Building Foundation Characterization Analysis:

A Case Study in Ayat Area, Bole Sub-City,

Addis Ababa, Central Ethiopia

Selamawit Tadesse

A Thesis Submitted to

School of Earth Sciences

Presented in Partial Fullfillment of the requirements for the Degree of

Masters of Science (Engineering Geology)

ADDIS ABABA UNIVERSITY

Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
May, 2017
Building Foundation Characterization Analysis:
A Case Study in Ayat Area, Bole Sub-City,
Addis Ababa, Central Ethiopia

Selamawit Tadesse

A Thesis Submitted to

School of Earth Sciences

Presented in Partial Fullfillment of the requirements for the Degree of

Masters of Science (Engineering Geology)

ADDIS ABABA UNIVERSITY

Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
May, 2017
 Building Foundation Characterization And Analysis:
A Case Study in Ayat Area, Bole Sub-city, Addis Ababa, Central Ethiopia.

SIGNATURE PAGE

Addis Ababa University

School of Graduate Studies

This is to certify that the thesis prepared by Selamawit Tadesse, entitled: Building
Foundation Characterization And Analysis: A Case Study In Ayat Area, Bole Sub-City, Addis
Ababa, Central Ethiopia and submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the
Degree of Master of Science (Engineering Geology) complies with the regulations of the
University and meets the accepted standards with respect to originality and quality.

Signed by the Examining Committee:

Examiner _______________________ Signature ______________ Date _______________

Examiner _______________________ Signature ______________ Date _______________

Advisor _________________________ Signature ______________ Date _______________

________________________________________________
Chair of School or Graduate Program Coordinator

Selamawit Tadesse i
 Building Foundation Characterization And Analysis:
A Case Study in Ayat Area, Bole Sub-city, Addis Ababa, Central Ethiopia.

ABSTRACT

Building foundation characterization and analysis: A case study in Ayat area, Bole sub-
city, Addis Ababa, Central Ethiopia

Selamawit Tadesse Alene

Addis Ababa University, 2017

The present research study was conducted in North-Eastern part of Addis Ababa, Bole Sub
City Bole Ayat area. The main objective of the present research work was to characterize the
building foundation material and to assess its bearing capacity and settlement potential in the
study area. To meet out the objectives of the present study, systematic methodology was
followed. Literature review was undertaken to have general background on the subject
matter. Besides previous works were reviewed, secondary data was collected from various
sources, filed observation and laboratory tests were also conducted. Representative samples
were also collected and analyzed. Secondary data on borehole logs, test reports and other
documents on site investigations were procured from several companies and organizations.
Also, test pit logging, sampling and testing were also undertaken to generate primary data.
The secondary data was processed and all relevant parameter data/ information necessary for
bearing capacity and settlement analysis was obtained. For building foundation
characterization and analysis the study area was divided into 9 sites; Site 1 to Site 9, so that
the data can be well managed and systematic analysis can be made. The bearing capacity was
estimated through various analytical and semi empirical techniques, based on laboratory test
results on soil properties and through in-situ properties by standard penetration test. The
overall evaluation of bearing capacity of foundation soils at shallow depths in the study area
reveals that ultimate bearing capacity in general increase with depth and with increasing
footing dimensions. Through the limited analysis it is also found that the estimated total
settlement is not within the limits of allowable settlement. Further, bearing capacity zonation
maps are also forwarded through the present study. Finally, based on the results of the
present study recommendations are also forwarded.

Key words: Building foundation, Bearing capacity, Settlement potential, Standard

Penetration test,

*****

Selamawit Tadesse ii
 Building Foundation Characterization And Analysis:
A Case Study in Ayat Area, Bole Sub-city, Addis Ababa, Central Ethiopia.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Above all I would like to thank Almighty God for giving me health and spiritual peace during
this undertaking.

I have no words to express my thanks to my advisor Dr. Tarun K. Raghuvanshi, Associate

Professor, School of Earth Sciences, Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa. I want to simply
say that I owe a tremendous debt of gratitude to him for his continuous follow up and critical,
constructive and detailed comments on the proceeding of this research.

I am grateful to Dr. Balemal Atnafu, Head of the School of Earth Science, Addis Ababa
University and other members of the School for their help, encouragement and cooperation
which gave me enough strength to carry out the present research study.

I am grateful to them for their all-round support and encouragement. Great thanks also go to
ARCON Design Build Plc., Addis Ababa Saving House Development Enterprise, Ethiopian
Construction Design Supervision Corporation, Addis Geo-system Plc, Saba Engineering,
Transport Construction Design Share Company and National Meteorological Agency for
providing me the necessary reports, borehole data and laboratory results for my thesis work.

This research would not have been possible without all the kind and generous support from
my family especially Getahun Asfaw.

I would like to acknowledge my friends Amdemichael Zafu, Abate Assen and Daniel G/
Michael specially Samuel Getachew and Yemane Kelemework for the help with the
preparation of various maps. Thanks to Ermias Filfilu for the help during the fieldwork.

Selamawit Tadesse iii

 Building Foundation Characterization And Analysis:
A Case Study in Ayat Area, Bole Sub-city, Addis Ababa, Central Ethiopia.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

No Particulars Page No.

Signature page (i)
Abstract (ii)
Acknowledgement (iii)
Table of Content (iv)
List of Tables (vi)
List of Figures (vii)
List of Plates (viii)
Chapter One – Introduction 1-5
1.1 Background 1
1.2 Problem statement 1
1.3 Objectives of the study 2
1.3.1 General Objective of the Study 2
1.3.2 Specific Objectives of the Study 2
1.4 Methodology 3
1.4.1 Secondary data collection 3
1.4.2 Primary data collection 3
1.5 Scope of The Study 4
1.6 Limitations To The Study 5
1.7 Chapter scheme 5
Chapter Two: Description Of The Study Area 6 -19
2.1 Preamble 6
2.2 Location and Accessibility 6
2.3 Climate 6
2.4 Physiography and Drainage Pattern 6
2.5 Regional geology 8
2.5.1 Alaji Basalt 9
2.5.2 Entoto Silicics 10
2.5.3 Addis Ababa Basalt 10
2.5.4 Nazaret Group 11
2.5.5 Young Olivine Porphyritic (Bofa) Basalt 12
2.6 Seismicity 13
2.7 Local Geology and Topography 15
2.7.1 IGNIMBRITE rock 16
2.7.2 Volcanic tuff 17
2.7.3 Basalt unit 17
2.8 soil description 18
2.8.1 Black cotton soil 18
2.8.2 Light to dark grey soil 19
Chapter Three: Literature 20 - 36
3.0 Preamble 20
3.1 Soil and its nature 20
3.2 Foundation condition estimation 23
3.3 Foundation Selection and Classification 24
3.4 Selection of Foundation Depth 27
3.5 Foundation Settlement Analysis 27
3.6 Bearing capacity 30

Selamawit Tadesse iv
 Building Foundation Characterization And Analysis:
A Case Study in Ayat Area, Bole Sub-city, Addis Ababa, Central Ethiopia.

No Particulars Page No.

3.7 Estimation of Ultimate Bearing Capacity (qu) of soil by using Standard 34

Penetration Test (SPT) N-value
3.9 Previous works 34
3.10 Evolution of Methodology for the present study 36
Chapter Four : Methods And Techniques 37 –44
4.0 Preamble 37
4.1 Literature review 37
4.2 Field work 38
4.3 Secondary data collection 38
4.4 Primary data collection 39
4.5 Laboratory Testing 39
4.5.1 Natural Moisture Content 40
4.5.2 Atterberg Limit 41
4.5.3 Grain Size and Grain Size Distribution 42
4.5.4 Free swell 43
4.5.5 Unit Weight 43
4.5.6 Direct shear test 43
4.5.7 Consolidation 43
4.5.8 Estimation of bearing capacity of soil 44
4.5.9 Settlement potential estimation 44
Chapter Five: Data collection and Analysis 45 –73
5.0 Preamble 45
5.1 Data collection 45
5.1.1 Secondary data 45
5.1.2 Primary data 45
5.2 Characterization of foundation material 48
5.2.1 Light to dark grey soil 48
5.2.2 Soft dark, clay (Black Cotton soil) 50
5.2.3 Weak TUFF layer 52
5.2.4 Weak to medium strong IGNIMBRITE rock 52
5.2.3 Highly to completely weathered BASALT layer 53
5.3 Bearing capacity (qu) Assessment 53
5.3.1 Site one 55
5.3.2 Site two 57
5.3.3 Site three 57
5.3.4 Site four 59
5.3.5 Site five 60
5.3.6 Site six 62
5.3.7 Site nine 63
5.4 Estimation of qu by using Standard Penetration Test (SPT) 64
5.5 Settlement Analysis 68
5.5.1 Site one 70
5.5.2 Site three 71
5.5.3 Site five 72
Chapter Six: Results, Interpretation And Discussion 74 - 96
6.0 Preamble 74
6.1 Site characterization 74
6.1.1 Light to dark grey soil 74

Selamawit Tadesse v
 Building Foundation Characterization And Analysis:
A Case Study in Ayat Area, Bole Sub-city, Addis Ababa, Central Ethiopia.

6.1.2 Soft dark, clay (Black Cotton soil) 75

6.1.3 In situ foundation soil characteristics 76
6.2 Foundation characterization 76
6.2.1 Bearing capacity estimation 76
6.2.2 Bearing capacity of foundation soils based on SPT-N 80
6.3 Bearing capacity zonation in the study area 81
6.3.1 Bearing capacity zonation for 1.5 x 1.5 m footing at 1.5 m depth 83
6.3.2 Bearing capacity zonation for 2 x 2m footing at 1.5 m depth 83
6.3.3 Bearing capacity zonation for 2.5 x 2.5 m footing at 1.5 m depth 85
6.3.4 Bearing capacity zonation for 1.5 x 1.5 m footing at 1.5 m depth 87
6.4 Foundation Settlement Analysis 87
Chapter Seven: Conclusion And Recommendations 89 - 101
7.1 Conclusion 89
7.2 Recommendations 92
Reference 94
Appendix 99

Selamawit Tadesse vi
 Building Foundation Characterization And Analysis:
A Case Study in Ayat Area, Bole Sub-city, Addis Ababa, Central Ethiopia.

LIST OF TABLES

Table Title of the table Page

No No.
2.1 The monthly precipitation, average maximum and average minimum temprature 7
of the study area (Years 2011-2015)
2.2 Seismic Intensity Zone related to Ground Acceleration 15
2.3 Structural field measurement of joints 18
3.1 Foundation types and typical usage (Bowles, 1997) 25
4.1 Soil expasivity predicted by free swell index (IS 1498) 41
4.2 Soil expasivity predicted by free swell index (IS 1498) 42
5.1 Summary of laboratory test result used in the present study 46
5.2 Location of test pits used to generate primary data during the present study 47
5.3 Summary of Laboratory test results(primary data) for index properties and 47
classification
5.4 Summary of Laboratory test results on UCS, Bulk unit weight and consolidation 48
5.5 Location details of Sites and distribution of boreholes and test pits in the study 49
area
5.6 Summary of index and engineering properties of light to dark grey soils 50
5.7 Summary of index and engineering properties of soft dark, clay (black cotton) 51
5.8 Input soil parameters used for different sites for bearing capacity computations 54
5.9 Depths and footing dimensions for various sites for which bearing capacity was 55
computed
5.10 Average Qult and Qall values for Site 1 56
5.11 Average Qult and Qall values for Site 2 57
5.12 Average Qult and Qall values for Site 3 59
5.13 Average Qult and Qall values for Site 4 61
5.14 Average Qult and Qall values for Site 5 62
5.15 Average Qult and Qall values for Site 6 64
5.16 Average Qult and Qall values for Site 9 66
5.17 Allowable bearing capacity (qa) as computed from SPT data in the present study 69
5.18 Details of sites for which settlement analysis was made 70
5.19 Input data used for the settlement analysis at Site 1 70
5.20 Results for the settlement analysis at Site 1 71
5.21 Input data used for the settlement analysis at Site 3 71
5.22 Results for the settlement analysis at Site 3 72
5.23 Input data used for the settlement analysis at Site 5 72
5.24 Results for the settlement analysis at Site 5 73
6.1 SPT N-value correlation with consistency and relative density 74
6.2 Average range of Ultimate bearing capacity (Qult) (kPa) 81
6.3 Average range of Allowable bearing capacity (Qall) (kPa) 82

Selamawit Tadesse vii

 Building Foundation Characterization And Analysis:
A Case Study in Ayat Area, Bole Sub-city, Addis Ababa, Central Ethiopia.

LIST OF FIGURES

Fig. Title of the table Page

No No.
1.1 Flow chart showing general methodology followed for the present study 4
2.1 Location map of study area 7
2.2 Average temperature in Bole Sub-City for years 2011-2015 8
2.3 Monthly average precipitation in Bole Sub-City for the years 2011-2015 8
2.4 Physiographic map of Addis Ababa 9
2.5 Geological Map of Addis Ababa (after WWDSE. 2008) 13
2.6 Seismic risk map of Ethiopia 100 years return period, 0.99 probability (After Laike 16
Mariam Asfaw, 1986)
2.7 Rose diagram of joints measured in the field joints affecting tuff (a) basalt (b) 19
5.1 Location of boreholes and test pits that were used for the present study 46
5.2 Casagrande’s Plasticity Chart for soils present at Site 1, 4 and 7 50
5.3 Plasticity chart (USCS, AASTO) showing soils from Site 8 and 9 53
5.4 Bearing capacity estimations for Site 1, computed for footing dimension1.5x1.5 m 56
5.5 Bearing capacity estimations for Site 2, computed for footing dimension 1.5 x1.5 m 58
5.6 Bearing capacity estimations for Site 3, computed for footing dimension 1.5 x1.5 m 60
5.7 Bearing capacity estimations for Site 4, computed for footing dimension 1.5 x1.5 m 61
5.8 Bearing capacity estimations for Site 5, computed for footing dimension 1.5 x1.5 m 63
5.9 Bearing capacity estimations for Site 6, computed for footing dimension 1.5 x1.5 m 65
5.10 Bearing capacity estimations for Site 9, computed for footing dimension 1.5 x1.5 m 66
5.11 Location in Site 8 for which SPT data was utilized in the present study 67
6.1 Bearing capacity zonation of the study area (Footing 1.5 x 1.5 m, Depth 1.5 m) 84
6.2 Bearing capacity zonation of the study area (Footing 2 x 2 m, Depth 1.5 m) 85
6.3 Bearing capacity zonation of the study area (Footing 2.5 x 2.5 m, Depth 1.5 m) 86
6.4 Bearing capacity zonation of the study area (Footing 4 x 4 m, Depth 1.5 m) 88

Selamawit Tadesse viii

 Building Foundation Characterization And Analysis:
A Case Study in Ayat Area, Bole Sub-city, Addis Ababa, Central Ethiopia.

LIST OF PLATES

Plate Title of the table Page No.

No
2.1 Highly weathered ignimbrite exposed 16
2.2 Volcanic tuff exposure 17
2.3 Basalt lava exposure 18
3.1 Spread (Isolated) Footing 23
3.2 Mat Foundation 23
4.1 Test pits made during present study 40

Selamawit Tadesse ix
 Building Foundation Characterization And Analysis:
A Case Study in Ayat Area, Bole Sub-city, Addis Ababa, Central Ethiopia.

CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

Geo-hazards present a substantial danger to human life, property, infrastructure and

environment. Bell (1999) defined problem soils as natural geo-hazards that are due to
detrimental geotechnical properties of soil. According to Jones and Holtz (1973) and Bell
(1999), global damage to infrastructure and associated remediation costs are often of far
reaching economic consequences. In particular, with increasing number of the global
population and related rapid urbanization and demand of new land for expansion of
infrastructure, these soils pose significant problems for engineering structural foundations.

Soils with different origin, responses in different manner when are subjected to imposed
loads of the structures. This response to load is basically controlled by the engineering
properties of the soil. The foundation of a structure is that part which transmits the load of the
superstructure to the ground. The static load implies to a pressure which is exerted to the
foundation and which does not change with time (George, 1989).However, dynamic loads
change with the time.

According to Leow (2005), foundation is an important part of every building, which

interfaces the superstructures to the adjacent soil or rock below it. Without a proper design
and construction of foundation, problems such as cracking or settlement of building may
occur and even to the extent, the whole building may collapse within its design life.
Therefore, proper foundation investigation and design is required for the safety and stability
of the building structure.

The selection of foundation is the most important part of the design process and most difficult
to define because the selection is governed by many factors such as soil condition, past site
usage, adjacent construction, size of development and also the cost (Curtin et al., 1994).

1.2 Problem statement

In Ethiopia many residential building are under construction. Generally, due attention is not
given for topography, site investigation, soil type for foundation, bearing capacity, strength
of the soil and depth of the foundation with respect to the super structure.
The soil investigation is necessary when the loads from the building are large and the bearing
capacity cannot be estimated based on type of soil condition at site. Due to lack of proper

Selamawit Tadesse 1
 Building Foundation Characterization And Analysis:
A Case Study in Ayat Area, Bole Sub-city, Addis Ababa, Central Ethiopia.

design of foundation settlement of the building is always the main problem in building
construction. The settlement of foundation causes cracks in building walls, beams, slabs etc.
and building can even fail in case of large settlement.

In the present study area high raise buildings, mass housing project and different
infrastructure are under construction by private companies and government agencies. In the
recent years city administration of Addis Ababa is activating a massive housing program to
solve housing problem. Many condominiums have been built in different phases of
construction and in different parts of the city and houses have already been transferred to
more than half a million people. In these projects generally, less attention is being paid due to
their bulkiness. Also, the site contractors did not fulfill proper ground investigation and
characterization in order to cut the cost. Due to such unfulfilled investigation, failure of
buildings has occurred before their occupancy (Bowles, 1997). In the study area building
failure, settlement problem in foundation and some distortions, cracking and tilting are
observed in the building foundation. Further, maintenance and repair costs are generally
greater than the original expense. Moreover, Addis Ababa is located in the western margin of
the main Ethiopian rift valley where possible seismicity could also be a real challenge for the
safe building design. Proper evaluation of the geological and geotechnical condition at the
proposed building site is therefore highly important and this research is designed to address
all such issue.

1.3 Objectives of the study

1.3.1 General objectives

The main objective of the present research work is to characterize the building foundation
material and to assess its bearing capacity and settlement potential in the study area.

1.3.2 Specific objectives

 To characterize the building foundation conditions

 To estimate the general bearing capacity of the foundation soils in the study area and to
zone it within various classes
 To assess settlement potential of the foundation material and to zone it within various
classes
 To suggest suitable foundation type within various zones for the buildings
 To framed engineering recommendations to guide design and construction

Selamawit Tadesse 2
 Building Foundation Characterization And Analysis:
A Case Study in Ayat Area, Bole Sub-city, Addis Ababa, Central Ethiopia.

1.4 Methodology

Various data collection method was exercised to accomplish the above objectives of the
research. The two data collection methods that were followed are secondary data collection
and primary data collection (the primary data are investigated with laboratory analysis). After
collection of the data, systematic data processing and analysis was made.

1.4.1 Secondary data collection

Secondary data was collected with an intention to review different pre-existing geological,
engineering geological reports and maps. The review was made to understand the
investigation methods, analysis and final interpretations for various building foundation sites.
Besides, borehole data, soil properties and classification data was also collected which was
later utilized to estimate the bearing capacity and settlement potential of different foundation
soils.

1.4.2 Primary data collection

Primary data is collected from test pitting. Logging and description of different geologic
formation was done. From test pitting appropriate soil samples were collected.

Field data collections

During field data collection description and characterization of the soil was made by visual
observation. Representative soil samples were collected from different soil units and
laboratory tests were done to evaluate the index property of the representative samples.

Laboratory testing

Index properties are used to classify soils, to group soils into major strata, and to obtain
estimates of structural properties. The following laboratory tests were conducted for the
present study to evaluate the soil properties of the representative samples collected from the
study area.

Based on the above data, comprehensive evaluation of the foundation condition of the site
was done. The general methodology followed in the present study is presented in flow chart
(Fig.1.1).

Selamawit Tadesse 3
 Building Foundation Characterization And Analysis:
A Case Study in Ayat Area, Bole Sub-city, Addis Ababa, Central Ethiopia.

The index and engineering properties that were used for the present study are;

 Natural moisture content

 Atterberg limit
 Particle site distribution
 Free swell
 Unit weight
 Direct shear
 Consolidation test

Primary data Secondary data

collection Data collection and collection
reviewing different
literatures namely manuals
and books

 Visual investigation  Bore hole Logging

Characterization of the all
soil and rock  Laboratory test
primary and secondary data
 Test pitting, Logging  Grain size
and sampling  Bearing capacity  Specific
 Laboratory test analysis Gravity
 Atterberg  Settlement  Moisture
limit foundation content
 Grain size analysis  Atterberg
analysis  Produce zoning limit
 Free swell map  Particle
 Specific distribution
Gravity
 Free swell

Interpretation of the different

material in relation to its
suitability to intended purpose

Conclusions and
Recommendation

Fig 1.1 Flow chart showing general methodology followed for the present study

1.5 Scope of The Study

This study is proposed for the characterization of the building foundation in the study area.
The results may be useful for the general characterization of the foundation soils in terms of
bearing capacity and the settlement potential. Analysis of building foundation condition is
useful for foundation condition estimation and its general suitability for building foundation.

Selamawit Tadesse 4
 Building Foundation Characterization And Analysis:
A Case Study in Ayat Area, Bole Sub-city, Addis Ababa, Central Ethiopia.

1.6 Limitations To The Study

Availability of systematic secondary data was one of the limitation factor in the present
study. Most of the geotechnical works for which secondary data is available are not
conducted following standardized data collection procedures and also well-organized data
archives were not maintained.

1.7 Chapter scheme

The present study is organized into six chapters.

Chapter one:-gives a general introduction to building foundation, statement of the problem,

objectives of the study, methodology of the study, scope of the study, limitations of the study
and organization of the study.

Chapter two:-over view of the study area, soils in the study area, buildings and associated
problems in the study area and focus on regional and local geology of the study area.

Chapter three:-presents literature review related to the soils and its nature, foundation
condition estimation, foundation of building and types of foundation, estimation of bearing
capacity, soil consolidation and associated settlement potential.

Chapter four:-discusses about the methods and techniques. It discuss about the bearing
capacity assessment; in-situ methods and bearing capacity estimation through equations and
also discuss about the settlement potential estimation:- In-situ methods and Laboratory
testing –consolidation.

Chapter five:-present investigation works and the data collected from field investigation and
laboratory test results.

Chapter six:-presents the results obtained from the analysis, interpretation and discussion of
site characterization, foundation characterization bearing capacity and settlement estimation
of the area.

Chapter seven:-is about conclusion and recommendation of the study.

*****

Selamawit Tadesse 5
 Building Foundation Characterization And Analysis:
A Case Study in Ayat Area, Bole Sub-city, Addis Ababa, Central Ethiopia.

CHAPTER TWO DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY AREA

2.1 Preamble

This chapter deals with the description of geologic, topographic, climatic, Physiography and
Drainage Pattern which has influenced the formation of foundation materials in the study
area. This section also includes description of the seismic condition and soil type distribution
in the study area and its surrounding.

2.2 Location and Accessibility

Bole Sub-city is one of the largest sub-cities located in eastern part of Addis Ababa. It shares
boundary with Yeka Sub-city in the north, Kirkos and Nifas Silk Lafto Sub-cities in the west
and Akaki Kaliti sub-city in the south. In Bole Sub-city the lowest elevation is 2,114 m in the
southern periphery and the maximum elevation is 2,407 m above the sea level. The study area
is located in the North-Eastern part of Addis Ababa specifically in Ayat area of Bole Sub
City. The area is generally characterized by flat to sloping topographic feature. The study
area is geographically bounded in between 990090.974m N- 997182.9m N latitude and
482961.594m E- 489307.021m E longitude of UTM Zone 37N (Fig.2.1). The total area
covered by the study is about 45 km2. The study area is accessible through Asphalt roads and
gravel roads.

2.3 Climate

Addis Ababa has a humid subtropical highland climate (Koppen Cwb). Addis Ababa has a
humid subtropical mild summer climate that is mild rainy summers and moderate seasonality.
According to Ethiopian National Meteorological Agency (ENMA, 2014) the highest monthly
average precipitation recorded was 296.5 mm in the month of August, (2011 -2015) with
maximum and minimum temperatures of 26.5 °C and 8°C, respectively (2011 -2015). The
main rainy season is from May to September. The hottest and driest months are usually April
and May (Table 2.1).

2.4 Physiography and Drainage Pattern

The study area is located in the western margin of the Main Ethiopian Rift and represents a
transition zone between the Ethiopian Plateau and the rift with poorly defined escarpment
(Tamru Alemayehu et al., 2006). Generally, the elevation declines from northeast to south-
west. It is bordered in left side by Furi Mountain, northern side by Entoto Mountain Ridge

Selamawit Tadesse 6
 Building Foundation Characterization And Analysis:
A Case Study in Ayat Area, Bole Sub-city, Addis Ababa, Central Ethiopia.

and Akaki River, right side by Wechecha Mountain and at lower part by Yerer Mountain.
The elevation of the study area varies from 2230 m to 2440m. The physiography of the study
area is a result of volcanism and erosion.

Fig. 2.1 Location map of study area

Table 2.1 The monthly precipitation, average maximum and average minimum
temprature of the study area (Years 2011-2015)

Months Average Max. (°C) Average Min. (°C) Precipitation

201 2012 2013 2014 201 2011 2012 2013 2014 201 2011 2012 2013 2014 201
1 5 5 5
Jan 23.7 24.5 24.5 24.3 23.8 9.3 8 9.3 9.5 8.3 3.4 - - - -
Feb 25.4 25.5 26.3 25.2 26.3 9 8.5 10.4 11.7 10.3 13.6 - - 41.7 -
Mar 24.7 26.7 26.3 25.8 26.4 11 10.7 13 12.1 11.9 27.9 34.5 63.5 29.7 21.3
Apr - 24.7 26 26.4 - 12.1 13.2 13 - - 75.1 114.4 33.7 -
May 24.9 26.5 25.1 25.9 - 12.8 12.7 12.8 13 - 86 58.5 78.5 62.1 -
Jun 23.7 24 23.3 25.1 - 12.3 12.3 12.1 12.8 - 148 72.8 101.4 41.8 -
Jul 21.8 24 21.3 22 - 12 12.1 11.9 12.5 - 183.1 228.8 157.6 179.7 -
Aug 20.7 20.7 20.8 21.5 - 12.3 11.9 12 11.8 - 296.5 281.6 270.2 253.6 -
Sep 21.5 22 22.8 21.7 - 11.9 11.7 11.4 12.2 - 141.3 176.9 126.7 95.1 -
Oct 24.2 23.9 23.2 23.2 - 9.3 9.9 10.5 10.5 - 1.2 45.3 34.8 -
Nov 23.5 24.4 23.9 23.7 - 10.5 9.5 9.8 9.1 - 11.9 - 3.2 - -
Dec 22.8 - 23.4 22.9 - 7.3 - 7.9 8.4 - - - - - -

Selamawit Tadesse 7
 Building Foundation Characterization And Analysis:
A Case Study in Ayat Area, Bole Sub-city, Addis Ababa, Central Ethiopia.

30

Average Max. (°C) 2011

25
Average Max. (°C) 2012
Average Max. (°C) 2013
20
Average Max. (°C) 2014

15 Average Max. (°C) 2015

Average Min. (°C) 2011
10 Average Min. (°C) 2012
Average Min. (°C) 2013
5
Average Min. (°C) 2014
Average Min. (°C) 2015
0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Fig. 2.2 Average temperature in Bole Sub-City for years 2011-2015

350
300
250 Precipitation (mm) 2011

200 Precipitation (mm) 2012

150 Precipitation (mm) 2013

100 Precipitation (mm) 2014

Precipitation (mm) 2015
50
0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Fig. 2.3 Monthly average precipitation in Bole Sub-City for the years 2011-2015

Entoto mountain ranges are the major water source for the major permanent rivers which
flow within and outside the zone. The Awash River basin covers much of the zone. The
Akaki River basin is the main river system in the study area, the two rivers flow from north
of Finfine city to the southwest and intersect at Abba Samuel dam lake and finally join the
Awash River.

2.5 Regional geology

Addis Ababa is located in the western escarpment of the Main Ethiopian Rift system
(MER).The geological history of the study area is an integral part of the evolution and
development of the Ethiopian Plateau and the Rift system. The Miocene-Pleistocene volcanic
succession in Addis Ababa area has been suggested by Haile Sellasie Girmay and Getaneh

Selamawit Tadesse 8
 Building Foundation Characterization And Analysis:
A Case Study in Ayat Area, Bole Sub-city, Addis Ababa, Central Ethiopia.

Assefa (1989, as cited by Habtamu Solomon, 2010) from bottom to top are Alaji basalts,
Entotosilicics, Addis Ababa basalts, Nazareth group, and Bofa basalts.

Fig. 2.4 Physiographic map of Addis Ababa

2.5.1 Alaji Basalt

Alaji Basalt group are volcanic rocks (Alaji rhyolite and Basalt) and parts of the escarpment
were out poured from the end of Oligocene until middle Miocene. This unit is composed of
basalts, which show variation in texture from highly pophyricto aphyric. Within this unit,
there is an intercalation of gray and glassy welded tuff. The outcrop of Alaji basalt extends
from the crest of Entoto(ridge bordering the northern parts of Addis Ababa) towards the north
(Haile Sellasie Girmay and Getaneh Assefa,1989). The unit is underlay in by tuffs and
ignimbrites. Its stratigraphic relationship with the Entotosilicics is difficult to determine as
they occur in a fault contact. Mohr (1967, as cited in Tamru Alemayehu et al., 2006) proved
that the Entoto trachyte overlies the Alaji basalt.

Selamawit Tadesse 9
 Building Foundation Characterization And Analysis:
A Case Study in Ayat Area, Bole Sub-city, Addis Ababa, Central Ethiopia.

2.5.2 Entoto Silicics

These early Miocene aged silicic volcanic could represent localized terminal episodes to
massive Oligocene fissure-basalt activity in the Addis Ababa region (Morton et al.,1979).
The thickness of the flow becomes maximum on the top of Entoto ridge and thin both
towards the plateau and the plain east of Addis Ababa. According to Zanettin and Justin
(1974,as cited in Tamru Alemayehu et al.,2006) these lavas make up a thick pile of flows
accumulated along east west fissures (east west fault running from Kassam River to Ambo)
and up lifted north wards. This unit is uncomfortably overlain by Addis Ababa basalt on the
foothills of Entoto and underlain by Alaji basalt. The Entoto silicics composed of rhyolite and
trachyte with minor amount of welded tuff and obsidian (Haile Sellasie Girmay and Getaneh
Assefa, 1989). It also outcrops in the eastern part of the town from the Kokebe Tsebah
School to the British Embassy. The thickness is quite variable as it frequently forms dome
structure. In this rock unit, flow banding, folding and jointing are common. The rhyolites are
overlain by feldspar porphyritic trachyte and underlain by a sequence of tuffs and
ignimbrites. Tuffs and ignimbrites are welded and characterized by columnar jointing
(Assegid Getahun, 2007).

2.5.3 Addis Ababa Basalt

According to Haile Sellasie Girmay and Getaneh Assefa (1989), Addis Ababa basalt is the
oldest visible rock post-dating the Entoto silicic. It is mainly found in the central part of the
town and underlain by the Entoto silicics and overlain by Lower welded Tuff of the Nazareth
group. The maximum thickness exceeding130m is found at Ketchen stream. It is porphyritic
in texture, composed of labradorite, bytownite, olivine and augite as phenocrysts. The ground
mass is made of andesine, labradorite, olivine, agnetite and pyroxene (Haile Sellasie Girmay
and Getaneh Assefa, 1989).

Olivine porphyritic basalts outcrop in the central part of the town that includes Mercato,
Teklehaymanote and Sidist Kilo. The distribution of plagioclase porphyritic basalt is almost
the same as that of the olivine porphyritic basalt, but only little more north wards. It outcrops
in an area, which includes Sidist Kilo, General Winget School and French Embassy. The
thickness of the former varies from 1m or less in the foothills of Entoto, Lideta Airfield and
Filwoha to greater than 130m at Ketchane stream (Morton, 1974; Varnieretal., 1985 as cited
in Tamru Alemayehu et al., 2006). The Lower Welded Tuff overlies both types of basalt near
by the Building College, the Kolfe Police School, the Kokobe Tseba School and Yeka

Selamawit Tadesse 10
 Building Foundation Characterization And Analysis:
A Case Study in Ayat Area, Bole Sub-city, Addis Ababa, Central Ethiopia.

Mariam Church. On the other hand, only in the gorge of the Ketchane stream, the olivine
pophyric basalt is overlain by the plagioclase porphyritic basalt, while elsewhere the
relationship between them is very difficult to determine (Varnier et al., 1985 as cited inTamru
Alemayehu et al., 2006). Addis Ababa basalt yield ages clustering around 7my and seems to
have no time/composition equivalent (Morton et al., 1974as cited in Tamru Alemayehu et al.,
2006).

2.5.4 Nazaret Group

The units identified in this group are denoted as Lower Welded Tuff, Aphanitic basalt and
Upper Welded Tuff. The group is underlain by Addis Ababa basalt and overlain by Bofa
basalts. The rocks outcrop mainly south of Filwoha fault and extend towards Nazaret (Tamru
Alemayehu et al., 2006; Mohammed, 2007).

