KYAMBOGO UNIVERSITY

FACULTY OF ENGINEERING

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL AND BUILDING ENGINEEERING

PROJECT TITLE

PROPOSED DESIGN OF ADDIS REGENCY HOTEL IN ADDIS

ABABA FOR FEMALE HOSTEL IN KYAMBOGO UNIVERSITY

GROUP 18 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATIONS REPORT

SUBMITTED BY
S/No NAMES REG. No SIGNATURE
1 PAUL MUSIBIRA 20/U/ECW/14127/WKD
2 BOB WALTER AYIKOBUA 20/U/ECD/11909/PD
3 HARRIET NDEMARU 20/U/ECE/11926/PE
4 RWAMIRAMA FESTO 20/U/ECE/11929/PE
5 ZAEJO ALEX 20/U/ECD/11908/PD

Geotechnical Investigations Report Submitted to the Department of Civil and Environmental

Engineering in the Faculty of Engineering in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements
Necessary for the Award the Degree of Bachelor of Engineering in Civil and Building of
Kyambogo University

February, 2022
 DECLARATION

We declare that, the information in this report is true to the best of our knowledge and belief,
the report contains no material previously written by another person except where due
reference is made:

S/No NAMES REG. No SIGNATURE

1 PAUL MUSIBIRA 20/U/ECW/14127/

WKD

2 BOB WALTER AYIKOBUA 20/U/ECD/11909/PD

3 HARRIET NDEMARU 20/U/ECE/11926/PE

4 RWAMIRAMA FESTO 20/U/ECE/11929/PE

5 ZAEJO ALEX 20/U/ECD/11908/PD

 APPROVAL
This report has been submitted for examination with the approval of our supervisor.

Name: Mr. Ochieng Paul

Signature……………………………...

Date…………………………………...
 DEDICATION

We dedicate this report to the Almighty God who provided us with knowledge and
understanding up to the completion of this project.

We also dedicate this report to our parents, and friends, who always encouraged, guided,
motivated and supported us throughout the entire program and to all our fellow civil
engineering students.
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We thank the Almighty God for His providence and protection throughout the project period
and in a special way our project coordinator Mr. Zzigwa Marvin for his Technical, Professional
and parental guidance throughout the project period. We also acknowledge the efforts by our
supervisor Mr. Ochieng Paul for his technical support and guidance.

We recognize every individual of our group and their families for the tireless involvement and
joint understanding throughout the project period. May the almighty God bless each and every
one abundantly.
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
DECLARATION....................................................................................................................................I

APPROVAL..........................................................................................................................................Ii

DEDICATION.........................................................................................................................................
Iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.....................................................................................................................Iv

CHAPTER ONE.....................................................................................................................................1
1 INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................1
1.1. Background of the Investigation......................................................................................................1
1.2. Objectives of the Investigations......................................................................................................1
1.3. Scope of Works...............................................................................................................................1
CHAPTER TWO....................................................................................................................................3
2 SITE DESCRIPTION......................................................................................................................3
2.1 Location and Nature of the Site......................................................................................................3
2.2 Climate .........................................................................................................................................3
2.3 Seismology of the Area..................................................................................................................4
2.4 Topography....................................................................................................................................5
2.5 Geology .........................................................................................................................................5
CHAPTER THREE................................................................................................................................7
3 FIELD AND LABORATORY TESTING.......................................................................................7

3.1 Test Pit Excavation..........................................................................................................................7

3.2 Soil Sampling..................................................................................................................................7

3.3 Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) test.........................................................................................8

3.4 Laboratory Testing..........................................................................................................................8

3.4.1 Particle Size Distribution.........................................................................................9

3.4.2 Atterberg Limit Test.................................................................................................9
3.4.3 Direct Shear Box Test............................................................................................10

CHAPTER FOUR................................................................................................................................11
4 GEOTECHNICAL RESULTS......................................................................................................11

4.1 Soil Profile....................................................................................................................................11

4.2 Ground Water Table......................................................................................................................11

4.3. Made Ground/Fill..........................................................................................................................11

4.4Particle Size Distribution.................................................................................................................11

4.5 Atterberg Limit Test Results.........................................................................................................12

4.6 Direct Shear Box Test Results.......................................................................................................13

4.7 Determination Of Soil Bearing Capacities.....................................................................................14

CHAPTER FIVE..................................................................................................................................15
5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS........................................................................15

5.1 Conclusions...................................................................................................................................15

