Wossen Million

ADDIS ABABA UNIVERSITY
SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES
Investigation into the appropriate laboratory testing procedures for the

determination of the index properties of the Lateritic
Soils of Western Ethiopia
(Nedjo-Jarso-Begi Road area)
By
Wossen Million
November 2009
Investigation into the appropriate laboratory testing procedures for
the determination of the index properties of the Lateritic
A thesis submitted to the school of graduate studies of Addis Ababa University in

partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Masters of Science in Civil
Engineering
By
Wossen Million
Advisor
Dr. Mesele Haile
ADDIS ABABA UNIVERSITY
SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES
Investigation into the appropriate laboratory testing procedures for the

determination of the index properties of the Lateritic
By
Wossen Million
Faculty of Technology
Approved by Board of Examiners
Dr. Mesele Haile

(Advisor)
Professor Alemayehu Teferra

(Internal Examiner)
Dr. Samuel Taddesse

(External Examiner)
Ato Bruk Melaku

(Chairman)
DECLARATION
I, the undersigned, declare that this thesis is my original work performed under the
supervision of my research advisor Dr. Mesele Haile and has not been presented as a
thesis for a degree in any other university. All sources of materials used for this thesis
have also been duly acknowledged.
Name Wossen Million
Signature _____________
Place Faculty of Technology,

Addis Ababa University,
Addis Ababa.
Date November, 2009

Acknowledgements
I would like to express my sincere and deepest gratitude to my advisor Dr. Messele
Haile for all his limitless efforts in guiding and supervising me throughout my
research works and for providing me useful materials.
I express my sincere gratitude to Nedjo-Jarso-Begi road construction supervision

consultant, Highway Engineers and Consultants/HEC/ plc, staffs for their contribution
in facilitating all things and providing me necessary materials and vehicles during my
site visit and samplings.
I am very grateful to AAU geotechnical laboratory workers, especially Ato Yonas

Mekonen and Ato Demisew Melaku for their contribution in carrying out some of the
laboratory tests.
Above all I am very thankful to Almighty God who is always with me throughout my
difficulties. Finally I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my wife, Yodit
Tadiwos; my friend, Shimelis G/Senbet and Highway Engineers and
Consultants/HEC/ plc office, and all who contributed to this research work in one way
or another.
i
Abstract
The appropriate laboratory testing procedures while carrying out index property tests
of lateritic soils found in western Ethiopia (Nedjo, Jarso and Begi areas) have been
investigated. Classification and composition of these soils have also been studied. The
X-Ray Diffraction (XRD) analyses revealed that the soils in these areas are composed
of minerals of Kaolinite and Smectite groups; such as Kaolinite, Quartz, Hematite,
Vermiculite, Dickite, Borax, Illite, Nacrite. The X-Ray Fluorescent (XRF) analysis
showed that there is a high concentration of sesquioxide minerals and there is no
amorphous material present in the soils.
Comparison between the moisture contents determined using air drying (or
alternatively 50oC oven drying temperature) and that of 105oC oven drying
temperatures indicates that there is no significant amount of structural water;
however, comparing to the non-lateritic soils from Addis Ababa, the western Ethiopia
lateritic soils have some amount of structural water or water of hydration.
In the analysis of Atterberg Limits, in majority of the soils difference was observed
between the Atterberg Limits obtained from test on a specimen mixed for 5min and
that of 30min, this indicates that the cementation of the clay particles is to be
disaggregated with higher mixing time.
Analysis of specific gravities of the soils using various pretreatment and testing
procedures showed that, increase in drying temperature from its in situ condition to an
air-dried or equivalent of 50oC oven drying temperature and further to 105oC oven
drying temperature reduces specific gravity of the soils.
Analyses of the grain-size distributions (grading curves) with respect to the effects of
different testing procedures (pre-test treatment methods), the effects of specific
gravity variation within a sample, and the variation of sample location /depth/ and
other physical properties indicated that the soils were not homogeneous within the
laterite zone. The dry sample preparation and testing procedures tends to decrease the
percentage of coarser particles as the coarser particles became highly fractured during
the pulverization process. As a result these dry sieving techniques were found to be
inappropriate. The analyses of the grading curves using mass proportion and the
ii
modified grading curve using volume proportion, which uses separate specific
gravity, showed that the two grading curves are nearly the same; hence, the need of
modifying the grading curves by volume proportion is not as such important
especially when wet sieving method is used. Moreover, the analysis of grading curves
with respect to sampling depth showed that, generally, the soils become coarser as the
sampling depth increases. This confirms that the degree of weathering decreases with
depth.
Soil classification using Unified Soil Classification System (USCS), AASHTO

Classification System, Wesley’s Classification Method (classification using
mineralogical composition) and soil grouping using genetic basis and soil forming
factors were analyzed. According to the USCS chart the soils under investigation falls
in the MH zone, which means that the soils have ‘poor’ engineering properties that
are considered unsuitable for various engineering purposes. However, in practice,
such soils frequently have good engineering properties especially for construction of
sub grades and embankments. Contrary to the USCS, the AASHTO Classification
System classify majority of the soils under sub group A-2-7 with a group index less
than 4, which mean the soils are good sub grades and embankments construction
materials. Using the Wesley’s Classification Method the soils fall under Group C,
sub-group (c). Soils under this group have good engineering properties. The soils
under investigation have fallen under ferrisols group where erosion has kept pace with
profile development.
The analysis of the test results obtained from different laboratory testing procedures
used for moisture content, plasticity tests, grain-size analysis and specific gravity tests
for the lateritic soils found in Western Ethiopia has shown that the soils are sensitive
to the type of testing procedures as a result an appropriate laboratory testing
procedures attached in Appendix-A are proposed.
iii
Symbols and abbreviations
Designation Description Units

LL Liquid limit %
PL Plastic limit %
PI Plasticity Index %
TSn-1 Test sample number n from the upper part ---
TSn-2 Test sample number n from the middle part ---
TSn-3 Test sample number n from the bottom part ---
LS Linear shrinkage %
FS Free Swell %
 Standard deviation ---
Gs Specific gravity ---
ω Moisture content %
AD Air drying or samples dried in an oven/other apparatus at a temperature
not exceeding 60oC (140oF) ---
o
OD Oven drying at a temperature of 105 C ---
S Soaking (saturation) ---
AR As received /at the natural moisture content/ ---
RH Relative Humidity %
AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials ---
USCS Unified Soil Classification System ---
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials ---
iv
List of tables
Table 3.1 Summary of Geology of the Route Corridor ..................................................... 24

Table 3.2 Summary of mean maximum and minimum temperature along the project route
.................................................................................................................................... 25
Table 3.3 Summary of land cover along the project route ................................................. 26
Table 4.1 Sample location, depth and the designation used for the samples ..................... 32
Table 4.2 In-situ moisture contents of the samples using 50oc and 105oc oven temp. ...... 34
Table 4.3 Variation of particle sizes, PI and NMC within profile ..................................... 35
Table 4.4 Moisture contents at different temperatures ...................................................... 39
Table 4.5 Modification of grading analysis by modified mass proportion for variation in
specific gravity within a sample ................................................................................ 42
Table 4.6 Percentage amount of particle-sizes at different pretreatments and depths ....... 49
Table 4.7 Effect of mixing time on Liquid Limit at different conditions .......................... 61
Table 4.8 Atterberg limits at different pretreatment conditions and mixing times ............ 64
Table 4.9 Liquid limits comparison between Multipoint and One-point test methods ..... 69
Table 4.10 Degree of Colloidal Activity............................................................................ 72
Table 4.11 Skempton's colloidal activity number .............................................................. 73
Table 4.12 Linear Shrinkage values for different pretreatment conditions ....................... 78
Table 4.13 Free Swell test results at different pre-treatment conditions ........................... 80
Table 4.14 Specific Gravity values at different pretreatment /testing/ conditions ............ 83
Table 4.15 Classification of soil samples according to USCS........................................... 91
Table 4.16 Classification of Soils and Soil-Aggregate Mixtures by the AASHTO System
.................................................................................................................................... 95
Table 4.17 Classification of Soils and Soil-Aggregate Mixtures ...................................... 96
Table 4.18 Classification of soil samples according to AASHTO Classification Method 98
Table 4.19 Oxide composition in percent (XRF analysis results) ................................... 103
Table 4.20 Mineralogical test results (XRD analysis results).......................................... 104
Table 5.1 Typical soil index test results for Ferruginous soils ........................................ 107
Table 5.2 Typical soil index test results for Ferrallitic soils ............................................ 108
Table 5.3 Typical soil index test results for Ferrisols soils.............................................. 109
Table 5.4 Typical Index test results for Western Ethiopia lateritic soils ......................... 110
Table 5.5 Average soil properties .................................................................................... 111
Table A- 1 Minimum Mass of moist sample ..................................................................A-2
Table A- 2 Moisture content test data sheet.....................................................................A-4
Table A- 3 Plasticity test data sheet ...............................................................................A-15
Table A- 4 Summary of test results ...............................................................................A-16
Table A- 5 Minimum Weight of gradation sample .......................................................A-18
Table A- 6 Sieve analysis data sheet..............................................................................A-20
Table A- 7 Relative Densities of Water and Conversion Factor K for Various
Temperatures .........................................................................................................A-26
Table A- 8 Specific gravity determination data sheet ....................................................A-29
Addis Ababa University 1 November 2009

List of Figures
Figure 3.1 Schematic diagram of Nedjo – Jarso – Begi area (Nedjo-Dabus River) .......... 28
Figure 3.2 Schematic diagram of Nedjo – Jarso – Begi are (Dabus River-Begi) .............. 29
Figure 3.3 Location map of Nedjo – Jarso – Begi area ..................................................... 30
Figure 4.1 Profile view of soil sample pits or sources ....................................................... 33
Figure 4.2 Grading curve for variation in specific gravity within a sample ...................... 43
Figure 4.3 Gradation curves for variation in sample pretreatments /testing procedures/
(TS2-1, TS4-2 & TS12-1) .......................................................................................... 51
Figure 4.4 Gradation curves for variation in specific gravity and sample pretreatments
within a sample (TS4-2)........................................................................................... 52
within a sample (TS7-1)........................................................................................... 53
Figure 4.6 Gradation curves for variation in sample locations /depths/
(TS5-1, TS5-2 & TS5-3) ............................................................................................ 54
(TS14-1, TS14-2 & TS14-3) ...................................................................................... 55
Figure 4.8 Ranges of grain-size distribution /grading/ curves for different pretreatment
conditions /testing procedures/ .................................................................................. 56
Figure 4.9 Effect of mixing times on liquid limits (AR samples) ..................................... 62
Figure 4.10 Effect of mixing times on liquid limits (AD samples) ................................... 62
Figure 4.11 Effect of mixing times on liquid limits (OD samples) ................................... 63
Figure 4.12 Effect of drying temperature on liquid limits (AR and OD samples) ............ 66
Figure 4.13 Effect of drying temperature on liquid limits (AD and OD samples) ............ 66
Figure 4.14 Effect of different pretreatments on liquid limits (AR, AD and OD samples)
.................................................................................................................................... 67
Figure 4.15 Effect of different pretreatments on specific gravity values .......................... 84
Figure 4.16 Plasticity chart for Unified Soil Classification System .................................. 88
Figure 4.17 Plasticity Charts for USC System................................................................... 90
Figure 4.18 Plasticity chart for AASHTO Classification System...................................... 97
Figure A- 1 Hand operated liquid-limit device ................................................................A-6
Figure A- 2 Grooving tool ...............................................................................................A-6
Figure A- 3 Height of drop gage ......................................................................................A-7
Figure A- 4 Adjustment for height of drop ......................................................................A-7
Figure A- 5 Flow curve ..................................................................................................A-16
Figure A - 6 Grain-Size distribution curve ....................................................................A-22
Figure B - 1 Grain-Size distribution curves of test samples TS1-1 & TS1-2 .................. B-2
Figure B - 2 Grain-Size distribution curves of test samples TS5-1, TS5-2 & TS5-3 ..... B-3
Figure B - 3 Grain-Size distribution curves of test samples TS7-1 & TS7-2 ................. B-4
Figure B - 4 Grain-Size distribution curves of test samples TS9-1 & TS9-2 ................. B-5
Figure B - 5 Grain-Size distribution curves of test samples TS10-1 .............................. B-6
Figure B - 8 Grain-Size distribution curves of test sample ‘Sample-A’ ......................... B-7
Figure B - 9 Grain-Size distribution curves of test sample ‘Sample-B’ ......................... B-7
Figure B - 10 grading curves for variation in specific gravity & sample pretreatments
within sample TS1-2 ................................................................................................ B-8
within sample TS5-3 ................................................................................................ B-9

within sample TS6-1 .............................................................................................. B-10
within sample TS16-1 ............................................................................................ B-13
within sample-A (non-lateritic soil) ....................................................................... B-14
within sample-B (non-lateritic soil) ....................................................................... B-15
Figure B - 18 grading curves for variation in sampling depth & sample pretreatments
within samples TS1-1 & TS1-2 ............................................................................. B-16
within samples TS13-1 & TS13-2 ......................................................................... B-20
within samples TS14-1, TS14-2 & TS14-3 ........................................................... B-21
Figure B - 24 Ranges of grain-Size distribution curves of AR, AD & OD samples .... B-22
Figure B - 25 Average grain size distribution curves ................................................... B-23
Figure B - 26 Average grain size distribution curves ................................................... B-24

Table of contents
Contents Pages
Acknowledgements ............................................................................................ i
Abstract ............................................................................................................. ii
Symbols and abbreviations .............................................................................. iv
List of tables ...................................................................................................... 1
List of Figures ................................................................................................... 2
1. Introduction.................................................................................................. 7
1.1 General ...............................................................................................................7
1.2 Objectives of the study.....................................................................................10
1.3 Methodology of the study ................................................................................10
1.4 Structure of the Thesis .....................................................................................12
2. Literature Review ...................................................................................... 13
2.1 General .............................................................................................................13
2.2 Properties and testing of laterites .....................................................................16
2.2.1 Traditional selection and performance criteria ........................................17
2.2.1.1 Particle size distribution ...........................................................................17
2.2.1.2 Plasticity characteristics and testing ........................................................18
2.2.2 Effect of pre-treatments ...........................................................................19
2.2.2.1 Effect of pre-test drying ...........................................................................19
2.2.2.2 Effect of method and duration of mixing for Atterberg limit ..................19
2.2.3 The concept of self-hardening .................................................................20
2.2.3.1 Aggregation of clay-size particles ...........................................................20
2.2.3.2 Irreversible changes in plasticity on drying .............................................21
2.2.3.3 Loss of water of hydration on drying.......................................................21
2.2.4 Identification of sensitivity to testing procedures ....................................21
2.2.4.1 Loss of water of hydration .......................................................................22
2.2.4.2 Disaggregation of clay-size particles on mixing ......................................22
2.2.4.3 Drying and wetting ..................................................................................23
2.3 Laterites as construction materials ...................................................................23
3. Sampling Area Description ....................................................................... 23
3.1 General .............................................................................................................23
3.2 Geology ............................................................................................................24
3.3 Climate .............................................................................................................24
3.4 Topography ......................................................................................................25

3.5 Vegetation and Land use ..................................................................................25
3.6 Soil Characteristics ..........................................................................................26
4. In-situ Properties, Laboratory tests, results and discussions ..................... 31
4.1 In-situ properties ..............................................................................................31
4.1.1 Sample Description ..................................................................................31
4.1.2 In-situ properties Description ..................................................................34
4.1.3 Variation of Soil Properties within Profiles .............................................35
4.2 Laboratory Tests and Results ...........................................................................36
4.2.1 Index Property tests..................................................................................36
4.2.1.1 Moisture content ......................................................................................37
4.2.1.1.1 General .....................................................................................................37
4.2.1.1.2 Test procedures ........................................................................................38
4.2.1.1.3 Test results and discussions .....................................................................38
4.2.1.2 Grain size analysis ...................................................................................40
4.2.1.2.1 General .....................................................................................................40
4.2.1.2.2 Test procedures ........................................................................................43
4.2.1.3 Atterberg limits ........................................................................................57
4.2.1.3.1 General .....................................................................................................57
4.2.1.3.2 Test procedures ........................................................................................57
One point Liquid Limit Test ....................................................................................67
Activity number .......................................................................................................71
4.2.1.4 Shrinkage limit .........................................................................................75
4.2.1.4.1 General .....................................................................................................75
4.2.1.4.2 Test procedures ........................................................................................76
4.2.1.5 Free swell .................................................................................................78
4.2.1.5.1 General .....................................................................................................78
4.2.1.5.2 Test procedures ........................................................................................79
4.2.1.6 Specific Gravity .......................................................................................81
4.2.1.6.1 General .....................................................................................................81
4.2.1.6.2 Test procedures ........................................................................................81

4.2.2 Classification of the Soils ........................................................................85
4.2.2.1 General .....................................................................................................85
4.2.2.2 Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) ............................................86
4.2.2.3 AASHTO Classification System..............................................................93
4.2.2.4 Soil grouping based on mineralogical composition ...............................100
4.2.2.5 Soil grouping based on their genetic basis and soil forming factors .....100
4.2.3 Geochemical and Mineralogical tests ....................................................102
4.2.3.1 Geochemical Tests .................................................................................102
4.2.3.2 Mineralogical Tests ................................................................................104
5. Comparisons and discussions .................................................................. 105
5.1 Comparison of test results with other lateritic soils .......................................105
5.2 Comparison of test results of previous researches .........................................112
5.3 Discussions of test results and testing procedures .........................................113
6. Conclusions and recommendations ......................................................... 118
6.1 Conclusion .....................................................................................................118
6.2 Recommendations ..........................................................................................120
7. References................................................................................................ 121
Appendices
Appendix-A: - Laboratory Testing Procedures
Appendix-B: - Grain-size distribution curves

1. Introduction
1.1 General
Western Ethiopia is predominantly covered by reddish and reddish brown soils which are
latreitic and/or undergoing laterization. The examination of the available data on lateritic
soils gives the impression that the red color seems to have been accepted by most authors
as the most important property by which these soils could be visually identified. For the
area under investigation, Nedjo-Jarso-Begi road area, the soil forming factors (e.g. parent
rock, climatic vegetation conditions, and topography and drainage conditions) reveals that
the soils are laterites. Generally, the formation of laterites favors rolling slope with good
water runoff and distinct rainy seasons having warmer summer (Zelalem, 2005;
Charman, 1995). For the case of the area under investigation all the soil forming factors
are fulfilled. In addition to this, the mineralogical analysis and chemical analysis tests
using X-Ray Fluorescent (XRF) and X-RAY Diffraction (XRD) analyses methods
confirm that the soils are laterites.
Laterite is the product of a tropical weathering process which has the following effects:
the parent rock is chemically changed by enrichment with iron and aluminium oxides; the
clay mineral component becomes largely Kaolinitic; and the Silica content is reduced.
This process usually produces yellow, ochre, red or purple materials; red is often the
predominant color. Even if tropical weathering in oxidizing conditions generally leads to
reddening, it does not always produce a lateritic material (Charman, 1995).
The formation of laterites requires hot, humid conditions. It has also been suggested that a
mean annual temperature of around 25oC is needed for their formation, and in seasonal
situations there should be a coincidence of the warm and wet periods (Charman, 1995).
Laterites and lateritic soils are generally found in warm, humid and tropical areas of the
world. The geotechnical properties of these soils are quite different from those soils
developed in temperate or cold regions of the world. The properties of lateritic soils are
influenced by climate, geology and the degree of weathering or laterization, hence,
pretreatment conditions and testing procedures shall reveal the actual soil properties. The
geotechnical properties of such soils in different tropical countries are also different.
Lateritic soils formed from the same parent rock in the same tropical country, but under

different climatic conditions have different geotechnical properties (Umarany & D.J.,
1990). As the properties of lateritic soils measured in the laboratory are affected by type
of sample pre-treatments and/or testing procedures such as samples tested under as-
received, air-drying, oven-drying temperatures and samples tested under variable mixing
times (Umarany & D.J., 1990), the soils property shall be measured using proper testing
method.
Some of the engineering properties of lateritic soils of Western Ethiopia have been
studied by different researchers, such as Zelalem (2005) has studied lateritic soils found
in Nedjo-Mendi areas; Wakuma (2007), Kebede (2008) and G/medhin (2008) have
studied the Assosa lateritic soil; and Dibisa (2008) has studied on soils found in Nedjo,
Mendi and Assosa areas. In their studies, they had used different sample pretreatments
and testing procedures during index tests and came out with different results.
Comparison of moisture contents determined using conventional drying temperature of

105oC oven temperature and air drying temperature or 50oC oven temperature (AASHTO
T87 – 86) revealed that the lateritic soils found in Nedjo-Mendi areas do not have loosely
bound water of hydration in Zelalem (2005); even though, Dibisa (2008) and G/medhin
(2008) have found that the soils in Nedjo, Mendi and Assosa areas do have small amount
of structural water or water of hydration. In Wakuma (2007) study, the lateritic soils
found in Assosa contains a considerable amount of water of hydration.
In the comparison of Atterberg limits tests, the different pretreatment methods during
sample preparations do have insignificant effect on Atterberg Limits of Nedjo-Mendi area
lateritic soils (Zelalem, 2005), Dibisa (2008) has also found that the different pretreatment
methods during sample preparations affect the Atterberg limits of Nedjo, Mendi and
Assosa area soils. Wakuma (2007) also found that the soils found in Assosa have been
affected by the different pretreatment methods during sample preparations. The soils of
Nedjo-Mendi areas have been found susceptible to breakdown with manipulations or
elongated mixing times during Atterberg limit tests (Zelalem, 2005). Wakuma (2007) also
observed that the soils of Asossa are susceptible to manipulations or elongated mixing
times. However, Dibisa (2008) has found that Nedjo, Mendi and Assosa areas soils are
not susceptible to manipulations or elongated mixing times during Atterberg limit tests.

In gradation tests comparison, the different sample pretreatments and testing procedures
have resulted in negligible difference in grain-size analyses /grading curves/ of Nedjo-
Mendi area soils (Zelalem, 2005). In Wakuma (2007), Assosa soils have showed little
difference on their gradation distribution curves for variations in pretreatment methods;
even, the test results have showed ambiguous results for oven-dried samples. However,
lateritic soils of Nedjo-Mendi-Assosa areas were highly affected by pre-test drying than
by remolding /testing procedures/ (Dibisa, 2008).
Comparison of specific gravity tests showed that the specific gravity of Nedjo-Mendi area
lateritic soils is significantly changed upon drying prior to testing (Zelalem, 2005).
Wakuma (2007) has found that the specific gravity of Assosa soils have reduced strongly
with higher pre-test oven drying temperatures; however, at lower pre-test drying
tempratures the decrease is insignificant. Lateritic soils of Nedjo, Mendi and Assosa areas
have shown decrease in the specific gravity upon oven drying temperatures (Dibisa,
2008).
In addition to the above comparision on studies which haven been done on lateritic soils
of Western Ethiopia, Tibebu (2008) has done an investigation on the index properties and
shear strength parameters of laterite soils found in Southern part of Ethiopia (Wolayita-
Sodo). In her investigation, the conventional drying temprature is too high for few
samples during moisture content determination as the soils contained loosely bound water
of hydration. The different pretreatments have slightly affect the Atterberg limits of the
Wolayita-Sodo area lateritic soils even if the soils susceptiblity to breakdown with
manipulations or elongated mixing times is limited to these soil samples prepared in air
dry pretreatment conditions.
From the comparison of index test results of previous researchers, it can be seen that there
is a need for understanding the discrepancy in test results for Western Ethiopia lateritic
soils. Tests done by previous researchers have shown that these lateritic soils are very
sensitive to the type of pretreatments and testing procedures used. In order to overcome
the problems and minimize the discrepancy in testing results it is necessary to investigate
the appropriate laboratory testing procedures of these soils. Hence, the index properties of
the Nedjo-Jarso-Begi areas have been studied using various testing procedures and
pretreatment conditions in order to investigate the appropriate laboratory testing
procedures of these red lateritic soils of western Ethiopia. During the study process, the

degree of laterization of the soils had been investigated using chemical and mineralogical
analyses, which are the criteria for distinguishing lateritic soils from that of non-lateritic
or partially laterized soils. In Nejo, Jarso and Begi areas, similar to most of Western
Ethiopia, one can consider that the soils are lateritic soils or under gone laterization as all
lateritic soil forming factors are fulfilled. The mineralogical tests using X-RAY
Diffraction (XRD) analysis method and the geochemical tests using X-Ray Fluorescent
(XRF) analysis method showed that the soils are indeed true laterites /lateritic soils/. Once
the soil samples have been confirmed that the soils are lateritic soils, index property tests
have been carried out on the soil samples collected from the research areas. Then, the
sensitivity of the soils for various pretreatment conditions and testing procedures has been
investigated. After analyses and comparison of the different testing results, which used
different pretreatments and testing procedures, appropriate laboratory testing procedures
are proposed in this research work.
1.2 Objectives of the study
1. Investigation of the appropriate laboratory testing procedures for the

determination of the index properties of the lateritic soils of Western
Ethiopia
2. Determination of the Index Properties of the lateritic soils of the given
research area
1.3 Methodology of the study
In this research, the sensitivity of the lateritic soils to test procedures during determination
of the index properties of the soils was investigated. Lateritic soils are sensitive to the
way in which they are prepared for laboratory testing and to the actual testing method
employed. This sensitivity can be attributed to three basic factors, namely aggregation of
clay-size particles, irreversible changes in plasticity on drying and loss of water of
hydration on drying.
The susceptibility of tropical soils to the effects of clay mineral aggregation, to drying
and re-wetting cannot be identified by simple inspection. It requires elaborate testing
procedure. To address this sensitivity the following test methods were employed.

A large bulk samples (29 samples each weighing about 20-25kg) of material were
collected from each test pits /sample sources/ along Nedjo-Jarso-Begi road route and
transported to the laboratory at their field moisture content. Each sample shall then be
separated into test portions using proper quartering technique for the of index tests.
For the investigation of loss of water of hydration; samples which were oven dried at
105oC and air drying (or 50oC oven dried) were used. The two results should then be
compared; a significant difference (4-6%, Blight, 1997) indicates that the material
contains structural water which does play a part in the field performance of the soil. If this
difference is confirmed by repeated tests then the oven-drying temperatures for the
subsequent programme of tests should be changed to an appropriate value.
For the investigation of the effects of pretreatments, i.e. disaggregation of clay-size

particles on mixing and, drying and wetting pretreatments, different techniques were
used. For the investigation of disaggregation of clay-size particles upon mixing, five air-
dried/oven-dried/as-received samples had been mixed with water from every sample
sources to give the range of water contents suitable for liquid limit and plastic limit
determinations. The mixing times for the liquid limit tests were limited to 5 minutes, and
the mixed samples were left to dry overnight before testing. After the moisture content for
each test point on a part of each test portion were determined, the reminder had then been
mixed for further 25 minutes before determining the liquid limit again. If a significant
difference between the liquid limits of the specimens with 5 minutes and 25 minutes
mixing times occurs, it indicates that there is a disaggregation of clay-sized particles
within the material. For the case of investigating effects of drying and wetting
pretreatment testing procedures on index testing, different samples which were air-dried
(AD), oven-dried (OD) and As–received (AR) /at natural moisture content/ had been used
for index tests and finally comparison were made to investigate the appropriate testing
procedures.
Geochemical tests were carried out on six samples at Geological Survey of Ethiopia
Geochemical Laboratory using X-Ray Fluorescent (XRF) analysis method in order to
determine the percentage of oxide composition of the soils under investigation. In
addition to the above test, a mineralogical analysis was made on six samples at
Geological Survey of Ethiopia Mineralogy and Petrography Laboratory using X-Ray
Diffraction (XRD) analysis method in order to determine mineralogical composition.

1.4 Structure of the Thesis
The thesis has been divided in to six Chapters. The first Chapter is the introductory part
which includes the general background, objective and methodology of the study. A brief
literature reviews on formation, distribution, sensitivity of laterites to testing procedures
and laterites as a construction materials has been discussed in the second Chapter. In the
third Chapter description of the sampling area is covered which includes geology,
climate, topography, vegetation and land use of the area. The fourth Chapter includes in-
situ Properties, Laboratory tests and results; moreover a laboratory testing procedures
which is more likely appropriate for the respective index tests has been recommended.
Comparison of test results with other lateritic soils and discussions of test results and test
procedures are presented in the fifth Chapter. In the last Chapter, Chapter six, conclusions
and recommendations which are drawn from this research are given. Finally, appendices
and references are attached at the end of the thesis.

