 11
13.95 89
BH- 11.45 55 23 18 0.68 0.79 0.85 1 1.0 10.47 10
2 89
13.45 55 15.95 24 18 0.63 0.79 0.85 1 1.0 10.08 10
17.95 89
15.45 55 26 18 0.59 0.79 0.85 1 1.0 10.19 10
19.95 89
17.45 55 29 18 0.55 0.79 0.85 1 1.0 10.69 11
21.95 89
19.45 55 29 18 0.52 0.79 0.85 1 1.0 10.13 10
22.95 89
20.45 55 27 18 0.51 0.79 0.85 1 1.0 9.20 9

11
Detail Geotechnical Investigation of Bridge Crossing
At Km 12+427(Draft) Yirgalem Construction PLC

The N-values of the SPT are an indication of the relative density of cohesion less soil and
consistency of cohesion soil. According to Peck et al. (1953), general N-values ranges
are corrected with relative density and consistency as presented in the table 5 below.

TABLE 5: SOIL PROPERTIES CORRELATED WITH STANDARD PENETRATION TEST VALUES

Cohesion less Soil Cohesive Soil

Number of Blows Relative Density Number of Blows Consistency

per 0.3 m (1 ft), N per 0.3 m (1 ft), N

0-4 Very Loose Below 2 Very Soft

4-10 Loose 2-4 Soft

10-30 Medium 4-8 Medium

30-50 Dense 8-15 Stiff

Over 50 Very Dense 15-30 Very Stiff

2.3 Laboratory Sampling and Laboratory Study

Soil and water samples were collected during the field geotechnical investigation works
from the core drilling and SPT recovery. Desired disturbed and undisturbed soil samples,
and water samples were collected, where favorable geotechnical layers are encountered
as shown on the log sheets. The samples have been transported to the central laboratory
of the company in order to perform the required tests.

A total of 22 disturbed soil samples and 10 undisturbed samples of SPT split spoon and
shelby samples were collected for natural moisture content, classification, atterberg limit,
direct shear, unconfined compressive strength of soil (UCS), consolidation and triaxial
(Cu) test .In addition to this, ground water sample has been taken from BH-2 bridge site,
where deeper groundwater has been encountered at 18m below the NGL. Therefore, in
order to assess the anticipated chemical attack on the foundation .The sample is tested
for PH, chloride and sulphate content .The representative sample depth and type of tests
with the corresponding results is tabulated under table 6.

12
 Detail Geotechnical Investigation of Bridge Crossing
At Km 12+427(Draft) Yirgalem Construction PLC

TABLE 6: SUMMARY OF SOIL LABORATORY TEST RESULTS

Sample
Grain size Analysis Atterberg Limits
Depth
consolidatio
direct shear
n

Natural Moisture

and
Fine (silt
Sample ID

(m)

Gravel(%)
UCS(K

Sand(%)
ɸ

PL(%)
LL(%)
C Cc e0 pa)

PI(%)
clay)
2.00-2.45 13.64 0 35.94 64.06 27.72 21.39 6.33

4-4.45 33.44 0 29.76 70.24 42.37 29.41 12.96

6-6.45 13.05 0 7.99 92.01 62.88 35.5 27.38

8-8.45 11.53 0 4.51 95.49 41.41 30.19 11.22

10-10.45 41.31 3.09 7.34 89.57 79.51 43.19 36.32

12-12.45 39.88 0 19.12 80.88 59.14 34.43 24.71

BH - 1 14-14.45 42.99 0 2.73 97.27 80.06 44.45 35.61

16-16.45 36.89 0 12.58 87.42 54.69 36.35 18.34

18-18.45 45.86 0 4.41 95.59 62.18 38.75 23.43

7.45-7.75

9.55-9.85 0.26
(Undisturbe 3 1.286 237.46
d)

11.55- 0.24
11.70(Undis 10.5 20.05 2 1.452 28.4
turbed)

3.00-3.45 26.93 0 4.62 95.38 65.98 39.81 26.17

5-5.45 25.52 0 4.3 95.7 57.6 34.26 23.34

7-7.45 33.56 0 1.44 98.56 59.7 37.36 22.34

9-9.45 26.18 0 1.43 98.57 57.36 36.8 20.56

BH - 2
11-11.45 36.42 0 1.47 98.53 76.63 46.48 30.15

13-13.45 26.03 0 4.62 95.38 65.98 39.81 26.17

15-15.45 41.77 0 1.17 98.83 80.77 47.66 33.11

17-17.45 19.28 0 6.37 93.63 46.74 32.54 14.2 21 16.7

13
Detail Geotechnical Investigation of Bridge Crossing
At Km 12+427(Draft) Yirgalem Construction PLC

19-19.45 55.97 0 11.71 88.29 56.44 40.99 15.45

20-20.45 13.33 0 4.55 95.45 NP NP

6.45-6.70 7.0 0.32

(Undisturbe 0 19.8 7 1.381
d)

