INVESTIGATING THE PHYSICAL AND ENGINEERING PROPERTIES OF A SOIL

(CASE STUDY OF AGRIC FACULTY, ENUGU STATE UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE

AND TECHNOLOGY (ESUT), AGBANI, ENUGU STATE, NIGERIA).
C.J. ANUKWU1, C.C. IKE2, S.N. IKWUEZE3 AND V. ANIAGO4

1. Graduate Research, Department of Civil Engineering, Enugu State University of Science and
Technology, ESUT. Email: [email protected], Phone: 09023809757

2. Associate Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Enugu State University of Science and
Technology, ESUT. Email: [email protected], Phone: 08033101883

3. Assistant Lecturer, Department of Civil Engineering, Enugu State University of Science and
Technology, ESUT. Email:[email protected] Phone: 08039462588

4. Laboratory Supervisor, Department of Civil Engineering, Enugu State University of Science

and Technology, ESUT. Email:[email protected] Phone: 08063286241

ABSTRACT

Investigations of some of the underground conditions of a site is indispensable for the economic
design of the sub structural elements. This study was undertaken to evaluate the physical and
engineering properties of expansive clay in the Faculty of Agriculture, Enugu State University of
Science and Technology (ESUT), Enugu State. It is located at 60 18’ 22”N Latitude, 70 32’ 15” E
Longitude and 3250m above sea level.

All analyses were carried out in accordance with (BS-1377, 1975). The ESUT Civil Engineering
Soil Laboratory was used. The soil sample was obtained from three borrow pits, with a depth range
of 0.5-2m depth. The average result obtained for water content, specific gravity, optimum moisture
content (OMC), maximum dry density (MDD), Liquid limit (LL), Plastic limit (PL), Plasticity
index (PI), California bearing ratio (CBR), before and after soaking and sieve analysis for sieve
no 200microns are 25.82%, 2.67, 13%, 1.61g/cc, 74.6%, 41.4%, 33.2%, 41.85%, 1.62% and
97.25% respectively. Consolidation test was carried out from which the average mass of sample
before consolidation, after consolidation and dry mass of sample were obtained as 66.1g, 71.9g
and 56.1g respectively. However, the values of T50, d50 and d100 were calculated for different loads.
The coefficient of permeability was calculated from consolidation test results. Triaxial test was
carried out to determine the shear strength parameters of the soil, in which the cohesion (c) and
the angle of repose (ø) yielded, are 28KN/m2 and 60 respectively, while the ultimate soil bearing
capacity was calculated, using Terzaghi's bearing capacity equation to be 257.60KN/m². The
sample was classified as A-7, A-7-5 subgroup, according to AASHTO soil classification system
which shows that the area under investigation is not suitable for sub-grade, sub-base and base
materials for road construction.

Keywords: Investigation, Soil, Engineering properties.

1.1 INTRODUCTION

1.1.1 GEOTECHNICAL PROPERTIES OF SOIL

A soil is composed primarily of minerals which are produced from parent material that is
weathered or broken into small pieces. Soils are characterized by their physical, chemical and
engineering properties. Soils are materials used in engineering projects (Aysen, 2005).

Geotechnical engineering is a broad discipline consisting of soil mechanics and foundation

engineering. Geotechnical engineering is also called geomechanics. Geotechnical engineering
addresses the application of engineering mechanics to soil and rock problems. The properties
(physical), behavior and performance of soils are addressed by engineering mechanics.

The design of foundations of structures such as buildings, bridges, and dams generally
require a knowledge of four factors such as; (a) the load that will be transmitted by the
superstructure to the foundation system, (b) the requirements of the local buildings code, (c) the
behavior and stress-related deformability of soils that will support the foundation system, and (d)
the geological conditions under consideration (Oghenero and Akpokodje, 2014). The knowledge
of the last two factors is of great importance to soil mechanics and to a foundation engineer.
According to (Dagnachew, 2011), the geotechnical properties of a soil-such as the shear
strength, permeability, plasticity, compressibility, and grain-size distribution are assessed by
proper laboratory testing.
1.1.2 Cohesion
It is the internal molecular attraction which resists the rupture or shear of the soil. Cohesion is
derived in the fine grained soils from the water films which bind together the individual particles
in the soil mass. In addition, cohesion is the property of the fine grained soil with particle size
below 0.002 mm.