2. Literature Review
2.1 General
Laterite is the result of decomposition or weathering process and is found in profiles

varying from fresh rock at deep depths, through various stages of decomposition, to
residual soil at the surface. The term has been applied to clays, sands and gravels in
various combinations, and to rock of different degrees of cementation (Charman, 1995).
Laterites have also been defined based on the ratios of silica (SiO2) to sesquioxides
(Fe2O3, Al2O3). As laterites are usually highly weathered and altered residual soils, they
are low in silica (SiO2), that contain a sufficient concentration of the sesquioxides of iron
and aluminium (Fe2O3 and Al2O3) to have been cemented to some degree. For
laterites/true laterites the silica: sesquioxide ratio is below 1.33, those between 1.33 and
2.00 are lateritic soils, and those greater than 2.00 are non-lateritic tropically weathered
soils (Lyon Associates, 1971).
Laterite soils are formed in hot, wet tropical regions with an annual rainfall between
600mm to 4000mm, (usually in areas with a significant dry season) on a variety of
different types of rocks with high iron content (Lyon Associates, 1971; Makasa, 1998).
Two aspects of the parent rock affect the formation of laterites. One is the availability of
iron and aluminium minerals. These are more readily available in basic rocks. The other
is the quartz content of the parent rock. Where quartz is a substantial component of the
original rock, it may remain as quartz grains. Laterite profiles occur on flat slopes in the
terrain where runoff is limited. On the level ground, where drainage is poor, expansive
clays dominate at the expense of laterites (Makasa, 1998; Charman, 1995).
From the above discussions, we see that three major processes can be identified during
the formation of laterites which are summarized as follows:
Decomposition: physico-chemical breakdown of primary minerals and the release of

constituent elements (SiO2, Al2O3, Fe2O3, CaO, MgO, K2O, Na2O, etc), which appear in
simple ionic forms.
Laterization: leaching occurs under appropriate conditions where combined silica and
bases and the relative accumulation or enrichment of Oxides and Hydroxides of

Sesquioxides (Fe2O3, Al2O3, and TiO2) exists. The soil conditions under which the
various elements are rendered soluble and removed through leaching or combination with
other substances depend mainly on the pH of the ground water and the drainage
conditions (Makasa, 1998; Dibisa, 2008).
Desiccation: desiccation or dehydration involves partial or complete dehydration

(sometimes involving hardening) of the Sesquioxide rich materials and secondary
minerals. The dehydration of colloidal hydrated Iron oxide involves loss of water and the
concentration and crystallization of the amorphous Iron colloids into dense crystals, in the
sequence; Limonite, Goethite with Hematite to Hematite (Makasa, 1998).
Dehydration may be caused by climatic changes, upheaval of the land, or may also be
induced by human activities, for example by clearing of forests.
Lateritic soils have specific features or characteristics that are not adequately covered by
conventional methods of soil classification such as the Unified Soil Classification System.
Among these features are the following (Blight, 1997),
1. The unusual clay mineralogy of some tropical and subtropical soils results in
characteristics that are not compatible with those normally associated with the group
to which the soil belongs according to existing systems such as the Unified Soil
Classification System.
2. The soil mass in-situ may display a sequence of materials ranging from a true soil to a
soft rock depending on the degree of weathering, which cannot be adequately
described using existing systems based on classification of transported soils in
temperate climates.
3. Conventional soil classification systems focus primarily on the properties of the soil
in its remolded state; this is often misleading with residual soils, whose properties are
likely to be most strongly influenced by in situ structural characteristics inherited
from the original rock mass or developed as a consequence of weathering.
Wesley L.D. and Irfan T.Y. (Blight, 1997) proposed a practical system for classifying all
residual soils, based on the mineralogical composition and soil micro- and macro-
structure. Wesley’s classification system is intended to provide an orderly division of
residual soils in to groups which belong together because of common factors in their

formation and/or composition which can be expected to give them similar engineering
properties. The system is based on a grouping framework designed to enable engineers to
find their way around a rather confused world of residual soils and enable them to place
any particular residual soil into a specific category on the basis of common engineering
properties.
The first step in the grouping of residual soils is to divide them into groups on the basis of
mineralogical composition alone, without referring to their undisturbed state. The
following three groups are often suggested (Blight, 1997; Dibisa, 2008):
1. Group A: Soils without a strong mineralogical influence, e.g., Saprolites (Residual

soil with clear structural feature inherited from its parent rock).
2. Group B: Soils with a strong mineralogical influence deriving from clay minerals
also commonly found in transported soils (Black Cotton Soils).
3. Group C: Soils with a strong mineralogical influence deriving from special clay
minerals only found in residual soils (i.e. based on the silicate clay minerals,
halloysite and allophone, and non-silicate minerals (‘oxide’ minerals) which are
the hydrated forms of aluminium and iron oxide (the sesquioxides), gibbsite and
goethite).
Laterites classification is also possible according to their genetic basis, size of particle and
degree of concretion/cementation. Besides the grouping system presented above, an
additional item of formation which is usually of major importance in influencing the
properties of residual tropical soils is the type of the parent rock and should always be
included in the grouping processes. Most of the residual soils of Africa can be divided
into three groups based on their genetic basis, determined by the soil-forming factors and
given below: (Lyon Associates, 1971)
i. Ferruginous Soils: occur in the more arid extremes for lateritic soils, in areas with
pronounced dry seasons. They are formed over all rock types: igneous, metamorphic
and sedimentary. It requires an average annual rainfall of 600-800 mm for its
formation.
ii. Ferrallitic Soils: These soils in the humid extremes for lateritic soils and in areas
with dense vegetation. These soils are also formed over all rock types. The annual
average rainfall requirement for its formation is 1500- 4000mm. Both of the above

soils have SiO2 / (Fe2O3 + Al2O3) ratio of less than 2.0 and are classified either as
lateritic or laterite soils.
iii. Ferrisols: These are formed over all types of rocks in intermediate to high rainfall
areas where erosion has kept the place with profile development. They have similar
profiles to ferrallitic soils, but with few weatherable minerals remaining. The entire
clay fraction comprises Kaolinite and amorphous oxides of iron and aluminum.
These are developed at deeper levels due to the surface erosion, and occur in regions
of annual average rainfall of 1250-2750mm.
The usual methods of soil classification, involving grain-size distribution and Atterberg
Limits, should be performed on laterites or suspected laterites that are anticipated for use
as fill, base-course, or surface-course materials. Consideration should be given to the
previously stated fact that some particles of laterite crush easily; therefore, the results
obtained depend on such factors as: the treatment of the sample, amount of breakdown,
and the method of preparing the sieve material. The more the soil structure is handled and
disturbed, the finer the aggregates become in grading and the higher the Atterberg Limit.
While recognizing the disadvantage of these tests, it is still interesting to note the large
spread and range of results for both laterites and lateritic soils (Dibisa, 2008).
2.2 Properties and testing of laterites
In tropical areas, where chemical weathering is often intense, the availability of suitable
rock as a source of crushed aggregate may be limited. Considerable savings can be
achieved by using local materials, even though these may appear to be of marginal quality
when judged by certain specification using conventional testing procedures. In these areas
laterite has been a traditional source of road stone aggregate, mostly in the form of
nodular laterite /lateritic gravels/ (Charman, 1995).
The material properties most relevant to the satisfactory performance of natural gravels in
road pavements are particle size distribution, plasticity, strength of the coarse particles
and compaction and bearing strength. The principal selection requirement in traditional
specification is suitable grading. This allows visual assessment of suitable material
sources. The specified grading effectively limits potentially suitable lateritic materials
either to nodular lateriteis, containing a significant coarse component or to honeycomb
and hardpan laterites, which can be processed to the required grading.

Another aspect of lateritic materials which may be relevant is the concept of self-
hardening or a time-dependent improvement in performance. Some laterites, such as
Plinthite, are too fine-grained to be accepted as a pavement material at present, but may
have an important role to play in highway engineering if they can be found to show a
time-dependent or construction-dependent improvement in performance. Large cost
savings could be made by using these soils in an improved sub-grade layer, for example,
thereby reducing the thickness of the overlying pavement. The factors involved in self-
hardening may also make these soils sensitive to the procedures used in preparing
samples for testing and to testing methods themselves (Charman, 1995).
2.2.1 Traditional selection and performance criteria
In many tropical countries the temperate zone specification and the conventional testing
procedures have been adopted for the selection and evaluation of highway materials.
However, in some tropical countries many lateritic gravels have been successfully used in
road pavements; such as Nedjo-Jarso-Begi (Ethiopia), M9 Ondo to lfe (Nigeria), Lethem
(Guyana) and Umuatria to Bende (Nigegia), despite the fact that they do not comply with
the temperate zone specification requirements for particle size distribution, plasticity
characteristics, and sometimes CBR. A specification and appropriate laboratory testing
procedures should be used for the use of tropical soils in road pavements, based on the
genesis of the soils and the climatic environment.
2.2.1.1 Particle size distribution
The successful use of laterites in pavement constructions depends largely upon their
grading; not only may this be changed by the construction processes it may also be
changed by the testing methods. A clear understanding of the conventions implicit in the
test and calculation methods is therefore fundamental to the assessment of any analysis of
particle size (Charman, 1995).
One of these conventions is the assumption of a constant specific gravity for the soil
particles; when determined by measurement this value is usually an average over the full
range of particle sizes. For some laterites, whose coarse fraction is iron-rich and whose
fine fraction is kaolinite, this convention may be misleading. The coarse fraction usually
has a specific gravity of between 3.0 and 3.5 (but sometimes very much higher), while the

specific gravity of the finer material is about 2.7. The particle-size distribution curve is
based on proportions by mass retained on successive sieves, and only represents a
particular packing arrangement for a soil of constant specific gravity. Given this
discrepancy in specific gravity, a conventionally calculated test applied to some laterities
would overestimate the volume content of coarser particles and exaggerate any gap-
grading in the material, and would not represent the true packing and mechanical stability
of the material as a whole (Charman, 1995).
It is important therefore, when judging grading analyses to inspect the material assess its
composition and decide if separate specific gravity determinations of the fine and coarse
fractions shall be made. If the specific gravities are significantly different, the grading
should be calculated by modified mass proportions as well as by mass proportions as this
procedure will give a clearer indication of the potential mechanical stability of the
compacted aggregate (Charman, 1995).
In addition to this, relatively weak coarse particles may also cause problems in grading
analyses. Hence, for the analysis to represent the source material the sample preparation
and test procedures should not fracture the coarse particles. It is also equally important
that the fines adhering to the coarse particles shall be removed (Charman, 1995; Lyon
Associates, 1971).
2.2.1.2 Plasticity characteristics and testing
The plasticity of laterites varies widely, both from deposit to deposit and within a deposit.
Laterites are very variable in their plasticity characteristics. They are ranging from non-
plastic to highly plastic laterites; hence, each material source should be evaluated
independently and published data should not be held typical of laterites in general
(Charman, 1995).
For temperate region soils, Atterberg Limits are established indicators of engineering
behavior. However, for tropical soils they can be highly misleading without an awareness
of the sensitivity of these soils to the testing procedures as a high proportion of hydrated
oxides can change the properties of the fine fraction. Any sensitivity should be an initial
series of tests. A scheme for such a series of tests is also discussed later.

2.2.2 Effect of pre-treatments
2.2.2.1 Effect of pre-test drying
Some lateritic soils show changes in physical properties when tested under different
conditions. Oven-drying, and even air-drying, affects the properties of soils, although the
effect is usually small for transported soils. Tropical soils are prone to changes in
properties caused by drying and exposure to air. Hence, index property and engineering
property tests should be done by simulating the actual site conditions (Blight, 1997).
The water of hydration in the sesquioxides of iron and aluminum may be driven off by
oven drying at 105oC. This water of hydration normally takes part in the engineering
performance of the material, but is reflected in the test results as higher moisture content.
In order to be meaningful, Atterberg limit tests should therefore be performed without any
form of drying prior to carrying out the tests (Blight, 1997).
As the specific gravity is used to calculate parameters like clay fraction, void ratio and
porosity and the specific gravity of residual soils may be unusually high or unusually low,
it is essential that the specific gravity of these soils be determined in the laboratory using
an accepted test procedure. The soil to be used in this test should be at its natural moisture
content. Pre-test drying should be avoided as this tends to reduce the measured specific
gravity. The dry mass of the soil used in the test should be calculated by drying the soil
specimen after the specific gravity test has been completed. Depending on the outcome of
the evaluation of presence or absence of water of hydration, it may be necessary to air-dry
or dry at a reduced temperature while computing the dry mass of the soil (Blight, 1997).
2.2.2.2 Effect of method and duration of mixing for Atterberg limit
In general, the greater the duration of mixing (i.e., the greater the energy applied to the
soil prier to testing), the larger the value of the liquid limit, and to a lesser extent, the
larger the plasticity index. This has been attributed to longer mixing resulting in more
extensive break down of the cemented bonds between the clay clusters and within peds
and thus formation of greater proportions of fine particles (Blight, 1997).

2.2.3 The concept of self-hardening
The property of self-hardening, i.e. time-dependant or construction dependant

improvement in performance, under cycles of wetting and drying could be important for
the performance of certain lateritic soils. Any potential improvement in performance as a
result of self-hardening would be expected to relate to the proportion of oxides present in
the matrix, and therefore to vary according to maturity or degree of cementation
(Charman, 1995).
Some evidence now exists to suggest that certain laterites exhibit this property to a
sufficient extent that traditional requirements governing the selection of materials may be
relaxed. Materials which are normally considered mechanically unstable and too plastic
may be satisfactory. For instance, Brazilian practice uses the silica: sesquioxide (s-s) ratio
as a selection criterion for pavement aggregates and differentiates certain materials as
lateritic gravels on the basis of this ratio begin less than 2, allowing a relaxation in
specification requirements compared with British and African practice.
The factors which influence the ability to self-harden may also affect the sensitivity of
certain lateritic soils to test procedures. There is no doubt that certain of these soils are
sensitive to the way in which they are prepared for laboratory tasting and to the actual
testing method employed.
2.2.3.1 Aggregation of clay-size particles
Different authors showed that the sesquioxides within the fine fraction of tropical soils
tend to coat the surface of individual soil particles. One reason for this is an electrical
bonding between the negatively-charged kaolinite and the positively-changed hydrated
oxides. The coating can reduce the ability of the clay minerals to absorb water. It can also
cause a physical cementation of adjacent grains, thus producing aggregated particles of
coarser size. Both factors reduce plasticity, but intensive remolding of the soil breaks
down the aggregations and the sesquioxide coatings, with an attendant increase in
plasticity (Charman, 1995; Blight, 1997).
The field operations of excavation, transport and placement are unlikely to break down
the fine soil aggregations to the extent that plasticity is affected in the laboratory. The

degree of working required to prepare laboratory specimens for Atterberg Limit
determinations is, by comparison, very much greater. The plasticity of the construction
material (the soil on site) may thus be lower than would appear from the Atterberg or
other laboratory tests on remolded samples.
2.2.3.2 Irreversible changes in plasticity on drying
Soils which contain hydrated oxides of iron and aluminum may become less plastic (i.e.
exhibit lower Atterberg Limit values) when they are dried. This is partially because
dehydration of the sesquioxides creates a stronger bond between the particles, which is
resistant to penetration by water. Another aspect is accompanied by shrinkage, which
brings the particles closer together and the attractive forces become so strong that water
no longer penetrates. The effect takes place during air-drying but becomes more
pronounced on oven-drying at higher temperatures (Charman, 1995; Blight, 1997).
2.2.3.3 Loss of water of hydration on drying
The water of hydration in the sesquioxides of iron and aluminum may be driven off by
oven-drying at 105oC, conventional drying temperate. This water normally takes no part
in the engineering performance of the material, but is reflected in the test results as higher
moisture content (Charman, 1995; Blight, 1997).
2.2.4 Identification of sensitivity to testing procedures
The susceptibility of tropical soils to the effects of clay mineral aggregation, to drying
and to re-wetting (dehydration of sesquioxides) cannot be identified by simple inspection.
To make wholesale changes to standard laboratory techniques, however, would
considerably lengthen testing times and require full-time supervision of the testing
laboratory. An initial test programme on a representative bulk sample from each material
source is therefore needed to identify the sensitivity of the soil to the above factors
(Charman, 1995; Blight, 1997; Lyon Associates, 1971).
A large bulk sample of material should be selected from each new source and transported
to the laboratory at field moisture content. This sample should then be separated into
replicate test portions for the following tests.

2.2.4.1 Loss of water of hydration
In order to check loss of water of hydration two specimens should be prepared for the
determination of moisture content. One specimen should be oven-dried at 105oC until
successive weighing show no further decrease in mass. The moisture content should then
be calculated. The second sample should be air-dried (if feasible), or oven-dried at
temperature of no more than 50oc and at maximum relative humidity (RH) of 30% until
successive weighing show no further loss of mass. The two-moisture contents should then
be compared. A significant difference (4-6%) indicates that “Structural water” is present.
As this water forms part of the soil solids, it should be excluded from the calculation of
moisture content. Hence, all subsequent tests for moisture content determination
(including those associated with Atterberg limit tests, etc.) should be carried out by
drying at the lower temperature (i.e. either air-drying, or oven–drying at 50oC and 30%
RH). If possible, the lower drying temperature should be used (Blight, 1997).
2.2.4.2 Disaggregation of clay-size particles on mixing
In order to address the problem of disaggregation, five test specimens should be mixed
with water to give a range of moisture contents suitable for liquid limit and plastic limit
determinations. The minimum amount of air-drying should be used, and preferably none
at all. The mixing time should be standardized at 5 minutes, and the mixed specimens
should be left for moisture content equilibration overnight before testing.
On the following day the liquid limit should be determined using the standard procedure
(e.g. British Standard 1377, Part 2) with a minimum of further mixing. A sub-sample
from each of the specimens used in the test should be used for determining the moisture
content, using the appropriate procedure established after the evaluation of presence or
absence of water of hydration discussed previously. The remainder of each specimen
should then be mixed continuously for a further 25 minutes before determining the liquid
limit. A significant difference (i.e. >5%) between the liquid limits from tests using 5 and
30 minutes mixing times indicates a disaggregation of the clay-sized particles in the soil.
If this disaggregation is confirmed by further tests, the entire procedure of testing should
be changed (Blight, 1997).

2.2.4.3 Drying and wetting
According to CIRIA special publication vol. 47 (Charman, 1995) research is in progress

to assess the effect of drying and wetting cycles on the dry density and bearing strength of
lateritic materials. Even though there is no simple test available for this, some guidance
may be obtained by comparing the Atterberg Limits of soil prepared from natural
moisture content with those of oven-dried soil re-wetted to the point of testing.
2.3 Laterites as construction materials
Some laterites are valuable road pavement materials, widely used in the tropics as sub-
base, base material and for gravel wearing roads. The term laterite, however, has tended
to be indiscriminately applied in tropical highway engineering to any red soil, and as a
result the usefulness of laterites for road construction has been under-estimated
(Charman, 1995).
However, laboratory tests, to check the suitability of laterites as road pavement materials,
should take into account how these materials are affected by the testing procedures. Some
lateritic soils are sensitive to pre-treatments and testing procedures; hence, laboratory
testing should simulate the site condition (Charman, 1995; Zelalem, 2005).
3. Sampling Area Description
3.1 General
The sampling area, Nedjo-Jarso-Begi road, is situated in South Western Ethiopia in

western Wellega Administrative zone of the Oromiya Regional State (Ref. Annex 1.1:
Location Map). The road is one of the important routes that pass through vast and fertile
land of the Country. Furthermore, it is the major road link that may joins the planned
western Ethiopia road corridor (Gambella - Assosa road) at Begi town. The western
Ethiopia road corridor is a major inter - regional link between Benishangule, Oromiya and
Gambella regional states and its location is also in close proximity with the border towns
of the Sudan. The beginning of the road is marked as km 0.0 at Nedjo town and
terminates is at Begi town on the junction to Gidame. The end point of the project (Begi
town) is accessible by a road from Gimbi-Dembi-dollo main highway, through Chanka

via Gidame. It is also accessible through Bambassi via Kober village. The total project
length is about 148.2 km (AEC, 2004).
The client of the project is Ethiopian Roads Authority (ERA). Currently the road is under
construction by Sunshine General Contractor Plc. consulted by Highway Engineers and
Consultants/HEC/ Consulting Engineers Plc. The Project is funded by Federal
Government of Ethiopia.
3.2 Geology
According to the Geological Map and field observation of the route corridor the project
alignment is dominantly covered by basalt with minor granite/granodiorite, schist and
recent alluvial deposits. A brief summary of the geological units along the project route
corridor is given below in table 3.1.
Table 3.1 Summary of Geology of the Route Corridor (AEC, 2004)

Location (km) Route Geology and Geomorphology
0.0 to 2.5 Hilly to ridge, qurthofeldspathic schist with associated quartz veins formation
2.5 to 78.0 Flat topped to hill, massive to widely jointed basalt formation
Flat lying to hill, massive to widely jointed basalt with pockets of dark silty
78.0 to 87.0
clay soils (alluvial origin) formation
87.0 to 95.0 Flat lying to hill, massive to widely jointed basalt formation
95.0 to 99.5 Ridge, granite / grandodiorite formation
99.5 to 148.2 Flat lying to hill forming massive to widely jointed basalt formation
3.3 Climate
In terms of climate the project area can be broadly classified in to two climatic zones.
Zone 1: warm to Temperate, km 0.0 to 50 (Babo) and km 110 to 148.2 (Begi) and Zone 2:
warm to Hot (kola), km 50 to 110.

Table 3.2 Summary of mean maximum and minimum temperature along the project route
(AEC, 2004)
Temperature
Town o Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
( C)
Mean Max 27.3 28.9 29.6 28.5 25.5 23.5 21.8 22.0 23.6 23.9 25.2 26.1
Nedjo
Mean Min 8.6 9.8 12.1 13.7 14.1 14.2 13.7 13.3 13.2 11.9 10.3 9.2
Mean Max 29.3 29.8 29.7 28.9 25.7 24.2 23.1 23.4 24.3 25.0 26.1 27.0
Begi
Mean Min 14.1 15.0 15.0 15.1 14.5 13.8 13.5 13.6 13.6 13.3 13.3 13.1
According to the Meteorological data the mean minimum and maximum annual
temperatures for Zone 1 lies between 12 to 14oC and 25 to 26oC respectively. For Zone 2
the annual mean temperature is about 30oC owing to its elevation, 1350 to 1500m above
sea level. The project corridor generally has an effective mean temperature of 14 to 20oC
(AEC, 2004).
The mean annual rainfall varies from 1200mm at around Dabus crossing to around
2000mm at Nedjo and Begi towns (i.e. it ranges 1200-2000mm). Significant rain can be
expected in the area, from the month of April to October, inclusive, with peaks around
July and August. During the remainder of the year there is very little precipitation (AEC,
2004).
3.4 Topography
In general, the topography of the route corridor is almost in all cases rolling to hilly
terrain from the beginning until the end of the project. The project starts at an altitude of
1840 m asl at Nejo and descends to 1350 m asl at around Dabuss river basin. It then
ascends to 1718 m asl towards the end of the project at the vicinity of Begi town.
The topography of the road route corridor is almost all flat to rolling terrain from the
beginning (Nedjo town) to the end of the project (Begi town) which is favorable to the
formation of lateritic soils.
3.5 Vegetation and Land use
The land use/cover along the existing route corridor as well as the accessible sections can
generally be classified as moderately cultivated land and grazing land in between farms.

The project areas are covered by dense woodland, Farms and scattered trees with Scrubs
in the first half of the project route; and Farms and Grass lands mixed with scattered
woodlands, dense woodlands and forests.
Table 3.3 Summary of land cover along the project route (AEC, 2004)
Station Land Cover
0+000 – 0+600 Dense woodland
0+600 – 60+500 Farm and scattered trees
60+500 – 65+000 Scrubs mixed with Farm
65+000 – 70+500 Farm and Grass lands mixed with scattered woodlands
70+500 – 76+000 Farm and scattered woodlands
76+000 – 86+000 Woodlands
86+000 – 94+000 Scrubs
94+000 – 103+000 Bamboo (dense woodlands)
103+000 – 107+000 Farms and dense forests
107+000 – 122+000 Woodlands
122+000 – 134+000 Farms and scattered trees
134+000 – 148+226 Farmlands
A strip of Eucalyptus trees which are planted along the road side are also found in dense
condition. On the other hand the portion from Sedeka River to Guma Gara arba is forest.
The route corridor between Nedjo and Dabus and between Likiti and Begi is moderately
populated, while the area between Dabus and Likiti is sparsely populated due to its
remoteness and hot climatic condition. Farming is a common practice along the populated
area. Cereals, oil seeds and coffee are the most common cash crops.
3.6 Soil Characteristics
Western Ethiopia, Wellega zone along the route Nekempte–Gimbi–Nedjo–Mendi–

Assossa; and Nedjo–Jarso–Begi road routes are covered with reddish soils. The existing
soil formation factors such as topography, climate, temperature, rainfall, and parent rock
seem to favor laterites formation. Generally, formation of lateritic soils favors rolling
slope with good water runoff, distinct rainy season having warm summer. The minimum
annual rainfall required for laterites formation is generally at least 750 mm. For the
research area, Nedjo–Jarso–Begi road, as mentioned in section 3.4 the slope is flat to
rolling type and about 80% of the mean annual rainfall occurs during the period of 4
months which is seasonal. The rain fall on the average annual basis is equals 1200mm at

around Dabus to around 2000mm at Nedjo and Begi towns which is in agreement with
the minimum requirement as mentioned above.
Geologically, the area under consideration comprises of the rock types granite,
metamorphic rocks including gnesis and schist, and mainly basalts which are basis for
lateritic soil formations. By comparing the lateritic soil formation factors and the actual
soil information of the research area with the supplement of previous researcher data of
western Ethiopia is highly covered with lateritic soils, even though the degree of
laterization could vary from place to place.
Laterite soils are formed by the in-situ weathering and decomposition of rocks under
tropical condition. They are rich in sesquioxides (secondary oxides of iron and/or
aluminum) and low in bases and primary silicates but may contain appreciable amounts
of quartz and kaolinite. Soil engineering properties under this group are highly influenced
by the presence of sesquioxides. Sesquioxides appear to act as cementing agents which
bind the other mineral constituents into clusters or aggregations.

SEDIKA VILLAGE
DABUS
RIVER
NEJO
TOWN
SHEMEL TOKI
VILLAGE HARO VILLAGE
ADDIS KETEMA
BABO TOWN KEREYU
VILLAGE
MEDHANEALEM
VILLAGE
JARSO
TOWN
Figure 3.1 Schematic diagram of Nedjo – Jarso – Begi area (Nedjo-Dabus River)

DABUS
RIVER
KONSA VILLAGE
SEGNO GEBEYA
LIKITI
TOWN
VILLAGE
ARB GEBEYA
VILLAGE
BEGI
TOWN
Figure 3.2 Schematic diagram of Nedjo – Jarso – Begi are (Dabus River-Begi)

Figure 3.3 Location map of Nedjo – Jarso – Begi area (AEC, 2004)

4. In-situ Properties, Laboratory tests, results and discussions
4.1 In-situ properties
4.1.1 Sample Description
Soil samples used for this thesis work were collected along the stretch from Nedjo town
(515km) to Dabus River (605km) west of Addis Ababa, the capital city of Ethiopia. At
the time of sampling it was difficult to continue soil sampling after Dabus river as the
road was not accessible and the construction of the road beyond Dabus River was not
started. Hence, all samples for this research work were collected from Nedjo town to
Dabus River which covered 90km of the area. Before the soil samples were collected, site
visit was made with consultant’s material inspectors and surveyors (of Nedjo-Jarso-Begi
road construction project). During the site investigation potential sampling places for
lateritic soils were chosen. Accordingly, different sampling places were chosen; and
twenty nine samples had been collected on the following days, each weighing about 20-
25kg.

Table 4.1 Sample location, depth and the designation used for the samples
Sample Sample Location
S/No. 1 Visual Color observed Sampling area
Designation Station Depth
2
1 TS1-1 10+880, 1.5km RHS 0.6m Reddish Brown Color Test Pit
2 TS1-2 10+880, 1.5km RHS 2.0m Yellowish Color Test Pit
3 TS2-1 16+280, 20m RHS 1.5m Reddish Color Road cut section
4 TS2-2 16+280, 20m LHS 3.0m Yellowish Color Road cut section
5 TS3-1 20+000, 50m RHS 0.6m Dark Brown Color Test Pit
6 TS3-2 20+000, 50m RHS 2.0m Reddish Color Test Pit
7 TS4-1 30+000, 20m RHS 2.0m Reddish Color Road cut section
8 TS4-2 30+000, 20m RHS 3.0m Yellowish Color Road cut section
9 TS5-1 35+980, 120m RHS 0.6m Dark Brown Color Test Pit
Greyish Blue Color /
11 TS5-3 35+980, 120m RHS 2.5m Test Pit
Grey and yellow motted color
12 TS6-1 44+080, 40m LHS 1.0m Dark Brown Color Test Pit
13 TS6-2 44+080, 40m LHS 2.0m Yellowish Color Test Pit
14 TS7-1 49+100, 20m LHS 1.5m Reddish Color Road cut section
15 TS7-2 49+100, 20m RHS 3.5m Yellowish Color Road cut section
17 TS8-2 53+000, 40m RHS 3.0m Yellowish Red Color Test Pit
18 TS9-1 58+000, 50m LHS 0.6m Dark Brown Color Test Pit
19 TS9-2 58+100, 50m LHS 1.5m Reddish Brown Color Test Pit
0.6- Borrow quarry
20 TS10-1 58+200, 200m LHS Reddish Brown Color
1.5m site
Borrow quarry
21 TS11-1 58+200, 250m LHS 1-2m Reddish Brown Color
site
Borrow quarry
22 TS12-1 70+040, 300m RHS 1-2m Reddish Color
site
23 TS13-1 70+840, 20m LHS 1.0m Dark Brown Color Road cut section
24 TS13-2 70+840, 20m LHS 3.0m Yellowish Color Road cut section
25 TS14-1 74+300, 30m RHS 1.0m Dark Brown Color Road cut section
26 TS14-2 74+300, 30m RHS 1.5m Reddish Brown Color Road cut section
Light yellow color/Grey and
27 TS14-3 74+300, 30m RHS 3.0m Road cut section
yellow motted Color
Borrow quarry
28 TS15-1 84+200, 200m RHS 1-2m Reddish Brown Color
site
Borrow quarry
29 TS16-1 84+200, 200m RHS 1.0m Reddish Brown Color
site
As sampling places of TS10-1, TS11-1, TS12-1, TS15-1 and TS16-1 were used as a
source of borrow materials and the soils were uniformly mixed, only one test sample was
taken from every sampling places.
1
Station 0+000 is at Nedjo town which is app. 515 km, from Addis Ababa
2
TS refers “Test Sample”

a) Sampling source for test samples TS10-1 & TS11-1
b) Pit for test samples TS5-1, TS5-2 & TS5-3 C) Pit for TS6-1 & TS6-2 test
samples
Figure 4.1 Profile view of soil sample pits or sources

4.1.2 In-situ properties Description
From the sampling area, samples were collected at their moist condition using plastic
bags. The plastic bags were tied to reduce loss of moisture. In-situ moisture contents were
determined immediately, after the samples were brought to the laboratory, using oven
temperatures of 50oC and 105oC for every test samples. Each sample was dried in oven
until continuous weighing gives constant weight. For 105oc oven drying temperature,
every sample was dried for 24 hrs where as for 50oc oven temperature the samples were
dried for five days. The summary of the in-situ moisture contents of the samples for both
drying temperatures are presented below in Table 4.2.
Table 4.2 In-situ moisture contents of the samples using 50oc and 105oc oven temp.
In-situ/Natural Moisture contents, NMC (%)
Sample Designation Difference (%)
Using 50oC oven temp. Using 105oC oven temp.
TS1-1 33.74 35.13 1.39
TS1-2 30.11 33.79 3.68
TS2-1 24.7 27.23 2.53
TS2-2 17.98 21.24 3.26
TS3-1 22.99 26.63 3.64
TS3-2 27.52 31.36 3.84
TS4-1 24.97 28.79 3.82
TS4-2 21.87 24.97 3.1
TS5-1 31.1 32.37 1.27
TS5-2 23.16 24.51 1.35
TS5-3 27.99 30.19 2.2
TS6-1 12.69 16.29 3.6
TS6-2 16.51 20.44 3.93
TS7-1 25.12 28.86 3.74
TS7-2 31.89 35.44 3.55
TS8-1 15.8 17.61 1.81
TS8-2 16.68 20.22 3.54
TS9-1 33.07 36.1 3.03
TS9-2 12.86 16.63 3.77
TS10-1 15.12 19.06 3.94
TS11-1 32.5 35.92 3.42
TS12-1 13.27 17.05 3.78
TS13-1 17.42 21.02 3.6
TS13-2 19.94 23.9 3.96
TS14-1 15.32 17.64 2.32
TS14-2 13.97 16.13 2.16
TS14-3 14.62 16.75 2.13
TS15-1 21.32 23.61 2.29
TS16-1 15.89 18.37 2.48

4.1.3 Variation of Soil Properties within Profiles
The variation of soil properties along the profile were investigated for the research area.
During sampling process it was observed that the soils generally became coarser while
excavating down ward. This observation was also confirmed during the laboratory testing
process. The particle size of the soil samples (the percentage of clay, silt, sand and gravel)
in a given profile are summarized in Table 4.3. In addition to particle size distribution,
variation of plasticity index and natural moisture contents within the profile are also
included in the table below. In general, the amount of fines decreases as the depth
increases.
Table 4.3 Variation of particle sizes, PI and NMC within profile
Sample Depth Percentage amount of particle sizes NMC

PI (%)
Designation (m) Gravel (%) Sand (%) Silt (%) Clay (%) (%)
TS1-1 0.6m 38.27 28.09 18.35 15.29 35.13 19.85
TS1-2 2.0m 64.82 19.86 6.85 8.46 33.79 26.06
TS4-1 2.0m 22.75 34.69 20.19 22.36 28.79 21.22
TS4-2 3.0m 67.47 6.25 4.60 4.74 24.97 22.28
TS5-1 0.6m 36.80 28.47 18.48 16.25 32.37 21.81
TS5-2 1.8m 61.63 17.54 9.15 11.67 24.51 22.65
TS7-1 1.5m 59.92 13.91 12.55 11.41 28.86 24.53
TS7-2 3.5m 62.80 14.46 10.26 9.98 35.44 21.11
TS8-1 1.5m 60.29 22.96 7.94 8.80 17.61 25.29
TS8-2 3.0m 67.62 16.08 9.04 7.26 20.22 27.2
TS9-1 0.6m 23.26 37.93 24.07 14.74 36.1 25.29
TS9-2 1.5m 74.47 18.00 4.92 2.62 16.63 27.71
TS13-1 1.0m 46.02 22.03 14.85 17.10 21.02 26.4
TS13-2 3.0m 64.43 17.56 6.01 4.22 23.9 19.72
TS14-1 1.0m 50.73 36.65 7.53 5.09 17.64 23.65
TS14-2 1.5m 77.24 15.88 5.60 1.28 16.13 19.61
As can be seen from the above test results summarized in table 4.3 above the soils
became coarser while going down ward and have higher gravel content. This is due to the
lower degree of weathering occurring in the research area while going down ward.