Lower Welded Tuff

It is the rocky outcrops as small discontinuous body in Filwoha, western parts of Addis
Ababa and Sululta. Generally, it is overlain by the aphanitic basalt and underlain by the
olivine and plagioclase prophyritic basalt. The age of this rock unit, as dated by Morton et
al.(1979, as cited in Tamru Alemayehu et al., 2006), at Addis Ababa and Sululta is 5.1 and
5.4 million years, respectively. This age overlap with the period of the activity of Wachecha
trachyte volcanoes, dated 4.6 million years. Wachecha is located15km west of Addis Ababa
and probably the sources of the Lower welded tuff at both localities (Morton et al., 1979 as
cited in Tamru Alemayehu et al., 2006; Kabite, 2011).

Aphanitic Basalt

This basalt covers the southern part of the town, especially the areas of Bole International
Airport and Lideta Airfield. The rock body shows vertical curved columnar jointing together
with sub horizontal sheet jointing. Kaolin and lenses are present at the contact of this basalt
with the younger ignimbrite. This makes an evidence for the hydrothermal alterations along a
NE-SW fracture system, which may affects both the basalt and the Entoto trachyte.
Moreover the basalt is overlain by pumeacoues pyroclastic falls and the pyroclastic falls. It is
underlain by a soil horizon that covers the plagioclase porphyritic basalt and overlain by soil
horizon and tuff layers that lie below the young ignimbrite. The crystals of plagioclase show
marked flow ignimbrites. Trachy-basalt outcrops around Repi and nearby General Wingate

Selamawit Tadesse 11
 Building Foundation Characterization And Analysis:
A Case Study in Ayat Area, Bole Sub-city, Addis Ababa, Central Ethiopia.

School. It is underlain by the plagioclase and olivine porphyritic basalt and overlain by the
younger ignimbrite from which it is separated by tuffs and agglomerates. Its relation with
the rocks of the group is not clear, but probably younger than the aphanitic basalt
(Getaneh Assefa et al.,1985 as cited in Tamru Alemayehu et al.,2006; Kabite, 2011).

Upper Welded Tuff

This rock outcrops all over the southern part of the town including Bole, Nefas Silk and
Railway station; nevertheless it is also present in the central and northern parts of the town. It
is gray colored, vertically and horizontally jointed and composed of sandine, an orthoclase,
rebecite, quartz, pumice and unidentified volcanic fragments (Getaneh Assefa et al., 1989).
The welded tuff is underlain by aphanitic basalts and overlain by young olivine basalts. An
age determinations made on a sample collected nearby Haile Gebreselassie road resulted
3.2million years, that overlap with the activity of Yerer trachytic volcano‘s (Morton et. al.,
1979 as cited in Tamru Alemayehu et al., 2006).

Young Trachyitic Flow

This rock is predominating in the south west part of the town, from Dama hotel towards Furi
and Repi along the hills and foothills of Hana Mariama and Tulu Iyou. It is porphyritic with
phenocrysts of plagioclase (albite-oligoclase) sandine, biotite within a ground mass of
microlities of feldspar.

Moreover, it is underlain by the tuff that covers the young ignimbrite and overlaying by
alternating flows of plagioclase porphyritic basalt and rhyolite especially in the Repihill. Its
relation with the young olivine prophyrytic basalt is not clear as they outcrop in different
parts of the areas; however, in a small outcrop nearby Aba Samuel Lake south of the project
area, the trachyte underlies the olivine porphyritic basalt (Mohammed, 2007; Tamru
Alemayehu et al., 2006).

2.5.5 Young Olivine Porphyritic (Bofa) Basalt

They outcrop south ward from Akaki River where they appear in the form of boulders
reaching a thickness of 10meter. They are restricted and dominant in the south east part of the
town i.e. Debre Zeit Road. They contain phencorysts of plagioclase, olivine that is partially
and completely altered to idingisite and augite within a ground mass composed of
plagioclase, magnetite, pyroxene and olivine. This basalt is underlain by the tuffs, which

Selamawit Tadesse 12
 Building Foundation Characterization And Analysis:
A Case Study in Ayat Area, Bole Sub-city, Addis Ababa, Central Ethiopia.

cover the welded tuff. The age of this basalt is 2.8 MY (Mohammed, 2007;Tamru
Alemayehu et al., 2003).

Fig. 2.5 Geological Map of Addis Ababa (after WWDSE. 2008)

2.6 Seismicity

Addis Ababa is only 75-100km away from the western edge of the Main Ethiopian Rift
Valley, which is a hotbed of tremors and active volcanoes. The presence of the Filwoha hot
springs in the middle of Addis Ababa itself, for example, is nature's reminder that the city lies

Selamawit Tadesse 13
 Building Foundation Characterization And Analysis:
A Case Study in Ayat Area, Bole Sub-city, Addis Ababa, Central Ethiopia.

on fault lines that have been slowly building strains. It is the release of these strains
accumulated over the years that cause the phenomenon of earthquake. According to a report
published in 1999, a 6.5 magnitude earthquake, which seismologist say could happen in areas
of close proximity to Addis Ababa, the country's major city, could cause as many as 4000-
5000 deaths, 8000-10,000 injuries and a displacement of as many as 500,000 people and a
total damage in excess of 12 Billion Birr (Kinde Samuel, 2002).

According to a report by Ferguson (2013), the two plateaus (western Ethiopian plateau and
south eastern Ethiopian plateau) are diverging from each other by 1-2cm per year. This
extension of earth crust causes many faulting, fracturing, and displacing of the lithosphere.
As a result this displacement, the earthquakes scaled to the crust movement can occur and
cause several destructions. Due to its location right on one of the major tectonic plates in the
world, i.e., the African and Arabian plates, earthquakes have been a fact of life in Ethiopia for
a very long time. In the 20thcentury alone, a study done by Gouin, (1976) suggests that as
many as 15,000 tremors, strong enough to be felt by humans, had occurred in Ethiopia proper
and the Horn of Africa.

Fig. 2.6 Seismic risk map of Ethiopia 100 years return period, 0.99 probability
(After Laike Mariam Asfaw, 1986)

Selamawit Tadesse 14
 Building Foundation Characterization And Analysis:
A Case Study in Ayat Area, Bole Sub-city, Addis Ababa, Central Ethiopia.

A similar study by Fekadu Kebede (1996) indicated that there were a total of 16 recorded
earthquakes of magnitude 6.5 and higher in some of Ethiopia's seismic active areas in the
20th century alone.

According to seismic risk map of Ethiopia (Fig.2.6) 100 year return period, 0.99 probability
by Laike Mariam Asfaw (1986), the country is divided into zones of approximately equal
seismic risks based on the known distribution of past earthquakes. According to Johnson and
Degraff (1988), these seismic intensity zones are related to the ground acceleration (Table-
2.2).

Table 2.2 Seismic Intensity Zone related to Ground Acceleration

Intensity (MM) <5 5 6 7 8

Ground Acceleration 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.1 0.2
(g).

( Source: Johnson and Degraff (1988)

The study area falls in the intensity scale 8, thus the estimated ground acceleration as per
Johnson and Degraff (1888) will be 0.2g. The intensity scale 8 indicates that the present study
area lies in the high seismic risk zone. Therefore, for safe design of small engineering
structures in Addis Ababa, a ground acceleration of 0.2g should be considered. However, site
specific seismic investigations should be conducted for big engineering structures.

2.7 Local Geology and Topography

Topographic relief has an important role in soil formation. For a deep residual soil to
develop, the rate at which weathering advances into the earth’s crust must exceed the rate of
removal of the products of weathering by erosion. Topography controls the rate of weathering
by partly determining the amount of available water and the rate at which it moves through
the zone of weathering. In addition to this, it also controls the effective age of the profile by
controlling the rate of erosion of weathered material from the surface. Thus, deeper residual
profiles will generally be found in valleys and gentle slopes rather than on high ground or
steep slopes (Blight, 1997 as cited in Hana Tibebu, 2008).

The topography of the study areas favors the development of heterogeneous soil profiles by
the decomposition of rocks on which it lies. Thus, residual soils are commonly seen in most
parts of the city with varying thickness. On the other hand, due to intensive erosional

Selamawit Tadesse 15
 Building Foundation Characterization And Analysis:
A Case Study in Ayat Area, Bole Sub-city, Addis Ababa, Central Ethiopia.

activities there is poor soil development (shallow soil profile) or patchy occurrences on most
parts of the slope. The dominant type of soil in the southern parts of the city, where surface
water is poorly drained, is expansive clay soil.

The site is also characterized as slightly flat with flat ground topography. The boreholes were
drilled to a maximum depth of 15 m-30 m in order to establish the subsurface geology and
groundwater condition of the site. These bore hole were drilled by different governmental
and non-governmental organization companies.

Data from field geology and bore hole logging suggests that the study area is mostly
dominated by slightly to moderately weathered IGINIMBRITE ROCK with joints closely to
medium spaced. Tuffs and ignimbrites are welded and characterized by columnar jointing.
In some areas dark highly weathered and decomposed to moderately weathered rocks were
found occasionally with vesicular BASALT.

2.7.1 Ignimbrite rock

It is exposed forming a relatively slightly flat to small ridge where its measured thickness
ranges from 2 - 6m. The observed ignimbrite rock is light grey in color and slightly to
moderately weathered, closely jointed/ fractured, medium grained and weak to medium
strong (Plate 2.1).This formation covers smaller area and is overlain by expansive clay

Plate 2.1 Highly weathered ignimbrite exposed in the study area

Selamawit Tadesse 16
 Building Foundation Characterization And Analysis:
A Case Study in Ayat Area, Bole Sub-city, Addis Ababa, Central Ethiopia.

2.7.2 Volcanic tuff

Stratigraphically this unit is found overlaying basaltic lava. It covers a flat topography and
vertically jointed. It has a white to light gray color appearance in its freshly broken surface.
On its weathered face, it is gray in color. It has moderately thin horizontal beds where the
thickness ranges from 60 to 70 cm. The joints have a general SE-NW orientation (Plate 2.2).
The joints affecting this unit are spaced 0.40 to 1.10 m and the aperture ranges from 5 to 8 cm
and are filled with clayey soil.

Plate 2.2 Volcanic tuff

2.7.3 Basalt unit

It is exposed forming a relatively flat to small ridge where its measured thickness ranges from
3 - 5m. The observed basalt rock has variety of color on its weathered discolored surface:
light yellowish, dark gray, and reddish brown and part of it is changed into soil whereas its
fresh surface exhibits dark gray color. This basaltic lava is moderately to highly weathered
and has weak strength. Vertical joints of N-S, SE and SW trend (Plate 2.3) affect this lava.
These joints are filled with clay and are widely spaced to very widely spaced where the
spacing range from 1.5 to 3m. The joint surfaces are undulating.

Selamawit Tadesse 17
 Building Foundation Characterization And Analysis:
A Case Study in Ayat Area, Bole Sub-city, Addis Ababa, Central Ethiopia.

Plate 2.3 Basalt lava

Structures

The structures mainly present in exposed rocks in the study area are joints. The general
orientation of these joint sets is presented in Table 2.3 and Fig. 2.7.

Table 2.3 Structural field measurement of joints

No. strike dip strike Dip
Joints affecting Basalt lava Joints affecting Volcanic Tuff
1 145 90NE 300 65NE
2 N-S 75NE 110 90SW
3 N-S 85NE 100 80NE
4 145 80NE 100 70SW
5 240 85NW 285 90SW
6 210 80NW E-W 85NS
7 N-S 90NW 285 90SW
8 190 90NE 100 90NE
9 160 70SW 300 65NE
10 150 85SW 290 90SW

2.8 Soil description

2.8.1 Black cotton soil

Based on the visual description Black Cotton soil cover the top most part of the study area.
This layer is identified as soft dark, firm to stiff soil layer. The soil has a thickness of about
0.2 – 3m. These soils are highly plastic, fine grained and expansive in nature.

Selamawit Tadesse 18
 Building Foundation Characterization And Analysis:
A Case Study in Ayat Area, Bole Sub-city, Addis Ababa, Central Ethiopia.

(a) (b)

Fig. 2.7 Rose diagram of joints measured in the field joints affecting tuff (a) basalt (b)

2.8.2 Light to dark grey soil

The soil from this layer can be characterized as light to dark grey, stiff to very stiff and highly
plastic silty CLAY. The thickness of this soil layer varies from 2 to 10.7 m in the study area.

*****

Selamawit Tadesse 19
 Building Foundation Characterization And Analysis:
A Case Study in Ayat Area, Bole Sub-city, Addis Ababa, Central Ethiopia.

CHAPTER THREE LITERATURE REVIEW

3.0 Preamble

During the present study a thorough literature review was undertaken to have a general
background on the subject matter and to develop a conceptual framework within which
general methodology for the present study was evolved. Emphasis was given to understand
the building foundation conditions and its assessment techniques.

Various literature sources were reviewed which include maps and reports, books, journal
articles and materials available on internet. Besides, previous studies and investigation
reports were assessed and included as a part of literature review.

3.1 Soil and its nature

Most of the building foundations are laid down on soils. Thus, the soils form the foundation
for the safety and stability of the building structures. Different soils behave in different
manner when subjected to the loads imposed by the structures. This behavioral variation to
imposed loads is on account of genetic origin of soils, its mineral composition and its index
and engineering properties. Therefore, before knowing the soil performance as engineering
foundation it is mandatory to know what type of soil it is and what type of properties it
possess (Arora, 2004).

The term soil is defined by different subject of matter for different purpose. According to
Webster’s dictionary soil means the upper layer of the earth in which plant grow, consisting
of a mixture of organic remains, clay and rock particles (Soil taxonomy, 1999). In terms of
agronomy soil means the upper layer of the earth that may be excavate, specifically, the loose
surface material of the earth in which plants grow (Soil taxonomy, 1999). In field of
agronomy the main concern is to use soil for raising crops. In the field of geology Earth’s
crust is assumed to consist unconsolidated sediments, called mantle or regolith, overlying
rocks, due to that the term soil is used for the upper layer of mantle which can support
plants(Arora, 2004). In geotechnical engineering the upper layer part of the earth crust is
called top soil. The top soil contains a large quantity of organic matter and is not suitable for
construction material or foundation structures (Arora, 2004). The top soil is removed from
the earth surface before construction.
The term ‘soil’ in soil engineering is defined as an unconsolidated material, composed of
solid particles, produced by the disintegration of rocks (Arora, 2004).The void space between

Selamawit Tadesse 20
 Building Foundation Characterization And Analysis:
A Case Study in Ayat Area, Bole Sub-city, Addis Ababa, Central Ethiopia.

the particles may contain air, water or both. The solid particles may contain organic matter.
The soil particles can be separated by such mechanical means as distributed in water (Arora,
2004).

Soil is a three-phase material consisting of solid particles, water, and air. Its mechanical
behavior is largely dependent on the size of its solid particles and voids. The solid particles
are formed from physical and chemical weathering of rocks. Therefore, it is important to
have some understanding of the nature of rocks and their formation (Helwany, 2007).

In general, soil is a natural body comprised of solids (mineral and organic matter), liquid and
gases that occurs on the land surface and is characterized by one or both of the following,
horizons or layers that are distinguishable from the initial material as a result additions losses,
transfers and transformations of energy and matter or the ability to support rooted plants in a
natural environment (Soil taxonomy, 1999).

Soils are produced from rocks through the process of weathering and natural erosion; there
are two type of weathering physical and chemical weathering to help break down rock(parent
rock) (Arora, 2004).Physical weathering is cause for disintegration of rock fragment. Physical
weathering can occur due to temperature change, pressure, and erosion by water, ice and
wind. Chemical weathering is changes the composition of rocks. Chemical weathering
decomposed from the serious chemical process such as acidification, dissolution and
oxidation (Helwany, 2007).

Further, Helwany (2007) describe the particle size and the distribution of various particle
sizes of a soil depend on the weathering agent and the transportation agent. Soils are
categorized as gravel, sand, silt or clay depending on the predominant particle size involved.
Gravels are small pieces of rocks. Sands are small particles of quartz and feldspar. Silts are
microscopic soil fractions consisting of very fine quartz grains. Clays are flake-shaped
microscopic particles of mica, clay minerals, and other minerals. The average size (diameter)
of solid particles ranges from 4.75 to 76.2 mm for gravels and from 0.075 to 4.75mm for
sands. Soils with an average particle size of less than 0.075mm are either silt or clay or a
combination of the two. Soils can be divided into two major categories: Cohesionless and
Cohesive.
Arora (2004) describe Cohesionless soils, such as gravelly, sandy, and silty soils, have
particles that do not adhere together even with the presence of water. Arora (2004) describe
Cohesive soils are characterized by their very small flake like particles, which can attract
Selamawit Tadesse 21
 Building Foundation Characterization And Analysis:
A Case Study in Ayat Area, Bole Sub-city, Addis Ababa, Central Ethiopia.

water form plastic matter by adhering to each other. Ranjan (1993) describe Soil and rock are
the ultimate geologic formations that can either sufficiently or insufficiently respond to any
load exist on it depending on the amount of stress applied on it. The ultimate goal of any soil
material at foundation is to support properly the engineering structure which will be loaded
over it. The proper functioning of the structure will, therefore, depend critically on the
success of the foundation element resting on the subsoil.

Johnson (1996) describes the Soil deformation may occur by change in stress, water content,
soil mass, or temperature. Elastic or immediate deformation caused by static loads is usually
small, and it occurs essentially at the same time these loads are applied to the soil.
Consolidation settlement/time delayed consolidation is the reduction in volume associated
with a reduction in water content, and it occurs in all soils. Consolidation occurs quickly in
coarse-grained soils such as sands and gravels, and it is usually not distinguishable from
elastic deformation (Johnson, 1996; Robert, 1990; Ranjan, 1993).

According to Robert (1990) and Ranjan (1993) Consolidation in fine-grained soils such as
clays and organic materials can be significant and take considerable time to complete.
Secondary compression and creep are associated with the compression and distortion at
constant water content of compressible soils such as clays, silts, organic materials, and peat.
Dynamic loads cause settlement from rearrangement of particles, particularly in cohesion-less
soil, into more compact position (Robert, 1990).

Ranjan (1993) describe the time required for the settlement to occur vis-a vis the life span of
the structure, is an important consideration. It will give us an idea of how much settlement
will undergo after it is constructed and whether such a settlement will give us an idea of how
much settlement will undergo after it is constructed and whether such a settlement will give
us an idea of how much settlement will undergo after it is constructed and whether such a
settlement will impair its functioning or not.

Ranjan (1993) and Robert (1990), describe the compression settlement of each soil stratum is
computed from the consolidation test data and from the soil stresses before and after
construction.

Selamawit Tadesse 22
 Building Foundation Characterization And Analysis:
A Case Study in Ayat Area, Bole Sub-city, Addis Ababa, Central Ethiopia.

3. 2 Foundation condition estimation

According to Bowles (1997), the foundation is the part of an engineered system that transmits
to and into the underlying soil or rock the loads supported by the foundation structure. The
same author state that the term superstructure is commonly used to describe the engineered
part of the system bringing load to the foundation, or substructure.

According to Das (2011) and Arora (2004), in general there are two types of foundations for
buildings and bridges; Shallow foundations and Deep foundations.

According to Das (2011), Spread footings, wall footings, and mat foundations are type of
shallow foundations. The same author state that pile and drilled shaft foundations are type of
deep foundations.

Plate 3.1 Spread (Isolated) Footing Plate 3.2 Mat Foundation

George (1989) describes Soils of different behavior response in different ways to any load
imposed on it. This response to load is basically controlled by the engineering property of
soil.

Any engineering structure needs proper site to be sit on which can support its load without
failure so that it can exist for its purpose. The design of foundation embodies three essential
operations namely, calculating the loads to be transmitted by the foundation structure to the
soils or rocks supporting it, determining the engineering performance of these soil and rocks,
and then designing a suitable foundation structure (Bell, 2007; Robert, 2010).

Selamawit Tadesse 23
 Building Foundation Characterization And Analysis:
A Case Study in Ayat Area, Bole Sub-city, Addis Ababa, Central Ethiopia.

According to Bell (2007), a satisfactory foundation must meet three requirements:

(i) It must be placed at an adequate depth to prevent frost damage, undermining by scour,
or damage from future construction nearby.
(ii) It must be safe against breaking into the ground
(iii) It must not settle enough to disfigure or damage the structure.

3.3 Foundation Selection and Classification

According to Arora (2004), a foundation is required for distributing the loads of the
superstructure on a large area, and it should be designed such that; (i) The soil below dose not
fail in shear and (ii) The settlement is within the safe limit.

Foundation may be broadly classified into two categories(Arora, 2004;Day, 2006): (i)
shallow foundation which transmits the loads to the strata at shallow depth, and (ii) Deep
foundation which transmits the loads to considerable depth below the ground surface.

Spread footings are used for distributing concentrated column loads over a large area so that
the bearing pressure is less than or equal to allowable soil pressure (Arora, 2004).

Foundation engineering deals with the selection of the type of foundation, such as using a
shallow or deep foundation system and another important aspect of foundation engineering
involves the development of design parameters, such as the bearing capacity or estimated
settlement of the foundation (Day, 2006).

According to Bowles (1997), foundations may be classified based on where the load is
carried by the ground, producing: (i) Shallow foundations - termed bases, footings, spread
footings, or mats. The depth is generally D/B ≤1 but may be somewhat more and (ii) Deep
foundations- piles, drilled piers, or drilled caissons. Lp/B > 4 + with a pile.

Bowles, (1997) also stated that supporting capacity of the soil, from either strength or
deformation considerations, is seldom over 1000 kPa but more often on the order of 200 to
250 kPa. This means the foundation is interfacing two materials with a strength ratio on the
order of several hundred and as a consequence the loads must be "spread" to the soil in a
manner such that its limiting strength is not exceeded and resulting deformations are tolerable
but shallow foundations accomplish this by spreading the loads laterally, hence the term
spread footing and where a spread footing (or simply footing) supports a single column, a mat

Selamawit Tadesse 24
 Building Foundation Characterization And Analysis:
A Case Study in Ayat Area, Bole Sub-city, Addis Ababa, Central Ethiopia.

is a special footing used to support several randomly spaced columns or to support several
rows of parallel columns and may underlie a portion of or the entire building.

According to Bowles (1997), deep foundations are analogous to spread footings but distribute
the load vertically rather than horizontally and a major consideration for both spread footings
(and mats) and piles are the distribution of stresses in the stress influence zone beneath the
foundation. Below a critical depth of about 5B the soil has a negligible increase in stress
(about 0.02qo) from the footing load. This influence depth depends on B, because these B
values are in a possible range beneath a large building, so any poor soil below a depth of 2 m
would have a considerable influence on the design of the wider footings (Bowles, 1997).

Table3.1 Foundation types and typical usage (Bowles, 1997)

Foundation Use Applicable soil conditions
type
Shallow foundations(generally D/B≤ 1
Spread Individual columns, walls Any conditions where bearing capacity
footings, is adequate for applied load. May use
on a single stratum; firm layer over
soft layer or soft layer over firm layer.
Check settlements from any source.

Two to four columns on footing Same as for spread footings above.

Combined and/or space is limited.
footings
Several rows of parallel columns; Soil bearing capacity is generally less
heavy column loads; use to reduce than for spread footings, and over half
Mat differential settlements. the plan area would be covered by
foundation spread footings. Check settlements
from any source.
Deep foundations(generally Lp/B≥ 4+)
Floating In groups of 2* supporting a cap that Surface and near surface soils have
foundation interfaces with columns low bearing capacity and competent
soil is at great depth. Sufficient skin
resistance can be developed by soil to
pile perimeter to carry anticipated
loads.
Bearing pile Same as for floating pile Surface and near surface soils not
relied on for skin resistance;
competent soil for point load is at a
practical depth (8 - 20m).
Drilled piers Same as for piles; use fewer; for Same as for piles. May be floating or
or caissons large column loads point bearing (or combination).
Depends on depth to competent
bearing stratum.

According to Murthy (1990), two important factors that are to be considered in stability of a
structure are: (i) the foundation must be stable against shear failure of the supporting soil and
(ii) the foundation must not settle beyond a tolerable limit to avoid damage to the structure.

Selamawit Tadesse 25
 Building Foundation Characterization And Analysis:
A Case Study in Ayat Area, Bole Sub-city, Addis Ababa, Central Ethiopia.

According to Murthy (1990), the other factors that require consideration are the location and
depth of the foundation and in deciding the location and depth, one has to consider the
erosions due to flowing water, underground defects such as root holes, cavities,
unconsolidated fills, ground water level, presence of expansive soils etc.

According to Day (2006), the selection of a particular type of foundation is often based on a
number of factors, such as:

(i) Adequate depth: the foundation must have an adequate depth to prevent frost damage.
For such foundations as bridge piers, the depth of the foundation must be sufficient to
prevent undermining by scour.
(ii) Bearing capacity failure: the foundation must be safe against a bearing capacity
failure.
(iii) Settlement: the foundation must not settle to such an extent that it damages the
structure.
(iv) Quality: the foundation must be of adequate quality so that it is not subjected to
deterioration, such as from sulfate attack.
(v) Adequate strength: the foundation must be designed with sufficient strength that it
does not fracture or break apart under the applied superstructure loads. The
foundation must also be properly constructed in conformance with the design
specifications.
(vi) Adverse soil changes: the foundation must be able to resist long-term adverse soil
changes. An example is expansive soil, which could expand or shrink causing
movement of the foundation and damage to the structure.
(vii) Seismic forces: the foundation must be able to support the structure during an
earthquake without excessive settlement or lateral movement. Based on an analysis of
all of the factors listed above, a specific type of foundation (i.e., shallow versus deep)
would be recommended by the geotechnical engineer.

The following sections discuss various types of shallow and deep foundations. A shallow
foundation is often selected when the structural load will not cause excessive settlement of
the underlying soil layers and in general, shallow foundations are more economical to
construct than deep foundations (Day, 2006).

Based on economic considerations, mat foundations are often constructed for the following
reasons (NAVFAC DM-7.2, 1982):
Selamawit Tadesse 26
 Building Foundation Characterization And Analysis:
A Case Study in Ayat Area, Bole Sub-city, Addis Ababa, Central Ethiopia.

(i) Large individual footings. A mat foundation is often constructed when the sum of
individual footing areas exceeds about one-half of the total foundation area.
(ii) Cavities or compressible lenses. A mat foundation can be used when the subsurface
exploration indicates that there will be unequal settlement caused by small cavities or
compressible lenses below the foundation. A mat foundation would tend to span over
the small cavities or weak lenses and create a more uniform settlement condition.
(iii) Shallow settlements. A mat foundation can be recommended when shallow
settlements predominate and the mat foundation would minimize differential
settlements.
(iv) Unequal distribution of loads. For some structures, there can be a large difference in
building loads acting on different areas of the foundation. Conventional spread
footings could be subjected to excessive differential settlement, but a mat foundation
would tend to distribute the unequal building loads and reduce the differential
settlements.
(v) Hydrostatic uplift. When the foundation will be subjected to hydrostatic uplift due to a
high groundwater table, a mat foundation could be used to resist the uplift forces.

3.4 Selection of Foundation Depth

The type of foundation, whether shallow or deep and the depth of undercutting and
embankment depends on the depths to acceptable bearing strata as well as on the type of
structure to be supported (USACE, 1992).

(i) Dense sands and gravels and firm to stiff clays with low potential for volume change
provide the best bearing strata for foundations.
(ii) Standard penetration resistance values from the SPT and cone resistance from the CPT
should be determined at a number of different lateral locations within the construction
site. These tests should be performed to depths of about twice the minimum width of
the proposed foundation.
(iv) Minimum depth requirements should be determined by such factors as depth of frost
action, potential scour and erosion, settlement limitations, and bearing capacity.

3.5 Foundation Settlement Analysis

Suitability of soil for building foundations depend on the physical and engineering geological
characteristics of soil and the performance of engineering works will depend on the correct
assessment of engineering properties to determine suitability and to predict performance of
Selamawit Tadesse 27
 Building Foundation Characterization And Analysis:
A Case Study in Ayat Area, Bole Sub-city, Addis Ababa, Central Ethiopia.

soil for its intended use (Arora, 1997). From building foundation point of view safe
performance of the foundation depends on bearing capacity of the foundation material and its
settlement potential. Settlement of a foundation is vertical and downward movement due to a
volume decrease of the soil on which it is built. Poor shear strength directly correlates to poor
bearing capacity which ultimately reflects the unsafe building foundation.

According to Arora (1997), when a soil mass is subjected to a compressive force its volume
decreases and the property of the soil due to which a decrease in volume occurs under
compressive force is known as the compressibility of the soil. The compression of soils can
occur due to one or more of the causes; (i) Compression of solid particles and water in the
void, (ii) Compression and expulsion of air in the void or (iii) Expulsion of water in the void.

A study of consolidation characteristic is extremely useful for forecasting the magnitude and
time of the settlement of the foundation (Arora, 1997). According to Coduto (2001), the
vertical downward load is usually the greater load acting on foundations and the resulting
vertical downward movement is usually the largest and most important movement we call
this vertical downward movement settlement. Sometimes settlement also occurs as a result of
other causes unrelated to the presence of the foundation such as consolidation due to the
placement of a fill. Although foundations with zero settlement would be ideal, this is not an
attainable goal. Stress and strain always go together, so the imposition of loads from the
foundation always causes some settlement in the underlying soils.

Foundation settlements must be estimated with great care for buildings, bridges, towers,
power plants, and similar high-cost structures. For structures such as fills, earth dams, levees,
braced sheeting and retaining walls a greater margin of error in the settlements can usually be
tolerated (Arora, 1997). In the vertical direction the settlement will be defined as∆𝐻. The
principal components of ∆H are particle rolling and sliding, which produce a change in the
void ratio, and grain crushing, which alters the material slightly. Only a very small fraction of
∆H is due to elastic deformation of the soil grains.

 Immediate, or those that take place as the load is applied or within a time period of
about 7 days.

Immediate settlement analyses are used for all fine-grained soils including silts and clays
with a degree of saturation S ≤90 percent and for all coarse grained soils with a large
coefficient of permeability [say, above 10−3 m/s].

Selamawit Tadesse 28
 Building Foundation Characterization And Analysis:
A Case Study in Ayat Area, Bole Sub-city, Addis Ababa, Central Ethiopia.

The immediate settlement of the corner of a rectangular base of dimensions B' X L' on the
surface of an elastic half-space can be computed from an equation from the Theory of
Elasticity [e.g., Timoshenko and Goodier (1951)] as follows:

……. eq. 3.1

……. eq. 3.2

Where qo = intensity of contact pressure in units of Es

B‘= least lateral dimension of contributing base area in units of ∆𝐻
Ii = influence factors, which depend on L'/B’ thickness of stratum H, Poisson's ratio𝜇, and
base embedment depth D
m = number of corners contributing to settlement ∆H. At the footing center m = 4; at a side
m= 2, and at a corner m = 1. Not all the rectangles have to have the same L'/B' ratio, but for
any footing, use a constant depth H.
If= influence factor find using figure Bowles, 1997.

 Consolidation, or those that are time-dependent and take months to years to develop.
The Leaning Tower of Pisa in Italy has been undergoing consolidation settlement for over
700 years. The lean is caused by the consolidation settlement being greater on one side. This,
however, is an extreme case with the principal settlements for most projects occurring in 3 to
10 years.

Consolidation settlement analyses are used for all saturated, or nearly saturated, fine grained
soils where the consolidation. For these soils we want estimates of both settlement ∆H and
how long a time it will take for most of the settlement to occur (Bowles, 1997).

 Settlements may be estimated from the SPT N- value in granular soils.

 The settlement estimate is based on the size and type of foundation.

According Arora (2004), the allowable maximum settlement depends upon the type of soil,
the type of foundation and the structural framing system. The maximum settlement ranging
from 20mm to 300mm is generally permitted for various structures. Theoretically, no damage
is done to superstructure if the soil settles uniformly. However, settlements exceeding 150mm
may cause trouble in utilities such as water pipe lines, sewers, telephone lines and also in
access from streets.

Selamawit Tadesse 29
 Building Foundation Characterization And Analysis:
A Case Study in Ayat Area, Bole Sub-city, Addis Ababa, Central Ethiopia.

IS: 1904 (1966), permits a maximum settlement of 40mm for isolated foundation on sand and
65mm for those on clay.
As per Ethiopian building code (EBCS) allowable settlement for isolated foundation on sand
is 25mm whereas for clay soils it is 50mm. The allowable settlement is higher for clays
because progressive settlements on clayey soils permit better strain adjustments in the
structural members. The maximum permissible settlement for raft foundations on sand is
40mm to 65mm and that on clay 65 to 100mm. The permissible settlements for rafts are more
than those for isolated foundation because the raft bridges over soft patches of the soil and the
differential settlements are reduced (Arora, 2004).

3.6 Bearing capacity

Bearing capacity is the ability of soil or rock to-safely carries the load placed on the soil from
any engineered structure without undergoing a shear failure. Applying a bearing pressure,
which is safe with respect to failure, does not ensure that settlement of the foundation will be
within acceptable limits. Therefore, settlement analysis should also be performing. The
general accepted method of bearing capacity analysis is to assume that the soil below the
foundation along a critical plane of failure (slip path) is on the verge of failure and to
calculate the bearing pressure applied by the foundation required to cause this failure
condition. This is the ultimate bearing capacity qu (Bowles., 1996 ).Experimental
investigations have indicated that when a footing fails due to insufficient bearing capacity,
distinct failure patterns are developed, depending upon type of failure mechanism. Failure is
accompanied by appearance of failure surfaces and by building of sheared mass of soil
(Vesic,1963).