8.45-8.75
(Undisturbe
d)
11.45-11.85 0.25
(Undisturbe 57 28.37 8 1.348 237.89
d)

12.45-12.85
213.51
(Undisturbe
d)
17:00-17:45 21.0 16.7
0

3. GEOTECHNICAL CHARACTERIZATION
3.1 Overview
The project’s bridge construction site is required to be characterized for the existing
material class, representative index and engineering properties and suitability/associating
geotechnical problems with respect to the purpose planned. The geotechnical
characterization has made its basis on desk review, field work and laboratory test
outcomes and existing technical standards and practical experiences.

3.2 Material Class and Properties

The geotechnical drilling core recoveries from a bridge at a location of 12+427 (2
boreholes) intercepted soil layers that compose the proposed construction site. The
project site is generally made up mainly Black Silty Clay soil material. Based on their
mode of occurrence and properties, the foundation materials are characterized and
subdivided into the following geotechnical layers.

GTL-1: CLAYEY SANDY SILT SOIL

This geotechnical layer is designated as Geotechnical Layer 1 (GTL 1), which is

encountered at the top of all layers. Its nature is clayey sandy Silt nature with brownish to
grayish in color and ranges from loose to dense in consistency. At BH-1 (Bonasha side)
abutment it is stratified from 0-3.50m from the NGL .Whereas at BH-2 (Achamo Side
Abutment) it laid from 0-2m. In general the layer has no gravel content and its plasticity is
classified under low to medium silt soil.
14
Detail Geotechnical Investigation of Bridge Crossing
At Km 12+427(Draft) Yirgalem Construction PLC

Location : Km 12+427 (Bonosha Side) BH1 Depth (m):0.00-2.00

FIGURE 4: GTL-1 (CLAYEY SANDY SILT SOIL)

GTL-2: DARK BROWN CLAY

This geotechnical layer is identified by dark brown-black in color and its consistency
ranges from medium stiff. At BH-1 (Bonasha side) abutment it is stratified from 3.5-8.00
from the NGL .Whereas, at BH-2 (Achamo Side Abutment) it laid from 2.00-12.00m.
Furthermore, this layer is characterized by its medium -high degree of plasticity.

Location : Km 12+427 (Bonosha BH1 Depth (m):3.5.00-8.00

Side)

FIGURE 5: GTL-2 DARK BROWN CLAY

15
Detail Geotechnical Investigation of Bridge Crossing
At Km 12+427(Draft) Yirgalem Construction PLC

GTL-3: DARK CLAY (BLACK COTTN SOIL)

This geotechnical layer consists of black cotton soil materials. This geotechnical layer is
similar to Geotechnical Layer 2 except its color and consistency of the soil. It consists of
mainly medium to high plastic, moderately stiff soil. It is found in both abutment sides: at
BH-1 it is found from 8.00-17.80m and at BH-2 it is laid from depth 12-16m from the NGL.

Location : Km 12+427 (Bonosha Side) BH2 Depth (m):12.00-16.00

FIGURE 6: GTL-3 DARK CLAY (BLACK COTTON CLAY)

GTL-4: Yellowish/Light Brown Silty Sandy Soil

This layer is identified as Yellowish/Light Brown silty clay soil and its consistency ranges
from medium to dense. In addition to this, the layer has low to non-plastic property as it
contains sandy silt completely decomposed soil. It is found in It is found in both Sides
Abutment at BH-1 at a depth of 17.80-20.00m and at BH-2 in a depth of 16.00-20.00m.

16
Detail Geotechnical Investigation of Bridge Crossing
At Km 12+427(Draft) Yirgalem Construction PLC

Location : Km 12+427 (Achamo Side) BH2 Depth (m):16.00-20.00

FIGURE 7: GTL-4 YELLOWISH/LIGHT BROW N SILTY CLAY SOIL

Bridge Lithology
Borehole
Abutment
Location Side
Name Gtl-1(M) Gtl-2(M) Gtl-3(M) Gtl-4(M)

Clayey Dark Brown Dark Clay Yellowish/L

BH-1 Bonsha Side 0-3.50 3.50-8.00 8-17.80 17.80-
Sandy Clay (Black ight Brown
(12+427) 20.00
Silt Soil Cottn Soil) Silty Sandy
BH-2 Achamo Side 0-2.00 2.00-12.00 12.00- 16.00-
Soil
(12+427)
(12+427) 16.00 20.00

TABLE 7: SUMMARY OF GEOTECHNICAL LAYER DEPTHS

(12+427)

The grain size analysis and Atterberg limit laboratory data were interpreted as per Unified
Soil Classification System to group the investigated soils.