1.1.3 Angle of Internal Friction

The resistance in sliding of grain particles of a soil mass depends upon the angle of internal friction.
It is usually considered that the value of the angle of internal friction is almost independent of the
normal pressure but varies with the degree of packing of the particles, i.e. with the density. The
angle of internal friction for granular soils may vary between 280 and 500 (Balasubramanian,
2017).

1.1.4 Permeability
Permeability is the ability of a rock or unconsolidated sediment, to transmit or pass water through
itself (Odenigbo, 2014). The coefficient of permeability is the rate of flow of water through soil,
per unit time, per unit cross-sectional area of the soil when subject to a unit hydraulic gradient
(Ike, 2006). Permeability is a property of soil mass and not of individual particles. The permeability
of cohesive soil is, in general, very small. Knowledge of permeability is required not only for
seepage, drainage and ground water problems but also for the rate of settlement of structures on
saturated soils (Balasubramanian, 2017).
1.1.5 Soil Plasticity
Soil plasticity is a property that enables the moist soil to change shape when some force is
applied over it and to retain this shape even after the removal of the force from it. The plasticity
of soil depends on the cohesion and adhesion of soil materials.
1.1.6 Compressibility
The volume change per unit increase in effective stress for a unit volume of soil is defined as the
coefficient of volume compressibility of soil (Ike, 2006), while a measure of the rate at which
consolidation proceeds is given by the ‘co-efficient of consolidation’ of the soil, CV
(Balasubramanian, 2017).

1.2 OJECTIVE

1.2.1 General Objective: The general objective of this study is to investigate some of the
engineering properties of soil in the Faculty of Agriculture, ESUT.
1.2.2 Specific Objectives:
• To investigate the index properties of the soil
• To classify the soil using AASHTO soil classification system
• To determine the shear strength characteristics of the soil
 • To determine the one-dimensional consolidation characteristics of soils in the
Faculty of Agriculture, ESUT.

2.0 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The soil sample was collected from the Faculty of Agriculuture, Enugu State University of
Science and Technology, ESUT, Agbani. This area is of a sloped topography while the soil is
brittle in nature, mostly during dry season. The method of site exploration used was boring type.
This was because of the nature of the soil deposits and the available equipment. The type of sample
collected during the soil exploration was disturbed soil sample, from one borehole. Laboratory
tests carried out were natural moisture content, sieve analysis, specific gravity, atterberg limits,
and compaction and CBR tests. For some other tests that required the undisturbed soil sample such
as consolidation, permeability and triaxial tests, the soil samples were remolded at optimum
moisture content (OMC) at the laboratory.

2.1 Tests Carried Out

The tests carried out are as follows; (Anukwu, 2022)

• Natural moisture content

• Sieve Analysis
• Specific Gravity
• Consistency/Atterberg Limits
• Compaction test
• CBR test
• Consolidation test
• Permeability test and
• Triaxial test

3.0 RESULTS

Below are the test results presented, which are in accordance with (BS-1377, 1975).

• Natural moisture contents: The average water content obtained was 25.89% as shown in
table 1.
 CIVIL ENGINEERING LABORATORY

ENUGU STATE UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY (ESUT)

DETERMINATION OF NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT (Anukwu, 2022)

CIVIL ENGINEERING LOCATION: AGRIC
PROJECT NO______________________ FACULTY ESUT AGBANI
_______________________________
CVE LABORATORY ANUKWU, C.J. 12/11/2021
LABORATORY:____________________OPERATOR:______________________DATE_____

Borehole No 1 1 1
Sample No 1 2 3
Depth 0.5-2m
Tin. No 7 25 20 14 37 42
mass of tin (g) w1 14.5 16.7 12.8 15.6 16 14.2
mass of wet soil + tin(g) 69.7 67.2 63.6 67 69.4 69.8
w2
mass of dry soil + tin (g) 58.2 57.0 52.4 56.5 58.6 58.9
w3
mass of water(g) w2-w3 11.5 10.2 11.2 10.5 10.8 10.9
Dry mass of soil(g) w3- 43.7 40.3 39.6 40.9 42.6 44.7
w1
Moisture Content % 26.32 25.31 28.28 25.68 25.35 24.38
Average M. C. % 25.89%
Table 1: Determination of Natural Moisture Content
 • Sieve analysis: The percentage passing through sieve no 200 was 97.25% as shown in table
2 and figure 1.

