DETAILED SOIL INVESTIGATION OF THE PROPOSED AGRICULTURAL

ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
FEDERAL POLYTECHNIC, KAURA NAMODA

BY

IMRANA USMAN
FPT/KND/SET/CET/HND/0336

BEING A PROJECT RESEARCH SUBMITTED TO THE

SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY
FEDERAL POLYTECHNIC, KAURA NAMODA, ZAMFARA STATE

In partial fulfillment of the Requirements for the Award of Higher National

Diploma in Civil Engineering Technology

July, 2022

i
 DECLARATION

I hereby declare that this project work “Detailed Soil Investigation of the Proposed
Agricultural Engineering Department, Federal Polytechnic, Kaura Namoda” is a sole and
entire effort of mine to the best of my knowledge under the supervision of Engr. Shehu Garba.

Also, all literature from other sources have been duly acknowledged in the reference.

IMRANA USMAN ____________________

(Project student / Researcher) SIGNATURE/DATE

ii
 CERTIFICATION

This is to certify that this project was carried out by me and has been read and approved
as having met the requirements for the Award of Higher National Diploma in Civil Engineering
Technology for the contribution to the knowledge under the guidance and supervision by the
following persons/people:

Engr. Shehu Garba ____________ ___________

(Project Supervisor) Signature Date

Engr. Sirajo Magaji ____________ ___________

(Project Committee Chairman) Signature Date

Engr. Joseph C. Abah ____________ ___________

(Head of Department) Signature Date

iii
 DEDICATION

I dedicate this final year Project work to my beloved parents, Late Mal. Usman Aliyu
(Buwai) and Late Malama Balkisu Bello. May Almighty Allah bless and forgive their
shortcomings.

iv
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

All praise and adorations are due to none but Almighty Allah, the Most Gracious, The
Most Merciful, who has bestowed man with the knowledge and wisdom of exploring the earth
for this use and convenience.
I am most grateful to Almighty Allah for sparing my life up to this moment, with good
health, strength, abundance, guidance and protection through the whole period of this Academic
pursuit and in all my endeavors.
For the success of this programme, members of persons were very helpful and of
immense assistance academically, financially, morally and otherwise.
First and foremost, I must express my appreciation and profound gratitude to my parents
Mal. Usman Aliyu Buwai and Mal. Balkisu Bello Aga for their support financially, spiritually,
morally and otherwise. My special thanks also goes to my brothers like Mal. Kabiru Bello, Alh.
Sanusi Abdullahi (Jikan Mune) , Muttaka Usman, Hassan Usman etc. and my sisters like,
Fadimatu Usman, Sakina Usman, Jamila Usman, Sha’awanatu Usman, Nafisa Usman etc. for
their constant support, assistance and prayers. May Almighty Allah reward them abundantly.
I am formally grateful to GABDON KAURA FOUNDATION for its unforgettable
assistance, support and encouragement both financially and morally through which I have the
opportunity to pursue this programme. Particularly, Engr. Sirajo Magaji and Hon. Alh.
Lauwali M. Liman (Gabdon Kaura), I pray that Allah guide, protect and complete their
missions and ambitions now and forever. Amen.
Recognition goes to all my friends, colleagues among which includes; Engr. Nura
Danladi, Mal. Shehu Abdullahi (Ahlullah), Mal. Badaru Mal. Falalu (Anjasha), Mal. Salisu
Muh’d, Mal. Yahya Musa, Engr. Abdulkadir Musa, Engr. Kabiru Namakka Zurmi, Engr.
Abdurrazaq Bello Adamu Engr. Mubarak Ahmad Tijjani etc. for their warm association,
encouragement and support financially, academically and even in prayers, with which
persistently braced me up against loosing focus. I say big thanks to them all. May our love,
assistance, brotherhood and union remain unbreakable forever. May Allah reward them
abundantly. Amen.
I equally acknowledge and appreciate the tremendous effort of my industrious and able
project supervisor in person of Engr. Shehu Garba for his moral assistance both physically and
practically, despite all odds, he found time to supervise, guide and correct the manuscript from
the beginning of this project to the end. You will remain forever in the cerebellum of my brain.
May almighty Allah continue to upgrade you, fulfill your missions as well as visions and make
Jannatul Firdausi to be your final abode. Amen.
What a forgetful person I will be if I forget and do not appreciate the effort of some of the
respected people towards the achievement of my studies, Engr. Salisu Bala , Engr. Achara, Engr.
Abdullahi (NABABA) Arch. Yarima, Alh. Mukhtaru and Mal. Kabiru Ustaz. I wish their
guidance / counseling would be a memorable data to me throughout my life time. God bless
them all and reward them abundantly. Amen.
Finally my sincere gratitude also goes to my department’s lecturers for their effort and
encouragement not only in the co
urse of studies, but introducing me in to the profitable area of discipline particularly my able
H.O.D in person of Engr. DR. JC Abah may god bless and increase you all.

v
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Tittle……………………………………………………………………….. Pages

Declaration………………………………………………………………… ii
Certification……………………………………………………………….. iii
Dedication…………………………………………………………………. iv

Acknowledgements………………………………………………………… v

Table of contents…………………………………………………………… vi-viii

List of Tables……………………………………………………………….. ix

List of Pigures………………………………………………………………. x

List of Appendices………………………………………………………….. xi

Abstract……………………………………………………………………… xii

CHAPTER ONE : INTRODUCTION…………………………………… 1

1.1 Background of study………………………………………………………… 1

1.2 Aims and Objectives………………………………………………………… 2
1.2.1 Aims………………………………………………………………………… 2
1.2.2 Objectives…………………………………………………………………… 2
1.3 Problem Statement………………………………………………………….. 2
1.4 Justification………………………………………………………………… . 2-3
1.5 Scope and Limitation………………………………………………………. 3
1.5.1 Scope………………………………………………………………………… 3
1.5.2 Limitation…………………………………………………………………… 3

CHAPTER TWO: LIRERATURE REVIEW……………………………. 4

2.1 Introduction…………………………………………………………………. 4
2.2 Soil…………………………………………………………………………. 4-5
2.3 Soil components and its formation…………………………………………. 5

vi
2.4 Types of soils……………………………………………………………… 6

2.4.1 Residual and Transported soils……………………………………………. 6-9

2.5 Soil Properties……………………………………………………………. 9

2.5.1 Index properties…………………………………………………………. 9

2.6 System of soil classification……………………………………………… 12

2.6.1 Grain size classification…………………………………………………… 12-13

2.6.2 Textural classification…………………………………………………….. 13

2.6.3 AASTO classification…………………………………………………….. 13-14

2.7 Characteristics of individual soil particles………………………………… 14

2.7.1 Grian size………………………………………………………………….. 14-16

2.7.2 Surface texture…………………………………………………………….. 16

2.7.3 Chemical composition…………………………………………………….. 16

2.8 Permiability……………………………………………………………….. 16

2.8.1 Permiability measurement………………………………………………… 17

2.9 Moisture content………………………………………………………….. 18

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY………………………………………. 19

3.1 Introduction………………………………………………………………. 19

3.2 Materials and Method……………………………………………………… 19

3.2.1 Materials……………………………………………………………………. 19

3.2.2 Method………………………………………………………………………19

3.2.2.1 Moisture content test………………………………………………………. 20

3.2.2.2 Seive analysis test…………………………………………………………. 20

3.2.2.3 Atterberg’s limit test……………………………………………………… 21

vii
3.2.2.4 Specific gravity test………………………………………………………. 21

3.2.2.5 Permiability test…………………………………………………………. 21

3.2.2.6 Direct shear box Or Triaxial test………………………………………... 22

CHAPTER FOUR: PRESENTATION AND DISSCUSSION OF RESULTS ……. 23

4.0 Introduction……………………………………………………………… 23

4.1 Moisture content result………………………………………………….. 23

4.2 Seive analysis test……………………………………………………….. 24

4.3 Atterberg’s limit (Liquid and plastic limit)……………………………… 27

4.4 Specific gravity test………………………………………………………. 28

4.5 Permiabily test……………………………………………………………. 29

4.6 Triaxial test……………………………………………………………….. 31

4.7 Discussion of results……………………………………………………… 33

4.7.1 Moisture content result……………………………………………………. 33

4.7.2 Seive analysis test…………………………………………………………. 33

4.7.3 Atterberg’s limit (Liquid and plastic limit)……………………………….. 33

4.7.4 Specific gravity test……………………………………………………….. 33

4.7.5 Permiabily test…………………………………………………………….. 34

4.7.6 Triaxial test………………………………………………………………… 34

CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUTIONS AND RECOMMENDATION…………. 35

5.1 Conclutions……………………………………………………………….. 35

5.2 Recommendations………………………………………………………… 35

REFERENCES…………………………………………………………………… 37

APPENDIX………………………………………………………………………. 39

viii
LIST OF TABLES

Table 4.1 Moisture content result of the soil sample of pitNo.1,2 & 3 @ 1.0m depth. 23

Table 4.2 Average moisture content test conducted for the study area…………….. 23

Table 4.3 Sieve analysis test result for pitNo.1 @ 1.0m depth……………………… 24

Table 4.4 Average result of the sieve analysis test @ 1.0m depth of the study area. 25

Table 4.5 Average result of the sieve analysis test @ 1.5m depth of the study area. 26

Table 4.6 Average result of the sieve analysis test @ 2.0m depth of the study area. 26

Table 4.7 Atterberg’s limit results of pit A,B & C @ 1.0m depth of the study area. 27

Table 4.8 Average liquid limit test conducted for the study area………………….. 27

Table 4.9 Average plastic limit test conducted for the study area…………………. 28

Table 4.10 Average specific gravity test of pit A,B & C @ 1.0m depth of the study area 28

Table 4.11 Average specific gravity test conducted for the study area……………….. 29

Table 4.12 average permiability test for pitNo. 1 @ 1.0m depth…………………… 29

Table 4.13 average permiability test conducted @ 1.0m depth for the study area….. 30

Table 4.14 Average permiability test conducted for the study area…………………. 30

Table 4.15 Average bearing capacity test values conducted for the study area……. 32