17
Detail Geotechnical Investigation of Bridge Crossing
At Km 12+427(Draft) Yirgalem Construction PLC

80

70

LL = 50
60
Plasticity Index (PI)

50

40
CH
30
CL
20

10 MH
7 CL - ML ML
4
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
Liqiud Limit (LL)

FIGURE 8: PLASTICITY CHART

According to the above plasticity chart the existing in-situ soil material found at the project
site can be classified as highly plastic Silt (MH) and highly plastic clay (CH) with little area
coverage low plastic clay and low plastic silt.
Further characteristics of fine soils have been made using terms for description of
plasticity index classes. The laboratory results of the soils were classified as: Non-plastic
(PI<1), slightly plastic (PI: 1-7), moderately plastic (PI: 7-17), highly plastic (PI: 17-35),
and extremely plastic (PI>35). Classification of degree of expansion and swelling potential
was also made using plasticity index results as per USBR as:
 Low Degree of Expansion (PI:<20) will have Swelling Potential <1.5
 Medium Degree of Expansion (PI:20-30) will have Swelling Potential, 1.5-4.0
 High Degree of Expansion (PI:31-39) will have Swelling Potential, 4.0-6.0
 Very High Degree of Expansion (PI:>39) will have Swelling Potential,>6.0
Compressibility of fine soils of the foundation has also been determined using Liquid Limit
as:
 Low compressibility (LL: < 35%)
 Medium compressibility (LL: 35 - 50 %)
 High compressibility (LL :> 50%)

18
Detail Geotechnical Investigation of Bridge Crossing
At Km 12+427(Draft) Yirgalem Construction PLC

According to the above classification guideline area the soil materials have a minimum
plasticity index of 6.33% and maximum plasticity of 36.32.This figures implying that the
material is susceptible to from low to medium degree of expansion. The laboratory liquid
limit test results of the site soil samples have a minimum liquid limit of 27.72% and
maximum liquid limit of 80.77% which exhibits the in-situ soil have medium to high degree
of compressibility.

3.3 Engineering Geological Cross section

A geologic section showing a spatial model of the ground conditions is obtained by
interpolating the borings for which corresponding logs are presented in annex 1.
According to this section, the subsurface geology of the bridge crossing sites are divided
into four major geotechnical layers which are taken in to account for the proposed
foundation design.
The site geology of the bridge crossings are generally represented by various soil
formations. Brief description of the layers of each bridge site showed under figure 9 and
figure 10 respectively.

FIGURE 9: ENGINEERING GEOLOGICAL CROSS-SECTION 1

19
Detail Geotechnical Investigation of Bridge Crossing
At Km 12+427(Draft) Yirgalem Construction PLC

FIGURE 10: ENGINEERING GEOLOGICAL CROSS-SECTION 2

3.4 Ground Water Condition

Ground water was found at BH2 abutment location of the bridge and representative water
sample has been collected and tested for corrosion potential on the foundation structure
which included chloride content, sulphate content and total dissolved salts. Laboratory
test results revealed that the tested parameters are within the acceptable limit and no
corrosion attack is expected on the foundation structure. Test result of the water sample
is presented in appendix 2 of this report.
20
Detail Geotechnical Investigation of Bridge Crossing
At Km 12+427(Draft) Yirgalem Construction PLC

Limiting values for these measured parameters, as per ERA Technical Specification-2013
series 8000 divisions 8402 is given below: Chloride content (as Cl2) shall not exceed 400
mg/l.
 Sulphate content (as SO3) shall not exceed 500 mg/l.
 pH shall be between 7 to 9
 TDS (Total Dissolved Solid) less than 2000 mg/l
TABLE 8: BOREHOLEGROUND WATER LEVEL

Bore Hole Location Ground water Level(M)

BH-1 (Bonsha side) Nill
BH-2 (Achamo side) 18m

4. BEARING CAPACITY DETERMINATION

4.1. General
Foundation recommendation refers to the determination of the bearing layer depth,
allowable pressure on the bearing layer 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.
The allowable bearing pressure is the maximum net intensity of loading that can be
imposed on the soil with no possibility of shear failure or the possibility of excessive
settlement. It is hence the smaller of the net safe bearing capacity (shear failure criterion)
and the safe bearing pressure (settlement criterion) that should be considered. As a result
considering the materials properties of the project site and the foundation condition is
analyzed taking into account the strength and settlement characteristics.
Determination of foundation depth depends on factors such as the sub surface
characteristics, nature of the structure, loads exerted by the structure.
To decide proper foundation depth, determination of maximum scour depth that can occur
at the crossing site is necessary. Foundation at stream crossing shall be founded at a
depth of at least 0.60m below the maximum anticipated depth of scour as specified in the
ERA drainage Design Manual-2013, chapter 8: Bridge section 8.7: Bridge scour and
Aggradation.