CIVIL ENGINEERING LABORATORY

ENUGU STATE UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE

DETERMINATION OF PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION TEST (Anukwu,2022)

Mass Mass Percentage

B.S Sieve sizes Retained (g) Percentage passing (%)
Retained (%)
3/8” 9.5mm - - 100
3/16” 4.75mm - - 100
No 7 2.4mm - - 100
14 1.18mm - - 100
25 600pm 0.9 0.45 99.55
36 425pm 1.45 0.73 99.27
52 300pm 2.02 1.01 99.01
100 150pm 3.65 1.83 98.17
200 75pm 5.50 2.75 97.25

Table 2: Determination of Particle Size Distribution Test

Mass of dry sample after wash = 5.67g, Mass of dry sample before washing = 200g
1
GEOTECHNICAL LABORATORY Borehole No....................................................
1
Report No...................................................... 1
Sample No......................................................
Location.........................................................
Agric Facukty, Agbani Esut PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION Depth..............................................................
0.5-2m
Desc...............................................................
Clay Date.................................................................
13/11/21

Log setting velocity (cm/sec)

U K (B S 410)
3 2 1 300 200 150 100 75 52 36 25 16 14 12 8 7 32 4.76 6.3 ½ 19 25 37.5 50 75
100 100

90 90

80 80
Perc entage Filler

70 70

60 60

50 50

40 40

30 30

20 20

10 10

0 0
mm 0.001 0.002 0.006 0.01 0.02 0.06 0.1 0.2 0.6 1 2 6 10 20 60 100

Fine medium coarse Fine medium coarse Fine medium coarse

UK Clay cobbles
US
Silt Fraction Sand Fraction Gravel Fraction 6

Figure 1: Particle size Distribution Graph

 • Specific gravity: The average specific gravity value obtained was 2.67 as shown in table 3.

CIVIL ENGINEERING LABORATORY

ENUGU STATE UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, (ESUT)

SPECIFIC GRAVITY TEST (Anukwu 2022)

SOIL INVESTIGATION AGRIC FACULTY
PROJECT:.………………………….……… LOCATION……………………………………..
CIVIL ENGINEERING ANUKWU, …
C.J. 14/11/21
LABATORY ……………………………..OPERATOR……………. DATE………………
1102112
21
Borehole No. 15/11/2021 1 2 3
Sample No. 1 2 3
Depth 0.5 – 2m 0.5-2m 0.5-2m
Density bottle No. 2 20 24 38 42 78
Mass of bottle (w1) 27.4 29.9 28.6 29.7 28.9 20.6
Mass of bottle + Dry soil (w2) 51.7 53.6 52.8 53.5 52.6 44.9
Mass of bottle + Dry Soil + Water (w3) 93.9 94.6 95 94.5 94.8 85.9
Mass of bottle + water (w4) 78.9 79.6 79.9 79.6 79.9 70.7
SG = w2-w1 2.61 2.72 2.65 2.67 2.69 2.67
(w4-w1) – (w3-w2)
Average SG 2.67

Table 3: Determination of Specific Gravity.

7
 • Atterberg limits: For the atterberg limits, the LL=74.6%, PL=41.4% and PI=33.2% as
shown in table 4. (Anukwu,2022)
• Atterberg limits: The consistency limits obtained were; LL=74.6%, PL=41.4% and
PI=33.2% as s ATTERBERG LIMITS
• hown in table 4 below.
• PROJECT: UNDERGRADUATE

SAMPLE NO: 1 TAKEN BY: Anukwu Chiedozie.DATE : 3/11/21.

LABORATORY NO: 1 TESTED BY: Anukwu Chiedozie.DATE: 22/11/21.