4.2 Laboratory Tests and Results
Some lateritic soils exhibit changes in physical characteristics and/or test results when
tested under different conditions. The pretreatments given to lateritic materials should
depend upon the actual conditions. For instance, in areas of high rainfall it may be
difficult to dry soils during construction. In that case the tests should be run at the natural
moisture content, and not allowed to dry in the laboratory. If the construction is during
the dry season or in an area of low rainfall, then the soils should be air-dried in the
laboratory. In all cases, the laboratory pretreatments should reflect actual field conditions.
For this reason, lateritic soils should not be over dried prior to testing as the soils will not
experience such high temperatures in the field (Lyon Associates, 1971).
In this thesis work, the index property laboratory tests were carried out in accordance
with the ASTM standard testing procedures; and Lyon Associates (1971), Blight (1997)
and Charman (1995) testing recommendations. Each laboratory tests which were
conducted are explained in the following sections. Finally, a laboratory testing procedures
which are appropriate for testing the lateritic soils of Western Ethiopia are recommended.
4.2.1 Index Property tests
Soil is a complex material. The complexity is contributed by its existence in almost

innumerable varieties, by its combination of solids, liquid and gases, where in many
instances the solid particles also vary in size. Furthermore, the relative quantities of solid,
liquid and gases in a given soil is found to change due to any physical cause such as
loading, seasonal variation and change of temperature which makes the situation further
complicated (Samuel, 1989).
The engineering behavior of soils, whether formed under arctic, temperate or tropical
conditions, is determined by certain physical characteristics designated as engineering
properties. Since determination of the engineering properties is usually expensive, index
properties, which are simpler and cheaper to evaluate but indicative of the engineering
characteristics, are investigated. These properties are mainly used for identification and
classification of soils (Lyon Associates, 1971).

However, studies have revealed that tropical soils are different from temperate zone soils
in terms of genesis and structure. Their structures as compared to dispersed temperate
zone soils have necessitated modifications to the mechanical or grading tests; the
conventional pretreatment methods have considerable effect on the index properties of
tropical soils. Therefore, special consideration is required during pretreatments and
testing methods while testing tropical soils (Blight, 1997).
The various properties of soils which could be considered as index properties under this
specific case are: moisture content, Grain size analysis, Atterberg limits, Shrinkage limit,
free swell, and specific gravity.
4.2.1.1 Moisture content
4.2.1.1.1 General
In many residual soils, some moisture exists as water of hydration in the sesquioxides of
iron and aluminium, which may not have an effect on the engineering performance of the
soil. However, some of this moisture may be driven off by oven-drying at l05°C, the
standard temperature for testing temperate region soils, to the extent that all the index
tests reliant on moisture content are to be affected.
Different authors said that the conventional oven drying temperature for water content
determination is too hot for certain clays and tropical soils. These soils contain loosely
bound water of hydration or molecular water which can be lost at this high temperature
and results a change in the soil characteristics (Bowels, 1978; Blight, 1997; Charman,
1995). This effect could be checked using different oven temperatures.
In order to address the above problem, i.e. the existence of water of hydration, in the
lateritic soils of western Ethiopia, Nedjo-Jarso-Begi area, two sets of test samples were
prepared from twenty nine test samples. In addition to these test samples two test samples
from Addis Ababa around Entoto area were also prepared. Then, the one set of test
samples were oven-dried using the standard oven drying temperature (105°C) while the
other sets were oven-dried at lower drying temperature (50°C) as recommended by
Blight (1997) and Charman (1995).

4.2.1.1.2 Test procedures
The moisture contents of the twenty nine test samples from Nedjo – Jarso – Begi area and
two test samples from Addis Ababa around Entoto were determined in the laboratory
according to ASTM D2216-92 testing procedures; and using the recommendations given
in Blight (1997) and Charman (1995) for the use of appropriate drying/oven temperature.
In this research work an oven drying temperatures of l05°C and 50°C (or air drying) were
used to dry the test samples. For every test sample two sets of samples were prepared, i.e.
two samples from each sample sources, an appropriate amount of sample were taken for
the moisture content determination. One set of samples were oven-dried using a standard
oven drying temperature (105°C) until successive weighing show that no further weight
loss is taking place; and the other set were dried at a temperature, less than that of the
standard drying temperature, of 50°C for a minimum of five days to get a constant mass
in successive measurements. Finally the moisture contents for the two set of samples were
calculated using the normal procedures as shown in ASTM D2216-92.
4.2.1.1.3 Test results and discussions
The two test results were compared. As recommended by A.B. Fourie in Blight (1997)
moisture variation 4-6% or more indicates that there is structural water in the test sample.
If this is confirmed by repeated tests then the oven drying temperatures for the subsequent
programme of tests should be changed to an appropriate value or reduce the difference in
moisture from the moisture content values tested conventionally.
For the test samples under investigation, the values of the moisture contents are presented
and compared in Table 4.4. The natural moisture content difference using 105°C and
50°C oven temperatures is less than 4%, which indicates that the soil of Nedjo, Jarso and
Begi areas do not contain a considerable amount of ‘water of hydration’ or ‘structural
water’ which lead to irreversible changes on drying, hence the moisture content tests for
the soils in this areas can be conducted by oven drying conventionally (105°C).

Table 4.4 Moisture contents at different temperatures
Sample Natural Moisture content (%)
o Difference
Designation Using 50 C oven temp. Using 105oC oven temp.
TS1-1 33.74 35.13 1.39
TS1-2 30.11 33.79 3.68
TS2-1 24.70 27.23 2.53
TS2-2 17.98 21.24 3.26
TS3-1 22.99 26.63 3.64
TS3-2 27.52 31.36 3.84
TS4-1 24.97 28.79 3.82
TS4-2 21.87 24.97 3.10
TS5-1 31.10 32.37 1.27
TS5-2 23.16 24.51 1.35
TS5-3 27.99 30.19 2.20
TS6-1 12.69 16.29 3.60
TS6-2 16.51 20.44 3.93
TS7-1 25.12 28.86 3.74
TS7-2 31.89 35.44 3.55
TS8-1 15.80 17.61 1.81
TS8-2 16.68 20.22 3.54
TS9-1 33.07 36.10 3.03
TS9-2 12.86 16.63 3.77
TS10-1 15.12 19.06 3.94
TS11-1 32.50 35.92 3.42
TS12-1 13.27 17.05 3.78
TS13-1 17.42 21.02 3.60
TS13-2 19.94 23.90 3.96
TS14-1 15.32 17.64 2.32
TS14-2 13.97 16.13 2.16
TS14-3 14.62 16.75 2.13
TS15-1 21.32 23.61 2.29
TS16-1 15.89 18.37 2.48
Sample-A
29.19 30.4 1.21
(from A.A.)
Sample-B
21.81 22.91 1.10
(from A.A.)

4.2.1.2 Grain size analysis
4.2.1.2.1 General
The size of the particles that constitute soils may vary from that of boulders to clay. Grain
size analysis is an attempt to determine the relative proportions of different grain sizes
which make up a soil mass.
The usual grain size testing and analysis (temperate zone soils) consists of first drying the
soil sample brought from the test pit and then pulverizing it before letting run through a
nest of sieves. The soil passing the No. 10 sieve (fine soils) was separated by hydrometer
analysis. Then, the result obtained was expressed by a plot of percent finer (passing) by
weight against size of soil particles in millimeters on a log scale. As discussed in Section
2.2.1.1 one of these conventions is the assumption of a constant specific gravity for the
soil particles; when determined by measurement this value is usually an average over the
full range of particle sizes; however, for some laterites, whose coarse fraction is iron-rich
and whose fine fraction is kaolinite, this convention may be misleading. The coarse
fraction usually has a specific gravity of between 3.0 and 3.5 (but sometimes very much
higher), while the specific gravity of the finer material is about 2.7. The particle-size
distribution curve is based on proportions by mass retained on successive sieves, and only
represents a particular packing arrangement for a soil of constant specific gravity. Given
this discrepancy in specific gravity, a conventionally test applied to laterities would
overestimate the volume content of coarser particles and exaggerate any gap-grading in
the material, and would not represent the true packing and mechanical stability of the
material as a whole.
It is important therefore, when judging grading analyses to inspect the material assess its
composition and decide if separate specific gravity determinations of the fine and coarse
fractions should be made. If the specific gravities are significantly different, the grading
should be calculated by modified mass proportions as well as by conventional mass
proportions (Charman, 1995). An example of this modification of grading analysis and
the resulting grading curves are presented in Table 4.5 and Figure 4.2 respectively. This
procedure will give a clearer indication of the potential mechanical stability of the
compacted aggregate. If gradings are presented on the basis of modified mass
proportions, they must be clearly identified as such.

It is also discussed, in Section 2.2.1.1, that relatively weak coarse particles may also
cause problems in grading analysis as they become finer during sample preparation
technique i.e. during pulverization. For the analysis to represent the source material, the
sample preparation and test procedures should not fracture the coarse particles. It is
equally important that the fines adhering to the coarse particles should be removed. It is
therefore recommended by different authors that such soil particles should be soaked until
the coating material is fully softened; that only the wet sieving procedure be used; and
that a ‘closed system’ of washing be maintained so that no material is lost in the process.
Any tendency for the coarse particles to fracture should be recorded on the test reports
(Charman, 1995; Lyon Associates, 1971).
Generally the assessment of a soil or aggregate for highway pavement use would not
require sedimentation analysis of the fraction smaller than 75 microns in size. When
sedimentation analyses are made, however, it should be remembered that the techniques
of dispersion, which have not been standardized, can affect the results. The dispersing
agent and procedure should therefore be reported with the test result (Charman, 1995).

Table 4.5 Modification of grading analysis by modified mass proportion for variation in specific gravity within a sample
Assuming constant specific gravity (S.G.)

Therefore,
Cumulative mass Therefore, Equivalent mass Therefore,
Sieve But visual inspection and mass retained on
percentage mass retained on retained on each Cumulative mass
size separate S.G. determinations each sieve re-
passing each each sieve in a sieve for 100g percentage passing
(mm) reveal that proportioned for
sieve 100g sample sample each sieve
variation in S.G.
50 100 0 S.G. (fraction > 5mm) = 3.5 0.00 0.00 100.00
31.5 85 15 S.G. (fraction < 5mm) = 2.7 11.57 13.48 86.52
20 70 15 Therefore, mass retained on 11.57 13.48 73.04
each sieve larger than 5 mm
10 50 20 should be factored by 15.43 17.98 55.06
5 38 12 2.7 9.26 10.79 44.27
ratio = 0.77
2 30 8 3.5 8.00 9.32 34.95
0.5 25 5 5.00 5.83 29.13
0.075 20 5 5.00 5.83 23.30
20 20.00 23.30
100 85.83 100.00
OR
0.00 0.00 100.00
15.00 13.48 86.52
15.00 13.48 73.04
20.00 17.98 55.06
Mass retained on each sieve 12.00 10.79 44.27
smaller than 5 mm should be 10.37 9.32 34.95
factored by 6.48 5.83 29.13
6.48 5.83 23.30
3.5 25.93 23.30
ratio = 1.30
2.7 111.26 100.00

Figure 4.2 Grading curve for variation in specific gravity within a sample
Sample preparation
a) Dry preparation
The oven-dried (OD) and air-dried (AD) samples were prepared in accordance with
ASTM 421-85, “Dry Preparation of Soil Samples for Particle-Size Analysis and
Determination of Soil Constants”. For OD test samples, Section 3 of ASTM D 421-85
was modified from air drying to oven drying.
During the sample preparation procedure the test samples as received from the field were
exposed to the air at room temperature or to an oven temperature of 105oC until the
samples were dried thoroughly. The aggregations were broken down /pulverized/
thoroughly in the mortar with a rubber-covered pestle before they were screened through
the nest of sieves. Then the ground test samples were separated in to two portions by
sieving with a No.10 (2.00-mm) sieve: one portion contains only particles retained on

No.10 sieve which were used for coarse sieve analysis, while the other portion contains
only particles passing No.10 (2.00-mm) sieve for hydrometer analysis.
After the coarser particles were screened through a nest of sieves and the finer particles
were subjected to hydrometer using the procedures detailed in ASTM D 422-63, the
results were expressed by a plot of percent finer (passing) by weight against size of soil
particles in millimeters on a log scale.
Apart from the method of dry preparation of the soil samples (ASTM D 421-85) and
sieve analysis tests (ASTM D 422-63), for this thesis work the air-dried soil samples were
prepared by spreading the materials out in trays in the laboratory and leaving it open to
the air at room temperature of about 20oC for at least 15 days. An equivalently, soil
sample was put in side oven at temperature of 50oC for at least 5 days. Another oven-
dried sample was prepared by drying the soil samples overnight at 105oC oven
temperatures.
b) Wet preparation
Wet preparations were used for the as-received test samples (AR) i.e. soil samples which
contain all their natural moisture are tested without any form of pre-test drying. The test
samples were prepared in accordance with ASTM D 2217-85, “Wet Preparation of Soil
Samples for Particle-Size Analysis and Determination of Soil Constants” Procedure B.
This procedure provides that the samples be kept at moisture content equal to or greater
than the natural moisture content.
During the sample preparation procedure the test samples as received from the field were
soaked until the coating material is fully softened. It is important that the fines adhering to
the coarse particles should be removed and the fracturing of weak coarse particles should
be prevented (Charman, 1995; Lyon Associates, 1971). The soaked samples were washed
in the manner stated in ASTM D 2217-85 Section 6.1.2 and Lyon Associates (1971),
using No.10 (2.00-mm) & No.200 (0.075-mm) sieves. After washing, the materials
retained on the No.10 (2.00-mm) & No.200 (0.075-mm) sieves were dried in an oven at a
temperature of 105oC overnight. Then the dried materials were used for the particle-size
analysis using nest of sieves. The dry weights used in the computations for the gradation
were calculated by using the wet weight and moisture contents of the test samples before

sieving as recommended in Lyon Associates (1971). In addition to this, the hydrometer
analysis was used in the determination of particle-sizes less than sieve No. 200 (0.075-
mm) in accordance with the procedures stated in ASTM D 422-63 keeping the soil
sample in moist condition.
The summary of particle-size analysis test results of all test samples under investigation
for the different testing conditions /pretreatments/ is presented in Table 4.6. The particle-
size analysis test results were analyzed to understand the effects of different testing
procedures, which use different pretreatment conditions (i.e. AR, AD & OD). In addition
to this the variations of grading curves for variation of sample location /depth/ was
analyzed. The effect of using separate specific gravities on grading analysis was also
inspected while using the separate specific gravity for the fine and coarse fractions of the
test samples. The corresponding particle-size distribution /grading/ curves are shown in
Figure. 4.3 to 4.7 (the particle-size distribution curves presented here are only the typical
ones. The grading curves of most test samples under investigation, for variations in
pretreatment conditions /testing procedures/, for variations in specific gravity within a
sample, for variations in sample location, and range of gradation curves are presented in
Appendix-B).
Effect of pretreatments /testing procedures/
Test samples were tested for the three pretreatment conditions namely Oven-dried (OD),
air-dried (AD) and as-received (AR) to investigate the effect of different pretreatments on
particle-size distribution /grading/ curves of the soils in the research areas. The test results
are shown in Table 4.6 & Figures 4.3.
From the grading curves presented in Appendix-B and percentage of particle sizes shown
in Table 4.6 one can observe that in the AD and OD conditions of pretreatments and
testing procedures resulted to increase the finer particles of the soil samples while the
coarser particles are decreased in percentage. Generally, the particle-size distributions of
some lateritic soils change as a result of hydration reaction when soils are dried specially
at high temperatures. The test result for dry preparation (AD & OD) of samples is
expected to decrease percentage of the finer fraction (clay); on the other hand, test results

of samples tested using wet preparation (AR) condition are expected to cause the reverse
as compared to effect of drying, i.e. to increase percentage of finer fraction. This is due to
the fact that the fines adhering to the coarse particles could be removed during washing.
In addition to the effects of temperature, the particle-size distribution of some lateritic
soils can be changed if the coarse particles are fractured due to the method of sample
preparation and test procedures.
In this thesis work, three different pretreatment conditions (AR, AD & OD) were used for
the particle-size analysis of soil under investigation. That is AD and OD samples were
used for dry preparation of samples while the AR samples were used for wet preparation
of samples. As one can see from the test results, that the dry sample preparation
techniques and dry testing procedures were used, resulted in increasing the fraction of
sand (in AD & OD samples), silt (in AD samples) and clay (in AD samples); however,
the percentage of gravels is reduced in majority of soil samples during the dry preparation
and testing techniques.
From the test results, one can also see that the percentage of silts and clays is increased in
dry preparation for the case of air-dried samples; however, for the oven-dried samples it
is nearly the same, i.e. the oven-dried pretreatment condition resulted in small difference
for the finer portion of gradation (i.e. for silts and clays). This may be the fact that when
lateritic soils are oven-dried there is mineralogy alteration and/or development of larger
capillary forces between particles; hence, the degree of bondage for fine particles become
increased as a result of the cementation of sesquioxides; and the cementation will no
longer be disintegrated by manipulation /pulverization/.
However, from the test results one can also see that the dry sample preparation and testing
procedure causes to decrease the percentage of coarser particles. This is because the
coarser particles became highly fractured during the pulverization process.
It is therefore recommended that the wet sieving method /testing procedures/ should be
used for the soil samples under investigation. The soils are sensitive to manipulation
/pulverization/. The soils should not be prepared using the dry preparation method as
discussed above rather they should be prepared using the wet preparation method, i.e. the
soil should be soaked until the coating material is fully softened and the wet sieving
procedures should be practiced.

Effect of Specific gravity Variation
The assumption of constant specific gravity for the soil particles while carrying out
particle-size distribution analysis assumes one average value over the full range of
particle-sizes. For some laterites, whose coarse fraction is iron-rich and whose fine
fraction is kaolinite, this convention may be misleading as it would overestimate the
volume content of coarser particles and exaggerate any gap-grading in the material, and
would not represent the true packing and mechanical stability of the material as a whole
(Charman, 1995).
In order to address this problem separate specific gravity tests were conducted for coarser
and finer particles. The specific gravity of the coarser fractions was determined according
to the methods recommended by Lyon Associates (1971) on air dried samples (as an
alternative ASTM C 127 can be consulted or used). Once the separate specific gravities
were determined, the grading was calculated by modified mass proportions as well as by
mass proportions.
As can be seen from the grading curves shown in Figures 4.4 to 4.5 and in Appendix-B
(where the grading curves of few test samples under investigation for variation in specific
gravity within a sample is attached), the grading curves using mass and volume
proportions are not varied significantly, especially for test samples tested under wet
testing method (i.e. AR pretreatment condition). For the case of dry prepared samples
(AD & OD samples) there is a slight difference in the grading curves, even if the OD
samples have higher difference than AD samples. This can be seen in Appendix-B for test
samples TS1-2, TS67-1, TS8-2 and TS16-1. Generally all soils under investigation do
have nearly identical grading curves, i.e. the grading curves using mass proportion and
the modified grading curves using modified mass proportion are nearly the same. Hence,
for the soils under investigation one can say that the need of modifying the grading curves
using modified mass proportion is not as such important especially when wet sieving
method is used.

Effect of sample location /sampling depth/
Residual soils formed at the same profile and locations show nearly similar characteristics
due to their mode of weathering, deposition and soil forming factors to which they are
exposed. These soils vary from a highly weathered soil at the top to a strong un-
weathered rock or intact rock at the bottom. From the test results summarized in Table 4.6
one can see that, the soils under investigation showed an increase in percentage of coarse
particles when soils are sampled with increasing depth. This can also be seen from
Figures 4.6 & 4.7 for test samples TS5 (TP5-1, TS5-2 and TS5-3) and TS14 (TP14-1,
TS14-2 and TS14-3) respectively that the grading curves showed that the soil samples
become increasing in the coarser fraction while increasing the sampling depth.
Hence, one can see from the test results shown in Table 4.6 and gradation curves attached
in Appendix-B that the soils under investigation showed increasing of the coarser
fractions while soils were sampled from top to an increased depth. This is therefore, from
the actual site condition and the laboratory results; the soil of western Ethiopia shows a
decreased in fine fractions and/or an increase in coarse sized particles in going down
along the profile /depth/. This is also observed by previous researchers (Zelalem, 2005;
Wakuma, 2007; Dibisa, 2008).
Range of gradation curves
The range of grading curves for the soils under investigation is relatively wide. This is
due to the fact that for residual soils the sequence of materials ranging from a true soil at
the top and to softer rocks at the bottom which is highly depending on the degree of
weathering. The range of grading curves for the soil samples under investigation in this
work is as shown in Figure 4.8 for various pretreatment conditions (range of grading
curves are also attached in Appendix-B for each pretreatments separately).

Table 4.6 Percentage amount of particle-sizes at different pretreatments and depths
Sample Location Sample Pretreatment Percentage amount of particle-sizes
S.N.
Station, Offset Depth Designation conditions Gravel Sand Silt Clay
AR 38.27 28.09 18.35 15.29
10+880, 1.5km
1 0.6m TS1-1 AD 31.02 27.52 17.16 24.31
RHS
OD 37.74 42.45 8.55 11.26
AR 64.82 19.86 6.85 8.46
10+880, 1.5km
2 2.0m TS1-2 AD 57.98 21.60 10.10 10.33
RHS
OD 57.95 21.86 11.37 8.82
AR 54.67 31.33 5.38 8.62
16+280, 20m
3 1.5m TS2-1 AD 43.23 36.50 11.30 8.98
RHS
OD 47.04 35.73 8.66 8.57
AR 42.37 41.21 10.80 5.62
16+280, 20m
4 3.0m TS2-2 AD 33.80 46.04 11.44 8.73
LHS
OD 35.50 50.15 9.80 4.55
AR 61.59 18.01 10.16 10.23
20+000, 50m
5 0.6m TS3-1 AD 49.37 29.88 11.21 9.54
RHS
OD 42.17 30.72 14.19 12.93
AR 33.76 39.63 12.81 13.80
20+000, 50m
6 2.0m TS3-2 AD 27.05 38.14 13.60 21.20
RHS
OD 27.59 48.72 12.31 11.38
AR 22.75 34.69 20.19 22.36
30+000, 20m
7 2.0m TS4-1 AD 20.80 48.94 15.08 15.18
RHS
OD 22.28 39.74 22.51 15.47
AR 84.40 6.25 4.60 4.74
30+000, 20m
8 3.0m TS4-2 AD 68.73 12.10 8.81 10.35
RHS
OD 70.54 14.47 8.62 6.37
AR 36.80 28.47 18.48 16.25
35+980, 120m
9 0.6m TS5-1 AD 30.62 33.43 16.69 19.26
RHS
OD 36.23 31.44 17.16 15.17
AR 61.63 17.54 9.15 11.67
35+980, 120m
10 1.8m TS5-2 AD 64.82 18.33 9.44 7.42
RHS
OD 75.15 15.17 4.83 4.85
AR 65.64 18.92 6.46 8.97
35+980, 120m
11 2.5m TS5-3 AD 48.14 28.15 12.41 11.31
RHS
OD 58.11 25.67 7.12 9.10
AR 74.81 14.91 6.07 4.22
44+080, 40m
12 1.0m TS6-1 AD 64.21 16.69 15.06 4.04
LHS
OD 65.66 18.85 9.48 6.01
AR 49.83 32.22 12.25 5.70
44+080, 40m
13 2.0m TS6-2 AD 55.76 22.89 8.61 12.75
LHS
OD 70.38 15.55 4.53 9.54
AR 62.12 13.91 12.55 11.41
49+100, 20m
14 1.5m TS7-1 AD 51.39 21.52 16.66 10.43
LHS
OD 55.33 20.35 11.19 13.13
AR 65.30 14.46 10.26 9.98
49+100, 20m
15 3.5m TS7-2 AD 60.44 17.87 10.57 11.12
RHS
OD 58.90 22.43 9.11 9.56
AR 60.29 22.96 7.94 8.80
53+000, 40m
16 3 1.5m TS8-1 AD 55.73 26.16 9.05 9.05
RHS
OD 60.90 24.45 4.99 9.66
AR 67.62 16.08 9.04 7.26
53+000, 40m
17 3.0m TS8-2 AD 60.73 20.23 11.02 8.02
RHS
OD 57.89 27.80 7.28 7.04

Percentage amount of particle-sizes at different pretreatments and depths (continued)
Sample Location Sample Pretreatment Percentage amount of particle-sizes
S.N.
Station, Offset Depth Designation conditions Gravel Sand Silt Clay
AR 23.26 37.93 24.07 14.74
58+000, 50m
18 4 0.6m TS9-1 AD 13.93 43.67 28.62 13.77
LHS
OD 16.67 30.96 10.27 42.09
AR 74.47 18.00 4.92 2.62
58+100, 50m
19 1.5m TS9-2 AD 62.67 23.92 8.21 5.20
LHS
OD 60.24 23.54 6.03 10.19
AR 59.58 20.79 10.46 9.16
58+200, 200m 0.6-
20 TS10-1 AD 52.67 25.15 11.46 10.72
LHS 1.5m
OD 53.25 27.49 10.84 8.41
AR 47.85 18.90 16.44 16.80
58+200, 250m 1.0-
21 TS11-1 AD 30.27 28.55 28.87 12.31
LHS 2.0m
OD 32.96 31.54 21.77 13.73
AR 55.98 26.94 8.05 9.02
70+040, 300m 1.0-
22 3 TS12-1 AD 42.15 30.60 14.28 12.97
RHS 2.0m
OD 46.24 35.87 8.39 9.51
AR 46.02 22.03 14.85 17.10
70+840, 20m
23 4 1.0m TS13-1 AD 37.52 34.58 18.65 9.25
LHS
OD 38.07 38.83 18.20 4.90
AR 72.21 17.56 6.01 4.22
70+840, 20m
24 3.0m TS13-2 AD 61.36 19.67 11.24 7.74
LHS
OD 59.33 22.25 13.57 4.84
AR 50.73 36.65 7.53 5.09
74+300, 30m
25 1.0m TS14-1 AD 58.76 23.62 7.90 9.71
RHS
OD 59.33 26.73 7.36 6.58
AR 77.24 15.88 5.60 1.28
74+300, 30m
26 1.5m TS14-2 AD 73.12 15.04 7.00 4.85
RHS
OD 73.80 17.01 4.50 4.69
AR 84.81 8.11 2.83 4.24
74+300, 30m
27 3.0m TS14-3 AD 77.06 16.01 3.98 2.94
RHS
OD 73.37 19.21 4.75 2.67
AR 57.33 22.29 9.68 10.69
84+200, 200m 1.0-
28 TS15-1 AD 49.86 26.32 13.11 10.71
RHS 2.0m
OD 55.44 23.37 10.80 10.39
AR 69.58 18.91 5.58 5.93
84+200, 200m
29 1.0m TS16-1 AD 51.62 28.65 9.40 10.33
RHS
OD 51.16 27.38 10.11 11.35
3
RHS refers Right hand side from road center line
4
LHS refers Left hand side from road center line

Figure 4.3 Gradation curves for variation in sample pretreatments /testing procedures/
(TS2-1, TS4-2 & TS12-1)

within a sample (TS4-2)

within a sample (TS7-1)

(TS5-1, TS5-2 & TS5-3)

(TS14-1, TS14-2 & TS14-3)

Figure 4.8 Ranges of grain-size distribution /grading/ curves for different pretreatment
conditions /testing procedures/

4.2.1.3 Atterberg limits
4.2.1.3.1 General
Lateritic soils are susceptible to breakdown with manipulation; hence test procedures for
Atterberg limits should be more strictly controlled. Excessive manipulation during testing
leads to disaggregation of clay-size particles that produce fines which result in higher
liquid limit values. In order to control these problems the mixing times shall be kept to a
minimum, generally about 5 minutes for each point in the plasticity tests (Lyon
Associates, 1971; Blight, 1997).
As discussed in section 2.5.2.1 some lateritic soils show changes in physical properties
when tested under different drying temperatures. It is well-known that oven-drying, and
even air-drying, affects the properties of these soils, though this effect is usually small for
transported soils. Because of their origin and slow in situ decomposition in a largely
anaerobic environment, lateritic soils are particularly prone to changes in properties
caused by drying and exposure to air. Drying can cause partial or complete dehydration of
the clay minerals and can change them and their properties irreversibly. Even air-drying
at an ambient temperature can cause changes that cannot be reversed by re-wetting, even
if the re-wetted soil is allowed to mature for long periods (Blight, 1997).
In order to address the effect of temperature, tests were carried out on air-dried, oven-
dried and as-received test samples. In addition to these, the effect of disaggregation of
clay size particles up on manipulation during Atterberg limit testing were also checked by
conducting different testing procedures on air-dried, oven-dried and as-received test
samples as mentioned in section 2.5.4. The Atterberg limit tests were carried out on all
soil samples according to the procedures and recommendations mentioned in Lyon
Associates (1971), ASTM (2004), Charman (1995) and Blight (1997). For the soils under
investigation, the test results are summarized in Table 4.8. The mixing time and pre-
treatment conditions are also shown in the same Table.
For the determination of the Atterberg limit values, air-dried and oven-dried soil samples
were tested following the procedures given in ASTM D 421-85, D 2217-85 and D 4318-
95 except for some variations in sample preparation. The air-dried soil samples were

prepared by spreading the material out in trays in the laboratory and leaving it open to the
air for at least 15 days or equivalently put inside oven at a temperature of 50oC for at least
5 days until they were dried thoroughly. The room temperature was about 20oC. The
oven-dried samples were prepared by drying the soils overnight at 105oC oven
temperature. Wet sample preparations were also carried out on as-received soil samples
/samples which were kept at their natural moisture content prior to preparation/ according
to ASTM D 2217-85 procedure B. In the case of drily prepared test samples, i.e. for air
and oven-dried test samples, portion of the dried soil samples passing No. 40 (0.425mm)
sieve were kept wet for a period of 24 hrs for moisture content equilibration before
carrying out Atterberg limit tests; however, in the case of wetly prepared soil samples the
moist portion, i.e. wet soil portion which was passed while it was washed on No. 40
(0.425mm) sieve were kept drying, i.e. reducing the moisture content, until the mass
reaches a putty-like consistency (such as 15-25 drops of the cup in the liquid limit test).
Finally, Atterberg limit tests were carried out by reducing the moisture content (from wet
to dry point) (Lyon Associates, 1971).
Generally, if the liquid limit values of the specimens for mixing times of 5 minutes (LL
5min) and 30 minutes (LL 30min) do have a difference “>5%” it can be said that the test
result indicates that aggregation of clay size particles are broken down up on
manipulation (Blight, 1997).
In this research’s laboratory test results in Table 4.7 and 4.8 one can see that the soils in
these areas are sensitive to handling and disturbance /manipulation/. That is the more the
soil is disturbed, the finer the aggregates become in grading and the higher the Atterberg
limit. As the greater duration of mixing (i.e., the greater the energy applied to the soil
prior to testing) the larger the resulting liquid limit, and to a lesser extent, the larger the
plasticity index. This result is in agreement with compiled notes of Fourie A.B in Blight
(1997) and previous researchers (Zelalem, 2005; Wakuma, 2007).
Effect of mixing times on Atterberg Limits
In general it is believed that, the greater the energy applied and longer mixing time will
result in more extensive breaking down of cemented bonds between clay clusters and

within peds and thus the formation of greater portions of fine particles. This effect can be
seen on the extent to which liquid limit value increases for an increment of mixing time.
Excessive manipulation during testing leads to crumbling of the soil structure and
disaggregating; these effects produce fines which in turn result in higher liquid limit
values. Hence, the mixing time should be kept to a minimum, generally about 5 minutes
for each point in the plasticity tests (Lyon Associates, 1971).
To address this problem, liquid limit and plastic limits of the twenty nine samples which
were collected from the research areas, Nedjo-Jarso-Begi, and additional two samples
were collected from Addis Ababa, around “Entoto”, were checked by conducting
different testing procedures on air-dried, oven-dried and as-received test samples as
discussed previously. The difference in the liquid limit for 5 minutes and 30 minutes
mixing times is shown together with the drying conditions in Table 4.7 & 4.8. ASTM D
421-85 and D 4318-95 test procedures were adopted for AD and OD test samples while
ASTM D 2217-85 procedure B and ASTM D 4318-95, with a modification of testing
procedure when carrying out the liquid limit tests. This is done by carrying out the test
from wet point to dry point while the wet soil paste getting drier and drier rather than
carrying out from dry to wet points. This procedure was recommended by different
authors (Lyon Associates, 1971; Blight, 1997 and Charman, 1995) while testing lateritic
soils for the AR test samples conditions.
As can be seen in Table 4.7 significant differences were observed in the majority of the
tests (i.e. >5%) between the liquid limit values obtained from the specimens mixed for
5min and 30min, this indicates that the cementation of the clay particles and/or
laterization of the soils were broken down up on manipulation /longer mixing times.
Hence, the greater duration of mixing, i.e. the greater the energy applied to the soil prior
to testing, the larger the resulting liquid limit, and to a lesser extent, the larger the
plasticity index. This is in agreement with compiled notes of Fourie A.B (Blight, 1997).
One can also observe from the test results shown in the tables that the soils in the research
areas are disintegrated by elongation of mixing time. Thus, when Atterberg limit tests are
carrying out for such soils it is recommended to limit the mixing times not more than 5
minutes; and the soils should be broken-down by soaking in water, and not by drying and
grinding as can be done conventionally for temperate zone soils.