4.2. Bearing Capacity Estimation

21
Detail Geotechnical Investigation of Bridge Crossing
At Km 12+427(Draft) Yirgalem Construction PLC

The soil bearing capacity is primarily estimated from SPT data according to Meyerhof
(rewritten by bowels) then the bearing capacity of foundation is determined by considering
the “C-F” criterion according to Meyerhof’s empirical equation.

1) Using Soil Bearing Capacity Based on Empirical Equation /SPT/CPT Test Data

SPT/CPT values are used to calculate the bearing capacity of bearing layer. The depths
at which the SPT/CPT N-values, the SPT/CPT N-values and the adjusted N-values (i.e.,
N’70) are given below and they are considered for determining the design N-values.The
bearing capacity of foundations from SPT data according to Meyerhof (rewritten by
Bowles) ,(Bowles, 1997) is given by:

𝑁 𝐵+𝐹3
𝑞𝑎 = 𝐹2 ( 𝐵
) ^2 × 𝐾𝑑 𝐵 > 𝐹4…………………………………….Eq 2

Where qa =allowable bearing pressure for ∆𝐻0 =25m in settlement, 𝐾𝑝𝑎 ,Ksf
𝐾𝑑 = 1 + 0. 33𝐷⁄𝐵 ≤ 1.33 [As suggested by Meyerhof (1965)]
𝑞𝑎𝑙𝑙 = 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
After adjusting the N-values, a design N-values are chosen from consecutive depths
where the test is performed. The design N-values are taken as the average of adjusted
N-values which are found in between 3/4 B above and 2B below the proposed footing
depths where B is the width of the foundation.
The following allowable bearing capacity values are calculated for different foundation
widths at the respective depths for settlement limited to 25mm. Foundation width is a
significant parameter since a large foundation width will affect the soil to a greater depth
and strains integrated over a greater depth will produce a larger settlement. Furthermore,
depth of proposed foundation level consider the maximum anticipated scour depth which
will be actually estimated and used during the final submission of the report.
By considering the aforementioned empirical and theoretical scenarios different footing
depth i.e.3, 3.5, 4.0, 4.5, 5.0, and 5.5m are considered for different foundation widths
(perpendicular to the river flow direction) of 3.0, 4.0, 5.0, 6.0, 7.0 and 8.0m are considered
for the computation of bearing capacity. The existing river bed is found 5.3 m below the

22
Detail Geotechnical Investigation of Bridge Crossing
At Km 12+427(Draft) Yirgalem Construction PLC

Natural Ground Level. The estimated bearing capacity in KN by including 20 % seismic

reduction factor is tabulated under table 10 for BH1 and table 11 for BH2 respectively.
TABLE 9: BEARING CAPACITY OF FOUNDATIONS FROM SPT DATA ACCORDING TO MEYERHOF
(REWRITTEN BY BOWLS) BH1

Width,
BH S B Depth N70 F1 F2 F3 Kd Q-all Qall-for EQ
25 3 3 11.6 0.04 0.06 0.3 1.33 311.13 248.9
25 4 3 12.7 0.04 0.06 0.3 1.25 305.15 244.1
25 5 3 12.7 0.04 0.06 0.3 1.20 284.92 227.9
25 6 3 12.7 0.04 0.06 0.3 1.17 271.87 217.5
25 7 3 12.7 0.04 0.06 0.3 1.14 262.75 210.2
25 8 3 12.7 0.04 0.06 0.3 1.12 256.03 204.8
25 4 3.5 12.7 0.04 0.06 0.3 1.29 315.24 252.2
25 5 3.5 12.7 0.04 0.06 0.3 1.23 292.77 234.2
25 6 3.5 12.7 0.04 0.06 0.3 1.19 278.28 222.6
25 7 3.5 12.7 0.04 0.06 0.3 1.17 268.18 214.5
25 8 3.5 12.7 0.04 0.06 0.3 1.14 260.73 208.6
25 4 4 12.7 0.04 0.06 0.3 1.33 325.33 260.3
25 5 4 12.7 0.04 0.06 0.3 1.26 300.62 240.5
BH-1 25 6 4 12.7 0.04 0.06 0.3 1.22 284.70 227.8
25 7 4 12.7 0.04 0.06 0.3 1.19 273.61 218.9
25 8 4 12.7 0.04 0.06 0.3 1.17 265.43 212.3
25 5 4.5 12.7 0.04 0.06 0.3 1.30 308.46 246.8
25 6 4.5 12.7 0.04 0.06 0.3 1.25 291.12 232.9
25 7 4.5 12.7 0.04 0.06 0.3 1.21 279.03 223.2
25 8 4.5 12.7 0.04 0.06 0.3 1.19 270.13 216.1
25 5 5 12.7 0.04 0.06 0.3 1.33 316.31 253.0
25 6 5 12.7 0.04 0.06 0.3 1.28 297.54 238.0
25 7 5 12.7 0.04 0.06 0.3 1.24 284.46 227.6
25 8 5 12.7 0.04 0.06 0.3 1.21 274.83 219.9
25 6 5.5 12.7 0.04 0.06 0.3 1.30 303.95 243.2
25 7 5.5 12.7 0.04 0.06 0.3 1.26 289.89 231.9
25 8 5.5 12.7 0.04 0.06 0.3 1.23 279.53 223.6