NUMBER OF BLOWS 13 18 38 50 PLASTIC LIMIT

MOISTURE CONTENT TIN NO 21 29 23 19 45 22

MASS OF TIN PLUS WET SOIL g 25.5 26.6 30.4 28.2 21 20.5
MASS OF TIN PLUS DRY SOIL g 20.6 20.9 23.9 22 19 18.5
MASS OF TIN g 4.5 13.6 15 12.7 13.9 3.9
MASS OF WATER g 4.9 5.7 6.5 6.2 2 2
MASS OF DRY SOIL g 6.1 7.3 8.9 9.3 5.1 4.6
Table 4: Determination of Atterberg Limits
MOISTURE CONTENT % 80.3 73.0 67.0
78.1 are 13% and 1.61g/cc respectively as 39.2 43.5
• Compaction: The OMC and MDD values obtained
shown in figure 2. FACTOR AVERAGE P.L.
ONE POINT METHOD
LIQUID LIMIT % 41.4
N UMBER OF BLOWS

80
FACTOR

1.5 0.95
%

1.6 0.96
1.7
70
0.96
1.8 0.97
1.9 8
ONTENT

0.97
2.0 0.98
2.1 0.98
2.2 0.99
60
 • Compaction: The OMC and MDD values obtained are 13% and 1.61g/cc
respectively, as shown in figure 2

(Anukwu, 2022)
USING STANDARD/HEAVY COMPACTION
1. Agric Faculty.
Contract No...................Site:.........................Location Ibagwa.
.............................. Operator:.............................
Anukwu Chiedozie...
0.5-2m. ........Date:......................................
Soil type..............................................................Depth.......................
Clay Soil, A-7-5 subgroup. 24/11/21.
Amount retained on 3/4” B.S. Sieve:...................g....................Total
0. 3000.
weight of sample.. ...................g......
BS mould
B.S.*/C.B.R.*Mould...................................................................... .............................................................

3380
Ms. of mould and wet soil..............(W2)..................g........ 3520 3640 3480

1870
Ms. of mould ...................................(W2)..................g........ 1870 1870 1870

Ms. of wet soil 1510 1650

........................(W2-W1)....................g........ 1770 1610

Bulk density = W2-W1 ........................................ ..g/cm 3

1.56 1.70 1.82 1.66
X
For B.S. Mould x = 970cc

MOISTURE CONTENT DETERMINATIONS

7
Container No......................................................... 18 20 22 25 21 29 13

...................g........... 60.9
Ms. of Wet soil and container 58.6 69 73.2 67 62.6 63.1 54.4

......................g........... 57.7
Ms. of dry soil and contai... 56.4 64 68.1 61.3 56.9 56.5 51.9

.......................................g........... 16.7
Ms. of container 13.4 15.4 15.2 17.6 12.9 14.7 16.2

Ms. of dry soil (Wa).................................g........... 4.2 41.6 45.6 45.9 43.1 4.4 41.5 4.7

Ms of moisture (Wm)..............................g........... 3.2 3.2 5.0 5.1 5.7 5.7 6.6 6.5

. .................................% 7.6
Moisture content 100m/s 7.7 10.3 10.2 130 13.0 5.8 15.6

Average moisture content (m)..........................% 7.7 10.3 13.0 15.7

g/cm3
Dry density - d - 100 - 100+m................... 1.45 1.54 1.61 1.43

C.B.R.................................................................%

Max. Dry Density 1.61 g/cm

3

Optimum Moisture Content 13 %

C.B.R. AT O.M.C. 41.85 %

1.7

X
1.6
X

1.5
3
Dry Density g/cm

X
X
1.4

1.3

1.2

1.1

0 7 9 11 13 15
Maximum content %

Figure 2: Graph of Maximum Dry Density against Optimum Moisture Content.

9
 • California bearing ratio: The CBR values obtained before and after soaking are 41.85% and
1.61% respectively as shown in figure 3.

