Allen S John (PROJECT)

6/23/2012

DAR ES SALAAM INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL AND BUILDING ENGINEERING

PROJECT TITLE: INVESTIGATION OF SOIL PROPERTIES EXISTING IN MBEZI –KIMARA

PROJECT TYPE: PROBLEM SOLVING

CASE STUDY: KIMARA BONYOKWA

STUDENT NAME: ALLEN S JOHN

ADMISSIN NO: 0901016014

CLASS: OD 09 C1

[email protected] 2011/2012

i

DECLARATION

I, Allen John declare to the best of my knowledge that this project is on original piece of my own

work and have not been reproduced or copied from anybody or anywhere.

Signature ………………………………………………………………….

Supervisor’s name ………………………………………………………………….

Signature ………………………………………………………………….

ii

DEDICATION This project is dedicated to my lovely parents Mr. & Mrs. John Galang’anda, my lovely brother

Mr. Alexander John and my sisters, friends and brothers

iii

ABSTRACT

The need to study at Kimara - Mbezi buildings has been called for by the excessive severity of

the cracks and deformation.

Normally such defects are due to structural failure, poor quality of construction materials and

workman ship, foundation failure etc.

The construction industry must therefore be able to see far beyond the repair of the individual

cracks.

For future of reviews of kimara - Mbezi buildings, this report can be used as a reference.

iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Grateful congratulation to my supervisors Mr.Msengi G.J and Dr.Msagasa for their advices.

Particular thanks to the project coordinator Mr.Kaswa for his directiveness as a subject master.

As well as to all technicians in the soil laboratory of the Dar es salaam Institute of Technology

including James and Raphael.

All in all, special thanks to my fellow students OD09C for their cooperation.

v

Contents DECLARATION ..............................................................................................................................

DEDICATION ................................................................................................................................ ii ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................... iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ............................................................................................................. iv LIST OF SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATION ........................................................................... vii CHAPTER ONE ............................................................................................................................. 1

1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Problem statement ............................................................................................................ 1

1.2 Objectives ......................................................................................................................... 2

1.2.1 Main objectives ......................................................................................................... 2

1.2.2 Specific objectives .................................................................................................... 2

1.3 Expected outcomes ........................................................................................................... 2

1.4 Methodology .................................................................................................................... 2

CHAPTER TWO ............................................................................................................................ 3

2 LITERATURE REVIEW ....................................................................................................... 3 2.1 General ............................................................................................................................. 3

2.2 Purpose of site investigation ............................................................................................ 3

2.3 Foundation failure ............................................................................................................ 3

2.4 Deformation ..................................................................................................................... 4

2.5 Materials and Workmanship ............................................................................................ 4

2.6 Soil investigation .............................................................................................................. 4

2.7 Soil classification ............................................................................................................. 4

2.8 Particle size classification ................................................................................................ 5

2.9 Texture classification ....................................................................................................... 5

2.10 Engineering properties of soil ....................................................................................... 5

2.10.1 Permeability .............................................................................................................. 5

2.10.2 Compressibility ......................................................................................................... 5

2.10.3 The Shear Strength .................................................................................................... 6

2.11 Laboratory tests ............................................................................................................ 6

2.11.1 Sieve analysis ............................................................................................................ 6

2.11.2 Natural moisture content ........................................................................................... 6

2.11.3 Atterberg limits ......................................................................................................... 7

2.11.4 Compaction ............................................................................................................... 8

CHAPTER THREE ...................................................................................................................... 10 3 DATA COLLECTION ......................................................................................................... 10

vi

3.1 Soil laboratory test results .............................................................................................. 10

A total of two soil samples were collected and tested in the soil laboratory, the summary of

results are presented in the provided tables and curves in appendices. .................................... 10

The data collected were of the following tests: ........................................................................ 10

Sieve analysis appendix 2 ................................................................................................. 10

Atterberg Limits appendix 3 .............................................................................................. 10

Compaction in appendix 2 ................................................................................................. 10

3.2 Compaction .................................................................................................................... 12