TABLE 10: BEARING CAPACITY OF FOUNDATIONS FROM SPT DATA ACCORDING TO MEYERHOF
(REWRITTEN BY BOWLS) BH2

Width,
BH
S B Depth N70 F1 F2 F3 Kd Q-all Qall-for EQ
188BH- 25 4 3 10.4 0.04 0.06 0.3 1.25 249.88 199.9
2 25 5 3 10.4 0.04 0.06 0.3 1.20 233.32 186.7

23
Detail Geotechnical Investigation of Bridge Crossing
At Km 12+427(Draft) Yirgalem Construction PLC

25 6 3 10.4 0.04 0.06 0.3 1.17 223.24 178.6

25 7 3 10.4 0.04 0.06 0.3 1.14 215.76 172.6
25 8 3 10.4 0.04 0.06 0.3 1.12 209.67 167.7
25 4 3.5 10.4 0.04 0.06 0.3 1.29 258.15 206.5
25 5 3.5 10.3 0.04 0.06 0.3 1.23 237.44 190.0
25 6 3.5 10.3 0.04 0.06 0.3 1.19 225.70 180.6
25 7 3.5 10.3 0.04 0.06 0.3 1.17 217.50 174.0
25 8 3.5 10.3 0.04 0.06 0.3 1.14 211.46 169.2
25 4 4 10.3 0.04 0.06 0.3 1.33 263.85 211.1
25 5 4 10.3 0.04 0.06 0.3 1.26 243.81 195.0
25 6 4 10.3 0.04 0.06 0.3 1.22 230.90 184.7
25 7 4 10.3 0.04 0.06 0.3 1.19 221.90 177.5
25 8 4 10.3 0.04 0.06 0.3 1.17 215.27 172.2
25 5 4.5 10.3 0.04 0.06 0.3 1.30 250.17 200.1
25 6 4.5 10.3 0.04 0.06 0.3 1.25 236.10 188.9
25 7 4.5 10.3 0.04 0.06 0.3 1.21 226.30 181.0
25 8 4.5 10.3 0.04 0.06 0.3 1.19 219.08 175.3
25 5 5 10.3 0.04 0.06 0.3 1.24 256.54 205.2
25 6 5 10.3 0.04 0.06 0.3 1.33 241.31 193
25 7 5 10.3 0.04 0.06 0.3 1.28 230.7 184.6
25 8 5 10.3 0.04 0.06 0.3 1.24 222.89 178.3
25 6 5.5 10.3 0.04 0.06 0.3 1.21 246.51 197.2
25 7 5.5 10.3 0.04 0.06 0.3 1.30 235.1 188.1
25 8 5.5 10.3 0.04 0.06 0.3 1.26 22.81 181.4

From the above table, the allocated different footing depth and width results a bearing
capacity range of 205-249 Kpa for BH1 and 168-200 Kpa for BH2 respectively. Summary
of bearing capacity for different width and height is tabulated under table 12 and table 13.
TABLE 11: SUMMARY OF BEARING CAPACITY OF FOUNDATION ACCORDING TO MEYERHOF
(REWRITTEN BY BOWLS) BH1

BH1/ Bonosha Side Abutment

Width of 3 4 5 6 7 8
foundation (B) , m
Depth of footing, m
below the Allowable Bearing Capacity, KPa
lowest river
bed level, i.e
5.3m 3 249 244 228 218 210 205

24
Detail Geotechnical Investigation of Bridge Crossing
At Km 12+427(Draft) Yirgalem Construction PLC

3 252 234 223 215 209

.
4
5 260 241 228 219 212

4 247 233 223 216

.
5
5 253 238 228 220

5 243 232 224

.
5
TABLE 12: SUMMARY OF BEARING CAPACITY OF FOUNDATION ACCORDING TO MEYERHOF
(REWRITTEN BY BOWLS) BH2

BH-2 / Achamo Side

Abutment
Width of foundation (B), m 4 5 6 7 8

Depth of footing, m below the

lowest river bed level, i.e Allowable Bearing Capacity, KPa
5.3 m

3 199.9 186.7 178.6 172.6 167.7

3.5 206.5 190 180.6 174 169.2

4 211.1 195 184.7 177.5 172.2

4.5 200.1 188.9 181.0 175.3

5 205 193 184.6 178.3

5.5 197 188.1 181.4

B, Bearing Capacity of Foundation Using “C-F’ According to Meyerhof’s Equation

In addition to the bearing capacity of foundation of the proposed bridge structure by using
SPT data according to Meyerhof (rewritten by Bowles), Bowles, 1997), as presented
above the bearing capacity of structure shall be computed by adopting the direct shear
test conducted for both abutments for computing the bearing capacity of foundation by
implementing “C-F” of Meyerhof’s empirical formula;