Hence, the testing programme for soils like in the research area should include the
following instructions as recommended by Fourie A.B in Blight (1997). That is:
a) Limit the mixing times to not more than 5 minutes

b) Make use of fresh soil for each moisture content point in Atterberg Limit tests,
as well as in compaction tests.
In addition to these, the soils should be broken-down by soaking in water, and not by
drying and grinding as can be done conventionally (Lyon Associates, 1971).
The laboratory testing procedures which are appropriate for the lateritic soils found in the
research areas are attached in Appendix-A.

Table 4.7 Effect of mixing time on Liquid Limit at different conditions
Sample Location As-Received LL Air-Dried LL Oven-Dried LL
Sample 5
Design. 30 Diff 5 30 Diff
Station, Offset Depth min 5 30 Diff.
min. . min. min. .
. min. min.
10+880, 1.5km RHS 0.6m TS1-1 56 60 4 56 59 3 47 50 3
10+880, 1.5km RHS 2.0m TS1-2 57 62 5 56 61 5 53 58 5
16+280, 20m RHS 1.5m TS2-1 55 61 6 61 69 8 54 59 5
16+280, 20m LHS 3.0m TS2-2 56 61 6 58 63 5 58 62 4
20+000, 50m RHS 0.6m TS3-1 56 65 9 57 61 5 49 56 7
20+000, 50m RHS 2.0m TS3-2 61 69 7 59 62 4 60 65 5
30+000, 20m RHS 2.0m TS4-1 55 61 6 57 63 5 53 57 4
30+000, 20m RHS 3.0m TS4-2 55 62 8 58 64 6 57 64 7
35+980, 120m RHS 0.6m TS5-1 56 63 6 54 61 7 53 59 6
35+980, 120m RHS 1.8m TS5-2 57 62 5 54 60 6 51 56 5
35+980, 120m RHS 2.5m TS5-3 61 65 4 60 68 8 52 57 5

44+080, 40m LHS 1.0m TS6-1 54 58 4 56 62 6 48 52 4
44+080, 40m LHS 2.0m TS6-2 58 63 6 52 57 6 54 60 6
49+100, 20m LHS 1.5m TS7-1 56 65 9 62 69 6 57 62 5
49+100, 20m RHS 3.5m TS7-2 56 61 5 57 63 6 62 67 5
53+000, 40m RHS 1.5m TS8-1 59 66 7 57 63 6 53 58 5
53+000, 40m RHS 3.0m TS8-2 59 64 5 54 59 5 50 55 5
58+000, 50m LHS 0.6m TS9-1 57 64 7 62 66 4 62 68 6
58+100, 50m LHS 1.5m TS9-2 59 64 5 55 60 5 54 59 5
0.6-
58+200, 200m LHS TS10-1 59 63 5 58 62 5 50 55 6
1.5m
1.0-
58+200, 250m LHS TS11-1 57 62 5 63 69 5 56 62 5
2.0m
1.0-
70+040, 300m RHS TS12-1 57 63 6 51 57 6 49 54 5
2.0m
70+840, 20m LHS 1.0m TS13-1 57 64 6 55 58 2 49 54 5
70+840, 20m LHS 3.0m TS13-2 53 58 5 55 57 2 54 59 4
74+300, 30m RHS 1.0m TS14-1 57 63 5 55 61 6 49 53 5
74+300, 30m RHS 1.5m TS14-2 53 55 3 51 58 7 51 57 6
74+300, 30m RHS 3.0m TS14-3 57 62 5 51 57 7 46 51 6
1.0-
84+200, 200m RHS TS15-1 58 64 6 54 60 5 53 57 4
2.0m
84+200, 200m RHS 1.0m TS16-1 59 65 6 47 51 4 54 58 4
Sample from A.A.
0.6m Sample-A 58 60 2 51 52 1 50 52 2
("Entoto")
Sample from A.A.
1.5m Sample-B 45 48 3 38 39 1 38 39 1
("Entoto")

Figure 4.9 Effect of mixing times on liquid limits (AR samples)
Figure 4.10 Effect of mixing times on liquid limits (AD samples)

Figure 4.11 Effect of mixing times on liquid limits (OD samples)
Effects of drying temperatures on Atterberg Limits
From the Atterberg limits test results of the soils under investigation which is summarized
in Table 4.8 for different pretreatments and mixing times, it can be seen that air and oven-
dry pretreatments has resulted in a decrease in the liquid limit, plastic limit and to a lesser
extent in the Plasticity Index.
For lateritic soils the laboratory pretreatments should reflect the actual field conditions.
Hence, the test samples should not be over-dried prior to testing as the soils will not
experience such high temperatures in the field (Lyon Associates, 1971; Blight, 1997).

Table 4.8 Atterberg limits at different pretreatment conditions and mixing times
Sample Location Sample Mixing Liquid Limits (LL) Plastic Limits (PL) Plastic Index (PI)
Desig. Time
Station, Offset Depth AR AD OD AR AD OD AR AD OD
10+880, 1.5km 5 Min. 56 56 47 36 34 30 20 22 17

0.6m TS1-1
RHS 30 Min. 60 59 50 39 35 32 22 24 18
10+880, 1.5km 5 Min. 57 56 53 34 31 23 23 26 29
2.0m TS1-2
RHS 30 Min. 62 61 58 34 31 24 27 30 34
16+280, 20m 5 Min. 55 61 54 36 35 32 19 26 22
1.5m TS2-1
RHS 30 Min. 61 69 59 36 36 33 25 34 26
16+280, 20m 5 Min. 56 58 58 33 34 33 22 24 25
3.0m TS2-2
LHS 30 Min. 61 63 62 34 35 33 28 28 29
20+000, 50m 5 Min. 56 57 49 37 34 33 19 22 16
0.6m TS3-1
RHS 30 Min. 65 61 56 38 35 33 28 27 23
20+000, 50m 5 Min. 61 59 60 38 35 32 24 23 28
2.0m TS3-2
RHS 30 Min. 69 62 65 38 35 33 31 27 32
30+000, 20m 5 Min. 55 57 53 37 37 34 18 20 20
2.0m TS4-1
RHS 30 Min. 61 63 57 37 38 34 24 25 23
30+000, 20m 5 Min. 55 58 57 34 37 32 21 21 25
3.0m TS4-2
RHS 30 Min. 62 64 64 34 37 32 28 27 31
35+980, 120m 5 Min. 56 54 53 35 32 35 21 22 19
0.6m TS5-1
RHS 30 Min. 63 61 59 36 32 35 26 28 24
35+980, 120m 5 Min. 57 54 51 35 35 34 21 19 17
1.8m TS5-2
RHS 30 Min. 62 60 56 36 36 34 25 24 22
35+980, 120m 5 Min. 61 60 52 38 36 32 24 24 20
2.5m TS5-3
RHS 30 Min. 65 68 57 38 37 33 27 31 24
44+080, 40m 5 Min. 54 56 48 37 31 34 17 25 14
1.0m TS6-1
LHS 30 Min. 58 62 52 37 31 35 22 31 17
44+080, 40m 5 Min. 58 52 54 32 31 32 26 20 22
2.0m TS6-2
LHS 30 Min. 63 57 60 32 32 33 32 25 27
49+100, 20m 5 Min. 56 62 57 41 39 31 15 23 25
1.5m TS7-1
LHS 30 Min. 65 69 62 42 39 33 24 30 29
49+100, 20m 5 Min. 56 57 62 34 42 34 22 16 28
3.5m TS7-2
RHS 30 Min. 61 63 67 34 42 35 27 21 33
53+000, 40m 5 Min. 59 57 53 32 29 34 26 28 19
1.5m TS8-1
RHS 30 Min. 66 63 58 33 32 34 33 32 24
5 Min. 59 54 50 35 32 32 24 23 18
53+000, 40m
3.0m TS8-2
RHS 30 Min. 64 59 55 36 32 32 29 27 23
5 Min. 57 62 62 38 34 32 20 28 30
58+000, 50m
0.6m TS9-1
LHS 30 Min. 64 66 68 38 35 33 27 31 35

Atterberg limits at different pretreatment conditions and mixing times (continued)
Sample Location Sample Mixing Liquid Limits (LL) Plastic Limits (PL) Plastic Index (PI)
Desig. Time
Station, Offset Depth AR AD OD AR AD OD AR AD OD
58+100, 50m 5 Min. 59 55 54 37 33 31 21 22 23

1.5m TS9-2
LHS 30 Min. 64 60 59 37 33 32 26 27 27
58+200, 200m 0.6- 5 Min. 59 58 50 35 31 33 23 26 17
TS10-1
LHS 1.5m 30 Min. 63 62 55 36 32 34 28 31 22
58+200, 250m 1.0- 5 Min. 57 63 56 41 39 30 16 25 26
TS11-1
LHS 2.0m 30 Min. 62 69 62 41 39 31 21 30 31
70+040, 300m 1.0- 5 Min. 57 51 49 35 38 33 22 13 15
TS12-1
RHS 2.0m 30 Min. 63 57 54 35 39 34 28 19 20
70+840, 20m 5 Min. 57 55 49 41 34 33 17 21 16
1.0m TS13-1
LHS 30 Min. 64 58 54 41 35 33 23 23 21
70+840, 20m 5 Min. 53 55 54 35 35 33 18 20 21
3.0m TS13-2
LHS 30 Min. 58 57 59 35 36 33 23 21 25
74+300, 30m 5 Min. 57 55 49 37 33 34 20 22 15
1.0m TS14-1
RHS 30 Min. 63 61 53 37 33 33 26 27 20
74+300, 30m 5 Min. 53 51 51 38 36 33 15 15 18
1.5m TS14-2
RHS 30 Min. 55 58 57 38 36 33 17 23 24
74+300, 30m 5 Min. 57 51 46 33 31 31 24 19 14
3.0m TS14-3
RHS 30 Min. 62 57 51 33 32 32 29 26 19
84+200, 200m 1.0- 5 Min. 58 54 53 39 32 33 19 22 20
TS15-1
RHS 2.0m 30 Min. 64 60 57 39 33 34 25 27 23
84+200, 200m 5 Min. 59 47 54 36 34 34 24 14 20
1.0m TS16-1
RHS 30 Min. 65 51 58 36 35 36 29 16 22
Sample 5 Min. 58 51 50 30 23 23 28 28 27
(From A.A.) 0.6m
-A 30 Min. 60 52 52 30 23 23 30 29 29
Sample 5 Min. 45 38 38 24 23 23 21 15 15
(From A.A.) 1.5m
-B 30 Min. 48 39 39 24 23 23 24 16 16

Figure 4.12 Effect of drying temperature on liquid limits (AR and OD samples)
Figure 4.13 Effect of drying temperature on liquid limits (AD and OD samples)

Figure 4.14 Effect of different pretreatments on liquid limits (AR, AD and OD samples)
One point Liquid Limit Test
Two methods of determining the liquid limit are provided in ASTM D 4318-95; Method
A, Multipoint test as discussed in the previous section and Method B, One-point test. It is
true that the multipoint liquid limit method is generally more precise than the one-point
method. It is also recommended that the multipoint method be used in cases where results
may be subject to dispute, or where greater precision is required.
The expression relating liquid limit (LL) to the water content (ω) of a soil sample and the
number of blows (N) to close the groove in Atterberg’s liquid limit test is found
experimentally to be of the form:
LL = ω (N/25) tan B ………………………………………………………….Eq. 4.1
Where: tan B is the slope of the line ω Vs N on a semi-log plot. Usually N values lie
between 15-35 blows. The value for tan B reported throughout the world lie in the range
0.090-0.150 (Lyon Associates, 1971).

Lyon Associates (1971) had found that one-point liquid limit tests can be used for tropical
soils effectively. Taking the value of tan B = 0.12 and limiting the number of blows to the
range 20-30 gives more accurate result (Lyon Associates, 1971; ASTM, 2004).
The correlation equation, Eq. 4.1, on which the calculations of the one point method are
based, may not be valid for certain soils, such as organic soils or soils from a marine
environment. It is strongly recommended that the liquid limit of these soils be determined
by the multipoint method (Lyon Associates, 1971; ASTM, 2004).
One-point liquid limit method has been described and investigated by a number of
authors, and various formulas have been proposed. The most widely used one was
developed by U.S waterway experiment station (1949) and was given above by the
formula in Eq. 4.1 (Lyon Associates, 1971; ASTM, 2004).
In order to investigate the applicability of the one-point liquid limit test for the soil
samples under investigation, the twenty nine samples collected from the research area and
the two samples collected from Addis Ababa, were tested using ASTM D 4318-95
Method B testing procedure. For comparison the one-point liquid limit test results along
with their multipoint liquid limit test results are summarized below in Table 4.9.
From the test results comparisons summarized in Table 4.9, one can see that the one point
liquid limit test is acceptable for lateritic soils found in the Western Ethiopia. For number
of blows 20 to 30, good comparisons can be done.

Table 4.9 Liquid limits comparison between Multipoint and One-point test methods
One- Multi
One-point Multipoint
Sample Sample No. of point point Sample No. of
LL LL
design. pretreatment Blows LL LL pretreatment Blows
(%) (%)
(%) (%)
36 73.16 36 77.76
AR, 5min. 28 56.67 AD, 5min. 28 56.11
TS1-1 56 56
Mixing 21 57.11 Mixing 21 55.24
16 57.10 16 54.74
37 78.93 36 78.68
AR, 5min. 29 55.90 AD, 5min. 28 56.41
TS1-2 57 56
Mixing 23 56.64 Mixing 20 55.44
17 56.84 15 54.53
36 72.11 36 80.65
AR, 5min. 28 53.87 AD, 5min. 27 59.37
TS2-1 55 61
Mixing 23 55.06 Mixing 22 62.05
17 56.09 16 62.07
36 75.86 36 76.48
AR, 5min. 28 54.98 AD, 5min. 28 57.22
TS2-2 56 58
Mixing 22 55.48 Mixing 21 58.94
16 55.34 15 59.09
36 78.47 37 74.20
AR, 5min. 28 56.64 AD, 5min. 29 53.83
TS3-1 56 57
Mixing 22 55.50 Mixing 21 54.35
16 54.95 15 62.37
36 84.51 35 77.68
AR, 5min. 27 60.68 AD, 5min. 27 58.48
TS3-2 61 59
Mixing 21 61.66 Mixing 21 58.52
15 60.20 15 57.77
38 79.36 35 75.67
AR, 5min. 28 54.43 AD, 5min. 29 57.33
TS4-1 55 57
Mixing 22 54.29 Mixing 22 57.49
15 54.09 16 56.76
36 72.38 36 80.33
AR, 5min. 27 54.00 AD, 5min. 27 58.40
TS4-2 21 54.97 55 22 58.30 58
Mixing Mixing
17 55.31 15 56.91
36 76.95 38 77.37
28 56.44 29 52.64
AR, 5min. AD, 5min.
TS5-1 22 56.32 56 20 52.86 54
Mixing Mixing
15 55.47 16 55.59
36 76.38 38 77.37
AR, 5min. 28 55.69 AD, 5min. 29 52.64
TS5-2 57 54
Mixing 22 56.47 Mixing 20 52.86
17 57.32 16 55.59
34 76.74 35 81.77
AR, 5min. 27 60.05 AD, 5min. 28 60.56
TS5-3 61 60
Mixing 21 62.76 Mixing 21 59.11
15 63.31 16 59.23
35 71.94 32 71.04
AR, 5min. 27 53.48 AD, 5min. 27 56.39
TS6-1 54 56
Mixing 22 54.36 Mixing 22 55.51
16 54.03 16 53.78

Liquid limits comparison between Multipoint and One-point test methods (continued)
One- Multi
One-point Multipoint
Sample Sample No. of point point Sample No. of
LL LL
design. pretreatment Blows LL LL pretreatment Blows
(%) (%)
(%) (%)
36 78.09 34 67.81
AR, 5min. 28 56.97 AD, 5min. 26 51.26
TS6-2 58 52
Mixing 23 57.73 Mixing 20 50.84
17 58.51 15 50.78
36 71.55 35 81.63
AR, 5min. 27 56.53 AD, 5min. 28 62.83
TS7-1 56 62
Mixing 20 57.47 Mixing 21 62.14
15 56.86 16 61.63
36 72.00 36 76.61
AR, 5min. 28 54.63 AD, 5min. 28 56.45
TS7-2 56 57
Mixing 22 57.09 Mixing 22 57.18
16 55.76 16 57.95
35 78.64 37 80.06
AR, 5min. 28 57.68 AD, 5min. 28 56.42
TS8-1 59 57
Mixing 22 58.93 Mixing 20 56.99
16 59.00 16 55.87
36 77.64 36 72.46
AR, 5min. 29 57.36 AD, 5min. 28 53.16
TS8-2 59 54
Mixing 23 59.21 Mixing 21 54.53
17 60.81 17 55.64
35 75.53 35 83.29
AR, 5min. 28 57.20 AD, 5min. 29 60.91
TS9-1 57 62
Mixing 23 58.52 Mixing 21 60.81
17 57.35 16 61.61
38 86.74 35 72.12
AR, 5min. 29 58.64 AD, 5min. 28 54.24
TS9-2 59 55
Mixing 21 58.41 Mixing 22 55.83
14 56.58 16 54.78
36 80.85 36 78.12
AR, 5min. 28 58.18 AD, 5min. 28 56.94
TS10-1 59 58
Mixing 21 57.84 Mixing 21 57.60
14 57.96 16 57.37
36 77.95 36 81.09
AR, 5min. 28 56.02 AD, 5min. 28 63.57
TS11-1 57 63
Mixing 22 56.52 Mixing 21 63.04
15 56.10 16 62.10
37 78.84 38 74.61
AR, 5min. 29 56.84 AD, 5min. 29 51.49
TS12-1 57 51
Mixing 23 56.81 Mixing 19 50.06
17 57.29 14 49.80
37 79.98 33 69.54
AR, 5min. 29 57.54 AD, 5min. 27 54.55
TS13-1 57 55
Mixing 23 57.30 Mixing 21 55.98
17 60.60 15 55.66
34 67.81 38 80.96
AR, 5min. 26 52.27 AD, 5min. 27 55.32
TS13-2 53 55
Mixing 21 53.04 Mixing 21 54.22
16 53.07 16 54.29

Liquid limits comparison between Multipoint and One-point test methods (continued)
One- Multi
Sample One-point Multipoint
Sample No. of point point Sample No. of
pretreatmen LL LL
design. Blows LL LL pretreatment Blows
t (%) (%)
(%) (%)
35 73.63 37 78.06
AR, 5min. 28 55.53 AD, 5min. 28 54.84
TS14-1 57 55
Mixing 23 57.99 Mixing 22 54.99
18 58.55 16 53.84
36 71.82 37 73.04
AR, 5min. 28 53.05 AD, 5min. 27 51.01
TS14-2 53 51
Mixing 22 52.20 Mixing 20 50.03
15 50.50 14 49.28
35 74.49 36 69.21
AR, 5min. 27 56.27 AD, 5min. 29 50.72
TS14-3 57 51
Mixing 21 56.70 Mixing 22 50.01
14 56.20 16 50.02
37 77.54 36 75.83
AR, 5min. 29 56.17 AD, 5min. 28 54.09
TS15-1 58 54
Mixing 22 59.01 Mixing 21 53.50
14 57.74 16 53.52
36 75.95 37 66.60
AR, 5min. 28 57.57 AD, 5min. 28 47.29
TS16-1 59 47
Mixing 22 61.66 Mixing 22 47.01
17 59.48 15 46.99
36 70.53 38 72.39
Sample-A 29 50.48 29 50.5
AR, 5min. AD, 5min.
(from 51 50
A.A.) Mixing 22 51.23 Mixing 21 50.1
16 50.44 15 48.88
34 38.45 34 46.13
Sample-B 28 39.70 27 36.04
AR, 5min. AD, 5min.
(from 38 38
A.A.) Mixing 21 38.09 Mixing 21 38.82
14 37.64 14 41.48
Activity number
Skempton's colloidal activity is determined as the ratio of the plasticity index and the
quantity of colloidal clay particles present in soil. Skempton classifies clays according to
their activity number. Following his classification, three degrees of colloidal activity have
been established as indicated below in Table 4.10 as per Eq. 4.2. The activity of clay is
expressed by an activity number “Ac” and defined as
PI
Activity number, Ac = --------------------------------------------------------Eq. 4.2
C

Where C is the percent of clay fraction finer than 2 micron and PI is the plasticity
index.
Skempton considers that the significant change in volume of a clay soil during shrinking
or swelling is a function of plasticity index and the quantity of colloidal clay particles
present in the soil; hence, activity number has been used as an index property to
determine the swelling potential of clays (Das, 1985; Teferra & Leikun, 1999). Colloidal
activity number values for the soils in research area were calculated and summarized
hereto in Table 4.11.
Table 4.10 Degree of Colloidal Activity (Teferra & Leikun, 1999)

Activity Degree of activity
< 0.75 Inactive clay
0.75 - 1.25 Normal clay
> 1.25 Active clay
Skempton (1953) has shown that, for kaolinite clay, the activity lies between 0.33 and
0.46 (Dibisa, 2008). The low value for this particular soil is due to the coating of
Sesquioxides which reduces the specific surface area of the clay particles and hence
suppresses the activity. The result for the soils under investigation is in agreement with
the geochemical (XRF analysis) and mineralogical (XRD analysis) test results which are
discussed in section 4.2.3 and clearly show that the soils are kaolinitic clays (i.e., inactive
clays).
From Table 4.11, one can see that Skempton’s colloidal activity number for the soils
under investigation is less than 1.25; hence, it is true that the lateritic clay soils are
classified as normal or inactive which is also in agreement with Morin W.J. and Todor
P.C. (Lyon Associates, 1971).

Table 4.11 Skempton's colloidal activity number
Sample Plasticity Index, PI (%) Per cent of clay Colloidal Activity, Ac (%)
Sample
Pre- fraction finer than
design. (5min. (30min. (Using 5min. (Using 30min.
treatment 2 micron (%)
Mix.) Mix.) Mix. PI) Mix. PI)
AR 20 22 45.45 0.44 0.48
TS1-1 AD 22 24 58.62 0.37 0.41
OD 17 18 56.84 0.30 0.31
AR 23 27 55.26 0.41 0.50
TS1-2 AD 26 30 50.56 0.51 0.59
OD 29 30 43.68 0.67 0.68
AR 19 25 61.57 0.31 0.41
TS2-1 AD 26 34 44.28 0.58 0.76
OD 22 26 49.74 0.44 0.53
AR 22 28 39.30 0.56 0.70
TS2-2 AD 24 28 43.28 0.55 0.65
OD 25 29 31.71 0.80 0.92
AR 19 28 50.17 0.38 0.55
TS3-1 AD 22 27 45.98 0.48 0.58
OD 16 23 47.68 0.34 0.47
AR 24 31 51.86 0.46 0.59
TS3-2 AD 23 27 60.92 0.38 0.44
OD 28 32 48.04 0.58 0.66
AR 18 24 52.55 0.35 0.45
TS4-1 AD 20 25 50.17 0.40 0.50
OD 20 23 40.73 0.48 0.56
AR 21 28 50.75 0.41 0.56
TS4-2 AD 21 27 54.02 0.40 0.49
OD 25 31 42.49 0.59 0.74
AR 21 26 46.79 0.45 0.56
TS5-1 AD 22 28 53.57 0.41 0.53
OD 19 24 46.92 0.40 0.52
AR 21 25 56.05 0.38 0.45
TS5-2 AD 19 24 44.01 0.43 0.54
OD 17 22 50.10 0.34 0.44
AR 24 27 58.13 0.41 0.47
TS5-3 AD 24 31 47.68 0.50 0.66
OD 20 24 66.47 0.30 0.37
AR 17 22 41.01 0.43 0.53
TS6-1 AD 25 31 38.01 0.66 0.82
OD 14 17 58.69 0.23 0.29
AR 26 32 31.75 0.83 1.00
TS6-2 AD 20 25 59.69 0.34 0.43
OD 22 27 67.80 0.32 0.39
AR 15 24 47.62 0.31 0.50
TS7-1 AD 23 30 38.50 0.61 0.77
OD 25 29 53.99 0.47 0.54
AR 22 27 49.31 0.45 0.55
TS7-2 AD 16 21 51.27 0.31 0.41
OD 28 33 83.49 0.34 0.39
AR 26 33 52.57 0.50 0.63
TS8-1 AD 28 32 50.00 0.56 0.63
OD 19 24 65.94 0.29 0.37

Skempton's colloidal activity number (continued)
Sample Plasticity Index, PI (%) Per cent of clay Colloidal Activity, Ac (%)
Sample
Pre- fraction finer than
design. (5min. (30min. (Using 5min. (Using 30min.
treatment 2 micron (%)
Mix.) Mix.) Mix. PI) Mix. PI)
AR 24 29 44.54 0.53 0.64
TS8-2 AD 23 27 42.12 0.54 0.65
OD 18 23 59.06 0.31 0.39
AR 20 27 37.98 0.52 0.71
TS9-1 AD 28 31 36.78 0.76 0.85
OD 30 35 80.39 0.37 0.44
AR 21 26 34.75 0.62 0.75
TS9-2 AD 22 27 38.78 0.58 0.69
OD 23 27 62.82 0.37 0.43
AR 23 28 46.69 0.50 0.59
TS10-1 AD 26 31 48.33 0.54 0.63
OD 17 22 43.69 0.38 0.50
AR 16 21 50.54 0.31 0.41
TS11-1 AD 25 30 29.89 0.82 0.99
OD 26 31 38.68 0.67 0.80
AR 22 28 52.84 0.42 0.53
TS12-1 AD 13 19 47.60 0.27 0.39
OD 15 20 53.13 0.29 0.37
AR 17 23 53.52 0.32 0.43
TS13-1 AD 21 23 33.15 0.64 0.70
OD 16 21 21.21 0.76 0.99
AR 18 23 41.25 0.44 0.56
TS13-2 AD 20 21 40.78 0.49 0.51
OD 21 25 26.29 0.81 0.97
AR 20 26 40.33 0.50 0.63
TS14-1 AD 22 27 55.14 0.40 0.50
OD 15 20 47.20 0.32 0.43
AR 15 17 18.60 0.81 0.94
TS14-2 AD 15 23 40.93 0.38 0.55
OD 18 24 51.03 0.36 0.47
AR 24 29 59.97 0.39 0.48
TS14-3 AD 19 26 42.49 0.45 0.60
OD 14 19 35.98 0.40 0.53
AR 19 25 52.48 0.36 0.48
TS15-1 AD 22 27 44.96 0.49 0.59
OD 20 23 49.03 0.41 0.48
AR 24 29 51.52 0.46 0.56
TS16-1 AD 14 16 52.36 0.27 0.31
OD 20 22 52.89 0.38 0.42

4.2.1.4 Shrinkage limit
4.2.1.4.1 General
The shrinkage limit is the dividing line between the semisolid and solid states. It is
quantified for a given soil as specific water content, and from a physical standpoint it is
the water content that is just sufficient to fill the voids when the soil is at the minimum
volume it will attain on drying. Below the shrinkage limit, any water content change will
not result in volume change; above the shrinkage limit, any water change will result in
accompanying volume change.
Shrinkage limit, SL can be calculated as follows:
 V - Vo 
SL =    ( )   100  -----------------------------------------------------------
 Wo 
Eq. 4.3
Where: SL= shrinkage limit (expressed as a percentage)
 = water content of wet soil in the shrinkage dish, %
V = volume of wet soil pat (same as volume of shrinkage dish), cm3
Vo = volume of oven-dried soil pat, cm3
Wo = weight of oven-dried soil pat, g
  = unit weight of water, 1 g/cm3
Another soil parameter that often determined in conjunction with the shrinkage limit is
the shrinkage ratio, which is an indicator of how much volume change may occur as
changes in water content above the shrinkage limit takes place. The shrinkage ratio is
defined as the ratio of a given volume change, expressed as a percentage of the dry
volume, to the corresponding change in water content above the shrinkage limit,
expressed as a percentage of the mass of oven-dried soil. In equation form,
  V/V o  Wo
R =    ---------------------------------------------------------------Eq. 4.4
  / Wo  Vo
Where: R = Shrinkage ratio

  = (V)( w ) = change in water content (gm), where unit weight of water is
g/cm3
 V = soil volume change (cm3)
Vo = volume of oven-dried soil (cm3)
Wo = weight of oven-dried soil pat (gm)
The shrinkage limit and shrinkage ratio are particularly useful in analyzing soils that
undergo large volume changes with changes in water content (such as Montimorillonite
and Illite clays). The shrinkage ratio gives an indication of how much volume change
may occur as changes in water content above the shrinkage limit takes place.
For this research work a linear shrinkage values were determined according to British
Standard, BS, 1377 in order to determine the shrinkage characteristics of the soils. This
method is an alternative to the volumetric shrinkage limit which is discussed above.
Linear shrinkage (LS) can be calculated as follows:
Lo - Lf
LS = -------------------------------------------------------------------------Eq. 4.5
Lo
Where: LS = linear shrinkage
Lo = length of wet soil bar
Lf = length of dry soil bar
The general procedure for determining shrinkage limit is begun by placing the sample in
an evaporating dish and mixing it with enough distilled water to fill the soil voids
completely. After the shrinkage dish is coated with petroleum jelly, wet soil is taken from
the evaporating dish with spatula and placed in the shrinkage dish. This should be done in
three parts, with steps taken each time to drive all air out of the soil. After the shrinkage
dish and wet soil are weighed, the soil is set aside to dry in air. It is then oven-dried
overnight, after which the shrinkage dish and dry soil are weighed again. After the oven-
dried soil pat is removed from the shrinkage dish, its volume can be determined by
mercury displacement. The weight and volume of empty shrinkage dish must also be
determined. The latter (i.e. the volume of the shrinkage dish) is also done by mercury

displacement, and it is the same as the volume of wet soil pat. With these data known, the
shrinkage limit can be determined by Eq. 4.3. The actual step-by-step procedure can be
seen in ASTM D 427-83 and AASHTO T-92.
For the case of computation of the linear shrinkage, a pulverized sample passed through a
No. 40 sieve was mixed in a dish with enough distilled water to fill the soil voids
completely and rolled in to threads and put in the Shrinkage Mould. After the length of
wet soil, which was rolled into threads, is measured, the soil is set aside to dry in air. It is
then oven-dried overnight, after which the final length of the soil thread is measured
again. Then the linear shrinkage is computed using Eq. 4.5. Hence, the shrinkage limits
were checked using the computed linear shrinkage values.
The laboratory linear shrinkage tests were carried out on air-dried (or 50oC oven temp.)
and oven-dried (105oC oven temp.) prepared samples and the results are summarized in
Table 4.12.
From the test results one can see that air-dried soil samples have higher values of linear
shrinkage than that of oven-dried soil samples even if the variation is insignificant.
Hence, for soil samples under investigation higher drying temperatures during sample
preparation causes the soil particles to come closer and create higher cementation by
sesquioxides that can’t be reversed upon rewetting as a result linear shrinkage values will
be reduced.