5.2 Recommendations.........................................................................................................................15
REFERENCES.........................................................................................................................................
16
APPENDICES..........................................................................................................................................
17
 CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

1.1. Background of the Investigation

As a prerequisite for the award of the degree of Bachelor of Engineering in Civil and Building
Engineering of Kyambogo University, one of the course units at the Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering is the Group Project. Students amalgamate into a team of five,
according to their own choices and propose to redesign an existing structure within Kampala or
elsewhere to suit the future needs of Kyambogo University. The above-mentioned students,
therefore, became members of Group 18 henceforth. The Group chose to redesign the Addis
Regency Hotel in Addis Ababa to a female hostel in Kyambogo University. This is the report
on the geotechnical investigations of the site. The fieldwork was undertaken on the 14th of
January, 2022. The field work was followed by geotechnical laboratory testing of the sampled
materials and reporting of the investigation results. This report thus, provides the relevant
geotechnical information including the foundation design results for the proposed female
hostel. The investigation was carried out in accordance with BS 5930: 1999, the geotechnical
investigations supervisor’s instructions, and other relevant standards as cited in the remaining
parts of the report.

1.2. Objectives of the Investigations

The geotechnical investigation was aimed at determining the stratigraphic characteristics of the
site based on field in-situ observations and laboratory testing and to carry out a foundation
design for the proposed female hostel.

1.3. Scope of Works

The following activities were agreed upon with the client and thereafter undertaken:

i. Excavation and logging of two (02) trial pits to a maximum depth of 3.0m below
ground surface level,
ii. Conducting the dynamic cone penetration test (DCP) to 2m at the bottom of each
excavated test pit,
iii. Collection of representative disturbed and undisturbed samples for laboratory
testing,

iv. Compiling of results and writing the factual report.

 CHAPTER TWO: SITE DESCRIPTION

2.1. Location and Nature of the Site

The site that was investigated is located on a plot of land bordering a Marram road in the North
opposite the North Hall to the East and a Half tarmac road in the South and further discovered
that the site had the following existing features and services; anti-hills, an electric pole,
inspection chamber, the ground was gently sloping from the north to the south and easily
accessible. The area and boundaries of the plot were determined to be 3.52 acres (see Survey
Report). Figure 2-1 below shows the view of the proposed site for the female hostel. The
location of the site is attached as Appendix 1.

Figure 2-1: A view of the investigated site

2.2. Climate

The climate of Kampala District, where the site is located, is that of a tropical rainforest
climate. The area has two annual wet seasons. There is a long rainy season from August to
December and a short rainy season from February to June. However, the shorter rainy season
sees substantially heavier rainfall per month, with April typically seeing the heaviest amount of
precipitation at an average of around 169 mm. The average annual temperature in Kampala is
21.3°C. A climate graph of the area is shown in Figure 2-2 below.
 Figure 2.1: Climate of Kampala
(source: worldtravelguide.net/climate_and_geography_of_Uganda)

2.3. Seismology of the Area

The site lies within zone 3 of the seismic zoning of Uganda, implying there is low risk of
earthquake occurrence at the site as shown in Figure 2-3 below.

Figure 2-3: Seismic Zoning of Uganda

2.4. Topography

Kampala is situated on a number of hills; the pronounced topography being controlled by

differential weathering of various grades of meta-sedimentary bedrock types. The low-lying
areas have comparatively little flat ground but consist of the lower pediment and valley
bottoms that are relatively swampy and seasonally flooded. The site is located in a high-lying
area as discussed above, with a water table located subterraneous below the ground level.

2.5. Geology

According to Muwanga, Schumann and Biryabarema (2001), Kampala area is generally

underlain by a Precambrian basement of granite gneisses, Buganda Toro quartzites, schists,
phyllites, and amphibolites, and by Pleistocene to recent alluvium and lacustrine deposits and
soils. The greater part of Kampala is covered with soils derived from weathering of basement
rocks. These are brown to red (lateritic) and attain a deeper coloration when found near basic
rocks because of higher iron (Fe) contents. Figure 2-3 shows the geology map of Uganda.