Table 4.16 Depth and bearing capacity used for the foundation design …………… 32

ix
LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 4.1 Sieve analysis curve for pit NO.1 at 1.0m……………………………. 25

Figure 4.2 Mohr Circle for pitNo.1@ 1m depth…………….……………………. 31

x
LIST OF APPENDICES

APPENDIX A:MOISTURE CONTENT TEST…………………………………… 39

APPENDIX B: SIEVE ANALYSIS TEST………………………………………. 40

APPENDIX C: ATTERBERG’S LIMIT TEST………………………………….. 50

APPENDIX D: SPECIFIC GRAVITY TEST……………………………………. 51

APPENDIX E: PERMIABILITY TEST………………………………………….. 52

APPENDIX F: TRIAXIAL TEST………………………………………………… 53

xi
 ABSTRACT

This project was limited to find some index as well as engineering properties of the
collected soil samples. The index properties test include; moisture content, particle size
distribution (sieve analysis),atterberg limit, and specific gravity test. Similarly, the engineering
properties tests conducted include; permeability and triaxial test.From the index properties tests,
the results obtained from trial pits 1,2 and 3, the moisture content values are 0.30%, 2.19% and
2.68% respectively.The particle size distribution test (sieve analysis) values are 41.63 and 34.47.
The result of the Atterberg limit shows that the liquid limit values ranges from 21.00%,
to28.17%, plastic limit values ranges from 24.55% to 45.04%. while plasticity index values
ranges from 8.5% to 25.4%. The maximum dry density of the soil samples ranges from 1.77g/cm3
to 1.88g/cm3 and the optimum moisture content ranges from 12% to 14% for AASHTO.

Similarly based on the engineering properties: The specific gravity values are 2.3, 2.36
and 2.26 for the trial pits respectively. Permeability test was also found to be 4.358 x 10-4 ,
6.619 x 10-4 and 8.136 x 10-4 respectively.where by the triaxial test conducted yields bearing

capacity of the soil to be qu = 343.30 KN/m , 440.31 KN/m

2 2
and 656.34 KN/m2 for the trial pits
respectivly. Furthermore, the actual depth of foundation was calculated and found to be (DF) = [
87.00
¿ ׿ ¿ = 1.42m.
18.33

xii
xiii
 CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1.1 BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY

Civil engineering deals with the structural stability of mighty and heavy structures such as
sky crappers, tunnels, wind vanes, bridges, airports, harbors, roads, railways, ware houses,
underpasses, flyovers, dams, canals, etc. that cannot be stable if not properly designed against
risks and errors that lead to loss of lot of lives and money if damaged or collapsed. A lot of
accidents happen due to improper foundation and the attendant aspects of safety and economy,
Terzaghi, K. (1978)

Soil is the natural base upon which everything on the earth rests on. It is the natural
foundation that any other artificial foundation depends on for its stability. Engineering structures
or any other infrastructure are all constructed on natural soil, and therefore stability of any of
these structures depends on the stability of the supporting material which is soil. Since all the
load coming up from the structure is transferred to the foundation and then to the natural soil, it
is therefore important that soil should have enough bearing capacity to withstand structural load,
otherwise instability can occur which will lead to various damages to the structure or even
collapse, BS 1337: (1975).

The need for proper subsoil soil site investigations cannot be overemphasized, they
provide salient information upon which the design and construction of a structure is based. The
need for a thorough soil investigation is occasioned by the fact that, lack of it is one of the major
reasons for the collapse and failure of most civil engineering project in countries like Nigeria
(Sulaiman &Illiyasu , 2014).

The main reason for subsoil investigation is to understand how reactive soil is, and to
ensure that there aren’t any hidden chemical or physical conditions on the site that might damage
the structure during or after construction. This is as important as the entire project itself that may
cause long term complications and may result to loss of lives and properties endanger resident’s
tenants and damage other neighboring property.

1
1.2 AIM AND OBJECTIVES

1.2.1 AIM

This project aims at investigating the geotechnical properties of soil around the proposed
Agricultural Engineering Department in the Federal Polytechnic Kaura Namoda.

1.2.2 OBJECTIVES

1. To obtain the soil samples from the proposed site of Agricultural Engineering
Department Federal Polytechnic Kaura Namoda.

2. To conduct laboratory test on the soil samples obtained and find out its index
properties as well as the engineering properties.

3. Recommendations are to be made from the lab test result which will later be used
as basis for foundation design

1.3 PROBLEM STATEMENT

The rate of collapse of buildings in Nigeria is increasingly giving lots of concern to the
client and the professionals.

Similarly, rate of unequal settlement of foundation results to dangerous cracks within the
Polytechnic’s buildings largely due to un-scientific construction approach and the use of very
local contractors.

1.4 JUSTIFICATION

Neglecting soil investigation may lead to severe damage or even collapse of structure just
asfailure to carry out soil exploration gives way to negative effect on the structure which can
make structure unfit and/or unsafe.

Improper soil investigation also leads to over design or under design making the structure
uneconomical or unsafe for use.

Technique to be used during construction can also be determined through soil

investigation and failure to do that may lead to difficulties in construction with Settlement of

2
foundation, shear failure, development of cracks etc. all occurring due to improper soil
exploration or investigation.

1.5 SCOPE AND LIMITATION

1.5.1 SCOPE

The scope of this research work is all about carrying out laboratory experiment to
investigate the index and engineering properties of soil of the proposed site.

1.5.2 LIMITATION

This project is limited to accessing, investigating, analyzing and describing of the

geotechnical properties of the soil around the proposed Agricultural Engineering Department in
the Federal Polytechnic Kaura Namoda.

3
 CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 INTRODUCTION

As civil engineering materials, soil is just as important as steel and concrete. It may be
dug into, heaped up, spread out in the construction of civil engineering works. All man-made
structures, except those which fly or float, are supported by natural soil or rock deposits, and are
constructed from soil and many engineering structures, such as water-retaining banks, and
airfields pavements, are constructed from soil and rock materials (Sutton 1986).

Civil engineers are concerned with the design and construction of civil engineering works
and are obligated to perform calculations which demonstrate the safety and serviceability of any
new structure. But, before these calculations can be performed, the mechanical behavior of any
engineering material such as steel, concrete and soil must be understood. However, this research
is however concerned with the behavior of engineering soil under the actions of various physical
forces.

2.2 SOIL

A soil can be defined as the uppermost layer of the earth crust which is formed by the
process of weathering. Weathering is the disintegration of rocks into tiny pieces to form soil by
physical, chemical or biological processes. The study of the properties of soils is also important
for highway engineers and technicians in order to enable them identify, classify, measure soil
strength and evaluate its drainage properties.

Many reserve the word “soil” for the relatively thin surface covering capable of
supporting plant life; to civil engineer this material is known as topsoil and in many cases it is
removed before any engineering work is started. Consequently, it will be used as well, at the
outset; to define what is meant by an “engineering soil” and in particular to distinguish between
soil and rock.

4
 Terzaghi and Peck, (1948) define engineering soil as a natural aggregate of mineral
grains that can be separated by such gentle mechanical means as agitation in water. Rock, on the
other hand, is a natural aggregate of minerals compacted by strong and permanent cohesive
forces. Since the terms “strong” and “permanent” are subject to different interpretations the
boundaries between soil and rock is necessary as an arbitrary one.

Soil is an un-aggregated or un-cemented granular material consisting of both mineral and

organic particles in many materials classified by engineers as soil ,commentating between grains
may exist to some slight extent and therefore may contribute to the mechanical characteristics
granular mass (calladine,1948).

2.3 SOIL COMPONENTS AND ITS FORMATION

Soil is made up of five major components which are: -

1. Mineral or inorganic matter: The mineral matter is the solid, small particles of the
soil.
2. Organic matter: Organic matter represents the remains of the decomposition of
plants and animals.
3. Soil water: Soil water refers to the water in the soil which is usually obtained either
from rain or underground.
4. Soil air: Soil air refers to the gases present in the soil pores found between the soil
particles.
5. Living organism: This refers to plants and animals which inhabit the soil. The most
insects. Commonly found groups of soil organisms include bacteria, fungi, virus and
insects.

From the definition of soil given earlier, it may be summarized that soil is natural
aggregate of mineral grains, with or without organic constituents that can be separated by gentle
mechanical means such as agitation in water. By contrast rock is considered to be a natural
aggregate of mineral grains connected by strong and permanent cohesive forces. The process of
weathering of the rock decreases the cohesive forces binding the mineral grains leads to
disintegration of bigger masses to smaller and smaller particles. Soils are formed by the process

5
of weathering of the parent rock. The weathering of the rock may be by mechanical
disintegration and/or mechanical decomposition (Murthy, 1990).

 Mechanical weathering
Mechanical weathering of rocks to smaller particles is due to the action of such agents as
the expansive forces of freezing water in fissures due to sudden changes of temperature or due to
the abrasion of rock by moving water or glaciers. Temperature changes of sufficient amplitude
and frequency bring about changes in the volume of the rocks in the superficial layers of the
earth’s crust in terms of expansion and contraction. Such a volume change sets up tensile and
shear stresses in the rock ultimately leading to fracture of even large rocks. This type of rock
weathering takes place in a very significant manner in arid climates where free, extreme
atmospheric radiation brings about considerable variation in temperature at sunrise and sunset.
Erosion by wind and rain is a very important factor and continuing event. Cracking forces by
growing plants roots in voids and crevasses of rock can force fragments apart.

 Chemical weathering
Chemical weathering (decomposition) can transform hard rock materials in to soft easily
erodible matter. The principle types of decomposition are hydration, oxidation, carbonation,
dislocation and leaching. Oxygen and carbon dioxide which are always present in the air readily
combine with the elements of rock in the presence of water (Murthy 1990).

2.4 TYPES OF SOILS

It has been discussed earlier that soil is formed by the process of physical and chemical
weathering. The individual size of the constituent parts of even the weathered rock might range
from the smallest state (colloidal) to the largest possible (boulders). This implies that all the
weathering constituents of a present rock cannot be termed soil (Murthy, 1990). However, soil
can be categorized in to residual and transported soils on the basis of the origin of their
constituents. Also soil may be categorized into organic and in organic when considering their
organic content.

