OLOMOLATAN

CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of the study
Before starting road construction, a thorough site assessment is required as a component of the
designs that follow, including the structural, pavement, and geometric designs. Therefore, first
research is done during the design phase. When building the last section of the road, this will
need doing another subgrade examination. But in the process, geotechnical engineers discover
that these phases need a significant financial investment. In order to determine the remaining
values from correlation equations, they suggested performing efficient and straightforward
tests.
DCP is one of the assays that is readily associated with several soil characteristics.
Geotechnical, foundation, and road engineering all depend on the evaluation of soil properties.
Accurately assessing the mechanical characteristics of soil specimens is complicated by the
disturbance that occurs during collection, transportation, and testing. To overcome this
difficulty, in-situ testing was created, providing a nondestructive way to assess soil
characteristics.
Through empirical correlations, the Dynamic Cone Penetrometer Test (DCPT) is frequently
used in early studies to evaluate essential soil properties for lightweight constructions,
pavements, and subgrades. It gauges things like cohesiveness, rigidity, and bearing capacity,
among other things. It assesses the pavement materials' compaction as well. In early design,
DCPT is frequently used for site exploration and quality control.
1
1.2 Aim and Objectives of the study
1.2.1 Aim of study
The aim of this project is to correlate between dynamic cone penetration and california
bearing ratio of soils in Ekiti-south senatorial districts soils.
1.2.2 Objectives
The precise Objectives are;
i. To evaluate the strength and suitability of the lateritic soils for road construction using
a simple and inexpensive device called the dynamic cone penetrometer (DCP)
ii. To develop a local correlation equation between DCP and CBR for the soils in Ekiti-
south senatorial district based on field and laboratory tests on representative samples.
i. To provide a reliable and convenient method for estimating the CBR of the soils from
DCP values, which can be used for pavement design and quality control
1.3 Justification of the study
Civil engineering researchers are interested in accurately predicting the engineering behavior
of soils due to their diverse development and characteristics. In order to properly forecast the
characteristics that best define the engineering behavior of soils, a sufficient number of
representative samples must be gathered in both space and time, as this behavior changes from
place to place and even over time.
1.4 Scope of Study
In this investigation, the penetration load of the soil is compared to that of a reference material
in order to calculate the California Bearing Ratio (CBR) of the in situ-tested soil. The
approach is used to evaluate the relative quality of subgrade, subbase, and certain base-course
in-situ materials in accordance with ASTM D 4429 test protocol.
2
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Soil
Soils can be classified as organic (peat, etc.), inorganic (sand, clay, silt, etc.), or earthy
(weathered rocks). Soil is formed when rocks break down, and geotechnical characterization
aids in identifying the properties and behavior of soil. Problem soils in civil engineering are
any soils whose properties make them unsuitable for safe and profitable building. Any civil
engineering constructions that do not employ the necessary stabilizing techniques are
considered problem soils. Highway and geotechnical engineers describe problem soils as
those that provide challenges for construction. Soil instability may result in this kind of
problem, rendering the material unsuitable for use in roadways, structures, or foundations.
(Ola, 1987).
According to Adesunloye (1987), issue soils are characterized by their high compressibility,
low strength, and collapsible or expanding qualities. Nigeria recognizes some of these soils.
The Sokoto soft clay shale (attapulgite), which is found in northwest Nigeria, and the black
cotton soils, which are widely dispersed in northeastern Nigeria, make up the majority of them
(Ola, 1987). The peaty clays in the Lagos area were identified by Adesunloye (1987) as the
problematic soils using standard laboratory testing procedures. At the Port-Harcourt site, they
show up as clayey peat over the mud plains. In line with Chukweze's argument, he also noted
that troublesome soils must fall below Casagrande's plasticity chart.
The following soils were identified by Gidigasu (1976) as tropical, residual, and structurally
unstable: saline or salt-producing soils, expansive and shrinkable soils, fragile and highly
compressible red clays in high rainfall zones, collapsing soils, dispersive and erosive soils,
3
basic igneous rocks that are subject to rapid physical-chemical weathering in moist tropical
and subtropical conditions, sinkhole-prone carbonate rocks, materials that are pedogenic,
especially Silcretes and lateritic minerals.