The physical and engineering properties of soils of principal interest for the analysis and
design of foundation elements primarily include the following:

 Strength parameters :- angle of internal friction, (Փ), soil cohesion (C)

 Stress-strain modulus (or modulus of elasticity), shear modulus, and Poisson’s ration,
angle of internal friction, (Փ), soil cohesion (C)
 Compressibility indexes for amount and rate of settlement
 Gravimetric-volumetric data (Unit weight, specific gravity, void ratio, or porosity,
water content, plastic limit, liquid limit).

Selamawit Tadesse 30
 Building Foundation Characterization And Analysis:
A Case Study in Ayat Area, Bole Sub-city, Addis Ababa, Central Ethiopia.

Some or all of the above laboratory tests are routinely performed as part of the foundation
design process (Bowles, 1997). While performing the above tests in the laboratory, there
must be great care and supervision, for there exist all or some of the below mentioned most
common problems for all laboratory tests and it is impossible to eliminate all but can be
minimize. These are the following;

 Recovery of good quality samples. It is not possible to recover samples with zero
disturbances, but if the disturbance is a minimum - a relative term – the sample quality
may be adequate for the project.
 Necessity of extrapolating the results from the laboratory tests on a few small samples,
which may involve a small volume to the site, which involves several thousands of cubic
meters.
 Laboratory equipment limitations
 Ability and motivation of the laboratory personnel.

BEARING CAPACITY EQUATIONS

In general Bearing Capacity estimation equations was developed by different parameters

those are;

The pioneer bearing capacity estimation was developed by Karl Terzaghi, in 1943. Although this
estimation was preconditioned with assumptions, it was the break though of soil bearing pressure
evaluation. The following formula was derived by Terzaghi.
qult = cNcSc+ qNq + 0.5λBNɣSɣ
Nq =

A = e(0.75Л- Փ/2)tanՓ
Nc = (Nq - 1)cotՓ

Nɣ = ( - 1)
Where, C = cohesion
qult = ultimate bearing capacity pressure
B= foundation width, ft
Nc, Nγ, Nq = dimensionless bearing capacity factors for cohesion c,
soil weight in the failure wedge, and surcharge q terms

Selamawit Tadesse 31
 Building Foundation Characterization And Analysis:
A Case Study in Ayat Area, Bole Sub-city, Addis Ababa, Central Ethiopia.

SC, Sγ = shape factor

ү = unit weight of soil
Փ = angle of shear resistance
Kp = coefficient of passive earth pressure.
q = Surcharge at the ground level
Meyerhof (1963) also derived an equation for bearing capacity with additional parameters which was
not included in Terzagh estimation. Shape and depth factors are primarily incorporated and bearing
capacity constant, Nɣ was modified.
qult = cNcScdc + qNqSqdq + 0.5λB’NɣSɣdɣ
qult = cNcScic + qNqSqiq + 0.5λB’NɣSɣiɣ
Nq = eЛtan Փ(45 +Փ/2)
Nc = (Nq - 1)cotՓ
Nɣ = (Nq - 1)tan(1.4Փ)
Where, C = cohesion
qult = ultimate bearing capacity pressure
B= foundation width, ft
Nc, Nγ, Nq = dimensionless bearing capacity factors for cohesion c,
soil weight in the failure wedge, and
surcharge q terms
ү = unit weight of soil
Փ = angle of shear resistance
q = Surcharge at the ground level
Sc, Sq and Sγ = shape factors
dc, dq and dγ = depth factors
ic, iq and iγ = inclination factor
Brich Hansen (1970) and Vesic (1973, 1975) also made slight modification to above formula with
consideration of some addition parameters.
Qult = cNcScdcicgcbc + qNqSqdqiqgqbq + 0.5λB’NɣSɣdɣiɣgɣbɣ
Nq = eЛtanՓtan2(45 + Փ/2)
Nc = (Nq - 1)cot Փ
Nɣ = 1.5(Nq - 1) tan Փ
Where,C = cohesion
qult = ultimate bearing capacity pressure

Selamawit Tadesse 32
 Building Foundation Characterization And Analysis:
A Case Study in Ayat Area, Bole Sub-city, Addis Ababa, Central Ethiopia.

B= foundation width, ft
Nc, Nγ, Nq = dimensionless bearing capacity factors for cohesion c,
soil weight in the failure wedge, and surcharge q terms
ү = unit weight of soil
Փ = angle of shear resistance
q = Surcharge at the ground level
Sc, Sq and Sγ = shape factors
dc, dq and dγ = depth factors and ic, iq and iγ = inclination factor.
The above estimation was commonly used for cohesive soils where result for cohesion and angle for
internal friction of representative soil sample was available. Bearing capacity is also calculated based
on empirical estimation from SPT values. Bowles, (1997) derived the following estimation method.
qall = * (1+ ⁄ )* Kd B > F4

qall = allowable bearing pressure for settlement limited to 25mm, F = factor of safety
B = width of foundation
D = depth of foundation
Bowels, (1997) also recommend estimating bearing capacity for mat foundation using SPT
blow counts.
Qult = cNcScdc + qNqSqdq + 0.5λBNɣSɣdɣ

According to (George P., 2009) civil engineering structures that impose load on the ground
can be grouped into two types; mass structures and framed structures.

The bearing capacity of cohesion less soil such as sand or gravel may be analyzed for strip
loading in a similar manner to that for saturated clay. Three factors are of important to the
bearing capacity of sand; β, Ɣ, Փ. Bearing capacity increases directly with the width of the
loaded area; in practice this means that small foundations on sand may be dangerous while
large foundations are usually safe, capacity increases directly with unit weight (George B.,
1989).

To determine ultimate bearing capacity there must be adequate data on ground properties and
trust in the appropriateness of the calculation theory. Since neither is commonly to be found
the calculated ultimate bearing capacity is divided by a factor of safety to give the safe
bearing capacity. This factor of safety is commonly between 3 and 5, and is chosen on the
difficulty the ground conditions and the importance of the structure.

Selamawit Tadesse 33
 Building Foundation Characterization And Analysis:
A Case Study in Ayat Area, Bole Sub-city, Addis Ababa, Central Ethiopia.

3.7 Estimation of Ultimate Bearing Capacity (qu) of soil by using Standard Penetration
Test (SPT) N-value

According to Bowles (1997), the ultimate bearing capacity of footings on soils can be
determined with the help of standard penetration resistance value, N. Value of N are
determined at a number of selected locations of boreholes, at vertical intervals of 750 mm or
at change of strata, whichever occurs earlier. The method has been standardized as ASTN D
1586 since 1958 with periodic revisions to date. The SPT is widely used to obtain the bearing
capacity of soils directly. One of the earliest published relationships was that of Terzaghi and
Peck (1967). This has been widely used, but an accumulation of field observations has shown
these curves to be overly conservative.

According to Bowels (1997), correlations between SPT N value and soil or weak rock
properties are wholly empirical. It is therefore important that user of the SPT and the data it
produces has a good appreciation of those factors controlling the test, which are: (i)
Variations in the test apparatus, (ii) The disturbance created by boring the hole; and (iii) The
soil into which it is driven

In general, the above approaches have both merits and demerits according to the stress type,
shape of foundation and ground condition they are used.

3.8 Previous works

There are no much studies and significant previous practical experience of building
foundation characterization and analysis in Ethiopian. Some related studies to the present
work, however, were conducted in the past for academic purposes. The work of Lamesgin
Mesele (2014), Merga Negesa(2014), Weynshet Tadesse (2015) and Hanna Tibebu (2008)
are a related work that is referred for this research work.

Lamesgin Mesele (2014) conducted characterization and assessment of the bearing capacity
of most common foundation materials in Addis Ababa city. He has undertaken a comparative
assessment of the bearing capacity of foundation material in Addis Ababa, through the
development of a geotechnical data base from historical borehole logs and laboratory test
results data. In addition in his research work, he has prepared a bedrock topography and soil
thickness map of Addis Ababa. He made assessment of bearing capacity of foundation
materials in Addis Ababa through different computational methods and made comparisons of
results on bearing capacities within each soil type and among different soil types. He

Selamawit Tadesse 34
 Building Foundation Characterization And Analysis:
A Case Study in Ayat Area, Bole Sub-city, Addis Ababa, Central Ethiopia.

concluded that the Nc and Nq terms are the same for all authors except slight variation in
Terzaghi. However, the NƔ factor has the widest range of values there by resulting in
considerable variations in the bearing capacity, especially for greater angles of shearing
resistance. These conclusions can be drawn from this work;

 Among the bearing capacity factors, the NƔ term brings very big differences in bearing
capacity values, especially for larger footings (mats).
 For footings founded on red clays in Addis Ababa, Terzaghi, EBCS and SPT methods
gave reasonable bearing capacity values. On the other hand, for the mat foundations,
Terzaghi (1943), Meyehof (1951), Hansen (1970) and EBCS-7 (1995) methods gave
close results. For expansive soils, the computed bearing capacity values for shallow
foundations are found to be nearly identical. However, the SPT method gives relatively
high bearing capacity values. For a saturated tuff, the resulted bearing capacity values for
all analytical methods are almost similar. Unlike the analytical methods, the SPT method
resulted very high bearing capacity values for a saturated tuff. With regard to paleosols,
roughly similar range of bearing capacity value been obtained using Terzaghi (1943) and
EBCS-7 (1995) methods. On the other hand, relatively higher values have been obtained
using Meyerhof, Hansen and Vesic approaches. For larger footings (mats) founded on
paleosols, the Vesic method gave high bearing capacity values, whereas the rest of the
analytical methods gave roughly similar values. Unlike the analytical methods, bearing
capacity values obtained using SPT method is found to be high for both footings and
mats.

Merga Negesa (2014) conducted characterization and foundation analysis for selected sites
under Addis Ababa housing project. He has undertaken a characterization and foundation
analysis of three sites namely Asco site, Megenagna site and Imperial site which are under
preparation for apartment buildings. In his research work filed observation and laboratory
tests were conducted. Representative samples were collected from each sites and soil index
property evaluation was conducted. Additionally, strength property is also done. Totally, 30
samples were collected from these three sites. From the study his work the following
conclusions are drawn;

 From engineering geology point of view Asco site is characterized by coarse grained well
graded to gap graded soil materials. From the test it is found to be gravely sand according

Selamawit Tadesse 35
 Building Foundation Characterization And Analysis:
A Case Study in Ayat Area, Bole Sub-city, Addis Ababa, Central Ethiopia.

to UCS classification. Samples from the rest of the sites are found to be highly plastic silt
(MH) soil.
 Bearing capacity analysis based on Bowels, 1996 SPT method employed and if
foundation level has to be stick to around 7m below natural ground level the sites run
over range of the following allowable bearing capacity.
 Correlation of bearing capacity and depth shows a significant overlapping with geology
of the sites indicating change in soil profile.
 Settlement estimation was conducted based on consolidation results of laboratory tests
and EBSC-7, (1995) method. In both cases the settlement increases with width of
foundation and the value is also beyond allowable limits.
 The unconfined compressive strength of rock samples collected from Megenagna and
Imperial site shows the Imperial site samples are found to be stronger than Megenagna
site.

3.9 Evolution of Methodology for the present study

Based on systematic literature review, general background knowledge about characterization

of building foundation and analysis techniques was developed. With a thorough conceptual
framework a comprehensive methodology was developed.

Historical geotechnical investigation reports have been extensively reviewed from both
governmental and non-governmental organizations so as to understand the most common
foundation material types and the foundation analysis practiced in Addis Ababa.
Geotechnical data from these investigations and ongoing projects, and subsequent
interpretations, provided the necessary geotechnical framework for the present study. During
the present study in order to achieve the objective, field observation and selected laboratory
tests were conducted. Representative soil samples were taken from test pit and soil index
properties were evaluated to understand the basic soil types and to have some comparison
with the soil types procured as secondary data. Based on the primary data and secondary data
characterization of the building foundation was made for bearing capacity and settlement
potential. Finally, based on the analysis of the results, interpretations were made and
accordingly conclusions and recommendations are forwarded.

*****

Selamawit Tadesse 36
 Building Foundation Characterization And Analysis:
A Case Study in Ayat Area, Bole Sub-city, Addis Ababa, Central Ethiopia.

CHAPTER FOUR METHODS AND TECHNIQUES

4.0 Preamble

In order to achieve the objective of the study various data collection methods was exercised.
The two data collection sources which were followed are secondary data and primary data
collection (the primary data are investigated with laboratory analysis).

The general methodology followed in the present research involved:

 Review of literatures, manuals and specifications

 Field work
 Secondary data collected
 Primary data collected
 Laboratory tests on collected samples
 Bearing capacity assessment
 Settlement potential estimation
 Data analysis and Interpretation of results

4.1 Literature review

Literature review basically involved the retrieval of data on physiography and climatic
conditions, soil types, the regional and local geology, ground water condition and geo-
hazards of the study area. Besides, literature on geotechnical investigation techniques as
applied to foundation studies in the present study area was collected from various sources and
later it was thoroughly reviewed. For this, different textbooks, journals, various official
documents and reports on geotechnical investigation for building site characterization were
reviewed.

Other literatures that deal about soil formation, soil classification, bearing capacity of
foundation classes, foundation type selection, settlement problems and foundation, and
recommendations for construction were also reviewed. For these purpose different maps,
previously done foundation investigations, building design manuals, reference books and
journals from different sources have been used for better understanding of aspects related to
the current research topic.

Selamawit Tadesse 37
 Building Foundation Characterization And Analysis:
A Case Study in Ayat Area, Bole Sub-city, Addis Ababa, Central Ethiopia.

4.2 Field work

A systematic field work was carried out to assess information on the land use and land cover,
physiographic and geological setup of the study area. Besides, necessary data was collected
for the geotechnical characterization of the soil/rocks in the study area. The field work has
been aided by land use and land cover map, topographical map, geological map to get various
inputs for the description on the land use and land cover, the topography, local geology and
soils conditions. The soil/rock types of the study area have been identified visually.

The identification was made based on their color, and size and distribution of their
constituents. Test pits have been dug for determination of depth of soil, description of soil
profile, soil sampling and assessment of groundwater conditions.

4.3 Secondary data collection

Secondary data was collected from governmental and non-governmental organizations to

review different pre-existing geological, engineering geological reports, maps, foundation
types and foundation analysis.

The review was made to understand the investigation methods, analysis and final
interpretations for various building foundation sites. Besides, borehole data, soil properties
and classification data was also collected which was later utilized to estimate the bearing
capacity and settlement potential of different foundation soils. In this regard, the secondary
data was procurement and processed from; bore hole logging, in-situ test and laboratory test
reports on different soils. Besides, processed secondary data on bearing capacity and
settlement potential of foundation soils in the study area was also reviewed and utilized to
meet out the objectives of the present study.

The characterization of the soil was made through visual observation for soil texture, color
and through laboratory testing on representative soil samples from test pits. Laboratory test
include; grain size distribution, Atterberg limit, soil classification, specific gravity, moisture
content etc.

For bearing capacity estimation the basic soil properties were used these include cohesion
(C), shearing resistance (Ø) and unit and weight of soil (γ). These properties were adopted
mainly through the test reports from secondary sources. Besides in-situ SPT data was also
used from as secondary data.

Selamawit Tadesse 38
 Building Foundation Characterization And Analysis:
A Case Study in Ayat Area, Bole Sub-city, Addis Ababa, Central Ethiopia.

For settlement potential estimation consolidation test was conducted and secondary data was
also utilized. The data used for the estimation of bearing capacity and settlement analysis was
obtained from borehole log and laboratory tests reports for more than 300 projects with 0 to
30 m depth information from the present study.

4.4 Primary data collection

Primary data for the present study was collected through representative test pits. Further,
logging of test pits was done to describe soil profile through physical examination based on
color, soil texture, grain size distribution etc. Further, from test pits appropriate soil samples
were also collected for laboratory testing. In total 7 test pits were made in the study area. The
selection of representative test pits was made after careful study of the soil map of the study
area, reconnaissance field study and review of secondary data. The depth of these test pits
varies from 0 to 3 m. For each of these test pits GPS coordinates were recorded. Systematic
logging of test pits was made. Within each test pits depth of each soil unit was measured, soil
color, texture, degree of saturation was also recorded. In total 7 soil samples, disturbed and
undisturbed, were collected from the test pits. Later, these samples were tested in the
laboratory to define the index and engineering properties of the soils in the study area.

During the field investigation following systematic activities were carried out;

(i) Visual description and identification of soil based on ASTM D 2488

(ii) Vertical section logging of test pits at different sites, visual description and
characterization of soil and rock strata
(iii) Representative soil samples were collected at different depth from different soil
horizons.
(iv) Later, laboratory tests were conducted on representative soil samples to evaluate index
properties of soil for which different tests of soil samples were conducted.

4.5 Laboratory Testing

Index properties are used to classify soils, to group soils into major strata, and to obtain
estimates of structural properties. The following laboratory tests were conducted for the
present study to evaluate the soil properties of the representative samples collected from the
study area. In total, 14 disturbed and 3 undisturbed soil samples were tested to define the
index properties of the soils in the study area. Also, engineering properties were determined
for 7 soil samples.

Selamawit Tadesse 39
 Building Foundation Characterization And Analysis:
A Case Study in Ayat Area, Bole Sub-city, Addis Ababa, Central Ethiopia.

A – Test pit at Name the place B – Teat Test pit at Name the place

Plate 4.1 Test pits made during present study

The index properties tests that were carried out include; Natural moisture content, Atterberg
limit, Particle size distribution, Free swell and Unit weight. Test for engineering properties
included; Direct shear, unconfined compressive strength and Consolidation test. These test
were carried out at Addis Ababa University, school of earth science, engineering geology
laboratory, transport construction design share company laboratory and the test reports are
presented as chapter 5. Thus, based on the test results comprehensive evaluation of the
foundation condition in the present study area was made.

4.5.1 Natural Moisture Content

Moisture content is defined as the ratio of mass of the water in a specimen to the mass of
solids in the dry sample. Soil moisture content was measured in accordance with BS 1377:
part 2:1990. The moisture content is defined as;

W (%) = Mw/Ms (100%) …..eq. 4.1

The difference in weight between the wet and dry sample is the mass of water, Mw is the
weight of the dry sample and Ms is the mass of the soil. Note that the eq. 4.1 defining water
content differs from standard equations for determining the percentage of constituent
materials. A specimen containing 25 g of water and 25 g of dry soil has a moisture content of
100%, but water comprises only 50% of the sample by weight (Ranjan, 1993).

Selamawit Tadesse 40
 Building Foundation Characterization And Analysis:
A Case Study in Ayat Area, Bole Sub-city, Addis Ababa, Central Ethiopia.

The soil was dried at a constant temperature of 110 0 C using a conventional oven for about
15 hours (BS 1377: part 2: 1990). Moisture content is an important soil property, which has
been correlated with shear strength, hydraulic conductivity, compressibility and unit weight
of the soil. Moisture content is important for interpretation of moisture-density relationships
and forms the basis of Atterberg Limit testing (Ranjan, 1993).

4.5.2 Atterberg Limit

The consistency of a fine-grained soil is the physical state in which it exists; it relates largely
to the water content. Consistency denotes the degree of firmness of the soil that is indicated
by tests in the field as soft, firm, stiff or hard (Abramson et al., 1996). As the water content of
a fine-grained soil is increased gradually from 0%, it goes through different consistencies,
namely brittle solid, semi-solid, plastic and liquid states as shown in Fig. 4.1. Atterberg limits
are the borderline water contents between two such states (Mills and Cameron, 2002).

Fig. 4.1 Consistency limits (Redraw this figure)

Plastic Limit (PL): plastic limit is the lowest water content at which the soil changes from a
fluid to plastic state. According to description of plasticity of fine soils in terms of range of
plasticity index given by IAEG(1983),the clay, sandy clay/silty and clayey/silty sand soils are
moderately to extremely plastic and the silty soils are moderately to highly plastic type.

Liquid Limit (LL): liquid limit is the lowest water content at which the fine-grained soil
behaves like a viscous mud and flowing under its own weight. It is the transition water
content between plastic and liquid states. Generally, soils having high values of liquid and
plastic limits are considered as poor foundation materials.

Plasticity Index (PI): plasticity Index is a measure of the range of water content over which
soil is in a plastic state. Soils with high PI tend to be clay, those with a lower PI tend to be
silt, and those with a PI of 0 tend to have little or no silt or clays (Holtz, 1981).

PI =LL –PL

Selamawit Tadesse 41
 Building Foundation Characterization And Analysis:
A Case Study in Ayat Area, Bole Sub-city, Addis Ababa, Central Ethiopia.

Table 4.1:- Soil expansivity predicted by plasticity index (IS 1498)

Degree of expansion Plasticity index (%)

Low < 12
Medium 12 – 23
High 23 – 32
Very high >32

Plastic index is important in classifying the fine-grained soils. The more plastic a soil means
the more compressible, higher shrinkage-swell potential and the lower is its permeability will
be (Abramsonetal.,1996).

The larger the plasticity index, the greater will be the engineering problems associated with
using the soil as an engineering material, such as foundation support for residential building
and road sub-grades (Bowles,1992).

In the present study Liquid limit and plastic limits were determined for soil samples collected
from seven test pits within the study area. These limits were determined employing AASHTO
T-89/90 classification methods used for identified fine grain soil. In liquid limit Casagrand
liquid limit apparatus was used to determine the amount of clay content and in plastic limit
simple rolling procedure to remove moisture content of soil was utilized.

4.5.3 Grain Size and Grain Size Distribution

According to Das (1994), soils are usually comprised of more than one particle size and the
principal particle sizes of soils are; gravel, sand, silt and clay therefore all soils are made up
of one or all of these distinct components in combination and each component has a definite
grain size range characteristic reaction in the soil mass.

The grain size distribution of a coarse-grained soil is generally determined through sieve
analyses, where the soil sample is passed through a stack of sieves and the percentages
passing different sizes of sieves are noted. The grain size distribution of the fines are
determined through hydrometer analysis, where the fines are mixed with distilled water to
make 1000ml of suspension and a hydrometer is used to measure the density of the soil-water
suspension at different times and hydrometer analysis is effective for soil fractions down to
about 0.5µm (Das, 1994).

In the present study the particle size distribution analyses of the disturbed soil samples have
been carried out by sieve analysis for materials coarser than 0.075mm and by hydrometer test
Selamawit Tadesse 42
 Building Foundation Characterization And Analysis:
A Case Study in Ayat Area, Bole Sub-city, Addis Ababa, Central Ethiopia.

for fine material (AASHTO, 2008). Mostly soils containing both coarse and fine grains
therefore it is necessary to do sieve and hydrometer analysis to obtain the complete grain size
distributions data (Das, 2011).

4.5.4 Free swell

In the present study free swell index soil test analysis of disturbed soil sample from seven test
pits in the study area was determined by IS: 2720 (part 40)- 1985. The test was used to
determined expansivity of soil in the study area. The result of the test are present later in
chapter 5.

Table 4.3 Soil expasivity predicted by free swell index (IS 1498)

Degree of expansion Free swell index (%)

Low < 50
Medium 50 – 100
High 100 – 200
Very high > 200

4.5.5 Unit Weight

In the present study unit weight of the soil was determined by ASTM D 2937-00 – Standard
Test for Density of Soil in Place by the Drive Cylinder Method. This test was performed to
determine the in-place density of undisturbed soil obtained by pushing or drilling a thin-
walled cylinder.

The bulk density is the ratio of mass of moist soil to the volume of the soil sample, and the
dry density is the ratio of the mass of the dry soil to the volume the soil sample.

4.5.6 Direct shear test

In the present study direct shear soil test was carried out according to AASTO T-236. The
test is performed by deforming a specimen at a controlled rate on a single shear plane
determine by configuration of the apparatus. This test is used to determined shear strength
parameters, angle of internal friction and cohesion of material. These shear strength
parameters of soil were used to compute the bearing capacity of the foundation soils.

4.5.7 Consolidation

In the present study consolidation test was conducted according to ASTM D 2423 standard.
This test is useful to estimate the magnitude and the rate of both primary and secondary
consolidation settlement of a structure. This test is performed to determine the magnitude and

Selamawit Tadesse 43
 Building Foundation Characterization And Analysis:
A Case Study in Ayat Area, Bole Sub-city, Addis Ababa, Central Ethiopia.

rate of volume decrease that a laterally confined soil specimen undergoes when subjected to
different vertical pressures. From the measured data, the consolidation curve (pressure-void
ratio relationship) can be plotted. This data is useful in determining the compression index,
the recompression index and the pre-consolidation pressure (or maximum past pressure) of
the soil.

4.6 Estimation of bearing capacity of soil

For the present study ultimate bearing capacity (Qult) and allowable bearing capacity (Qall)
were computed by utilizing MS Excel computation sheet developed by Raghuvanshi (2017).
This computational sheet facilitate to compute bearing capacity proposed by Terzaghi (1943),
Hensen (1957, 1970), Vesic (1973), Meyerhof (1963) and Ethiopian Building Standard code
(EBSC-7). The computational sheet facilitates to do analysis for variable footing dimensions
at different depths.

The basic input data required for computation of bearing capacity are foundation soil
properties; cohesion (C), shearing resistance (Ø), unit weight of soil (γ), footing dimensions,
depth of footing, depth to ground water table and mode of application of load. The bearing
capacity factors, depth, shape and inclination factors are computed automatically. In order to
compute allowable bearing capacity (Qall) a factor of safety of 3 was considered for the
present study.

4.7 Settlement potential estimation

Settlement estimation is done for this specific site by considering the dominant clayey SILTY
soil layer beneath the foundation. For the soil type under consideration, the major part of the
settlement is contributed by primary consolidation settlement. Therefore, the calculation of
consolidation settlement is presented in chapter 5. Consolidation test was conducted on
undisturbed samples collected from the study area.

*****

Selamawit Tadesse 44
 Building Foundation Characterization And Analysis:
A Case Study in Ayat Area, Bole Sub-city, Addis Ababa, Central Ethiopia.

CHAPTER FIVE DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

5. Preamble

This chapter deals with the collection of primary and secondary data for foundation analysis.
Besides, it also presents characterization of soils for building foundation in the study area.
For soil characterization and foundation analysis both secondary and primary data was
utilized. Borehole logs, soil laboratory tests and SPT data were used as secondary data.
Besides, representative primary data was collected through test pits and systematic laboratory
tests were also conducted.

5.1 Data collection

In order to characterize the soils from the study area both secondary and primary data was
utilized. The soil properties that were used from the secondary and the primary sources and
the total number of test results or samples used are presented in Table 5.1. The summary of
laboratory test results is presented in Annexure 1. Fig. 5.1 shows the location of boreholes
that were used for the present study.

5.1.1 Secondary data

In order to achieve the objectives of the present study it was necessary to source a large
quantity of geotechnical records mainly through the boreholes present in the study area. In
this regard geotechnical data from various sources was procured. These include Saba
Engineering PLC, Building construction design and share company PLC, Adiss Geosystem
PLC, Arcon Building PLC and Addis Ababa saving house development enterprise. The data
used for the estimation of bearing capacity and settlement analysis was obtained from
borehole logs and laboratory tests reports for more than 300 projects.

5.1.2 Primary data

For the present study 7 test pits were made at different locations in the study area (Fig. 5.1).
These test pits were made to collect representative samples for the determination of soil
properties and to have general comparison of test results with that of the data obtained from
the secondary sources.

Selamawit Tadesse 45
 Building Foundation Characterization And Analysis:
A Case Study in Ayat Area, Bole Sub-city, Addis Ababa, Central Ethiopia.

Table 5.1 Summary of laboratory test result used in the present study

S.No Type Of Laboratory Secondary Primary Total Test Designation

Test data data
1 Grain Size analysis 539 7 546 AASHTO T88
2 Atterberg Limit (LL and 527 7 534 AASHTO T89 & 90
PL)
3 Free Swell 231 7 238 AASHTO T256
4 Specific gravity 379 7 386 AASHTO T100
5 Natural moisture content 110 7 117 AASHTO T265
6 Unconfined Compressive 71 3 74 ASTM D2938
Strength(UCS)
7 Bulk Unit weight 82 3 85 ASTM D2937
8 Consolidation 41 3 44
9 Standard penetration test 1150 - 1150 ASTM D 1586 –99 &
BS 5930: 1981

Fig.5.1 Location of boreholes and test pits that were used for the present study

Selamawit Tadesse 46
 Building Foundation Characterization And Analysis:
A Case Study in Ayat Area, Bole Sub-city, Addis Ababa, Central Ethiopia.

Each of these test pits was systematically logged and description of various soils based on
visual observations was made. Besides, representative disturbed and undisturbed samples
were also collected for the determination of various properties through laboratory testing.
Table 5.2 presents the location of test pits that were used during the present study.

Table 5.2 Location of test pits used to generate primary data during the present study

Test GPS location (UTM) Name of Place Depth Description

Pit No Easting Northing Elevation (m)
(m)
1 487694 991024 2297 Close to CMC 3m Light grey to dark (fine grain)
square
2 486076 993243 2301 Ayat 3m Dark to black color
Condominium
3 484020 995563 2367 Ayat 5 3m Light gray complexly
weathered, Decompose, tuff
4 485861 994564 2307 Close to quarry 3m Light dark to light brown
site
5 484493 992400 2306 Close to summit 3m Light gray complexly
weathered, Decompose, tuff
6 488306 996620 2216 Around Moha 3m Light grey to dark (fine grain)
Soft drink
factory
2306 Close to bole 3m Dark gray, medium stiff, high
487946 993990
7 Arabsa plastic silty clay

The soil samples collected from the test pits were tested in the laboratory of Construction
design Share company PLC, Addis Ababa for Grain size distribution, Atterberg limits, Free
swell, specific gravity and natural moisture content. To determine these properties 7 soil
samples were utilized (Table 5.3). Besides, unconfined compressive Strength (UCS), bulk
unit weight and consolidation tests were also conducted on 3 representative samples (Table
5.4).
Table 5.3 Summary of Laboratory test results (primary data) for index properties and classification
Sample depth Atterberg Limit Soil Wet Sieve Analysis Free NMC,
Pit

No. (AASHTO Classificati (AASHTO T-88), Swell %

T89 & 90) on Sieve Size (mm) Vs % passing
Test

LL % PI (AASHTO 19 12.5 4.75 2 0.425 0.075 % AASHTO

No

% M-145) T-265
1 S1 1.5m 73 25 A-7-5(18) 100 98 89 79 120 43
2 S2 1.5m 55 17 A-7-5(14) 100 99 96 84 120 41
3 S3 1.5m 68 27 A-7-5(19) 100 96 86 80 130 38
4 S4 1.5m 62 19 A-7-5(15) 100 94 82 72 130 40
5 S5 1.5m 52 16 A-7-5(16) 100 97 91 82 110 44
6 S6 1.5m 59 21 A-7-5(14) 100 84 81 74 67 110 45
7 S7 1.5m 95 48 A-7-5(20) 100 89 86 180 39

A perusal of Table 5.3 clearly shows that all the soils fall into A-7-5 soil group of AASHTO
M-145. The liquid limit (LL) varies from 52 to 95 % and the plasticity index varies from 16
to 48 %. Further, the free swell of soils fall in the range 110 to 180 % and natural moisture
content (NMC) varies from 39 to 45 %.

Selamawit Tadesse 47
 Building Foundation Characterization And Analysis:
A Case Study in Ayat Area, Bole Sub-city, Addis Ababa, Central Ethiopia.

Further, results (Table 5.4) show that UCS for soil samples varies from 36.4 to 50 kPa. The
bulk density for soil samples fall in a range of 15 to 18 kN/m3. The consolidation test result
shows that the compression index (CC) and volume change (mv) varies from 0.193to 0.249
and 0.079 to 0.231, respectively.

Table 5.4 Summary of Laboratory test results on UCS, Bulk unit weight and consolidation

Test Sample Depth of UCS Bulk Unit Weight Consolidation

Pit No. sample (kPa) (kN/m3)
No (m) Cc Mv
1 S1 1.5 50 18 0.206 0.113
2 S3 1.5 36.4 15 0.249 0.231
7 S9 1.5 43.4 16 0.193 0.079

5.2 Characterization of foundation material

For the purpose of characterization and foundation analysis the study area was divided into 9
sites; Site 1 to Site 9, as shown in Fig. 5.1. This was mainly done so that the data can be well
managed and systematic analysis can be made. The foundation analysis results are also
presented site wise. The location details of these Sites and distribution of boreholes and test
pits (made during present study) is presented in Table 5.5.

In the present study area two prominent type of soils and two different types of rock units are
present. The soil types are; light to dark grey silty clay/ clayey silt soil and soft dark, silty
clay (Black Cotton) soil. Among the rocks; weak tuff layer and weak to medium strong
ignimbrite rocks are present. Following section presents a detailed description on these soils
and rock types.