2.4.1 RESIDUAL AND TRANSPORTED SOILS

Residual soils are those that remain at the place of their formation as result of the
weathering of parent rocks. The depth of residual soil depends primarily on climatic conditions

6
and time of exposure. In some areas, this depth might be considerable. In temperature zones
residual soil are commonly stiff and stable. An important characteristic of residual soil is that the
sizes of gains are indefinite. For example, when a residual sample sieved, the amount passing
any given sieve size depends greatly on the and energy expended in shaking, because of the
partially disintegrated condition

Transported soils are soils that are found at locations far removed from their place of
formation. The transporting agencies of such soils are glaciers, wind and water. The soils are
named according to the mode of transportation. Alluvial soils are those that have been
transported by running water. The soil that have been deposited in quiet lakes are lacustrine
soils.Marine soils are those deposited in sea water. The soils transported and deposited by wind
are Aeolian soils. Those deposited primarily through the action of gravitational forces as in
landslides are colluvial soils. Glacial soils are those deposited by glaciers.

Many of this transported soil are loose and soft to a depth of several hundred feet.
Therefore, difficulties with foundations and other types of construction are generally associated
with transported soils

Hence, these residual and/or transported soils; were classified into four main types based
on their constituents and individual properties. which are sandy soil, clay soil, loamy soil and
silty soil Brady, C.N and Well, R.R (1999):

1. Loamy soil: Loamy soil is the top soil. It is a mixture of sand, clay and high
proportion of organic matter. Lomy soils are loose and contain lots of organic matter
(humus). Therefore, it is not suitable for use in any aspect of road construction.
2. Sandy soil: A soil is said to be sandy if the proportion of sand particles in a sample of
the soil is very high. The size of sand particles ranges from 0.02mm to 2.0mm in
diameter. Their particles are coarse, grainy and gritty. They are loose and porous.
They have large pore spaces and low water holding capacity. Sandy soils absorb and
loose water easily and are not sticky when yet.
3. Clay soils: A soil is said to be calayey if the proportion of clay in a sample of the soil
is very high. The relative size of a clay particle is less than 0.002mm in diameter. Clay
particles are fine, powdery and smooth. Their particles are tightly bound together with
little pore spaces and it has high water holding capacity.

7
 4. Silty soils: A silt soil is granular material of a size between sand and clay and
composed mostly of broken grains of quartz. Silt may occur as a soil (often mixed
with sand or clay) or as a sediment mixed in suspension with water. It usually has a
floury feel when dries and lacks plasticity when wets.

Soils consist largely of material matter formed by disintegration or decomposition of

rocks into soils. It was caused by the actions of water, ice, frost or temperature changes. Also it
might be due to plant or animal activities.

Soils near the surface may contain humus or organic acids that resulted from the decay
of vegetations, etc. These soils near the surface i.e. top soils are not useful for civil engineers or
may not be suitable for use in construction (both road and building construction). They are
suitable for farming and usage by Agricultural Engineers, British Standard 1377 Part 4 (1990).

In most instances, soils are blends or mixture of particles of different sizes, shapes and
parent materials, considerable variations in these characteristics are found in samples of
apparently like soils taken from almost adjacent locations. For this reason, soil behavior is far
more difficult to predict by the principles of soil chemistry than would be the behavior of steel
for which the chemistry is known. Furthermore, complete changes in soil types at frequent
intervals are the rule rather than the exception. Then it is most common to find five to ten distinct
soil types along a kilometer of road, BS 1337: (1975)..

The oldest of the engineering soil classification system was developed by Terzaghi and
Hogentoler (1928) for the united Bureau of public roads. In this system, all soils are divided into
eight major groups; A-1, A-2, A-3 to A-8.

Later, original public road system was modified and adopted by American Association of
State Highway and Transportation Officials, and it is being referred to as AASHTO System.
Required parameters for classification by AASHTO System are the grain size analysis, liquid
limit and plasticity index. With values of these parameters known, one enters the first column of
table and determines whether or not known parameters meet the limiting values in the column. If
they do, the soil classification is given at the top of the column. If they do not, one enters the
next column to the right and then determine whether or not known parameters meet the limiting
values in the column.

8
 The procedure is repeated until the first column is reached in which known parameters
meet the limiting values in that column. The soil classification for the given soil is indicated at
the top of that particular column and once a soil has been classified, it can be further described
using group index. It utilizes the percentage of soil passing sieve No-200, the liquid limit and
plasticity index with known values of this parameter and group index is computed from the
equation.

Group index = (F-35) [0.2+0.5(LL-40)] +0.01(F-15(PL-10)

Where:

F = Percentage of soil passing a No 200 sieve.

LL = Liquid limit.

PL = Plasticity index.

2.5 SOIL PROPERTIES

Generally, soil properties can be categorically characterized into two namely: index
properties and engineering properties. Index properties are the properties of soil which are used
to categorized the soil in accordance to various soil classification standards, an example of these
standards is British Soil Classification Standard (BSCS). Therefore, soil that belongs to the same
class has similar index properties. Index properties of soil are usually used to provide
rough estimate of its engineering properties with the aid of established correlation, Dino Abdella,
T. A. (2017).

2.5.1 INDEX PROPERTIES

Major index properties that aroused in soil classification are particles or grain size
distribution and the consistency limit.
a) Particle or Grain size distribution
The grain-size distribution of soils is determined by means of sieves and a hydrometer
analysis when necessary. The results of these analyses are expressed in the form of a
cumulative semi-log plot of percentage finer (or percentage passing) versus grain diameter.
The knowledge of particle-size distribution is of particular importance when coarse-grained
soils are involved. Useful values are the effective size, which is defined as the grain diameter

9
 corresponding to the 10 percent finer ordinate on the grain-size curve; the coefficient of
uniformity Cu, which is defined as the ratio of D60 size to the D60 size, the coefficient of
coverture Cc, which is determined as the ratio of the square of the D30 size to the product of
the D10 and D60 sizes; and the 15 and 85 per cent sizes, which are used in filter design. The
two coefficients are expressed mathematically as given below:

Cu =
The soil is well graded when the gradient is less than four (i.e. < 4)
And it is well graded & gap graded when the gradient is greater than four (i.e. > 4)

Cc =
The soil is well graded when the gradient is between 1 and 3 (i.e. 1 ≤ Cc ≤ 3).
But its gap graded if the gradient is above 3.

b) consistency of soil
The water contents at which the soil passes from one state to the next are called consistency
limits. As it was stated earlier in this courseware that the physical properties of fine soils (clays)
get very much affected with changing water content. Clay may be in liquid, plastic, solid states,
depending upon the amount of water present in it. The physical properties of fine soil gently
differ at different water contents; a soil which is very soft at a high percentage of water content
may become very hard with a decrease in water content. The consistency of soil is may also be
called Atterberg’s limit. Atterberg in 1911 evolved certain tests which are used to determine the
consistency and plastic behavior of fine soils. These tests are; Liquid limit, Plastic limit and
Shrinkage limit.

I. LIQUID LIMIT (L.L)

It is the minimum moisture content at which the soil will flow under its own weight when
taped 25 times in atterberg’s liquid limit device. This indicates limit where soil changes from
plastic to liquid state. At this limit of moisture, the effect of cohesion and internal friction
become practically zero. It is an indirect measure of clay present in soil and its resistance to flow.

10
For sand, L.L is about 20% and for clay and silt above 40%. High L.L indicates soil having clay
content. Load carrying capacity of soils having amount of clay is very much reduced when wet.

II. PLASTIC INDEX (P.I)

The of consistency within which soil exhibits plastic properties is called the PLASTIC
RANGE and it is indicated by the plastic index. Plastic index is the is the numerical difference
between liquid and plastic limit.

PI = L.L – P.L

III. PLASTIC LIMIT (P.L)

It indicates the percentage of moisture at which the soil sample changes, with decreasing
wetness, from a plastic to a semi-solid state. It is the maximum water content at which the soil
can be rolled into thread approximately 3mm in diameter without breaking. It is the lower limit
of the plastic state. Clays have an average value of plastic limit of 45% colloids 46% and silts
20%.

IV. SHRINKAGE LIMIT

The shrinkage limit (SL) is the water content at which further loss of water in the soil will
not cause further reduction in the volume of the soil, i.e. the water content required just to fill the
voids of a sample which has been dried.

Various indices may be derived from these limits. The plasticity index (PI) is measure of the
range of water contents over which the soil remains in a plastic state. In other words, it is the
measure of the arithmetic differences between the liquid limit and the plastic limit to agiven soil
sample.

In summary, L.L, P.L and S.L are known as consistency limits and P.I differ from soil to
soil. These properties are used in identification and classification of soils. Generally, soils having
high values L.L are considered poor. Value of L.L and P.L depend upon the quantity of clay
present in the soil and also on the type of soil, but P.I depends only on the amount of clay. It was
due to the fact that P.I gives an indication of clay content in the soil.

By practical tests, it has been found that soils having equal L.L but different P.L rate of
change of volume and drying strength increases whereas permeability decreases with increase
L.L thus, L.L and P.I values help a great deal in classification of cohesive soils.

11
 Note: Soil that make good sub-grade and base courses expand very little while those that
are poor swell more. A common specification requirement limits the volume change of base
course to 01%.

2.6 SYSTEMS OF SOIL CLASSIFICATION

Soil classifications based on physical tests or other information; represent groupings into
which all soils of like characteristics can be separated. Once a soil has been classified, its
performance should be predictable from the known behavior of others in the same group. No
single grouping will fit many diverse problems of soil science. A classification suited to
agricultural or geological uses does not satisfy the requirement of the Civil Engineer: neither is a
classification best suited to the foundation engineer’s problem entirely satisfactory for the
highway engineers. Some of the classification used are:

 Grain Size Classification.

 Textural Classification.
 American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Classification.
 Unified Soil Classification.

2.6.1 GRAIN SIZE CLASSIFICATION

According to this classification, soil is classified as gravel, sand, silt and clay. The limits
of grain size for each component as given by ISI are as follows:

Table 2.3: Grain Size Classification.

