CHAPTER FOUR

PRESENTATION OF DATA AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

4.1 PRESENTATION OF DATA

Results to present are as follows:

1) Natural moisture contents

2) Sieve analysis

3) Specific gravity

4) Atterberg limit

5) Compaction

6) Triaxial test
 DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
ENUGU STATE UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND
TECHNOLOGY, ENUGU
LABORATORY TEST FOR MATERIALS
DETERMINATION OF NATURAL MOISTURE
CONTENT

PROJECT NO: 1 LOCATION: ENGINEERING LABORATORY,

LABORATORY REF. NO:… OPERATOR:ABU VINCENT DATE:………
OCT 3RD 2023.

Borehole No.
Sample No.
Depth: 1.5m
Tin No: A E2 B H3
Wet wt. of Soil +Tin 113.6 111.2
Dry wt. of soil + Tin 105.1 102
Wt. of Tin 9.9 9.9
Wt. of Water 8.5 9.2
Wt. of Dry Soil 95.2 92.1
Moisture Content 8.9% 10%
Average M.C. % 9.5%
 DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING AND
ENUGU STATE UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, ENUGU
LABORATORY TEST FOR MATERIALS AND STRUCTURES
TABLE 4.7c: DETERMINATION OF PARTICLE SIZE AGGREGATED
SIEVE ANALYSIS
ENGINEERING FACULTY
Project No: 1 Location: Engineering Faculty, Depth: 1.5m

Laboratory Ref. No:… Operator: Abu Vincent Date: 6/10/2023

Weight Wt. Cumulative Percentage

B.S Sieve sizes Retained (g) Percentage weight Passing
percentage
Retained retained

¾“ 19,mm
½“ 12.5mm
3/8” 9.5mm - - - 100
3/16” 4.75mm 2.1 0.525 0.525 99.475
No 7 2.4mm 8.55 2.138 2.663 97.337
14 1.18mm 4.0 1.0 3.663 96.337
25 600pm 13.55 3.388 7.051 92.9499
36 425pm 24.9 6.375 19.651 80.349
52 300pm 25.5 6.375 19.651 80.349
100 150pm 99.9 24.975 44.626 55.374
200 75pm 50.06 12.515 57.141 42.859
Passing No 200
Total

Mass of dry sample before washing = 400g

Mass of dry sample after wash = 380g

 DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
ENUGU STATE UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY,
ENUGU
LABORATORY TEST FOR MATERIALS
DETERMINATION OF SPECIFIC GRAVITY

PROJECT NO: 1 LOCATION: Engineering Laboratory.

LABORATORY REF.NO:… OPERATOR:…ABU VINCENT

DATE: 03/10/2023

Borehole No.
Sample No.
Depth: 1.5m
Density Bottle No. A B

Wt. of Density Bottle (w1) 26.00 30.80

Wt. of Bottle + Dry Soil (w2) 73.70 84.60
Wt. of Bottle + D/Soil + Water 104.65 122.30
(w3)
Wt. of Bottle + Water (w4) 76.30 89.50
𝑤 2 − 𝑤1 2.47 2.56
𝑆𝐺 =
(𝑤4 − 𝑤1 ) − (𝑤3 − 𝑤2 )
Average SG 2.52
 ATTERBERG LIMITS
PROJECT:

%
MOISTURE CONTENT
SAMPLE NO: TAKEN BY: ABU VINCENT DATE:

LABORATORY NO: TESTED BY ABU VINCENT DATE: 5TH OCT., 2023

NUMBER OF BLOWS 10 15 32 38 47 PLASTIC LIMIT

MOISTURE CONTENT TIN NO A B

1 2 3 4 5
WEIGHT OF TIN PLUS WET SOIL 31.9 23.6
g 37.3 51.6 53.7 60.4 67.1
WEIGHT OF TIN PLUS DRY SOIL 31
22.3
g 32.92 44.9 47 53.3 50.5
WEIGHT OF TIN 19.15
12.6
g 12.3 13.5 12.7 12.7 12.2
WEIGHT OF WATER g 0.9 1.3
4.38 6.70 6.70 7.1 16.6
11.8
WEIGHT OF DRY SOIL g 9.7
21.24 21.34 34.3 40.6 38.3 5
19.5 17.5 7.59
MOISTURE CONTENT % 13.40
21.24 21.34 3 0 43.34
FACTOR AVERAGE P.L
ONE POINT METHOD
LIQUID LIMIT % 10.50
 USING STANDARD/HEAVY COMPACTION
Contract No............................................Location
M.L...................Ch.................Opers............................. ABU VINCENT
Soil
type..............................................................Depth...............................Date:.................
SANDY SOIL 1.5m 05/10/2023
.....................
Amount retained on 3/4” B.S. Sieve:...................g....................Total weight of
6000
sample.....................g......
B.S.*/C.B.R.*Mould.....................................................................................Delete the
inappropriate word 6% 8%
10% 12% 14%

Wt. of mould and wet soil..............

(W2)..................g........ 10024 10205 10296 10389 10205
Wt. of mould ...................................
(W2)..................g...... ..5488 5488 5488 5488 5488

Wt. of wet soil ........................(W2-

W1)....................g....... 4536
.
4717 4808 4899 4717

Bulk density = W2-W1........................................ ..g/cm3 3.0 3.12 3.18 3.24 3.12

X
For B.S. Mould x = 1512 f or C.B.R. Mould X = 37.11

MOISTURE CONTENT DETERMINATIONS

A B A B A B A B A B
Container No.........................................................

69.7 62.6 94 86.5 90.9 69.2 87.5 76.8 77.5 80.2

Wt. of Wet soil and container...................g...........

66.2 60.0 80.0 81.7 71.7 73.5

Wt. of dry soil and contai.........................g........... 0 8 87.7 9 85.0 64.2 0 70.08 0 0

Wt. of container.......................................g........... 19.1 12.8 13.2 11.6 12.2 13.3 13.2 12.3 12.9 12.8

47.2 68.4
Wt. of dry soil (Wa).................................g........... 47.1 8 74.5 9 72.8 50.9 68.5 57.78 58.8 60.7

Wt of moisture (Wm)..............................g........... 3.5 2.52 6.3 6.41 5.9 5.0 5.8 6.72 5.8 6.7

11.0
Moisture content 100m/s..................................% 7.4 5.3 8.4 9.4 8.1 9.8 8.5 11.6 9.9 3

10.46
6.35 8.9 8.55 10.05
Average moisture content (m)..........................%
 2.82 2.86 2.93 2.94 2.83
Dry density - d - 100 - 100+m...................g/cm3

C.B.R.................................................................%
Max. Dry Density g/cm2.94
Optimum Moisture Content %10.05
C.B.R. AT O.M.C. %

0
4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
20
Maximum content %
 ENUGU STATE UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
MATERIALS TESTING & RESEARCH LABOURTORY
UNCONSOLIDATED-UNDRAINED TRIAXAIAL
TEST
LOCATION…………………………………………….DEPTH………………………………..OPERATOR……………………
…Date

Length of Specimen (a)…………………………. (b)………………………(c) …………………………

Diameter…………………75mm 75mm 75mm 38m

Net weight of specimen (a)…………………………. 150.9 grams (b)………………………….………(c)

………………………………………..151.4 grams 151.8 grams

M/C: (a)…………………………. (b)………………………(c) ………………………9.3% 10.3% 9.4%

Proving Ring No………………………..Ring constant……………………………Rate of Strain…………………….