Table 4.12 Linear Shrinkage values for different pretreatment conditions
Linear Shrinkage
Liquid Limits (LL) Plastic Limits (PL) Plastic Index (PI)
Sample (SL)
% % %
Designation %
AD OD AD OD AD OD AD OD
TS1-1 55.9 47.2 34.4 29.9 21.6 17.3 8.5 7.2
TS1-2 56.3 52.6 30.6 23.4 25.6 29.2 8.5 7.8
TS2-1 61.0 54.0 35.4 31.9 25.6 22.1 8.8 8.4
TS2-2 58.2 58.0 34.4 32.6 23.8 25.4 8.9 8.0
TS3-1 56.6 48.9 34.3 32.6 22.2 16.3 8.3 7.0
TS3-2 58.5 60.0 35.2 32.4 23.4 27.7 9.2 8.4
TS4-1 57.3 53.3 37.5 33.6 19.9 19.7 9.0 8.0
TS4-2 58.4 57.2 37.0 32.2 21.4 25.0 8.9 8.0
TS5-1 54.1 53.2 32.1 34.5 22.0 18.7 8.8 8.4
TS5-2 54.1 50.9 35.2 33.9 18.9 17.0 9.2 8.6
TS5-3 60.3 52.0 36.4 32.4 23.8 19.6 8.5 8.0
TS6-1 56.1 48.1 30.8 34.5 25.3 13.6 8.7 8.4
TS6-2 51.5 54.0 31.3 32.2 20.3 21.8 8.5 8.2
TS7-1 62.2 56.8 38.9 31.3 23.3 25.5 8.0 7.4
TS7-2 57.2 62.4 41.6 34.2 15.7 28.2 7.9 7.3
TS8-1 56.9 52.7 29.1 33.5 27.8 19.2 11.6 10.5
TS8-2 54.4 50.1 31.6 31.8 22.8 18.4 11.2 10.1
TS9-1 61.7 62.0 33.7 32.3 28.0 29.7 9.5 8.4
TS9-2 55.0 54.2 32.6 31.1 22.4 23.1 9.0 8.0
TS10-1 57.5 49.9 31.4 33.3 26.1 16.7 8.8 8.1
TS11-1 63.4 56.4 38.8 30.3 24.6 26.1 8.6 8.0
TS12-1 51.2 48.6 38.4 33.3 12.9 15.2 8.3 7.8
TS13-1 55.4 49.0 34.1 32.8 21.3 16.2 8.0 7.5
TS13-2 55.3 54.4 35.4 33.0 19.8 21.4 8.8 8.6
TS14-1 55.1 48.6 33.1 33.6 22.0 15.0 7.9 7.5
TS14-2 51.0 51.1 35.6 32.7 15.4 18.5 7.8 7.3
TS14-3 50.5 45.6 31.4 31.2 19.1 14.4 7.8 7.4
TS15-1 54.3 53.0 32.3 32.7 22.1 20.3 8.6 8.3
TS16-1 47.5 54.1 33.5 34.0 14.0 20.1 8.7 8.4
4.2.1.5 Free swell
4.2.1.5.1 General
Both the amount of swelling and the magnitude of swelling pressure are known to be
dependent on the clay minerals, the soil mineralogy and structure, fabric and several
physio-chemical aspects of the soil (Sintayehu, 2003), Among clay minerals
Montimorillonite influence the magnitude of swelling as compared to Illites and
Kaolinites.

The soil mineralogy of laterites on the other hand is affected by different factors: climate,
topography, geographical location, nature of the base rock from which the soil is derived.
For the soils under study, Western Ethiopia laterites, all the physical and chemical test
results revealed that the soils constitute less active clay minerals like Kaolinite and
halloysite (Zelalem, 2005; Wakuma, 2007; Dibisa, 2008). Generally, among the clay
minerals which are contributing to swelling of soils Montimorillonites (Smectite group)
and Illites are the most common once. Drying of soil samples also makes soil particles to
come closer and hide the potential of some of the active minerals to swell (Dibisa, 2008).
Free swell is given by:
Vf  Vi
Free Swell (%) =  100 ----------------------------------------------Eq. 4.6
Vi
Where Vf = final volume
Vi = initial volume
The free swell test can be done by pouring very slowly 10cm3 of dry soil which has
passed No. 40 (0.425mm) sieve into a 100cm3 graduated cylinder filled with distilled
water. And the cylinder is left to stay for approximately 24 hours until all the soils settle
completely to the bottom of the cylinder. Hence, the final volume of the suspension being
read and the free dwell is computed using Eq. 4.6.
The laboratory free swell tests were done on air-dried (or 50oC oven temp.) and oven-
dried (105oC oven temp.) samples and the results are summarized in Table 4.13. As can
be seen from the test results the free swell of the soils under investigation range from 20%
to 45%. Generally, soils with free swell of less than 50% are considered to have low
degree of expansion, Teferra and Leikun (1999). Accordingly, the soils in Nedjo, Jarso
and Begi areas are non-expansive soil (or low in expansion).

Table 4.13 Free Swell test results at different pre-treatment conditions
Sample Free Swell, Free Swell,

designation Air-Dried sample (%) Oven-Dried sample (%)
TS1-1 42.5 35
TS1-2 35 32.5
TS2-1 35 30
TS2-2 35 32.5
TS3-1 45 40
TS3-2 39 35
TS4-1 35 33
TS4-2 30 23
TS5-1 35 32.5
TS5-2 31 25
TS5-3 29 25
TS6-1 39 35
TS6-2 35 29
TS7-1 40 40
TS7-2 36 31
TS8-1 29 29
TS8-2 25 23
TS9-1 45 35
TS9-2 45 42.5
TS10-1 45 41
TS11-1 36 30
TS12-1 36 32
TS13-1 40 30
TS13-2 45 39
TS14-1 30 25
TS14-2 35 30
TS14-3 38 33
TS15-1 32 25
TS16-1 30 25
Sample-A
23 21
(from A.A.)
Sample-B
26 22
(from A.A.)

4.2.1.6 Specific Gravity
4.2.1.6.1 General
The specific gravity, Gs, is used to calculate parameters such as clay fraction, void ratio
and porosity. In residual soils the specific gravity may be unusually high or unusually
low. It is thus essential that the specific gravity be determined in the laboratory using an
accepted standard test procedure, for the purpose of carrying out these calculations. The
soil has to be in its natural moisture content. Pre-test drying of the sample should be
avoided as it tends to reduce the measured specific gravity as compared with the soils at
their natural moisture content (Blight, 1997; Wakuma, 2007). The dry mass of the soil
used in the test should be calculated by drying the soil specimen after the specific gravity
test has been completed. Due to the outcome of section 4.2.1.1 that even though the
amount was not very high the soils sample under investigation, Nedjo, Jarso, Begi areas,
do have structural water or water of hydration that leads to irreversible changes up on
drying as compared with the soil samples taken from Addis Ababa, it is therefore
necessary to air-dry the soil, or to dry at reduced temperature for the computation of the
dry mass after the test rather than drying to higher (105oC) oven temperature.
The soil samples under investigation were tested using the ASTM testing procedures,
designation ASTM D 854-92. The tests were conducted at different pretreatment
conditions (as-received, air-dried and oven-dried) in order to see the effect of pre-test
drying, on the test results. During the test the dry masses of air-dried and oven-dried soils
samples were measured initially before carrying out the test; however, the dry mass of the
as-received soils were measured after the specific gravity test has been completed by
oven drying the soil specimens with 50oC oven temperature.
From the test results, which are summarized in Table 4.14 and Figure 4.15, one can see
that air-dried and oven-dried pretreatment conditions give nearly similar values; however,
the specific gravity is slightly reduced with oven drying temperature. In addition to this it
can be seen that the as received pretreatment condition gives higher values of specific
gravity than the other two pretreatment conditions. This is due to the dehydration and/or

aggregation of clay particles of the lateritic soils up on drying (Lyon Associates, 1971;
Blight, 1997; Zelalem, 2005; Wakuma, 2007; Dibisa, 2008).
The specific gravity of soils found in Western Ethiopia areas is tend to reduce with
increasing the temperature from in-situ condition to oven drying temperature. As
discussed before, the decrease in specific gravity is due to the tendency of lateritic soils to
dehydrate and/or aggregate the clay particles upon drying.
As can be seen from the test results, one can see that the range of values is from 2.33 to
3.15. This is in agreement with Morin W.J. and Todor P.C. in Lyon Associates (1971)
that the specific gravities of lateritic soils can be low or be very high even up to 3.5; such
a high value is due to high iron content of the soils. This was confirmed by chemical
analysis in section 4.2.3.

Table 4.14 Specific Gravity values at different pretreatment /testing/ conditions
Sample Location
Sample Name Air-dried Oven-dried As-received
Station, Offset Depth
TS1-1 10+880, 1.5km RHS 0.6m 2.63 2.71 3.10
TS1-2 10+880, 1.5km RHS 2.0m 2.68 2.63 2.94
TS2-1 16+280, 20m RHS 1.5m 2.97 2.71 3.15
TS2-2 16+280, 20m LHS 3.0m 2.98 2.84 3.20
TS3-1 20+000, 50m RHS 0.6m 2.76 2.74 2.85
TS3-2 20+000, 50m RHS 2.0m 2.84 2.74 3.24
TS4-1 30+000, 20m RHS 2.0m 2.75 2.68 2.94
TS4-2 30+000, 20m RHS 3.0m 2.70 2.44 2.83
TS5-1 35+980, 120m RHS 0.6m 2.79 2.51 2.98
TS5-2 35+980, 120m RHS 1.8m 2.72 2.72 3.06
TS5-3 35+980, 120m RHS 2.5m 2.81 2.40 2.68
TS6-1 44+080, 40m LHS 1.0m 2.78 2.61 2.91
TS6-2 44+080, 40m LHS 2.0m 2.73 2.73 2.99
TS7-1 49+100, 20m LHS 1.5m 2.87 2.73 3.12
TS7-2 49+100, 20m RHS 3.5m 2.72 2.68 3.13
TS8-1 53+000, 40m RHS 1.5m 2.46 2.63 2.95
TS8-2 53+000, 40m RHS 3.0m 2.69 2.54 3.00
TS9-1 58+000, 50m LHS 0.6m 2.50 2.63 2.65
TS9-2 58+100, 50m LHS 1.5m 2.88 2.60 2.90
TS10-1 58+200, 200m LHS 0.6-1.5m 2.75 2.66 2.89
TS11-1 58+200, 250m LHS 1.0-2.0m 2.88 2.86 2.97
TS12-1 70+040, 300m RHS 1.0-2.0m 2.72 2.70 2.80
TS13-1 70+840, 20m LHS 1.0m 2.78 2.77 2.88
TS13-2 70+840, 20m LHS 3.0m 2.82 2.33 2.70
TS14-1 74+300, 30m RHS 1.0m 2.62 2.47 2.76
TS14-2 74+300, 30m RHS 1.5m 2.81 2.78 2.94
TS14-3 74+300, 30m RHS 3.0m 2.60 2.47 2.88
TS15-1 84+200, 200m RHS 1.0-2.0m 2.59 2.38 2.68
TS16-1 84+200, 200m RHS 1.0m 2.70 2.64 2.88
Sample-A from Entoto (A.A.) 1.5m 2.61 2.60 2.63
Sample-B from Entoto (A.A.) 1.0m 2.60 2.58 2.61

Figure 4.15 Effect of different pretreatments on specific gravity values

4.2.2 Classification of the Soils
4.2.2.1 General
Though different disciplines find a soil classification based purely on particle-size

classification satisfactory for their professional needs, the Civil Engineer requires a
classification that has engineering applications. The demand led to the development of a
number of engineering soil classifications. All widely used engineering soil
classifications involve a combination of particle size analysis and measures of plasticity
(Dibisa, 2008).
There are two main soil classification systems in common use for engineering purposes.
The Unified Soil Classification System [ASTM D 2487-93] is used for virtually all
geotechnical engineering work except highway and road construction, where the
AASHTO classification system [AASHTO M 145-87] is used. Both systems use the
results of grain-size analysis and determinations of Atterberg limits to determine a soil’s
classification. Soil components may be described as gravel, sand, silt, or clay. A soil
comprising one or more of these components is given a descriptive name and a
designation consisting of letters or letters and numbers which depend on the relative
proportions of the components and the plasticity characteristics of the soil.
Engineering soils are subdivided into two main groups as a function of their predominant
sizes and associated plasticity. The coarse-grained soils are composed of sand size and
larger particles. They are separated into size ranges by sieving of materials up to cobble
size. Except for minor fractions of plastic fines, they characteristically are non-plastic.
The fine grained soils consist predominantly of silt and clay-sized particles with differing
degrees of plasticity measured by their Atterberg limits rather than by sieving and settling
velocity methods.
In this thesis work, classification was made based on the two most popular engineering
soil classifications namely: Unified Soil Classification System (USCS), and AASHTO
classification system. In addition to these classification systems, classification /soil
grouping/ was made based on the mineralogical composition of a soil as proposed by
Wesley L.D. and Irfan (Blight, 1997); and soil grouping based on genetic basis and soil
forming factors was also made as proposed by D’hoore (1964) (Lyon Associates, 1971).

4.2.2.2 Unified Soil Classification System (USCS)
The Unified Soil Classification System is based on the airfield classification system
developed by A. Casagrande during World War II. With some modification it was jointly
adopted by several U.S. government agencies in 1952. Additional refinements were made
and it is currently standardized as ASTM D 2487-93. It is used in the U.S. and much of
the world for geotechnical work other than roads and highways (Chen & Liew, 2003).
In the unified system soils are designated by a two-letter symbol: the first identifies the
primary component of the soil, and the second describes its grain size or plasticity
characteristics. For example, poorly graded sand is designated SP and low plasticity clay
is CL. Five first-letter symbols are used: G for gravel, S for sand, M for silt, C for clay,
and O for organic soil.
Clean sands and gravels (having less than 5% passing the No. 200 sieve) are given a
second letter P if poorly graded or W if well graded. Sands and gravels with more than
12% by weight passing the No. 200 sieve are given a second letter M if the fines are silty
or C if fines are clayey. Sands and gravels having between 5 and 12% are given dual
classifications such as SP-SM. Silts, clays, and organic soils are given the second letter H
or L to designate high or low plasticity. The specific rules for classification are
summarized as follows and described in detail in ASTM D 2487.
Organic soils are distinguished by a dark-brown to black color, an organic odor, and
visible fibrous matter.
For soils that are not notably organic the first step in classification is to consider the
percentage passing the No. 200 sieve. If less than 50% of the soil passes the No. 200
sieve, the soil is coarse grained, and the first letter will be G or S; if more than 50%
passes the No. 200 sieve, the soil is fine grained and the first letter will be M or C.
For coarse-grained soils, the proportions of sand and gravel in the coarse fraction (not the
total sample) determine the first letter of the classification symbol. The coarse fraction is
that portion of the total sample retained on a No. 200 sieve. If more than half of the coarse
fraction is gravel (retained on the No. 4 sieve), the soil is gravel and the first letter symbol

is G. If more than half of the coarse fraction is sand, the soil is sand and the first letter
symbol is S.
For sands and gravels the second letter of the classification is based on gradation for clean
sands and gravels and plasticity of the fines for sands and gravels with fines. For clean
sands (less than 5% passing the No. 200 sieve), the classification is well-graded sand
(SW) if Cu ≥ 6 and 1  Cc  3. Both of these criteria must be met for the soil to be SW,
otherwise the classification is poorly graded sand (SP). Clean gravels (less than 5%
passing the No. 200 sieve) are classified as well-graded gravel (GW) if Cu ≥ 4 and 1  Cc
 3. If both criteria are not met, the soil is poorly graded gravel (GP).
For sands and gravels where more than 12% of the total sample passes the No. 200 sieve,
the soil is a clayey sand (SC), clayey gravel (GC), silty sand (SM), or silty gravel (GM).
The second letter is assigned based on whether the fines classify as clay (C) or silt (M) as
described for fine-grained soils below.
For sands and gravels having between 5 and 12% of the total sample passing the No. 200
sieve, both the gradation and plasticity characteristics must be evaluated and the soil is
given a dual classification such as SP-SM, SP-SC, GW-GC, etc. The first symbol is
always based on gradation, whereas the second is always based on plasticity.
For fine-grained soils and organic soils, classification in the unified system is based on
Atterberg limits determined by the fraction passing the No. 40 sieve. The liquid limit and
plasticity index are determined and plotted on the plasticity chart shown in Figure 4.16 or
4.17. The vertical line at LL = 50 separates high-plasticity soils from low-plasticity soils.
The A-line separates clay from silt. The equation of the A-line is PI = 0.73(LL – 20). The
U-line is not used in classification but is an upper boundary of expected results for natural
soils. Values plotting above the U-line should be checked for errors.
Inorganic soils with liquid limits below 50 that plot above the A-line and have PI values
greater than 7 are lean clays and are designated CL; those with liquid limits above 50 that
plot above the A-line are fat clays and are designated CH. Inorganic soils with liquid
limits below 50 that plot below the A-line are silt and are designated ML; those with
liquid limits above 50 that plot below the A-line are elastic silts and are designated MH.
The plasticity chart has a shaded area; soils that plot in this area (above the A-line with PI

values between 4 and 7) are silty clay and are given the dual symbol CL-ML. If the soil
under consideration is the fines component of a dually classified sand or gravel, the soil is
classified as SM-SC or GM-GC. Soils with sufficient organic contents to influence
properties that have liquid limits below 50 are classified as OL; those with liquid limits
above 50 are classified as OH. Soils that are predominantly organic, with visible
vegetable tissue, are termed peat and given the designation Pt.
Figure 4.16 Plasticity chart for Unified Soil Classification System (Chen & Liew, 2003)
Plasticity Chart (for Unified Soil Classification System)
A high numerical value of plasticity index is an indication of the presence of high

percentage of clay in the soil sample which implies that the plasticity values increase with
the corresponding increase in clay contents.
Plasticity index (PI) in relation to the liquid limit can provide information regarding the
type of clay in the soil sample. This was done by means of a plasticity chart developed
from soils tested from different parts of the world (Budhu, 2000). Clays, silts and organic
soils lie in distinct region on the chart. As discussed previously, the A-line is defined by
Eq. 4.1, which separates clays from silts. From the chart, Figure 4.17, it can be seen that
all soil samples under investigation are lie below A-line which mean they fall in the
region of silts. As soils containing minerals of chlorite, halloysite and kaolinite tend to

fall in this region (Fredlund & Rahardjo, 1993; Zelalem, 2005) and lateritic soils consist
of predominantly of kaolinite minerals, the soil samples under investigation are in
agreement with the nature of lateritic soils.
As discussed above the U-line, which is defined by Eq. 4.2, is the upper limit of the
correlation between plasticity index and liquid limit. Test results above this line indicates
erroneously executed tests; hence, it is recommended that the tests should be checked for
errors. As can be seen in the plasticity chart, Figure 4.17, all test results are fallen below
the U-line; hence, the test results are considered acceptable.
PI = 0.73 (LL-20)……………………………………………………….…...Eq. 4.7
PI = 0.90 (LL-8)………………………………………………………..........Eq. 4.8
Where: Both PI and LL values are expressed on percent.

a) 5 minutes of mixing time
b) 30 minutes of mixing time
Figure 4.17 Plasticity Charts for USC System

Table 4.15 Classification of soil samples according to USCS
%age amount of Particle Sizes Classification According to USCS
Sample Liquid Plasticity
Sample
Pre- Limit, LL Index, PI
design. Group
treatment (%) (%) Gravel Sand Silt Clay Group Name
Symbol
AR 56 20 38.27 28.09 18.35 15.29 (GM)s Silty Gravel with sand

TS1-1 AD 56 22 31.02 27.52 17.16 24.31 (GM)s Silty Gravel with sand
OD 47 17 37.74 42.45 8.55 11.26 (SM)g Silty Sand with gravel
OD 53 29 57.95 21.86 11.37 8.82 (GC)s Clayey Gravel with sand
OD 54 22 47.04 35.73 8.66 8.57 (GM)s Silty Gravel with sand
AR 56 22 42.37 43.34 8.68 5.62 (SM)g Silty Sand with gravel
TS2-2 AD 58 24 33.8 46.04 11.44 8.73 (SM)g Silty Sand with gravel
Poorly-graded gravel
AR 55 21 67.47 6.25 4.6 4.74 GP-GM
with silt
TS4-2
AD 58 21 62.13 12.1 8.81 10.35 GM Silty Gravel
OD 57 25 64.52 14.47 8.62 6.37 GM Silty Gravel
AD 54 19 64.82 18.33 9.44 7.42 (GM)s Silty Gravel with sand
TS5-2
OD 51 17 75.15 15.17 4.83 4.85 GP-GM
with silt
AR 54 17 74.81 14.91 6.07 4.22 GP-GM
with silt
OD 48 14 65.66 24.1 4.23 6.01 GP-GM
with silt
AR 56 15 59.92 13.91 12.55 11.41 GM Silty Gravel

Classification of soil samples according to USCS (continued)
Sample Liquid Plasticity %age amount of Particle Sizes Classification According to USCS
Sample
Pre- Limit, LL Index, PI Group
design. Gravel Sand Silt Clay Group Name
treatment (%) (%) Symbol
AR 56 22 62.8 14.46 10.26 9.98 GM Silty Gravel
Poorly-graded gravel with
OD 62 28 58.9 29.66 1.89 9.56 GP-GM silt
TS8-1 AD 57 28 55.73 26.16 9.05 9.05 (GC)s Clayey Gravel with sand
OD 50 18 57.89 30.19 4.88 7.04 GP-GM silt
TS9-1 AD 62 28 13.93 48.62 23.67 13.77 SM Silty Sand
OD 62 30 16.67 30.96 10.27 42.09 s(MH) Sandy Elastic Silt
AR 59 21 74.47 18 4.92 2.62 GP-GM silt
AR 53 18 64.43 17.56 6.01 4.22 GP-GM
silt
TS13-2
AD 55 20 58.52 19.67 11.24 7.74 (GM)s Silty Gravel with sand
AR 53 15 77.24 15.88 5.6 1.28 GP-GM silt
TS14-2 AD 51 15 71.3 15.04 7 4.85 GP-GM silt
OD 51 18 73.8 17.01 4.5 4.69 GP-GM silt
AR 57 24 63.95 8.11 2.83 4.24 GW-GM Well-graded gravel with silt
TS14-3 AD 51 19 72.13 16.01 3.98 2.94 GP-GM silt
OD 46 14 68.66 19.21 4.75 2.67 GP-GM silt
AR 59 24 63.23 18.91 5.58 5.93 GP-GM silt

For the soils under investigation the grain-size analysis of the entire samples revealed that
less than 50% from each samples of the soil passes the No. 200 sieve; hence, the soils are
classified as coarse grained soils and the first letter will be G or S, i.e. G for gravels and S
for sands. For sands and gravels the second letter of the classification is based on
gradation for clean sands and gravels and plasticity of the fines for sands and gravels with
fines. Hence, by making use of gradation of the soil sample and plasticity of the fines,
which is shown in Table 4.15 above, the grouping of the soils for the as-received, air-
dried and oven-dried pretreatment conditions have been made and summarized in the
table 4.15.
As can be seen in Figure 4.16, Figure 4.17 and Table 4.15 above the soils under
investigation fall in the MH zone of the USCS. Many residual soils rich in allophone or
Kaolinite plot in the MH group (Blight, 1997) and according to the standard ‘guides’ used
with the USCS these soils have ‘poor’ engineering properties and are considered
unsuitable for road construction purposes. However, in practice, such soils frequently
have good engineering properties especially for construction of sub grades and
embankments. The classification of residual soils, especially those found in tropics, using
the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) has long been questioned (Blight, 1997). It
was also discussed by Chen & Liew (2003) that the Unified Soil Classification System
[ASTM D 2487-93] shall be used for virtually all geotechnical engineering work other
than roads and highways construction.
Hence, for the case of soils found in western part of Ethiopia (Nedjo-Jarso-Begi areas) it
is found that the USCS shall not be used for classifying the soils for road construction
purpose. It appears that the most practical way to overcome this problem is to give the
mineralogical composition of the soil together with its classification according to the
USCS.
4.2.2.3 AASHTO Classification System
Different Authors used different classification techniques to classify residual tropical

soils; Wesley L.D. and Irfan T.Y. Blight (1997) classify these soils based on the
mineralogical composition and soil micro- and macrostructure; while, D’Hoor (1964) in
Lyon Association (1971) classifies residual soils based on soil forming factors. It is also
stated in Lyon Associates (1971) that the AASHTO classification system is convenient as

the bases for classifying residual soils. The soils in this thesis work were also classified
according to the AASHTO Classification System [AASHTO M-145], and summarized in
Table 4.18 below. The soil used for the classification purpose was under as-received, air-
dried and oven-dried pre-treatment conditions.
The AASHTO system classifies soils into seven primary groups, named A-1 through A-7,
based on their relative expected quality for road embankments, sub grades, sub bases, and
bases. Some of the groups are in turn divided into subgroups, such as A-1-a and A-1-b.
Furthermore, a group index may be calculated to quantify a soil’s expected performance
within a group.
To determine a soil’s classification in the AASHTO system, one first determines the
relative proportions of gravel, coarse sand, fine sand, and silt-clay. In the AASHTO
system gravel is material smaller than 75 mm (3 in.) but retained on a No. 10 sieve;
coarse sand is material passing a No. 10 sieve but retained on a No. 40 sieve; and fine
sand is material passing a No. 40 sieve but retained on a No. 200 sieve. Material passing
the No. 200 sieve is silt-clay and is classified based on Atterberg limits. It should be noted
that the division between gravel and sand is made at a smaller size (No. 10 sieve) in the
AASHTO system than in the unified system (No. 4 sieve). Secondly, if any fines are
present, Atterberg limits are determined and the plasticity index is calculated.
A soil is a granular material if less than 35% of the soil by weight passes the No. 200
sieve. Granular materials are classified into groups A-1 through A-3. Soils having more
than 35% passing the No. 200 sieve are silt-clay and fall in groups A-4 through A-7.
Having the proportions of the components and the plasticity data, one uses one of the two
alternatives AASHTO classification tables (Tables 4.16 & 4.17) and checks from left to
right until a classification is found for which the soil meets the criteria. It should be noted
that, in this scheme, group A-3 is checked before A-2. The AASHTO plasticity criteria
are also illustrated in Figure 4.18.

Table 4.16 Classification of Soils and Soil-Aggregate Mixtures by the AASHTO System (AASHTO, 1990)
a
The placing of A-3 before A-2 is necessary in the “left to right elimination process” and does not indicate superiority of A-3 over A-2.
b
See Table 4.17 for values.