Figure 2.3: Geology Map of Uganda

According to Wikipedia (2019), the Buganda Group of rocks comprise of orthoquartzites,
conglomerates, metavolcanics, slates, phyllites, mica, schists and metasandstones is found
around the shores of Lake Victoria from Jinja westwards and across as far as the largely faulted
eastern edge of the Western Rift. An arcuate suite of dykes was emplaced around 1,370 million
years ago within the largely Neoarchean and Paleoproterozoic rocks from Kampala westwards,
this is as shown in the Figure 2-3 above of the geology map of Uganda.
 CHAPTER THREE: FIELD AND LABORATORY TESTING

FIELD IVESTIGATIONS

The field investigation covered logging of soil profile within the excavated trial pits, sampling
and conducting of the DCP test at the bottom of the excavated trial pits. Samples were
transported to the Soil laboratory and tests carried out.

3.1 Test Pit Excavation

Test pit excavations were generally carried out in accordance with the procedure described in
BS 5930:1999. The excavations were undertaken with the use of hand tools as shown in Figure
3-1 up to a depth of 3.0m. Within the excavated test pits, logging was done to show the various
subsoil strata as observed on site. Test pits were backfilled after obtaining undisturbed and
disturbed samples and conducting the DCP test. Test pit logs showing the site stratigraphy are
attached as Appendix 2.

Figure 3.1: Excavation of trial pits

3.2 Soil sampling

One (01) undisturbed sample and two (02) disturbed samples were recovered at the bottom of
the excavated test pits. The undisturbed sample was collected from TP 2 at a depth of 3.0
meters. The samples were properly packed and transported to the laboratory so as to carry out
classification and shear box tests on them.
3.3 Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) Test

The Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) test was carried out within the excavated test pits in
order to determine the bearing capacity of the founding soil. The DCP consisted of a cone of
60o fixed to the bottom of a vertical rod. A weight of 8kg was repeatedly lifted and dropped
onto a coupling at mid-height of the rod to deliver a standard impact or blow to the cone and
drove it into the soil (at a 575mm dropping height). The process of using the dynamic cone
penetrometer is shown in the Figure 3.2.

Figure 3.2: group members using the Dynamic Cone Penetrometer

A vertical scale alongside the rod was used to measure the depth of penetration of the cone.
The penetration per blow “penetration rate” was recorded as the cone was being driven into the
soil and then used to calculate the strength of the soil through which it was passing. A change
in penetration rate indicated a change in strength between the soil layers, thus allowing strength
of the soil to be determined. DCP and bearing capacity test results are attached in Appendices
3 and 4 respectively.
3.4 Laboratory Testing

Laboratory tests to classify recovered soil samples were carried out. Classification tests carried
out included wet sieving (grain size distribution) and Atterberg limits whereas the direct shear
box test was carried out to determine the shear properties of the soil. Table 3-1 shows a
summary of the geotechnical tests which were carried out on the samples with the procedures
used.

Table 3-1: Standards used in testing the samples

Test Standard
Disturbed samples
Liquid Limit BS 1377: Part 2, Clause 4:1990
Plastic Limit & Plasticity Index BS 1377: Part 2, Clause 5:1990
Linear Shrinkage BS 1377: Part 2, Clause 6:1990
Particle Size Distribution BS 1377: Part 2, Sub cl. 9.2: 1990
Undisturbed sample
Direct Shear box test BS 1377: Part 7: 1990

3.4.1 Particle Size Distribution

The standard method of wet sieving which conforms to BS 1377: Part 2: 1990 was adopted. A
representative sample was taken from the main sample and oven dried at temperatures between
1050C and 1100C for 24 hours. The dried soil was weighed to obtain its dry mass, and after it
was washed through a 0.063mm BS test sieve in accordance with the test method. The retained
fraction was again oven dried for 24 hours at temperatures between 1050C and 1100C, after
which it was sieved through a series of BS test sieves arranged in descending order of aperture
sizes to form a nest. Sieving was done. The fraction retained on each sieve was weighed and
the percentage passing each sieve was determined.

3.4.2 Atterberg Limit Test

Plastic Limit (PL)

Plastic limit is the moisture content below which soil is not plastic (non-plastic). This test was
also carried out in accordance with BS 1377: Part 2: 1990. The samples used in this test were
prepared in the same manner as those for the liquid limit tests.
The test consisted of rolling balls of soil pastes between the hands and then into threads
between the palm and a glass plate. The plastic limit was the moisture content at which the
threads develop transverse cracks when they were about 3mm diameter.