5.2.1 Light to dark grey soil

From the field observations through test pits, laboratory tests and geotechnical bore hole log
reports light to dark grey soils are mainly dominated in Site 1, 4 and 7 (Fig. 5.1). This soil
was encountered underlying by pyroclastic ash and tuff deposits and reaches to the maximum
drilled depth. The thickness of this soil layer varies from 2 to 10.7 m in the study area as
observed from the logs of various boreholes. The soil from this layer can be characterize as
light to dark grey, stiff to very stiff and highly plastic silty CLAY/clayey SILT soil.

Selamawit Tadesse 48
 Building Foundation Characterization And Analysis:
A Case Study in Ayat Area, Bole Sub-city, Addis Ababa, Central Ethiopia.

Table 5.5 Location details of Sites and distribution of boreholes and test pits in the study area

Site No GPS Location (UTM) Name of Boreholes Test Pit

Easting Northing Elevation important Total No of Boreholes Depth of
(m) Place Borehole used for the Boreholes
Present present (m)
study
Site 1 483000- 997000- 2330 CMC square 15 11 0 – 15m 1
485000 995000
Site 2 485000- 995000- 2363 Around Ayat 11 11 0 – 15m -
487000 997000 real state
Site 3 487000- 995000- 2400 Ayat 98 16 0 – 30m 1
489307 997000 condominium
Site 4 483000- 992600- 2300 Summit 26 10 0 – 15m -
485000 995000 Square
Site 5 485000- 992600- 2370 Bole Ayat 3 10 4 0 – 15m 2
487000 995000
Site 6 487000- 992600- 2340 Bole Ayat 5 23 8 0 – 30m 1
489307 995000
Site 7 483000- 990090- 2250 Moha soft 12 4 0 – 15m 1
485000 992573 drink factory
Site 8 485000- 992573- 2270 Close to 69 12 0 – 15m -
487000 990090 beshale river
Site 9 487000- 992573- 2290 Close bole 24 7 0 – 15m 1
489307 990090 arabsa
condominium

The summary of laboratory test results on the representative soil samples, both from
secondary and primary data on light to dark grey soils a represented in Table 5.6. A perusal
of results (Table 5.6) clearly shows that 99% of the material passed through No 200 sieve.
Further, the liquid limit and plasticity index for these soils varies from of 87 to 113% and 47
to 80%, respectively.

The free swell varies from 90 to 180 %, whereas, natural moisture content varies from 30 to
45%. In general, the UCS for these soils varies from 85.8kPa to 200.1kPa. The coefficient of
compression (Cc) for these soils varies from 0.193-0.256.

The shear strength parameters C and φ varies from 11 – 30 kPa and 11 – 21o, respectively.
The results in general show that these soils are very high plastic and are fine grained
expansive in nature.

As per Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) these soils may be placed under MH and
CH types of soils (Fig. 5.2).Further, in situ Standard Penetration Test (SPT) results from the
secondary data on this soil indicate that the N value varies from 6 to 25 blows per 300 mm of
the test section. Based on the N value the soils falling within this group are represented as
medium stiff to very stiff soils.

Selamawit Tadesse 49
 Building Foundation Characterization And Analysis:
A Case Study in Ayat Area, Bole Sub-city, Addis Ababa, Central Ethiopia.

Table -5.6 Summary of index and engineering properties of light to dark grey soils

Index and Engineering proper Index and Range Mean Coefficient of variation
Engineering property (CV)%
Grain Size Distribution Gravel 0.1 -29.4 14.75 21
Sand 0.3 - 9.9 5.1 28
Silt 6 – 97.8 51.9 34
Clay 1 – 82 41.5 42
Liquid limit (LL) 87 – 113 100 57
Plastic Index (PI) 47 – 80 64 59
Soil Classification (USCS) MH and CH - -
Free swell 90 – 180 135 64
Unit Weight (KN/m3) 15 – 21 18 55.6
Moisture content 30 – 45 38 60.8
Void ratio (e) 0.0473 -0.0845 0.0659 67.6
UCS (KPa) 74 – 200 137 69.9
Swelling pressure (KPa) 105 – 130 118 64
Coefficient of compression (Cc) 0.193-0.256 0.2245 10
Cohesion(C) (KPa) 11 – 30 21 53
Angle of internal friction (Ø) 11 – 21 16 54.6
SPT- N 4 – 25 15 8

Fig 5.2 Casagrande’s Plasticity Chart for soils present at Site 1, 4 and 7

5.2.2 Soft dark, clay (Black Cotton soil)

From the field observations through test pits, laboratory tests and geotechnical bore hole log
reports soft dark clay (black cotton) soils are mainly dominated in Site 2, 3,5,6,7,8 and 9 (Fig.
5.1). This soil mostly covers the top most part in the study area and is composed of loose,
reddish brown scoracious material. The thickness of this soil layer varies from 0.3 to 3m in
the study area, as observed from the logs of various boreholes and within the test pits made

Selamawit Tadesse 50
 Building Foundation Characterization And Analysis:
A Case Study in Ayat Area, Bole Sub-city, Addis Ababa, Central Ethiopia.

during the present study. The soil from this layer can be characterize as black, soft
consistency, medium stiff, high plastic silty CLAY (Black cotton) soils.

The summary of laboratory test results on the representative soil samples, both from
secondary and primary data on soft dark clay (black cotton) soils are presented in Table 5.7.
A perusal of results (Table 5.7) clearly shows that 98% of the material passed through No
200 sieve. The liquid limit and plasticity index for these soils varies from of 37 to 89 % and 7
to 47 %, respectively.

The free swell varies from 90 to 190 % which shows high to very high expansion potential.
The natural moisture content varies from 26 to 61%. In general, the UCS for these soils varies
from 34 – 207.8 kPa. The coefficient of compression (Cc) for these soils varies from 0.3488
to 0.677. The shear strength parameters C and φ varies from 10 to 80 kPa and 9 – 21o,
respectively. The results in general show that these soils are very high plastic and are fine
grained expansive in nature.

As per Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) these soils may be placed mainly under
ML, MH and CL types of soils (Fig. 5.3).Further, in situ Standard Penetration Test (SPT)
results from the secondary data on this soil indicate that the N value varies from 4 to 17
blows per 300 mm of the test section. Based on the N value the soils falling within this group
are represented as soft to stiff consistency with soils with very loose to medium dense.
Table -5.7 Summary of index and engineering properties of soft dark, clay (black cotton)

Index and Engineering properties Range Mean Coefficient of variation

(Cv)%
Grain Size Distribution Gravel - - -
Sand 1.9 – 48.7 25 37
Silt 14.6 – 85.3 50 49
Clay 1.2 – 84.1 42 56
Liquid limit (LL) 37 – 89 63 55
Plastic Index (PI) 7 – 47 27 59
Soil Classification (USCS) MH and ML - -
Unit Weight (KN/m3) 16 – 22 19 53
Free swell 90 – 190 140 62
Moisture content 26 – 61 44 57
Void ratio (e) 0.7270 –1.4002 1.0636 63.8
UCS (KPa) 34 – 207.8 121 66.38
Swelling pressure (KPa) 100 – 140 120 66
Coefficient of compression (Cc) 0.3488-0.677 0.5129 7
Cohesion(C) (KPa) 10 – 80 45 49
Angle of internal friction (Ø) 9 – 21 15 52
SPT- N 4 – 17 11 7.6

Selamawit Tadesse 51
 Building Foundation Characterization And Analysis:
A Case Study in Ayat Area, Bole Sub-city, Addis Ababa, Central Ethiopia.

Fig. 5.3 Plasticity chart (USCS, AASTO) showing soils from Site 8 and 9
5.2.3 Weak TUFF layer

This rock type is encountered below the plastic silty SAND/sandy SILT and continues to the
maximum drilled depth in some of the boreholes. The depth of weak tuff layer from surface
in general varies from 0.5 to 6m, as observed in borehole logs from the study area. The rock
in general is very weak, dark grey, moderately to highly weathered, fractured, friable welded
or medium dense to very dense tuff. The rock quality designation (RQD) values as observed
from various borehole log reports shows that it varies from 0 to 60% and in majority of cases
it is less than 25 %. Thus, according to Deere et al (1967) classification the rock mass may be
categorized as very poor to poor quality rock.

5.2.4 Weak to medium strong IGNIMBRITE rock

The ignimbrite rock layer is found sandwiched between the soil layers and as per the
borehole logs data it is present at a depth ranging from about 5 to 8.5 m from the normal
ground surface. The thickness of ignimbrite rock layer generally varies from 0.95 to 2.7 m,
however as per some borehole records it continues to the maximum drilled depth (8.5m). The
rock in general is light grey in color¸ slightly to moderately weathered, closely
jointed/fractured, medium grained and weak to medium strong. The rock quality designation
(RQD) values as observed from various borehole log reports shows that it varies from 0 to 80
% and in majority of cases it is less than 50%. Thus, according to Deere et al (1967)
classification the rock mass may be categorized as very poor to poor quality rock. Further, the
uniaxial compressive strength, tested through rock core show that the UCS values vary
from10.61 to 25.73 MPa. Thus, according to Hoek and Brown (1977) classification these
rocks may be characterized as ‘weak rocks.

Selamawit Tadesse 52
 Building Foundation Characterization And Analysis:
A Case Study in Ayat Area, Bole Sub-city, Addis Ababa, Central Ethiopia.

5.2.4 Highly to completely weathered BASALT layer

This basalt rock layer is starting from at minimum and maximum depths of 8.6m and 13.5m.
It is represented grayish white to reddish brown, fine grained, massive, jointed, and highly to
completely weathered BASALT, weak to very weak. In general, the rock quality designation
(RQD) value as from observed from various borehole log reports show that varies from 0% -
51% and the majority of cases it is less than 50%. Thus, according to Deere et al (1967)
classification the rock mass may be categorized as very poor to poor quality rock. Further, the
uniaxial compressive strength, tested through rock core show that the UCS values vary from
8.43 to 19.71 MPa. Thus, according to Hoek and Brown (1977) classification these rocks may
be characterized as ‘weak rocks.

5.3 Bearing capacity (qu) Assessment

Before any foundation analysis is made, the fundamental material parameters should be
known. The basic soil properties that are required for the bearing capacity estimation are
shear strength parameters (cohesion and angle of shearing resistance) and the unit weight of
the soil. Other factors such as the depth and width of foundation should also be known
(Arora, 1997; Ranjan and Rao, 2002).Thus, for the computation of bearing capacity the above
mentioned soil properties were obtained for each site from the secondary and primary data
sources and are presented in Table 5.8. The bearing capacity of foundation soils varies with
depth and footing dimensions therefore, in the present study bearing capacity was computed
by considering different depths and variable footing dimensions. For the present study the
bearing capacity was only compute for square footings. Also, it was assumed that only
vertical static loads will be acting on the foundation and ground surface is horizontal. It is
also assumed that ground water table is deep and it may not affect the foundation soils. Table
5.9 gives details for depths and footing dimensions for various sites for which bearing
capacity was computed.

For the present study ultimate bearing capacity (Qult) and allowable bearing capacity (Qall)
were computed by utilizing MS Excel computation sheet developed by Raghuvanshi
(2017).This computational sheet facilitate to compute bearing capacity proposed by Terzaghi
(1943), Hensen (1957, 1970), Vesic (1973), Meyerhof (1963) and Ethiopian Building
Standard code (EBSC-7).The computational sheet facilitates to do analysis for variable
footing dimensions at different depths. The basic input data required for computation of
bearing capacity are foundation soil properties; cohesion (C), shearing resistance (Ø), unit
Selamawit Tadesse 53
 Building Foundation Characterization And Analysis:
A Case Study in Ayat Area, Bole Sub-city, Addis Ababa, Central Ethiopia.

weight of soil (γ), footing dimensions, depth of footing, depth to ground water table and
mode of application of load. The bearing capacity factors, depth, shape and inclination factors
are computed automatically. In order to compute allowable bearing capacity (Qall) a factor of
safety of 3 was considered for the present study.

The following section presents bearing capacity estimation for each site except for site 7 and
site 8. In site 7 and 8 the important soil property (cohesion (C), shearing resistance (Ø), unit
weight of soil (γ)) were not available due to which bearing capacity estimation was not
carried out. Bearing capacity estimation was made for individual borehole for sites 1 to 6 and
9. The results presented for ultimate bearing capacity (Qult) and allowable bearing capacity
(Qall) are given in range within which values of Qult and Qall fall within each site for
different depths and variable footing dimensions. The results on Qult and Qall are also
presented graphically for comparison and better understanding.
Table 5.8 Input soil parameters used for different sites for bearing capacity computations

Sites No of Depth Soil Properties used in bearing capacity analysis

Boreholes (m) Unit weight of soil (γ) Cohesion (C) Angle of shearing
(kN/m3) (kN/m2) resistance (φ) (deg.)
Site 1 11 0.5
(BH 1 to 11) 1
1.5 15.9 to 20 21 to 28 14.68 to 20.78
2
2.5
Site 2 11 0.5
(BH 1 to 11) 1
1.5 16 to 19 10 to 29 16 to 21
2
2.5
Site 3 15 0.5
(BH 1 to 15) 1
1.5 16.3 to 22.3 23.33 to 69 6 to 21
2
2.5
Site 4 10 0.5
(BH 1 to 10) 1
1.5 17 to 21.73 11 to 33 11.3 to 19
2
2.5
Site 5 4 0.5
(BH 1 to 4) 1
1.5 17.8 to 19 16 to 17 17 to 19
2
2.5
Site 6 8 0.5
(BH 1 to 8) 1
1.5 16 to 18.79 21.3 to 38 17 to 21.3
2
2.5
Site 9 7 0.5
(BH 1 to 7) 1
1.5 17.4 to 22.7 22 to 32 14.8 to 20.8
2
2.5

Selamawit Tadesse 54
 Building Foundation Characterization And Analysis:
A Case Study in Ayat Area, Bole Sub-city, Addis Ababa, Central Ethiopia.

5.3.1 Site 1

Site 1 is located in the northern part of the study area and falls within UTM coordinates
483000E; 995000N to 485000E; 997000N. The important places which falls within Site 1
are; CMC Square, CMC Condominium and Safari. For the bearing capacity analysis soil
properties data from 11 boreholes (BH 1 to 11) was considered.

Table 5.9 Depths and footing dimensions for various sites for which bearing capacity was computed

Sites Depth Footing dimensions for which bearing capacity was computed (m)
Site 1 0.5
1
1.5 0.5 x 0.5 1x1 1.5 x 1.5 2x2 2.5 x 2.5 4x4
2
2.5
Site 2 0.5
1
0.5 x 0.5
1.5 1x1 1.5 x 1.5 2x2 2.5 x 2.5 4x4
2
2.5
Site 3 0.5
1
1.5 0.5 x 0.5 1x1 1.5 x 1.5 2x2 2.5 x 2.5 4x4
2
2.5
Site 4 0.5
1
1.5 0.5 x 0.5 1x1 1.5 x 1.5 2x2 2.5 x 2.5 4x4
2
2.5
Site 5 0.5
1
1.5 0.5 x 0.5 1x1 1.5 x 1.5 2x2 2.5 x 2.5 4x4
2
2.5
Site 6 0.5
1
1.5 0.5 x 0.5 1x1 1.5 x 1.5 2x2 2.5 x 2.5 4x4
2
2.5
Site 9 0.5
1
1.5 0.5 x 0.5 1x1 1.5 x 1.5 2x2 2.5 x 2.5 4x4
2
2.5

As can be seen from Fig. 5.1 the boreholes are well distributed in Site 1. For all boreholes
cohesion (C), shearing resistance (Ø), unit and weight of soil (γ) fall within a range of 21 to
28 KN/m2, 14.68 to 20.78o and 15.9 to 20 kN/m3, respectively. The bearing capacity was
computed for variable square footing dimension (0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, 2.5 and 4 m) at different depth
(0.5, 1, 1.5, 2 and 2.5 m). The summary of results for ultimate bearing capacity (Qult) and
allowable bearing capacity (Qall) for Site 1 is presented in annex 1 and 2, respectively. The
Selamawit Tadesse 55
 Building Foundation Characterization And Analysis:
A Case Study in Ayat Area, Bole Sub-city, Addis Ababa, Central Ethiopia.

results on bearing capacity for Site 1 computed for representative footing dimension 1.5 x
1.5m are also presented graphically in Fig. 5.4.The average Qult and Qall values for Site 1 by
Terzaghi (1943), Hensen (1957, 1970), Vesic (1973), Meyerhof (1963) and EBSC-7 at
different depths and various footing dimensions are presented in Table 5.10.
Table 5.10 Average Qult and Qall values for Site 1

Depth Footing dimension (m x m)

(m) 0.5 x 0.5 1x1 1.5 x 1.5 2x2 2.5 x 2.5 4x4
Average range of Allowable bearing capacity (Qult) (KPa)
0.5 587 - 886 597 - 908 605 – 909 605 - 916 602 – 912 612 - 928
1 607–914 627–917 630 – 923 630 – 933 627 - 931 633- 941
1.5 687–936 633 –942 638–948 635 - 946 631 - 944 638 - 963
2 643 - 956 651 - 973 657 – 981 680 - 987 680 – 996 698- 1008
2.5 685 - 976 711 - 973 713 – 993 696 – 1004 701 - 1025 720 – 1026
Average range of Allowable bearing capacity (Qall) (KPa)
0.5 125 - 235 130 – 240 140 - 250 140 -250 140 - 245 145- 260
1 135 - 255 165 – 275 180 – 290 180 - 295 180 - 280 180 - 300
1.5 150 - 270 180 – 290 210- 320 210 - 320 210 - 315 210 – 330
2 150 - 280 190 – 300 210 – 310 250- 360 245 – 350 280 - 400
2.5 160 – 290 230 – 340 280 – 380 280 - 390 290 – 400 290 - 420

A – Ultimate bearing capacity B – Allowable bearing capacity

Fig. 5.4 Bearing capacity estimations for Site 1, computed for footing dimension1.5 x 1.5 m

Selamawit Tadesse 56
 Building Foundation Characterization And Analysis:
A Case Study in Ayat Area, Bole Sub-city, Addis Ababa, Central Ethiopia.

5.3.2 Site 2

Site 2 is located in the northern part of the study area and falls within UTM coordinates
485000 to 487000 Easting and 995000 to 997000Northing. The important places which fall
within Site 2 are Woreda 16 Ayat area, around Ayat real estate, Woreda 10 around Gabriel
church and Woreda 10 former Kebele 04. For the bearing capacity analysis soil properties
data from 11 boreholes (BH 1 to 11) was considered. For all boreholes cohesion (C), shearing
resistance (Ø), unit and weight of soil (γ) fall within a range of 10 to 29 KN/m 2, 16 to 21o and
16 to 19 KN/m3, respectively.

The bearing capacity was computed for variable square footing dimension (0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, 2.5
and 4 m) at different depth (0.5, 1, 1.5, 2 and 2.5 m). The summary of results for ultimate
bearing capacity (Qult) and allowable bearing capacity (Qall) for Site 2 is presented in Annex
3 and 4, respectively. The results on bearing capacity for Site 2 computed for representative
footing dimension 1.5 x 1.5 m are also presented graphically in Fig. 5.5. The average Qult
and Qall values for Site 2 by Terzaghi (1943), Hensen (1957, 1970), Vesic (1973), Meyerhof
(1963) and EBSC-7 at different depths and various footing dimensions are presented in Table
5.11.
Table 5.11 Average Qult and Qall values for Site 2

Depth Footing dimension (m x m)

(m) 0.5 x 0.5 1x1 1.5 x 1.5 2x2 2.5 x 2.5 4x4
Average range of Allowable bearing capacity (Qult) (KPa)
0.5 405 - 605 405- 730 410- 750 410- 756 410- 770 410– 790
1 411- 613 425- 763 420- 781 430- 786 420– 780 440– 800
1.5 421– 623 435– 783 443– 791 444– 796 440– 800 460– 810
2 451– 653 465– 790 470– 800 470– 770 460– 800 470– 820
2.5 490- 693 500- 800 490- 810 500– 820 480– 810 490– 840
Average range of Allowable bearing capacity (Qult) (KPa)
0.5 110 - 200 110 - 205 100 - 200 100 – 210 100 – 220 110 – 240
1 110 - 210 110 - 230 115 - 245 115 – 250 120 – 250 145 – 260
1.5 120 - 220 140 - 240 140 - 270 140 – 260 140 – 265 150 – 270
2 150 - 250 170 - 270 170 - 280 180 – 280 190 – 320 205 – 340
2.5 190 - 320 200 - 340 210 - 340 220 – 340 230 – 360 250 – 370

5.3.3 Site 3

Site 3 is located in the northern part of the study area and falls within UTM coordinates
487000 to 489307.002 Easting and 995000 to 997000 Northing. The important places which
fall within Site 3 are; Ayat Condominium, Woreda 10 around Ayat Chefe and EADG
hospital. For the bearing capacity analysis soil properties data from 15 boreholes (BH 1 to 15)
was considered.

Selamawit Tadesse 57
 Building Foundation Characterization And Analysis:
A Case Study in Ayat Area, Bole Sub-city, Addis Ababa, Central Ethiopia.

A – Ultimate bearing capacity B – Allowable bearing capacity

Fig. 5.5 Bearing capacity estimations for Site 2, computed for footing dimension 1.5 x 1.5 mm

In this site data for maximum number of boreholes (total 98 boreholes) was available, a good
concentration of boreholes can be seen in Site 3 (Fig.5.1). For all boreholes cohesion (C),
shearing resistance (Ø), unit and weight of soil (γ) fall within a range of 23.33 to 69 kN/m2, 6
to 21o and 16.3 to 21.3 KN/m3, respectively. The bearing capacity was computed for variable
square footing dimension (0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, 2.5 and 4 m) at different depth (0.5, 1, 1.5, 2 and 2.5
m).

Selamawit Tadesse 58
 Building Foundation Characterization And Analysis:
A Case Study in Ayat Area, Bole Sub-city, Addis Ababa, Central Ethiopia.

The summary of results for ultimate bearing capacity (Qult) and allowable bearing capacity
(Qall) for Site 3 is presented in annex 5 and 6, respectively. The results on bearing capacity
for Site 3, computed for representative footing dimension 1.5 x 1.5m, are also presented
graphically in Fig. 5.6.The average Qult and Qall values for Site 3 by Terzaghi (1943),
Hensen (1957, 1970), Vesic (1973), Meyerhof (1963) and EBSC-7 at different depths and
various footing dimensions are presented in Table 5.12.

Table 5.12 Average Qult and Qall values for Site 3

Depth Footing dimension (m x m)

(m) 0.5 x 0.5 1x1 1.5 x 1.5 2x2 2.5 x 2.5 4x4
Average range of Allowable bearing capacity (Qult) (kPa)
0.5 530- 930 530– 940 530- 960 535– 965 540- 970 540– 970
1 550- 950 560- 970 570- 990 570- 1000 575– 1010 560- 1000
1.5 570– 970 580– 990 590– 1000 600– 1020 610– 1040 610- 1010
2 590– 1000 600- 1020 610– 1060 610- 1050 620– 1070 615- 1050
2.5 600- 1020 610- 1050 630–1100 620- 1070 650– 1100 630- 1070
Average range of Allowable bearing capacity (Qult) (kPa)
0.5 100 - 255 100 - 270 100 - 280 100 – 285 100 – 290 100 – 310
1 100 – 265 100 - 300 100 - 310 110 – 320 110 – 320 135 – 345
1.5 110 - 330 110 – 320 130 - 340 130 – 335 130 – 330 130 – 340
2 120 - 340 150 – 360 170 - 370 170 – 380 180 – 390 200 – 410
2.5 180 – 380 200 – 410 210 - 410 210 – 420 220 – 430 230 – 440

5.3.4 Site 4

Site 4 is located in the western part of the study area and falls within UTM coordinates
483000 to 485000 Easting and 992600 to 995000 Northing. The important places which fall
within Site 4 are Summit square and summit condominium. For the bearing capacity analysis
soil properties data from 10 boreholes (BH 1 to 10) was considered. In this site boreholes
(total number 26) distribution is not even and mostly concentrated at one location
(Fig.5.1).For all boreholes cohesion (C), shearing resistance (Ø), unit and weight of soil (γ)
fall within a range of 11 to 33 KN/m2, 11.3 to 19o and 17 to 21.3 kN/m3, respectively.

The bearing capacity was computed for variable square footing dimension (0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, 2.5
and 4 m) at different depth (0.5, 1, 1.5, 2 and 2.5 m). The summary of results for ultimate
bearing capacity (Qult) and allowable bearing capacity (Qall) for Site 4 is presented in annex
7 and 8, respectively. The results on bearing capacity for Site 4, computed for representative
footing dimension 1.5 x 1.5 m, are also presented graphically in Fig. 5.7. The average Qult
and Qall values for Site 4 by Terzaghi (1943), Hensen (1957, 1970), Vesic (1973), Meyerhof
(1963) and EBSC-7 at different depths and various footing dimensions are presented in Table
5.13.

Selamawit Tadesse 59
 Building Foundation Characterization And Analysis:
A Case Study in Ayat Area, Bole Sub-city, Addis Ababa, Central Ethiopia.

A – Ultimate bearing capacity B – Allowable bearing capacity

Fig. 5.6 Bearing capacity estimations for Site 3, computed for footing dimension 1.5 x 1.5 m

5.3.5 Site 5

Site 5 is located exactly in the central part of the study area and falls within UTM coordinates
485000 to 487000 Easting and 992600 to 995000 Northing. The important place which falls
within Site 5 is Ayat 3.

For the bearing capacity analysis soil properties data from 4 boreholes (BH 1 to 4) was
considered. In this site boreholes (total number 10) distribution is scattered and mostly
concentrated at one location (Fig.5.1). For all boreholes cohesion (C), shearing resistance
(Ø), unit and weight of soil (γ) fall within a range of 16 to 17 kN/m2, 17 to 29o and 17.8 to 19
kN/m3, respectively.

Selamawit Tadesse 60
 Building Foundation Characterization And Analysis:
A Case Study in Ayat Area, Bole Sub-city, Addis Ababa, Central Ethiopia.

Table 5.13 Average Qult and Qall values for Site 4

Depth Footing dimension (m x m)

(m) 0.5 x 0.5 1x1 1.5 x 1.5 2x2 2.5 x 2.5 4x4
Average range of Allowable bearing capacity (Qult) (kPa)
0.5 390 - 745 390- 755 400 - 760 405 - 770 410 - 790 405 - 770
1 400–765 405–775 410 - 780 415- 790 420 - 800 415 - 790
1.5 410 - 785 415 - 795 420 - 800 425 - 810 430 - 820 435 - 830
2 430 - 795 435 - 805 440 - 810 445 - 820 450 - 840 445 - 850
2.5 450 - 800 455 - 815 460 - 820 465 - 840 470 - 860 465 - 840
Average range of Allowable bearing capacity (Qult) (kPa)
0.5 100 - 200 100 - 200 100 – 200 100 - 210 100 – 220 110 – 240
1 100 - 220 100 - 230 110 – 240 120 - 250 120 – 260 145 – 280
1.5 110 - 250 120 - 260 140- 270 130 - 270 130 – 270 130 – 280
2 130 - 270 140 - 290 160 – 300 180 - 310 190 – 320 210 – 340
2.5 170 - 290 200 - 310 210 – 330 210 - 340 220 – 350 240 – 370

A – Ultimate bearing capacity B – Allowable bearing capacity

Fig. 5.7 Bearing capacity estimations for Site 4, computed for footing dimension 1.5 x 1.5 m

Selamawit Tadesse 61
 Building Foundation Characterization And Analysis:
A Case Study in Ayat Area, Bole Sub-city, Addis Ababa, Central Ethiopia.

The bearing capacity was computed for variable square footing dimension (0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, 2.5
and 4 m) at different depth (0.5, 1, 1.5, 2 and 2.5 m). The summary of results for ultimate
bearing capacity (Qult) and allowable bearing capacity (Qall) for Site 5 is presented in Annex
9 and 10, respectively. The results on bearing capacity for Site 5, computed for representative
footing dimension 1.5 x 1.5m, are also presented graphically in Fig. 5.8. The average Qult
and Qall values for Site 5 by Terzaghi (1943), Hensen (1957, 1970), Vesic (1973), Meyerhof
(1963) and EBSC-7 at different depths and various footing dimensions are presented in Table
14.
5.3.6 Site 6

Site 6 is located in the eastern part of the study area and falls within UTM coordinates
487000 to 489307.021 Easting and 992600 to 995000 Northing. The important place which
fall within Site 6 is Bole Ayat 5.For the bearing capacity analysis soil properties data from 8
boreholes (BH 1 to 8) was considered. In this site boreholes (total number 23) distribution is
only concentrated at one location (Fig.5.1). For all boreholes cohesion (C), shearing
resistance (Ø), unit and weight of soil (γ) fall within a range of 21.3 to 38 kN/m2, 17 to
21.3oand 16 to 18.79 kN/m3, respectively. The bearing capacity was computed for variable
square footing dimension (0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, 2.5 and 4 m) at different depth (0.5, 1, 1.5, 2 and 2.5
m).
Table 5.14 Average Qult and Qall values for Site 5

Depth Footing dimension (m x m)

(m) 0.5 x 0.5 1x1 1.5 x 1.5 2x2 2.5 x 2.5 4x4
Average range of Allowable bearing capacity (Qult) (kPa)
0.5 470 - 600 475 - 605 480–610 490– 620 505– 630 505– 635
1 490–620 495- 630 500 - 640 510– 650 515– 660 520– 665
1.5 510 - 640 515 - 650 520 - 660 530- 670 535– 680 540– 680
2 530 - 660 535 - 670 540 - 690 530– 680 555– 710 560– 710
2.5 550 - 680 555 - 690 560 - 700 540- 690 575- 730 580–735
Average range of Allowable bearing capacity (Qult) (kPa)
0.5 115- 180 110 - 185 110 – 170 115 – 215 120 – 220 140 – 220
1 120 - 190 130 - 205 140 – 210 150 - 210 155 – 210 180 – 230
1.5 130 - 220 150 - 220 175- 225 175- 225 175- 230 180- 235
2 160 - 230 180 - 250 200 – 260 210 - 270 220 – 275 230 – 300
2.5 180 -260 220 - 270 230 – 290 240 - 290 260 - 305 275 – 325

The summary of results for ultimate bearing capacity (Qult) and allowable bearing capacity
(Qall) for Site 6 is presented in annex 11 and 12, respectively. The results on bearing capacity
for Site 6, computed for representative footing dimension 1,5 x 1.5 m, are also presented
graphically in Fig. 5.9. The average Qult and Qall values for Site 6 by Terzaghi (1943),
Hensen (1957, 1970), Vesic (1973), Meyerhof (1963) and EBSC-7 at different depths and
various footing dimensions are presented in Table 15.

Selamawit Tadesse 62
 Building Foundation Characterization And Analysis:
A Case Study in Ayat Area, Bole Sub-city, Addis Ababa, Central Ethiopia.

A – Ultimate bearing capacity B – Allowable bearing capacity

Fig. 5.8 Bearing capacity estimations for Site 5, computed for footing dimension 1.5 x 1.5 m

5.3.7 Site 9

Site 9 is located in the southeastern part of the study area and falls within UTM coordinates
487000 to 489307.021 Easting and 992573.949 to 990090.974 Northing. The important
places which fall within Site 9 are; areas close to Bole Arabsa condominium and areas close
to Legetafo River. For the bearing capacity analysis soil properties data from 7 boreholes
(BH 1 to 7) was considered. In this site boreholes (total number 24) distribution is only
concentrated at one location (Fig.5.1). For all boreholes cohesion (C), shearing resistance
(Ø), unit and weight of soil (γ) fall within a range of 22 to 32 kN/m2, 14.8 to 20.8o and 17.4 to
22.7 kN/m3, respectively. The bearing capacity was computed for variable square footing
dimension (0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, 2.5 and 4 m) at different depth (0.5, 1, 1.5, 2 and 2.5 m). The
summary of results for ultimate bearing capacity (Qult) and allowable bearing capacity (Qall)

Selamawit Tadesse 63
 Building Foundation Characterization And Analysis:
A Case Study in Ayat Area, Bole Sub-city, Addis Ababa, Central Ethiopia.

for Site 9 is presented in annex 13 and 14, respectively. The results on bearing capacity for
Site 9, computed for representative footing dimension 1.5 x 1.5 m, are also presented
graphically in Fig. 5.10. The average Qult and Qall values for Site 9 by Terzaghi (1943),
Hensen (1957, 1970), Vesic (1973), Meyerhof (1963) and EBSC-7 at different depths and
various footing dimensions are presented in Table 5.16.

A detailed discussion on the results of Ultimate bearing capacity and Allowable bearing
capacity (qa) obtained by various equations at different locations for variable depth and
different footing dimensions is made in Chapter 6. Besides, a systematic interpretation is also
presented in Chapter 6 in the light of objectives of the present study.