CHAPTER FOUR ......................................................................................................................... 13 4 DATA ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................... 13

4.1 Analysis of soil that have been tested ............................................................................ 13

4.2 Consistency limit ............................................................................................................ 13

4.3 Compaction test .............................................................................................................. 13

CHAPTER FIVE .......................................................................................................................... 14

5 CONLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION ...................................................................... 14 5.1 Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 14

5.2 Recommendation ............................................................................................................ 14

REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................. 15

Craig R.F (2004). Craig's Soil Mechanics (Seventh Edition) Chapman and Hall publications. . 15 Ministry of works (2000),. Central Material Laboratory (CML) (Novum Grafisk AS, Skjetten

Norway publications) .................................................................................................................... 15

Whitlow R (2001). Basic Soil Mechanics (Fourth edition) Pearson Education Limited

publications) .................................................................................................................................. 15

Barnes G (2000). Soil Mechanics Principles and Practice (second edition) Palgrave Macmillan

publications ................................................................................................................................... 15

APPENDIX 1 ................................................................................................................................ 16 APPENDIX 2 ................................................................................................................................ 20 APPENDIX 3 ................................................................................................................................ 23

vii

LIST OF SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATION

I. LL Liquid Limit

II. PL Plastic Limit

III. LS Linear Shrinkage

IV. BS British Standard

V. W Water Content

VI. PSD Particle Size Distribution

VII. OMC Optimum moisture content

VIII. MDD Maximum dry density’

1

CHAPTER ONE

1 INTRODUCTION Mbezi-Kimara is a district located in kinondoni municipal council Dar es Salaam city. It is

located 4kms from Ubungo bus terminal. The place is along Morogoro road from ubungo bus

terminal, it have different features like hills, valleys and other geographical features. The area

has different kind of soil materials that exists on it (earth’s surface). In this area some of the

buildings develop cracks which cause failures of structure such as buildings and other structural

elements. Normally cracks destroy the stability of the building due to that reasons user they have

to take periodic maintenance or reconstruction of the building may be needed hence costs may

arise.

1.1 Problem statement The visual observation most of the building in Mbezi - Kimara have cracks and deformation

which destroy the life span of the building

Figure 1; crack to one of the building

2

1.2 Objectives

1.2.1 Main objectives The causes of failure of buildings can be due to: the type of material use, the workmanship, the

root growth, the load imposed on it (especially if not design for the expected load) and the soil

that exists in the area.

1.2.2 Specific objectives To investigate the properties of soil that exists in Mbezi-Kimara

1.3 Expected outcomes To suggest the suitable foundation to be used so that will eradicate the deformation and cracks in

building.

1.4 Methodology Literature review

Data collection

Data analysis

3

CHAPTER TWO

2 LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 General The term soil has various meaning depending upon genera professional’s field in which it is

being used. To an engineer soil is unaggregated or uncemented deposits of minerals or organic

particles or fragments covering large portion of the earth’s crusts. It include with different

materials such as boulders, sands, gravels, clay and silts and the range in the particle sizes in the

soil may extend from grains only a fraction of micron (10-4cm)in diameters up to large boulders.

Crack is the structure failure due to load imposed on it, the stress which results in applied greater

load than those which the building or part can withstand may be internally or externally or due to

material. The stress situation, produced due to superimposed loads has been studied and also the

increment of stress that are likely to cause volume change of the soil.

2.2 Purpose of site investigation The need for the site investigation is necessary for the following reasons:

i. To forecast the difficulties which are likely to be encountered due to the nature of the

subsoil during construction and to take advance action in regard.

ii. To determine the bearing capacity of the soil.

iii. To select an economical and safe type of foundation.

iv. To determine the depth to which the foundation must be taken into the ground.

v. To predict the expected settlement of the selected foundation and to make allowance for

the same design.

vi. To know the underground water level and whether needed to decide up on the method to

be adopted to solve the ground water problem, such as pumping.