S/N Types of soil Diameter

01 Gravel 2.0mm and above

02 Sand 2.0mm to 0.6mm Coarse sand

0.6mm 0.2mm Medium sand

0.2mm to 0.06mm Fine sand

03 Silt 0.06mm to 0.2mm Coarse sand

0.02mm to 0.006mm Medium sand

12
 0.006 to 0.002 Fine sand

04 Clay 0.002mm to 0.0006 Coarse clay

0.0006mm to 0.0002mm Medium clay

0.0002mm to below Fine/colloid clay

Source: Gurcharm Singh and Jagdish Singh (1983)

2.6.2 TEXTURAL CLASSIFICATION

The classification is based on grain size distribution of the soil with respect to proportions
of sand, silt and clay. For this classification on equilateral triangular chart is used. The triangle
has boundary of sand, silt and clay. The soil with known percentage of clay, silt and sand is
represented by a point on this triangular chart.

2.6.3 AASHTO CLASSIFICATION

According to this system, soils are classified into seven groups, designated from A-1 to
A-7 with occasional sub-groups. In this classification, only three tests, namely: sieve analysis,
liquid limits and plastic limit are required to be conducted.

According to this classification, A1 to A3 soils percentage passing 0.075mm sieve being

less than 35%, A4 to A7 soils are silt-clay soils, which pass through 0.075mm sieve by more than
35%, and A4 to A7 soils are also known as fine grained soils. A-1 to A-7 soil characteristics are
given below in brief:

A-1 Soil: It is well graded mixture of gravel, coarse and fine non-plastic or slightly
plastic soils. It may also contain stone particles. This soil is further divided into two sub-heads.
A-1-a group and A-1-b group is predominant in stone particles whereas later one in coarse sand.

A-2 Soil: This soil consists of granular soils and fines of A-2-4 to A-2-7 group up to
35%. Depending on the percentage of fines in the soil, A-2 groups may be sub-divided into A-2-
4, A-2-5, A-2-6 and A-2-7.

A-3 Soil: It consists of mainly graded medium or fine sand. It may consist of some coarse
sand and even some gravel particles.

13
 A-4 Soil: This is mainly non-plastic or slightly plastic silt soils. It has L.L. of less than
40% and P.I. less than 10%.

A-5 Soil: This soil has L.L. more than 40% but P.L. is less than 10%. It contains
micaceous and diatomaceous soils, which are highly elastic and compressible.

A-6 Soil: This soil has L.L. below 40% P.I. above 10% and it is the plastic clays. They
have too much volume change characteristics with change in moisture content.

A-7 Soil: This soil is even clayey than A-6 soils. It has even higher values of L.L. and
P.I. than A-6 soils and also high change in volume characteristics.

Fine grained soils of each classification group, exhibit quite different properties in form
of road sub grade material. For the soils having appreciable amounts of fine grained materials, a
more complete method of identification can be group index system. Group index is the function
of material passing 75 micron sieve in percent, together with L.L. and P.I of the soil. Group
index can be found from the following equation:

GI = (F-35) [0.2+0.005(LL-40)] + 0.01(F-15) (PI-10)

2.7 CHARACTERISTICS OF INDIVIDUAL SOIL PARTICLES

In predicting the behavior of some individual soil particles, some characteristic were
being analyzed. These characteristics include grain size, chemical compositions and surface
texture. These soils are not classified based on their mineral compositions, and those mineral
compositions originate from their formation and their geographical distribution.

2.7.1 GRAIN SIZE

The grains of which a soil is composed of have been classified in terms of size by the
American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO) as follows:

14
Table 2.1: Grain size (AASHTO classification)

Class Particle size Description

Gravel 60mm Short description: it is coarse pieces of rock

like granite, link, marble, etc. of any shape
(round, flat, angular) gravel forms the
skeleton of the soil and limit its capillarity
and shrinkage.

Sand 2 to 0.6mm Its particles mainly concerned and comprise

silica or quartz (shell fragments sand grains
lack cohesion in the presence of water and
limit swelling and shrinkage).

Silt 0.06 to 0.02mm This soil type physically and chemically the
same as sand, only much finer, silt gives soil
stability by increasing its internal friction and
holds together when wet and compressed.

Clay Smaller than 0.002mm(2ꭒ) Clay results from chemical weatherin of

rocks, mainly silicates. The hydrated
aluminosilicates particles are thin plates of
extremely great specific surface area, causing
strong cohesion in the presence of water, also
excessive swelling and shrinkage.

Colloids Smaller than 0.001 Fine particles resulting from decomposition

of minerals and organic matter (clay is the
chief mineral colloid) forming a gluey
substance.

15
Organic matter Several mm to cm Micro grains and fiber result from
decomposition of plants and soil fauna. It has
a spongy or stringy structure and smell like
wet decaying wood.

2.7.2 SURFACE TEXTURE

The surface texture of the larger soil particles greatly influences their performances in
granular soil mixtures. The coefficient of friction developed between these surfaces is low. As a
consequence, the particles can slide easily against each other and soil mixture that contains them
has little resistance to deformation under load. Some authorities assert that the rough surface of
freshly crushed rock is more important than its angular shape. In developing strength in coarse
grained soil.

2.7.3 CHEMICAL COMPOSITION

Chemical and the surface charge characteristics of coarse soil particles apparently have
little influence on behavior of soil mass, because surface areas are small in relations to volume.
However, in soils containing appreciable amount of clay, these properties are very important. As
indicated, clay particles are plate-like or rod-like in shape. The side particles generally have a
negative chrge, while the edges or ends are positively charged. Soil structure in the natural state
usually is flocculated with adjacent grains oriented side to end or face of edges. However,
particle reorientation into a parallel of dispersed structure by manipulations at high moisture
contents can drastically change strength, permeability and other properties of the soil.

2.8 PERMEABILITY

Permeability as a term is described as the ability of water or any fluid to be able to flow
through a soil by moving, passing through the spaces and voids in the soil particles. It is a
very essential property of soil for the analysis of water flowing through the soil. Essential
factors in testing permeability are type of hydraulic gradient, effective stress, head conditions
and how representative the sample is.

16
 Soil permeability can be determined by field test and direct laboratory, this property is
influenced by effect of state and anisotropy (Dhir K.R. and Jackson, 1986 {soil
permeability}.

2.8.1 PERMEABILITY MEASUREMENT

To measure permeability, different techniques are available to determine soil hydraulic

conductivity (K). The degree of permeability can be determined by applying a hydraulic pressure
difference across soil sample, which is fully saturated for measuring the consequent of flow of
water (Head, K.H., 1992).

Permeability is measured using permeameter device by constant head test or variable

(falling) head test. Constant head permeability test is conducted on highly permeable soil like
gravel or sand following ASTM D2434-68 standard test method for permeability of soils.
Permeability can be calculated using the equation:

K = QL/Aht

K = permeability coofficient (cm/sec).

Q = quantity of water discharged, cm3

L = length of sample (cm).

t = total time of discharge (sec).

h = head causing flow (cm).

Variable head permeability test is conducted on relatively less permeable soils like fine
grained soils. Falling head permeability test determined the permeability of a material by
measuring time required for water level to fall from a kown initial head (h 1) to a known final
head (h2). Permeability is then calculated using the equation:

K = 2.3 (al/∆t) log (h1/h2).

Where k = coofficient of permeability (cm/sec).

A = cross sectional area of reservoir (cm2).

L = lenth of specimen (cm).

17
 A = cross-sectional area of specimen (cm2).

Hl = water levels (cm) and h2.

∆t = time required for water falling h to h (sec).

2.9 MOISTURE CONTENT

The moisture content of soil simply refers to the amount of water in a soil sample. Water is a
component of soil and it is an essential raw material for construction. The presence of water in
soil promotes earth work activities. However, soils are not workable in road construction when
they are very wet because they would be heavy, bulky and difficult to handle. Furthermore,
working with a very dry soil is also difficult because the soil might be loose and dusty.
Therefore, since different soils have particular moisture content at which they are best suitable
for use in particular activity, it is necessary to find ways of determining moisture content of soils.
Again, one of the basic factors that determine the suitability of soil for road construction is its
behavior in wet and dry states, but the laboratory tests that are carried out in order to determine
the properties of soils are connected to its moisture. Therefore, a study of the ways of measuring
the moisture content of soil is important for highway engineers and technicians.

However, before looking at the different ways of determining moisture content of soil, it is
useful to define a soil and mention some its properties.

A soil can be defined as the uppermost layer of the earth’s crust which is formed by the process
of weathering. Weathering is the disintegration of rocks into tiny pieces to form soil by physical,
chemical or biological processes. The study of the properties of soils is also important for
highway engineers and technicians in order to enable them identify, classify, measure soil
strength and evaluate its drainage properties.

Determination of moisture content is required to provide information on the moisture conditions

of soils in the field; moisture content affects the degree of compaction and CBR values of soil.
Hence the degree of compaction is not only dependent on the type of soil and comp active effort
but also on moisture content.

18
 CHAPTER THREE

METHODOLOGY
3.1 INTRODUCTION

The methods to be used in achieving the aims and objectives of this project are;

Firstly online search study had been carried out where journals and reports were reviewed to
enable good and precise understanding of how the work could be done.

Secondly, having an access to the exact position of the proposed construction site to
enable boring of sample pits (collection of samples).

Thirdly, field works where trial pits are located and samples are taken for geotechnical
test (i.e. the soil samples will be taken at different locations around the proposed site or location
thereby digging of a pit to a depth says 1m, 1.5m and 2m before taking the sample ).

Fourthly, the laboratory analyses were carried out in order to know the possible
characteristics of the sample (i.e. the samples so taken will be analyzed to determine the soil
index properties as well as its engineering properties).

3.2 MATERIALS AND METHOD

3.2.1 MATERIALS

 Study area; the proposed Agricultural Engineering Department, Federal

Polytechnic, Kaura Namoda.
 Soil sample; Nine samples were taken at different levels of the boreholes (pits).

3.2.2 METHODS

 Method of sampling; The soil samples were taken at different locations within
the proposed Department of Agricultural Engineering Technology at Federal
polytechnic Kaura Namoda and the samples taken at each point was labeled in
order not to get mixed up. The collected sample from each trial was done by
digging of pit to a depth 1m, 1.5m and 2m respectively at each individual hole
before taking the samples.