(Anukwu, 2022)

ENUGU STATE UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY, (ESUT)

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING, ENUGU

AGRIC FACULTY 1 CLAY, A-7-5 SUBGROUP

SITE LOCATION:................................. SAMPLE NO:.................... ............ SAMPLE DESCRIPTION:................. ...........
1 Anukwu Chiedozie J. CIVIL ENGINEERING
BOREHOLE NO:.................................. OPERATOR:....................... ........... DEPARTMENT:.............................................
27-11-2021
DATE OF TEST:.................................... Before After REMARKS:....................................................
POOR FOR SUBGRADE MATERIAL
soaking soaking
43.23 1.65
CBR VALUE AT 2.5mm:.......................................
PROVING RING NO 40.45 1.61
CBR VALUE AT 5.0mm:........................................
TOTAL STRENGTH 0.108kN 41.85 1.62
AVERAGE CBR VALUE:.......................................
FORCE MAXT
TEST SAMPLE BEFORE SOAKING
25
DIAL STRENGTH DIAL STRENGTH
ROAD FORCE COMPARATOR FORCE

0.5 9 0.972 1 0.108

1.0 20 2.16 1 0.108
20
1.5 33 3.564 2 0.216
2.0 45 4.86 2 0.216
STR ENG TH /FO RC E (kg)

2.5
63 5.724 2 0.216
SAMPLING UNIT (mm)

3.0 59 6.372 2 0.216

3.5 63 6.804 3 0.324 15
4.0 68 7.344 3 0.324
4.5 71.5 7.722 3 0.324
5.0 75.5 8.154 3 0.324 x x x
x x x
5.5 79 8.532 3 0.324 10 x
x
6.0 82 8.856 3 0.324 x x
x
6.5 9.288 3 0.324 x
86 x
7.0 89 9.612 4 0.432 x
x
7.5 92 9.934 4 0.432 x
5
8.0 95 10.26 4 0.432 x
x
8.5 98 10.584 4 0.432
x
9.0 101 10.908 4 0.432
9.5 104 11.232 4 0.432 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
x x x x x x x
10.0 106 11.448 4 0.432 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

PENETRATION UNIT (mm)

10
Figure 3: CBR graph.
 • Consolidation test: The consolidation test was carried out to determine the values of void
ratio(e0), coefficient of compressibility(av), coefficient of volume compressibility (Mv),
coefficient of consolidation (Cv) and compression index (Cc) for different loadings or
pressures as shown in table 5, figure 4 and Table 6.

CIVIL ENGINEERING LABORATORY

ENUGU STATE UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY (ESUT)

CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULT (Anukwu, 2022)

Agric Faculty, Agbani Enugu Location:………………………………..
Site:………………………………… CVE laboratory

124.29 - 58.1g =66.19g

Mass of sample before consolidation:………………………..………….

130.0g – 58.1g = 71.9g

Mass of sample after consolidation:………….………………………….

114.2g – 58.1g = 56.1g

Dry weight of sample:…………………………………………………………

2.67
Specific gravity:……………………………….……………………………….

Loading Unloading
Loads 8kg 16kg 32kg 8kg 4kg
Time Time elapsed 242 359 425 427 418

15” 255 362 427 426 418

30 262 364 428 425 416
45” 266 365 429 425 412
1” 277 369 430 425 408
2” 286 374 433 404
4” 295 380 435 400
8” 303 386 437 390
15 309 392 439 370
30 313 402 441
60 316 411 443
120 321 412
240 324 414
1440

Table 5: Soil Loading and Unloading at Different Pressures.

11
 CONSOLIDATION TEST CONSOLIDATION TEST
LOG METHOD LOG METHOD
1
BOREHOLE No ________________ Agric Faculty ESUT
SITE _________________________
1
BOREHOLE No ________________ Agric Faculty ESUT
SITE _________________________ 16kg
8kg SAMPLE NO ___________________
1 SPECIFIC GRAVITY _____________
2.67
SAMPLE NO ___________________
1 SPECIFIC GRAVITY _____________
2.67 0.5-2m
DEPTH_______________________
0.5-2m 350
DEPTH_______________________
200

360

220 t50

370
d50

240 d100
380

260 390

d50
400
280

t50
410

300

0 1 3 mins 10 15 100 150 1000 1500 10000

LOG TIME IN SEC/MINUTES

320 d100

0 1 3 mins 10 15 100 150 1000 1500 10000

LOG TIME IN SEC/MINUTES

CONSOLIDATION TEST
LOG METHOD
1
BOREHOLE No ________________ Agric Faculty ESUT
SITE _________________________
32kg
SAMPLE NO ___________________
1 SPECIFIC GRAVITY _____________
2.67
0.5-2m
DEPTH_______________________
380

390

400

410

420

430

440

d100

0 1 3 mins 10 15 100 150 1000 1500 10000

LOG TIME IN SEC/MINUTES

Figure 4: Consolidation Graph

12
 ENUGU STATE UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY (ESUT)

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING LABORATORY

CONSOLIDATION TEST (Anukwu, 2022)

SITE LOCATION: Agric Faculty, Agbani, ESUT.