2.3 Foundation failure The failure of foundation may be caused by:

i. Lateral escape of the soil below the foundation

ii. Collapsing of a void under the structure

iii. Action of atmosphere

iv. Lateral pressure tending to overturn the structure

v. Shrinkage due to withdraw of moisture from the soil below the foundation

4

vi. Unequal settlement of the subsoil

vii. Horizontal movement of the soil adjoining the structure

viii. Unequal settlement of masonry.

2.4 Deformation It is considered like any structural member, the subsoil deforms when a load is applied into it.

The vertical components of deformation of the subsoil are known as “settlements” as long as it

consists of compression of the granular skeleton which depends on the stiffness of the materials,

characterized by its E’s value. Therefore the principle of settlement computation is only valid as

long as deformation of a soil mass due to an applied load remains mainly compression of the

granular skeleton and do not include any shear deformation.

2.5 Materials and Workmanship It is assumed that the quality of concrete and other materials and the workmanship, as verified by

inspection, should be as adequate for safety and serviceability.

2.6 Soil investigation Soil investigation is one of the important tasks to be considered under this type of project. The

information obtained from several soil tests conducted will provide important information which

would assist in establishing possible causes of the said severe cracks under study. Results of the

tests will enable us to know if there is any contribution of the soil properties to the failure of

these school buildings.

The aim of doing the soil tests is:

1) To classify the soil

2) To obtain Engineering properties of the soil.

2.7 Soil classification Soil classification is the arrangement of the soils into different groups such that the soils in a

particular group have similar behavior. It is a sort of labeling of soils with different labels. As

there is a wide variety of soils covering earth it is desirable to classify the soil into broad group

of similar behavior. It is more convenient to study the behavior of groups than that of individual

soils.

For a soil classification system to be useful to Geotechnical Engineers, it should have the

following basic requirements:

5

i. It should have limited number of groups

ii. It should base on Engineering Properties which are most relevant for the purpose for

which the classification has been made.

iii. It should be simple and should use the terms which are easily understood.

A Geotechnical Engineer is interested to know the suitability or otherwise of a soil as a

Foundation or a construction material. For completed knowledge, all the Engineering properties

are determined after conducting a large number of tests. However, approximate assessment of

the Engineering properties can be obtained from the index properties after conducting only

classification tests.

Soil is classified according to its index properties, such as particle size distribution, density and

plasticity characteristics.

2.8 Particle size classification The size of individual particles and distribution has an important influence on the behavior of

soil. It is not surprising that the first classification of soils based on particle sizes. It is a general

practice to classify the soil into four groups, namely: Gravel, Sand, Silt and Clay.

2.9 Texture classification Texture means visual appearance of the surface of a material such as fabric or cloth. The visual

appearance of the soil is called its texture. The texture depends upon the particle size, shape of

particles and gradation of particles.

2.10 Engineering properties of soil The main Engineering properties of soils are Permeability, Compressibility and Shear Strength.

2.10.1 Permeability Indicates the property of soil that allows water to flow through it.

2.10.2 Compressibility Is related with the deformations produced in soil when they are subjected to compressive loads.

Compression characteristics of a soil are required for computation of the settlements of structures

founded on it.

6

2.10.3 The Shear Strength This is its ability to resist shear stresses applied onto it. Shear strength determines the stability of

slopes, the bearing capacity of soils and the Earth pressure on retaining structures.

2.11 Laboratory tests In order to determine the classification of soil and its properties under load, Laboratory soil tests

are required to be conducted, the tests proposed will be the Gradation test, Atterberg Limits,

unconfined compression test as explained below.

2.11.1 Sieve analysis This test give the determination of the particle size distribution of the granular soil, in that it

presents the relative proportions of different sizes of particles. From this test it is possible to

determine whether the soil consists of predominantly gravel, sand, silt or clay sizes and to a

limited extent, which of these size ranges is likely to control the engineering properties of the

soil.