19
  Test methods; this section presents the experimental procedures adopted in
conducting the tastes carried out. The tests are:
 Moisture content test
 Sieve analysis test
 Atterberg’s limit ( liquid and plastic limit) tests
 Specific gravity test
 Permeability test.
 Direct shear box or triaxial (Determine C & Q )

3.2.2.1 MOISTURE CONTENT TEST

This test is performed to determine the water (moisture) content of soils. The water
content is the ratio, expressed as a percentage, of the mass of “pore” or “Free” water in a given
mass of soil to the mass of the dry soil solids. For many soils, the water content may be an
extremely important index used for establishing the relationship between the way a soil behaves
and its properties.
The consistency of a fine-grained soil largely depends on its water content. The water
content is also used in expressing the phase relationships of air, water, and solids in a given
volume of soil.
ASTM D 2216 - Standard Test Method for Laboratory Determination of
Water (Moisture) Content of Soil, Rock, and Soil-Aggregate Mixtures

.
3.2.2.2 SIEVE ANALYSIS TEST

This test is performed to determine the percentage of different grain sizes contained
within a soil. The mechanical or sieve analysis is performed to determine the distribution of the
coarser, larger-sized particles, and the hydrometer method is used to determine the distribution of
the finer particles. The distribution of different grain sizes affects the engineering properties of
soil. Grain size analysis provides the grain size distribution, and it is required in classifying the
soil. ASTM D 422 - Standard Test Method for Particle-Size Analysis of Soils.

20
3.2.2.3 ATTERBERG’S LIMIT (LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMIT) TESTS

. The physical properties of fine soil gently differ at different water contents; a soil which
is very soft at a high percentage of water content may become very hard with a decrease in water
content. The consistency of soil is may also be called Atterberg’s limit. Atterberg in 1911
evolved certain tests which are used to determine the consistency and plastic behavior of fine
soils. These tests are; Liquid limit, Plastic limit and Shrinkage limit. ASTM D 4318 - Standard
Test Method for Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, and Plasticity Index of Soils.

3.2.2.4 SPECIFIC GRAVITY TEST (BS 812, 1984)

The specific gravity test is used to measure the weight of a given volume of material (or

vice versa). Specific gravity is defined as the ratio of the weight of a given volume of aggregates

to the weight of an equal volume of water volume. Specific gravity test will be conducted in

ABU concrete laboratory in accordance to BS 812, (1984).

3.2.2.5 PERMEABILITY TEST (BS 812, 1984)

Permeability as a term is described as the ability of water or any fluid to be able flow
through a soil by moving, passing through the spaces and voids in the soil particles. It is a
very essential property of soil for the analysis of water flowing through the soil. Essential
factors in testing permeability are type of hydraulic gradient, effective stress, head conditions
and how representative the sample is.

Soil permeability can be determined by field test and direct laboratory, this property is
influenced by effect of state and anisotropy (Dhir K.R. and Jackson, 1986 {soil
permeability}.

21
3.1.2.6 DIRECT SHEAR BOX OR TRIAXIAL (DETERMINE C &θ)

This test is performed to determine the consolidated-drained shear strength of a sandy to

silty soil. The shear strength is one of the most important engineering properties of a soil,
because it is required whenever a structure is dependent on the soil’s shearing resistance. The
shear strength is needed for engineering situations such as determining the stability of slopes or
cuts, finding the bearing capacity for foundations, and calculating the pressure exerted by a soil
on a retaining wall. Standard Reference ASTM D 3080 - Standard Test Method for Direct Shear
Test of Soils Under Consolidated Drained Conditions Significance The direct shear test is one of
the oldest strength tests for soils. In this laboratory, a direct shear device will be used to
determine the shear strength of a cohesion-less soil (i.e. angle of internal friction c = 0),

22
 CHAPTER FOUR

PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION OF RESULT

4.0 INTRODUCTION

This chapter presents results of tests conducted in this research work as discussed in
chapter three.

4.1 MOISTURE CONTENT RESULT

Table 4.1 Moisture content result of the soil sample of pit 1, 2 & 3 at 1.0m depth of the
study area.

TEST NO. 1
PIT NO. 1 2 3
CONTAINER NO. A1 B1 C1
WEIGHT OF WET SOIL + CONTAINER W1 (g) 183.00 177.00 190.00
WEIGHT OF DRIED SOIL + CONTAINER W2 (g) 180.50 170.00 179.00
WEIGHT OF CONTAINER W3 (g) 16.00 17.00 17.00
WEIGHT OF MOISTURE =W1 - W2 (g) 2.50 7.00 11.00
WEIGHT OF DRIED SOIL = W2 - W3 (g) 164.50 153.00 162.00
MOISTURE CONTENT m% = ( (W1 - W2)/(W2 - W3) ) * 100 1.52 4.58 6.79
AVERAGE MOISTURE CONTENT mc (%) 4.30

Table 4.2 below shows the results of the moisture content tests conducted for the study
area.

PIT NO. SAMPLE A SAMPLE B SAMPLE C

At 1.0m depth At 1.5m depth At 2.0m depth

1 1.52 1.23 0.67

2 4.58 1.6 3.16

3 6.79 3.66 4.22

AVERAGE 4.30 2.19 2.68

23
4.2 SIEVE ANALYSIS TEST

The result of pit NO.1 sample at 1m depth is presented below

Table 4.3 Sieve analysis result for test pit NO.1 at 1m depth

GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS

Initial Weght (gm) 1000

Diameter Weight Retained Cummulative Passing

(mm) (gm) % Retained % %

75 0 0 0 100 Cobbles= 0.00% 0.00%

63 0 0 0 100 Coarse Gravel= 0.00%

50 0 0 0 100 Medium Gravel = 0.00% 6.50%

37.5 0 0 0 100 Fine Gravel 6.50%

28 0 0 0 100 Coarse Sand = 6.39%

20 0 0 0 100 Medium Sand = 41.63% 82.49%

14 0 0 0 100 Fine Sand = 34.47%

10 0 0 0 100 Fines = 11.01% 11.01%

6.3 0 0 0 100 TOTAL 100.00% 100.00%

5 20 2.2 2.2 97.8 OBTAIN VALUES OF D10,D30 & D60 FROM GRAPH

3.35 13 1.43 3.63 96.37 D10 0.06 75

2 26 2.86 6.5 93.5 D30 0.17 63
1.18 29 3.19 9.69 90.31 D60 0.3 50
0.6 29 3.19 12.89 87.11 Cu 5 37.5
0.425 100 11.01 23.9 76.1 Cc 1.61 28
0.3 158 17.4 41.3 58.7 20

0.212 120 13.22 54.52 45.48 14

0.15 163 17.95 72.47 27.53 10

0.063 150 16.52 88.99 11.01 6.3

5
Pass 63
microns 100 11.01 100 0 3.35

908 100 2

24
Figure 4.1 Sieve analysis curve for pit NO.1 at 1.0m.

Table 4.4 Average result of the sieve analysis test @ 1.0m depth of the study area

PIT NO. DEPTH CC CU Finesmodulus

Cummu . Retained
∑ 100
=

1 1.0m 1.61 5.00 4.16

2 1.0m 18.29 14.00 4.39

3 1.0m 9.31 13.00 4.59

AVERAGE 9.73 10.66 4.38

25
Table 4.5 Average result of the sieve analysis test @ 1.5m depth of the study area.

PIT NO. DEPTH CC CU Finesmodulus

Cummu . Retained
∑ 100
=

1 1.5m 19.00 19.00 4.20

2 1.5m 9.09 11.00 3.54

3 1.5m 4.32 7.00 4.67

AVERAGE 10.83 12.33 4.14

Table 4.6 Average result of the sieve analysis test @ 2.0m depth of the study area.

PIT NO. DEPTH CC CU Finesmodulus

Cummu . Retained
∑ 100
=

1 2.0m 10.29 14.00 4.66

2 2.0m 11.08 13.00 4.58

3 2.0m 9.31 4.32 4.45

AVERAGE 10.23 10.44 4.56

26
4.3 ATTERBERG’S LIMIT (LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMIT)

Table 4.7Atterberg’s limit results of the soil sample of pit A, B & C at 1.0m depth of the
study area.

Liquid limit of samples from the trial pits Plastic limit of samples from the trial pits

Sample no. A B C Sample no. A B C

container no. A1 B1 C1 container no. X1 Y1 Z1

wt. of container 9.00 9.00 9.00 wt. of container 7.00 7.00 7.00

wt. container + wet soil 23.43 18.00 29 wt. container + wet soil 18.39 16.43 24.23

wt. container + dry soil 22.00 16.70 23.80 wt. container + dry soil 16.28 14.69 20.43

wt. of moisture 1.43 1.30 5.20 wt. of moisture 2.11 1.74 3.80

wt. of dry soil 13.00 7.70 14.80 wt. of dry soil 9.28 7.69 13.43

Moisture content (%) 11.00 16.88 35.14 moisture content 22.74 22.63 28.29

number of blows 19 27 39 PLASTIC LIMIT 24.55

Table 4.8 below shows the results of the Liquid limit tests conducted for the study area.

PIT NO. SAMPLE A SAMPLE B SAMPLE C

At 1.0m depth At 1.5m depth At 2.0m depth

1 11.00 20.67 40.00

2 16.88 21.05 23.08

3 35.14 38.46 21.43

27
AVERAGE (%) 21.00 26.72 28.17

Table 4.9 below shows the results of the Plastic limit tests conducted for the study area.