Liquid Limit (LL)

Liquid limit is the moisture content beyond which soil behaves like a viscous fluid. Therefore,
Liquid limit is a consistency limit of soil. The Liquid limit test was carried out using the BS
Cone Penetrometer in accordance with BS 1377: Part 2: 1990. A BS cone Penetrometer fitted
with an automatic timing device that ensures 5 second penetration under an 80gm load was
used. Air dried representative samples were ground in a mortar and sieved through a 0.425mm
BS test sieve. 200g of each of the sieved samples were mixed thoroughly with distilled water
and there after the water was allowed to permeate the samples overnight in an air tight
container. The soils specimens were then remixed the following day with sufficient water to
achieve two penetrations in the range between 15mm and 25mm. After each penetration, the
respective moisture contents of the specimens were determined. Moisture content, Penetration
curve was plotted for each of the specimens from which the moisture content at 20mm
penetration was taken to be the liquid limit.

Plasticity Index (PI)

The Plasticity index was determined in conformity with BS 1377: Part 2: 1990. The Plasticity
index is the numerical difference between the LL and PL i.e. (PI = LL – PL).

3.4.3 Direct Shear Box Test

Direct shear box tests were carried out on the undisturbed sample from TP 2, remoulding was
done, (BS light compaction) in the lab after removal of particles with size greater than 5mm in
conformity to BS 1377: Part 7: 1990. For each of the samples, three specimens of dimensions
60mm × 60mm × 20mm were prepared and tested as follows: the first specimen was given a
fixed normal load (stress) close to the respective overburden pressure and was sheared along its
horizontal plane through its mid-depth to failure. The same was done on the other two
specimens but this time the normal stresses were successively increased. The failure readings
were noted. A plot of shear stress against normal stress was made. The angle between the graph
and the horizontal was taken to be the angle of internal friction, ϕ and the y-intercept was the
cohesion, C.
 CHAPTER FOUR: GEOTECHNICAL RESULTS

3.5 Soil Profile

The soil strata at the site is presented in Table 4-1 below and as it can be observed on the logs
in Appendix 2, the stratigraphy is comprised of two (02) layers, with the silty CLAY being the
predominant materials underlying the site.

Table 4-1: Stratigraphy at the site

Profile at TP 1 Profile at TP 2
0.00∼0.66m: Loose black moist silty 0.00∼0.56m: Loose black moist silty
CLAY with plant roots CLAY with plant roots
0.66∼3.00m: Firm to stiff reddish brown 0.56∼3.00m: Firm to stiff reddish brown
moist silty CLAY moist silty CLAY
3.6 Ground water table

At the site, no ground water was encountered in any of the trial pits during the investigation.

3.7 Made Ground/Fill

There was no made ground/fill encountered on the site.

3.8 Particle Size Distribution

Gradation curves in Figure 4-1 shows that the soils from the trial pits are mainly fine grained
i.e. % passing the #200 sieve is greater than 50%.
 Figure 4-1 : Particle Size Distribution Curves

3.9 Atterberg Limit Test Results

Plasticity index (PI) values were plotted against Liquid (LL) values for the samples on the A-
Line chart. All samples plotted above the A-line within the regions of clays of low to
intermediate plasticity as shown in Figure 5. A summary of classification test results is
attached in Appendix 5. The terms and letters used in the USCS system were utilized in the
drafting of the A-line chart. The boundary between coarse and fine soils is taken to be 50%
fines (i.e. particles smaller than 0.075mm, No. 200 sieve).

The liquid and plastic limits are used to classify fine-grained soils, employing the plasticity
chart. The axes of the plasticity chart are plasticity index and liquid limit; therefore, the
plasticity characteristics of a particular soil can be represented by a point on the chart.
Classification letters are allotted to the soil according to the zone within which the point lies.

The chart is divided into two ranges of liquid limit, low (L) and high (H). SILT (M) plots
below the A-line and CLAY (C) above the A-line on the plasticity chart, i.e. silts exhibit plastic
properties over a lower range of water content than clays having the same liquid limit. The
letter denoting the dominant size fraction is placed first in the group symbol. Organic silts and
clays (with a low to moderate organic content) have their own group symbol (O). Highly
organic soils (e.g. peat) are defined by PT.
A group symbol may consist of two or more letters, for example: SW – well-graded SAND, CL
– Inorganic CLAY of low plasticity. Coarse-grained soils with fines between 5% and 12% must
be classified using dual symbols (i.e. describing both the grading of the coarse fraction (W or
P) and the type of fines (M or C). Similarly, fine-grained soils which plot in the shaded zone
are described using dual symbols (CL + ML). The soils were found to predominantly consist of
inorganic clays intermediate plasticity.