The soil sample was obtained by riffling to give a minimum mass of about 2.5kg and weighed,

M1, the sample was placed and sieved through 20mm BS sieve and the material passing 20mm

BS sieve was weighed, M2. The sample was riffled to get convenient fraction of about 0.5kg and

that fraction was weighed, M3. The riffled fraction was spread in the large tray and covered with

water, the material was washed through a 75um BS sieve allowing the material passing 75um BS

sieve to run to waste. The material retained on the sieve was transferred into a tray and dried in

an oven at 105◦c to 110◦c; material was allowed to cool and weighed, M4. The dried fractions ws

sieved through the appropriate sieve down to 75um BS sieve, the amount retained on each sieve

was weighed.

2.11.2 Natural moisture content This test used to determine the amount of water present in the soil expressed as the percentage of

the mass of the dry soil. Apparatus used including oven dry with a temperature of 105◦c to

110◦c, a balance readable to 0.1g, a metal container and desiccators. The container was cleaned

and dried, then weighed to the nearest 0.1g (M1), a represented sample crumbled and loosely

placed in the container, the container and sample immediately weighed (M2) and placed in an

oven to dry at 105◦c for minimum 12 hours, the container and sample weighed after drying

(M3).

7

The moisture content of the soil specimen, w, as a percentage of the dry soil mass to the nearest

0.1% calculated from the equation below:

W = (M2 – M3) x100%

(M3 – M1)

Where: M1 is the mass of container (in g)

M2 is the mass of container and wet soil (in g)

M3 is the mass of container and dry soil (in g)

2.11.3 Atterberg limits The significant of the atterberg limits tests is to understand the plasticity range of the soil so as to

adopt design climatic variations, i.e. during dry and rain periods. To identify the subgroup of the

soil- i.e. fine soils, silts, and clays.

2.11.3.1 Liquid limit This is the test which provides a means of identifying and classifying fine grained cohesive soil

especially when the plastic limit is known. Is the empirically established moisture content at

which the soil passes from liquid state to the plastic state.

The sample is first dried sufficiently for it to be broken up by mortar and pestles, with care of

being taken not to break individual particles. The soil is sieved and only the material passing

425um BS test sieve, the sample is then placed on the flat glass and mixed thoroughly with

distilled water using the palette knives until the mass becomes a thick homogeneous paste, this

paste is allowed to stand in the air tight container for 24 hours to allow water to permeate

through the soil mass. The sample is then removed from the desiccators and remixed soil paste is

pushed into the cup with a knife, taking care not to trap air. The excess soil is to be struck off

with the beveled edge of the straight edge to give smooth surface. The cone is leveled so that it

just touches the surface of the soil, when the cone is in the correct position, a slightly movement

of the cup will just mark the surface of the soil and the reading of the dial gauge is taken to the

nearest 0.0mm. The cone is then removed for a period of 5+seconds; the dial gauge reading is

noted as the final reading. The difference between the readings at the beginning and at the end of

the test is recorded as the cone penetration. The cone is lifted out and cleaned carefully, little

more wet soil shall be added to the average reading is recorded for one point.

The operation described above is repeated at least four times using the same sample to which

further increments of the distilled water added is to be chosen so that a range of penetration value

8

of approximately 15mm is covered. A relationship between moisture content and the cone

penetration as ordinates, both on linear scales. The moisture content corresponding to a cone

penetration of 20mm is taken as the liquid limit of the soil.

2.11.3.2 Plastic limit Is used together with the liquid limit to determine the Plasticity Index which when plotted

against the liquid limit on the plasticity chart provides a means of classifying cohesive soils.

Plastic limit is the empirically established moisture content at which a soil becomes too dry to be

plastic.

Plastic limit is found by rolling a ball of wet soil between the palm of hand and a glass plate to

reduce a thread of 3mm thick before the soil just begins to crumble. The water content of the soil

in this state is taken as the plastic limit.

2.11.3.3 Linear shrinkage Linear shrinkage value is a way of quantifying the amount of shrinkage likely to be experienced

by clayey material. The soil is prepared as illustrated in liquid limit test, about 150g specimen for

linear shrinkage test, this is then thoroughly remixed with distilled water to form a smooth

homogeneous paste at approximately the liquid limit of the soil. The mixture is then placed into a

brass taking care not to entrap air and the surface struck off level. The soil is air dried at 60-65◦c

until it has shrunk of the mould and then placed in an oven at 105-110◦c to complete drying.