PLASTIC LIMIT SAMPLE A SAMPLE B SAMPLE C

At 1.0m depth At 1.5m depth At 2.0m depth
10.79 45.04
AVERAGE 24.55

4.4 SPECIFIC GRAVITY TEST

Table 4.10 Specific gravity result of the soil sample of pit A, B & C at 1.0m depth of the
study area

PIT NO: 1 2 3
PYCNOMETER BOTTLE NO. A1 B1 C1
WEIGHT OF EMPTY CLEAN PYCNO = W1 (g) 210 210 210
WEIGHT OF PYCNO + DRY SOIL = W2 (g) 260 257 264
WEIGHT OF PYNO + DRY SOIL + WATER = W3 1235 1228 1235
WEIGHT OF PYCNO + WATER = W4 (g) 1205 1205 1205
SPECIPIC GRAVITY GS 2.50 1.95 2.25
AVERAGE 2.23

SAMPLE CALCULATION OF THE SPECIFIC GRAVITY

W 2−W 1 (260−210)
Gs= = = 2.50
( W 4−W 1 ) −(W 3−W 2) (1205−210)−(1235−260)

28
Table 4.11 below shows the results of the specific gravity tests conducted for the study area.

PIT NO. SAMPLE A SAMPLE B SAMPLE C

At 1.0m depth At 1.5m depth At 2.0m depth

1 2.50 2.68 2.75

2 1.95 2.16 2.30

3 2.25 2.25 1.75

AVERAGE 2.23 2.36 2.26

4.5 PEMEABILITY TEST

The result shown below is for pit1 @ 1m depth and analysis of first run after 4minutes is
presented.

Table 4.12 Permeability test result for pit No.1 @1m depth

Initial Final Volu E

Level of Water me(cm3) lasped K
T
water Level Collx ime (
H1 (cm) H2 (cm) adwected (sec) cm/sec.)
2 0
63 18 21 40 .000678
4 0
63 13 18 20 .001139
7 0
52 14 16 20 .000568
9 0
38.8 12.5 20 60 .000613
1 0
36 18 28 200 .000375
1 0
21 17 16 380 .000152
1 0
20 15.5 14 680 .00011

29
 1 0
12 8 12 920 .000219
2 0
12 8 10 160 .000219
0.0004526
Average K (cm/sec.) 4

Sample calculation

Permeability (K) is given by:

K= ( )

Where a = area of stand pipe, A = area of mould, L = height of specimen, t1 = initial time

t2 = final time for water to flow from H1 to H2.

For Pit No. 1 @ 1m depth

d = 10mm = 1cm, D = 100mm = 10cm, a = 2

/4 = 0. 7854cm2, A = 2
/4= 7.854cm2

L = 125mm = 12.5cm, H1 = 50cm, H2 = 12cm, t1 = 0.00, t2 = 240 sec

K=

=0.00045264cm /sec. As indicated in the table. Co-efficient of other pits obtained are
shown in the table.

Table 4.13 Permeability results at 1m depth of the study area.

Trial Pit No. Depth (m) Coefficient of

permeability cm/sec
1 1.0m 4.5264 x 10-4
2 ,, 4.4517 x 10-4
3 ,, 4.095 x 10-4
Average permeability at 1m depth 4.358 x 10-4

Table 4.14 Average results of permeability for the study area.

30
 S/NO. Depth (m) Average of permeability cm/sec
1 1.0m 4.358 x 10-4
2 1.5m 6.619 x 10-4
3 2.0m 8.136x 10-4

4.6 TRIAXIAL TEST

The tri-axial test was conducted as described in chapter three and graph plotted for pit 1 as
shown in the figure below.
U (cm2)

16
14
12
10
8
6
4
ɣ
2
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
δ1, δ3 (cm2)

Fig 4.2 Mohr Circle for pitNo.1 @ 1m depth

From the graph of Mohr circle of tri-axial test, it has shown that the soil sample has c =2
KN/m2 and φ =240at depth of 1m the two parameters are used to calculate bearing capacity as
indicated below.

10+15+30
The unit weight of the soil (ɣ) = = 18.33 KN/m2 and B = 1.5m
3
1
Using strip foundation: qu = CN + ɣD N + 2 ɣBN
c f q Y

Table 3.1 Terzaghi’s Bearing Capacity Factors, with respect to φ =240

Nc = 23.36, Nq =11.40 and NY = 7.08
Hence,
1 1
qu = CN + ɣD N + 2 ɣBN =(2×23.36) + (18.33×1×11.40) +( 2 ×1.5×7.08)
c f q Y

31
qu = 260.99 KN/m 2

Therefore, the allawable bearing capacity of the soil sample for a proposed strip foundation is =
260.99KN/m2

Table 4.15 Bearing capacity values for the study area.

S/NO. PIT/NO. Depth Θ0 C Bearing Average

Value Value Capacity
(KN/m2) (KN/m2)

1
1 1.0m 240 2 260.99
2 ˮ 200 3 181.20 343.30
3 ˮ 280 2.2 587.71

2
1 1.5m 320 4 297.06
2 ˮ 350 3 345.86 440.31
3 ˮ 310 2 678.02

3
1 2.0m 400 5 485.99
2 ˮ 370 4 520.00 656.34
3 ˮ 350 4 963.04

Soil investigation report produceed by a geotechnical engineer usually contains the bearing
capacity of soil in a site at different depths. The selected depth and bearing capacity used for the
foundation design should give an idea of what the maximum depth of foundation should be.

A typical example is shown in the table below;

Table 3.16: Depth and bearing capacity used for the foundation design.

Depth (mm) Allowable Bearing Pressures (kN/m2)

500 81

1000 87

1500 93

2000 99

2500 106

32
 3000 118

4.7 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

4.7.1 MOISTURE CONTENT TEST

The result of the moisture content test conducted indicates that the samples from the
study area have no much water thoroughly. Looking at the average values of the moisture
content for all the trial pits with different depth 1.0m, 1.5m and 2.0m which is 0.30%, 2.19%
and2.68% respectively.

4.7.2 SIEVE ANALYSIS TEST

The result of the sieve analysis of various samples shows that high percentage of sample
passing different sieve sizes are fine and medium sand with 34.47%and 41.63%respectively
(See Table 4.1). This is used to ascertain the uniformity of the soil and its graduation as well. It
also helps in AASHTO classification of soils.

4.7.3 ATTERBERG LIMIT TEST

The Atterberg limit is carried out to know the liquid limit and plastic limit. This is shown
in Table 4.1.1. The results show a liquid limit of all samples ranges from 21.00%, 26.72%
and28.17% of 1.0m, 1.5m and 2.0m respectively, which can be classified as high compressive
soil. This complied with the Federal Ministry of Works (1997), which says that liquid limit
should not exceed 30%.

Furthermore, the plastic limit of the soil was also found to be greater than 8% (i.e.
24.5510.79 and 45.04 as prescribed by the Federal Ministry of Works (1997).

4.7.4 SPECIPIC GRAVITY TEST

33
 From the result obtained with the analysis of the specific gravity test which was
conducted shows that, the soil sample with an average specific gravity of 2.3, 2.36 and 2.26
which falls within the general standard range of the specific gravity test between 2.65 and 2.80
with coarser soils .Generally, a soil is described as a finer soils when it posses lower specific
gravities.

4.7.5 PERMEABILITY TEST

From the test result, since the test carried out is constant head method which is suitable
for fine soil. From standard coefficient of permeability for dense sandy soil 5 x 10-5 cm/sec - 5 x
10-3 cm/sec. The result obtained was 4.358 x 10-4, 6.619 x 10-4 and 8.136 x 10-4

. Since the result got from the test carried out fall within the ranges, that means the result
taken from the sample location is dense sandy soil. The dense sand will have higher permeability
i.e. it is not suitable for highway sub-grade. Rather it can be used unless otherwise for building
construction as a foundation material.

From the result of the test sample 1,2 and 3 @ 1.0m have the highest value of
permeability coefficient while the other samples have lowest coefficient of permeability. This
indicate that sample with highest coefficient of permeability will have high permeable ratio
which is not suitable for foundation while the lowest coefficient will be adequate.

4.7.6 TRIAXIAL TEST

From the test result, the value of the two parameters of shear strength which is required
for the design of slopes and for many other analyses (i.e. θ and C) had been used to find the
bearing capacity of the soil for the study area, and was found to be between 343.30KN/m2,
440.31KN/m2 and 656.34KN/m2 for the average depth of 1.0m, 1.5m 2.0m respectively.
Forther more, from the above data available we can apply Rankine’s formula of
determining an actual depth of the foundation.
qa
The actual depth of foundation (DF) = [ ¿ × ¿ ¿ Where,
γ

34
DF = depth of foundation, qa = allawable bearing capacity, γ = unit weight of soil and θ = angle of
response or shearing resistance of soil.
10+15+30
Thus, qa = 87KN/m2, (ɣ) = = 18.33 KN/ m2 φ =240
3

87.00
Now, The actual depth of foundation (DF) = [ ¿ ׿ ¿ = 1.42m.
18.33

CHAPTER FIVE

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION

5.1 CONCLUSIONS

The soil sample around the proposed Agricultural Engineering Department in the Federal
Polytechnic Kaura Namoda was taken and was properly investigated. A lot of information and
engineering data on samples have been deduced from the result of the laboratory analysis. From
the analysis of the results that was obtained, the following drawn are listed below:

A) From the results of the index properties tests carried out on the samples from the study
area, it can be concluded that, soil sample from trial pit 1, 2 and 3can be classified as fine
and medium sand with 34.47% and 41.63% respectively. This is used to ascertain the
uniformity of the soil and its graduation as well. It also helps in AASHTO classification
of soils(i.e. MH, ML and ML).
B) From the engineering properties tests conducted on the soil samples obtained from the
study area, the specific gravity values are 2.3, 2.36 and 2.26 for the trial pits respectively.
Permeability test was also found to be 4.358 x 10-4 , 6.619 x 10-4 and 8.136 x 10-4
respectively.where by the triaxial test conducted yields bearing capacity of the soil to be

qu = 343.30 KN/m , 440.31 KN/m

2 2
and 656.34 KN/m2 for the trial pits respectively.

87.00
Forthermore, the actual depth of foundation (DF) = [ ¿ ׿ ¿ = 1.42m.
18.33

5.2 RECOMMENDATIONS

35
 From the nature and the information obtained from this research the following
recommendations are deserable;

A) Before any civil engineering construction will be carry out soil exploration or
investigation is supposed to be carried out in order to know the present condition of the
subsoil of such site. Whith the results obtained after conducting the tests from the
laboratory, a geotechnical engineer will determine whether the present condition of the
site can suit the intended purpose or some treatments have to be made.