Date: 27/11/2021 Description: A-7-5 Mass of soil +ring before

test: 66.1g

Sample No: 1 Specific gravity: 2.67 Operator: Anukwu, C.J Mass of soil + ring after
test: 71.9g

Depth: 0.5-2m HS: 11.13mm Diameter of ring: 60mm Dry Mass of soil + ring:
56.1g

eo: 0.51 Height of ring: 20mm Mass of ring: 58.1g

Load Total ∆H in % Void av (m2/KN) Mv Cc Permeabilit Co

Heigh intensity deflectio Height thickness ratio (m2/KN) y (K) m/sec con
t of (KN/m2) n (mm) (mm) (e) (C
ring:
20mm
Mass
of
ring:
58.1g
Load
in kg
8 40.3 3.24 16.76 84 0.51 1.27×10-2 8.41×10-3 ∞ 2.10×10-8 2.5
16 80.4 4.14 15.86 79 0.42 2.24×10-3 1.48×10-3 0.30 5.39×10-9 3.7
32 163 4.43 15.57 78 0.40 2.42×10-4 1.70×10-4 0.07 1.03×10-10 6.1

Table 6: Consolidation Test Result.

• Permeability test: The coefficient of permeability was calculated from the relation, K=
Cv.Mv 𝜸w and the value obtained was 8.83×10-9 m/s.

13
 • Triaxial test: The shear strength parameters, cohesion (c) and angle of internal friction (ø)
obtained are 28kN/m2 and 60 respectively as shown in table 7 and figure 5.

CIVIL ENGINEERING LABORATORY

ENUGU STATE UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY (ESUT)

MATERIALS TESTING & RESEARCH LABOURTORY

UNCONSOLIDATED-UNDRAINED TRIAXAIAL TEST (Anukwu, 2022)

LOCATION…………………DEPTH………
AGRIC FACULTY 0.5-2m OPERATOR………………Date:……..
ANUKWU C.J 5/2/22
75mm (b)……………(c)
75mm 38mm 75mm
Length of Specimen (a)………………. ………… Diameter…………
157.6 grams (b)………………………….…………...
Net weight of specimen (a)……………………. 154.4 grams 156.0 grams

0.31047kN
Proving Ring No………..Ring constant……………Rate of Strain………….%/min

WEIGHT/PRESSURE 70KN/m 140KN/m 210KN/m

STRA AREA STRES FORCE STRE FORCE STRESS FORCE
IN OF S SS DIAL
DIAL SPECI DIAL 𝜃1 − 𝜃3 DIAL 𝜃1 − 𝜃3 READIN 𝜃1 − 𝜃3
READ MEN READI REA G
ING NG DING
0.5 0.114 8 2.48 21.75 12 3.72 32.63 13 4.03 35.35
1.0 0.115 12 3.72 32.35 16 4.96 43.13 17 5.27 45.83
1.5 0.115 16 4.96 43.13 21 6.51 56.61 22 6.82 59.30
2.0 0.116 20 6.20 53.45 26 8.06 69.48 27 8.37 72.16
2.5 0.116 23 7.13 61.47 29 8.99 77.50 32 9.92 85.52
3.0 0.117 25 7.75 66.24 32 9.92 84.81 35 10.85 92.74
3.5 0.118 28 8.68 73.56 34 10.54 87.32 38 11.78 99.83
4.0 0.118 29 8.99 76.19 35 10.85 91.95 40 12.40 105.08

14
4.5 0.119 27 8.37 70.34 36 11.16 93.78 41 12.71 106.81
5.0 0.119 25 7.75 65.13 38 11.78 98.99 41 12.71 106.81
5.5 0.120 36 11.16 93.00 40 12.40 103.30

COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH AT FAILURE (A) 76.19KN/cm2 (B) 98.99KN/cm2 (C)

