KABALE UNIVERSITY

FACULTY OF ENGINEERING, TECHNOLOGY, APPLIED DESIGN AND FINE ART.

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

GEOTECHNICAL REPORT

GROUP B

YEAR III

BCE 3103 FOUNDATION ENGINEERING

FIELD SUPERVISOR: MR. MASAMBA PINTO

@group B 2022
GROUP B MEMBERS

NAME REG NO.

1. MUSASIZI JOSEPH 2019/A/KCE/0154/F

2. LOCHI CHARLES 2019/A/KCE/0097/G/F

3. BAGUMA NELSON 2019 /A/KCE/0148/F

4. BEINOMUGISHA DEUS 2019/A/KCE/0088/G/F

5. MUKIISA JOHN 2019/A/KCE/0008/G/F

6. MUSINGUZI ELPHAZI 2019/A/KCE/1474/F

7. KATEREGGA JONATHAN 2019/A/KCE/1272/F

8. TURINOMUHANGI ANDREW 2021/A/KCE/1901/F

9. MUHINDO JOSEPH 2019/A/KCE/1266/F

10. OYESIGYE LENIN 2020/A/KCE/1064/F

11. NANSASIRA DAN 2020/A/KCE/1806/G/F

12. KANSIIME MOSES MUHANGI 2020/A/KCE/0615/F

13. EDOGU JONATHAN 2019/A/KCE/0011/G/F

14. AKILLEG JOSEPH 2019/A/KCE/1281/F

15. RUTABANDAMA ABEL 2021/A/KCE/1900/F

16. AHUMUZA STUART 2020/A/KCE/1862/F

17. BATARINGAYA ANORLD 2020/A/KCE/1919/F

18. AINE RAYMOND 2020/A/KCE/0605/F

19. NATWEETA BRIDGET 2020/A/KCE/2044/F

20. ARUHO BENJAMIN 2021/A/KCE/1884/F

21. ITANGAYENDA JORAM 2019/A/KCE/0092/G/F

@group B 2022
 DEDICATION
We dedicate this group geotechnical report to God the Almighty, who blessed with energy and
knowledge to handle this piece of work.

We also dedicate this group geotechnical report to our beloved parents and guardians for the
continuous support they have always rendered to us in pursuit of our academic dreams regarding
the achievement of a bachelor’s degree in Civil engineering at Kabale University.

Lastly but not least, we dedicate this piece of writing, to our beloved lecturer, Mr. Dun B
Tukwatse and our beloved technician Mr. Masamba pinto for the tireless efforts invested in us
towards the operation, compilation of our Geotechnical report. Really we can’t thank you
enough.

@group B 2022
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Contents
LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................................................................... 7
LIST OF CHARTS ......................................................................................................................... 7
CHAPTER ONE ............................................................................................................................. 9
1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 9
CHAPTER TWO .......................................................................................................................... 10
2.0 FIELD OPERATIONS ....................................................................................................... 10
2.1 DYNAMIC CONE PENETROMETER TEST .................................................................. 10
2.1.1 Apparatus .................................................................................................................... 10
2.1.2 Procedure ..................................................................................................................... 10
2.1.3 Dynamic Cone Penetrometer results ........................................................................... 11
CHAPTER THREE ...................................................................................................................... 15
3.0 LABORATORY TESTS .................................................................................................... 15
3.1 LIQUID LIMIT TEST (CASAGRANDE METHOD) ....................................................... 15
3.1.1 Apparatus .................................................................................................................... 15
3.1.2 Procedure ..................................................................................................................... 15
3.1.3 Liquid Limit results ..................................................................................................... 16
3.2 PLASTIC LIMIT TEST. .................................................................................................... 18
3.2.1 Apparatus .................................................................................................................... 18
3.2.2 Procedure ..................................................................................................................... 18
3.2.3 Plastic limit results ...................................................................................................... 18
3.3 PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION ................................................................................... 19
3.3.1 Apparatus .................................................................................................................... 19
3.3.2 Procedure ..................................................................................................................... 19
3.3.3 Particle Size Distribution results ................................................................................. 20
CHAPTER FOUR ......................................................................................................................... 22
4.1 CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................. 22
4.1.1 Field work Results ........................................................................................................... 22
4.1.2 Laboratory Results ........................................................................................................... 22

@group B 2022
 4.2 LESSONS LEARNT .......................................................................................................... 22
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................. 23
APPENDICES .............................................................................................................................. 24

@group B 2022
 ABSTRACT
This piece of writing documents various geotechnical activities we were involved in our practical
sessions at Nyabikoni Campus, Kabale University, Kabale Municipality, Kabale District.