After cooling the length of the sample is measured and the linear shrinkage obtained as follows:

Linear shrinkage (%) (1 – length after drying) x 100

Length before drying

2.11.4 Compaction This is the test used to determine the relationship between the compacted dry density and soil

moisture content using two magnitudes of manual compacted effort. The first is a light

compaction test using 2.5kg rammer (standard proctor), the second is heavy compaction test

using 4.5kg rammer with a great drop on thinner layer of soil (modified proctor). Optimum

moisture content for the type of compaction is the moisture content which gives the highest dry

density, in general optimum moisture content is less than Plastic Limit.

The mould with the base plate attached was weighed to the nearest 1g (M1), the extension collar

was attached and the mould was placed on the concrete floor, the quantity of moist soil was

placed in the mould such that when compacted it occupies a little over 1/3 of height of the mould

9

body. The rammer with guide on the material was placed on the mould and lifted its handle until

reach the top of the guide then was released allowing to drop freely on the sample. the process

was repeated systematically covering the entire surface of the sample a total of 27 blows was

applied. The extension collar was removed since all three layers are compacted, the excess soil

was strike off and the surface of the compacted to the top of the mould was leveled. The soil and

the mould with base plate attached to 1g were weighed. The compacted sample from the mould

was removed, a represented of sample of 300g of the soil was taken for determination of the

moisture content.

10

CHAPTER THREE

3 DATA COLLECTION

3.1 Soil laboratory test results A total of two soil samples were collected and tested in the soil laboratory, the summary of

results are presented in the provided tables and curves in appendices.

The data collected were of the following tests:

Sieve analysis appendix 2

Atterberg Limits appendix 3

Compaction in appendix 2

11

Sieve analysis

Dar es Salaam Institute of Technology.

Civil & Building Engineering Department.

Materials Testing Laboratory.

CLIENT: DAR ES SALAAM INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY Date: 12.01.2012

PROJECT:

SITE: PLOT # ………………………. KIMARA-BONYOKWA - KINONDONI MUNICIPALITY

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION BOREHOLE No. 1 1

Depth (m) 1.00-1.50 1.50-2.00

Sieve Size:(mm) %Passing.

6.3 100 100

4.75 98 98

3.35 98 97

2.00 97 96

1.18 94 92

0.600 79 76

0.425 68 64

0.300 59 53

0.212 48 43

0.150 41 35

0.063 40 34

CLASSIFICATION

USCS SC SC/CL

% Gravels 3 4

% Sand 57 62

% Fines 40 34

LL (%) 42 39

PL (%) 16 17

PI (%) 26 22

LS (%)

12

3.2 Compaction Sample no. 1 2

Maximum dry density (mg/m3) 2.165 2.100

Optimum moisture content (%) 8.60 8.50

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.01 0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00

Perc

enta

ge p

assin

g (

%)

Sieve size (mm)

Gradation Curve

1.00-1.50

1.50-2.00

13

CHAPTER FOUR

4 DATA ANALYSIS

4.1 Analysis of soil that have been tested The result of the soil used in the test revealed 3%, 57% and 40% fine content.

The consistency limit of 42%LL, 16%PL and 26% of PI was determined indicating the

soil is clay of intermediate plasticity.

Generally the soil is classified as clayey-SAND of intermediate plasticity (SCI)

4.2 Consistency limit Liquid decreases from 42% to 39% compared to sample 2 .i.e. 3%

Plastic limit increases from 16% to 17% compared with sample 2 i.e. 1%

Plasticity index decreases gradually 4% of the other sample.

4.3 Compaction test The maximum dry density (mg/m3) of the sample was 2.165of the 1st sample and

decreases to 2.100 of the 2nd sample.

