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
allen_38@live.com
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
Percentagepassing(%)
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

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
CONEPENETRATION(mm)
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
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
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
36 37 38 39 40 41
CONEPENETRATION(mm)

19
Sample 3
Liquid limit : 39
13.2
16.6
19.8
24.7
y = 3.7138x - 126.14
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
36 37 38 39 40 41
CONEPENETRATION(mm)
2.00 -
2.55
DATE : 14.01.2012
Test No. 1 2 3 4
Container No. 18 56A 34 5 24 B40

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
DryDensityMg/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
DryDensityMg/m3
Moisture Content (%)
MODIFIED PROCTOR TEST

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
Civil & Building Engineering
Department.
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)

Recomendados

Recomendados

Más contenido relacionado

Similar a Allen S John (PROJECT)

Similar a Allen S John (PROJECT) (20)

Allen S John (PROJECT)