Figure 4.2: A-Line chart for the tested samples

3.10 Direct Shear Box Test Results

Direct shear box tests were carried out on the undisturbed sample from TP 2. Results are
presented in Tables 4-2 below and detailed results are attached as Appendix 6 and these are
typical of a silty CLAY material. Since there is no ground water, consolidation tests were
considered insignificant and have been considered not of paramount importance in the design.

Table 4-2: Direct shear box test results

Bulk density (Mg/m3) Cohesion (kPa) Angle of Internal Friction (Degrees)

1.52 0 6
3.11 Determination of Soil Bearing Capacities

The in-situ soil bearing capacities were assessed and evaluated from the field using the DCP
test method as described in section 3.3. The maximum pressures the soils are capable of
resisting have been estimated from the field N-values using empirical relations. For purposes of
computing the soil’s bearing capacity (see Tables 4-3 & 4-4), the following assumptions were
made:

i. The commonly used Peck et al (1967) relationship between N-values and unconfined
compressive strength is valid.
ii. The maximum allowable settlement is 25mm.

Tables 4-3: Soil Bearing Capacities for the Soils at TP 1 Location

Unconfined Allowable Average

Penetration Undrained Ultimate
Depth Approximate Compressive bearing Allowable
Location index value Cohesion bearing
(m) N-value Strength qu capacity bearing capacity
(mm/blow) Cu (kPa) capacity (kPa)
(kPa) (kPa) (kPa)

3.3 31.0 9 117.8 58.9 302.8 100.9

3.6 19.5 13 171.2 85.6 440.0 146.7

3.9 14.0 17 223.9 111.9 575.3 191.8

TP 1
4.2 8.1 27 348.5 174.3 895.7 298.6 186.8
(bottom)
4.5 10.0 22 293.9 146.9 755.3 251.8

4.8 14.3 17 220.4 110.2 566.4 188.8

5.1 22.8 11 150.6 75.3 387.2 129.1

Tables 4-4: Soil Bearing Capacities for the Soils at TP 2 Location

Unconfined Allowable Average

Penetration Undrained Ultimate
Depth Approximate Compressive bearing Allowable
Location index value Cohesion bearing
(m) N-value Strength qu capacity bearing capacity
(mm/blow) Cu (kPa) capacity (kPa)
(kPa) (kPa) (kPa)

3.3 34.0 8 109.3 54.6 280.8 93.6

3.6 15.5 16 205.9 103.0 529.3 176.4
TP 2 3.9 15.5 16 206.3 103.2 530.3 176.8
4.2 10.7 21 278.0 139.0 714.5 238.2 188.6
(bottom)
4.5 8.3 26 343.4 171.7 882.5 294.2
4.8 13.4 18 231.5 115.8 595.0 198.3
5.1 20.2 13 166.3 83.1 427.3 142.4

As can be observed from Tables 4-3 and 4-4, the soil has allowable bearing capacities varying
from 93.6 to 298.6 kPa.
 CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Conclusions

This investigation was carried out to determine the soil type underlying the proposed site,
determine its bearing capacity and determine the founding depth. From the investigation
results, the following conclusions are drawn:

i. The site lies within the seismic zone 3 of Uganda, which has low risk of earthquake
occurrence.

ii. Water table was not encountered in all pits explored.

iii. Generally, the site is predominantly underlain by residual silty CLAYS.

iv. The allowable bearing capacities of the soil range from 93.6 to 298.6 kPa between
3.3m to 5.1m.

v. The footing can be placed at a depth of 4.5m for square footings from the existing
level with the bearing capacity of 294.2 kPa.

5.2 Recommendations

Based on the results of the investigation, the following recommendations have been made;

i. The above-mentioned allowable bearing capacity values were determined by

considering that no settlement values go beyond 300mm, as a predetermined
condition,

ii. The fill material will need to be compacted up to a minimum 95% of its maximum
dry density in layers of 150mm.

iii. As regards the square footings, a minimum foundation depth (Df) of 4.5 m is
recommended, with respect to the excavated level.
 REFERENCES

1. BRITISH STANDARDS INSTITUTION. 1981. British Standards 1881:1981, Code of

Practice for Site Investigations, London.

2. BRITISH STANDARDS INSTITUTION. 1995, 1990. British Standards 1377: 1995

and British Standard 1377: 1990, Methods of Test for Soils for Civil Engineering Purposes,
London.