Table 5.15 Average Qult and Qall values for Site 6

Depth Footing dimension (m x m)

(m) 0.5 x 0.5 1x1 1.5 x 1.5 2x2 2.5 x 2.5 4x4
Average range of Allowable bearing capacity (Qult) (kPa)
0.5 690–1110 695- 1110 700 - 1140 705 - 1170 705 - 1190 700 - 1170
1 705–1130 710–1140 715 - 1160 715 - 1190 720- 1200 740 - 1190
1.5 715–1150 720 - 1160 730 - 1180 735 - 1200 740- 1220 760 - 1210
2 735– 1170 740- 1190 750- 1205 760 - 1230 770 - 1245 775 - 1220
2.5 755–1190 760 - 1210 770 - 1230 775 - 1245 785- 1265 790 - 1250
Average range of Allowable bearing capacity (Qult) (kPa)
0.5 170 – 320 180 - 320 190 - 325 205 - 330 220 – 340 230 – 360
1 190 – 350 225 - 345 230 - 350 240 - 370 245 – 375 270 – 400
1.5 210 – 360 230 - 370 265- 395 265- 390 260 – 385 265- 390
2 230 – 370 260 - 430 280 - 430 305 - 440 310 – 440 320 – 460
2.5 260 – 390 290 - 415 310 - 420 320 - 430 330 – 470 365 – 495

5.4 Estimation of qu by using Standard Penetration Test (SPT)

In the present study an attempt was also made to estimate the bearing capacity by utilizing
insitu SPT data. The SPT data was procured as secondary data from site 8 in12 number of
locations. Fig. 5.11 shows the location for which SPT data was utilized for the present study.
Further, Table 5.31 presents the details of SPT data that was utilized in the present study.

As mention in Chapter-3, the SPT is widely used to obtain the bearing capacity of the soils
directly. Meyerhof (1956, 1974, as cited in Bowels 1996) published equations for the
computation of the allowable bearing capacity for 25-mm settlement. Bowels (1996)
modified the Meyerhof’s equations for an approximate 50 % increase in the allowable
bearing capacity.

Selamawit Tadesse 64
 Building Foundation Characterization And Analysis:
A Case Study in Ayat Area, Bole Sub-city, Addis Ababa, Central Ethiopia.

A – Ultimate bearing capacity B – Allowable bearing capacity

Fig. 5.9Bearing capacity estimations for Site 6, computed for footing dimension 1.5 x 1.5 m

……eq.5.1

B > F4 …… eq. 5.2

Where qa = allowable bearing pressure for 25mm (1- inch) settlement

…… eq. 5.3

factors are as follows:

N55 N70
F1 0.05 0.04
F2 0.08 0.06
F3 0.3 0.3
F4 1.2 1.2

Selamawit Tadesse 65
 Building Foundation Characterization And Analysis:
A Case Study in Ayat Area, Bole Sub-city, Addis Ababa, Central Ethiopia.

Table 5.16 Average Qult and Qall values for Site 9

Depth Footing dimension (m x m)

(m) 0.5 x 0.5 1x1 1.5 x 1.5 2x2 2.5 x 2.5 4x4
Average range of Allowable bearing capacity (Qult) (kPa)
0.5 675 – 850 680- 860 695- 870 700– 880 700– 890 700–890
1 695– 875 700– 885 705– 890 710– 900 715– 900 720 – 895
1.5 715– 900 720– 910 725– 920 730– 940 735– 950 740 – 915
2 635– 915 740– 930 745– 940 750– 960 755– 970 750 – 935
2.5 655- 930 760– 950 765– 960 770- 980 775 - 990 760 – 975
Average range of Allowable bearing capacity (Qult) (kPa)
0.5 160 - 250 160 – 250 170 - 245 190 – 300 190 – 300 210 – 290
1 180 - 290 200 – 290 210 - 290 215 - 290 220 – 290 245 – 310
1.5 220 - 300 220 – 300 240- 305 240- 305 240- 305 240- 315
2 230 - 310 240 – 320 250 - 330 280 - 350 290 – 355 300 – 380
2.5 250 - 330 280 – 350 305 - 375 310 - 380 320 – 390 340 – 405

A – Ultimate bearing capacity B – Allowable bearing capacity

Fig. 5.10 Bearing capacity estimations for Site 9, computed for footing dimension 1.5 x 1.5 m

Selamawit Tadesse 66
 Building Foundation Characterization And Analysis:
A Case Study in Ayat Area, Bole Sub-city, Addis Ababa, Central Ethiopia.

Fig. 5.11 Location in Site 8 for which SPT data was utilized in the present study

The depths at which the SPT N- values are obtained, the SPT 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 N values are converted to N77 standard energy ratio value according to Bowles
(Bowles, 1988).

N’70= CN x N x n1x n2x n3x n4…… eq. 5.3

Where;N’70= adjusted N
CN = adjustment for overburden pressure (p’’o/p’o) 1/2
p’o= overburden pressure
p’’o= reference overburden pressure (95.76 kPa or 1.0 kg/cm 2)
n1 = Er/Erb(where Eris average energy ratio that depends on the drill system and E rbis the standard energy ratio).

Eris taken as 50 and Erbas 70.

n2= Rod length correction
Rod length > 10 m = 1,
Rod length 6-10 m = 0.95,
Rod length 4-6 m = 0.85,
Rod length 0-4 m = 0.75
n3= sampler correction (1.00 in our case)
n4= borehole diameter correction (1.00 in our case)

After adjusting the N-values based on the above formula and taking corresponding average
values, a design N-values were chosen from consecutive depths where the test was
performed. The design N-values are taken as the average of N-values which are found in
between ½ B above and 2B below the proposed footing depths where B is the width of the
footing.

Selamawit Tadesse 67
 Building Foundation Characterization And Analysis:
A Case Study in Ayat Area, Bole Sub-city, Addis Ababa, Central Ethiopia.

The SPT - N corrected values used for the computation of allowable bearing capacity (qa) in
the present study. The raw N values were corrected by following the procedure as mentioned
above. Since there are number of correction factors and variable depths therefore it is not
possible to present this data in tabular format.

The computed Allowable bearing capacity (qa) at different locations for variable depth and
different footing dimensions is presented in Table 5.17.

A detailed discussion on Allowable bearing capacity (qa) obtained from SPT data at different
locations for variable depth and different footing dimensions is made in Chapter 6. Besides, a
systematic interpretation is also presented in Chapter 6 in the light of objectives of the present
study.

5.5 Settlement Analysis

Settlement is another criterion for evaluating the performance of a building. Excessive

settlements will result in poor performance of the building structure. Different building codes
set the limiting settlement for the type of the structure and foundations. The proposed
foundation types shall also meet this criterion (Bowels, 1984).

For saturated fine grained soils, the major part of the settlement is contributed by the
consolidation settlement (Arora, 1997). Hence, the calculation of consolidation settlement for
the soils in the study area is presented below.

Consolidation settlement computed using the following formula according to Bowels (1984):

∆H = [CcH/(1 + eo)] [log (p'o+ ∆p/ p'o)]…… eq.5.4

Where, Cc is the compression index from e vs log p plot, e ois the in-situ void ratio in the
stratum, His the thickness of stratum, p'o= effective overburden pressure at mid-height of H
and∆p = average increase in pressure from foundation in layer H in same unit as p'o.
For the present study settlement analysis was made for 3 sites. The details for these sites are
presented in Table 5.18.

Selamawit Tadesse 68
 Building Foundation Characterization And Analysis:
A Case Study in Ayat Area, Bole Sub-city, Addis Ababa, Central Ethiopia.

Table 5.17 Allowable bearing capacity (qa) as computed from SPT data in the present study
Site SPT Depth Footing dimension (m)
(as per Location 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Fig. 5.1) Allowable bearing capacity (qa) (kPa)
Site 8 1 2 462 424 382 356 338 325
2.5 469 431 409 378 357 341
3 507 466 442 426 401 382
3.5 506 465 441 425 414 393
4 511 470 445 430 419 410
Site 8 2 2 550 505 456 424 403 387
2.5 562 516 490 453 428 409
3 602 553 525 506 475 453
3.5 617 566 537 518 505 480
4 637 585 555 536 522 511
Site 8 3 2 258 237 214 199 189 181
2.5 271 249 236 219 206 198
3 281 258 244 236 222 211
3.5 289 265 252 243 236 225
4 292 268 255 245 239 234
Site 8 4 2 485 446 402 374 355 341
2.5 517 475 450 416 393 376
3 528 485 460 443 417 397
3.5 565 519 492 475 463 439
4 579 532 505 487 474 465
Site 8 5 2 470 431 389 362 344 330
2.5 470 431 409 378 357 342
3 510 468 444 428 403 384
3.5 523 480 455 439 428 406
4 558 512 486 469 457 448
Site 8 6 2 500 459 414 385 366 352
2.5 517 475 450 417 393 376
3 508 467 443 427 401 383
3.5 522 480 455 439 428 406
4 505 464 440 424 413 405
Site 8 7 2 482 443 399 371 352 339
2.5 482 443 420 388 366 351
3 540 496 471 454 427 407
3.5 536 492 467 450 438 417
4 538 495 469 452 441 432
Site 8 8 2 391 359 323 301 286 275
2.5 391 359 340 315 297 284
3 431 396 375 362 340 324
3.5 434 398 378 364 355 337
4 427 392 372 359 350 343
Site 8 9 2 413 379 342 318 302 290
2.5 421 387 367 339 320 306
3 431 396 375 362 340 324
3.5 440 404 383 370 360 342
4 438 402 382 368 359 352
Site 8 10 2 442 406 366 341 323 311
2.5 425 390 370 342 323 309
3 431 396 375 362 340 324
3.5 422 387 367 354 345 328
4 410 377 357 345 336 329
Site 8 11 2 369 339 306 285 270 260
2.5 383 351 333 308 291 279
3 387 356 337 325 306 291
3.5 412 378 359 346 337 320
4 396 364 345 333 324 318
Site 8 12 2 430 395 356 331 314 302
2.5 450 413 392 362 342 327
3 451 414 393 379 356 340
3.5 480 440 418 403 393 373
4 484 445 422 407 396 389

Selamawit Tadesse 69
 Building Foundation Characterization And Analysis:
A Case Study in Ayat Area, Bole Sub-city, Addis Ababa, Central Ethiopia.

Table 5.18 Details of sites for which settlement analysis was made
Site Location from where sample was collected Depth (m) Data source Remarks
No. (UTM)
Easting Northing Elevation (m)
Site 1 484692.61 995772.87 2330 2 to 4m Secondary North part of the study area
Site 3 487932.31 996230.94 2399 2 to 4 m Secondary North part of the study area
around Ayat condominium
Site 5 486089.11 993255.79 2312 2 to 4 m Secondary Central part of the study
area close to quarry site

5.5.1 Site 1

This site is located in the northern part of the study area, the location details are given in
Table 5.18. The input data used for settlement analysis at Site 1 is presented in Table 5.19.
The results are presented in Table 5.20.
For Allowable bearing pressure cohesion (C), shearing resistance (Ø), unit and weight of soil
(γ) fall within a range of 21 to 28 KN/m2, 14.68 to 20.78o and 15.9 to 20 kN/m3, respectively.

Table 5.19 Input data used for the settlement analysis at Site 1

Site Footing Footing Allowable Thickness Effective Average Insitu Change Compression
No. depth width bearing of overburden increase void in void index (Cc)
(m) (m x m) pressure stratum pressure in ratio ratio
(KPa) (H) (m) (Po) (KPa) pressure (eo) (∆e)
(∆P)(Kpa)
1 2 1.5 410 5 127.5 74.71 1.2 0.0395 0.197
2 2.0 388 5 127.5 98.41 1.2 0.0489 0.197
2 2.5 375 5 127.5 121.20 1.2 0.0572 0.197
2 4.0 358 5 127.5 158.70 1.2 0.0692 0.197
2 2.5 1.5 302 5 102 55.75 1.49 0.0473 0.25
2.5 2.0 286 5 102 73.57 1.49 0.059 0.25
2.5 2.5 256 5 102 114.23 1.49 0.0816 0.25
2.5 4.0 245 5 102 120.21 1.49 0.0845 0.25
3 3.5 1.5 387 5 102 75.29 1.173 0.0521 0.22
3.5 2.0 367 5 102 99.87 1.173 0.0643 0.22
3.5 2.5 354 5 102 123.08 1.173 0.0746 0.22
3.5 4.0 327 5 102 155.51 1.173 0.0873 0.22
4 4 1.5 785 5 136 158.97 1.2 0.0662 0.22
4 2.0 745 5 136 182.47 1.2 0.0803 0.22
4 2.5 718 5 136 208.31 1.2 0.0917 0.22
4 4.0 686 5 136 245.4 1.2 0.108 0.22

Selamawit Tadesse 70
 Building Foundation Characterization And Analysis:
A Case Study in Ayat Area, Bole Sub-city, Addis Ababa, Central Ethiopia.

Table 5.20 Results for the settlement analysis at Site 1

Site ∆H (mm) Footing Dimension (m x m)

No. 1.5 2.0 2.5 4.0
1 Settlement 89.68 111.23 129.92 157.23
2 Settlement 95.06 118.39 163.81 169.76
3 Settlement 119.87 148.03 171.63 208.61
4 Settlement 150.54 182.47 208.31 245.40

5.5.2 Site 3

This site is located in the northern part of the study area, around Ayat, the location details are
given in Table 5.18. The input data used for settlement analysis at Site 3 is presented in Table
5.21. The results are presented in Table 5.22.

For Allowable bearing pressure cohesion (C), shearing resistance (Ø), unit and weight of soil
(γ) fall within a range of 23.33 to 69 kN/m2, 6 to 21o and 16.3 to 21.3 KN/m3, respectively. In
the footing depth 2m – 3.5m.
Table 5.21 Input data used for the settlement analysis at Site 3

Site Footing Footing Allowable Thickness Effective Average Insitu Change Compression
No. depth width bearing of overburden increase void in void index (Cc)
(m) (m x m) pressure stratum pressure in ratio ratio
(kPa) (H) (m) (Po) (KPa) pressure (eo) (∆e)
(∆P)(Kpa)
1 2 1.5 287 5 93.50 133.86 1.0794 0.0662 0.1326
2 2.0 264 5 93.50 145.65 1.0794 0.0803 0.1326
2 2.5 230 5 93.50 138.93 1.0794 0.0917 0.1326
2 4.0 190 5 93.50 141 1.0794 0.108 0.1326
2 2.5 1.5 289 2.5 148.75 437.62 1.1437 0.0662 0.3701
2.5 2.0 367 2.5 148.75 515.58 1.1437 0.0803 0.3701
2.5 2.5 330 2.5 148.75 478.59 1.1437 0.0917 0.3701
2.5 4.0 287 2.5 148.75 435.72 1.1437 0.108 0.3701
3 3.5 1.5 297 5 72 145.8 0.988 - 0.236
3.5 2.0 371 5 85.64 139 0.988 - 0.236
3.5 2.5 382 5 103.45 143 0.988 - 0.236
3.5 4.0 297 5 122 126 0.988 - 0.236

Selamawit Tadesse 71
 Building Foundation Characterization And Analysis:
A Case Study in Ayat Area, Bole Sub-city, Addis Ababa, Central Ethiopia.

Table 5.22 Results for the settlement analysis at Site 3

Site No. Footing Dimension (m xm)

∆H (mm) 1.5 2.0 2.5 4.0
1 Settlement 41.81 52.61 46.9 57.6
2 Settlement 76.62 99.68 89.19 75.97
3 Settlement 110.9 115.2 119.9 124

5.5.3 Site 5

This site is located in the centraln part of the study area, around quarry site, the location
details are given in Table 5.18. The input data used for settlement analysis at Site 5 is
presented in Table 5.23. The results are presented in Table 5.24.

For Allowable bearing pressure cohesion (C), shearing resistance (Ø), unit and weight of soil
(γ) fall within a range of 16 to 17 kN/m2, 17 to 29o and 17.8 to 19 kN/m3, respectively. In the
footing depth 2m – 4m.
Table 5.23 Input data used for the settlement analysis at Site 5

Site Footing Footing Allowable Thickness Effective Average Insitu Change Compression
No. depth width bearing of overburden increase void in void index (Cc)
(m) (m x m) pressure stratum pressure in ratio ratio
(kPa) (H) (m) (Po) (KPa) pressure (eo) (∆e)
(∆P)(kpa)
1 2 1.5 370 5 127.5 74.71 1.2 0.0395 0.129
2 2.0 290 5 127.5 98.41 1.2 0.0489 0.129
2 2.5 245 5 127.5 121.20 1.2 0.0572 0.129
2 4.0 220 5 127.5 158.70 1.2 0.0692 0.129
2 2.5 1.5 466 5 127.5 87.59 1.14 0.0293 0.129
2.5 2.0 443 5 127.5 116.28 1.14 0.0363 0.129
2.5 2.5 427 5 127.5 142.93 1.14 0.0421 0.129
2.5 4.0 393 5 127.5 179.05 1.14 0.0491 0.129
3 3.5 1.5 436 5 102 147.53 0.77 0.0532 0.129
3.5 2.0 426 5 102 189.09 0.77 0.0624 0.129
3.5 2.5 379 5 102 198.32 0.77 0.0643 0.129
3.5 4.0 361 5 102 232.22 0.77 0.0679 0.129
4 4 1.5 387 5 102 128.33 0.77 0.0485 0.129
4 2.0 382 5 102 166.39 0.77 0.0576 0.129
4 2.5 378 5 102 197.70 0.77 0.0641 0.129
4 4.0 372 5 102 222.35 0.77 0.0688 0.129

Selamawit Tadesse 72
 Building Foundation Characterization And Analysis:
A Case Study in Ayat Area, Bole Sub-city, Addis Ababa, Central Ethiopia.

Table 5.24 Results for the settlement analysis at Site 5

Site No. Footing Dimension (m xm)

∆H (mm) 1.5 2.0 2.5 4.0
1 Settlement 74.57 74.82 74.33 74.65
2 Settlement 68.45 84.84 98.42 114.83
3 Settlement 105.25 123.38 127.05 139.63
4 Settlement 95.83 113.83 126.81 136.11

The results showed that settlement at Site 1, Site 3 and Site 5 varies in a range from 89 to 245
mm, 41 to 124 mm and 74 to 136 mm, respectively. A detailed discussion on settlement
results is made in Chapter 6.

Fig 5.12 3D stratigraphic model of the study area and stratigraphic model of borehole of the
study area.

*****

Selamawit Tadesse 73
 Building Foundation Characterization And Analysis:
A Case Study in Ayat Area, Bole Sub-city, Addis Ababa, Central Ethiopia.

CHAPTER SIX RESULTS, INTERPRETATION AND DISCUSSION

6. Preamble

The present chapter deals with a detailed discussion on results. Besides, systematic
interpretations are also made with respect to the general objective of the present study.

6.1 Site characterization

6.1.1 Light to dark grey soil

The most fundamental index properties of soils for foundation analysis are moisture content,
Atterberg limits, free swell and unit weight. The results on index properties on representative
soil samples from the study area are already presented in Table 5.6 in Chapter 5. The
moisture content of light to dark grey soils ranges from 30 to 45%. Moisture content can
provide valuable information on possible foundation problems. For example, if a clay layer
located below a proposed shallow foundation has a water content of 100%, then it is likely
that this clay will be highly compressible. Likewise if the same clay layer below the shallow
foundation has a water content of 5%, then it is likely that the clay layer is dry and desiccated
and could subject the shallow foundation to expansive soil uplift (Day, 2006).

The unit weight is another basic index property for determining the vertical overburden
pressure (vertical stress distribution) for any foundation analysis. Besides, it is an important
input parameter for the bearing capacity estimation for the foundations. From Table 5.6, unit
weight of light to dark clay soils ranges from 15 to 21 kN/m3. Further, the liquid limit (LL)
and plasticity index (PI) for these soils varies from of 87 to 113% and 47 to 80%,
respectively. Also, the free swell (FS) for these soils varies from 90 to 180 %, According to
Bowels (1996), soils having PI value of >35% and LL value of >70% show very high
potential for volume change. According to USACE (1992), soils having PI values of > 35%
and LL values of > 60% show high degree of expansion. Soils having free swell values
greater than 100% are considered potential problems (Holtz and Gibbs, 1956 as cited in
Murthy, 2009). Thus, based on LL, PI and FS values light to dark soils in the study area are
problematic. The results in general show that these soils are very high plastic and are fine
grained expansive in nature. As per Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) these soils
may be placed under MH and CH types of soils (Fig. 5.2).

Selamawit Tadesse 74
 Building Foundation Characterization And Analysis:
A Case Study in Ayat Area, Bole Sub-city, Addis Ababa, Central Ethiopia.

One of the most important properties of soils for estimating the settlement is the void ratio.
The void ratio also indicates the softness or stiffness of a soil. Void ratio of light to dark grey
soil ranges from 0.0473 -0.0845. According to Bowles (1996), void ratio less than or equal to
0.35 indicates the most densest state while void ratio greater than or equal to 1 implies that
the soil is loose or soft. This implies that light to dark grey soil in the study area are most
probably in the densest state and also another important engineering property of expansive
soils is the swelling pressure. Perusal of Table-5.1 also demonstrated that swelling pressure
of light to dark grey soils in study area is in the range of 105kPa to 130 kPa. Hence,
structures built on such soils should have an imposing pressure greater than the swelling
pressure. If the imposed bearing pressure on the foundation by the super structure is less than
the swelling pressure, the structure is likely to be lifted up at least locally which would lead to
cracks in the structure (Murthy,2009). The shear strength parameters C and φ varies from 11
– 30 kPa and 11 – 21o, respectively. These shear strength parameter are important input for
bearing capacity estimation of the soils. Further, in situ Standard Penetration Test (SPT)
results indicate that the N value for these soils varies from 6 to 25 blows which represents
that light to dark grey soils in the study area are medium stiff to very stiff soils.

5.1.2 Soft dark, clay (Black Cotton soil)

The soil from this layer can be characterize as black, soft consistency, medium stiff, high
plastic silty CLAY (Black cotton) soils. As per the results, these soils may be placed mainly
under ML, MH and CL types of soils (USCS Classification system) (Fig. 5.3). The natural
moisture content varies from 26 to 61%. Further, the liquid limit and plasticity index for these
soils varies from of 37 to 89 % and 7 to 47 %, respectively. The free swell varies from 90 to
190 %. As already stated, according to Bowels (1996), soils having PI value of > 35% and
LL value of > 70% show very high potential for volume change. According to USACE
(1992), soils having PI values of >35% and LL values of >60% show high degree of
expansion. Therefore, these soils possess high to very high expansion potential. Void ratio of
lsoft dark clay soil ranges from 0.7270 –1.4002. According to Bowles (1996) this range of
void ratio suggests that the soft dark clays in the study area range from medium dense to
loose and soft soils.
Further, in situ Standard Penetration Test (SPT) results indicate that the N value varies from 4
to 17 blows which suggest that these soils are soft to stiff in its consistency and are very loose
to medium dense with respect to its relative density.

Selamawit Tadesse 75
 Building Foundation Characterization And Analysis:
A Case Study in Ayat Area, Bole Sub-city, Addis Ababa, Central Ethiopia.

6.1.3 In situ foundation soil characteristics

Standard penetration test (SPT) is important to understand in-situ strength of soils and to
show a relationship with other soil properties.

During the present study SPT data was procured from 12 locations in Site 8 of the study area.
This was the only complete SPT data which was available in the entire study area. The SPT
data results from all 12 locations shows that SPT-N value in general ranges from 4 to 25.
Based on these values the foundation soils in the study area can be characterized as medium
stiff to hard with relative density of loose to very dense.

Based on the standard correlation of SPT – N values, the foundation soils in the study area
have variable consistency: 10% of the test results showed medium stiff soils, 49% of the test
results showed stiff soils, 6% of the test results showed very stiff soils, and 35% of the test
results showed hard soils (Table 6.1).

Correlation of SPT-N value with relative density (Table 6.1) shows that: 23% of the soils are
loose, 48% of the soils are medium dense and 29% of the soils are dense. In general the
majority of the soils in the study area have stiff consistency and medium dense relative
density. It implies that in general the foundation soils in the present study area are suitable for
foundation and may not generally pose problems of stability. However, foundation conditions
may vary for individual site and detailed foundation analysis needs to be made for each case
separately.

6.2 Foundation characterization

6.2.1 Bearing capacity estimation

Foundation analysis refers to the determination of the bearing layer and depth, allowable
bearing pressure and type of foundation that could be adopted safely and economically.
Factors such as the load to be transmitted to the foundation and the subsurface condition of
the soil have to be considered in selecting the foundation type (Arora, 1997).
Table 6.1 SPT N-value correlation with consistency and relative density

Consistency Test results from Compactness / Relative density Test results from
present study present study
(%) (%)
N’ = 4 – 8 Medium stiff 10% N’ = 4 - 10 Loose 23%
N’ = 8 – 15 Stiff 49% N’ = 10-30 Medium dense 48%
N’ = 15 – 30 Very stiff 6% N’ = 30-50 Dense 29%
N’ > 30 Hard 35% N’ > 50 Very dense 0.13%

Selamawit Tadesse 76
 Building Foundation Characterization And Analysis:
A Case Study in Ayat Area, Bole Sub-city, Addis Ababa, Central Ethiopia.

Before any foundation analysis is made, the fundamental material parameters should be
known. The basic material properties are shear strength properties (cohesion and angle of
shearing resistance) and the unit weight. Other factors such as the depth and width of
foundation, and the level of ground water should also be determined. Based on these
parameters ultimate bearing capacity and allowable bearing capacity of the study area were
analyzed with different approaches with the help of computational sheets for bearing capacity
analysis develop in Microsoft (MS) excel. The program for computation of bearing capacity
for shallow foundation is written by Raghuvanshi (2016).

Taking this into consideration and the minimum permissible width of foundations by EBCS-7
(1995), which is greater than or equal to 1m, bearing capacity computation has been done for
different depth intervals between 1m and 7.5m from the natural ground. Accordingly,
ultimate bearing capacity of the foundation soils of the study area at different footing depths
has been computed by using different approaches. For this analysis, the shape of the footing
was assumed to be square. Further, in the present computation, the load was assumed to be
vertical and its line of action was considered along the center of the foundation.

Also, in this study the SPT-N values were also used to estimate the bearing capacity of the
foundation soils. The allowable bearing capacity was calculated from SPT blow counts for
both isolated and mat foundation for different depths. Bearing capacity was estimated based
on soil properties and SPT-N values and the results are already presented in Chapter 5.

In order to determine the foundation characteristics during the present study, data information
from various sources was utilized. The required input data for foundation analysis was
obtained from; borehole profile along with standard penetration test result, test reports on soil
properties, laboratory test result (primary data), Ethiopian Building Code Standard EBCS-7
(1995) and experience and engineering judgment. In the following section Site wise
discussion on results on foundation characterization is presented.

Site 1

Site 1 is located in the northern part of the study area and covers locations such as CMC
square, CMC condominium and Safari. The foundation soils that are present at shallow depth
are light to dark grey soils. The soils are characterized as light grey to light brown, stiff to
very stiff, highly plastic silty clay/clayey silt soil. The ultimate bearing capacity and
allowable bearing capacity for soils at Site 1 in the study area was computed by Terzaghi

Selamawit Tadesse 77
 Building Foundation Characterization And Analysis:
A Case Study in Ayat Area, Bole Sub-city, Addis Ababa, Central Ethiopia.

(1943), Hensen (1957, 1970), Vesic (1973), Meyerhof (1963) and EBSC-7 methods at
different depths by considering various footing dimensions (Table 5.11 and 5.12). The results
shows that the average allowable bearing capacity for foundation soils varies from 125 to 420
kPa for a depth range of 0.5 to 2.5 m and a footing dimension from 0.5 x 0.5 m to 4 x 4m.

Site 2

Site 1 is located in the northern part of the study area and covers locations such as 16 Ayat,
Ayat real estate, Woreda 10, Gabriel church and Woreda 10 former Kebele 04. The
foundation soils at shallow depth are characterized by soft dark clay (black cotton clay). The
soil is loose, reddish brown and has a thickness ranging from 1.3 to 2m. Below these soils
light to dark grey soils are present. The ultimate bearing capacity and allowable bearing
capacity for soils at Site 2 in the study area was computed by Terzaghi (1943), Hensen (1957,
1970), Vesic (1973), Meyerhof (1963) and EBSC-7 methods at different depths by
considering various footing dimensions (Table 5.13 and 5.14). The results shows that the
average allowable bearing capacity for foundation soils varies from 110 to 370 kPa for a
depth range of 0.5 to 2.5 m and a footing dimension from 0.5 x 0.5 m to 4 x 4m.

Site 3

This site is located in the northern part of the study area and covers important places such as;
Ayat condominium, Woreda 10 around Ayat chefe and EADG hospital. The foundation soils
present at shallow depth are soft dark clay (black cotton clay). This soil layer is characterized
as black, medium stiff, highly plastic silty clay (black cotton soil) extending up to 2.00 m
below the ground level. Below these soils light to dark grey soils are present. The results on
ultimate bearing capacity and allowable bearing capacity for soils at Site 3 in the study area
are presented in Table 5.16 and 5.17. The results shows that the average allowable bearing
capacity for foundation soils varies from 100 to 440 kPa for a depth range of 0.5 to 2.5 m and
a footing dimension from 0.5 x 0.5 m to 4 x 4m.
Site 4

Site 4 is located in the western part of the study area and covers places such as Summit
square and summit condominium. The foundation soil at shallow depth is characterized as
light grey to light brown, stiff to very stiff, highly plastic silty CLAY/clayey SILT soils. The
results on ultimate bearing capacity and allowable bearing capacity for soils at Site 4 in the
study area are presented in Table 5.19 and 5.20. The results shows that the average allowable

Selamawit Tadesse 78
 Building Foundation Characterization And Analysis:
A Case Study in Ayat Area, Bole Sub-city, Addis Ababa, Central Ethiopia.

bearing capacity for foundation soils varies from 100 to 370 kPa for a depth range of 0.5 to
2.5 m and a footing dimension from 0.5 x 0.5 m to 4 x 4m.

Site 5

Site 5 is located exactly in the central part of the study area and covers Ayat 3. The
foundation soils at shallow depth are characterized by light to dark grey soil and soft dark
clay soil. The dark grey expansive soil extend upto 3 m whereas soft to medium stiff silty
clay have a depth upto 0.8 m. The results on ultimate bearing capacity and allowable bearing
capacity for soils at Site 5 in the study area are presented in Table 5.22 and 5.23. The results
shows that the average allowable bearing capacity for foundation soils varies from 115 to 325
kPa for a depth range of 0.5 to 2.5 m and a footing dimension from 0.5 x 0.5 m to 4 x 4m.

Site 6

This site is located in the eastern part of the study area and cover Bole Ayat 5 area. The
foundation soil is characterized as black, soft, highly plastic silty CLAY (Black Cotton soil)
extending to a depth that varies from 0.50 to 1.80 m. The results on ultimate bearing capacity
and allowable bearing capacity for soils at Site 6 in the study area are presented in Table 5.25
and 5.26. The results shows that the average allowable bearing capacity for foundation soils
varies from 170 to 495 kPa for a depth range of 0.5 to 2.5 m and a footing dimension from
0.5 x 0.5 m to 4 x 4m.

Site 9

Site 9 is located in the south-eastern part of the study area and the important places which fall
within this site are; Bole Arabsa condominium and areas close to Legetafo River. The
foundation soils at shallow depths are characterized as black, silty CLAY (Black cotton soil)
which varies in thickness from 0.3 to 2.5m. The results on ultimate bearing capacity and
allowable bearing capacity for soils at Site 9 in the study area are presented in Table 5.28 and
5.29. The results shows that the average allowable bearing capacity for foundation soils
varies from 160 to 405 kPa for a depth range of 0.5 to 2.5 m and a footing dimension from
0.5 x 0.5 m to 4 x 4m.

Selamawit Tadesse 79
 Building Foundation Characterization And Analysis:
A Case Study in Ayat Area, Bole Sub-city, Addis Ababa, Central Ethiopia.

Overall Evaluation of bearing capacity of foundation soils

The overall evaluation of bearing capacity of foundation soils at shallow depths in the study
area as computed by Terzaghi (1943), Hensen (1957, 1970), Vesic (1973), Meyerhof (1963)
and EBSC-7 methods reveals that ultimate bearing capacity in general increase with depth
and with increasing footing dimensions (Table 6.2). The results also showed that Terzaghi,
EBCS and SPT methods provide bearing capacity values which are comparable within close
range. Similarly, Meyerhof, Hansen and Vesic methods also shows comparable bearing
capacity values within close range, although these values are higher than the former ones.

Table 6.2 presents average range of ultimate bearing capacity (Qult) as computed by different
methods at different depth and variable footing dimensions. Similarly, Table 6.3 presents
average range of allowable bearing capacity (Qall) as computed by different methods at
different depth and variable footing dimensions.

6.2.2 Bearing capacity of foundation soils based on SPT-N

Allowable bearing pressures for the selected foundation layers shall be discussed based on
correlation of the relative compaction of the in-situ ground as indicated from in situ test
(SPTN-values). Isolated footings are the simplest to construct and economical type of
foundations. The allowable bearing capacity of these types of footings can be determined by
using different methods; in-situ tests (SPT N-Values), laboratory tests and visual
identification.

In the present study, calculation of the bearing capacity was made with an assumption that the
depth of the foundation varies from 2.5 to 5 m and the width of the footing ranges from 2 to 5
m. Allowable bearing capacity (qall) from SPT-N value was computed for 12 locations in the
present study and the results are presented in Table 5.31. The result shows that the Allowable
bearing capacity (qall) in Site 8 (from where SPT data was made available) varies in a range
of 237 to 946 kPa. This range of Allowable bearing capacity (qall) is quite suitable for
bearing pressures imposed by G+4 to G+7 buildings, as the bearing pressure for G+4 and
G+7 buildings is about 156 kPa to 244 kPa, respectively (Addis Ababa Housing Construction
Project Office).