The optimum moisture content of the 1st sample was 8.60 and decreases to 8.50 i.e. 0.10

of the sample 1

14

CHAPTER FIVE

5 CONLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

5.1 Conclusion

• From the tests performed in laboratory the major causes of the deformation and cracks

that exists in buildings of Mbezi-Kimara, from the project it has been concluded that,

being a clay soil, the soil shrinks in dry season and expands in rainy season, thus the

settlement in the soil changes and thus the building results into cracks and deformation.

5.2 Recommendation • It is recommended that the soil tests for any type of construction must be performed so

that the defects in building can eliminated, and saves the life span of the building

especially in areas where there is large amount of clay soil like Kimara-Mbezi, also the

material used in building should meet the specification of the building construction and

minimize the occurrence of the defects in building.

15

REFERENCES Craig R.F (2004). Craig's Soil Mechanics (Seventh Edition) Chapman and Hall publications.

Ministry of works (2000),. Central Material Laboratory (CML) (Novum Grafisk AS, Skjetten

Norway publications)

Whitlow R (2001). Basic Soil Mechanics (Fourth edition) Pearson Education Limited

publications)

Barnes G (2000). Soil Mechanics Principles and Practice (second edition) Palgrave Macmillan

publications

16

APPENDIX 1

Atterberg

17

Sample 1

Liquid limit : 42

Plastic limit (PL) 16

Plasticity index (PI) 26

14.3

17.4

20.2

23.8

y = 2.7974x - 98.761

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

39 40 41 42 43 44

CO

NE

PE

NE

TR

AT

ION

(m

m)

MOISTURE CONTENT (%)

CONE PENETRATION (mm) / MOISTURE CONTENT (%)




TO BS 1881 : Part 116 : 1983

ATTERBERGS' LIMITS TEST

CLIENT : DIT

BH No. 1

LOCATION : KIMARA - BONYOKWA

Sample No. D'S

OPERATOR : ALLEN

Depth(m):

1.00 -

1.50

DATE : 12.01.2012

Test No. 1 2 3 4

TYPE OF TEST LL LL LL LL PL PL

Initial dial gauge reading mm 2.5 3.2 2.6 3.3 2.2 3.1 3.4 2.0

Final gauge reading mm 16.5 17.1 19.5 20.0 22.0 24.0 26.0 25.0

Cone penetration mm 14.3 17.4 20.2 23.8

Container No. 8A 43 59 29 28 26

Mass of wet soli + container gm 67.70 57.60 58.60 57.40 54.90 53.40

Mass of dry soil + container gm 56.59 49.40 50.10 48.59 51.40 49.90

Mass of container gm 29.00 29.70 30.30 28.30 29.20 28.30

Mass of moisture gm 11.11 8.20 8.50 8.81 3.50 3.50

Mass of dry soil gm 27.59 19.70 19.80 20.29 22.20 21.60

Moisture content (w) % 40.27 41.62 42.93 43.42 15.77 16.20

Cone penetration mm 14.3 17.4 20.2 23.8 16

18

Sample 2




TO BS 1881 : Part 116 : 1983


CLIENT : DIT

BH No. 2


Sample No. D'S

OPERATOR : ALLEN

Depth(m):

1.50 -

2.00

DATE : 13.01.2012

Test No. 1 2 3 4





Container No. 3 51 37 31 46 12








Liquid limit : 39



13.6

16.8

21.1

25.3

y = 4.0211x - 137.57

121314151617181920212223242526

36 37 38 39 40 41

CO

NE

PE

NE

TR

AT

ION

(m

m)



19

Sample 3

Liquid limit : 39



13.2

16.6

19.8

24.7

y = 3.7138x - 126.14

121314151617181920212223242526

36 37 38 39 40 41

CO

NE

PE

NE

TR

AT

ION

(m

m)






TO BS 1881 : Part 116 : 1983


CLIENT : DIT

BH No. 1


Sample No. D'S

OPERATOR : ALLEN

Depth(m):

2.00 -

2.55

DATE : 14.01.2012

Test No. 1 2 3 4





Container No. 18 56A 34 5 24 B40








20

APPENDIX 2

Compaction

21



Soil Laboratory and Materials

BS 1377:1975 DRY DENSITY / MOISTURE CONTENT RELATIONSHIP

2.5kg (Rammer method)