Field tests play an important role in Geotechnical investigations for determining in-situ bearing
capacities

We engaged in various activities which included, pit excavation, DCP test both after removal of
vegetable soils and at 1.5m deep, picking the soil samples, and taking them to the lab for soil
analysis experiments which include; Particle size distribution and Atterberg limits.

The DCP Test was done using a Dynamic Cone Penetrometer.

The Casagrande machine was used for Liquid limit test.

At the end of the activity, we were able to get the in-situ bearing capacities at different soil layers
and even further took our samples to the lab, where lab tests were done and we were able to
grade the soil and find out the plasticity index value of the soil sample got from the pit we dug.

@group B 2022
 LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Dynamic Cone Penetrometer values at ground level ...................................................... 11
Table 2 DCP test values at 1.5m ................................................................................................... 13
Table 3 Values for liquid limit ...................................................................................................... 16
Table 4 Values for plastic limit ..................................................................................................... 18
Table 5 Values for particle size distribution ................................................................................. 20

LIST OF CHARTS

Chart 1 CBR values against depth ................................................................................................ 12

Chart 2 CBR against Depth at 1.5m ............................................................................................ 14
Chart 3 Liquid limit chart ............................................................................................................. 17
Chart 4 Particle size distribution chart ........................................................................................ 21

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Students carrying out the DCP Test after removing 300mm vegetable soils ............... 10
Figure 2: Students preparing samples for Atterberg limits. ......................................................... 17
Figure 3: Students washing the samples for particle size distribution. ........................................ 19

@group B 2022
 LIST OF ACRONYMS
DCPT – Dynamic Cone Penetration Test.

LL – Liquid Limit

PL- Plastic Limit

PI – Plastic Index

PSD – Particle Size Distribution.

CBR – California Bearing Ratio

Mm – Millimeters

@group B 2022
 CHAPTER ONE

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Field tests play an important role in Geotechnical investigations for determining in-situ bearing
capacities and samples collected from the site of investigation can be taken to the laboratories to
perform tests that can be used to classify the soil determining on the properties observed.
As required, students of Civil Engineering under group B, performed Geotechnical investigations
at a selected site at Kabale University, Faculty of Engineering, Technology, Applied Art and
Design. The scope of work included performing a DCP Test at a set Datum to use as an initial
Ground level after excavation of 300mm vegetable soils and we excavated to a depth of 1.5m
below that datum and performed another DCP test and all results were collected and analyzed.
Part of the soil excavated was collected and was used to perform laboratory tests such as Particle
Size Distribution (Sieve Analysis) and The Atterberg Limits Tests (consistency limits) so as to
efficiently classify the soil.

@group B 2022
 CHAPTER TWO

2.0 FIELD OPERATIONS

The main field operation carried out was the Dynamic Cone Penetrometer test at depths 0m and
1.5m with part of the excavated soil collected and transported back to the laboratory for further
testing

2.1 DYNAMIC CONE PENETROMETER TEST

The test is performed in accordance to ASTM D6951 Standard Test Method for Use of the
Dynamic Cone Penetrometer in Shallow Pavement Applications. It’s penetration rate may be
related to in situ strength such as an in-situ CBR

2.1.1 Apparatus
 8kg Hammer
 Tip with 20mm diameter
 1m drive rod with 16mm diameter
 Graduated vertical scale rod
 Anvil/coupler assembly

2.1.2 Procedure
 Before the beginning of the test, the DCP device is inspected for fatigue damaged
parts and all joints being secured.
 The initial reading is taken from the graduated scale rod.
 The operator holds the device in vertical or plumb position and the assisting operator
lifts and releases the hammer through a standard drop height (575mm).
 The recorder measures and records the total penetration for a given number blows.

Figure 1: Students carrying out the DCP Test after removing 300mm vegetable soils

@group B 2022
2.1.3 Dynamic Cone Penetrometer results

Table 1: Dynamic Cone Penetrometer values at ground level

DYNAMIC CONE PENETRATION TEST(DCPT)

After removal of vegetable soils
DEPTH PENETRATION ALLOWABLE
NO OF TOTAL READING( CORRECTED RATE(mm/blow) BEARING
CBR
BLOWS BLOWS mm) FOR ZERO FPR EACH NO OF CAPACITIES(
READING(mm) BLOWS Kpa)
0 0 119 0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1 1 141 22 22.0 11.5 44.2
1 2 168 49 27.0 9.3 38.3
1 3 197 78 29.0 8.6 36.4
1 4 235 116 38.0 6.5 30.1
2 6 316 197 40.5 6.0 28.8
1 7 351 232 35.0 7.0 31.9
1 8 381 262 30.0 8.3 35.5
1 9 417 298 36.0 6.8 31.3
1 10 450 331 33.0 7.5 33.2
1 11 483 364 33.0 7.5 33.2
1 12 512 393 29.0 8.6 36.4
1 13 525 406 13.0 20.1 63.9
1 14 554 435 29.0 8.6 36.4
2 16 577 458 11.5 22.8 69.6
3 19 626 507 16.3 15.8 54.4
3 22 709 590 27.7 9.0 37.6
2 24 769 650 30.0 8.3 35.5
2 26 817 698 24.0 10.5 41.5
3 29 871 752 18.0 14.2 50.8
2 31 905 786 17.0 15.1 52.9
2 33 941 822 18.0 14.2 50.8
2 35 988 869 23.5 10.7 42.2