B) Understanding the soil properties of a site also helps in making good construction
decisions leading to success of the project. Thus, a structural engineer can efficiently and
accurately design the structural elements required based on the results of the soil test
analysis so that for long term viability and soundness of the project. The result also helps
to determine whether there is need for soil stabilization and the foundation depth to attain
the required bearing capacity.

36
REFERENCES

Suleiman, I.A, Iliyasu, M.S, (2014), “An investigation in to the geotechnical properties of soil at Gwarzo
Town” Department of civil engineering, Bayero University, Kano.

Sutton B.H.C. Solving problems in soil mechanics, John Willey and Sons, New York U.S.A, 1986.

Terzaghi, K., and Peck, R.B, Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice, Willey, New York, 1948.

Calladine, C.R, Engineering Plasticity, Purgation Press, London, 1969.Murthy, V.N.S, Geotechnical
Engineering (Principles and Practices of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering), Marcel Dekker,
Ink, New York, 1990.

Joints Departments of the Army and Air force U.S.A Technical Manual T.M 5-818-YAFAM 88-3,
Chapter 7, Soils and Geology Procedures for Foundation Design of Buildings and Other Structures
(Expect Hydraulic Structures), 21st October, 1983.

British Standard 1377-parts (1-9): 1990 Methods of test for soil for civil engineering purposes.

Head, K.H, “Manual for soil laboratory testing “Vol. 1 and 2. Halsted Press: an imprint of John Willey &
Sons, Inc., New York – Toronto.

ASTMD2434-68 “Standard Test Method for Permeability of Granular Soils (constant head)” (2000).

Casagrande’s, A. (1948), “Classification and Identification of Soils” M.I.E, and Field Engineers, 2 nd
edition, Khan Publisher Trans ASCE, New York.

David Muir Wood, “Soils Behavior and Critical State Soil Mechanics” Cambridge [England] New York:
Cambridge University Press, 1990.

37
Donald, P.C. (1999), “Geotechnical Engineering Principles and Practice” Practice – Hall International,
California.

Grim.(1968) and Adewoye A.O (2009).Soil Mechanics Manual pp 4, 5.

Gurcharm Singh and Jagdish (1983).Highway Engineering for Degree, Diploma, A.

Head, K.H, “Manual of Soil Laboratory Testing”, Vol. 3; Effective Stress Test, New York; Willey, c
1980 – c 1986.

Head, K.H, “Manual of Soil Laboratory Testing”, Vol. 2: Permeability Shear Srength and Compressibility
Test, New York; Halsed Press, 1992 – 2nd Edition.

Holtz, R.D and Kovacs, W.D.; “An introduction to Geotechnical Engineering”, by Prentice – Hall, Inc.;
Englewood Cliffs, N.J.07632 (1981).

Jackson Neil and Dhir K.R. (1996) Civil Engineering Materials London, Macmillan Press Limited.

Nigeria Building Code (2006) and Nigeria Industrial Standard (2004).

Osuolale O.M. (2010): highway engineering course ware manual pp. 4, 5.

Terzaghi and Hogentogler (1928) for the United Bureau of public roads.

Brady, C.N and Well, R.R (1999): The nature and properties of soils. 5thed. New Jersey Prentice
Hall.

British Standard 1377 Part 1 (1990): General Requirement and Sample Preparation. British
Standard Institute, London.

British Standard 1377 Part 2 (1990): Classification Test. British Standard Institute, London.

British Standard 1377 Part 4 (1990): 3 Determination of dry density/moisture content

relationship, British Standard Institute.

British Standard 1377 Part 4 (1990): 3, 2 Preparation of soil sample for compaction Test, British
Standard Institute, London

Dino Abdella, T. A. (2017). Regression Analysis of Index Properties of Soilas Strength

Determinant for California BearingRatio (CBR).global scientific journal , 3-7.

B.Kenneth et al, “Stabilization of Soft Soils By Soil Mixing”, ASCE (2000) 194-205

B. C. Punmia, Soil Mechanics and Foundations, Madras (1988)

38
Salah Sadek, Gabriel Khoury, Int. J. Engng Ed, 16-6 (2000) 499-508

George M. Filz, “Load Transfer, Settlement, and Stability of Embankments Founded on

Columns Installed by Deep Mixing Methods”, National Technical University of Athens School
of Civil Engineering Geotechnical Department –Foundation Engineering Laboratory, (2007).

APPENDIX

APPENDIX A: MOISTURE CONTENT TEST RESULTS

Moisture content result of the soil sample at 1.5m depth of the study area.

TEST NO. 2
PIT NO. 1 2 3
CONTAINER NO. A2 B2 C2
WEIGHT OF WET SOIL + CONTAINER W1 (g) 182.00 198.00 187.00

WEIGHT OF DRIED SOIL + CONTAINER W2 (g) 180.00 195.00 181.00

WEIGHT OF CONTAINER W3 (g) 17.00 17.00 17.00

WEIGHT OF MOISTURE =W1 - W2 (g) 2.00 3.00 6.00

WEIGHT OF DRIED SOIL = W2 - W3 (g) 163.00 178.00 164.00

MOISTURE CONTENT m% = ( (W1 - W2)/(W2 - W3) ) * 100 1.23 1.69 3.66

AVERAGE MOISTURE CONTENT mc (%) 2.19

Moisture content result of the soil sample at 2.0m depth of the study area.

TEST NO. 3
PIT NO. 1 2 3

39
CONTAINER NO. A3 B3 C3
WEIGHT OF WET SOIL + CONTAINER W1 (g) 168.00 180.00 190.00

WEIGHT OF DRIED SOIL + CONTAINER W2 (g) 167.00 175.00 183.00

WEIGHT OF CONTAINER W3 (g) 17.00 17.00 17.00

WEIGHT OF MOISTURE =W1 - W2 (g) 1.00 5.00 7.00

WEIGHT OF DRIED SOIL = W2 - W3 (g) 150.00 158.00 166.00

MOISTURE CONTENT m% = ( (W1 - W2)/(W2 - W3) ) * 100 0.67 3.16 4.22

AVERAGE MOISTURE CONTENT mc (%) 2.68

APPENDIX B: SIEVE ANALYSIS TEST RESULTS

Table A1 at 1.0m depth.

GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS

Initial Weght
1000
(gm)
Diamet Weig Retain Cummulati Passi
Particle
er ht ed ve ng
Retained
Description (mm) (gm) % %
%
75 0 0 0 100 Cobbles= 0.00% 0.00%
Cobbles
63 0 0 0 100 Coarse Gravel= 0.00%

Grav 50 0 0 0 100
Medium Gravel
0.00% 6.50%
=
el
37.5 0 0 0 100 Fine Gravel 6.50%
Coarse
28 0 0 0 100 Coarse Sand = 6.39%
41.63 82.49
20 0 0 0 100 Medium Sand =
% %
34.47
14 0 0 0 100 Fine Sand =
%
11.01 11.01
Medium 10 0 0 0 100 Fines =
% %
100.00 100.00
6.3 0 0 0 100 TOTAL
% %
Fine OBTAIN VALUES OF D10,D30 & D60 FROM
5 20 2.2 2.2 97.8
GRAPH
3.35 13 1.43 3.63 96.37 D10 0.06 75

40
 2 26 2.86 6.5 93.5 D30 0.17 63
1.18 29 3.19 9.69 90.31 D60 0.3 50
Coarse
0.6 29 3.19 12.89 87.11 Cu 5 37.5
0.425 100 11.01 23.9 76.1 Cc 1.61 28
Medium 0.3 158 17.4 41.3 58.7 20

Sand 0.212 120 13.22 54.52 45.48 14

0.15 163 17.95 72.47 27.53 10

Fine
0.063 150 16.52 88.99 11.01 6.3

Clay or 5
0.002 100 11.01 100 0
Silt 3.35

0 908 100 2

41
 Table A2 at 1.5m depth.

SIEVE SIZE WEIGHT OF SOIL PERCENTAGE OF SOIL CUMMULATIVE PERCENTAGE

(mm) RETAINED (g) RETAINED (g) RETAINED (g) FINER
5 23.00 2.3 2.3 97.7
3.35 17.00 1.7 4 96
2 12.00 1.2 5.2 94.8
1.18 30.00 3 8.2 91.8
0.6 53.00 5.3 13.5 86.5
0.425 39.00 3.9 17.4 82.6
0.3 180.00 18 35.4 64.6
0.212 233.00 23.3 58.7 41.3
0.15 163 16.3 75 25
0.063 150 15 90 10
0.003 100 10 100 0

1000.00

42
 WEIGHT OF SOIL RETAINED (g)
120
percent Finer by weight

100
80
60
40
20
0
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100

Particle Size in mm

WEIGHT OF SOIL RETAINED (g)

Table A3 at 2.0m depth.

SIEVE SIZE WEIGHT OF SOIL PERCENTAGE OF SOIL CUMMULATIVE PERCENTAGE

(mm) RETAINED (g) RETAINED (g) RETAINED (g) FINER
5 23.00 2.3 2.3 97.7
3.35 27.00 2.7 5 95
2 37.00 3.7 8.7 91.3
1.18 50.00 5 13.7 86.3
0.6 100.00 10 23.7 76.3
0.425 111.00 11.1 34.8 65.2
0.3 150.00 15 49.8 50.2
0.212 100.00 10 59.8 40.2
0.15 163 16.3 76.1 23.9
0.063 111 11.1 87.2 12.8
0.003 100 10 97.2 2.8

972.00

43
 Table B1 at 1.0m depth.

SIEVE SIZE WEIGHT OF SOIL PERCENTAGE OF SOIL CUMMULATIVE PERCENTAGE

(mm) RETAINED (g) RETAINED (g) RETAINED (g) FINER
5 15.00 1.5 1.5 98.5
3.35 23.00 2.3 3.8 96.2
2 33.00 3.3 7.1 92.9
1.18 88.00 8.8 15.9 84.1
0.6 90.00 9 24.9 75.1
0.425 111.00 11.1 36 64
0.3 101.00 10.1 46.1 53.9
0.212 112.00 11.2 57.3 42.7
0.15 115 11.5 68.8 31.2
0.063 116 11.6 80.4 19.6
0.003 195 19.5 99.9 0.1
999.00

44
 WEIGHT OF SOIL RETAINED (g)
120

100

80

60

40

20

0
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100

WEIGHT OF SOIL RETAINED (g)

Table 1 B2 at 1.5m depth.