Soils classified as A-1 are typically well-graded mixtures of gravel, coarse sand, and fine
sand. Soils in subgroup A-1-a contain more gravel whereas those in A-1-b contain more
sand. Soils in group A-3 are typically fine sands that may contain small amounts of non-
plastic silt. Group A-2 contains a wide variety of “borderline” granular materials that do
not meet the criteria for groups A-1 or A-3.
Soils in group A-4 are silty soils, whereas those in group A-5 are high-plasticity elastic
silt. Soils in group A-6 are typically lean clays, and those in group A-7 are typically
highly plastic clays.
Within groups containing fines, one may calculate a group index to further evaluate
relative quality and supporting value of a material as sub grade. The group index is
calculated according to the following empirical formula:
Group index = (F – 35)[0.2 + 0.005(LL – 40)] + 0.01(F – 15)(PI – 10)…....Eq. 4.9
In this equation F is the percentage of fines (passing the No. 200 sieve) expressed as a
whole number. When calculating the group index for A-2-6 and A-2-7, only the PI term is
used. The group index is rounded to the nearest whole number and, if negative, it is taken
as zero. The expected performance is inversely related to group index. A value of zero
indicates a good sub-grade material and a value above 20 indicates a very poor material.
Table 4.17 Classification of Soils and Soil-Aggregate Mixtures (AASHTO, 1990)
a
Plasticity index of A-7-5 subgroup is equal to or less than LL minus 30. Plasticity index of A-7-6
subgroup is greater than LL minus 30.

Figure 4.18 Plasticity chart for AASHTO Classification System (AASHTO, 1990)
As discussed in the above, the AASHTO system classifies soils into seven primary
groups, named A-1 through A-7, and some of the groups are in turn divided into
subgroups, such as A-1-a and A-1-b, based on their relative expected quality for road
embankments, sub grades, sub bases, and bases. Furthermore, a group index may be
calculated to quantify a soil’s expected performance within a group. According to this
classification system, it can be seen in Table 4.18, majority of the soils sampled from
Nedjo-Jarso-Begi areas are fallen under subgroup A-2-7 with group index less than 4 and
few samples are fallen under subgroup A-7-5 and A-7-6 with group index less than 15.
Generally a group index (GI) value of zero indicates a good sub-grade and embankment
material and a value above 20 indicates a very poor material. For the case of the soils
under investigation one can see that the soils can be considered as a good source of
construction material as the majority of the soils sampled are fallen under subgroup A-2-7
with group index less than 4.

Table 4.18 Classification of soil samples according to AASHTO Classification Method
Classification
Sample Liquid Plasticity Percentage passing of
Sample According to AASHTO
Pre- Limit, Index, PI
design. 2.00-mm 0.425-mm 0.075-mm
treatment LL (%) (%) Group Group Index
sieve sieve sieve
AR 56 20 48 41 34 A-2-7 2
TS1-1 AD 56 22 56 47 41 A-7-5 5
OD 47 17 38 27 20 A-2-7 0
AR 57 23 25 21 15 A-2-7 0
TS1-2 AD 56 26 30 26 20 A-2-7 1
OD 53 29 29 23 20 A-2-7 1
AR 55 19 21 17 14 A-2-7 0
TS2-1 AD 61 26 32 25 20 A-2-7 1
OD 54 22 29 21 17 A-2-7 0
AR 56 22 27 22 16 A-2-7 0
TS2-2 AD 58 24 31 26 20 A-2-7 1
OD 58 25 29 22 14 A-2-7 0
AR 56 19 25 23 20 A-2-7 0
TS3-1 AD 57 22 33 28 21 A-2-7 1
OD 49 16 39 33 27 A-2-7 1
AR 61 24 46 36 27 A-2-7 2
TS3-2 AD 59 23 47 41 35 A-2-7 3
OD 60 28 46 34 24 A-2-7 2
AR 55 18 51 47 43 A-7-5 4
TS4-1 AD 57 20 51 41 30 A-2-7 2
OD 53 20 46 42 38 A-7-5 3
AR 55 21 11 10 9 A-2-7 0
TS4-2 AD 58 21 25 22 19 A-2-7 0
OD 57 25 23 17 15 A-2-7 0
AR 56 21 48 41 35 A-2-7 2
TS5-1 AD 54 22 50 44 36 A-7-5 3
OD 53 19 44 39 32 A-2-7 2
AR 57 21 27 24 21 A-2-7 1
TS5-2 AD 54 19 24 20 17 A-2-7 0
OD 51 17 16 12 10 A-2-7 0
AR 61 24 22 19 15 A-2-7 0
TS5-3 AD 60 24 35 29 24 A-2-7 1
OD 52 20 25 19 16 A-2-7 0
AR 54 17 19 14 10 A-2-7 0
TS6-1 AD 56 25 29 24 19 A-2-7 1
OD 48 14 26 20 15 A-2-7 0
AR 58 26 36 26 18 A-2-7 0
TS6-2 AD 52 20 35 28 21 A-2-7 1
OD 54 22 20 17 14 A-2-7 0
AR 56 15 32 28 24 A-2-7 0
TS7-1 AD 62 23 40 33 27 A-2-7 2
OD 57 25 36 31 24 A-2-7 1

Classification of soil samples according to AASHTO Classification Method (Continued)
Sample Liquid Classification
Plasticity Percentage passing of
Sample Pre- Limit, According to AASHTO
Index, PI
design. treatmen LL 2.00-mm 0.425-mm 0.075-mm
(%) Group Group Index
t (%) sieve sieve sieve
AR 56 22 26 23 20 A-2-7 1
TS7-2 AD 57 16 29 25 22 A-2-7 0
OD 62 28 30 24 19 A-2-7 1
AR 59 26 24 20 17 A-2-7 0
TS8-1 AD 57 28 29 24 18 A-2-7 1
OD 53 19 18 15 15 A-2-7 0
AR 59 24 22 19 16 A-2-7 0
TS8-2 AD 54 23 30 24 19 A-2-7 1
OD 50 18 30 19 14 A-2-7 0
AR 57 20 54 47 39 A-7-5 4
TS9-1 AD 62 28 62 53 42 A-7-6 7
OD 62 30 59 55 52 A-7-5 13
AR 59 21 14 10 8 A-2-7 0
TS9-2 AD 55 22 22 16 13 A-2-7 0
OD 54 23 23 19 16 A-2-7 0
AR 59 23 25 22 20 A-2-7 1
TS10-1 AD 58 26 31 27 22 A-2-7 1
OD 50 17 29 23 19 A-2-7 0
AR 57 16 42 37 33 A-2-7 1
TS11-1 AD 63 25 55 47 41 A-7-5 6
OD 56 26 52 42 35 A-2-7 3
AR 57 22 24 20 17 A-2-7 0
TS12-1 AD 51 13 36 32 27 A-2-7 0
OD 49 15 30 24 18 A-2-7 0
AR 57 17 42 37 32 A-2-7 1
TS13-1 AD 55 21 48 37 28 A-2-7 1
OD 49 16 45 31 23 A-2-7 0
AR 53 18 14 12 10 A-2-7 0
TS13-2 AD 55 20 27 23 19 A-2-7 0
OD 54 21 28 22 18 A-2-7 0
AR 57 20 28 15 13 A-2-7 0
TS14-1 AD 55 22 24 21 18 A-2-7 0
OD 49 15 25 18 14 A-2-7 0
AR 53 15 13 9 7 A-2-7 0
TS14-2 AD 51 15 15 14 12 A-2-7 0
OD 51 18 16 12 9 A-2-7 0
AR 57 24 10 8 7 A-2-7 0
TS14-3 AD 51 19 13 10 7 A-2-7 0
OD 46 14 16 9 7 A-2-7 0
AR 58 19 28 24 20 A-2-7 0
TS15-1 AD 54 22 32 26 24 A-2-7 1
OD 53 20 28 24 21 A-2-7 1
AR 59 24 17 14 12 A-2-7 0
TS16-1 AD 47 14 31 25 20 A-2-7 0
OD 54 20 32 26 21 A-2-7 1

4.2.2.4 Soil grouping based on mineralogical composition
As discussed in section 2.3.2 Wesley L.D. and Irfan T.Y. in Blight (1997) proposed a
practical system for classifying all residual soils, based on the mineralogical composition
and soil micro- and macrostructure. Wesley’s classification system is intended to provide
an orderly division of residual soils in to groups which belong together because of
common factors in their formation and/or composition which can be expected to give
them similar engineering properties.
Mineralogical identification using XRD analysis method and geochemical test results
using X-Ray Fluorescent (XRF) analysis method reveal that the soils under investigation
are composed of Kaolinite, Quartz, Hematite, Vermiculite, Illite, Borax, Dickite, and
Nacrite. As can be seen from the geochemical analyses the soils do have a great
concentration of sesquioxide of Aluminium and Iron. Hence, Soils of Nedjo, Jarso and
Begi area are grouped under sub group c of group C; soils with a strong mineralogical
influence deriving from special clay minerals only found in residual soils (i.e. based on
the silicate clay minerals, halloysite and allophone, and non-silicate minerals (‘oxide’
minerals) which are the hydrated forms of aluminium and iron oxide (the sesquioxides),
gibbsite and goethite) (Blight, 1997).
4.2.2.5 Soil grouping based on their genetic basis and soil forming factors
During recent studies, it was found that most of the tropically weathered soils of Africa
could be divided into three groups based on a genetic basis and soil-forming factors.
These groups are ferruginous soils, ferrallitic soils and Ferrisols as defined by D’hoore
(1964) in Lyon Associates (1971). Climate is the most important factor in formation of
the various soil groups. Parent material, topography, vegetables, drainage conditions and
time character of parent rock are also factors and these may cause local modifications
within each soil group (Lyon Associates, 1971).
The soils under investigation are formed over basaltic and metamorphosed types of rocks
in intermediate to high rainfall areas where erosion has kept the pace with profile
development. Geochemical tests (XRF analysis) and mineralogical tests (XRD analysis)
show that the entire clay fraction comprises kaolinite, which predominates minerals of

Montmorillonite (Smeictite group), and Oxides of Iron and Aluminum as erosion has kept
pace with profile development.
According to the prevailing soil forming factors and genetic basis, the soils under
investigation, Nedjo, Jarso and Begi area, are fallen under a Ferrisol group.

4.2.3 Geochemical and Mineralogical tests
4.2.3.1 Geochemical Tests
Geochemical (oxide) tests are carried out to know quantitatively main oxides of the soil
material. Almost all soils on earth contain some amount of colloidal oxides and
hydroxides. The oxides and hydroxides of aluminium, iron and silicon are of greatest
interest since they are the ones most frequently encountered. Iron and Aluminium oxides
coat mineral particles, or cement particles of soils together. They may also occur as
distinct crystalline units, such as hematite, gibbsite and magnetite (Dibsa, 2008; Tibebu,
2008).
For this thesis work, the geochemical tests were carried out at Geological Survey of
Ethiopia Geochemical Laboratory using X-Ray Fluorescent (XRF) analysis method in
order to obtain the percentage of oxide composition of the soils under investigation. The
summary of test results is shown in Table 4.19.
In section 2.1.1 it is discussed that the degree of laterization of the soil samples can be
evaluated based on Silica/Sesquioxides (S-S) ratio. The Sesquioxide, designated as R2O3,
is the combination of aluminium oxide (Al2O3) and Iron oxide (Fe2O3). The chemical
formula SiO2 designates the silica. Accordingly soils having an s-s ratio greater than 2 are
non-lateritic tropically weathered soils. For lateritic soils s-s ratio lies between 1.33 and 2
and for those of true laterites/laterites the ratio is less than 1.33. Lateritic soils have not
under gone a considerable degree of laterization as compared to true laterites.
From the test results as shown in Table 4.19 the soils under investigation have
Silica/Sesquioxide ratio below 1.33. This indicates that the soils under investigation are
all true laterites. This is in agreement with soil forming factors of Nedjo - Jarso – Begi
area which leads to laterites as pointed out in section 3.6. True laterites (S-S < 1.33) are
simply referred as laterites. The soils of such kind are highly laterized, i.e. sesquioxides
content are high.

Table 4.19 Oxide composition in percent (XRF analysis results)
Sample Location %-age of Oxides (%) Sio2
Sample
Station, Remark
Depth Design. Sio2 Al2O3 Fe2O3 CaO MgO Na2O K2O TiO2 P2O5 MnO SO3 Cr2O3 LOI H2O Al2O3+Fe2O3
Offset
35+980,
120m RHS
0.6m TS5-1 35.24 28.77 16.20 0.14 0.47 0.05 0.22 3.131 0.467 0.107 0.07 0.041 13.05 1.72 0.78
35+980,
120m RHS
1.8m TS5-2 33.04 29.94 18.35 0.08 0.30 0.06 0.08 3.143 0.527 0.112 0.02 0.04 12.57 1.47 0.68
44+080,
1.0m TS6-1 32.73 26.23 21.23 0.14 0.49 0.07 0.23 2.138 0.486 0.054 0.05 0.047 14.32 1.52 0.69 True
40m LHS
44+080,
laterites
40m LHS
2.0m TS6-2 32.21 30.07 17.77 0.11 0.31 0.06 0.18 2.531 0.475 0.056 0.02 0.056 14.00 1.84 0.67 (Ratio < 1.3)
53+000,
40m RHS
1.5m TS8-1 32.15 28.95 20.39 0.07 0.38 <0.01 0.17 2.242 0.36 0.041 0.02 0.049 13.26 1.62 0.65
70+040,
300m RHS
1.5m TS12-1 31.40 31.14 18.51 0.04 0.25 <0.01 0.12 2.858 0.319 0.110 0.02 0.016 13.89 1.05 0.63

4.2.3.2 Mineralogical Tests
Mineralogy controls the sizes, shape, and surface characteristic of the particles in the soil.
Physical and engineering properties of soils are also being controlled by mineralogy.
These features along with interaction with the fluid phase determine plasticity, swelling,
compression strength and hydraulic conductivity behavior. Thus, mineralogical
composition (together with structure) is an important factor that is fundamental to the
understanding of geotechnical engineering characteristics of residual soils.
The most widely used technique to determine mineralogical composition is X-Ray

Diffraction (XRD) analysis method. For this thesis work, the method that is the XRD
analysis was conducted at Ethiopian Geological Survey, Mineralogy and Petrography
Laboratory by powder diffraction method after grinding the soil samples without
separating the clay fraction. The results of analysis are shown in Table 4.20.
Table 4.20 Mineralogical test results (XRD analysis results)

Sample Location Sample
Minerals Chemical Formula
Station, offset Depth Design.
Kaolinite Al4(OH)8(Si4O10)
35+980, 120m Quartz SiO2
0.6m TS5-1
RHS Hematite Fe2O3
Vermiculite Mg3Si4O10(OH)2
1.8m TS5-2
RHS Hematite Fe2O3
Vermiculite Mg3Si4O10(OH)2
44+080, 40m
1.0m TS6-1 Quartz SiO2
LHS
Dickite Al2(Si2O5)(OH)4(HCONH2)
2.0m TS6-2
LHS Borax Na2B4O5(OH)4(H2O)8
Dickite Al2(Si2O5)(OH)4
Quartz SiO2
53+000, 40m
1.5m TS8-1 Hematite Fe2O3
RHS
Illite K0.5(Al,Fe,Mg)3(Si,Al)4O10(OH)2
Nacrite Al2(Si2O5)(OH)4
1.5m TS12-1
RHS Borax Na2B4O5(OH)4(H2O)8
Nacrite Al2(Si2O5)(OH)4

5. Comparisons and discussions
5.1 Comparison of test results with other lateritic soils
Laterites and Lateritic soils of Africa were studied by Morin W.J. and Todor P.C. (Lyon
Associates, 1971). During the study, soil samples were collected from different parts of
Africa such as Ghana, Ethiopia, Kenya, Uganda etc. The characteristics and mineral
contents of the soils taken from Ethiopia were studied as ferrisols.
Comparison was made for the Western Ethiopia lateritic soils with known laterites and
lateritic soils of Africa using Index property test results. It was found that during a study
by Lyon Associates (1971) that most of the tropically weathered soils of Africa were
divided into three distinct groups: namely ferruginous, ferrallitic soils and ferrisols. The
results of index property tests of these soils with the lateritic soils of Western Ethiopia are
tabulated in Tables 5.1 to 5.4.
The typical soil index properties, i.e., liquid limit, plasticity index, gradations, of the
tropically weathered soils of Africa and Western Ethiopia lateritic soils are shown in
Tables 5.1 to 5.4.
The ferruginous soils are lower in plasticity than the other two groups. The ferrallitic soils
are similar, to some extent, to the ferrisols, exhibiting higher plasticity than ferruginous
soils. There are major differences between soils of the ferruginous group and the soils of
the ferrallitic and ferrisols groups. The data indicate that there is an apparent similarity in
the physical properties of the ferrallitic and ferrisols soil groups. The major mineralogy of
tropically weathered African soils and Western Ethiopia lateritic soils is shown in Table
5.5 for the three soil sub groups of tropically weathered soils of African and western
Ethiopia soils. From the table one can see that the three soils sub groups differ in major
mineralogical composition as discussed in Lyon Associates (1971).
The Western Ethiopia lateritic soils upon comparison with previously tested laterites and
lateritic soils of Africa are similar, to some extent, to ferrisol and ferralitic soil sub groups
with respect to index test results and mineralogical composition of the soils which are
shown in Tables 5.2 to 5.6. The data indicates that there is higher plasticity similar to
ferrisol and ferralitic soil sub groups.

When comparison is made on the average index test properties of the three sub group of
African laterites /lateritic soils/ and the Western Ethiopia lateritic soils which is
summarized in Table 5.6, the gradation and Atterberg limits are nearly similar for both
Western Ethiopia lateritic soils and those of Ferrisols of Africa excluding Ghana.

Table 5.1 Typical soil index test results for Ferruginous soils (Lyon Associates, 1971)
LL PL PI 25 19 9.5 4.75 2.00 0.425 0.075

Country AASHO GI
(%) (%) (%) mm mm mm mm mm mm mm
Ghana A-2-6 0 26 15 11 45 20
Senegal A-2-7 0 39 20 19 95 91 68 46 33 27 20
Upper Volta A-2-6 1 38 14 24 100 97 80 66 51 38 25
Niger A-2-4 0 21 11 10 97 89 73 64 55 40 25
Tanzania A-2-6 6 34 19 15 100 100 100 100 100 93 61
Kenya A-2-7 0 45 31 14 100 100 94 88 52 40 28
Uganda A-2-6 2 38 17 22 100 100 96 83 61 51 34
Sudan A-2-4 0 21 12 9 100 100 100 100 98 57 27
Gambia A-2-6 0 36 16 20 98 77 53 42 34 28 22

Table 5.2 Typical soil index test results for Ferrallitic soils (Lyon Associates, 1971)
LL PL PI 25 19 9.5 4.75 2.00 0.425 0.075

Country AASHO GI
Ghana A-6 6 38 18 20 100 100 100 95 81 67 47

Liberia A-2-7 2 56 29 27 100 95 72 57 41 36 27
Gabon A-2-4 0 35 18 17
Sierra Leone A-2-6 1 55 31 24 100 98 90 68 37 29 27
Burundi A-6 31 16 16 100 100 92 84 76 74 70
Dahomey A-2-7 4 45 21 24 100 100 99 85 72 55 39
Ivory Cost A-7-6 22 62 31 31 100 100 100 100 99 88 69
Mali A-6 3 35 21 14 100 100 89 67 55 51 40
Uganda A-6 2 39 19 20 100 100 91 82 73 53 38

Table 5.3 Typical soil index test results for Ferrisols soils (Lyon Associates, 1971)
LL PL PI 25 19 9.5 4.75 2.00 0.425 0.075

Country AASHO GI
Ghana A-7-5 3 53 34 19 50 37
Niger A-2-6 0 28 16 12 100 100 98 82 68 39 26
Ivory Cost A-7-6 18 48 24 24 100 99 83 65 60 50 40
Mali A-7-5 3 55 31 24 100 100 89 61 51 43 38
Uganda A-2-7 0 46 21 25 100 100 91 56 31 24 20
Kenya A-7-5 27 100 100 100 100 99 98 91
Cameron A-7-5 19 65 37 27 100 100 100 98 97 88 66
Ethiopia A-7-5 19 68 33 35 100 100 98 84 63 62 58
Ghana A-7-6 12 57 25 32 100 100 65 50

Table 5.4 Typical Index test results for Western Ethiopia lateritic soils
LL PL PI 25 19 9.5 4.75 2.00 0.425 0.075

Area AASHTO GI
Nedjo-Mendi A-2-7 0 56 36 20 88 77 59 43 26 19 13
Nedjo-Mendi A-2-7 0 56 38 18 97 84 49 32 21 17 14
Nedjo-Mendi A-7-5 18 59 39 20 100 85 76
Nedjo-Mendi A-2-7 0 59 37 22 94 90 68 52 34 28 24
Nedjo-Mendi A-2-7 0 67 43 24 96 90 75 57 37 31 26
Nedjo-Mendi A-2-7 0 54 34 20 83 69 46 33 22 17 15
Nedjo-Jarso-Begi A-7-5 5 56 34 22 100 98 86 69 56 47 41

Table 5.5 Major mineralogy of tropically weathered African soils and Western Ethiopia lateritic soils
Ferruginous Ferrallitic Ferrisols Western Ethiopia soils
Hematite Gibbsite Kaolinite (predominant) Kaolinite (predominant)
Goethite Goethite Goethite Quartz
Kaolinite Kaolinite Hematite Hematite
Vermiculite, Dickite
Organic matter Gibbsite (less common)
Organic matter Nacrite and Gibbsite
(absent to Organic matter
(sparse to abundant) Organic matter
sparse) (sparse to abundant)
(sparse to abundant)
Table 5.5 Average soil properties

Ferruginous Ferrallitic Ferrisols
Nedjo- Nedjo-
Other Other Other
Type of Test Mendi Jarso-
Ghana African Ghana African Ghana African
soils Begi soils
Countries Countries Countries
Sieve size (mm) Percentage passing (%)
25 mm 99 99 99 99 95 99 95 94
GRADATION
19 mm 98 98 96 97 94 99 88 89
9.5 mm 93 89 86 90 86 92 73 70
4.75 mm 75 76 70 80 73 74 63 51
2.00 mm 51 65 54 70 52 61 52 35
0.425 mm 46 51 46 54 40 51 45 29
0.075 mm 30 32 34 40 37 44 38 24
0.002 mm 13 16 19 26 25 24 9 8
Limits Atterberg limits
PLASTICITY
LL 31 33 42 47 46 55 59 56
PL 18 12 24 24 23 29 38 34
PI 14 15 19 23 23 27 22 22

5.2 Comparison of test results of previous researches
Some of the engineering properties of lateritic soils of Western Ethiopia have been
studied by different researchers, such as Zelalem (2005) has studied on lateritic soils
found in Nedjo-Mendi areas; Wakuma (2007), Kebede (2008) and G/medhin (2008) have
studied on Assosa lateritic soils; and Dibisa (2008) has studied soils found in Nedjo,
Mendi and Assosa areas. During their index property tests, they have used different
sample pretreatments and testing procedures; and come out with the following results.
Comparison of moisture contents determined using conventional drying temperature

(105oC oven temperature) and air drying temperature (or 50oC oven temperature)
revealed that the lateritic soils found in Nedjo-Mendi area do not have loosely bound
water of hydration (Zelalem, 2005); even though, Dibisa (2008) and G/medhin (2008)
have found that the soils in Nedjo, Mendi and Assosa areas do have small amount of
structural water or water of hydration. The lateritic soils found in Assosa contain a
considerable amount of structural water or water of hydration (Wakuma, 2007).
In the comparison of Atterberg limits tests, the different pretreatments during sample
preparations do have insignificant effect on Atterberg limits of Nedjo-Mendi area lateritic
soils (Zelalem, 2005); eventhough, Dibisa (2008) has found that the different
pretreatments during sample preparations affect the Atterberg limits of Nedjo, Mendi and
Assosa area soils. Wakuma (2007) have also found that the soils found in Assosa have
been affected by the different pretreatments during sample preparations. The soils of
Nedjo-Mendi areas have been found susceptible to breakdown with manipulations or
elongated mixing times during Atterberg limit tests (Zelalem, 2005). Wakuma (2007) also
observed that the soils of Asossa are susceptible to manipulations or elongated mixing
times. However, Dibisa (2008) has found that Nedjo, Mendi and Assosa areas soils are
not susceptible to manipulations or elongated mixing times during Atterberg limit tests.
In gradation tests comparison, the different sample pretreatments and testing procedures
have resulted negligible difference in grain-size analyses /or grading curves/ of Nedjo-
Mendi area soils (Zelalem, 2005). In Wakuma (2007), Assosa soils have showed little
difference on their gradation distribution curves for variations in pretreatments; however,
the tests have showed ambiguous results for samples tested under oven-dried pretreatment

condition during sample preparation. However, lateritic soils of Nedjo-Mendi-Assosa
areas have highly affected by pre-test drying than remolding /or testing procedures/
(Dibisa, 2008).
Comparison of specific gravity tests showed that the specific gravity of Nedjo-Mendi area
lateritic soils is significantly changed upon drying prior to testing (Zelalem, 2005).
Wakuma (2007) has found that the specific gravity of Assosa soils have reduced strongly
with higher pre-test oven drying temperatures; however, at lower pre-test drying
tempratures the decrease is insignificant. Lateritic soils of Nedjo, Mendi and Assosa area
have also showed decrease in the specific gravity upon oven drying temperatures (Dibisa,
2008).
In addition to the above comparision on studies which haven been done on Western
Ethiopia lateritic soils, Tibebu (2008) has done an investigation on the index properties
and shear strength parameters of laterite soils found in Southern part of Ethiopia (in the
case of Wolayita-Sodo). In her investigation, the conventional drying temperature was too
high for few samples during moisture content determination as the soils contained loosely
bound water of hydration. From her investigation, the different pretreatments have
slightly affect the Atterberg limits of the Wolayita-Sodo area lateritic soils even if the
soils susceptiblity to breakdown with manipulations or elongated mixing times is limited
to these soil samples prepared in air dry pretreatment conditions.
5.3 Discussions of test results and testing procedures
Soil samples were collected from Nedjo–Jarso-Begi road, which is located in South
Western Ethiopia in Western Wellega Administrative zone of the Oromiya Regional
State. The area is dominantly covered by basalt with minor granite/granodiorite, schist
and recent alluvial deposits. The mean minimum and maximum annual temperature lies
between 12-14oC to 25-26oC. The annual mean temperature is about 30oC owing to its
elevation, 1350 to 1500m above sea level. The mean annual rainfall varies from 1200mm
to around 2000mm, i.e., the area lies in the medium to high rain fall with the average
annual value around 1600mm. Significant rain can be expected in the area from the
month of April to October, inclusive, with peaks around July and August. During the
remainder of the year there is very little precipitation. The topography of the route
corridor is almost all flat to rolling terrain from the beginning till the end of the project

which favorable to the formation of lateritic soils. In Western Ethiopia, Wellega province
along the line Nekempte–Gimbi–Nedjo–Mendi–Assossa; and Nedjo–Jarso–Begi road
routes, the existing soil formation factors such as topography, temperature, rainfall, and
parent rocks are favorable for laterites formation. By comparing the lateritic soil
formation factors and the actual soil information of the research area with the supplement
of previous researchers data western Ethiopia is highly covered with lateritic soils. This
was proven by the geochemical and index tests of the soils.
From the comparison of index test results of previous researchers, it can be seen that there
is a need of minimizing and reducing the discrepancy in test results of western Ethiopia
lateritic soils. In order to overcome and minimize the discrepancy in testing results the
need of investigation of the appropriate laboratory testing procedures is vital. Hence, the
index properties of the Nedjo-Jarso-Begi areas have been studied using various testing
procedures and pretreatment conditions in order to investigate the appropriate laboratory
testing procedures of these red, highly weathered lateritic soils of western Ethiopia. In
addition of soil samples from western Ethiopia two additional non lateritic soils from
Addis Ababa were taken in order to compare the effects of different pretreatments and
testing procedures on non lateritic soils. Index property tests have been carried out on the
soil samples collected from the research area using various testing procedures and
pretreatment conditions after the soil samples have been confirmed that they are lateritic
soils using mineralogical and geochemical tests. Then, the sensitivity of the soils for
various pretreatment conditions and testing procedures has been investigated using the
test results.
Different drying temperatures were used in order to check the sensitivity of the soils to
conventional drying temperature (105oC oven temperature) in moisture content
determination. The loss of water of hydration of the soil samples under investigation have
been checked by carrying out the moisture content determination test using conventional
drying temperature (105oC oven temperature) and air drying temperature (or equivalently
50oC oven temperature with maximum relative humidity, RH, of 30%). The difference in
moisture contents between that of conventional oven temperatures of 105oC and air
drying temperature for all lateritic soils under investigation are below 4 %. However,
comparing to the test results of the non lateritic soils from Addis Ababa around Entoto
area which are nearly equal for both drying temperatures, the soils of Western Ethiopia do

have slight amount of water of hydration. Hence, it is more appropriate to use lower
drying temperature, say air drying (or equivalently 50oC oven temperature with maximum
relative humidity, RH, of 30%) during moisture content determination of Western
Ethiopia lateritic soils.
The effect of pretreatments on Atterberg limits were checked by conducting the tests on
soil samples pretreated using an oven dry (105oC oven temperature), air dry (or
equivalently 50oC oven temperature with maximum relative humidity, 5RH, of 30%), and
as-received (moist) pretreatments during sample preparations. The corresponding test
results showed that the tests which were carried out under different pretreatment
conditions prior to testing gave various results. Air and oven-drying soil specimens prior
to carrying out the Atterberg limit tests, rather than testing at natural moisture content
have resulted in a decrease in the liquid limit, plastic limit and to a lesser extent in the
Plasticity Index of Western Ethiopia lateritic soils. From the test results and different
literatures, it is observed that the laboratory pretreatments given for such lateritic soils
should reflect the actual field conditions; hence, the test samples under investigation
should not be pretreated using higher over drying tempratures as the soils will not
experience such high temperatures in the field.
The effect of disaggregation of clay–size particles on Atterberg limit tests during test
manipulation /mixing / were checked for soil samples under consideration. The liquid
limits of the soils were determined using varying liquid limit testing methods. In the three
pretreatment conditions the test results showed that the soils under investigation contains
concretionary that will be broken down by elongated testing manipulation. That is, during
test manipulation /mixing/ the aggregations between clay-size particles will be detached
which result in higher value of liquid limits. As it is observed that some Western Ethiopia
lateritic soils are sensitive to test procedures and the energy applied to the soil samples
during Atterberg limits tests, the laboratory testing of these area soils shall be properly
controlled in order to minimize the disaggregation of clay-size particles. Hence, the
minimum mixing times usually of 5minutes and a fresh soil shall be used for each point
on the plasticity tests.
5
RH as all tests were conducted in Addis Ababa and the City is located at high lands, there is no case that
the relative humidity exceeds 30%.