Changes in these troublesome soils' moisture contents have caused failures such building
collapses, settlements, and cracks that have caused a large loss of life and property. In Nigeria,
swellable and expansive soils frequently result in damage to buildings and other construction
projects. Heaving and cracking of sidewalks, roads, and basement floors, foundation cracks,
major structural damage, pipeline damage, and jammed doors and windows are just a few of
the catastrophes that can result from expanding soils. The force that causes harm may be
vertical, horizontal, or both.
Many soil characteristics can vary over time and are costly and challenging to measure. Rapid
and precise soil property prediction is crucial to addressing the dearth of quantified soil
property knowledge. Such forecasts have advanced significantly over the last three decades
due to the advent of geo-statistics, which enables predictions to be created with calculated
degrees of accuracy and inaccuracy. Following developments in a variety of sensing
modalities (aircraft, satellite, on-the-ground spectroscopy, etc.), soil attributes may now be
precisely predicted with the use of contemporary instruments and procedures, such as
computerized soil mapping. (McBratney and Pringle, 1999).
Soil scientists in the industrialized world make up the bulk of those doing and utilizing this
research; soils in the tropics, where there is a far higher need for precise and up-to-date data
on soil parameters, receive less attention.
Tropical weathering has a more significant role in the creation process of tropical soils,
whether they are transported or not include disintegration as well as structural, chemical, and
4
mineral changes. This gives these soils unique characteristics and behaviors that set them
apart from other soils developed in cold and moderate climates. Gidigasu (1976) provided a
diagram based on Strakhov (1967) that illustrates the products and depth variation of a section
studied from the equator to the polar region. This diagram helps to understand the macro-
environmental factors of temperature, precipitation, and surface coverage on soil formation.
But it's important to realize that a number of factors, including surface coverage, vegetation
coverage, soil formation, and climate, are all interdependent. Since they affect how the soil or
rock interacts with the atmosphere, factors including wind direction and strength, weathering
exposure direction and length, and geomorphology must be taken into account while
analyzing tropical soil formations. The majority of engineering structures require a solid
understanding of the engineering properties of the local soil and subsurface conditions in
order to be built.
2.1.1 Soil investigation and testing
The importance of geotechnical studies of the subsurface conditions for infrastructure
planning, design, construction, operation, and safety has been highlighted in recent years by
many Nigerian real estate developers, and it has been said by Annor et al. (1987), Amadi et al.
(2012), and Youdeowei and Nwankwoala (2013) that this negligence is the reason for the
collapse of structures. Since structures are made on earth, the importance of basic foundation
materials for infrastructure development cannot be overstated. (Apanpa Et al., 2019). A
geotechnical study of the subsurface condition of a planned infrastructure development site
would help to lessen the causes of structural collapse in order to minimize loss of life and
property. Geotechnical analysis of subsurface refers to the use of rock and soil mechanics in
the building of earthen structure foundations and retaining walls. Das (2006). Geotechnical
5
considerations are essential for providing appropriate soil foundation design in the early
stages of construction and for enhancing failure mitigation later on, claim Namdar and Feng
(2014).
In the construction business, the biggest soil-related geotechnical problem is the presence of
silty-clayey materials on a building site. Their low strength, durability, and high
compressibility, together with the swell-shrink typical of over-consolidated swelling soils, all
contribute to their limited bearing capacity. The quantity of fine materials present, Atterberg
limits, dry density, permeability, seasonal moisture fluctuations, and the presence of plant
trees are all considered to be responsible for volume changes associated with expansive soils
(Stavridakis, 2006; Kalantari, 2012). Thus, a comprehensive grasp of geotechnical
characteristics such swelling potential, index properties, and clay mineralogy is necessary to
comprehend soil swelling features (Rao et al., 2014). The qualities and durability of a soil as a
foundation material are determined by how well it can react to the load applied to it (Rao Et
al., 2014).