Operator

ALLEN

Job:

Date

12.012012

Location: KIMARA - BONYOKWA

Description of soil

Single/Sepearte* Sample

Sample

No: 1

Amount retained on 200 mm BS test sieve (g) Depth(m)

1.00 -

1.50

Total mass of sample (g)

Proctor Modified Compaction

Test No 1 2 3 4

Mass of mould + base +

compacted soil m2 (g) 5735 5880 5898 5820

Mass of mould + base m1

(g) 3810 3810 3810 3810

Mass of compacted soil (m2-m1)

(g) 1925 2070 2088 2010

Bulk Density r = (m2-m1)/950

Mg/m3 2.026 2.179 2.198 2.116

Moisture Content Tin No D9 D51 D47 D44

Mass of wet soil + tin

(g) 433.2 339.9 419.1 477.1

Mass of dry soil + tin

(g) 416.2 320.6 385.4 426.6

Mass of tin

(g) 91.4 95.0 94.6 95.0

Moisture Content = w

(%) 5.2 8.5 11.6 15.2

Dry Density at 0% air void Mg/m3 2.328 2.161 2.027 1.889


Dry Density rd =100r/(100+w)

Mg/m3 1.926 2.008 1.970 1.837

Maximum dry Density(Mg/m3) = 2.165

Optimum moisture content (%) = 8.60

1.800

1.850

1.900

1.950

2.000

2.050

5.0 7.0 9.0 11.0 13.0 15.0 17.0 19.0

Dry

Den

sity

Mg

/m3

Moisture Content (%)

MODIFIED PROCTOR TEST


22



Soil Laboratory and Materials

BS 1377:1975 DRY DENSITY / MOISTURE CONTENT RELATIONSHIP

2.5kg*(Rammer method)

Operator

ALLEN

Job:

KINONDONI MUNICIPAL

COUNCIL.

Date

14.01.2012

Location: KIMARA - BONYOKWA

Description of soil

Single/Sepearte* Sample

Sample

No: 2

Amount retained on 200 mm BS test sieve (g) Depth(m)

1.50 -

2.00

Total mass of sample (g)


Test No 1 2 3 4

Mass of mould + base +

compacted soil m2 (g) 5733 5974 5955 5905

Mass of mould + base m1

(g) 3810 3810 3810 3810

Mass of compacted soil (m2-m1)

(g) 1923 2164 2145 2095

Bulk Density r = (m2-m1)/950

Mg/m3 2.024 2.278 2.258 2.205

Moisture Content Tin No D19 D29 D68 D47

Mass of wet soil + tin

(g) 675.0 540.6 698.9 581.4

Mass of dry soil + tin

(g) 648.2 505.8 634.9 522.8

Mass of tin

(g) 79.4 94.6 82.8 94.7

Moisture Content = w

(%) 4.7 8.5 11.6 13.7



Dry Density rd =100r/(100+w)

Mg/m3 1.933 2.100 2.023 1.940

Maximum dry Density(Mg/m3) = 2.100

Optimum moisture content (%)= 8.50

1.930

1.980

2.030

2.080

2.130

2.180

5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.0 15.0

Dry

Den

sity

Mg

/m3

Moisture Content (%)

MODIFIED PROCTOR TEST


23

APPENDIX 3

Classification

24

Sample 1




BS:1377:1990 : PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTIONS

Wet/Dry Sieving Method (Hydrometer Analysis )

Overall mass of sample (gm)

Pan No D 64

Mass of Pan + soil (gm)

Mass of Pan + dry soil (gm)

OPERATOR: ALLEN

Mass of Pan alone (gm)

DATE: 24.01.2012

Mass of water (gm)

Before Washing

mass of dry soil (gm)

Mass of Pan + soil (gm) 500.85 Moisture content %

Mass of Pan alone (gm) 230.83

Overall dry mass of

sample (gm)