Vertical load Qult  CN c S c d c  qN q sq d q  0.5 B ' N  S d

…………………………………..Eq .3
Inclined load Qult  CN c ic d c  qN q iq d q  0.5B ' N  i d
N q  e tan  tan 2 45   2 

25
Detail Geotechnical Investigation of Bridge Crossing
At Km 12+427(Draft) Yirgalem Construction PLC

N c  N q  1cot 
N   N q  1 tan(1.4 )
By considering the aforementioned empirical and theoretical scenarios different footing
depth i.e.3, 3.5, 4.0, 4.5, 5.0, and 5.5m are considered for different foundation widths
(perpendicular to the river flow direction) of 4.0, 5.0, 6.0, 7.0 and 8.0m are considered for
the computation of bearing capacity. The existing river bed is found 5.3 m below the
Natural Ground Level. The estimated bearing capacity in KN by including 20 % seismic
reduction factor is tabulated under table 14 for BH1 and table 15 for BH2 respectively.
TABLE 13: SUMMARY OFBEARING CAPACITY OF FOUNDATION BY MEYERHOF’S “C-F”
EMPIRICAL METHOD BH1

BH-1/Bonosha Side
Abutment
Width of foundation (B), m 4 5 6 7 8

Depth of footing, m below the

lowest river bed level, i.e Allowable Bearing Capacity, KPa
5.3 m

3 215 212 211 213 217

3.5 229 206 202 200 199

4 227 218 213 210 208

4.5 230 223 220 222

5 223 223 243 228

5.5 245 241 238

TABLE 14: SUMMARY OFBEARING CAPACITY OF FOUNDATION BY MEYERHOF’S “C-F”

EMPIRICAL METHOD BH2

BH-2/Achamo Side
Abutment
Width of foundation (B), m 4 5 6 7 8
Depth of footing, m below the
lowest river bed level, i.e Allowable Bearing Capacity, KPa
5.3m

26
Detail Geotechnical Investigation of Bridge Crossing
At Km 12+427(Draft) Yirgalem Construction PLC

3 170 167 167 150 150

3.5 170 163 159 157 157

4 179 172 168 165 165

4.5 181 176 173 172

5 191 185 182 180

5.5 194 190 188

4.3 Settlement Analysis

Settlement is another criterion for evaluating the performance of the bridge structure
because excessive settlements will result in poor performance of the structure. Different
codes set the limiting settlement for the type of the structure and foundations. The
proposed foundation shall meet this criterion.

Different kinds of settlements occur under structure in which the major ones are
immediate and consolidation settlements. These settlements depend on a number of
parameters as well as type of soils.
Settlement check for this crossing site is done by considering bearing layer beneath the
foundation. For the soil type under consideration, settlement contributed by immediate
settlement is considered. The calculation of immediate settlement is presented below.
The immediate settlement according to (Bowles, 1997).

1  2  1  2 
H  qo B  I 1  I 2  I f ………………………………………………………..Eq 4
Es  1  

1  
1 M 2 1 M 2  N 2  M  M 2 1 1 N 2   

I1 
 
M ln

M 1 M 2  N 2 1
 ln

M  M 2  N 2 1 

N  M 
I2  tan 1  
 tan-1 in rad)
2  N M  N 1 
2 2

Where:
I1, I2 are influence factors
Es –modulus of elasticity of stratum

 - Possons ratio

B - width of foundation base

qo - contact pressure
If - depth factor (embedment factor)

27
Detail Geotechnical Investigation of Bridge Crossing
At Km 12+427(Draft) Yirgalem Construction PLC

M=L’/B’
N=H/B
L - Length of foundation base
H – Depth of influence for settlement

In addition to this, the stress below the rectangular area (B times L) of the proposed bridge
is estimated by using Newark bases on Boussinesq’s Equation .