106.81KN/cm2

Table 7: Triaxial test table

15
 ENUGU STATE UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
ENUGU STATE
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

Materials Testing Laboratory

TRIAXIAL TEST
1
BORE HOE No......................... Agric Faculty
SITE/LOCATION.......................... , Agbani ESUT
....................
1
SAMPLE No.............................. JOB No.............. ...................... SAMPLE REF................................. .
Depth 0.5 - 2m

TEST RESULT/REPORT

Moisture..................................%
0
f................................................
6
28 2
c........................................K N/M

200
Shear Stress (KN/M )2

100

100 200 300 400 500 600

120
TEST RESULT/REPORT

x x x
x Moisture..................................%
100 x x f................................................
x x x
x 2
c........................................K N/M
x x x
x
80 x x
x x
x x
x x
60 x x
x
x
x
x x
40 x
x
x x
x
20

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

2
No r ma l Str e ss ( KN/M )

Figure 5: Triaxial and Shear Stress Graph

16
 3.0: DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

3.1 SOIL TEST SUMMARY SHEET (Anukwu, 2022)

Table 8: Soil test summary

sheet.

ATION DEPTH B.S CLASSIFIC

(M) ATTERBERG PERCENTAGE PASSING (BS SIEVES) COMPACTION ATION
LIMITS

LL PL PI 4.76 7 14 25 36 52 100 2 OMC % MDD CBR G.S

3
mm 0 g/cm (SOAKED)
0 %

IC 1.2M 74.6% 41.4% 33.2 100 100 100 99.55 94.27 99.01 98.17 9 13 1.61 1.62 2.67 A-7-5
ULTY % 7
.
2
5

3.2: Discussion

This research work provides an evaluation of the physical and engineering properties of soil in
the Faculty of Agriculture, ESUT, Agbani. The sample was obtained from one borehole, with
depth range of 0.5-2m depth.

The result obtained shows that natural moisture content (M.C) is 25.89%, which when
compared to liquid limit (LL=74.6%) shows that the soil is brittle, having swell problem.
The result obtained from sieve analysis shows that 97.25% of the soil sample passed through sieve
no 200 which is a clear indication of high plasticity.
The specific gravity test gave an average value of 2.67, showing that the soil is clayey (silty clay)
and has an appreciable strength.
The consistency limits test yielded, liquid limit (LL), 74.6%, plastic limit (PL), 41.4% and
plasticity index (PI), 33.2%. These high values of consistency limits indicate the presence of high
clay content.

17
 According to AASHTO (American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials)
soil classification system, the soil investigated in this research area (Faculty of Agriculture, Agbani
ESUT) is classified under A-7, A-7-5 subgroup.
From compaction test, the optimum moisture content (OMC) and maximum dry density (MDD)
was 13% and 1.61g/cc respectively, which falls in the standard range of soils.
The California bearing ratio (CBR), before and after soaking was 41.85% and 1.62%
respectively, which shows that the soil is clayey.
Consolidation test also, was carried out to determine how soil compress when saturated with
water and exposed to varying amount of loads or varying mass of the soil. The mass of sample
obtained before consolidation, after consolidation and dry mass of sample were 66.1g, 71.9g and
56.1g respectively. However, the values of T50, d50 and d100 were calculated for different loads.
At 8kg, eo=0.57, av=1.27×10-2m2/KN, Mv=8.41×10-3m2/KN (very high compressibility), Cc=
undefined and Cv=2.55×10-3m2/secs (when 8kg load is applied on this soil, 0.00255cm2 of
consolidation will occur per second),
At 16kg, eo=0.42, av=2.24×10-3m2/KN, Mv=1.48×10-3m2/KN (High compressibility) Cc=0.30 and
Cv=3.71×10-3m2/secs (when 16kg load is applied on this soil, 0.00371cm2 of consolidation will
occur per second) and
At 32kg, eo =0.40, av=2.42×10-4m2/KN, Mv=1.70×10-4m2/KN (Medium compressibility) Cc=0.07
and Cv=6.19×10-4m2/secs (when 32kg load is applied on this soil, 0.000619cm2 of consolidation
will occur per second).
In summary, from the results obtained, it showed that increase in load or pressure will cause a
decrease in the soil void ratio, coefficient of compressibility, coefficient of volume change, rate of
settlement and decrease in permeability. Also, research has shown that the Mv value of clay soil
ranges from 10-3 to 10-4m2/KN.
The coefficient of permeability was calculated from consolidation test parameters, using the
relation; K= Cv.Mv. 𝛾w, from which an average value of K was obtained to be 8.83×10-9 m/s,
indicating that the degree of permeability of the soil is very low.
Triaxial test was carried out to determine the shear strength parameters of the soil. The cohesion
(c) and the angle of repose (ø) are 28KN/m2 and 60 respectively, while the ultimate soil bearing
capacity was calculated, using Terzaghi's bearing capacity equation, for a breadth and depth of
1.2meters respectively and found to be 257.60KN/m2.
It was found that the soil has low soil bearing capacity.