According to Becerik-Gerber et al. (2014), infrastructure is a subfield of civil engineering that
is crucial to the development of civilization. Its operations are complex and varied, suggesting
unusual challenges. Roads, buildings, bridges, dams, and trains are examples of common
infrastructure that enhances our lives and society. In engineering practice, the performance of
soil is greatly impacted by the environmental factors as well as the circumstances imposed by
creating a project (Adejumo Et al., 2012). According to Danso et al. (2016), a problematic
geotechnical engineering soil is one that has properties that render it dangerous to utilize for
the building of engineering structures without the implementation of certain stabilizing
measures. The sub-disciplines of infrastructure development include construction, structural
6
engineering, water resources, geotechnical engineering, transportation, municipal or urban,
materials, coastal engineering, architectural engineering, and surveying.
Nonetheless, deformations like cracks, potholes, ruts, peeling, depression, differential heave,
and tilting that are visible on roads, retaining walls, and buildings in the study area are the
reason behind the failure of some infrastructures. As a result, a geotechnical assessment of the
subsoil condition must be done in order to lessen the likelihood of these structures failing and
the harm they cause to humanity. For this reason, in order to give pertinent information, a
thorough study of the occurrence, composition, distribution, geologic history, and
geotechnical qualities of subsoil is essential in the area. All stakeholders have been concerned
about these institutions' ongoing collapse, nevertheless. According to experts, one factor
responsible for these failures is the lack of a geotechnical assessment of the sub surface’s
properties, which is necessary before using it as a building material or as a foundation for
structures (Ogechukwu Et al., 2019).
2.1.2 Soil classification
The soil has to be studied in order to get data that will aid in deciding the kind of building that
should be built since it has certain qualities. Gambill claims that soil categorization systems
are commonly used to clearly and rapidly communicate soil properties and offer scientists,
engineers, and end users a succinct communication channel (Gambill et al., 2016). It was
chosen because the Unified Soil Categorization method (USCS) is the most effective
classification method for soil used for construction. Two categories of soil were identified on
USCS: The soil sample that passes the N0.200 screen has less than 50% coarse-grained soil,
such as sand and gravel. A soil is considered fine-grained if 50% or more of its total weight
7
passes through the No. 200 sieve (Das et al., 2007). Because the ground maintains the basic
structural integrity of structures, it plays a crucial function in civil engineering.
To lower the chance of building failure, information on the findings of an appropriate and
comprehensive study of soil when designing and constructing a structure must be obtained.
The completion of a civil project depends heavily on high-accuracy data input, such as soil
research data (Roy & Bhalla, 2017). The physical and mechanical properties of the soil must
be thoroughly studied in order to comprehend its behavior and kind. Certain regions of
Indonesia, namely West Java (Cikampek, Cikarang, Bandung, and Serang), have clay
subsoils. Expanding soils, also known as problematic soils, are found all over the world and
require accurate identification and characterization. This is especially important in light of the
current state of geotechnical engineering practice (Asuri & Keshavamurthy, 2016). The clay
minerals in the montmorillonite (smectite) group are usually found in expansive soils.
(Zumrawi, 2015).
Because these soils expand and contract in response to variations in soil moisture content,
they can generate significant volume fluctuations that can cause problems for civil
engineering projects. In this study, the USCS technique was utilized to evaluate the soil
classification, and additional investigation was conducted to determine the potential for
swelling of soil samples obtained from Jababeka I and Lippo Cikarang, Indonesia. In order to
distinguish them and gain an understanding of their behavior, soil identification tests are used
to classify the soil. However, the experience of local land users should be taken into account
in order to increase the local relevance and influence of soil survey results (Barrera-Bassols &
Zinck 2000). The practical usefulness of local soil knowledge and its contribution to the
responsible and sustainable management of soils are well acknowledged. Barrera-Bassols Et
8
al., (2009), numerous countries have shown that incorporating local soil knowledge into
participatory soil surveys can address pragmatic issues and produce solutions that are
acceptable to the local community and culture (Schuler Et al., 2006).