3. BRYNE, G. AND BERRY, A.D. 2008, A guide to practical geotechnical engineering in

Southern Africa. –Franki, Fourth Edition.

4. Uganda National Bureau of Standards (UNBS), June 2003; Seismic code of practice for
structural designs, First Edition.

5. www.wikipedia.org/wiki/geology_of_uganda/ accessed on the 10th February, 2019.

6. www.worldtravelguide.net/climate_and_geography_of_Uganda accessed on the 12th

February, 2019.
 APPENDICES

APPENDIX 1 – Trial Pit Logs

 KYAMBOGO UNIVERSITY

FI ELD SOI L P R OF I LE R ESULTS

Project: PROPOSED DESIGN OF ADDIS REGENCY HOTEL IN ADDIS ABABA FOR FEMALE HOSTEL

Client: Kyambogo University Trial pit No: 2

Location: Kyambogo University Date Entered: 20th/01/2022

Field work date: 14th/01/2022

Depth (m) Soil Profile Soil Description Colour Photo of Soil Profile

Loose black moist silty CLAY with

plant roots

0.56

Firm to stiff reddish brown moist silty

CLAY

3.00

NOTE:
1. Test pit was excavated by hand up to 3.0m depth.
2. Water table was not encountered.
3. One disturbed and one undisturbed sample was obtained.

Logged By:

Group 18
 KYAMBOGO UNIVERSITY

F I ELD SOI L P R OF I LE R ESULTS

Project: PROPOSED DESIGN OF ADDIS REGENCY HOTEL IN ADDIS ABABA FOR FEMALE HOSTEL

Client: Kyambogo University Trial pit No: 1

Location: Kyambogo University Date Entered: 20th/01/2022

Field work date: 14th/01/2022

Depth (m) Soil Profile Soil Description Colour Photo of Soil Profile

Loose black moist silty CLAY with

plant roots and vegetation cover

0.66

Firm to stiff reddish brown moist silty

CLAY

3.00

NOTE:
1. Test pit was excavated by hand up to 3.0m depth.
2. Water table was not encountered.
3. One disturbed sample was obtained.

Logged By:

Group 18

APPENDIX 2 – DCP Test Results

 DYNAMIC CONE PENETRATION TEST

Project: GI for the Proposed Design for Female Hostel

Date: 22/Jan/22
Client: Kyambogo University
Point no: TP 1
Location: Kyambogo University Zero Reading (mm): 130
Depth: 3.0m Test Started (m): 3.0m

Depth Penetration
CBR %
Corrected rate
No of Total Reading CBR
for Zero (mm/blow)
Blows Blows (mm) (%)
reading for each no of
0 20 40
(mm) blows 0
0 0 130 0 0 0.0

1 1 172 42 42.0 5.8

1 2 191 61 19.0 13.4 100

1 3 209 79 18.0 14.2

2 5 240 110 15.5 16.7

200
2 7 285 155 22.5 11.2

2 9 332 202 23.5 10.7

2 11 399 269 33.5 7.4 300

2 13 455 325 28.0 8.9

2 15 510 380 27.5 9.1

400
2 17 569 439 29.5 8.4

2 19 620 490 25.5 9.8

2 21 670 540 25.0 10.1 500

2 23 700 570 15.0 17.3

2 25 750 620 25.0 10.1

600
2 27 792 662 21.0 12.1

2 29 823 693 15.5 16.7

2 31 845 715 11.0 23.9

700
Depth (mm)

2 33 880 750 17.5 14.7

2 35 920 790 20.0 12.7

2 37 950 820 15.0 17.3 800

2 39 990 860 20.0 12.7

2 41 1012 882 11.0 23.9

900
2 43 1040 910 14.0 18.6

2 45 1065 935 12.5 20.9

2 47 1089 959 12.0 21.8 1000

2 49 1101 971 6.0 45.4

2 51 1123 993 11.0 23.9

1100
2 53 1140 1010 8.5 31.4

5 58 1170 1040 6.0 45.4

5 63 1210 1080 8.0 33.5 1200

5 68 1250 1120 8.0 33.5

5 73 1295 1165 9.0 29.6

1300
5 78 1335 1205 8.0 33.5

5 83 1378 1248 8.6 31.1

5 88 1419 1289 8.2 32.7 1400

5 93 1440 1310 4.2 66.3

5 98 1480 1350 8.0 33.5

1500
5 103 1525 1395 9.0 29.6

5 108 1570 1440 9.0 29.6

6 114 1630 1500 10.0 26.5

1600
6 120 1712 1582 13.7 19.0

6 126 1770 1640 9.7 27.5

6 132 1840 1710 11.7 22.5 1700

 DYNAMIC CONE PENETRATION TEST

Project: GI for the Proposed Design for Female Hostel

Date: 22/Jan/22
Client: Kyambogo University
Point No: TP 2
Location: Kyambogo University Zero Reading (mm): 135
Depth: 3.0m Test Started (m): 3.0m