Qv=qo 1 2MN ( V )0.5 V+1 + tan-1 2MN(V) 0.5

4V+V 1V V - V1

Where: - B - width of foundation

L - Length of foundation
Z - Depth
qo - contact pressure
M = B/Z
N = L/Z
V = M2 + N2+1
V1= (MN)2
Furthermore, the primary consolidation is determined

 P  p  1
H  Cc H * log o  *
 Po  1  eo ………………………………………………Eq 5

Cc - Compression index
H - Layer thickness
Po - effective overburden pressure
P - Increase in pressure due to structural load
eo - initial void ratio of clay layer
During settlement estimation bearing capacity obtained from (C and F) by Meyerhof is
taken as the corresponding pressure obtained based on SPT as presented above and
layer of compressible soil layer under the foundation level for both immediate and
consolidation settlements for isolated foundation is checked for respective structure as
tabulated under table 16.

TABLE 15: SUMMARY OF SETTLEMENT ANALYSIS FOR BOTH BH1 AND BH2

28
Detail Geotechnical Investigation of Bridge Crossing
At Km 12+427(Draft) Yirgalem Construction PLC

BH-1/ Bonosha Side Abutment (foundation depth at 4.00 m below lowest River Bed L)

Width, m 4 5 6 7 8

Allowable Bearing Pressures 227 218 213 210 208

(kPa)
Settlement (mm) 128.5 133.2 134 136.5 139.6

BH-2/ Achamo Side Abutment (Foundation depth at 4.00 m below lowest River Bed L)

Width, m 4 5 6 7 8

Allowable Bearing Pressures 211 172 168 165.3 164.2

(kPa)
Settlement (mm) 128.2 130.2 133 134.6 136.9

For isolated footings, a total settlement of 50 mm is allowable in ES EN-7 1997:2015

code. Bowles (1997) gives a margin up to 75 mm while U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(1990) recommends 100 mm allowable settlement. Therefore, the allowable bearing
capacity for 50mm settlement is determined and summarized under table 17.
TABLE 16: ALLOWABLE BEARING CAPACITY FOR 50MM SETTLEMENT

BH-1/Bonosha side abutment (foundation depth at 4.00 m below lowest River Bed L)

Width, m 4 5 6 7 8
Allowable Bearing Pressures 88 82 79 77 75
(kPa)

Settlement (mm) 50 50 50 50 50

BH-2/Achamo side abutment (Foundation depth at 4.00 m below lowest River Bed L)

Width, m 4 5 6 7 8

Allowable Bearing Pressures 82 66 63 61.2 60

(kPa)
Settlement (mm) 50 50 50 50 50

29
Detail Geotechnical Investigation of Bridge Crossing
At Km 12+427(Draft) Yirgalem Construction PLC

4.3.1 Differential Settlement

Differential settlement can be computed as the difference in settlement between two

adjacent points. . The criteria adopted by AASHTO-LRFD bridge design specification
(2006) considering the angular distortion (D/L) is;
δ/l ≤ 0.008 for simple – span bridge
δ/l ≤ 0.004 for continuous – span bridge
Where d is differential settlement of adjacent footings and l is center – center spacing
between adjacent footings.
TABLE 17: SUMMARY OF DIFFERENCIAL SETTLEMENT AND ANGULAR DISTORTION
ESTIMATION

BH-1/Bonosha Side Abutment (foundation depth at 4.00 m below lowest River Bed L)
Width, m 4 5 6 7 8

Allowable Bearing Pressures (kPa) 227 218 213 210 208

Settlement (mm) 128.5 133.2 134 136.5 139.6

BH-2/Achamo side abutment (Foundation depth at 4.00 m below lowest River Bed L)

Width, m 4 5 6 7 8

Allowable Bearing Pressures (kPa) 211 172 168 165.3 164.2

Settlement (mm) 128.2 130.2 133 134.6 136.9

Differential Settlement (mm) BH1-Bh2 0.3 3 1 1.9 2.7

Angular distortion, d/l for l=

0.0000141 0.000141 0.000046 0.000089 0.000127.

The tolerable angular distortion, (δ/l) should be δ/l ≤ 0.008 for simple – span bridge and
δ/l ≤ 0.004 for continuous – span bridge. Based on the given specification, tolerance of
angular distortion is found within the tolerable range.

4.4 Seismic Cefficient and Ground Acceleration

According to code seismic risk map of Ethiopia (Fig. 3) 475 year return period, 10%
probability of exceedance in 50 years by Ethiopian Building Code Standard No. 8 (EBCS
ES EN 1998:2015), the country is divided into zones of approximately equal seismic risks
30
Detail Geotechnical Investigation of Bridge Crossing
At Km 12+427(Draft) Yirgalem Construction PLC

based on the known distribution of past earthquakes and these seismic zones are related
to the ground acceleration as follows in table 19.