Mass of soil (gm) 270.02 % Passing on 19mm %

Dry mass (gm) 270.02 Equivalent mass of sample used for test (gm)

After washing

Equivalent mass > 19mm used for test (gm)

Mass of Pan + soil (gm) 405.25 Correction Factor


Mass of dry soil (gm) 174.42

Mass of washed fines (gm) 95.60 Correction Factor 0.891216596

Mass of Dry Soil used for test 270.0

Bs test sieve

Mass of

Pan Mass Mass retained

%

retained

Total %

Passing

"+ soil Retained

Correction Value

Mass of Pan

75mm

63mm

50mm 100.0

37.5mm 100.0

25mm 100.0

19mm 100.0

Mass retained

Passing 19mm

Mass of Pan 230.83

12.5mm 230.83 0.0 0.0 0.0 100

10mm 230.83 0.0 0.0 0.0 100

6.3mm 230.83 0.0 0.0 0.0 100

Mass of Pan 230.83

4.75mm 236.25 5.4 4.8 1.8 98

3.35mm 232.22 1.4 1.2 0.5 98

2mm 233.21 2.38 2.1 0.8 97

1.18mm 239.82 9.0 8.0 3.0 94

600micron 276.77 45.9 40.9 15.2 79

425micron 263.52 32.7 29.1 10.8 68

300micron 259.66 28.8 25.7 9.5 59

212micron 262.44 31.6 28.2 10.4 48

150micron 251.59 20.8 18.5 6.9 41

63micron 235.37 4.5 4.0 1.5 40

Passing 243.99 13.2 108.8 40.3 -1

Total 195.71 271.5 100.5

25

Sample 2




BS:1377:1990 : PARTICLE SIZE

DISTRIBUTIONS

Wet/Dry Sieving Method (Hydrometer Analysis )

CLIENT: DIT

PROJECT:-

Overall mass of sample (gm)

BH NO:

Pan No

SAMPLE NO: 2

Mass of Pan + soil (gm)

DEPTH(m): 1.50 -2.00

Mass of Pan + dry soil (gm)

OPERATOR: ALLEN

Mass of Pan alone (gm)

DATE: 14.01.2012

Mass of water (gm)

Before Washing

mass of dry soil (gm)

Mass of Pan + soil (gm) 500.85 Moisture content %


Overall dry mass of

sample (gm)

Mass of soil (gm) 270.65 % Passing on 19mm %

Dry mass (gm) 270.65 Equivalent mass of sample used for test (gm)

After washing

Equivalent mass > 19mm used for test (gm)

Mass of Pan + soil (gm) 423.56 Correction Factor


Mass of dry soil (gm) 193.36

Mass of washed fines (gm) 77.29

Correction Factor 0.980626838 Mass of Dry Soil used for test 270.7

Bs test sieve Mass of

Pan Mass Mass retained %

retained Total % Passing

"+ soil Retained

Correction

Value

Mass of Pan 75mm 63mm 50mm 100.0

37.5mm 100.0

25mm 100.0

19mm 100.0

Mass retained

Passing 19mm

Mass of Pan 230.20

12.5mm 230.20 0.0 0.0 0.0 100 10mm 230.20 0.0 0.0 0.0 100 6.3mm 230.20 0.0 0.0 0.0 100 Mass of Pan 230.20 4.75mm 236.25 6.1 5.9 2.2 98 3.35mm 232.22 2.0 2.0 0.7 97

2mm 233.21 3.01 3.0 1.1 96

1.18mm 239.82 9.6 9.4 3.5 92

600micron 276.77 46.6 45.7 16.9 76

425micron 263.52 33.3 32.7 12.1 64

300micron 258.32 28.1 27.6 10.2 53

212micron 258.32 28.1 27.6 10.2 43

150micron 251.59 21.4 21.0 7.8 35

63micron 235.37 5.2 5.1 1.9 34

Passing 243.99 13.8 91.1 33.7 0

Total 197.18 270.9 100.1

Allen S John (PROJECT)

Documents

Transcript of Allen S John (PROJECT)