@group B 2022
Chart 1: CBR values against depth from ground surface

@group B 2022
Table 2: DCP test values at 1.5m

At a depth of 1.5m
DEPTH PENETRATION ALLOWABLE
NO OF CORRECTED RATE(mm/blow) BEARING
TOTAL BLOWS
READING(mm) CBR
BLOWS FOR ZERO FPR EACH NO OF CAPACITIES(
READING(mm) BLOWS Kpa)
0 0 143 0 0 0.0 0.0
1 1 172 29 29 8.6 36.4
1 2 203 60 31 8.0 34.7
1 3 240 97 37 6.6 30.7
1 4 285 142 45 5.4 26.7
1 5 331 188 46 5.3 26.3
1 6 371 228 40 6.1 29.0
1 7 420 277 49 4.9 25.2
1 8 485 342 65 3.7 20.6
1 9 554 411 69 3.4 19.8
1 10 601 458 47 5.2 25.9
1 11 633 490 32 7.7 34.0
1 12 678 535 45 5.4 26.7
1 13 733 590 55 4.4 23.2
1 14 789 646 56 4.3 22.9
1 15 821 678 32 7.7 34.0
1 16 860 717 39 6.3 29.5
1 17 900 757 40 6.1 29.0
1 18 936 793 36 6.8 31.3
1 19 978 835 42 5.8 28.1
1 20 1000 857 22 11.5 44.2

@group B 2022
Chart 2 : CBR against Depth at 1.5m

@group B 2022
 CHAPTER THREE

3.0 LABORATORY TESTS

The soil that was returned was to the laboratory was subjected to the following laboratory tests
so as to classify the soil.

3.1 LIQUID LIMIT TEST (CASAGRANDE METHOD)

This test is done to determine the water content at which the soil starts behaving like a liquid.
The test is done according to BS EN ISO 17892-12: Geotechnical investigation and testing –
Laboratory testing of soil. Determination of liquid and plastic limits

3.1.1 Apparatus
 Spatula
 Distilled water
 425 micron IS sieve
 Moisture Tins
 Flat glass mixing plate
 Weighing balance
 Oven
 Grooving tool

3.1.2 Procedure
 The casagrande is placed on a solid and level surface.
 Add the remolded paste to the cup with a spatula taking care not to trap air. Press the soil
down and spread it out into the cup to a depth of at least 10mm to it’s deepest point.
 Use the grooving tool to a cut a groove into the soil paste exposing the face of the cup at
the base of the groove.
 Lift and drop the cup at about 2 revolutions per second.
 Stop rotating as soon as the groove has closed over a length of 10mm.
 The number of bumps for the gap is measured and should range between 15-35
 A specimen from the zone that closed after being cut by the groove of at least 15g is
removed and placed in the moisture tin of known weight
 The mass of specimen and moisture tin is measured before placing it in the oven.
 Repeat the procedure for at least 3more times.
 The samples are placed in the oven for 24hrs and the mass of moisture tin and dried
sample is measured
 A graph of moisture content against Number of Blows is plotted
 The liquid limit is determined as the moisture content at 25blows

@group B 2022
3.1.3 Liquid Limit results

Table 3 : Values for liquid limit

Description Liquid Limit

Observation
1 2 3 4
No.
No. Of Blows
23 18 15 32
Container No.
A B C D
Weight of
container(W1)
10 10 25 10
Weight of
container
+wet soil(W2)
95 95 105 93
Weight of
container +
Dried
soil(W3) 65 55 46 80
Weight of
Water(W2-
W3) 30 40 59 13
Water
content(%) 35.3 47.1 73.8 15.7

@group B 2022
 LIQUID LIMIT CHART
100.0

90.0

80.0

70.0

60.0
Water content

50.0

40.0

30.0

20.0

10.0 y = -3.0877x + 110.87

0.0
1 10 100
Number of blows

Chart 3: Liquid limit chart

From the chart the liquid limit was determined to be 30.13%

Figure 2: Students preparing samples for Atterberg limits.