Zone 5 4 3 2 1 0

Ground 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.07 0.04 0

Acceleration
(g)

TABLE 18: SEISMIC ZONE RELATED TO GROUND ACCELERATION

FIGURE 11: SEISMIC HAZARD MAP OF ETHIOPIA 475 YEARS RETURN PERIOD, 10%
PROBABILITY OF EXCEEDANCE IN 50YEARS (ETHIOPIAN BUILDING CODE
STANDARD NO. 8)

Accordingly, the project site is delineated as zone 4. The project area lies in the high
seismic risk zone. The site stratigraphic profile grouped under subsoil class of both C with
31
Detail Geotechnical Investigation of Bridge Crossing
At Km 12+427(Draft) Yirgalem Construction PLC

shear wave velocity of 180 - 360m/s considering the dominant type of formation of (C:
Deep deposits of dense or medium-dense sand, gravel or stiff clay with thickness from
several tens to many hundreds of meters) of the project site. For this project area a ground
acceleration of 0.1-0.115 g factor shall be taken for safe design of the proposed bridge
structure.

During estimation of all bearing capacity by SPT/CPT and by “C-F” method a 20 %

seismic reduction factor is used as per Canadian geotechnical manual which
recommends when actual seismic refraction test is not conducted the aforementioned
reduction factor shall be adopted for foundation with high anticipated degree of ground
acceleration .

5. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

5.1 CONCLUSION
This sub-surface geotechnical investigation works for the respective bridge crossing sites
were conducted by drilling boreholes up to a depth of 20.00m for each boreholes at
respective place where the abutment of the structure is proposed to be constructed. In-
situ tests and laboratory tests were carried out to determine the engineering properties of
soil layers at the bridge sites.
Foundation on soil layer at the proposed bridge site, the allowable bearing capacity for
the bearing layer and depth are discussed in the above section based on empirical
relations using laboratory test results and SPT test results.
Summary of the existing bearing layer, the proposed foundation type, proposed
foundation depth and the estimated allowable bearing capacity is summarized and
presented here under table 20.

TABLE 19: PROPOSED FOUNDATION TYPE, DEPTH AND ALLOWABLE BEARING CAPACITY

Bridge at Km 12+427 - Bonosha Side Abutment BH-1

Bearing Layers Medium stiff to hard, Medium –High plastic
dark/black cotton clay
Foundation Type Isolated Footing
Foundation level 4.00m below the lowest river bed level
Safe Allowable Bearing Capacity 75-88 KPa based on various width of footing,
/Refer table 17
Bridge at 12+427 – Achamo Side Abutment 2 BH-2
Bearing Layers Moderately stiff, Medium-High plastic
dark/Black cotton clay
32
Detail Geotechnical Investigation of Bridge Crossing
At Km 12+427(Draft) Yirgalem Construction PLC

Foundation Type Isolated Footing

Foundation level 4.00m below the lowest river bed level
Safe Allowable Bearing Capacity 60-82 KPa based on various width of
footing/Refer table 17 above

5.2 Recommendation
From the conclusion made and by including the estimated allowable bearing capacity
values of the natural formation of the bridge sites which is found at Km 12+427 , the
following recommendations are forwarded here under;

 The material beneath the footing depth shall be removed and replaced by
cyclopean concrete having a minimum thickness of 1.5 m below the recommended
footing depth of 4m below the river bed level.
 After excavation and prior to construction of the proposed cyclopean concrete if
the site condition is not favorable for preparation of working platform extra 60 cm
rock fill or granular fill can be place. This should be effected for implementation
after assessment of the actual site condition.
 It is recommended to perform construction during dry season which would make
the excavation work easier and also helps to place the foundation on a dry and
stable ground condition.
 Leaving the foundation excavation open for too long may weaken the soil at
foundation level and is not advisable.
 The Geotechnical Engineer in charge shall conduct intermittent supervision of the
foundation excavation works during construction to verify/check the actual
subsurface conditions, and shall make adjustments to the foundation
recommendation as given in this report, where actual site conditions warrant such
changes.

33
Detail Geotechnical Investigation of Bridge Crossing
At Km 12+427(Draft) Yirgalem Construction PLC

REFERENCES

 Arora, K.R. (2004). Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Standard

Publishers, New Delhi, India.
 Bowles, J. E. (1997). Foundation Design and Analysis, 5th ed., McGraw-Hill, New
York, 263pp.
 BS 5930 (1999). Code of Practice for Site Investigations. British Standards
Institution (BSI). London
 Bell, F.G 1980 “Engineering Geology and Geotechnics” Newhes-Butterworths,
London, UK
 Bowles, J. E. (1997). Foundation Design and Analysis, 5th ed., McGraw-Hill, New
York, 263pp.
 British standard investigation, code of practice for site investigation, BS 5930,
1981.
 Canadian Geotechnical /Foundation Manual
 K.R Arora soil mechanics and foundation Engineering

34
Consultancy service for Detail Engineering Design Draft Pavement Design Report
Chaka Park Road Project

35