While some studies have found only weak associations between scientific and local
classification (Payton Et al., 2003), others have found strong relationships (Barrera-Bassols,
2016). This variation has frequently been linked to variations in the study sites' landscape
structures. Since morphological traits have been shown to constitute a solid basis for land use
and management, at least with regard to the size of the soil ground, many people living in
rural areas consider themselves to be soil scientists (Sandor & Furbee, 1996). According to
Ettema, (1994), the taxonomies of regional vernacular classification systems are developed
based on descriptive soil physical characteristics that are significant to the user. The primary
criteria for classification are the primary morphological characteristics of the soil, namely its
color and texture (Showers, 2006). As a result, soil distinctions are frequently not hierarchical
schematics since they are determined by the workbook's opinions, presumptions, and
expectations (Voivret Et al., 2007). This gives people the freedom to connect the soils in a
way that best suits their needs (Barrera-Bassols & Zinck 2000). These tests granulometric
analysis and Atterberg limit determination are necessary for scientific study. The principles
are shown below. The required material is available for the interested reader to consult.
2.1.3 Soil texture
The texture of the soil is one of the most important properties that influences how the soil
responds to different loading scenarios. A soil's texture refers to the proportions of sand, silt,
and clay in it. It is usually examined by determining the proportion of each particle size class
in the soil via the use of techniques such as sieve analysis and hydrometer analysis (Das,
9
2010). The activities and characteristics of soil that are greatly impacted by soil texture
include water-holding capacity, nutrient retention, soil structure, and erosion susceptibility. In
the tropics, soil texture can vary significantly due to differences in parent material,
temperature, vegetation, and management practices. For instance, the proportion of clay
particles in soils produced by volcanic ash may be higher than that of sand particles in soils
established by alluvial deposits (Sanchez Et al., 2003). Similarly, the accumulation of minute
particles over time may result in a larger proportion of clay in soils in areas experiencing
excessive rainfall (Bhattacharyya Et al., 2012). The texture of the soil affects its behavior
under different loading conditions, including settling, deformation, and consolidation. The
texture of a soil can affect compressibility, shear strength, and hydraulic conductivity—all
crucial characteristics for civil engineering design and analysis. For example, clay soils are
very compressible and can result in significant settling in buildings erected on them due to
their low shear strength and high water content.. Sands, on the other hand, are less
compressible due to their high shear strength and low water content (Terzaghi et al., 1996).
The texture of the soil can also change how the soil behaves under various moisture levels.
Coarse-textured soils, such as sands, have low water-holding capacities but high penetration
rates, whereas fine-textured soils, such as clays, have high water-holding capacities but low
infiltration rates.
The behavior of soils with varying textures can be complicated by the distribution of pore
diameters inside the soil and the relative quantities of each particle size class (Brady & Weil,
2008). Soil texture can be categorized using the USDA Soil Texture Triangle and the
International Soil Classification System. These techniques classify soils into different textural
groups according to the proportions of clay, silt, and sand. The USDA Soil Texture Triangle,
10
for instance, separates soils into twelve textural categories based on the proportion of clay,
silt, and sand (USDA, 1999).
2.1.4 Soil structure
Soil structure is the arrangement of soil particles into aggregates, which are naturally
occurring units of soil structure that are separated from each other by planes of separation or
surfaces of weakness (Brady & Weil, 2008). Physical, chemical, and biological processes that
combine to form soil structure include flocculation, cementation, bioturbation, and
aggregation (Tisdall & Oades, 1982). One way that soil structure influences regional diversity
is through the distribution of pore space within soils; the channels and voids formed by soil
aggregates in soil profiles change the flow of water, nutrients, and air through the soil (Brady
& Weil, 2008), and well-developed soils may show more regional heterogeneity in terms of
microbial activity, nutrient availability, and water-holding capacity than soils with inadequate
structure (Brady and Weil, 2008). Mapping the distribution of soil structure using
geostatistical techniques might be useful to guide soil conservation efforts and pinpoint
regions of high erosion risk (Cerdà & Jurgensen, 2008). The mechanical behavior of soils can
also be influenced by its structure, which is important for civil engineering research and
design. The structure of soils determines their compressibility, shear strength, and
deformation characteristics (Brady & Weil, 2008), and it can also affect the performance of
geotechnical structures by influencing the stability and deformation characteristics of these
structures, such as embankments and retaining walls (Liu et al., 2015). One important aspect
of soil that influences how the soil behaves under different loading conditions is its structure,
which influences the behavior of the soils under different loading conditions (Brady & Weil,
2008). Furthermore, soil erosion, nitrogen cycling, and carbon sequestration all depend on soil
11
structure (Lehmann & Kleber, 2015). Among the elements that influence the development and
preservation of soil structure are soil texture, organic matter content, mineralogy, and
management practices (Tisdall & Oades, 1982). Soils with a high clay concentration tend to
have more developed structures because clay minerals may flocculate and form durable
aggregates. Organic matter is also crucial for soil structure because it provides binding sites
for soil particles and encourages the growth of soil microorganisms that can aid in aggregate
formation. (Lehmann & Kleber, 2015).