SIEVE SIZE WEIGHT OF SOIL PERCENTAGE OF SOIL CUMMULATIVE PERCENTAGE

(mm) RETAINED (g) RETAINED (g) RETAINED (g) FINER
5 13.00 1.3 1.3 98.7
3.35 21.00 2.1 3.4 96.6
2 27.00 2.7 6.1 93.9
1.18 29.00 2.9 9 91
0.6 33.00 3.3 12.3 87.7
0.425 23.00 2.3 14.6 85.4
0.3 125.00 12.5 27.1 72.9
0.212 188.00 18.8 45.9 54.1
0.15 156 15.6 61.5 38.5
0.063 150 15 76.5 23.5
0.003 200 20 96.5 3.5
965.00

45
 WEIGHT OF SOIL RETAINED (g)
120

100

80

60

40

20

0
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100

WEIGHT OF SOIL RETAINED (g)

Table B3 at 2.0m depth.

SIEVE SIZE WEIGHT OF SOIL PERCENTAGE OF SOIL CUMMULATIVE PERCENTAGE

(mm) RETAINED (g) RETAINED (g) RETAINED (g) FINER
5 23.00 2.3 2.3 97.7
3.35 37.00 3.7 6 94
2 27.00 2.7 8.7 91.3
1.18 73.00 7.3 16 84
0.6 100.00 10 26 74
0.425 112.00 11.2 37.2 62.8
0.3 98.00 9.8 47 53
0.212 114.00 11.4 58.4 41.6
0.15 145 14.5 72.9 27.1
0.063 111 11.1 84 16
0.003 150 15 99 1
990.00

46
 WEIGHT OF SOIL RETAINED (g)
120

100

80

60

40

20

0
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100

WEIGHT OF SOIL RETAINED (g)

Table C1 at 1.0m depth.

SIEVE SIZE WEIGHT OF SOIL PERCENTAGE OF SOIL CUMMULATIVE PERCENTAGE

(mm) RETAINED (g) RETAINED (g) RETAINED (g) FINER
5 16.00 1.6 1.6 98.4
3.35 29.00 2.9 4.5 95.5
2 28.00 2.8 7.3 92.7
1.18 37.00 3.7 11 89
0.6 89.00 8.9 19.9 80.1
0.425 90.00 9 28.9 71.1
0.3 300.00 30 58.9 41.1
0.212 75.00 7.5 66.4 33.6
0.15 91 9.1 75.5 24.5
0.063 92 9.2 84.7 15.3
0.003 150 15 99.7 0.3
997.00

47
 WEIGHT OF SOIL RETAINED (g)
120

100

80

60

40

20

0
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100

WEIGHT OF SOIL RETAINED (g)

Table C2 at 1.5m depth.

SIEVE SIZE WEIGHT OF SOIL PERCENTAGE OF SOIL CUMMULATIVE PERCENTAGE

(mm) RETAINED (g) RETAINED (g) RETAINED (g) FINER
5 18.00 1.8 1.8 98.2
3.35 34.00 3.4 5.2 94.8
2 27.00 2.7 7.9 92.1
1.18 56.00 5.6 13.5 86.5
0.6 90.00 9 22.5 77.5
0.425 139.00 13.9 36.4 63.6
0.3 200.00 20 56.4 43.6
0.212 93.00 9.3 65.7 34.3
0.15 91 9.1 74.8 25.2
0.063 92 9.2 84 16
0.003 150 15 99 1
990.00

48
 WEIGHT OF SOIL RETAINED (g)
120

100

80

60

40

20

0
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100

WEIGHT OF SOIL RETAINED (g)

Table C3 at 2.0m depth.

SIEVE SIZE WEIGHT OF SOIL PERCENTAGE OF SOIL CUMMULATIVE PERCENTAGE

(mm) RETAINED (g) RETAINED (g) RETAINED (g) FINER
5 16.00 1.6 1.6 98.4
3.35 28.00 2.8 4.4 95.6
2 21.00 2.1 6.5 93.5
1.18 69.00 6.9 13.4 86.6
0.6 59.00 5.9 19.3 80.7
0.425 100.00 10 29.3 70.7
0.3 240.00 24 53.3 46.7
0.212 100.00 10 63.3 36.7
0.15 91 9.1 72.4 27.6
0.063 92 9.2 81.6 18.4
0.003 180 18 99.6 0.4
996.00

49
 WEIGHT OF SOIL RETAINED (g)
120
percent Finer by weight

100
80
60
40
20
0
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100

Particle Size in mm

WEIGHT OF SOIL RETAINED (g)

APPENDIX C: ATTERBERG’S LIMIT (LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMIT) RESULTS

Atterberg’s limit resultsof the soil sample at 1.5m depth of the study area.

Liquid limit of samples from the trial pits Plastic limit of samples from the trial pits

Sample no. A B C Sample no. A B C

container no. A2 B2 C2 container no. X2 Y2 Z2

wt. of container (g) 7.00 7.00 7.00 wt. of container (g) 7.00 7.00 7.00

wt. container + wet soil 29.00 30.00 25.00 wt. container + wet soil 16.39 13.43 21.23

wt. container + dry soil 22.00 26.00 20.00 wt. container + dry soil 15.28 12.69 20.43

wt. of moisture 7.00 4.00 5.00 wt. of moisture 1.11 0.74 0.80

50
wt. of dry soil 25.00 19.00 13.00 wt. of dry soil 8.28 5.69 13.43

moisture content (%) 20.67 21.05 38.46 moisture content (%) 13.41 13.00 5.96

number of blows 23 28 31 PLASTIC LIMIT 10.79

Atterberg’s limit resultsof the soil sample at 2.0m depth of the study area

Liquid limit of samples from the trial pits Plastic limit of samples from the trial pits

Sample no. A B C Sample no. A B C

container no. A3 B3 C3 container no. X3 Y3 Z3

wt. of container (g) 7.00 7.00 7.00 wt. of container (g) 16.00 9.00 9.00

wt. container + wet soil 28.00 23.00 24.00 wt. container + wet soil 24.00 20.50 14.50

wt. container + dry soil 22.00 20.00 21.00 wt. container + dry soil 22.00 16.00 13.00

wt. of moisture 6.00 3.00 3.00 wt. of moisture 2.00 4.50 1.50

wt. of dry soil 15.00 13.00 14.00 wt. of dry soil 6.00 7.00 4.00

moisture content (%) 40.00 23.08 21.43 moisture content (%) 33.33 64.29 37.50

number of blows 21 27 38 PLASTIC LIMIT 45.04

APPENDIX D: SPECIFIC GRAVITY TEST RESULTS

Specific gravity result of the soil sample at 1.5m depth of the study area

PIT NO: 1 2 3
PYCNOMETER BOTTLE NO. A1 B1 C1

51
WEIGHT OF EMPTY CLEAN PYCNO = W1 (g) 210 210 210
WEIGHT OF PYCNO + DRY SOIL = W2 (g) 261 262 264
WEIGHT OF PYNO + DRY SOIL + WATER = W3 1237 1233 1235
WEIGHT OF PYCNO + WATER = W4 (g) 1205 1205 1205
SPECIPIC GRAVITY GS 2.68 2.16 2.25
AVERAGE 2.36

Specific gravity result of the soil sample at 2.0m depth of the study area

PIT NO: 1 2 3
PYCNOMETER BOTTLE NO. A3 B3 C3
WEIGHT OF EMPTY CLEAN PYCNO = W1 (g) 210 210 210
WEIGHT OF PYCNO + DRY SOIL = W2 (g) 265 270 261
WEIGHT OF PYNO + DRY SOIL + WATER = W3 1240 1239 1227
WEIGHT OF PYCNO + WATER = W4 (g) 1205 1205 1205
SPECIPIC GRAVITY GS 2.75 2.30 1.75
AVERAGE 2.26

Typical values of specific gravity of soil

Soil Type Specific Gravity

Sand 2.65 – 2.68

Silty sand 2.67 – 2.70

Inorganic silt 2.62 – 2.68

Inorganic clay 2.68 – 2.80

Organic clay 2.58 – 2.65

Soils with mica or iron 2.75 3.00

Organic soils May be < 2.0 (2.2 – 2.64)

Soil with micas or iron 2.75 – 3.00

52
APPENDIX E: PERMEABILITY TEST RESULTS
Permeability results at 1.5m depth of the study area.
Trial Pit No. Depth (m) Coefficient of
permeability cm/sec
1 1.5 6.2558 x 10-4
2 ,, 7.0350 x 10-4
3 ,, 6.5651 x 10-4
Average permeability at 1.5m depth 6.619x 10-4

Permeability results at 2.0m depth of the study area.

Trial Pit No. Depth (m) Coefficient of
permeability cm/sec
1 2.0 7.2216 x 10-4
2 ,, 8.4165 x 10-4
3 ,, 8.7688 x 10-4
Average permeability at 2.0m depth 8.136 x 10-4

APPENDIX F: TRIAXIAL TEST

The tablebelow shows the bearing capacity values for dense sandy soil with respect to a
proposed strip foundation of the study area.

S/NO. SAMPLE A SAMPLE B SAMPLE C

At 1.0m depth At 1.5m depth At 2.0m depth

1 260.99KN/m2 297.06 KN/m2 485.99 KN/m2

2 181.20 KN/m2 345.86 KN/m2 520.00 KN/m2

3 587.71 KN/m2 678.02 KN/m2 963.04 KN/m2

AVERAGE 343.30 KN/m2 440.31 KN/m2 656.34 KN/m2

53
Soil investigation report produceed by a geotechnical engineer usually contains the bearing
capacity of soil in a site at different depths. The selected depth and bearing capacity used for the
foundation design should give an idea of what the maximum depth of foundation should be.

A typical example is shown in the table below;

Table 4.16: Depth and bearing capacity used for the foundation design.

Depth (mm) Allowable Bearing Pressures (kN/m2)

500 81

1000 87

1500 93

2000 99

2500 106

3000 118

54