0.00297kN
%/min
WEIGHT/PRESSURE 70KN/m 140KN/m 210KN/m

STRAIN STRATA AREA OF STRESS FORCE STRESS FORCE STRESS FORCE

DIAL % SPECIMEN DIAL DIAL DIAL
READING READING READING READING
0.5 0.00114 6 0.0176 15.61 5 0.0149 13.07 6 0.0238 20.88
1.0 0.001146 9 0.0267 23.30 10 0.0297 25.92 12 0.0356 31.06
1.5 0.001151 10 0.0297 25.80 14 0.0416 36.14 16 0.0475 41.27
2.0 0.001157 11 0.0327 28.26 18 0.0535 45.24 20 0.0594 51.34
2.5 0.001163 12 0.0356 10.61 21 0.0674 53.65 24 0.0713 61.31
3.0 0.001169 13 0.0366 33.02 24 0.0713 60.99 27 0.0802 68.61
3.5 0.001175 15 0.0446 37.56 26 0.0772 65.70 31 0.0921 78.38
4.0 0.001181 16 0.0475 40.22 27 0.0802 67.90 34 0.1010 85.52
4.5 0.001188 18 0.0535 45.03 28 0.0832 70.03 35 0.1040 87.54
5.0 0.001194 19** 0.0564 47.74 29** 0.0861 72.11 36** 0.1069 89.53
5.5 0.001200 18 0.0535 44.58 29 0.0861 71.75 35 0.1040 86.67
6.0 0.00121 17 0.0505 41.74 29 0.0861 71.16 33 0.980 60.99
6.5 0.001213
7.0 0.001219
7.5 0.001226
8.0 0.001233
8.5 0.001234
COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH AT FAILURE (A) (B) (C)

CORRESPONDING STRENGTH (A) (B) (C)

SIGN………………………………………………………………………………
DATE……………………………………………………
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5
8

Normal Stress (KN/M2)

Calculation

Length of specimen = 75mm = 7.5cm

Diameter of specimen = 38mm = 3.8cm

2
π D2 π ( 3.8 )
Area, A= = =11.34 c m2= A0
4 4
2
π D2 H π ( 3.8 ) ×7.5
Volume , V = = =85.06 c m3
4 4

Ao 11.34 2
A 1= = =0.114c m
100−Strain ( % ) 100−0.5

Ao 11.34 2
A 2= = =0.110 c m
100−Strain (%) 100−1

Ao 11.34 2
A3 = = =0.115c m
100−Strain (%) 100−1.5

Ao 11.34 2
A 4= = =0.116 c m
100−Strain(%) 100−2

Ao 11.34 2
A5 = = =0.116c m
100−Strain (%) 100−2.5

Ao 11.34 2
A6 = = =0.117c m
100−Strain (%) 100−3

Ao 11.34 2
A7 = = =0.118c m
100−Strain (%) 100−3.5

Ao 11.34 2
A8 = = =0.118 c m
100−Strain (%) 100−4.0

Ao 11.34 2
A9 = = =0.119 c m
100−Strain (%) 100−4.5

Ao 11.34 2
A10= = =0.119 c m
100−Strain(%) 100−5.0

Ao 11.34 2
A11 = = =0.120 c m
100−Strain(% ) 100−5.5

Ao 11.34 2
A12= = =0.121 c m
100−Strain(%) 100−6
 Ao 11.34 2
A13= = =0.121 c m
100−Strain ( % ) 100−6.5

Ao 11.34 2
A14 = = =0.122c m
100−Strain ( % ) 100−7.0

Ao 11.34 2
A15= = =0.123 c m
100−Strain(%) 100−7.5

Calculating the sample unit weight

Weight of specimen A = 150.9g

Weight of specimen B = 151.8g

Weight of specimen C = 151.4g

15 0.9+ 151.8+ 151.4
Average= =15 1.4 g
3

15 1.4 3
∴ γ =unit weig h t of soil= =1.78 g /c m
85.06
3 3
γ =1. 78 g/c m =17. 4 6 KN m

Calculating the force

Force = Dial reading x ring constant

Where ring constant = 0.310

Calculating the compressive strength

force
Strengt h=
area of specimen

Calculating values for the Mohr circle

For 70KN/m2
47.74 2
+70=93.87 KN m → centre
2
47.74+70 = 117.74KN/m2  End of Mohr circle

For 140KN/m2
72.11 2
+ 140=176.06 KN m → centre
2

72.11+140 = 212.11KN/m2  End of Mohr circle

For 210KN/m2
86.67 2
+210=2 53.34 KN m → centre
2

86.67+210 = 296.67KN/m2  End of Mohr circle

Calculating the bearing capacity of the soil sample using the

value obtained from the Mohr circle which is C &  and r as
previously obtained.