Selamawit Tadesse 80
 Building Foundation Characterization And Analysis:
A Case Study in Ayat Area, Bole Sub-city, Addis Ababa, Central Ethiopia.

Table 6.2 Average range of Ultimate bearing capacity (Qult) (kPa)

Depth Footing dimension (m x m)

(m) 0.5 x 0.5 1x1 1.5 x 1.5 2x2 2.5 x 2.5 4x4
Site 1 -
0.5 587 - 886 597 - 908 605 – 909 605 – 916 602 – 912 612 - 928
1 607–914 627–917 630 – 923 630 – 933 627 - 931 633- 941
1.5 687–936 633 –942 638–948 635 – 946 631 - 944 638 - 963
2 643 - 956 651 - 973 657 – 981 680 – 987 680 – 996 698- 1008
2.5 685 - 976 711 - 973 713 – 993 696 – 1004 701 - 1025 720 – 1026
Site 2
0.5 405 - 605 405- 730 410- 750 410- 756 410- 770 410– 790
1 411- 613 425- 763 420- 781 430- 786 420– 780 440– 800
1.5 421– 623 435– 783 443– 791 444– 796 440– 800 460– 810
2 451– 653 465– 790 470– 800 470– 770 460– 800 470– 820
2.5 490- 693 500- 800 490- 810 500– 820 480– 810 490– 840
Site 3
0.5 530- 930 530– 940 530- 960 535– 965 540- 970 540– 970
1 550- 950 560- 970 570- 990 570- 1000 575– 1010 560- 1000
1.5 570– 970 580– 990 590– 1000 600– 1020 610– 1040 610- 1010
2 590– 1000 600- 1020 610– 1060 610- 1050 620– 1070 615- 1050
2.5 600- 1020 610- 1050 630–1100 620- 1070 650– 1100 630- 1070
Site 4
0.5 390 - 745 390- 755 400 - 760 405 – 770 410 - 790 405 - 770
1 400–765 405–775 410 - 780 415- 790 420 - 800 415 - 790
1.5 410 - 785 415 - 795 420 - 800 425 – 810 430 - 820 435 - 830
2 430 - 795 435 - 805 440 - 810 445 – 820 450 - 840 445 - 850
2.5 450 - 800 455 - 815 460 - 820 465 – 840 470 - 860 465 - 840
Site 5
0.5 470 - 600 475 - 605 480–610 490– 620 505– 630 505– 635
1 490–620 495- 630 500 - 640 510– 650 515– 660 520– 665
1.5 510 - 640 515 - 650 520 - 660 530- 670 535– 680 540– 680
2 530 - 660 535 - 670 540 - 690 530– 680 555– 710 560– 710
2.5 550 - 680 555 - 690 560 - 700 540- 690 575- 730 580–735
Site 6
0.5 690–1110 695- 1110 700 - 1140 705 – 1170 705 - 1190 700 - 1170
1 705–1130 710–1140 715 - 1160 715 – 1190 720- 1200 740 - 1190
1.5 715–1150 720 - 1160 730 - 1180 735 – 1200 740- 1220 760 - 1210
2 735– 1170 740- 1190 750- 1205 760 – 1230 770 - 1245 775 - 1220
2.5 755–1190 760 - 1210 770 - 1230 775 – 1245 785- 1265 790 - 1250
Site 9
0.5 675 – 850 680- 860 695- 870 700– 880 700– 890 700 - 890
1 695– 875 700– 885 705– 890 710– 900 715– 900 720 - 895
1.5 715– 900 720– 910 725– 920 730– 940 735– 950 740 – 915
2 635– 915 740– 930 745– 940 750– 960 755– 970 750 – 935
2.5 655- 930 760– 950 765– 960 770- 980 775 - 990 760 - 975

6.3 Bearing capacity zonation in the study area

In the present study an attempt was made to prepare bearing capacity zonation by considering
a representative 1.5 m footing depth and by considering various footing dimensions.

Selamawit Tadesse 81
 Building Foundation Characterization And Analysis:
A Case Study in Ayat Area, Bole Sub-city, Addis Ababa, Central Ethiopia.

Table 6.3 Average range of Allowable bearing capacity (Qall) (kPa)

Depth Footing dimension (m x m)

(m) 0.5 x 0.5 1x1 1.5 x 1.5 2x2 2.5 x 2.5 4x4
Site 1
0.5 125 - 235 130 – 240 140 - 250 140 -250 140 - 245 145- 260
1 135 - 255 165 – 275 180 – 290 180 – 295 180 - 280 180 - 300
1.5 150 - 270 180 – 290 210- 320 210 - 320 210 - 315 210 – 330
2 150 - 280 190 – 300 210 – 310 250- 360 245 – 350 280 - 400
2.5 160 – 290 230 – 340 280 – 380 280 – 390 290 – 400 290 - 420
Site 2
0.5 110 - 200 110 - 205 100 - 200 100 – 210 100 – 220 110 – 240
1 110 - 210 110 - 230 115 - 245 115 – 250 120 – 250 145 – 260
1.5 120 - 220 140 - 240 140 - 270 140 – 260 140 – 265 150 – 270
2 150 - 250 170 - 270 170 - 280 180 – 280 190 – 320 205 – 340
2.5 190 - 320 200 - 340 210 - 340 220 – 340 230 – 360 250 – 370
Site 3
0.5 100 - 255 100 - 270 100 - 280 100 – 285 100 – 290 100 – 310
1 100 – 265 100 - 300 100 - 310 110 – 320 110 – 320 135 – 345
1.5 110 - 330 110 – 320 130 - 340 130 – 335 130 – 330 130 – 340
2 120 - 340 150 – 360 170 - 370 170 – 380 180 – 390 200 – 410
2.5 180 - 380 200 – 410 210 - 410 210 – 420 220 – 430 230 – 440
Site 4
0.5 100 - 200 100 - 200 100 – 200 100 - 210 100 – 220 110 – 240
1 100 - 220 100 - 230 110 – 240 120 - 250 120 – 260 145 – 280
1.5 110 - 250 120 - 260 140- 270 130 - 270 130 – 270 130 – 280
2 130 - 270 140 - 290 160 – 300 180 - 310 190 – 320 210 – 340
2.5 170 - 290 200 - 310 210 – 330 210 - 340 220 – 350 240 – 370
Site 5
0.5 115- 180 110 - 185 110 – 170 115 – 215 120 – 220 140 – 220
1 120 - 190 130 - 205 140 – 210 150 - 210 155 – 210 180 – 230
1.5 130 - 220 150 - 220 175- 225 175- 225 175- 230 180- 235
2 160 - 230 180 - 250 200 – 260 210 - 270 220 – 275 230 – 300
2.5 180 -260 220 - 270 230 – 290 240 - 290 260 - 305 275 – 325
Site 6
0.5 170 – 320 180 - 320 190 - 325 205 - 330 220 – 340 230 – 360
1 190 – 350 225 - 345 230 - 350 240 - 370 245 – 375 270 – 400
1.5 210 – 360 230 - 370 265- 395 265- 390 260 – 385 265- 390
2 230 – 370 260 - 430 280 - 430 305 - 440 310 – 440 320 – 460
2.5 260 – 390 290 - 415 310 - 420 320 - 430 330 – 470 365 – 495
Site 9
0.5 160 - 250 160 – 250 170 - 245 190 – 300 190 – 300 210 – 290
1 180 - 290 200 – 290 210 - 290 215 - 290 220 – 290 245 – 310
1.5 220 - 300 220 – 300 240- 305 240- 305 240- 305 240- 315
2 230 - 310 240 – 320 250 - 330 280 - 350 290 – 355 300 – 380
2.5 250 - 330 280 – 350 305 - 375 310 - 380 320 – 390 340 – 405

For the zonation average Qult and Qall values obtained from various methods were
considered. The footing dimensions considered for zonation purpose are 1.5 x 1.5 m, 2 x 2 m,
2.5 x 2.5 m and 4 x 4 m. For each footing dimension zonation maps were produced for both
ultimate bearing capacity (Qult) and allowable bearing capacity (Qall), separate. The primary
purpose of preparing these bearing capacity zonation maps is to provide a spatial distribution
of bearing capacity range over the area which may provide firsthand information on rough
estimates on bearing capacity. However, systematic detailed estimation of bearing capacity
would still be required for the design purpose. The estimates provided through above
mentioned zonation need to be considered as indicative only.

Selamawit Tadesse 82
 Building Foundation Characterization And Analysis:
A Case Study in Ayat Area, Bole Sub-city, Addis Ababa, Central Ethiopia.

6.3.1 Bearing capacity zonation for 1.5 x 1.5 m footing at 1.5 m depth

The bearing capacity zonation for 1.5 x 1.5 m footing at 1.5 m depth is presented in Fig. 6.1.
As can be seen from this map (Fig. 6.1) the highest values of bearing capacity are in the
North-west and Eastern parts of the study area. The soils in these areas are characterized by
high content of fine grain soil and are high plasticity. The ultimate bearing capacity and
allowable bearing capacity values ranges from 930 to 975 kPa and 310 to 325 kPa,
respectively. The lowest value of bearing capacity is in the North-east and South-west parts
of the study area. The soils in these areas are characterized by fine gained soil with low to
high plasticity. The ultimate bearing capacity and allowable bearing capacity value ranges
512 to 590 kPa and 159 to 195 kPa, respectively. The central part of the study area
demonstrates intermediate values of bearing capacity. The soil in this particular area is
characterized by fine gained soil of low plasticity. The ultimate bearing capacity and
allowable bearing capacity value range from 766 to 840 kPa and 250 to 270 kPa,
respectively.

6.3.2 Bearing capacity zonation for 2 x 2 m footing at 1.5 m depth

The bearing capacity zonation for 2 x 2 m footing at 1.5 m depth is presented in Fig. 6.2. As
can be seen from this map (Fig. 6.2) the highest value of bearing capacity is in the North-
west and South-east parts of the study area. The soil in this particular area is characterized by
high content of fine grain soil with high plasticity. The ultimate bearing capacity and
allowable bearing capacity value ranges from 925 – 970 kPa and 309 to 324 kPa,
respectively. The lowest value of bearing capacity is in the North-east and South-west parts
of the study area. The soil in this particular area is characterized by fine gained soil with low
to high plasticity. The ultimate bearing capacity and allowable bearing capacity value ranges
from 505 to 580 kPa and 169 to190 kPa, respectively. The central part of the study area
demonstrates intermediate value of bearing capacity. The soil in this particular area is
characterized by fine gained soils with low plasticity. The ultimate bearing capacity and
allowable bearing capacity value ranges from 760 to 800 kPa and 255 to 270 kPa,
respectively.

Selamawit Tadesse 83
 Building Foundation Characterization And Analysis:
A Case Study in Ayat Area, Bole Sub-city, Addis Ababa, Central Ethiopia.

A. Ultimate Bearing Capacity

B. Allowable Bearing Caapacity

Fig. 6.1 Bearing capacity zonation of the study area (Footing 1.5 x 1.5 m, Depth 1.5 m)

6.3.3 Bearing capacity zonation for 2.5 x 2.5 m footing at 1.5 m depth

The bearing capacity zonation for 2.5 x 2.5 m footing at 1.5 m depth is presented in Fig. 6.3.
As can be seen from this map (Fig. 6.3) the highest value of bearing capacity is in the North-
west and South-east parts of the study area. The soil in this particular area is characterized by
high content of fine grained soil with high plasticity. The ultimate bearing capacity and
Selamawit Tadesse 84
 Building Foundation Characterization And Analysis:
A Case Study in Ayat Area, Bole Sub-city, Addis Ababa, Central Ethiopia.

allowable bearing capacity value ranges from 925 – 972 kPa and 315 to 325 kPa,
respectively.

A. Ultimate Bearing Capacity

B. Allowable Bearing Capacity

Fig. 6.2 Bearing capacity zonation of the study area (Footing 2 x 2 m, Depth 1.5 m)

Selamawit Tadesse 85
 Building Foundation Characterization And Analysis:
A Case Study in Ayat Area, Bole Sub-city, Addis Ababa, Central Ethiopia.

A. Ultimate Bearing Capacity

B. Allowable Bearing Capacity

Fig. 6.3 Bearing capacity zonation of the study area (Footing 2.5 x 2.5 m,
Depth 1.5 m)

The lowest value of bearing capacity is in the North-east and South-west parts of the study
area. The soil in this particular area is characterized by fine gained soils of low to high
plasticity. The ultimate bearing capacity and allowable bearing capacity value ranges from
505 -580 kPa and 159 – 190 kPa, respectively. The central part of the study area demonstrates

Selamawit Tadesse 86
 Building Foundation Characterization And Analysis:
A Case Study in Ayat Area, Bole Sub-city, Addis Ababa, Central Ethiopia.

intermediate value of bearing capacity. The soil in this particular area is characterized by fine
gained soil of low plasticity. The ultimate bearing capacity and allowable bearing capacity
value ranges from 770 to 800 kPa and 255 to 270 kPa, respectively.

6.3.4 Bearing capacity zonation for 4 x 4 m footing at 1.5 m depth

The bearing capacity zonation for 4 x 4 m footing at 1.5 m depth is presented in Fig. 6.4. As
can be seen from this map (Fig. 6.4) the highest value of bearing capacity is in the North-west
and South-east parts of the study area. The soil in this particular area is characterized by high
content of fine grained soil with high plasticity. The ultimate bearing capacity and allowable
bearing capacity value ranges from 950 to 990 kPa and 315 to 330 kPa, respectively. The
lowest value of bearing capacity is in the North-east and South-west parts of the study area.
The soil in this particular area is characterized by fine gained soil of low to high plasticity.
The ultimate bearing capacity and allowable bearing capacity value ranges from 510 – 570
kPa and 170 – 190 kPa, respectively. The central part of the study area demonstrates
intermediate value of bearing capacity. The soil in this particular area is characterized by fine
gained soil of low plasticity. The ultimate bearing capacity and allowable bearing capacity
value ranges from 770 – 850 kPa and 260 to 270 kPa, respectively.

6.4 Foundation Settlement Analysis

In the design of any foundation, one must consider the safety against bearing capacity failure
as well as against excessive settlement of the foundation. In the design of most of the
foundations, there are specifications for allowable levels of settlement. The foundation soil in
its nature is not susceptible for immediate settlement hence only the settlement from primary
consolidation is considered in this study. In order to select the appropriate consolidation
parameters, laboratory consolidation test result were considered. The test results on
foundation settlement are already presented in chapter 5.

From the results the estimated total settlement is not within the limits of acceptable
settlement. The results showed that settlement at Site 1, Site 3 and Site 5 varies in a range
from 89 to 245 mm, 41 to 124 mm and 74 to 136 mm, respectively. For mat foundation, a
maximum allowable average settlement up to 100 mm is tolerated for framed structures (U.S
Army Corps of Engineers, 1990). For isolated footing, a maximum allowable average
settlement up to 50 mm is tolerated for framed structures. As per Ethiopian Buiding code
allowable settlement for sands is 50 mm whereas for clay soils it is 75 mm.

Selamawit Tadesse 87
 Building Foundation Characterization And Analysis:
A Case Study in Ayat Area, Bole Sub-city, Addis Ababa, Central Ethiopia.

A. Ultimate Bearing Capacity

B. Allowable Bearing capacity

Fig. 6.4 Bearing capacity zonation of the study area (Footing 4 x 4 m, Depth 1.5 m)

*****

Selamawit Tadesse 88
 Building Foundation Characterization And Analysis:
A Case Study in Ayat Area, Bole Sub-city, Addis Ababa, Central Ethiopia.

CHAPTER SEVEN CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1 Conclusion

In Addis Ababa city there is a general increase in building construction with ever increasing
population at a very faster rate. In recent years several high rise buildings, mass housing
projects and other infrastructures are being constructed by private companies and government
agencies. For the safety and stability of building structures it is essential to undertake
systematic geotechnical characterization and foundation condition evaluation. The
performance of any building will entirely depend on the foundation conditions and its
behavioral characteristics in terms of its bearing capacity and the settlement potential.

The present research study was conducted in North-Eastern part of Addis Ababa, Bole Sub
City Bole Ayat area. The study area is geographically bounded in between 997239.541m N -
990136.243m N latitude and 482785.03m E- 489343.598m E longitude at UTM- Zone -37N.
The total area covered by the study area is 40 km2. The main objective of the present research
work was to characterize the building foundation material and to assess its bearing capacity
and settlement potential in the study area.

In order to achieve the objectives of the present study, systematic literature review of
previous works, secondary data collection, filed observation and laboratory tests were
conducted. Representative samples were also collected and analyzed. Secondary data in the
form of borehole logs, test reports and other documents on site investigations were procured
from several companies and organizations. Test pit logging, sampling and testing were also
undertaken to generate primary data. The secondary data was processed and all relevant
parameter data/ information necessary for bearing capacity and settlement analysis was
obtained. For the purpose of characterization and foundation analysis the study area was
divided into 9 sites; Site 1 to Site 9. This was mainly done so that the data can be well
managed and systematic analysis can be made.

In the present study area two prominent type of soils and two types of rock units are present.
The soil types are; light to dark grey silty clay/ clayey silt soil and soft dark, silty clay (Black
Cotton) soil. Among the rocks; weak tuff layer and weak to medium strong ignimbrite rocks
are present.
From the present research study following may be concluded;

Selamawit Tadesse 89
 Building Foundation Characterization And Analysis:
A Case Study in Ayat Area, Bole Sub-city, Addis Ababa, Central Ethiopia.

Sites 1, 4 and 7 are characterized by light to dark grey, stiff to very stiff and highly plastic
silty CLAY/clayey SILT soil. In general the results showed that these soils are very high
plastic and are fine grained expansive in nature. This soil was encountered underlying by
pyroclastic ash and tuff deposits and reaches to the maximum drilled depth. The thickness of
this soil layer varies from 2 to 10.7 m as observed from the logs of various boreholes.
Further, Sites 2, 3,5,6,7,8 and 9 are characterize by black, soft to stiff consistency soils with
very loose to medium dense relative density, medium stiff, highly plastic silty CLAY (Black
cotton) soils. The thickness of this soil layer varies from 0.3 to 3m in the study area, as
observed from the logs of various boreholes and within the test pits made during the present
study.

The results showed that the moisture content of light to dark grey soils ranges from 30 to
45%. The unit weight of light to dark clay soils ranges from 15 to 21 kN/m3. Further, the
liquid limit (LL) and plasticity index (PI) for these soils varies from of 87 to 113% and 47 to
80%, respectively. Also, the free swell (FS) for these soils varies from 90 to 180 %. The void
ratio also indicates the softness or stiffness of a soil. Void ratio of light to dark grey soil
ranges from 0.0473 -0.0845. Thus, based on LL, PI and FS values light to dark soils in the
study area are problematic. The results in general show that these soils are very high plastic
and are fine grained expansive in nature. As per Unified Soil Classification System (USCS)
these soils may be placed under MH and CH types of soils. Further, in situ Standard
Penetration Test (SPT) results indicate that the N value for these soils varies from 6 to 25
blows which represents that light to dark grey soils in the study area are medium stiff to very
stiff soils.

As per the results, soft dark clay soils may be placed mainly under ML, MH and CL types of
soils (USCS Classification system) (Fig. 5.3). The natural moisture content varies from 26 to
61%. Further, the liquid limit and plasticity index for these soils varies from of 37 to 89 %
and 7 to 47 %, respectively. The free swell varies from 90 to 190 %. Thus these soils show
very high potential for volume change. Further, in situ Standard Penetration Test (SPT)
results indicate that the N value varies from 4 to 17 blows which suggest that these soils are
soft to stiff in its consistency and are very loose to medium dense with respect to its relative
density

The weak tuff layer in general is very weak, dark grey, moderate to highly weathered,
fractured, friable welded or medium dense to very dense tuff. The rock quality designation

Selamawit Tadesse 90
 Building Foundation Characterization And Analysis:
A Case Study in Ayat Area, Bole Sub-city, Addis Ababa, Central Ethiopia.

(RQD) values for week tuff rock as observed from various borehole log reports shows that it
is less than 25 %, indicating very week rock.

The ignimbrite rock layer in general is light grey in color¸ slightly to moderately weathered,
closely jointed/ fractured, medium grained and weak to medium strong. The rock quality
designation (RQD) values as observed from various borehole log reports shows that it varies
from 0 to 80 % and in majority of cases it is less than 50%.

As per the borehole log data, groundwater was not encountered in any of the boreholes. The
investigation revealed that there was no ground water within the depth of investigation and is
well below the depth of drilling (maximum drilled depth 15m). Thus, groundwater will not
have any effect on shallow founded buildings in the study area.

For the present study, bearing capacity was estimated for 66 locations and necessary soil data
required for assessment was taken from boreholes logs and test reports. Besides, estimation
on bearing capacity was also made from SPT data for which average N values were taken
from 12 locations. The bearing capacity was estimated through various analytical techniques
as proposed by; Terzaghi (1943), Hanson (1970), Meyerhof (1951) Vesic (1973), National
building code standards (EBCS-7(1995) and Semi-empirical (SPT) approach. The bearing
capacity computations were done by using program written in Microsoft Excel. For the
present study the bearing capacity was only compute for square footings. Also, it was
assumed that only vertical static loads will be acting on the foundation and ground surface is
horizontal. It is also assumed that ground water table is deep and it may not affect the
foundation soils. For the present study ultimate bearing capacity (Qult) and allowable bearing
capacity (Qall) were computed by taking variable depths (0.5 to 4 m) and different footing
dimensions (0.5 x 0.5 m, 1 x 1 m, 1.5 x 1.5 m, 2 x 2 m and 2.5 x 2.5 m). In order to compute
allowable bearing capacity (Qall) a factor of safety of 3 was considered for the present study.

The overall evaluation of bearing capacity of foundation soils at shallow depths in the study
area as computed by Terzaghi (1943), Hensen (1957, 1970), Vesic (1973), Meyerhof (1963)
and EBSC-7 methods reveals that ultimate bearing capacity in general increase with depth
and with increasing footing dimensions. The results also showed that Terzaghi, EBCS and
SPT methods provided bearing capacity values which are comparable within close range.
Similarly, Meyerhof, Hansen and Vesic methods also showed comparable bearing capacity
values within close range, although these values are higher than the former ones. Further,
bearing capacity zonation by taking 1.5m foundation depth is also forwarded through the
Selamawit Tadesse 91
 Building Foundation Characterization And Analysis:
A Case Study in Ayat Area, Bole Sub-city, Addis Ababa, Central Ethiopia.

present study. The allowable bearing capacity (Qall) range for various sites in the study area
can be summarized as;

 Site 1 - 125 to 420 kPa

 Site 2 - 110 to 370 kpa
 Site 3 - 100 to 410 kpa
 Site 4 - 100 to 370 kpa
 Site 5 - 115 to 325 kpa
 Site 6 - 170 to 495 kpa
 Site 9 - 160 to 405 kpa

Settlement estimation was conducted based on consolidation results of laboratory tests and
EBSC-7, (1995) method. The results showed that settlement at Site 1, Site 3 and Site 5 varies
in a range from 89 to 245 mm, 41 to 124 mm and 74 to 136 mm, respectively. From the
results the estimated total settlement is not within the limits of allowable settlement.

7.2 Recommendation

Based on the present study results following recommendations are forwarded;

The present study was conducted by generating a geotechnical data base from disorganized
historical borehole log and laboratory test results. It was a very tedious and time consuming
effort to filter and process these data for required input parameters. Therefore, it is required
that the enterprises/ organizations in similar tasks should be committed in building a quality
data base and provide support to such endeavors.

In the present study settlement potential was calculated based on available borehole data
however the required data was not complete. Therefore, for better understanding of
settlement potential future studies need to be accomplished by incorporating all available
historical borehole data from different organizations.

In the present study bearing capacity was calculated at different depths ranging from 0.5 to
4m depth only, depending on available important soil properties data. However, if bearing
capacity for high rise building needs to be determined, computations should be made beyond
4m. Further in the present study, isolated foundations were only considered to support the
proposed structures depending on the super structure anticipated loads. Therefore, mat
foundations can be studied in the future studies.

Selamawit Tadesse 92
 Building Foundation Characterization And Analysis:
A Case Study in Ayat Area, Bole Sub-city, Addis Ababa, Central Ethiopia.

Presence of ground water near the foundation level in a cohesive soil layer reduces the
bearing capacity of the foundation layer and it causes differential settlement when there is
swelling and shrinking due to moisture fluctuation. Clay soils, like black cotton soils, are
seasonally affected by drying, shrinkage and cracking in dry and hot weather, and by swelling
in the following wet weather to a depth which will vary according to the nature of the clay
and the climatic condition of the region. Since ground water is not observed up to the depth
of investigation, moisture fluctuation in the foundation layer could only take place from
surface water. Therefore, it is needed to improve the drainage conditions for the expansive
soil in layer 1 in the present study area.

Addis Ababa is situated in the seismically active Ethiopian rift margin which is tectonically
active area therefore, proper seismic factor should be considered in the building foundation
design.

The results from the present study provide a spatial distribution of bearing capacity range
over the area which may provide firsthand information on rough estimates on bearing
capacity. However, systematic detailed estimation of bearing capacity would still be required
for the design purpose. The estimates provided through present study need to be considered
as indicative only.

*****

Selamawit Tadesse 93
 Building Foundation Characterization And Analysis:
A Case Study in Ayat Area, Bole Sub-city, Addis Ababa, Central Ethiopia.

REFERENCES

Afework Sisay(2004). Assessment of damage of buildings constructed in expansive soil

areas of Addis Ababa. Unpublished MSc thesis, Addis Ababa University, Addis
Ababa, Ethiopia, 73 pp.

Arora, K. R. (2004). Soil mechanics and foundation engineering. Standard publishers

distributors, Delhi, 886 pp.

Assegid Getahun (2007). Geology of Addis Ababa City, Ethiopian. Unpublished technical
report, Institute of Geological Survey, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. 31 pp.

Bell, F.G. (1999). Geological hazards: their assessment, avoidance and mitigation. E and FN
SPON, London, 648 p.

Bell F.G. (2007a). Engineering Geology, 2nd ed., Elsevier Ltd., USA, 581 pp.

Bell, F.G. (2007b). Engineering Geology, 2nd ed., Butterworth-Heinemann, Burlington.

Blyth, F.G and Freitas, M.H. (1984). Geology for Engineers, 7th ed., Butterworth
Heinemann, Burlington.

Bowels, J.E.(1996). Foundation Analysis and Design, 5th ed., MCgraw-Hill companies,
Singapore, 1089pp.

Bowels, J.E (1997). Foundation Analysis and Design, 5th ed., MCgraw-Hill companies,
Singapore, 220pp.

Bureau of Indian Standards (1987).Indian Standard Classification and Identification of

Soils for General Engineering PurposesIS 1498. New Delhi, India: BIS.

BS 1377:1975. Laboratory determination methods of engineering soil properties. British

Standards Institution, London.

Chen, F.H. (1988). Foundation on expansive soils, Elsevier Science Publishers, Amsterdam,
562pp.

Das, B.M. (2011). Principles of foundation Engineering, 7th ed., CT Global Engineering,
Stamford, 794pp.

Ethiopian Road Authority (ERA)(2002). Site Investigation Manual: Addis Ababa, ERA,
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
ftp://ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outbound/ocic/4th_Street_Ramp/Conformed%20Contract/Book
%202/08%20%20Geotechnical/Exhibits/Exhibit%208D%20AASHTO%20Soil%20Cla
ssification%20System.pdf accessed on 25.04.2016.

Day, R.W.(2006). Foundation Engineering Handbook. McGraw hill, New York, 822 pp.

Selamawit Tadesse 94
 Building Foundation Characterization And Analysis:
A Case Study in Ayat Area, Bole Sub-city, Addis Ababa, Central Ethiopia.

EBCS-7 (Ethiopian Building Code Standard). (1995). Foundations, Unpublished technical

report, Ministry of Works and Urban Development, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia,159 pp.

EBCS-8 (Ethiopian Building Code Standard). (1995). Design of Structures for Earthquake
Resistance, Unpublished technical report, Ministry of Works and Urban Development,
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 109 pp.

ESCP-3 (Ethiopian Standard Code of Practice) (1983). Foundations, Unpublished technical

report, Ministry of Construction, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. 69pp.

Efrem Beshawered (2009). Geology of the Akaki-Beseka Area, Unpublished technical report,
Ethiopian Institute of Geological Survey, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. 93 pp.

Geological Survey of Ethiopia (GSE) (1996). Explanation to the Geological Map of Ethiopia,
Unpublished technical report, GSE, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 69 pp.

Geological Survey of Ethiopia (GSE)(2009). Opportunities for Clay Resources in Ethiopia,

Unpublished technical report,GSE, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 17 pp.

Gilloth, J. E.(1962). Clay in Engineering Geology, Elsevier Publishing Company, USA, 567
pp.

Habtamu Solomon (2010). Chemical Stabilization of Expansive subgrade soil performance

evaluation on selected road section in northern Addis Ababa.Unpublished MSc thesis,
Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 77 pp.

Haile Sellasie Girmay and Getaneh Assefa(1989). The Addis Ababa-Nazareth Volcanics: A
Miocene-Pleistocene volcanic succession in Ethiopian Rift.SINET. 12 (1).

Hana Tibebu (2008).Study of index properties and shear strength parameters of Lateritic
soils in Welayita Sodo, Unpublished MScthesis, Addis Ababa University,
AddisAbaba, Ethiopia, 119pp.

Hansen, J.B. (1970). A revised and extended formula for bearing capacity. Danish
Geotechnical Institute, Copenhagen, 21 pp.
http://www.library.arizona.edu/exhibits/swetc/azso/body.1_div.6.html accessed on
25.04.2016.

Johnson, J.R., Lucey, P.G., Horton, K.A. and winter, E.M. (1998). Infrared measurements of
pristine and disturbed soils1: Spectral contrast differences between field and laboratory
data. Remote Sensing of Environment.64: 34-46p.

Jones, J.D.E., and Holtz, W.G. (1973). Expansive soils–the hidden disaster Civil
Engineering.ASCE, 43.

Kazmin, V. (1979). Stratigraphy and Correlation of Volcanic Rocks in Ethiopia. EIGS.

KebedeTsehayuand Tadesse H.Mariam (1990). Engineering Geological Mapping of Addis

Ababa, Unpublished technical report, Ethiopian Geological Survey, Addis Ababa,
Ethiopia, 84 pp.

Selamawit Tadesse 95
 Building Foundation Characterization And Analysis:
A Case Study in Ayat Area, Bole Sub-city, Addis Ababa, Central Ethiopia.

Laike Mariam Asfaw (1986). Seismicity and Earthquake Risk in the Addis Abeba
Region,Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Ethiopian Journal of Science.13(1):15-35.

Lamesgin Mesele (2014).Bearing capacity assessment for building foundation using different
approaches-Acomparative study at Addis Ababa,Unpublished MSc thesis, Addis Ababa
Universty, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 149pp.

Leow J.H. (2005).A Study of Building Foundation in Malaysia.

Merga Negasa (2014). Geotechnical characterization and foundation analysis for

selectedsites under Addis Ababa Housing projectsAddisAbaba, Ethiopia. Unpublished
MSc thesis, Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 115pp.

Meyerhof, G.G. (1951). The ultimate bearing capacity of foundations. Geotechnique,

2(4):301-331.

Meyerhof, G.G. (1956). Penetration tests and bearing capacity of cohesionless soils.
JSMFD.82:1-19.

Meyerhof, G.G. (1963). Some Recent Research on the Bearing Capacity of Foundations.
CGJ, 1(1): 16-26.

Mohammed Abdulshikur, (2007) Environmental Analysis of a Hydrologic System the

Case of Tinishu Akaki River, Western Addis Ababa. Unpublished MSc thesis, Addis
Ababa University, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Morin,W.J. and Parry, W.T. (1971). Geotechnical Properties of Ethiopian Volcanic soils.
Geotechnique,21(3): 223-232.

Morton, W.H. (1979). Riftward Younging of Volcanic Rocks in the Addis Ababa Region.
Rift Valley Ethiopian. Nature, 280: 284-288.

Murthy, V.N.S. (2009). Principles and practices of soil mechanics and foundation
engineering. Marcel Dekker Inc., New York, 1029 pp.

Netterberg, F.D. (2001). Addis Ababa-Jimma road project Preliminary report on cracking
problem: Addis Ababa, Unpublished technical report, Ethiopian Roads Authority,
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Peck, R.B., Hanson, W.E., and Thornburn, T.H. (1974). Foundation Engineering. John Wiley
and Sons Inc., New York, 530 pp.

Price D.G. (2009). Engineering geology. Springer science and Business media, Berlin.

Raghuvanshi, T.K. (2016) Computational sheets on Bearing capacity estimation in MS Excel

(Unpublished), Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa.

Robert L.B. (2001). Spatial variation of soil type and soil moisture in the Regional
Atmospheric modeling system (U). Technical report. Westinghouse Savannah River
Co, 40pp.

Selamawit Tadesse 96
 Building Foundation Characterization And Analysis:
A Case Study in Ayat Area, Bole Sub-city, Addis Ababa, Central Ethiopia.

Sam Helwany. (2007). Applied Soil Mechanics with ABAQUS Applications, John Willey and
Sons, New York.

Sisay, Alemayehu. (2004), Assessment of Damage of Buildings Constructed in Expansive

Soil Areas of Addis Ababa. Unpublished MSc Thesis, Addis Ababa university, Addis
Ababa, Ethiopia, 78pp.