Depth Penetration
Corrected rate CBR %
No of Total Reading CBR
for Zero (mm/blow)
Blows Blows (mm) (%)
reading for each no of
(mm) blows 0 10 20 30 40 50
0
0 0 135 0 0 0.0

1 1 190 55 55.0 4.4

1 2 230 95 40.0 6.1

100
1 3 252 117 22.0 11.5

1 4 270 135 18.0 14.2

1 5 285 150 15.0 17.3

200
2 7 320 185 17.5 14.7

2 9 349 214 14.5 17.9

2 11 371 236 11.0 23.9

300
2 13 449 314 39.0 6.3

2 15 500 365 25.5 9.8

2 17 539 404 19.5 13.1

400
2 19 590 455 25.5 9.8

2 21 650 515 30.0 8.3

2 23 692 557 21.0 12.1

500
2 25 721 586 14.5 17.9

2 27 755 620 17.0 15.1

2 29 792 657 18.5 13.8 600

2 31 831 696 19.5 13.1

2 33 860 725 14.5 17.9

2 35 890 755 15.0 17.3 700

Depth (mm)

2 37 925 790 17.5 14.7

2 39 975 840 25.0 10.1

2 41 1005 870 15.0 17.3 800

2 43 1036 901 15.5 16.7

2 45 1064 929 14.0 18.6

2 47 1105 970 20.5 12.4 900

2 49 1146 1011 20.5 12.4

2 51 1165 1030 9.5 28.0

1000
2 53 1195 1060 15.0 17.3

2 55 1227 1092 16.0 16.1

2 57 1256 1121 14.5 17.9

1100
2 59 1285 1150 14.5 17.9

2 61 1315 1180 15.0 17.3

2 63 1336 1201 10.5 25.2

1200
2 65 1356 1221 10.0 26.5

2 67 1384 1249 14.0 18.6

2 69 1410 1275 13.0 20.1

1300
2 71 1437 1302 13.5 19.3

2 73 1465 1330 14.0 18.6

2 75 1485 1350 10.0 26.5

1400
2 77 1515 1380 15.0 17.3

2 79 1540 1405 12.5 20.9

2 81 1565 1430 12.5 20.9

1500
2 83 1585 1450 10.0 26.5

2 85 1605 1470 10.0 26.5

2 87 1620 1485 7.5 35.9 1600

5 92 1670 1535 10.0 26.5

5 97 1710 1575 8.0 33.5

5 102 1757 1622 9.4 28.3 1700

5 107 1810 1675 10.6 24.9

APPENDIX 3 – Bearing Capacities
 KYAMBOGO UNIVERSITY

PROJECT: Geotechnical Investigation for theProposed Design for Female Hostel

CLIENT: Kyambogo University Date: 22/Jan/22
LOCATION: Kyambogo University Coordinates: 0.349917, 32.630728

Evaluation of Bearing Capacities Basing On Field DCP Values

Unconfined
Penetration Undrained Ultimate Allowable Average Allowable
Approximate N- Compressive
Location Depth (m) index value Cohesion bearing bearing bearing capacity
value Strength qu
(mm/blow) Cu (kPa) capacity (kPa) capacity (kPa) (kPa)
(kPa)
3.3 34.0 8 109.3 54.6 280.8 93.6
3.6 15.5 16 205.9 103.0 529.3 176.4
3.9 15.5 16 206.3 103.2 530.3 176.8
TP 2 (bottom) 4.2 10.7 21 278.0 139.0 714.5 238.2 188.6
4.5 8.3 26 343.4 171.7 882.5 294.2
4.8 13.4 18 231.5 115.8 595.0 198.3
5.1 20.2 13 166.3 83.1 427.3 142.4
For cohesive soils, the relationship qu = 13.1x Design N-value is used for evaluation of uncofined compressive strength qu, the cohesion
Cu = qu/2 and Ultimate bearing capacity = 5.14xCu .Allowable bearing capacity is evaluated using a factor of safety 3