C = 30, ∅ = 80, γ = 17.46KN/m3

Assumed breadth = 1.2m

Depth, Df = 1.2m
1
qu= BγNy +CNc + γ D f Nq
2

From Terzaighi’s bearing capacity factors, at ∅ =80

Nc = 8.60, Ny = 0.35, Nq = 2.21

1
q u= ×1.2 ×17. 4 6× 0. 35+30 ×8.60+17. 4 6 ×1.2 ×2.21
2
2
q u=307.97 KN m

q nu=q u−γ D f =307.97−17. 4 6 ×1.2

2
q nu=2 87.02 KN m

The safe bearing capacity, q s

q nu
q s=
fs
Where fs = 2.5 (assumed)
287.02 2
∴ q s= =114.81 KN m
2.5
2
q s=114.81 KN m
 4.2 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

The laboratory investigations have shown some quality

information from which the following discussions were made.

This research work provides a review of the physical properties,

as well as the bearing capacity of the soil, in the Faculty of

Engineering, ESUT, Agbani. The sample was gotten from one

borrow pit, with depth range of 0.5-2m depth.

The result obtained from natural moisture content (M.C=9.5%),

which when compared to liquid limit (LL=24.59%) shows that the

soil is brittle, having swell problem.

The results gotten from sieve analysis shows that 42.86% of the

soil sample passed through sieve no 200 which is a clear

indication of low plasticity.

The specific gravity test gave an average value of 2.52, showing

that any structure on this soil will not float.

The Atterberg limit test yielded liquid limit (LL) ranges as

24.59%, the plastic limit (PL) ranges as 10.50% and (PI) ranges as

14.09%, these low values of consistency limits indicates the

presence of low clay content.

According to the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS), the

soil investigated in this research area (Engineering Faculty,

ESUT, Agbani) is classified as Silty sands, sand-silt mixtures.

From compaction test, the optimum moisture content (OMC) was

10.05% while maximum dry density (MDD) was 2.94g/cc, which

falls in the standard range of soils.

Triaxial test was also carried out to determine the shear strength

parameters of the soil, in which the cohesion (C) = 30KN/m² and

the angle of repose =8° and from which the soil bearing capacity

was calculated, using Terzaghi's equation to be 307.97KN/M².

After all these tests carried out and the values gotten, it was

observed that the soil in the Engineering Faculty, has an

appreciable strength. However, deigns should be strictly followed

before erecting any structure in the study area.

 CHAPTER FIVE

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

5.1 CONCLUSION

Based on site survey and laboratory investigations carried

out, it has revealed some relevant information from which the

following conclusions were made.

1) The site where this project was carried out (Engineering

Faculty, Agbani, ESUT) has a gentle slope topography and has its

geological strata made up of silt sand.

2) From soil classification, using USCS standard, the soil is a

Silty sands, sand-silt mixtures.

3) For any new foundation structure to be constructed within the

Engineering Faculty, there's need to carry out reconnaissance on

the existing structures and obtain geotechnical records. But if

the previous data could not be obtained, then there's need to

carry out laboratory investigations on the study area.

4) The type of footing adopted for the foundation of structures to

be put on site in Agric Faculty based on its bearing capacity are

as follows;

a) Strip footing for bungalows

b) Strip footing for 1-2 storey building

c) Pad footing for 3-4 storey buildings

d) Pile for high rise buildings.

5.2 RECOMMENDATION

To recommend any exercise in the area of erection of structures,

using the soil parameters gotten from the soil classification tests,

I would say that the whole area covered by this project is in good

terms to carry massive loads. However, the analysis and design

above must be strictly adhered to.