Skempton, A.W., (1951). The bearing capacity of Clays. In:Proceedings of the 4th Building
Research Cong., pp. 180-189. Thomas Telford, Ltd., London.

Soil Survey Staff (1975). Soil Taxonomy. A basic system of soil classification for making and
interpreting soil surveys Agricultural Handbook no. 436, Washington DC.

Tamiru Alemayehu, Tenalem Ayenew, Dagnachew Legese, Yirga Tadesse, Solomon

Waltenigus and Nuri Mohamed (2006). Ground Water Vulnerability Mapping of the
Addis Ababa Water Supply Aquifers. Unpublished technical report, Addis Ababa,
Ethiopia.

Terzaghi, K. (1943). TheoreticalSoil Mechanics in Engineering Practice. John Wiley and

Sons, New York, 510 pp.

Terzaghi, K. and Peck, R.B. (1967). Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice, John Willey and
Sons, New York.

Terzaghi, K., Peck, R. and Mesri, G. (1996). Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice,3rd ed.,
John Wiley and Sons, New York, 512 pp.

Tesfaye Chernet (1988). Hydrogeology of Ethiopia and Water Resources Development.

Unpublished technical report, Ethiopian Institute of Geological Survey, Addis Ababa,
Ethiopia.

Tilahun Mammo, (2005). Site specific ground motion simulation and seismic response
analysis at the proposed bridge sites within the city of Addis Ababa. Addis Ababa,
Ethiopia. Eng. Geol. 79: 127 -150.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) (1992).Engineering and Design of Bearing

Capacity of soils.American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), Washington DC.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) (1994).Engineering and Design of Bearing

Capacity of soils.American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), Washington DC.

Verma, S.K, Jain, P.K and Kumar,R. (2013). Prediction of bearing capacity of granular
layered soils by plate load test. International Journal of Advanced Engineering
Research and Studies, 2(3):142-149.

Vesic, A.S, (1973). Analysis of ultimate loads shallow foundations. Journal of the Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Division, 99(1):45-73.

Vesic, A.S, (1963). Bearing capacity of deep foundations in sand. Highway research record,
39.

Selamawit Tadesse 97
 Building Foundation Characterization And Analysis:
A Case Study in Ayat Area, Bole Sub-city, Addis Ababa, Central Ethiopia.

Water Works Design and Supervision Enterprise (WWDSE) (2008). Evaluation of water
resources of the Ada’a and Becho groundwater basin for irrigation development project,
Unpublished technical report, WWDSE, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 147 pp.

Weynshet Tadesse, (2015). Correlation of Bearing Capacity of SPT and Lab Result for
Shallow Foundation; Emphasis to Common soils in Addis Ababa, Unpublished MSc
thesis, Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 149 pp.

Zeleke Tadesse, (2013). Pavement Distress on Addis Ababa Ring Road=Assessment of

causes and rehabilitation measures. Unpublished MSc thesis, Addis Ababa University,
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 127 pp.

*****

Selamawit Tadesse 98
 Building Foundation Characterization And Analysis:
A Case Study in Ayat Area, Bole Sub-city, Addis Ababa, Central Ethiopia.

Annex 1 Summary of results for Ultimate bearing capacity (Qult) for various Site 1
Sites Depth Footing dimension (m x m)
(m) 0.5 x 0.5 1x1 1.5 x 1.5 2x2 2.5 x 2.5 4x4
Range of Ultimate bearing capacity (Qult) (KPa)
Terzagi 0.5 507 - 764 508 – 761 486 – 746 512 -745 539 -824 572 – 861
1 527 - 794 553- 786 526 – 771 547 – 785 559- 839 612 – 901
1.5 547 - 804 558 – 811 561 – 816 572 – 835 584 – 854 617 – 911
2 567 - 824 578 - 841 581 - 851 612 - 885 634 – 919 687 – 971
2.5 607 – 844 638 – 861 611- 861 627- 895 654 – 949 717- 1001
Henson 0.5 675 – 1024 661-1012 634 – 987 606 – 905 597 – 921 567- 847
1 695- 1054 706- 1037 674 – 1012 641 – 945 617 – 946 607- 914
1.5 715 - 1064 711 - 1062 709 – 1057 666 – 995 642 – 961 612 – 924
2 735 – 1084 731 - 1092 729- 1092 706 - 1045 692 – 1026 682 – 984
2.5 775 -1104 791 – 1112 759- 1102 721-1055 712 – 1056 712-1014
Vesics 0.5 631 – 966 629- 967 608 – 952 640 - 737 620 -965 604 – 933
1 651- 996 674 -992 648- 977 665- 977 641 – 985 644 – 973
1.5 671 - 1006 679 -1017 683 - 1022 685 - 1027 666 -1000 649 – 983
2 691-1026 689 - 1047 703 - 1057 725- 1077 716 -1065 719- 1043
2.5 731-1046 749 – 1067 733 – 1067 740- 1087 736- 1095 749 - 1073
Meyerhof 0.5 651 - 996 658 - 999 668 – 1005 673 - 1013 682 – 1021 691 - 1031
1 671 - 1014 693 – 1016 695 – 1023 702 - 1033 714–1039 732 - 1043
1.5 691 - 1034 698 - 1041 706 - 1053 714 - 1070 722–1087 747- 1138
2 711 - 1054 718 – 1073 726 – 1081 755 – 1089 766 – 1099 787 - 1139
2.5 755 - 1074 778 - 1093 779 - 1102 784 - 1119 792 – 1138 801 - 1151
EBSC-7 0.5 471 - 682 473 – 731 576- 735 584 - 739 584–768 586 - 773
1 491–712 515 – 756 516 -760 519 - 764 520–797 555 - 845
1.5 511 - 772 520–781 530 - 791 537 - 804 543–817 563 - 858
2 531 - 792 540 – 811 550 – 826 577 – 854 593–872 613 - 889
2.5 561 - 812 600 - 831 610 - 836 611 - 864 613–884 621 - 893

Annex 2 Summary of results for Allowable bearing capacity (Qall) for Site 1
Sites Depth Footing dimension (m x m)
(m) 0.5 x 0.5 1x1 1.5 x 1.5 2x2 2.5 x 2.5 4x4
Range of Allowable bearing capacity (Qult) (KPa)
Terzagi 0.5 125 – 198 132 - 192 133 - 205 135 - 207 145– 256 157 – 266
1 145 – 218 177 – 205 152 – 225 165–228 175 –271 197 – 289
1.5 165 - 228 182 - 230 187 - 234 190 - 278 194 - 284 205 – 303
2 185 - 248 202 – 255 207 – 269 213 – 289 227–327 235–343
2.5 201 - 272 240 - 275 240 - 279 257 - 309 266–335 287 – 357
Henson 0.5 174 - 300 202 - 306 206- 318 209 - 322 211- 316 198 – 304
1 194 – 330 232 - 334 231 - 339 219 – 330 212 – 318 201 – 306
1.5 216 - 340 237 - 345 236 - 352 222 - 331 214–320 204–308
2 236 – 360 257 - 365 269 - 387 270 – 397 278–408 289–408
2.5 276 - 380 286 - 384 293 - 396 299 - 407 308–415 321–426
Vesics 0.5 132 - 270 160 - 291 166 - 293 173 - 297 165 – 301 167 – 308
1 152 – 300 205 – 314 206 – 315 208 – 319 206 – 315 205–312
1.5 172 - 310 210 - 339 227 - 340 228 - 342 222- 333 216 – 327
2 192 - 330 230 - 369 257 - 375 248 - 392 272 – 398 286–403
2.5 230 - 350 260 - 389 287 - 395 295 - 402 304 – 413 326–435
Meyerhof 0.5 165 - 309 185 - 311 196 - 326 209 – 336 213 – 344 224 – 362
1 185 – 329 220 – 330 221 – 343 223 - 343 234 – 352 239 – 367
1.5 205 - 339 225 - 345 235 - 351 238 - 356 240 – 362 249–379
2 225 - 359 245 - 375 255 – 386 263 - 403 290–423 299- 436
2.5 265 - 379 285 - 395 295 - 406 302 - 413 312 – 433 321–453
EBSC-7 0.5 117 - 212 126 - 216 134 – 218 143 - 224 156–227 165 - 239
1 137 – 242 166 - 227 167 - 231 172 - 233 176–245 184 - 265
1.5 157 - 252 171 - 257 176 - 263 179 - 268 181–272 187 - 286
2 177 – 272 191 - 287 196- 298 212 – 318 245 – 335 267 – 337
2.5 197 - 292 208 - 308 224 - 312 227 - 328 251 – 357 274 - 359

Selamawit Tadesse 99
 Building Foundation Characterization And Analysis:
A Case Study in Ayat Area, Bole Sub-city, Addis Ababa, Central Ethiopia.

Annex 3 Summary of results for Ultimate bearing capacity (Qult) for Site 2
Sites Depth Footing dimension (m x m)
(m) 0.5 x 0.5 1x1 1.5 x 1.5 2x2 2.5 x 2.5 4x4
Range of Allowable bearing capacity (Qult) (KPa)
Terzagi 0.5 331 - 642 328 - 637 308 - 623 336 - 614 363 - 674 400 – 697
1 351 - 672 373 - 662 348 - 648 371 - 654 383 - 699 440 – 737
1.5 371 - 682 378 - 687 383 - 693 396 - 704 408 - 714 445 – 747
2 391 - 702 398 - 717 403 - 728 436 - 754 458 - 779 515 – 807
2.5 431 - 722 458 -737 433 - 738 451 - 764 478 - 809 545 – 837
Henson 0.5 423 - 821 429 - 815 413 - 806 402 - 731 403 - 750 390 – 699
1 443 - 851 474 - 840 453 - 831 437 - 771 423 - 775 430 – 739
1.5 463 - 861 479 - 865 488 - 876 462 - 821 448 - 790 435 – 749
2 483 -881 499 -895 508 - 911 502 - 871 498 - 855 505 – 809
2.5 523 - 901 559 -915 538 - 921 517 - 881 518 - 885 535 – 389
Vesics 0.5 429 - 789 424 - 784 403 - 770 423 - 750 429 - 773 430 – 735
1 449 -819 469 - 809 443 - 795 458 - 790 449 - 798 470 – 775
1.5 469 - 829 474 - 834 478 - 840 483 - 840 474 - 813 475 – 785
2 489 - 849 494 - 864 498 - 875 523 - 890 524 - 878 545 – 845
2.5 529 - 869 554 - 884 528 - 885 538 - 900 544 - 908 575 – 875
Meyerhof 0.5 427 - 839 428 - 811 414 - 800 438 - 788 463 - 846 491 – 860
1 447 -840 473 - 836 454 - 825 473 - 828 483 - 871 531 – 900
1.5 467 – 850 478 - 861 489 - 870 498 - 878 508 - 886 536 – 910
2 487 - 870 498 - 891 509 - 905 538 - 928 558 - 951 606 – 970
2.5 527 - 890 558 - 911 539 - 915 553 - 938 578 - 981 636 – 1000
EBSC-7 0.5 318 - 621 319 - 622 302 - 610 325 - 445 348 - 501 371 – 496
1 338 - 651 364 - 647 342 - 635 360 - 485 368 - 526 411 – 536
1.5 358 – 661 369 - 672 377 - 680 385 - 535 393 - 541 416 – 546
2 378 - 681 389 - 702 397 - 715 425 - 585 443 - 606 486 – 606
2.5 418 - 701 449 - 722 427 - 725 440 - 595 463 - 636 516 – 636

Annex 4 Summary of results for Allowable bearing capacity (Qall) for Site 2
Sites Depth Footing dimension (m x m)
(m) 0.5 x 0.5 1x1 1.5 x 1.5 2x2 2.5 x 2.5 4x4
Range of Allowable bearing capacity (Qult) (KPa)
Terzagi 0.5 79 - 188 74 - 178 52 – 161 72 – 144 91 - 198 103 - 199
1 99 - 214 119 - 203 92 – 186 107 – 184 111 - 223 143 - 239
1.5 119 - 224 124 - 228 127 – 231 132 – 234 136 - 238 148 - 249
2 139 - 244 144 - 258 147 – 266 172 – 284 186 -303 218 - 309
2.5 179 - 264 204 - 278 177 – 276 187 – 294 206 - 333 248 - 339
Henson 0.5 102 - 232 103 - 233 87 – 222 94 – 183 104 - 223 104 - 199
1 122 - 262 148 - 258 127 – 247 129 – 223 124 - 248 144 - 239
1.5 142 - 272 153 - 283 162 – 292 154 – 273 149 - 263 145 - 249
2 162 - 292 173 - 313 182 – 327 194 -323 199 - 328 215 - 309
2.5 202 - 212 233 - 333 212 – 337 209 – 333 219 - 358 245 - 339
Vesics 0.5 99 - 220 99 - 220 84 – 210 101 – 190 113 - 231 113 - 211
1 119 -250 144 - 245 124 – 235 136 – 230 133 - 256 153 - 251
1.5 139- 260 149 - 270 159 – 280 161 – 280 158 - 271 158 - 261
2 159 - 280 169 - 300 179 – 315 201 – 330 208 - 336 228 - 321
2.5 199 - 300 229 - 320 209 – 325 216 – 340 228 - 366 258 - 351
Meyerhof 0.5 110 - 259 107 - 236 88 – 220 106 – 202 124 - 255 133 - 253
1 130 - 289 152 - 261 128 – 245 141 – 242 144 - 280 173 - 293
1.5 150 - 279 157 -286 163– 290 166 – 292 169 - 295 178 – 303
2 170 - 259 177 - 316 183 – 325 206 – 342 219 - 360 248 - 363
2.5 210 - 239 237 - 336 213 -335 221 – 352 239 - 390 278 - 393
EBSC-7 0.5 76 - 168 72 - 164 50 – 146 68 – 128 86 - 180 101 - 176
1 96 - 198 117 - 189 90 – 171 103 – 168 106 - 205 141 - 216
1.5 116 - 208 122 - 214 125 – 216 128 – 218 131 - 220 146 – 226
2 136 - 228 142 - 240 145 – 251 168 – 268 278 - 285 216 - 286
2.5 176 - 248 202 - 260 175 – 261 183 – 278 298 - 315 246 - 316

Selamawit Tadesse 100

 Building Foundation Characterization And Analysis:
A Case Study in Ayat Area, Bole Sub-city, Addis Ababa, Central Ethiopia.

Annex 5 Summary of results for Ultimate bearing capacity (Qult) for Site 3
Sites Depth Footing dimension (m x m)
(m) 0.5 x 0.5 1x1 1.5 x 1.5 2x2 2.5 x 2.5 4x4
Range of Ultimate bearing capacity (Qult) (kPa)
Terzagi 0.5 609 - 790 607 - 795 594 – 790 628 – 790 651 - 859 692 - 908
1 629 - 820 652 - 820 634 – 815 658 – 830 671 - 884 732 - 948
1.5 649 - 830 657 - 845 669 – 860 683 – 880 696 - 899 737 – 958
2 669 - 850 677 - 875 689 – 895 723 – 930 746 - 964 807 - 1018
2.5 709 - 870 737 - 895 719 – 905 738 – 940 766 - 994 837 - 1048
Henson 0.5 551 - 1032 553 - 1040 539 – 1037 487 – 951 508 - 966 498 - 915
1 571 - 1062 598 - 1065 579 – 1062 522 – 991 528 - 991 518 - 955
1.5 591 - 1072 603 - 1090 614 – 1107 547 - 1041 553 - 1006 523 - 965
2 611 - 1092 623 - 1120 634 – 1142 587 - 1091 603 - 1071 593 - 1025
2.5 651 - 1112 683 - 1140 664 – 1152 602 - 1101 623 - 1100 623 - 1055
Vesics 0.5 535 - 1016 535 - 1012 536 – 1004 536 – 986 526 - 1005 505 - 992
1 555 - 1046 572 - 1037 554–1044 554 – 1024 546 – 1030 547 – 1016
1.5 575 - 1056 583 - 1062 589–1069 589 - 1074 571 - 1045 552 - 1026
2 595 - 1076 603–1092 609 – 1104 629 - 1124 621 – 1110 622 - 1086
2.5 635 - 1096 635 - 1112 639 – 1114 649 - 1134 640 - 1140 652 – 1116
Meyerhof 0.5 562 - 1041 565 - 1039 566 – 1030 577 - 1031 582 - 1098 593 - 1138
1 582 - 1071 601–1064 601 – 1065 602 - 1071 602–1123 631 – 1178
1.5 602 - 1081 606 - 1089 612 – 1103 617 - 1121 622 - 1138 636 - 1189
2 622 - 1101 626 - 1119 622–1138 657 - 1161 672 - 1143 696 - 1238
2.5 662 - 1122 686 - 1139 652–1148 698 - 1171 698 - 1173 714 - 1269
EBSC-7 0.5 397 - 772 399 - 779 423 – 799 434–801 445 - 800 456 - 812
1 418 - 802 442 - 804 443 –806 454–809 462 - 811 465 – 834
1.5 438 - 812 447 - 818 456 – 825 460 – 839 464 - 852 476 - 893
2 458 - 832 467 - 848 478–852 483–867 493 - 889 499 – 887
2.5 498 - 852 502 -868 504–873 506–889 512 - 894 513 - 878

Annex 6 Summary of results for Allowable bearing capacity (Qall) for Site 3
Sites Depth Footing dimension (m x m)
(m) 0.5 x 0.5 1x1 1.5 x 1.5 2x2 2.5 x 2.5 4x4
Range of Allowable bearing capacity (Qall) (kPa)
Terzagi 0.5 167 - 226 168 - 229 148 - 216 167 – 203 187 - 259 200 - 269
1 187 - 256 213 - 254 188 - 241 202 – 243 207 - 284 240 - 309
1.5 213 - 266 217 - 279 223 - 286 227 – 293 232 - 299 245 - 319
2 233- 286 237 - 309 243 - 321 267 – 343 282 - 364 315 - 379
2.5 273 - 306 297 - 329 273 - 331 282 – 353 302 - 394 345 - 409
Henson 0.5 144 - 309 141 - 307 129 - 299 131 – 257 139 - 295 129 - 271
1 164 - 339 186 - 332 169 - 324 166 – 297 159 - 320 169 - 311
1.5 184 - 349 191 - 357 204 - 369 191 – 347 184 - 335 174 - 321
2 304 - 369 211 - 387 224 - 404 231 – 397 234 - 400 244 - 381
2.5 344 - 389 271 - 407 254 - 414 246 – 407 254 - 430 274 - 411
Vesics 0.5 147 - 299 142 - 298 121 - 286 136 – 268 145 - 308 139 - 292
1 167 - 329 187 - 323 161 - 311 171 – 308 165 - 333 179 - 332
1.5 187 - 339 192 - 348 196 - 356 196 – 358 190 - 348 184 - 342
2 207 - 359 212 - 378 216 - 391 236 – 408 240 - 413 254 - 402
2.5 247 - 379 272 - 398 246 - 401 251 – 418 260 - 443 284 - 432
Meyerhof 0.5 152 - 219 148 - 313 129 - 299 145 – 283 162 - 339 167 - 346
1 172 - 249 193 - 338 169 - 324 180 – 323 182 - 364 207 - 386
1.5 192 - 259 198 - 363 204 - 369 205 – 373 207 - 379 212 - 396
2 212 - 279 218 - 393 224 - 404 245 – 423 257 - 444 282 - 456
2.5 252 - 299 278 - 413 254 - 414 260 – 433 277 - 474 312 - 486
EBSC-7 0.5 109 - 226 101 - 220 77 – 205 93 – 189 109 - 244 107 - 225
1 129 - 256 146 - 245 117 - 230 128 – 229 129 - 269 147 - 265
1.5 149 - 266 151 - 270 152 - 275 153 – 279 154 - 284 152 - 275
2 169 - 286 171 - 300 172 - 310 193 – 329 204 - 349 222 - 335
2.5 209 - 306 231 - 320 202 - 320 208 – 339 224 - 379 252 - 365

Selamawit Tadesse 101

 Building Foundation Characterization And Analysis:
A Case Study in Ayat Area, Bole Sub-city, Addis Ababa, Central Ethiopia.

Annex 7 Summary of results for Ultimate bearing capacity (Qult) for Site 4

Sites Depth Footing dimension (m x m)

(m) 0.5 x 0.5 1x1 1.5 x 1.5 2x2 2.5 x 2.5 4x4
Range of Ultimate bearing capacity (Qult) (kPa)
Terzagi 0.5 339 - 613 342 - 621 314 - 620 333 – 623 353 - 655 399- 683
1 359 - 643 378 - 642 354 – 644 368 – 644 373 – 680 497 - 723
1.5 379- 653 384 - 667 389- 679 393– 694 398– 709 410– 753
2 399 – 673 401- 697 409 – 701 443–736 458 - 769 480 - 773
2.5 423 - 691 431 - 705 439 - 711 458 – 746 468 - 787 487 - 798
Henson 0.5 407 - 808 413 - 819 427 - 823 431 – 809 401 - 763 382 - 749
1 427 - 838 448 - 844 453 - 854 433 – 812 411 – 777 389 – 753
1.5 447- 848 453 - 854 467- 868 437– 817 419- 788 394– 755
2 467 - 868 473 - 879 487 - 899 457 – 852 459 - 852 464 - 815
2.5 497 - 888 513 - 899 507–901 497– 902 479 - 882 494 - 845
Vesics 0.5 396 - 767 397 - 773 401 - 785 402 – 786 401 - 785 398 - 782
1 419 - 797 437 - 798 412 – 801 421 – 801 405 – 805 400 – 798
1.5 439 –819 442 - 823 447– 839 446– 843 430- 820 412–803
2 459 – 839 462 – 853 467 - 874 486 – 893 480 - 885 482 - 863
2.5 479 – 859 489 - 873 497 - 884 501- 903 500 - 902 502 - 893
Meyerhof 0.5 411–805 406 - 807 397 - 797 415 – 803 433 – 801 446 - 825
1 431– 835 451 - 832 434 – 820 445 – 827 455 – 821 459 – 839
1.5 451–845 456 - 857 469–865 470– 877 472– 889 478– 926
2 461 – 865 476 – 887 489 – 895 490 – 905 499 - 913 501 – 935
2.5 501 – 885 496 - 932 519 - 905 529 – 915 543 - 934 557- 956
EBSC-7 0.5 297 – 718 331- 720 335 - 725 337 – 735 339 - 766 342 - 782
1 317 – 748 336 – 745 337 – 748 338 – 758 340 – 779 344 -798
1.5 337–758 341- 765 347- 778 348– 795 350 - 811 354–860
2 357–778 361 - 795 387 - 828 397 – 838 367 – 843 397 – 857
2.5 397 – 798 421 - 815 425 - 838 437 – 858 448 - 863 452 - 883

Annex 8 Summary of results for Allowable bearing capacity (Qall) for Site 4
Sites Depth Footing dimension (m x m)
(m) 0.5 x 0.5 1x1 1.5 x 1.5 2x2 2.5 x 2.5 4x4
Range of Allowable bearing capacity (Qult) (kPa)
Terzagi 0.5 90–180 97 - 185 108 - 187 108 – 192 109 - 198 111 - 209
1 103–208 122 – 200 121 – 203 122 – 209 123 - 215 123 - 240
1.5 123– 218 127- 221 129 - 226 131– 231 132- 236 136– 251
2 143–238 147 - 251 149 - 261 171–281 182 - 301 206 - 311
2.5 183 – 258 200 - 261 201 - 271 186 - 191 202 - 330 236 - 344
Henson 0.5 101 – 236 100 - 224 108 - 226 109 - 223 109- 223 103 - 223
1 121 – 261 142 – 249 142 – 249 142 - 239 131 - 247 125 - 241
1.5 141– 271 147- 274 155 - 289 145– 272 139- 262 131– 251
2 161 - 291 167–304 175 - 319 190 - 322 189 - 326 201 - 311
2.5 201 – 311 217 - 324 217 - 329 205 - 332 209 - 356 231 - 341
Vesics 0.5 90 - 216 105 – 211 105 - 211 105 - 213 106 - 233 106 - 233
1 108 – 246 130 – 236 130 - 236 130 - 240 132 - 258 132 - 257
1.5 128 - 256 135 – 261 149- 279 148– 281 143- 273 137– 267
2 148 – 276 155 - 291 169 - 326 192–331 193 - 323 207 - 327
2.5 188 - 296 216 - 321 199 - 336 207–341 213 - 353 237 - 357
Meyerhof 0.5 107 – 239 121 - 134 123 - 136 118–123 121 - 256 121 -258
1 127 – 269 146 – 259 147 - 261 146 - 263 143 - 281 154 - 298
1.5 147– 279 151– 284 156- 288 156- 292 157- 296 159– 308
2 167– 299 171 – 314 171- 223 201 - 342 207–344 259 - 368
2.5 207–319 231 - 334 231 - 334 216 - 352 227 - 374 289 - 398
EBSC-7 0.5 90 - 207 91 - 208 90 - 208 90 - 204 99 - 230 90 - 238
1 92 – 237 106 - 228 106 – 228 107 - 215 106 – 255 121 - 278
1.5 103–247 111 - 253 115– 259 116- 265 118- 270 126– 286
2 123 – 267 131 – 273 140 - 294 161 - 315 168 – 320 196 - 246
2.5 163 – 287 171 - 293 171 - 301 176 - 325 188 - 350 226 - 276

Selamawit Tadesse 102

 Building Foundation Characterization And Analysis:
A Case Study in Ayat Area, Bole Sub-city, Addis Ababa, Central Ethiopia.

Annex 9 Summary of results for Ultimate bearing capacity (Qult) for Site 5
Sites Depth Footing dimension (m x m)
(m) 0.5 x 0.5 1x1 1.5 x 1.5 2x2 2.5 x 2.5 4x4
Range of Allowable bearing capacity (Qult) (kPa)
Terzagi 0.5 421- 523 415 - 515 395 - 504 427 - 550 449 – 565 566 – 703
1 441 – 553 457 – 540 435- 529 457 – 575 469 – 590 526 – 663
1.5 461 – 563 462 - 565 470 - 574 482 - 590 494 – 605 531 – 653
2 481- 583 482 – 595 490 – 609 532 – 655 544 – 670 601 – 713
2.5 521 - 603 542 - 615 520 - 619 552 - 685 564 – 700 631 – 743
Henson 0.5 511 - 545 509 - 640 515- 661 511 - 650 493 – 628 492 – 595
1 531 – 575 554 – 665 555 – 686 531 – 675 513 – 653 512 – 635
1.5 551 - 685 559 – 690 590 - 731 556 -690 538 – 668 517 – 645
2 601 – 705 579 – 720 610 – 766 606 – 715 588 – 733 587 – 705
2.5 641 - 725 639 – 740 640 - 776 626 - 745 608 – 763 617 – 735
Vesics 0.5 505 - 652 509 - 640 608 - 651 532 - 680 519 – 661 512 – 645
1 525 – 672 554 – 665 738 – 676 552 – 705 539 – 686 552 – 685
1.5 545 - 682 559 - 690 573 - 711 577 - 717 564- 701 557 – 695
2 565 – 702 579 – 720 593 – 746 627 – 782 614 – 766 627 – 755
2.5 605 – 722 613 - 740 623 - 756 647 - 812 634 – 796 657 – 785
Meyerhof 0.5 529 - 679 528 - 673 515 - 671 554 - 704 563 – 717 590 – 746
1 549 – 709 573 – 698 555 – 696 574 – 729 583 – 742 630 – 786
1.5 569 - 719 578 - 723 590 - 731 599 - 744 608 – 757 635 – 796
2 589 – 539 598 – 753 610 – 766 649 – 809 658 – 822 705 – 856
2.5 629 - 559 658 - 773 640 - 776 669 - 839 678 – 852 735 – 886
EBSC-7 0.5 398 - 498 391 - 495 372 - 484 409 - 525 417 – 540 438 – 556
1 418 – 528 436 – 520 412 – 509 429 – 550 437 – 565 478 – 596
1.5 438 - 538 441 - 545 447 - 554 454 - 565 462 – 575 483 – 606
2 458 - 558 461 – 575 467 – 589 504 – 630 512 – 640 553 – 666
2.5 498 - 578 521 - 595 497 - 599 524 - 660 532 – 670 583 – 696

Annex 10 Summary of results for Allowable bearing capacity (Qall) for Site 5
Sites Depth Footing dimension (m x m)
(m) 0.5 x 0.5 1x1 1.5 x 1.5 2x2 2.5 x 2.5 4x4
Range of Allowable bearing capacity (Qult) (kPa)
Terzagi 0.5 106 - 139 102 - 138 81 - 121 100 - 106 119 - 161 132 - 177
1 126 - 169 147 - 163 121 - 146 135 - 146 139 - 186 152 - 202
1.5 146 - 179 152 - 188 156 - 191 160 - 196 164 - 201 177 - 217
2 166 - 199 172 -218 176 - 226 200 - 246 214 - 266 227 - 282
2.5 206 - 219 232 - 238 206 - 236 215 - 256 234 - 296 247 - 312
Henson 0.5 132 - 178 136 - 184 121 - 173 125 - 140 134 - 182 127 - 175
1 152 - 218 181 - 209 161 - 198 160 - 180 154 - 207 147 - 200
1.5 172 - 228 186 - 234 196 - 243 185 - 230 179 - 222 172 - 215
2 192 - 248 206 - 264 216 - 278 225 - 280 229 - 287 222 - 280
2.5 232 - 268 266 - 289 246 - 288 140 - 190 249 - 317 242 - 310
Vesics 0.5 136 - 191 136 - 184 121 - 173 139 - 158 157 - 212 166 - 225
1 156 - 221 181 - 209 161 - 198 174 - 198 177 - 237 186 - 250
1.5 176 - 231 186 - 234 196 - 243 199 - 248 202 - 252 211 - 265
2 196 - 251 206 - 264 216 - 278 239 - 298 252 - 317 261 - 330
2.5 236 - 271 266 - 284 246 - 288 254 - 308 272 - 347 281 - 360
Meyerhof 0.5 138 - 187 134 - 183 116 - 167 132 - 149 143 - 193 140 - 191
1 158 - 217 179 - 208 156 - 192 167 - 189 163 - 218 160 - 216
1.5 178 - 227 184 - 233 191 - 237 192 - 239 188- 233 185 - 231
2 198 - 247 204 - 263 211 - 272 232 - 289 238 - 298 235 - 296
2.5 238 - 267 264 - 283 241 - 282 247 - 299 258 - 328 255 - 326
EBSC-7 0.5 92 - 126 88 - 129 74 - 114 91 - 98 109 - 151 116 - 162
1 112 - 156 133 - 154 114 - 139 126 - 138 129 - 176 136 - 187
1.5 132 - 166 138 - 179 149 - 184 151 - 188 154 - 191 161 - 202
2 152 - 186 158 - 209 169 - 219 191 - 238 204 - 256 211 - 267
2.5 192 - 206 218 - 229 199 - 229 206 - 248 224 - 286 231 - 297

Selamawit Tadesse 103

 Building Foundation Characterization And Analysis:
A Case Study in Ayat Area, Bole Sub-city, Addis Ababa, Central Ethiopia.