@group B 2022
 3.2 PLASTIC LIMIT TEST.
This is the water content at which a soil ceases to be plastic and starts behaving like a brittle
solid. This test is also done according to BS EN ISO 17892-12: Geotechnical investigation and
testing – Laboratory testing of soil. Determination of liquid and plastic limits

3.2.1 Apparatus
 Spatula
 A standard glass plate
 A length of rod with a diameter of 3mm and a length of 100mm.
 Moisture tins

3.2.2 Procedure
This test was a continuation of the liquid limit test after material was left to dry partially.
The material was then rolled on a glass plate till it was 3mm in diameter.
The wet material in the tin was weighed and recorded.
The rolled material was then placed into moisture tins and placed in an oven and left to dry for
about 24 hours.
The dried material with the tin was also weighed and recorded.

3.2.3 Plastic limit results

Table 4 : Values for plastic limit

Mass of Wet soil + container

30.1 29.8
(W1)

Mass of Dry soil +

26 27.8
container(W2)

Mass of Container(W0) 16.7 15.9

Moisture 4.1 2

Mass of Dry soil 9.3 11.9

Moisture content 30.6 14.4

Average moisture content 22.49

@group B 2022
From the above results the plastic limit was established to be 22.49%

3.3 PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION

This test was done according to BS 1377-2-1990. British Standard Methods of test for Soils for
Civil Engineering Purposes. Classification Tests

3.3.1 Apparatus
 Sieves 20mm, 14mm, 10mm, 6.3mm, 5.0mm, 2.36mm, 2.0mm, 1.18mm, 0.6mm,
0.425mm, 0.3mm, 0.150mm and 0.075mm.
 Retainer/pan
 Weighing balance readable to 0.5g.
 Standard metal trays
 Sieve brushes

3.3.2 Procedure
 A representative sample obtained by quartering and sieving through the 20mm sieve and
weighed.
 The sample was then washed and weighed before being placed in an oven
 The sample was dried at a temperature of 1050C for 24 hours.
 The dried sample was then sieved through 20mm, 14mm, 10mm, 6.3mm, 5.0mm,
2.36mm, 2.0mm, 1.18mm, 0.6mm, 0.425mm, 0.3mm, 0.150mm and 0.075mm.
 The material retained on each of the sieves was weighed and the weights recorded.
 A graph of Dry mass of sample against sieve size is plotted

Figure 3: Students washing the samples for particle size distribution.

@group B 2022
3.3.3 Particle Size Distribution results

Table 5 : Values for particle size distribution

PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION (SIEVE ANALYSIS)

Date: 28th May, 2022
Initial dry mass (g) 2517
Sieve(mm) Mass retained(g) % Retained Cumulative %passing
20 0 0.00 100
14 10 0.40 99.60
10 75 2.98 96.62
6.3 175 6.95 89.67
5 130 5.16 84.51
3.35 175 6.95 77.55
2 165 6.56 71.00
1.18 145 5.76 65.24
0.6 245 9.73 55.50
0.425 145 5.76 49.74
0.3 450 17.88 31.86
0.15 740 29.40 2.46
0.063 55 2.19 0.28
pan 5 0.20 0.08

@group B 2022
 Particle size distribution chart
120

100

80
Cumulative %passing

60

40

20

0
0.05 0.5 5 50
Sieve size(mm)

Chart 4 : Particle size distribution chart

The above Particle size distribution chart indicates that greater than 50% of the sample is made
of fines i.e. silt and clay

@group B 2022
 CHAPTER FOUR

4.1 CONCLUSION

4.1.1 Field work Results

From the DCP test done at the surface after removing the vegetable soils at 300mm deep from
the ground surface, the allowable bearing capacities ranged from 28.8 Kpa to 69.6 Kpa

After excavating to a depth of 1.5m the allowable bearing capacities ranged from 19.8 Kpa to
44.2 Kpa

4.1.2 Laboratory Results

From the consistency limits test it the soil was observed to poses a liquid limit (LL) of 30.13%
and plastic limit of (PL)26.83% which give a plasticity index value of (PI= LL-PL= 30.13-
22.49=7.64)

From the Particle Size distribution test it was established greater than 50% of the soil are fines

From Howard on Soil classification, the soil is a Sandy Lean Clay

4.2 LESSONS LEARNT

We were able to learn how to use and operate a DCPT machine and even read off the values of
penetration.

We also learnt how to grade the soil and find out other soil tests like liquid limit using a
casagrande.

@group B 2022
 REFERENCES
Unified Soil Classification System- Test Procedures

ASTM D6951 Standard Test Method for Use of the Dynamic Cone Penetrometer in Shallow
Pavement Applications

BS EN ISO 17892-12: Geotechnical investigation and testing – Laboratory testing of soil.

Determination of liquid and plastic limits

BS 1377-2-1990. British Standard Methods of test for Soils for Civil Engineering Purposes.
Classification Tests

@group B 2022
 APPENDICES

@group B 2022