From the test results, it was observed that the specific gravity of Western Ethiopia
lateritic soils was reduced with increasing oven drying temperature from the in-situ
condition. This is due to the dehydration and/or aggregation of clay particles of the
lateritic soils upon drying at higher temperatures. Hence, it is essential that the specific
gravity tests shall be done on the soil samples which are in their natural moisture content
condition and pre-test drying of sample should be avoided; in addition to these, the dry
mass of the soils used in the test should be calculated by drying the soil specimen after
the specific gravity test has been completed at reduced temperature, i.e. air dried (or
equivalently 50oC oven temperature with maximum relative humidity of 30%).
From the test results of the soil samples which were pretreated under three different
pretreatment conditions namely oven-dried (OD), air-dried (AD) and as-received (AR)
and tested under dry and wet testing procedures, it was observed that the air-dried (AD)
and oven-dried (OD) pretreatments with dry testing procedures resulted in increasing the
finer particles of the soil samples while the coarser particles are decreased in percentage
than the wet sample pretreatments and testing procedures. The fraction of sand (in AD &
OD samples), silt plus clay (in AD samples) were increased and the percentages of
gravels were reduced in both AD & OD samples as the coarser particles became highly
fractured during the pulverization process. From the test results, it is observed that the
percentages of silts and clays were increased in the case of air-dried samples; however, it
is nearly the same in the oven-dried samples, i.e. the oven-dried pretreatment conditions
were resulted in small difference for the finer portion of gradation (i.e. for silts and clays).
This may be, due to the fact that, when lateritic soils are oven-dried at high temperatures
there is mineralogy alteration and/or development of larger capillary forces between
particles; hence, the degree of attraction forces for fine particles become increased due to
the cementation of sesquioxides. It is therefore observed that for Western Ethiopia
lateritic soils the wet sieving method /testing procedures/ shall be used as the soils are
sensitive to manipulation /pulverization/ and higher pretest temperatures.
The sensitivity of gradation and grading curves for variation in specific gravity within a
sample were also checked using the specific gravities of fines and coarser fractions
separately in grading analysis. Once the specific gravities fines and coarser fractions were
made, the grading was calculated by volume proportions as well as by mass proportions.
From the test results it was observed that the grading curves of the soils under

investigation using mass and volume proportions is not vary significantly, especially for
soil samples which were tested under wet testing method during the gradation tests. For
the case of few pretreated soil samples (AD & OD samples) there is a slight difference in
the grading curves, and the OD samples have showed higher difference than AD samples;
however, majority of the soils under investigation do have nearly identical grading
curves. Hence, for the soil samples under investigation it can be said that the need of
modifying the grading curves using mass proportion is not as such important especially
when wet sieving method is used.
During the classification of the soils using the Unified Soil Classification System
(USCS), majority of Western Ethiopia lateritic soils fall under MH zone which indicates
that the fines are elastic silts. According to the standard ‘guides’ used with the USCS
these soils are considered unsuitable for road construction purposes. However, in practice,
such soils frequently have good engineering properties especially in the construction of
sub grades and embankments. For the case of lateritic soils found in Western Ethiopia
(Nedjo-Jarso-Begi area), the justification of these soils is questioned. Hence, the use of
USCS alone for classifying the Western Ethiopia lateritic soils for road construction
purpose is not seems appropriate.
During classification of soils using the AASHTO classification system, it was observed
that majority of the soils sampled from Nedjo-Jarso-Begi area are fallen under subgroup
A-2-7 with group index less than 4 and few samples are fallen under subgroup A-7-5 and
A-7-6 with group index less than 15. From the results of classification, it was obtained
that the majority of the soils sampled are fallen under subgroup A-2-7 with group index
less than 4 which indicate that these soils samples can be used as a good source of
construction material. Hence, the AASHTO Classification System is more appropriate in
classifying lateritic soils of Western Ethiopia than the USCS.
From the above discussions of index test results and testing procedures of the Western
Ethiopia lateritic soils and non lateritic soils from Addis Ababa, it can be seen that the
Western Ethiopia lateritic soils are very sensitive to the type of pretreatments and testing
procedures. Hence, in order to overcome and minimize the discrepancy in index test
results of these area soils, the use of the laboratory testing procedures which is attached in
Appendix-A is very important as the soils found in Western Ethiopia have been
investigated sensitive for various pretreatments and testing procedures.

6. Conclusions and recommendations
6.1 Conclusion
Based on the investigation of the index test results the soil samples of Nedjo-Jarso-Begi
area, Western Ethiopia, the following conclusions can be drawn:
1. Geochemical test results indicate that the soils of Nedjo-Jarso-Begi areas are
laterites having high concentration of iron oxide and/or aluminium oxide
(sesquioxides). The degree of laterization, silica to sesquioxides ratio, is below
1.33.
2. The test results showed that the Western Ethiopia lateritic soils are sensitive to the
temperature applied prior to testing. Some soils also contain structural water or
water of hydration that could be driven off irreversibly when using oven drying of
105oC. Hence air-drying or oven-drying of 50oC with relative humidity (RH) of
30% should be used for every test during sample preparation.
3. It is observed that some Western Ethiopia lateritic soils are sensitive to test
procedures and the energy applied to the soil samples during Atterberg limits
tests; hence, the laboratory testing of these area soils shall be properly controlled
in order to minimize the disaggregation of clay particles. Hence, during Atterberg
limit tests, the minimum mixing time usually of 5minutes and a fresh soil shall be
used for each point on the plasticity tests.
4. The Activity tests showed that, the soils of Western Ethiopia lateritic soils have
activity number of less than 1.25. Similarly, the free swell tests showed an average
free swell of less than 50% (i.e., the soils have Low Swell Potential). Therefore,
Western Ethiopia lateritic soils are inactive as compared to the swelling
characteristic of fine grained soil (clay soils).

5. The specific gravity test results are higher values than the temperate zone soil.
This is due to high amount of iron oxide for soil under investigation. And, during
specific gravity test avoid any form of pre-test drying in order to determine the dry
mass of the soil rather obtain the dry mass after the test has been done using lower
oven drying temperatures, 50oC with relative humidity (RH) of 30%, as some
Western Ethiopia lateritic soils have water of hydration or structural water which
will be driven off by oven drying of 105oC or due to dehydration and/or
aggregation of clay particles of the lateritic soils upon drying at higher
temperatures.
6. In cases where the grading curves using mass proportions show gap graded and
where the separate specific gravities of fine and coarse fractions of the soils differ
largely, it is important to evaluate the grading curves of the lateritic soils by mass
proportion and volume proportion using the separate specific gravities of fine and
coarse fractions separately.
7. The AASHTO classification system can be applied as well with the lateritic soils
of Western Ethiopia as it can with temperate zone soils. However, during the
classification tests all the above pretreatment and testing procedures shall be
practiced.
8. The Unified Soil Classification System is not appropriate for classifying the
Western Ethiopia lateritic soils for road construction purpose.
9. During the determination of the index properties, i.e. moisture content test,
plasticity tests (liquid limit, plastic limits and plasticity index), gradation and
specific gravity tests, of the Western Ethiopia lateritic soils Appendix-A is given
as guide /or somehow an appropriate testing procedures/ for the determination of
the index properties of these type soils, soils which are sensitive to the
pretreatment conditions and testing procedures.

6.2 Recommendations
 In order to use the Laterites which are widely distributed in western Ethiopia as
materials in road construction proper selection criteria should be used. Until
recently much of this use has been done using the inappropriate specification,
such as those developed for the climatic conditions of Europe and North
America. In this area, with the need for better roads carrying more traffic, there
is an increasing requirement for good quality material for the upper pavement
layers, much of which has to be imported or hauled long distances. The cheap
and locally available materials, which are suitable for the upper pavement levels
of low-volume roads, are often used insufficiently as sub-base, or even earth-fill,
for busier roads. In order to reduce the wastage of a valuable resource, many
tropical countries have prepared their own road specification, usually through
their ministry of transport or highway department, rather than using temperate
zone specification. Other countries use the recommended specifications
developed by the highway research organizations of western countries, such as
those of France and Britain. Therefore it is recommended that a further study or
comparison be made on the different countries specification /selection criteria/
for the use laterites as road construction materials.

7. References
1. ASHTO. (2004). Standard Specification for Transportation Materials and

Methods of Sampling and Testing. Washington, D.C.: American Association of
State Highway and Transportation Officials.
2. AEC. (2004). An Engineering Study Report on Nedjo - Jarso - Begi Road. Addis
Ababa: Associated Engineering Consultants.
3. ASTM. (2004). Special Procedures for Testing Soil and Rock for Civil
Engineering Purpose. Philadelphia: American Society for Testing and Materials.
4. Blight, G. (1997). Mechanics of Residual soils. Rotterdam: A.A. Balkema
Publishers.
5. Bowles, J. (1978). Engineering properties of Soil and their Measurement.
McGraw Hill Book Company.
6. Budhu, M. (2000). Soil Mechanics & Foundations. New York, NY: John Wiley &
Sons, Inc.
7. C. L., & Evett, J. B. (1990). SOIL PROPERTIES Testing, Measurement, and
Evaluation. New Jersey: Prentice Hall Carer & Technology Prentice-Hall, Inc.
8. Charman, J. H. (1995). Laterite in road pavements: Special publication 47.
Transport Research Laboratory, Department of Transport. London: Construction
Industry Research and Information Association (CIRIA).
9. Chen, W., & Liew, J. R. (Eds.). (2003). The Civil Engineering Hand Book
(Second ed.). Florida, U.S.A.: CRC PRESS.
10. Das, B. M. (1985). Advanced Soil Mechanics. Washington: McGraw-Hill Book
Company.
11. Dibisa, J. (2008). Detail Investigation on Index Properties of Lateritic Soils.
M.Sc. Thesis presented to School of graduate Studies, Addis Ababa University,
Civil Engineering Department, Addis Ababa.
12. ERA. (2002). STANDARD TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS. Addis Ababa:
Ethiopian Roads Authority (ERA).
13. Fookes, G. (1997). Tropical Residual Soils. A Geological Society Engineering
Group Working party Revised Report. London, Tulsa, New South Australia,
Delhi, Tokyo: the Geological Society.
14. Fredlund, D., & Rahardjo, H. (1993). Soil Mechanics for Unsaturated Soils. New
York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

15. G/Medhin, A. (2008). Compaction properties of lateritic soils (The Case of
Assossa). M.Sc. Thesis presented to School of graduate Studies, Addis Ababa
University, Civil Engineering Department, Addis Ababa.
16. Hailemariam, A. (1992). Investigation into Shear Strength Characterstics of Red
Clay Soil of Addis Ababa. M.Sc. Thesis presented to School of graduate Studies,
Addis Ababa University, Civil Engineering Department, Addis Ababa.
17. Indrawan, I., Rahardjo, H., & Leong, E. (2006). Effects of Coarse-Grained
Materials on Properties of residual soil. Journal of Engineering Geolog 82 , 154-
164.
18. Kebede, H. (2008). Compressibility Characteristics of Red Clay Soils of the
Western Ethiopia- The Case of Assosa. M.Sc. Thesis presented to School of
graduate Studies, Addis Ababa University, Civil Engineering Department, Addis
Ababa.
19. Lambe, T. (1951). Soil testing for Engineers. London: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
20. Lyon Associates, I. (1971). Laterite and lateritic soils and other problem soils of
Africa: An Engineering study for Agency for international development, AID/csd-
2164. Baltimore: Lyon Associates, Inc.
21. Lyon Associates, I. (1971). USAGE MANUAL for sampling and testing laterite
and lateritic soils and other problem soils of Africa: An Engineering study for
Agency for international development, AID/csd-2164. Baltimore: Lyon
Associates, Inc.
22. Mahalinga-Iyer, U., & Williams, D. (1997). Properties and performance of
lateritic soil in road Pavements. Journal of Engineering Geology 46 , 71-80.
23. Makasa, B. (1998). Utilization and Improvement of lateritic gravels in road base.
International Institute for Aerospace Survey and Earth Science (ITC), Section
Engineering Geology .
24. Murthy, V. (2001). Principles of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering.
New Delhi: UBS Publishers' Distributors Ltd.
25. Rossiter, D. (2004). A compendium of on line soil survey Information. Soil
classification for soil survey. Special soil problem. Retrieved from
http://www.itc.nl/~rossiter/research/rsrch_ss_class.html.
26. Samuel, T. (1989). Investigation into some of the Engineering Properties of Addis
Ababa Red Clay Soils. M.Sc. Thesis presented to School of graduate Studies,
Addis Ababa University, Civil Engineering Department, Addis Ababa.

27. Sintayehu, H. (2003). Investigation of Influence of Compaction on the Stability of
Earthfill Dams of Tropical Soils. M.Sc. Thesis presented to School of graduate
Studies, Addis Ababa University, Civil Engineering Department, Addis Ababa.
28. Teferra, A., & Leikun, M. (1999). Soil Mechanics. Addis Ababa: Addis Ababa
University.
29. Tibebu, H. (2008). Study of Index Properties and shear Strength Parameters of
Laterite soils in Southern Part of Ethiopia the case of Wolayita - Sodo. M.Sc.
Thesis presented to School of graduate Studies, Addis Ababa University, Civil
Engineering Department, Addis Ababa.
30. Umarany, M., & D.J., W. (1990). Engineering properties of a lateritic soil profile.
The University of Queensland, Department of civil engineering. Queensland 4072,
Australia.
31. Wakuma, F. (2007). Investigating the Index Properties of Residual Tropical Soils
of Western Ethiopia (The case of Assosa). M.Sc. Thesis presented to School of
Ababa.
32. Zelalem, A. (2005). Basic Engineering Properties of Lateritic Soils Found in Nejo
– Mendi Road Construction Area, Welega. M.Sc. Thesis presented to School of
Ababa.

APPENDIX – A
LABORATORY TESTING PROCEDURES
APPENDIX – A ...............................................................................................................A-1
LABORATORY TESTING PROCEDURES .................................................................A-1
1. MOISTURE CONTENT TEST................................................................................A-2
2. PLASTICITY TESTS...............................................................................................A-5
2.1 LIQUID LIMIT (LL) TESTS..........................................................................A-10
2.2 PLASTIC LIMIT (PL) AND PLASTICITY INDEX (PI) TESTS .................A-14
3. GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS TESTS.........................................................................A-17
4. SPECIFIC GRAVITY TEST..................................................................................A-23
4.1 INDIVIDUAL STONES .................................................................................A-23
4.2 SOIL SAMPLES .............................................................................................A-24
Addis Ababa University A-1 November 2009

1. MOISTURE CONTENT TEST
General
The m oisture or w ater c ontent of a s oil s ample is a n i ndicator of t he amount of w ater

present in soil. It is the ratio of the weight of water contained in the sample to the weight
of solids in the sample, expressed in percentage.
--------------------------------------------------------------- (A-1)
Where ω = moisture content of soil (expressed as percentage)
W w = weight of water in soil sample (i.e. initial weight of moist soil minus weight
of oven dried soil)
W s = weight of soil solids in sample
W w and W s may be expressed in any units of weight, but both should be expressed in the
same unit.
Apparatus Required
• Balance (with accuracy to 0.01g)

• Oven ( with accurate temperature control and temperature gage)
• Metal boxes/Containers ( e.g., tin or aluminum moisture cans with lids)
Test sample
A r epresentative s ample of t he m oist s oil t o be tested s hould be t aken i n a n a mount a s

indicated in the Table A-1 below.
Table A- 1 Minimum Mass of moist sample (ASTM, 2004)

Recommended minimum mass Recommended minimum mass
Maximum particle size Standard sieve
of moist test specimen for water of moist test specimen for water
(100% passing) Size
content reported to ±0.1% content reported to ±1%
2.0 mm or less No. 10 20 g 20 g
4.75 mm No. 4 100 g 20 g
9.5 mm 3/8-in. 500 g 50 g
19.0 mm 3/4-in. 2.5 kg 250 g
37.5 mm 1½-in. 10 kg 1 kg
75 mm 3-in. 50 kg 5 kg

Test Procedure
1) Weigh container with representative wet sample in accordance with Table A-1 to
nearest 0.01 gram and record on data sheet
2) Uncover container and place in oven to dry (see Note 1.1 & 1.2)
3) Remove f rom ove n, replace c over t ightly, and s et a side t o c ool t o r oom
temperature
4) Weigh container with dried sample to nearest 0.01 gram and record on data sheet
5) If tare weight is not already available, clean, dry and weigh container with cover
to nearest 0.01 gram and record on data sheet (see Note 1.3)
6) Compute moisture content as shown on data sheet and in sample calculation using
the above equation (Eq. A-1)
Note 1.1: Two test portions should be prepared for moisture-content determinations. One
portion should be over-dried at 105oC until successive test weightings (greater than ½ hr.)
show t hat no f urther w eight l oss i s t aking pl ace or i nsignificant c hange ( i.e., l ess t han
about 0.1% ), and t he m oisture c ontent s hould t hen be determined. T he ot her por tion
should be air-dried or oven-dried at no more than 50oC with a maximum relative humidity
(RH) of 30% unt il s uccessive t est weightings show no f urther w eight l oss, a nd t he
moisture c ontent t hen d etermined. T hen, t he t wo t est r esults s hould be c ompared; a
significant di fference (4 -6%) i ndicates t hat t he material cont ains ‘ structural w ater’ or
‘water of hydration’ which does not play a part in the field performance of the soil. If this
is conf irmed by repeat t ests t hen the ov en-drying t emperatures f or t he s ubsequent
programme of t ests s hould be c hanged t o a ir-drying or ove n-drying w ith no m ore t han
50oC.
Note 1.2: To air-dry the material, place it in pans or spread it on a canvas and expose it to
direct rays of sun or to a draft (frequent agitation or stirring speeds up the drying process).
In case o f dr y atmosphere, the material also dries readily inside the laboratory or in the
shade. A fan blowing air over the sample greatly increases the rate of evaporation/drying.
Note 1.3: It i s r ecommended t hat a ll c ontainers us ed f or m oisture-content te sts b e

numbered and their weights obtained in advance and recorded for reference.

Sample calculation
1. To calculate the weight of water in sample
Wt water = (wt wet sample + can) – (wt dry sample + can) = 152.89 - 115.69 = 37.20gm
2. To calculate the weight of dry sample
Wt dry sample= (wt dry sample + can) - (wt can) = 115.69 - 5.42 = 110.27gm
3. To calculate moisture content
Moisture content = 100 x wt water/ Wt dry sample =100 x 37.20/ 110.27 = 33.74%
Table A- 2 Moisture content test data sheet
DATA SHEET
Moisture-content Test
Sample name: TS1-1 Project area (No.): NJB Road

Depth: 0.6m Location(station): 10+880, 1.5 km RHS
Description of Reddish brown
sample: silty gravel
Tested by: W.M. Date: 7/11/2008
Determination No.: 1 2 3
Container (can) no. 31

Weight of can + moist soil, W 1 (g) 152.89
Weight of can + dry soil, W 2 (g) 115.69
Weight of can, W c (g) 5.42
Weight of water, W w (g) 37.20
Weight of dry soil, W s (g) 110.27
Moisture content, ω (%) 33.74

2. PLASTICITY TESTS
General
Generally there are four states of consistency, i.e. degree of firmness, for clays and related
fine grained soils: liquid, plastic, semisolid, and solid. The di viding l ine between l iquid
and plastic states is liquid limit, the dividing line between plastic and semisolid states is
plastic limit, and the dividing line between semisolid and solid states is shrinkage limit.
The liquid, plastic and shrinkage limits are therefore quantified in terms of water content.
The difference between the liquid limit and plastic limit is the plastic index. It is the range
with in which a material has a plastic consistency.
The thr ee limits a nd the inde x are us eful num bers i n c lassifying s oils a nd m aking
judgments i n r egard t o t heir a pplications. H ence, t he a ppropriate l aboratory pr ocedures
for determining the liquid limit and plastic limit of the western Ethiopia lateritic soils are
given hereunder.
As explained, the liquid limit is the dividing line between liquid and plastic states, i.e. it is
the moisture content of the material at the upper limit of the plastic range. The liquid limit
is quantified for a given soil as a specific water content; from a physical stand point, it is
the w ater c ontent at w hich the s hear s trength of the s oil be comes s o small tha t the s oil
“flows” to close a standard grove cut in a sample of soil when it is jarred in a standard
manner.
The liquid limit is identified in the laboratory as that water content at which the groove is
closed ½ in. when the soil sample is jarred in the standard manner by exactly 25 drops (or
blows) from a height of 1 cm in a standard liquid limit device.
Apparatus Required
• Liquid limit device (see Figure A-1)

• Grooving tool (see Figure A-2)
• Spatula
• Drop gage- a metal block for adjusting the height of drop of the cup (see Figure A-3)
• Balance (with accuracy to 0.01g)
• Mixing dishes

• No. 40 sieve
• Saucepans
• Metal boxes/Containers ( e.g., tin or aluminum moisture cans with lids)
• Rubber-covered pestle
Figure A- 1 Hand operated liquid-limit device
Figure A- 2 Grooving tool

Figure A- 3 Height of drop gage
Adjustment of liquid-limit device
Before us ing t he l iquid-limit de vice, it must be adjusted so the c up in which the s oil is
placed falls exactly 1 centimeter. The handle of the grooving tool has a 1-centimeter gage
which is used to measure this distance.
a) Remove cup from device and make a pencil cross of center of shiny spot caused
by cup striking base.
b) Replace cup in device and turn crank until cup is raised to its highest elevation.
c) Insert gage a nd check d istance f rom p encil m arks t o ba se i n m anner s hown i n
Figure A-4. Loosen lock screw and turn adjusting screw until distance is exactly 1
centimeter. (see Note 2.1)
Figure A- 4 Adjustment for height of drop

Preparation of Test Sample
Plasticity t ests a re m ade onl y on t he s oil f raction w hich pa sses t he N o.40 s ieve. T he
separation on the No. 40 sieve is made either by dry sieving or by a slower wet sieving
process. The actual field conditions should determine the preparation method. The results
of the pl asticity t ests run both wet and dry p reparation method will indicate th e change
due to dehydration.
I. Dry Method
a) Select sufficient soil sample to provide 150 to 200 grams of material passing the
425-µm (No. 40) sieve after processing.
b) Air-dry the sample by exposing to direct rays of sun/a draft/ or air-dry the sample
inside the laboratory or in the shade (in the case of dry atmosphere), i.e. at room
temperature, until the soil clods will pulverize readily (see Note 2.2 & Note 2.3).
c) Pulverize the s ample/dry material/ w ith rubber-covered pe stle o r i n some ot her
way t hat do es not cause di saggregation/breakdown of i ndividual s oil grains on
clean, smooth surface (see Note 2.4 & Note 2.5).
d) Screen po wdered/pulverized/ s ample t hrough t he N o.40 s ieve a nd di scard t he
material retained on sieve.
e) Mix soil passing No. 40 sieve with distilled/de-mineralized/ water until it has the
consistence of a very thick, smooth paste. Then, cover with damp paper or cloth
and let stand for not less than 1 hour.
II. Wet Method
a) Select a s ufficient quantity o f s oil s ample a t na tural moi sture c ontent to provide
150 to 200 grams of material passing the 425-µm (No. 40) sieve after processing.
b) Transfer sample to saucepan or dish and cover with sufficient water. Let soak until
all m aterial i s di sintegrated or s oftened and t he f ines no l onger a dhere t o t he
surface of coarse particles, this may require 2 to 12 hours.
c) Place a No. 40 sieve in a clean saucepan or dish and transfer entire soaked sample
into the sieve. Wash any material still adhering to the soaking pan into the sieve
by squirting water from the battery filler.

d) Pour c lean water i nto p an c ontaining s ieve unt il l evel of water i s a bout ½ -inch
above mesh in sieve.
e) Without lifting sieve, agitate it with one hand. At the same time, stir material with
the other hand until all fine material appears to have passed through sieve.
f) Hold sieve slightly above water surface in pan and squirt water from battery filler
onto s ieve unt il r etained pa rticles a nd t he s ieve ar e cl ean. Discard material
retained in sieve.
g) Place pan where it will not be disturbed and block it up on one side so water on
the other side barely riches rim of pan. Allow soil to settle for several hours (see
Note 2.6).
h) Pour of f l iquid s lowly by gradually inc reasing tilt of pa n until c loudy layer
overlaying the sediment reaches rim of pan.
f) Air-dry material to the consistency of a thick, smooth paste having a consistency
within the 10 to 20 blow range and put in small mixing dish.
Note 2.1: The 1.0 cm gage must be placed to measure the distance from the shiny spot to
the ba se a nd not t he di stance from t he l owest p oint of t he cup. C ylindrical gages w ith
beveled e dges c annot be us ed. U se a f lashlight or ot her s trong l ight be hind g age w hen
checking distance
Note 2.2: To air-dry the material, place it in pans or spread it on a canvas and expose it to
direct rays of sun or to a draft (frequent agitation or stirring speeds up the drying process).
In cas e o f dr y atmosphere, the material also dries readily inside the laboratory or in the
shade. A fan blowing air over the sample greatly increases the rate of evaporation/drying.
Note 2.3: In areas of hi gh rainfall it ma y b e di fficult to dry s oils dur ing c onstruction;
hence, t he pl asticity t ests s hould be r un from the na tural m oisture c ontent, a nd not
allowed to dry in the laboratory. However, if the construction is during the dry season or
in an area of low rainfall, then the soils should be air-dried in the laboratory. In all cases,
the l aboratory pr etreatments s hould reflect a ctual f ield conditions. Hence, lateritic s oil
samples should not be over-dried prior to testing since the soils will not experience such
high temperatures in the field.

Note 2.4: Lateritic s oils a re s usceptible t o br eakdown w ith m anipulation; he nce t est
procedures should be more rigidly controlled. Excessive manipulation during testing and
sample pr eparation l eads t o c rumbling o f t he s oil s tructure a nd di saggregating of s oil
particles; the se e ffects pr oduce f ines w hich will r esult in higher liqui d limit va lues.
Hence, In or der t o c ontrol t his pr oblem t he m ixing t imes s hall be ke pt t o a m inimum,
generally a bout 5 m inutes, a nd us e f resh s oil f or e ach m oisture c ontent poi nt i n t he
plasticity tests. In addition to these, the soils shall be broken-down by soaking in water or
in such a way that breakdown/disaggregation of soil grains is omitted during preparation
of test sample.
Note 2.5: When the coarse particles found during pulverization are concretions, shells, or
other fragile particles, do not crush these particles to make them pass a 425-µm (No. 40)
sieve, but remove by hand or by washing.
Note 2.6: For mos t la teritic s oils, material in suspension will s ettle out . If the re is no
indication of t his a fter s everal hour s, pl ace f ilter pa per i n a f unnel and place wet s oil
inside the funnel. Place the funnel in a jar or other container and allow to stand until all
the excess water is filtered off.
2.1 LIQUID LIMIT (LL) TESTS
Just before making liquid-limit test, thoroughly mix the prepared sample once more with
spatula and set aside about 1 heaped teaspoonful of material for the plastic-limit test.
Test Procedures
1) Dryly prepared samples (Samples prepared using Dry method)
a) Transfer enough material from mixing dish into brass cup of liquid-limit device to
fill the cup about one-third full.
b) Hold c up a nd us e s patula t o m ix a nd s pread m aterial, f orming a s mooth c ake
about ½-inch deep in lower half of cup.
c) Hold grooving tool with rounded edges downward, index finger against flat face.
d) Place point of tool on upper edge of soil cake with tool perpendicular to surface of
cup.
Addis Ababa University A - 10 November 2009

e) Draw tool down through the center of cake along a line extending from the center
of the cup handle. At the same time, tilt the tool so it remains perpendicular to the
bottom surface (see Note 2.8).
f) Clean grooving tool by wiping thumb over cutting edge before laying it aside. If
soil dries on tool, time is lost in cleaning it later.
g) With striking pa rts of t he l iquid-limit de vice c lean a nd dr y and he ight of dr op
properly adjusted, place cup in device, turn crank at rate of about two blows per
second, a nd c ount num ber of bl ows r equired t o c lose bot tom of g roove f or a
distance of about ½-inch (see Note 2.9).
h) Remove a s lice o f s oil a pproximately the w idth of the s patula, extending f rom
edge t o e dge of t he s oil c ake a t r ight a ngles t o t he g roove a nd i ncluding t he
portion of the groove in which the soil flowed together. Then place soil in small
weighted metal box and cover tightly.
i) Remove cup from device, remix to mixing dish and add a slight amount of water
to i ncrease t he water c ontent of t he s oil and decrease t he num ber of bl ows
required t o c lose t he g roove. A nd, r epeat s teps ( a) t hrough ( h) f or a t l east t wo
additional t rials pr oducing s uccessively l ower num ber of bl ows t o c lose t he
groove. One of the trials shall be for a closure requiring 25 t o 35 bl ows, one trial
for a closure between 20 to 30 blows, and one trial for a closure requiring 15 to 25
blows.
j) Determine m oisture c ontent of a ll s amples obt ained dur ing t est a ccording t o t he
moisture c ontent t est s hown a bove. ( Cans m ust be pr operly num bered a nd
recorded).
2) Wetly prepared samples (Samples prepared using wet method)
a) Transfer enough material from mixing dish, wetly prepared test sample, into brass
cup of liquid-limit device to fill the cup about one-third full (see Note 2.7).
b) Hold c up a nd us e s patula t o m ix a nd s pread m aterial, f orming a s mooth c ake
about ½-inch deep in lower half of cup.
c) Hold grooving tool with rounded edges downward, index finger against flat face.
d) Place point of tool on upper edge of soil cake with tool perpendicular to surface of
cup.

e) Draw tool down through the center of cake along a line extending from the center
of the cup handle. At the same time, tilt the tool so it remains perpendicular to the
bottom surface (see Note 2.8).
f) Clean grooving tool by wiping thumb over cutting edge before laying it aside. If
soil dries on tool, time is lost in cleaning it later.
g) With striking pa rts of t he liqui d-limit de vice c lean a nd dr y and he ight of dr op
properly adjusted, place cup in device, turn crank at rate of about two blows per
second, a nd c ount num ber of bl ows r equired t o c lose bot tom of g roove f or a
distance of about ½-inch (see Note 2.10).
h) Remove a s lice o f s oil a pproximately t he w idth of t he s patula, extending f rom
edge t o e dge of t he s oil c ake a t r ight a ngles t o t he g roove a nd i ncluding t he
portion of the groove in which the soil flowed together. Then place soil in small
weighted metal box and cover tightly.
i) Remove cup from device, remix to mixing dish and air-dry the sample slowly to
decrease the water content of the soil and increase the number of blows required
to close the groove. This is to perform the blow count determination for different
moisture contents as the soil slowly dries out. And, repeat steps (a) through (h) for
at l east t wo a dditional t rials pr oducing s uccessively hi gher num ber o f blows t o
close the groove. One of the trials shall be for a closure requiring 15 to 25 blows,
one trial for a closure between 20 to 30 blows, and one trial for a closure requiring
25 to 35 blows.
j) Determine m oisture c ontent of a ll s amples obt ained dur ing t est a ccording t o t he
moisture c ontent t est s hown a bove. ( Cans m ust be properly num bered a nd
recorded).
Note 2.7: For t he c ase of w et s amples, i.e. for t he t est s amples w hich were pr epared
according to wet method shown above in the “Preparation of Test Sample”. Initially the
samples should be air-dried to the consistency of a thick, smooth/uniform paste having a
consistency within the 15 to 25 blows range.
Note 2.8: For clays containing little or no s and, cut groove with one smooth continuous
stroke. H owever, for ve ry s andy c lays, s ilts ha ving l ittle pl asticity, and s ome or ganic
soils, the tool cannot be drawn through sample without tearing sides of groove. For these
soils, cut groove with a spatula and check dimensions with tool.