Annex 11 Summary of results for Ultimate bearing capacity (Qult) for Site 6
Sites Depth Footing dimension (m x m)
(m) 0.5 x 0.5 1x1 1.5 x 1.5 2x2 2.5 x 2.5 4x4
Range of Allowable bearing capacity (Qult) (kPa)
Terzagi 0.5 639 - 964 637 - 862 624 - 958 668 - 1005 682 - 1022 724 - 1062
1 659 - 994 682 – 987 664 – 983 688 – 1030 702- 1047 764 – 1102
1.5 679 - 1004 687 - 1012 699 - 1028 713- 1045 727 - 1062 769 - 1112
2 699 – 1024 707 - 1042 719 – 1063 763 – 1110 757 – 1127 839 – 1162
2.5 739 - 1044 760 - 1062 749 - 1073 783 - 1140 777 - 1157 869 - 1192
Henson 0.5 820 - 1239 843 - 1247 898 - 1243 848 - 1190 764 - 1144 727 - 1074
1 850 - 1245 866 - 1263 858- 1268 868 – 1215 784 – 1169 767 – 1114
1.5 870- 1280 875 - 1290 893 - 1313 893 - 1230 809 - 1184 772 - 1124
2 890 - 1300 895 - 1316 913 – 1348 943- 1295 859 – 1269 842 – 1184
2.5 910 - 1315 925- 1337 953 - 1358 963 - 1325 879 - 1299 872 - 1214
Vesics 0.5 801 - 1189 798 – 1184 785 - 1188 818- 1219 793 - 1178 773 - 1128
1 821 – 1219 842 – 1209 825 – 1213 838 – 1244 813 – 1203 813 – 1168
1.5 841 - 1229 847 – 1234 860 - 1258 863 - 1259 838 - 1218 818 - 1178
2 861 – 1249 867 – 1264 880 – 1293 913 – 1324 888 – 1283 888 – 1238
2.5 901 - 1269 927 – 1284 910 - 1303 933 - 1354 908 - 1313 918 - 1268
Meyerhof 0.5 871 - 1232 847 – 1245 893 - 1224 894 - 1287 956 - 1371 979 - 1322
1 851 – 1262 872 – 1270 853- 1259 874 – 1303 936 – 1346 939 – 1362
1.5 871 - 1282 877- 1295 888 - 1304 899- 1318 911 - 1331 944 - 1372
2 891 – 1302 897- 1325 908 – 1339 949 – 1383 961 – 1396 1014 – 1432
2.5 931 - 1322 957 - 1345 938 - 1349 969 - 1413 981 - 1426 1044 - 1462
EBSC-7 0.5 648 - 932 609 - 907 670 - 894 629 - 935 638 - 946 665 – 969
1 668 – 962 654 – 932 630 – 919 649 – 960 658 – 971 705 – 1009
1.5 648 - 952 659 – 957 665 - 964 674 - 975 683 - 986 710 - 1019
2 668 – 972 679 – 987 685 – 999 724 – 1040 733 – 1051 780 – 1079
2.5 708 - 992 739 - 1007 715 - 1009 744 - 1070 753 - 1081 810 - 1109

Annex 12 Summary of results for Allowable bearing capacity (Qall) for Site 6
Sites Depth Footing dimension (m x m)
(m) 0.5 x 0.5 1x1 1.5 x 1.5 2x2 2.5 x 2.5 4x4
Range of Allowable bearing capacity (Qult) (kPa)
Terzagi 0.5 183 - 291 179 - 283 158 - 275 192 - 308 197 - 314 211 - 320
1 203 – 321 224 – 312 198 - 297 212 – 333 217 – 339 251 – 360
1.5 223 - 331 229 – 337 233 - 342 237 - 348 242 - 354 256 - 370
2 243 - 351 249 – 367 253 – 377 287 – 413 292 – 419 256 – 430
2.5 283 – 361 309 - 387 283 - 387 387 - 443 312 - 449 356 - 460
Henson 0.5 233- 372 239 -376 222 - 367 234 -370 224- 354 212 -324
1 253 – 402 284 -401 262 -392 254- 395 244 – 372 252-364
1.5 273 - 412 289 - 426 297 - 437 279 - 410 269 - 394 257 – 374
2 293 -432 309 - 456 317 -472 329 - 475 319-459 327 – 434
2.5 313 – 452 369 -476 347 -482 349 -505 339 -489 357 – 464
Vesics 0.5 225- 344 221 – 341 211 – 349 242 – 379 234-366 227 -342
1 245 – 374 266 – 366 251 – 374 262 -405 254 -391 267-382
1.5 265 - 384 271 – 391 286 – 419 287 - 419 279 - 406 272- 392
2 285 -404 291 - 421 337- 484 337-484 329-471 342 -452
2.5 325- 424 351- 441 357 -514 357-514 349 -501 372 -482
Meyerhof 0.5 243 – 375 241 -377 221-364 254-389 298- 403 269 – 407
1 263 - 405 286 -402 261 -389 274-414 278 - 428 309 – 447
1.5 283 - 415 291 - 427 296 - 434 299 - 439 303 - 443 314 – 457
2 303-435 311 -457 316 -469 349 -504 353 -508 384 - 517
2.5 343 -455 371-477 346-479 369-534 373-538 414- 547
EBSC-7 0.5 171 – 267 166- 265 146 -251 179 -285 182 - 288 191- 289
1 191- 297 211 - 290 186 -276 199 - 310 202 – 313 231 – 329
1.5 211 - 307 216 – 315 221 - 321 224 - 325 227 – 328 236 - 339
2 231 - 327 236 – 345 241- 356 274 -390 277- 393 306- 399
2.5 271 – 347 296 -365 271 - 366 294 -420 297 - 423 336 – 429

Selamawit Tadesse 104

 Building Foundation Characterization And Analysis:
A Case Study in Ayat Area, Bole Sub-city, Addis Ababa, Central Ethiopia.

Annex 13 Summary of results for Ultimate bearing capacity (Qult) for Site 9
Sites Depth Footing dimension (m x m)
(m) 0.5 x 0.5 1x1 1.5 x 1.5 2x2 2.5 x 2.5 4x4
Range of Allowable bearing capacity (Qult) (kPa)
Terzagi 0.5 602 - 732 597 – 729 578 - 716 606 - 715 633 - 785 658 - 833
1 622 - 762 642 – 754 618 - 741 641 - 755 653 - 810 698 - 873
1.5 642 - 772 647 – 779 653 - 786 666 - 805 678 - 825 703 – 883
2 662 - 792 667 – 809 673 - 821 706 - 855 728 - 890 773 - 943
2.5 702 - 812 727 – 829 703 - 831 721 - 865 748 - 920 803 - 973
Henson 0.5 755 - 959 753 – 962 747 - 947 702 - 868 688 - 887 653 - 812
1 775 - 989 798 -987 787 - 972 737 - 908 708 - 912 693 - 852
1.5 795 - 999 803 – 1012 812 - 1017 762 - 958 733 - 927 698 – 892
2 815 - 1019 823 - 1042 832 - 1052 802 - 1008 783 - 992 768 - 952
2.5 855 - 1039 883 - 1062 842 - 1062 817 - 1018 803 - 1022 798 - 982
Vesics 0.5 728- 933 728 - 928 707 - 947 724 - 901 716 - 926 696 - 902
1 748 - 963 773 - 953 747 - 940 759 - 941 736 - 951 736 - 942
1.5 768 - 973 778 - 978 782- 985 784 - 991 761 - 966 741 – 952
2 788 - 983 798 - 1008 802 -1020 824 - 1041 811 - 1031 811 - 1012
2.5 828 - 1003 858 - 1028 832- 1030 839 - 1051 831 - 1061 841 - 1042
Meyerhof 0.5 752 - 947 752 - 949 735 - 944 759 - 942 782 - 1009 808 - 1051
1 772 - 977 797 - 974 775 - 969 794 - 982 802 - 1034 848 - 1091
1.5 792 - 987 802 - 999 810 - 1014 819 - 1032 827 - 1049 853- 1101
2 812 -997 822 - 1029 830 - 1049 859 - 1082 877 - 1114 923 - 1161
2.5 852 - 1017 882 - 1049 860 - 1889 874 - 1092 897 - 1144 953 - 1191
EBSC-7 0.5 541 - 709 543 - 706 528 - 693 550 -687 572 - 751 593 - 782
1 561 - 739 588 - 731 568 - 718 585 - 727 592 - 776 633 - 822
1.5 581 - 749 593 - 756 603 - 763 610 - 777 617 - 791 638 - 832
2 601 - 769 613 - 786 623 - 798 650 - 827 667 - 856 708 - 892
2.5 641 - 789 673 - 806 653 - 808 665 - 837 687 - 886 738 - 922

Annex 14 Summary of results for Allowable bearing capacity (Qall) for Site 9
Sites Depth Footing dimension (m x m)
(m) 0.5 x 0.5 1x1 1.5 x 1.5 2x2 2.5 x 2.5 4x4
Range of Allowable bearing capacity (Qult) (kPa)
Terzagi 0.5 - - 142 - 192 162 - 178 181 - 235 189 - 244
1 - - 182 - 217 197 - 218 201 - 260 229 - 284
1.5 - - 217 - 262 222 - 268 226 - 275 234 - 294
2 - - 237 - 297 262 - 318 276 - 340 304 - 354
2.5 - - 267 - 307 277 - 328 296 - 370 334 - 384
Henson 0.5 - - 195 - 269 194 - 229 199 - 269 277 - 347
1 - - 235 - 294 229 - 269 219 - 294 237 - 307
1.5 - - 270 - 339 254 - 319 244- 309 232 - 297
2 - - 290 - 374 294 - 369 294 - 374 302 - 357
2.5 - - 320 - 384 309 - 379 314 - 404 332 - 387
Vesics 0.5 - - 185 - 258 201 - 240 208 - 282 302 - 267
1 - - 225 - 283 236 - 280 228 - 307 242 – 307
1.5 - - 260 – 328 261 – 330 253 - 322 247 – 317
2 - - 280 - 363 301 - 380 303 - 384 317 – 377
2.5 - - 310 - 373 316 - 390 323 - 414 347 – 407
Meyerhof 0.5 - - 195 - 268 213 - 254 230 - 309 240 – 317
1 - - 235 - 293 248 - 294 250 - 334 280 – 357
1.5 - - 270 – 338 273 – 344 275 - 349 285– 367
2 - - 290 - 373 313 - 394 325 - 414 355 – 427
2.5 - - 320 - 383 328 - 404 345 - 444 385 – 457
EBSC-7 0.5 - - 126 - 184 143 - 169 160 - 223 167 – 227
1 - - 166 - 209 178 - 209 180 - 248 207 – 267
1.5 - - 201 - 254 203 - 259 205 - 263 212–277
2 - - 221 - 289 243 - 309 255 - 328 282 – 337
2.5 - - 251 - 299 258 - 319 275 - 358 312 – 367

Selamawit Tadesse 105

 Building Foundation Characterization And Analysis:
A Case Study in Ayat Area, Bole Sub-city, Addis Ababa, Central Ethiopia.

Appendix
BH.no Easting Northing Lab. Description Atterberg limit % % % % % Group
LL PL Grav Sand Silt Clay Fs sympol
el
1 483741.8600 994902.3900 High plastic clayey gravelly SILT 97 49 22.6 9.9 47.5 20.0 110 MH
2 483127.0500 995979.1400 High plastic silty CLAY 102 56 0.0 4.4 25.6 70.0 130 CH
3 483207.7100 995979.1400 High plastic silty CLAY 105 56 0.0 0.3 41.7 58.0 100 CH
4 484039.9700 996104.8100 High plastic gravelly CLAY 100 57 29.4 2.9 9.7 58.0 100 CH
5 484198.4400 996799.8200 High plastic silty CLAY 98 48 0.3 3.0 14.7 82.0 130 CH
6 484627.9600 996001.7500 High plastic silty CLAY 107 53 0.8 3.0 32.2 61.0 130 CH
7 484600.1900 996144.1000 High plastic silty CLAY 111 66 0.0 2.2 35.8 62.0 110 CH
8 484692.6100 995772.8700 High plastic silty CLAY 99 53 1.6 3.8 38.6 56.0 120 CH
9 484652.6200 996244.3300 High plastic silty CLAY 90 43 0.0 2.5 31.5 66.0 110 CH
10 484638.0200 996416.3100 High plastic silty CLAY 93 38 7.7 1.2 55.1 36 105 MH
11 484948.4900 996423.1400 High plastic silty CLAY 101 45 3.0 1.7 18.0 80.0 120 CH
12 484971.6500 996064.3500 High plastic silty CLAY 103 57 0.0 1.3 18.7 80.0 160 CH
13 484807.2500 996875.4100 High plastic silty CLAY with gravel 97 52 8.7 2.3 6.00 83.0 100 CH
14 484874.7400 996824.0600 High plastic silty CLAY 103 57 14.4 2.8 36.8 46.0 180 CH
15 484810.9200 996823.8800 High plastic silty CLAY 103 57 0.0 1.8 20.2 78.0 130 CH
16 484957.3500 992866.4800 High plastic silty CLAY 102 55 0.3 3.5 38.2 58.0 120 CH
17 484952.0100 992952.0600 High plastic silty CLAY 87 40 0.0 2.1 27.9 70.0 100 CH
18 483660.8500 994602.1500 High plastic silty CLAY 97 52 0.2 2.5 19.3 78.0 140 CH
19 483335.512 994718.51 High plastic silty CLAY 109 60 0.0 1.6 40.4 58.0 110 CH
20 483353.241 994721.31 High plastic silty CLAY 100 59 0.0 3.7 14.3 82.0 110 CH
21 483332.476 994670.545 High plastic silty CLAY 93 45 5.9 3.5 30.6 60 130 CH
22 483349.707 994680.251 High plastic silty CLAY 106 58 0.0 3.0 35 62 140 CH
23 483390.396 994671.683 High plastic silty CLAY 104 52 0.0 1.6 37.4 61 150 CH
24 483407.604 994681.43 High plastic silty CLAY 113 67 0.0 2.2 19.8 68 140 CH
25 483415.512 994715.83 High plastic clayey SILT with sand 108 63 15.2 1.6 45.2 38 100 MH
26 483391.897 994712.781 High plastic silty CLAY 97 47 0.0 1.0 51.0 48 115 MH
27 483482.773 994661.109 High plastic silty CLAY with few gravel 99 65 13.0 44.4 16.1 66 120 CH
28 High plastic clayey SILT/ silty CLAY with 101 53 11.9 2.1 43.0 43 130 CH-
483486.87 994684.563 few gravel MH
29 483537.975 994666.479 High plastic silty CLAY 103 54 0.0 1.1 16.9 82 130 CH
30 483547.37 994689.881 High plastic silty CLAY with few gravel 98 48 12.5 1.3 28.2 58 130 CH
31 483444.862 994622.649 High plastic silty CLAY 92 45 1.0 3.9 23.0 72 140 CH
32 483467.991 994632.697 High plastic silty CLAY 102 53 3.6 3.5 10.9 82 105 CH
33 483502.372 994624.311 High plastic silty CLAY 100 52 0.7 5.0 63.2 36 140 CH

Selamawit Tadesse 106

 Building Foundation Characterization And Analysis:
A Case Study in Ayat Area, Bole Sub-city, Addis Ababa, Central Ethiopia.

34 483525.501 994634.36 High plastic clayey SILT 104 59 0.0 0.8 63.2 36 120 MH
35 483470.021 994502.171 High plastic silty CLAY 97 54 0.4 1.8 31.8 66 110 CH
36 483446.014 994497.179 High plastic clayey SILT 97 57 0.0 1.5 95.7 2.8 100 MH
37 483497.838 994502.904 High plastic clayey SILT 106 61 0.0 1.2 97.8 1.0 170 MH
38 483510.319 994516.62 High plastic clayey SILT 101 57 0.0 0.6 95.3 4.0 170 MH
39 483142.7900 991319.4800 High plastic silty CLAY 95 51 0.0 2.0 9.9 88.0 160 CH
40 483198.7000 990875.8100 High plastic clayey SILT 101 57 0.1 0.6 58.8 40.5 140 MH
41 483087.15 990316.5800 High plastic clayey SILT 101 53 0.0 1.9 96.1 2.0 150 MH
42 483210.3600 990301.1100 High plastic clayey SILT 105 60 0.0 1.6 57.4 41.0 160 MH
43 483365.1200 990599.2600 High plastic clayey SILT 106 61 0.0 0.6 94.8 4.6 120 MH
44 483382.2000 990359.0600 High plastic silty CLAY 87 51 0.8 6.4 37.8 55.0 100 MH
45 484619.0900 990734.1200 High plastic clayey SILT 98 47 0.0 1.0 95.0 4.0 140 MH
46 483229.4500 990626.1600 High plastic clayey SILT 94 50 0.0 2.7 95.3 2.0 140 MH
47 483009.9100 990713.2700 High plastic silty CLAY 102 61 0.0 1.3 38.7 60.0 95 CH
48 484050.7600 991167.9500 High plastic clayey SILT 95 52 0.0 2.6 89.4 8.0 90 MH
49 484169.8900 990441.4100 High plastic clayey SILT 101 56 0.0 0.5 61.4 20 120 MH
50 484158.4300 991625.3100 High plastic silty CLAY 101 57 0.6 0.6 45.3 54 150 CH
51 485428.6600 993160.3900 High plastic clayey SILT 99 59 1.1 1.1 93.8 4 150 MH
52 485419.4800 992996.5000 High plastic clayey SILT 109 65 0.0 1.4 50.6 48 170 MH
53 485266.6500 992992.8000 High plastic silty CLAY 91 51 0.0 1.2 25.8 73 140 CH
54 485231.7600 992916.5400 High plastic silty CLAY 96 56 0.3 2.8 29.9 67 150 CH
55 486051.6200 993311.5400 High plastic clayey SILT 93 47 0.0 1.1 97.9 1 130 MH
56 486089.1100 993255.7900 High plastic clayey SILT 107 61 0.0 1.4 96.6 2 120 MH
57 486082.6300 993026.4000 High plastic clayey SILT 97 57 0.0 1.5 95.7 2.8 100 MH
58 486170.2700 993348.6900 High plastic silty CLAY 102 61 0.0 1.3 38.7 60.0 95 CH
59 486210.9400 993386.2800 High plastic silty CLAY 92 45 1.0 3.9 23.0 72 140 CH
60 486229.0400 993183.8600 High plastic silty CLAY 102 61 0.0 1.3 38.7 60.0 95 CH
61 485803 996392 Silty clay 98.3 39.1 0.0 1.2 14.6 84.1 170 ML
62 486570 996106 Silty clay 98.8 72.1 0.0 9.2 37.3 53.3 190 ML
63 486562 996117 Silty clay 80.6 46.3 0.0 5 29.7 65.3 145 ML
64 485778 996391 Silty clay 95.08 78.2 0.0 4.3 55.3 40.4 185 ML
65 485843 996492 Silty clay 98.2 61 0.0 20 45.4 34.6 180 ML
66 485840 996483 Silty clay 80 56 0.0 1.2 37.6 61.3 170 ML
67 486326.6504 9910873.2610 Non plastic SILT with sand NP NP 0.0 16.60 77.40 6.00 - ML
68 486337.7335 990893.4604 Low plastic SILT with sand 45 13 0.0 16.60 77.40 6.00 - ML
69 486373.7887 990884.5482 Non plastic SILT with sand NP NP 0.0 15.60 72.20 12.00 - ML
70 486382.2658 990862.8328 Non plastic SILT with sand NP NP 0.0 22.30 70.60 6.00 - ML
71 486377.7636 990826.6271 High plastic clayey SILT 80 29 0.0 25.90 64.40 8.00 - MH
72 486372.0401 990794.9047 High plastic clayey SILT 75 26 0.0 3.20 65.30 31.00 - MH

Selamawit Tadesse 107

 Building Foundation Characterization And Analysis:
A Case Study in Ayat Area, Bole Sub-city, Addis Ababa, Central Ethiopia.

73 486370.5230 990766.6530 Low plastic clayey SILT 45 11 0.0 1.90 70.10 28.00 - ML
74 486364.6682 990731.5599 High plastic clayey SILT 70 22 0.0 7.50 74.50 18.00 - MH
75 486359.9529 990710.2572 Non plastic SILT with sand NP NP 0.0 2.10 84.90 13.00 - ML
76 486349.7453 990690.2410 Non plastic silty SAND with gravel NP NP 0.0 27.40 66.60 6.00 - SM
77 486312.2953 990697.5909 High plastic Silty GRAVEL 50 16 0.0 43.60 36.10 4.00 - GM
78 486304.1769 990720.6490 Low Plastic SILT with sand 44 15 0.0 10.60 33.50 4.00 - ML
79 486304.9306 990752.7270 Low Plastic SILT gravel with sand 35 7 0.0 16.40 69.50 6.00 - GM
80 486307.6522 990779.3155 Low plastic Sand SILT with gravel 38 13 0.0 16.80 39.30 5.00 - ML
90 486282.8723 990886.4530 High plastic clayey SILT 90 43 0.0 12.70 57.30 6.00 - MH
91 486274.9749 990906.4700 Non plastic SILT with sand NP NP 0.0 28.20 64.50 7.00 - ML
92 486239.7925 990919.9818 Low plastic SILT with sand 48 17 0.0 16.30 82.70 1.00 - ML
93 486228.4516 990898.7592 High plastic clayey SILT 89 50 0.0 2.60 56.80 40.00 - MH
94 486326.6504 9910873.2610 Non plastic Sandy SILT NP NP 0.0 42.20 56.60 1.00 - ML
95 486337.7335 990893.4604 Low plastic gravelly CLAY with sand 47 30 0.0 14.40 42.50 11.00 - CL
96 486373.7887 990884.5482 Low plastic silty GRAVEL with sand 42 20 0.0 18.30 26.20 2.00 - GM
97 486382.2658 990862.8328 Low plastic clayey SILT 52 15 0.0 5.60 84.00 10.00 - MH
98 486377.7636 990826.6271 Non plastic SILT with sand NP NP 0.0 17.00 78.60 3.00 - ML
99 486372.0401 990794.9047 Low plastic Sandy SILT with gravel 44 11 0.0 21.00 61.90 2.50 - ML
100 486223.3940 990874.0648 Low plastic gravelly CLAY with sand 47 30 0.0 14.40 42.50 11.00 - CL
101 486218.0273 990838.0382 Low plastic silty GRAVEL with sand 42 20 0.0 18.30 26.20 2.00 - GM
102 486215.4338 990814.7867 High plastic clayey SILT with sand 51 17 0.0 16.50 61.70 21.00 - MH
103 486209.5931 990780.0874 Low plastic sandy CLAY 42 17 0.0 45.30 42.60 11.80 - CH
104 486272.7449 990780.5262 Low plastic silty SAND with gravel 40 8 0.0 16.80 31.50 6.00 - CM
105 486268.1208 990757.1572 Low plastic sandy SILT 37 9 0.0 39.10 53.50 4.30 - ML
107 486204.5569 990748.6150 Low plastic clayey GRAVEL with sand 28 11 0.0 17.40 25.80 2.00 - GC
108 486207.5149 990724.3408 Low plastic clayey GRAVEL with sand 26 11 0.0 12.50 26.50 2.00 - GC
109 486251.1703 990715.1484 Low plastic silty GRAVEL with sand 43 12 0.0 9.90 15.80 6.00 - GM
200 486263.4150 990735.2460 Low plastic silty GRAVEL with sand 47 17 0.0 15.20 29.50 3.00 - GM
201 486202.3627 990682.1618 Low plastic sandy SILT with gravel NP NP 0.0 26.40 47.20 6.80 - ML
202 486191.5768 990659.7303 Low plastic clayey GRAVEL with sand 28 11 0.0 18.80 26.90 1.00 - GC
203 486231.4940 990678.0209 Low plastic silty GRAVEL with sand 49 12 0.0 25.80 33.60 6.00 - GM
204 486227.0585 990643.7683 Low plastic clayey GRAVEL with sand 22 7 0.0 18.20 15.30 2.00 - GC
205 486182.7201 990640.4832 High plastic SILT Sand 69 17 0.0 35.80 39.40 9.00 - SM
206 486178.4695 990608.4891 High plastic SILT sand with gravel 56 13 0.0 29.00 38.70 9.00 - SM
207 486181.7960 990585.8406 High plastic sandy clayey SILT 61 16 0.0 18.70 51.00 13.00 - MH
208 488042.05 991754.78 High plastic silty GRAVEL with sand 58 20 0.0 16.20 17.60 1.00 - CH
209 488020.01 991702.25 High plastic claye SILT with sand 52 19 0.0 16.70 56.90 25.00 - MH
210 488002.06 991702.25 High plastic silty SAND with gravel 54 31 0.0 5.20 14.80 2.00 - GM
211 488043.83 991557.73 Low plastic silty GRAVEL 48 13 0.0 7.00 11.30 11.90 - GC

Selamawit Tadesse 108

 Building Foundation Characterization And Analysis:
A Case Study in Ayat Area, Bole Sub-city, Addis Ababa, Central Ethiopia.

212 488089.68 991520.34 Low plastic clayey SAND with gravel 30 12 0.0 22.20 28.20 4.00 - GC
213 488144.69 991485.83 Low plastic clayey GRAVEL 26 10 0.0 40.70 25.70 3.10 - SC
214 488191.91 991448.93 Low plastic clayey SAND with gravel 27 10 0.0 27.50 41.10 2.50 - SM
215 488260.02 991399.67 Low plastic clayey SAND with gravel 34 15 0.0 5.00 7.30 3.50 - GC
216 488306.84 991361.23 Low plastic clayey GRAVEL with sand 30 9 0.0 11.80 20.00 4.90 - GC
217 488199.87 991570.13 Low plastic clayey GRAVEL with sand 29 9 0.0 20.60 26.20 2.30 - GM
218 488217.86 991516.23 High plastic clayey SILT with sand 54 15 0.0 10.20 10.60 1.00 - GC
219 488267.03 991577.01 Non plastic sandy SILT NP NP 0.0 23.50 46.80 10.00 - MH
230 488348.53 991416.78 Non plastic sandy SILT NP NP 0.0 12.80 24.70 1.00 - GM
232 488348.33 991331.25 Low plastic clayey GRAVEL 29 10 0.0 71.80 18.00 9.00 - SM
233 488377.23 991292.66 Low plastic clayey GRAVEL 39 18 0.0 16.50 28.10 5.00 - GM
234 488483.14 991316.12 Low plastic clayey GRAVEL with sand 2 1.2 0.0 15.80 64.20 20.00 - ML
235 488510.24 991195.06 Low plastic clayey GRAVEL with sand 3.8 2.6 0.0 22.00 41.20 6.00 - SM
236 488598.2 991128.45 Low plastic clayey GRAVEL with sand 26 9 0.0 21.0 71.80 6.00 - MH
237 488217.86 991516.23 Low plastic clayey GRAVEL with sand 30 11 0.0 15.70 27.50 1.00 - GM
238 488686.41 991064.11 High plastic clayey SILT with sand 63 13 0.0 21.80 50.10 21.00 - ML
239 488793.99 991085.59 High plastic SILT with sand 52 8 0.0 12.10 71.80 10.00 - ML
240 488918.74 991255.65 Low plastic SILT with sand 48 11 0.0 12.00 74.00 10.00 - ML
241 488939.14 991402.13 Low plastic clayey SILT with sand NP NP 1.8 22.4 48.8 27.0 NIL -
242 488886.19 991465.71 High plastic silty CLAY 87 54 0.0 0.9 39.1 60.0 100 CH
243 488737.33 991581.59 High plastic silty CLAY 92 46 0.0 1.6 38.4 60.0 100 CH
244 488428.561 995778.945 High plastic silty CALY 99 48 0.0 0.0 11.0 88.0 100 CH
245 488450.89 995786.52 High plastic silty CALY 99 57 0.0 0.0 7.7 90.0 110 CH
246 488495.24 995779.765 Non plastic sandy SILT NP NP 0.0 0.0 71.3 6.0 11 -
247 488517.563 995787.839 High plastic silty CALY 104 59 0.0 0.0 18.7 80.0 120 CH
248 488555.051 995788.083 High plastic silty CALY 99 55 0.0 0.0 38.8 60.0 100 CH
249 488578.73 995779.95 Non plastic sandy SILT NP NP 0.0 0.0 65.2 2.5 10 -
251 488608.664 995780.217 High plastic silty CALY 104 54 0.0 0.0 26.7 72.0 100 CH
252 488636.383 995788.8 Non plastic sandy SILT NP NP 0.0 0.0 50.9 2.0 30 -
253 488706.1 995796.1 Non plastic silty GRAVEL with sand NP NP 0.0 0.0 38.1 1.8 30 -
254 488706.5 995778.1 High plastic silty CALY 105 56 0.0 0.0 13.3 86.0 120 CH
255 488741.5 995781.85 High plastic silty CALY 101 51 0.0 0.0 44.2 52.0 100 CH
256 488764.6 995781.85 Non plastic silty GRAVEL with sand NP NP 0.0 0.0 31.8 2.0 10 -
257 488793.16 995790.05 High plastic silty CALY 112 60 0.0 0.0 29.1 70.0 130 CH
258 488815.67 995782.39 High plastic silty CALY 99 49 0.0 0.0 27.2 70.0 105 CH

Selamawit Tadesse 109

 Building Foundation Characterization And Analysis:
A Case Study in Ayat Area, Bole Sub-city, Addis Ababa, Central Ethiopia.

259 488874.53 995796.23 High plastic

silty CALY 105 56 0.0 0.0 21.9 77.0 100 CH
260 488858.34 995777.78 High plastic
silty CALY 113 65 0.0 0.0 20.4 79.0 150 CH
261 488705.57 995748.41 High plastic
silty CALY 109 54 0.0 0.0 34.4 65.0 130 CH
262 488705.36 995730.43 Non plastic
silty GRAVEL with sand NP NP 0.0 0.0 32.0 2.0 NIL -
263 488869.92 995730.43 High plastic
silty CALY 105 61 0.0 0.0 12.3 8.0 130 CH
264 488869.99 995748.09 High plastic
silty CALY 97 52 0.0 0.0 14.6 82.0 110 CH
265 488344.74 995725.06 High plastic silty CALY with sand 54 26 0.0 0.0 11.0 88.0 80 CH
266 488371.15 995702.83 High plastic silty CALY 108 55 0.0 0.0 7.7 9.0 100 CH
267 488444.74 995696.81 Non plastic silty SAND with gravel NP NP 0.0 0.0 71.3 6.0 110 -
268 488457.83 995720.41 High plastic sandy SILT 96 37 0.0 0.0 18.7 80.0 11 MH
269 488493.53 995714.32 High plastic sandy SILT 86 41 0.0 0.0 38.8 60.0 120 MH
270 488493.83 995696.92 High plastic silty CALY 117 64 0.0 0.0 65.2 2.5 100 CH
271 488523.15 995700.89 High plastic silty CALY 100 49 0.0 0.0 26.7 72.0 10 CH
272 488543.15 995700.89 High plastic clayey SILT 103 51 0.0 0.0 50.9 2.0 100 CH
273 488573.63 995714.38 High plastic silty CALY 48 19 0.0 0.0 38.1 1.8 30 ML
274 488573.59 995696.37 High plastic silty CALY 108 64 0.0 0.0 13.3 86.0 30 CH
275 488701.71 995700.37 High plastic silty CALY 97 45 0.0 0.0 44.2 52.0 120 CH
276 488815.71 995700.38 Low plastic sandy SILT 64 16 0.0 0.0 31.8 2.0 100 SM
277 488555.02 996106.02 Non plastic silty GRAVEL with sand NP NP 47.2 37.2 14.6 1.0 NIL -
278 488587.91 996106.02 Non plastic silty GRAVEL with sand NP NP 57.8 20.6 20.6 1.0 NIL -
279 488612.91 996106.02 High plastic silty CLAY 90 45 0.0 1.4 40.6 58.0 120 CH
280 488537.91 996056.02 Low plastic clayey SILT with few sand 44 2 6.6 13.3 64.1 16.0 NIL ML
281 488555.02 996056.02 High plastic silty CLAY 102 61 0.0 0.8 43.2 56.0 120 CH
282 488587.91 996056.02 High plastic silty CLAY 96 50 0.0 2.3 33.7 64.0 120 CH
283 488562.91 996031.02 Non plastic silty GRAVEL with sand NP NP 55.2 16.1 25.8 2.9 NIL -
284 488612.91 996031.02 Non plastic silty GRAVEL with sand NP NP 46.6 18.0 32.6 2.0 NIL -
285 488537.91 996013.04 High plastic silty CALY 91 52 0.0 2.8 43.2 54.0 100 CH
286 488562.91 996013.04 Low plastic gravelly SILT with NP NP 27.6 17.4 50.5 4.5 NIL -
287 488612.76 996013.30 High plastic silty CLAY 80 43 0.9 13.1 36.0 50.0 100 CH
289 488537.95 995987.75 Non plastic clayey SILT NP NP 0.0 1.0 95.0 4.0 NIL -
290 488588.39 995988.60 Non plastic sandy SILT NP NP 2.7 33.5 39.7 24.0 NIL -

Selamawit Tadesse 110

 Building Foundation Characterization And Analysis:
A Case Study in Ayat Area, Bole Sub-city, Addis Ababa, Central Ethiopia.

291 488537.90 995957.30 Low plastic sandy SILT 50 11 1 33.3 55.6 10.0 10 ML
292 488588.48 995957.31 High plastic silty CALY 88 42 0.0 2.3 19.7 78.0 80 CH
293 487851 995937 Non plastic sandy SILT NP NP 1.8 35.5 58.7 4.0 NIL -
294 487851 995937 Non plastic sandy SILT NP NP 5.0 36.6 58.4 4.0 NIL -
295 485822 996492 High plastic silty CLAY 89 48 0.0 1.1 38.9 60.0 100 CH
296 487750 996584 High plastic silty CLAY 84 46 1.3 1.6 31.1 66.0 120 CH
297 487412.5456 994244.4 High plastic silty CLAY 93 44 0.0 0.8 54.2 45.0 120 CH
298 487482.96 994231.1 High plastic silty CLAY 64 19.0 18.8 59.2 3.0 - MH
9
299 487415.91 994180.08 High plastic silty CLAY 97 51 0.0 1.2 42.8 56.0 130 CH
300 487478.46 994147.02 Non plastic silty SAND with gravel NP NP 25.1 30.1 40.8 4.0 - -
301 487415.34 994115.94 High plastic clayey SILT 92 50 0.0 1.7 92.3 6.0 110 MH
302 487560.82 994295.17 High plastic silty CALY 100 49 0.0 1.2 18.4 80.0 100 CH
303 487638.42 994305.64 High plastic clayey SILT 92 50 0.0 1.7 81.3 17.0 - MH
304 487563.12 994227.47 High Plastic silty CLAY 99 54 0.0 1.3 40.7 58.0 120 CH
305 487637.74 994209.04 High Plastic silty CLAY with sand 89 50 2.6 15.1 17.3 65.0 - CH
306 487593.41 994187.52 High plastic sandy CLAY 80 30 0.4 16.6 8.7 76.0 90 CH
307 487589.32 994152.02 Non plastic sandy SILT NP NP 1.3 26.4 67.3 5.0 15
-
308 487550.34 994108.11 High plastic silty CALY 96 51 0.0 1.0 39.0 60.0 120 CH
309 487642.94 994114.52 High plastic silty CLAY 91 61 0.0 1.7 35.3 63.0 110 -
310 487412.5456 994244.4 High plastic silty CALY 86 39 0.0 3.5 20.9 76.0 120 CH

Selamawit Tadesse 111