Estimates of Allowable Bearing capacity with settlement limited to approximately 25 mm for cohesionless soils read off directly from the chart
(Published by Terzaghi and peck 1967)

Estimates of presumed allowable bearing capacity values for scheme design not detailed design

Computed by:
Group 18
 KYAMBOGO UNIVERSITY

PROJECT: GI for the Proposed Design for Female Hostel

CLIENT: Kyambogo University Date: 22/Jan/22
LOCATION: Kyambogo University Coordinates: 0.349917, 32.630728

Evaluation of Bearing Capacities Basing On Field DCP Values

Unconfined
Penetration Undrained Ultimate Allowable Average Allowable
Approximate N- Compressive
Location Depth (m) index value Cohesion bearing bearing bearing capacity
value Strength qu
(mm/blow) Cu (kPa) capacity (kPa) capacity (kPa) (kPa)
(kPa)

3.3 31.0 9 117.8 58.9 302.8 100.9

3.6 19.5 13 171.2 85.6 440.0 146.7
3.9 14.0 17 223.9 111.9 575.3 191.8
TP 1 (bottom) 4.2 8.1 27 348.5 174.3 895.7 298.6 186.8
4.5 10.0 22 293.9 146.9 755.3 251.8
4.8 14.3 17 220.4 110.2 566.4 188.8
5.1 22.8 11 150.6 75.3 387.2 129.1

For cohesive soils, the relationship qu = 13.1x Design N-value is used for evaluation of uncofined compressive strength qu, the cohesion
Cu = qu/2 and Ultimate bearing capacity = 5.14xCu .Allowable bearing capacity is evaluated using a factor of safety 3

Estimates of Allowable Bearing capacity with settlement limited to approximately 25 mm for cohesionless soils read off directly from the chart
(Published by Terzaghi and peck 1967)

Estimates of presumed allowable bearing capacity values for scheme design not detailed design

Computed by:
Group 18
APPENDIX 4 - Summary of Classification Results

Kyambogo University

CLIENTS: Kyambogo University

PROJECT: PROPOSED DESIGN OF ADDIS REGENCY HOTEL IN ADDIS ABABA FOR FEMALE HOSTEL
Date: 2/2/2022
LOCATION: Kyambogo University

SUMMARY OF CLASSIFICATION TEST RESULTS FROM TEST PITS

Soil Index Properties

Moisture Depth S
TP No. Soil Description % Passing Sieve (mm) PLASTICITY
content (m) GM USCS W
75.0 50.0 37.5 20.0 14.0 10.0 6.3 5.0 2.0 1.18 0.600 0.425 0.300 0.212 0.150 0.075 LL PL PI LS %

TP1 silty CLAY 17.5 3.0 100 100 93 93 91 86 73 69 59 56 52 50 47 45 44 43 1.47 45 19.4 26 10.4 CI

TP2 silty CLAY 25.4 3.0 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 99 96 90 86 82 79 76 74 0.39 48 23.2 25 9.8 CI

Keys:
LL Liquid Limit CI Clay with intermediate plasticity
PL Plastic Limit CH Fat clay
PI Platicity Index SM Silty Sand
LS Linear Shrinkage ML Silt of Low plasticity
GC Clayey GRAVEL
CL Clay of low plasticity
SC Clayey SAND

Approved By:
Group 18
APPENDIX 5 - Direct Shear Box Test Results
CLIENT: Kyambogo University

SHEAR BOX TEST OF SOILS (BS 1377 Part 7, 1990)

Project: PROPOSED DESIGN OF ADDIS REGENCY HOTEL IN ADDIS ABABA FOR FEMALE HOSTEL

Location: Kyambogo University

Sample Source TP02 Depth: 3.0m

Date Tested : 21/02/2022
Material Type: Undisturbed Sample
Angle of
Bulk Normal Shear Internal
Cohesion
Density Stress Strength Friction USCS
Remarks
Class of Soil
gb δn ts C f
Mg/m3 kPa kPa kPa (Degree)
136.3 13.2
1.52 272.5 26.8 0 6 CH Silty CLAYS
545.0 52.9

Shear Strength vs Normal Stress

100

80
Shear Strength (kPa)

y = 0.0969x + 0.1653

60

40

20

NORM SHEAR
0
50 136.25 40 13.22222222
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
100 272.5 81 26.775
200 545 160 52.88888889
Norm al Stress (kPa)

Checked by:

Group 18