4.0 CONCLUSION

The following conclusions were made.

• The site (Faculty of Agriculture, ESUT, Agbani) has slope ground topography and has its
geological strata made up of silty clay.

18
 • From soil classification chart, using AASHTO standard, the soil is a silty clay of A-7-5 and
hence, not adequate as a construction material such as subgrade and sub base materials for
road pavements.
• For any new foundation structure to be constructed within the Agric Faculty there is need
for evaluation on the existing structures.

4.2 RECOMMENDATION
• For a bearing capacity of 257.60KN/M2, the following type of footing should be adopted
with the corresponding type of building.

S/N Type of Footing Type of Building

1 Strip footing Bungalows
2 Strip footing 1-2 Storey building
3 Pad footing 3-4 Storey building
4 Pile footing High rise buildings

• For a 97.25% passing (sieve analysis), the soil should not be used for backfill.

REFERENCES

AASHTO (American Association of State Highways and Transportation Officials) Table

5.1, Soil Classification Chart. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/figure/1- AASHTO-
Classification-Chart_tbl1_281652783

Anukwu C.J (2022). Investigating the Physical and Engineering Properties of a Soil, Case study
of Faculty of Agriculture, Enugu State University of Science and Technology, ESUT,
Agbani, Enugu State, Nigeria. Unpublished

Aysen, A. (2005). Soil Mechanics: Basic Concepts and Engineering Applications, Gorter, Steenwijk, the
Netherlands. ISBN 13:978-0-415-38392-9 retrieved from https://books.google.com

Balasubramanian, A. (2017). Engineering Properties of Soils. Technical report, University of

Mysore. Report number 1, page 2 and 3, retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/314500875_Engineering_properties_of_soils.

BS-1377 (1975). Methods of Soil Test for Civil Engineering. Retrieved from
https://www.scribd.com

Dagnachew, D. (2011). Investigation on Some of the Engineering Characteristics of Soils in

Adama town. MSc. Thesis, Addis Ababa University, Faculty of Technology, Addis Ababa,
Ethiopia (Unpublished). Page 17, retrieved from http://etd.aau.edu.et/handle/123456789/3082

19
 Ike, C.C (2006). Principles of Soil Mechanics. ISBN 978-37351-6-0. Page 173, and 325. De-
Adroit Innovation, Enugu State, Nigeria.

Odenigbo, C. (2014). Water Resources Engineering and Management. , ISBN 976-2587-14-20,

Page 30. Worlddee International LTD, Enugu State, Nigeria.

Oghenero, A.E and Akpokodje, E.G. (2014); Investigation on Some of Engineering

Properties of Soils Found in Ambo Town, Ethiopia (M.Sc Thesis Addis Ababa University).
Journal of Earth Science and Geotechnical Engineering. Retrieved from
https://www.sciepub.com/reference/64519.

NOTATIONS

LL = Liquid limit

PL = Plastic limit

PI = Plasticity index

ø = Angle of Internal friction

c = Cohesion

γ = Unit weight of soil

γw = Unit weight of water

Cv = Coefficient of consolidation

Mv = Coefficient of volume change

av = Coefficient of compressibility

CC = Compression index

eo = Void ratio

K = Coefficient of Permeability

OMC= Optimum Moisture Content

MDD= Maximum Dry Density

CBR= Carlifonia Bearing Ratio

20