Note 2.9: If groove is not closed ½-inch in 25 to 35 blows initially, i.e. for the first point,
add water and remix or dry sample to a consistency with in this range.
Note 2.10: If groove is not closed ½-inch in 15 to 25 blows initially, i.e. for the first point,
add water and remix or dry sample to a consistency with in this range.
Data collection
As indicated previously, the liquid-limit is that the water content of the soil at which the
standard gr oove i s c losed a di stance ½ i n. b y e xactly 25 dr ops. T his i s de termined b y
plotting, on s emi logarithmic graph paper, water content along the ordinate (arithmetical
scale) versus number of drops along the abscissa (logarithmic scale) and drawing the best
straight line through the plotted points. The resulting graph is referred to as a flow curve.
From the flow curve, the liquid limit can be read as the water content at 25 drops.
From t he pr eceding, the da ta t o be collected f or ea ch trial are the number of drops (N)
required to close the groove and the water content (ω) of the soil at that number of drops.
Recalling section A that, in order to determine water content, the weight of the container
(w c ), weight of container plus wet soil (w 1 ), and weight of container plus oven-dried soil
(w 2 ) m ust be obt ained. Since m ore t han on e w ater c ontents m ust be d etermined, e ach
container should be properly labeled or numbered and recorded. Generally the following
data should be collected for each trial in this test:
• Number of drops (N)

• Container identification number
• Weight of container, w c
• Weight of container plus moist soil, w 1
• Weight of container plus oven-dried soil, w 2

2.2 PLASTIC LIMIT (PL) AND PLASTICITY INDEX (PI) TESTS
The small sample which was set aside at the start of the liquid-limit test is allowed to dry
to a consistency such that the material will not stick to the hands, yet can still be rolled
into a thread without crumbling
Test Procedure
a) Take not m ore t han one -half of t his s ample a nd r oll w ith pa lm of ha nd on a ny
clean, smooth surface such as a s heet of paper, to form a 1/ 8-inch threat about 3
inches long.
b) Fold thread and press together into a lump and then roll it out again.
c) Repeat step (b), gradually reducing moisture content by evaporation as the sample
is handled causing threads to become stiffer.
d) The plastic limit (PL) is reached when the thread crumbles into a number of pieces
while begin rolled (see Note 2.11).
e) Immediately pl ace t he c rumbled thread into a s mall m etal bo x and determine
moisture content.
k) Make a nother P L de termination f or a c heck, us ing m aterial f rom r emaining
portion of original sample.
Note B.11: If an y doubt ex ists as t o w hether t he P L ha s be en reached, lump the pi eces

together and roll out again.
Data sheet
The same data sheet is used for both the plastic-limit and liquid-limit tests as given blow,
i.e. Table A - 3.
Plasticity Index
The numerical difference between the liquid limit ( LL) and the plastic li mit (PL) is the
plasticity index (PI).
PI = LL -PL --------------------------------------------------------------------------- (A-2)

Sample Calculations
Table A- 3 Plasticity test data sheet
DATA SHEET
PLASTICITY TEST
Sample name: TS1-2 Project area: NJB
Depth: 2.0m Location(station): 10+880, 1.0km RHS
Description of sample: Yellowish color silty gravel (Test Pit)
Date: 1/12/2008
Tested by: W.M.
Type of test Liquid Limit Plastic Limit

Determination No.: 1 2 3 4 1 2
Number of drops 34 27 21 16
Container(can) no. 33 D26 35 C34 D23 108
Weight of can + moist soil, W 1 (g) 40.29 41.92 36.70 29.57 24.56 23.57
Weight of can + dry soil, W 2 (g) 34.17 35.11 31.43 23.98 23.93 23.20
Weight of can, W c (g) 22.03 22.18 21.72 14.11 21.96 22.00
Weight of water, W w (g) 6.12 6.81 5.27 5.59 0.63 0.37
Weight of dry soil, W s (g) 12.14 12.93 9.71 9.87 1.97 1.20
Moisture content, w(%) 50.41 52.67 54.27 56.64 31.98 30.83

60
55
water content (%)
50
45
40
10.00
Number of blows (log scale)
Figure A- 5 Flow curve
Table A- 4 Summary of test results
Liquid Limit (LL), from the flow curve = 53.35 %

Plastic Limit (PL) = 31.41 %
Plasticity Index (PI) = 21.94 %

3. GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS TESTS
General
The determination of grain-size distribution in a soil, called grain-size analysis, is made

by a s creening p rocess (sieve ana lysis) for coarse grained s oils ( for pa rticle s izes l arger
than 75 -µm), and by a s ettling/sedimentation process i n water ( i.e. wet m echanical
analysis), us ing a h ydrometer, f or f ine-grained soils ( for pa rticle s izes s maller tha n 75-
µm). When both processes are used on the same sample, the test is called combined grain-
size analysis.
Because of t he t endency of s ome la teritic s oils to form a ggregations while dr ying at

higher t emperatures, a s ieve analysis s hould be made on t he s ample a fter t he f ines a re
removed by washing. In addition to this, relatively weak coarse particles may also cause
problems in grading analysis as they become finer during sample preparation i.e. during
pulverization. H ence, i t is i mportant t hat t he s ample pr eparation a nd t esting pr ocedures
should not fracture the coarse particles.
Apparatus Required
• Balance ( with a ccuracy to 0.01g f or weighing th e ma terial pa ssing N o. 10 sieve

and a b alance s ensitive to 0.1% of t he m ass of the s ample t o be w eighed f or
weighing the material retained on a No. 10 sieve)
• Stirring apparatus
• Hydrometer (an A STM h ydrometer conforming t o t he r equirements f or
hydrometers 151H or 152H in specification E 100)
• Sedimentation cylinder (a glass cylinder essentially 18 in. (457 mm) in height and
2 ½ in. (63.5 mm) in diameter and marked for a volume of 1000-mL)
• Thermometer (with accuracy to 1oF (0.5oC))
• Water bath or constant-temperature room (for maintaining the soil suspension at a
constant temperature during the hydrometer analysis)
• Beaker (a capacity of 250-mL)
• Timing device (a watch or clock with a second hand)
• Saucepans
• Set of sieves

• Set of portable screens
• Paint brush
a) Two samples shall be selected by the method of quartering or by use of a sample

splitter (one for the gradation test and the other for moisture content).
b) The gradation sample shall weigh, in its natural moisture conditions, not less than
the amount indicated in the following table.
Table A- 5 Minimum Weight of gradation sample (Lyon Associates, 1971)
Approximate Minimum Weight of

Nominal Maximum sieve size
Sample, kg
No. 4 (4.75-mm) 1.0
½-in. (14.25-mm) 2.0
¾-in. (19.0-mm) 3.0
1-in. (25.0-mm) 4.0
1½-in. (37.5-mm) or over 5.0
c) The moisture sample shall weigh at least 30 per cent of the gradation sample.
d) Weigh t he graduation s ample i n i ts w et c ondition a nd pl ace i n a c ontainer. A dd
sufficient water to the sample in the container to cover it.
e) Prepare a nest of two sieves with a No. 200 (0.075-mm) sieve on the bottom and a
No. 10 (2.0-mm) sieve on the top.
f) Transfer the sample to the nested sieves and wash with running water. When the
sample i s l arger t han can be h andled at on e t ime on the ne sted sieves, wash a
portion of the sample and transfer it to a container in which it is to be dried (see
Note 3.1).
g) Dry and combine the washed materials retained on the nested No. 10 & No. 200
sieves t o a cons tant w eight at a t emperature not t o exceed 230oF or 110 oC ( see
Note 3.2).
Note 3.1: Tapping of the sieves expedites the washing procedure.

Note 3.2: The dr y w eight to be us ed i n t he computation f or t he g radation s hall be
computed using the initial wet weight and the moisture content of the sample, i.e. the dry-
weight is equal to wet-weight divided by (1 + moisture content).
Test Procedures
• Sieve Analysis of portion retained on No. 10 & No. 200 sieves
a) Transfer dr y s ample t o set of s ieves ( coarse s ieves at t op, fine s ieves at bottom)
with the sieve pan on bot tom. Place cover on t op and shake the stack vigorously
with a hor izontal r otating m otion. T he s ieves may be j arred occasionally b y
dropping l ightly on s everal t hick ne sses of m agazines. D o not dr op di rectly on
work bench or table, this will damage sieves. The shaking period depends on t he
amount of fine material in the sample, but should not be less than 15 m inutes for
most fine-grained soils (see Note 3.3).
b) Transfer m aterial f rom l argest s creen to pan of balance and weight t o nearest 5
grams. Record size of l argest pa rticle. Place m aterial i n separate cont ainer and
save until test is completed. For sample weighting less than 50 grams, weigh each
fraction on a balance to nearest gram.
c) Repeat pr ocedure f or e ach successively s maller s creen size. Individual s tone
particles caught i n t he wire s creens s hould not be forced t hrough s creens but
should be removed by hand and included with fraction before weighing. The finer
sieves should be inverted over the scale pan and brushed clean.
Note 3.3: Large samples containing many coarse stones should first be screened through
the portable screen set. The number and size of screens and sieves to be used depends on
the type of soil tested and the purpose of the test. It is often permissible to omit a few of
the intermediate sizes, as illustrated in the sample data sheet.

Sample calculation
Table A- 6 Sieve analysis data sheet
DATA SHEET
SIEVE ANALYSIS
Moisture Content = 35.13 % Project Area: NJB road

Wt. of wet sample = 3,562.50 gm Sample Name: TS1-1
Wt. of original dry 10+880, 1.5 km
2,636.35 gm Location(station):
sample = RHS
Wt. after washing &
1,970.61 gm Test Pit
OD =
Washing loss = 665.74 gm Date Tested: 7/11/2008
WT. WT. PASSING SIEVE

SIEVE
SIEVE OR RETAINED
OPENING
SCREEN ON SIEVE (gm) (%)
(mm)
(gm)
3" 75 0.00 2,636.35 100.00%
2'' 50.8 0.00 2,636.35 100.00%
11/2" 38.1 0.00 2,636.35 100.00%
1" 25.4 0.00 2,636.35 100.00%
3/4" 19.1 135.15 2,501.20 94.87%
3/8" 9.5 369.29 2,131.91 80.87%
No. 4 4.75 506.16 1,625.75 61.67%
No. 10 2.00 359.86 1,265.89 48.02%
No. 40 0.425 176.00 1,089.89 41.34%
No. 100 0.150 319.01 770.88 29.24%
No. 200 0.075 102.14 668.74 25.37%
Retained in pan - - - - - - - - - - - 3.00
Washing loss - - - - - - - - - - - - - 665.74
Pan total - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 668.74
TOTAL 2,636.35
Remarks:
gm (add to wt. of materials retained in largest fraction,

Error = 7.72 for this case it is in No. 4 sieve)
Error = (7.72/2,636.35)x100% = 0.29% < 3%

a) Obtain sum of weights retained on each sieve and check this total or (sum) against
the weight of o riginal dry sample (see Note 3.2 t hat t he dr y w eight i s computed
using wet weight and moisture content of the test sample). If error exceeds about
3%, reweigh each fraction or repeat test.
b) If e rror i s l ess t han 3 %, a pply num erical va lue of e rror t o weight o f l argest
fraction.
c) Compute the weight of material passing each sieve. For example:
Wt passing No.4 sieve = ( wt of or iginal dr y sample) - (wt of ma terial
retained on No. 4 and all larger sieves)
= 2,636.35 - (135.15 + 369.29 + 506.16)
= 2,636.35 – 1,010.6 = 1,625.75 gm
d) Compute the percentage by weight of material passing each sieve. For example:
% passing No.4 sieve =
= = 61.67 %

• Hydrometer Analysis of portion passing the No. 10
The ph ysical cha racteristics of a f ine-grained soil a re g enerally ide ntified with greater
accuracy b y t he pl asticity t est t han by t he grain-size di stribution. H owever, a w et
mechanical ana lysis/hydrometer analysis/ i s r equired to determine t he percentage o f
material smaller than 0.075mm in diameter. Laboratory testing procedure required for the
analysis o f grain s izes l ess t han 0.075s mm i n di ameter ( passing No.200 s ieve) i s not
included in the set. This test can be done using the step-by-step test procedures described
in ASTM D 422-63.
Grain-size Distribution Curve
Normally, the results of each grain-size analysis of soils are reported in the form of grain-
size di stribution c urve ( Figure A -6). A s a n alternative, the ana lysis m ay be r eported in
tabular form, giving percentage passing of various sieve sizes or percentages found within
various particle-size ranges.
Generally, g rain-size analysis is w idely used in the ide ntification and classification of
soils. It is also utilized in part of the specification of soils for airfields, roads, earth dams,
and other soil embankment construction.
Grain-Size distribution curve of TS1-1

120
Sieve analysis
100
Hydrometer
Percentage passing (%)
80 analysis
60
40
20
0
10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001
particle size( mm)
Figure A - 6 Grain-Size distribution curve

4. SPECIFIC GRAVITY TEST
4.1 INDIVIDUAL STONES
General
In general, the term specific gravity of soil is defined as the ratio of the weight of solid
matter of a given soil sample to the weight of an equal volume (i.e., equal to the volume
of s olid matter) of w ater. In this me thod the de termination of t he s pecific g ravity of
individual s tones, w eighing l ess t han 200 g m, i s g iven b y weighing on t he t riple-beam
balance. U sually t he s pecific gravity of s tones w ith t heir na tural m oisture c ontent i s
required (ASTM Method C 127 can be consulted as an alternative method).
Apparatus Required
• Triple-beam balance
• Light cord or thread
• Small can to hold water
For t he de termination of t he s pecific gravity of s tones, select representative s ample

(stones) which are at their natural moisture content condition.
Test Procedures
a) Loop a s mall t hread a round s tone a nd ha ng f rom l ower hook on t riple be am

balance. Weigh to nearest 0.1 gram.
b) Place s mall can of w ater on platform, immerse object i n water, and reweigh to
nearest 0.1 gram.
c) Calculate s pecific gravity of s tone a s s hown i n s ample c alculation. If cord or
thread is very light, its weight can be neglected.

Sample calculation
Wt of stone in air -------------------------------------155.6 gm
Wt of stone in water ---------------------------------110.50 gm
Specific gravity =
= = 3.45
4.2 SOIL SAMPLES
General
As de fined pr eviously, t he t erm s pecific gravity of s oil i s de fined as t he r atio of the

weight of solid matter of a given soil sample to the weight of an equal volume (i.e., equal
to t he vol ume o f s olid matter) of w ater. The s pecific gravity, G s, of a s oil is us ed t o
calculate parameters such as clay fraction, void ratio and porosity. In residual soils found
in western Ethiopia the specific gravity of the test samples are higher if the samples are
kept at their moist condition until specific gravity test is conducted.
The specific gravity of lateritic soils may be unusually high or unusually low as discussed
by di fferent a uthors. It is t hus e ssential t hat t he s pecific gravity be de termined i n t he
laboratory us ing a n a ccepted s tandard t est pr ocedure. T he s oil has t o b e i n i ts na tural
moisture content and pre-test drying of the sample should be avoided as it tends to reduce
the me asured specific gravity c ompared with the s oils a t the ir na tural m oisture c ontent.
The dry mass of the lateritic soils should be calculated by drying the soil specimen after
the s pecific gravity t est ha s be en completed and using a l ower ove n temperature, say
50oC, rather than using 105oC oven temperature (see Note 4.1). This method covers the
determination of specific gravity of soil (i.e., the specific gravity of the solid matter of the
soil) using pycnometer.
Apparatus Required
• Pycnometer (volumetric flask), preferably with a volume of 500mL

• Balance (with accuracy to 0.01 gm)

• Thermometer
• Drying oven
• Vacuum pump
• Evaporating dish
• Spatula
• Mechanically operated stirring device (malt mixer)
• Large beaker
Calibration of Pycnometer
One pa rameter t hat i s r equired i n or der t o compute t he s pecific gravity of s oil i s t he

weight of the pycnometer when filled with water, W pw . The value of W pw is not constant;
it va ries s lightly a s a f unction of w ater t emperature ( for t he s ame vol ume of w ater).
Furthermore, W pw must be know n at a t emperature t hat equ als t he t emperature of t he
same pycnometer when filled later with a mixture of water and soil sample. The value of
W pw at any desired temperature can be obtained by proper calibration of the pycnometer.
The following procedure may be used to calibrate the device:
(1). The pycnometer must be cleaned, dried, and then weighed, and the weight of the
pycnometer, W p , recorded.
(2). The p ycnometer is the n filled with distilled water tha t is a pproximately at r oom
temperature, a nd t he w eight of t he p ycnometer plus w ater, W pw , is accur ately
determined and recorded.
(3). The w ater t emperature T i must be de termined ( and recorded) b y i nserting a
thermometer in the water.
(4). The value of W pw can then be computed for any other water temperature T x , from
equation (A-3). The required densities of water may be obtained from Table A-7.
(see Note 4.2)
Wpw (at Tx ) = density of water at Tx

density of water at Ti [Wpw ]
(at Ti ) − Wp + Wp --------------- (A-3)

Temperatures (ASTM, 2004)
Conversion
Temperature Relative Density
Factor K
(ºC) of Water
[see Eq. (A-3)]
18 0.9986244 1.0004
19 0.9984347 1.0002
20 0.9982343 1.0000
21 0.9980233 0.9998
22 0.9978019 0.9996
23 0.9975702 0.9993
24 0.9973286 0.9991
25 0.9970770 0.9989
26 0.9968156 0.9986
27 0.9965451 0.9983
28 0.9962652 0.9980
29 0.9959761 0.9977
30 0.9956780 0.9974
Soil to be used in a specific gravity test shall contain its natural moisture content, or shall
be in moist condition. The weight of the test sample (on an air-dried basis) should be at
least 25 g m. T he w eight of t he s oil (W s ) (again on a n a ir-dried ba sis) should be
determined at the end of the test by evaporating the water in an oven at a temperature of
50oC ( not e xceeding 60 oC) w hich is e quivalent to air dr ying te mperature. The t est
samples which contain natural moisture content should be dispersed in the mechanically
operated stirring de vice ( malt mi xer), before placing the mix ture in the f lask (i.e.,
pycnometer). During the de termination of th e dr y mass t he test samples s hall be dr ied
until successive sample weightings (greater than ½ hr.) show that no further weight loss is
taking place or insignificant change (less than about 0.1%) (see Note 4.1).

Test Procedures
a) Place the moist test sample (at least 25 g when air-died later) in the pycnometer.
Add distilled water to fill the volumetric flask about three-fourths full.
b) Remove entrapped air by either of the following methods: (1) subject the contents
to a partial vacuum (air pressure not exceeding 100 mmHg) or (2) boil gently at
least 10 minutes (min) while occasionally rolling the p ycnometer to assist in the
removal of the air. Subject the contents to reduce the pressure either by connecting
the pycnometer directly to an aspirator or vacuum pump, or b y use of a bell jar.
Cool samples that are heated to room temperature.
c) Fill the p ycnometer with distilled water, clean the outside, and dry with a clean,
dry cloth. Determine the weight of the pycnometer and contents, i.e. the weight of
pycnometer f illed with water a nd soil, (W pws ) and the t emperature i n degree
Celsius (T x ) of the contents (soil-and-water mixture).
d) Determine the w eight o f s olids, W s , b y pour ing s oil-and-water mix ture ont o
evaporating dish and then air-dried in an oven using a temperature not exceeding
50oC.
e) With the temperature of the soil-water mixture known (i.e., T x known), the weight
of the pycnometer when filled with water (at T x temperature), W pw (at T x ), can be
computed from the calibration of the pycnometer using Eq. (A-3).
f) With these data now known, compute the specific gravity of soil by dividing the
weight o f t he s olids, W s , b y t he weight of a n e qual vol ume of w ater, i.e. W s +
W pw – W pws .
g) In order to report the specific gravity based on water at 20ºC, which is the usual
practice, multiply the computed value in (f) by the conversion factor K which can
be determined from Table A-7.

Data collection
Data collected in this test should include the following:
[A] Calibration of Pycnometer
• Weight of pycnometer, W p (g)

• Weight of pycnometer plus water, W pw (g)
• Observed temperature of water, T i (ºC)
[B] Specific Gravity Determination
• Weight of pycnometer plus water and soil,(W pws ) (g)

• Temperature of content of p ycnometer w hen W pws w as de termined, T x
(ºC)
• Weight of large evaporating dish or beaker, W d (g)
• Weight of large evaporating dish or beaker plus oven-dried soil, W ds (g)

Sample calculation
Table A- 8 Specific gravity determination data sheet
DATA SHEET
SPECITIC GRAVITY DETERMINATION
Sample Name: TS1-1 Project area: NJB

10+880, 1.5 km
Depth: 0.6m Location(station):
RHS
Description of sample: Reddish brown color (Test Pit)
Tested by: W.M. Date: 26-Jul-08
[A] Calibration of Pycnometer P3 P20 P41

(1) Weight of dry, clean pycnometer, W p (g) 45.88 45.38 49.92
(2) Weight of pycnometer + Water, W pw (g) 145.44 145.04 149.60
(3) Observed temperature of water, T i (oC) 21 21 22
i. Relative density of water at T x = 0.9982343 0.9982343 0.9982343

ii. Relative density of water at T i = 0.9980233 0.9980233 0.9978019
[B] Specific Gravity Determination
Determination No.: 1 2 3
Weight of pycnometer + soil + Water, W pws
162.49 162.17 166.31
(g)
Temperature, T x ( oC) 20 20 20
Weight of pycnometer + Water at T x ,
145.46 145.06 149.64
W pw (at T x ) (g)
Evaporating dish no. 1 2 3
Weight of evaporating dish,W d (g) 5.6 7.0 6.1
Weight of evaporating dish + oven-dried soil,
31.0 32.0 31.00
W ds (g)
Wight of solids,W s (g) 25.4 25.0 24.90
Conversion factor, K 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000

Specific gravitiy of soils,
KWs 3.03 3.17 3.02
Gs =
Ws + W pw (atTx ) + W pws

Note 4.1: As samples containing natural moisture should be used for the test, the weight
of t he s oil, W s, on a n air-dried b asis s hould be de termined a t t he end of t he t est b y
emptying t he c ontents of t he p ycnometer ( i.e., t he s oil a nd w ater m ixture) i nto a pr e-
weighed large evaporating dish or beaker (W d ) and oven-drying. Care must be taken not
to lose any soil. If the weight of the evaporating dish (or beaker) plus the oven-dried soil,
W ds , is t hen determined, t he weight of t he air-dried s oil can be computed (W s = W ds –
W d ).
Note 4.2: If ma ny determinations s pecific gravity a re t o be m ade us ing a pa rticular

pycnometer, it would be helpful to prepare a table (or graph) from which values of W pw
could be read for any desired water temperature. Such tables (or graphs) can be developed
by using Eq. (A-3) to determine values of W pw corresponding to a sufficient number of
different temperatures T x .

Figure A- 1 Hand operated liquid-limit device ................................................................A-6
Figure A- 2 Grooving tool ...............................................................................................A-6
Figure A- 3 Height of drop gage ......................................................................................A-7
Figure A- 4 Adjustment for height of drop ......................................................................A-7
Figure A- 5 Flow curve ..................................................................................................A-16
Figure A - 6 Grain-Size distribution curve ....................................................................A-22
Table A- 1 Minimum Mass of moist sample (ASTM, 2004) ..........................................A-2

Table A- 2 Moisture content test data sheet.....................................................................A-4
Table A- 3 Plasticity test data sheet ...............................................................................A-15
Table A- 4 Summary of test results ...............................................................................A-16
Table A- 5 Minimum Weight of gradation sample (Lyon Associates, 1971) ...............A-18
Table A- 6 Sieve analysis data sheet..............................................................................A-20
Temperatures (ASTM, 2004) .........................................................................................A-26
Table A- 8 Specific gravity determination data sheet ....................................................A-29

APPENDIX – B
GRAIN-SIZE DISTRIBUTION CURVES
Contents
APPENDIX – B ............................................................................................................... B-1
1. GRAIN-SIZE DISTRIBUTION CURVES FOR VARIATION IN SAMPLE
PRETREATMENTS /TESTING PROCEDURES/ ......................................................... B-2
2. GRAIN-SIZE DISTRIBUTION CURVES FOR VARIATION IN SPECIFIC
GRAVITY WITHIN A SAMPLE ................................................................................... B-8
LOCATIONS /DEPTHS/............................................................................................... B-16
4. RANGE OF GRAIN-SIZE DISTRIBUTION CURVES FOR DIFFERENT
PRETREATMENTS /TESTING PROCEDURES/ ....................................................... B-22
5. AVERAGE GRAIN-SIZE DISTRIBUTION CURVES FOR DIFFERENT
PRETREATMENTS /TESTING PROCEDURES/ ....................................................... B-23
Addis Ababa University B-1 November 2009

PRETREATMENTS /TESTING PROCEDURES/
Figure B - 1 Grain-Size distribution curves of test samples TS1-1 & TS1-2

Figure B - 2 Grain-Size distribution curves of test samples TS5-1, TS5-2 & TS5-3



Figure B - 5 Grain-Size distribution curves of test samples TS10-1

Figure B - 8 Grain-Size distribution curves of test sample ‘Sample-A’
Figure B - 9 Grain-Size distribution curves of test sample ‘Sample-B’

2. GRAIN-SIZE DISTRIBUTION CURVES FOR VARIATION IN SPECIFIC
GRAVITY WITHIN A SAMPLE
within sample TS1-2

within sample TS5-3

within sample TS6-1
Addis Ababa University B - 10 November 2009

within sample TS7-2

within sample TS8-2

within sample TS16-1

within sample-A (non-lateritic soil)

within sample-B (non-lateritic soil)

LOCATIONS /DEPTHS/
within samples TS1-1 & TS1-2





within samples TS14-1, TS14-2 & TS14-3

4. RANGE OF GRAIN-SIZE DISTRIBUTION CURVES FOR DIFFERENT
Figure B - 24 Ranges of grain-Size distribution curves of AR, AD & OD samples

5. AVERAGE GRAIN-SIZE DISTRIBUTION CURVES FOR DIFFERENT
Figure B - 25 Average grain size distribution curves

Figure B - 26 Average grain size distribution curves

Figure B - 1 Grain-Size distribution curves of test samples TS1-1 & TS1-2 ...................... 2
Figure B - 2 Grain-Size distribution curves of test samples TS5-1, TS5-2 & TS5-3 ......... 3
Figure B - 3 Grain-Size distribution curves of test samples TS7-1 & TS7-2 ..................... 4
Figure B - 4 Grain-Size distribution curves of test samples TS9-1 & TS9-2 ..................... 5
Figure B - 5 Grain-Size distribution curves of test samples TS10-1 .................................. 6
Figure B - 8 Grain-Size distribution curves of test sample ‘Sample-A’ ............................. 7
Figure B - 9 Grain-Size distribution curves of test sample ‘Sample-B’ ............................. 7
within sample TS1-2 ............................................................................................................ 8
within sample TS5-3 ............................................................................................................ 9
within sample TS6-1 .......................................................................................................... 10
within sample TS7-2 .......................................................................................................... 11
within sample TS8-2 .......................................................................................................... 12
within sample TS16-1 ........................................................................................................ 13
within sample-A (non-lateritic soil) ................................................................................... 14
within sample-B (non-lateritic soil) ................................................................................... 15
within samples TS1-1 & TS1-2 ......................................................................................... 16
within samples TS13-1 & TS13-2 ..................................................................................... 20
within samples TS14-1, TS14-2 & TS14-3 ....................................................................... 21
Figure B - 24 Ranges of grain-Size distribution curves of AR, AD & OD samples ........ 22
Figure B - 25 Average grain size distribution curves ....................................................... 23
Figure B - 26 Average grain size distribution curves ....................................................... 24

Wossen Million

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Wossen Million

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Wossen Million

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ADDIS ABABA UNIVERSITY

SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES

Investigation into the appropriate laboratory testing procedures for the

A thesis submitted to the school of graduate studies of Addis Ababa University in

Investigation into the appropriate laboratory testing procedures for the

Approved by Board of Examiners

Dr. Mesele Haile

Professor Alemayehu Teferra

Dr. Samuel Taddesse

Ato Bruk Melaku

Name Wossen Million

Place Faculty of Technology,

Date November, 2009

I express my sincere gratitude to Nedjo-Jarso-Begi road construction supervision

I am very grateful to AAU geotechnical laboratory workers, especially Ato Yonas

Soil classification using Unified Soil Classification System (USCS), AASHTO

Designation Description Units

Table 3.1 Summary of Geology of the Route Corridor ..................................................... 24

Addis Ababa University 1 November 2009

Addis Ababa University 2 November 2009

Addis Ababa University 3 November 2009

Addis Ababa University 4 November 2009

Addis Ababa University 5 November 2009

Addis Ababa University 6 November 2009

Addis Ababa University 7 November 2009

Comparison of moisture contents determined using conventional drying temperature of

Addis Ababa University 8 November 2009

Addis Ababa University 9 November 2009

1.2 Objectives of the study

1. Investigation of the appropriate laboratory testing procedures for the

1.3 Methodology of the study

Addis Ababa University 10 November 2009

For the investigation of the effects of pretreatments, i.e. disaggregation of clay-size

Addis Ababa University 11 November 2009

Addis Ababa University 12 November 2009

Laterite is the result of decomposition or weathering process and is found in profiles

Decomposition: physico-chemical breakdown of primary minerals and the release of

Addis Ababa University 13 November 2009

Desiccation: desiccation or dehydration involves partial or complete dehydration

Addis Ababa University 14 November 2009

1. Group A: Soils without a strong mineralogical influence, e.g., Saprolites (Residual

Addis Ababa University 15 November 2009

2.2 Properties and testing of laterites

Addis Ababa University 16 November 2009

2.2.1 Traditional selection and performance criteria

2.2.1.1 Particle size distribution

Addis Ababa University 17 November 2009

2.2.1.2 Plasticity characteristics and testing

Addis Ababa University 18 November 2009

2.2.2.1 Effect of pre-test drying

2.2.2.2 Effect of method and duration of mixing for Atterberg limit

Addis Ababa University 19 November 2009

The property of self-hardening, i.e. time-dependant or construction dependant

2.2.3.1 Aggregation of clay-size particles

Addis Ababa University 20 November 2009

2.2.3.2 Irreversible changes in plasticity on drying

2.2.3.3 Loss of water of hydration on drying

2.2.4 Identification of sensitivity to testing procedures

Addis Ababa University 21 November 2009

2.2.4.2 Disaggregation of clay-size particles on mixing