Soil structure can be classified as prismatic, granular, blocky, columnar, or platy. These
groups are characterized by a variety of soil aggregate sizes and shapes, which can have
different impacts on soil behavior. For example, granular texture is associated with high
porosity and efficient drainage, but platy structure may hinder water transfer and root growth
(Brady & Weil, 2008). Soil structure may be studied in the field using a variety of techniques,
including ocular observation, soil pit investigation, and soil profile description. Tests for
aggregate stability, dispersion, and sieving are laboratory techniques used to assess soil
structure (Tisdall & Oades, 1982).
2.1.5 Soil porosity
Soil porosity is the volume percentage of pores or empty spaces in a soil that permit air and
water to flow through. Porosity is a crucial aspect of soil that influences aeration, hydraulic
conductivity, and soil water-holding capacity (Brady & Weil, 2008). Porosity is influenced by
several factors, including soil texture, structure, and compaction. Porosity can change
geographically within a landscape due to variations in soil texture, structure, and compaction.
Understanding the regional variations in soil porosity is crucial for assessing soil properties
and carrying out engineering projects that depend on them, such slope stability analyses,
12
foundation design, and groundwater management. In recent times, there has been an increase
in the utilization of geo statistics approaches in soil research, which has improved our
understanding of soil properties and their regional variations (Grunwald Et al., 2009).
Geo statistics, according to Goovaerts (1997), is a statistical framework that makes it possible
to analyze geographical data, such as estimating values at unsampled places and evaluating
the spatial autocorrelation of soil properties.
The study found that soil porosity varies significantly by region, with sandy soils having
higher porosity values and clayey soils having lower porosity values; it also found that soil
porosity significantly varies geographically, with higher porosity values observed closer to
rivers; course-textured soils, such as sands and gravels, are generally high porosity but low
water-holding capacity, while clays and other fine-textured soils have a high water-holding
capacity but low porosity(Das, 2010). Soil structure also affects porosity; poorly structured
soils have low porosity and are more likely to compaction and erosion, while well-structured
soils with stable particles have high porosity and permeability (Singer & Meese, 2006).
Compaction of the soil is another factor that affects porosity; it is the process of increasing
soil density by decreasing pore space.
According to Brady and Weil (2008), soil compaction can happen naturally due to factors like
the weight of the soil on top of it or heavy machinery, or it can be caused by human activities
like building, agriculture, or urbanization. According to Fischer Et al., (2017), compacted
soils have poorer root penetration, lower water infiltration rates, and lower soil biological
activity. Many techniques, such as computed tomography (CT) scans, gas displacement
methods, and gravimetric measures, can be used to determine the porosity of soil (Baveye Et
al., 2018). To determine the weight of water that can be added to saturate a soil sample, one
13
must first dry the sample to get its dry weight. This process is known as gravimetric
measurement. One way to measure the amount of gas displaced from soil is to fill a sample
with gas and then measure the volume of gas displaced. CT scanning permits for non-
destructive imaging of soil pore structure and can offer substantial information on pore size,
shape, and connectivity (Robinson Et al., 2018).
2.1.6 Soil permeability
Soil permeability, which is determined by the soil's porosity, texture, and structure, is the rate
at which water may move through it. It is a crucial part of the study and design of civil
engineering, particularly the design of soil remediation and drainage systems. The distribution
of pore sizes in soil, the tortuosity of the pore space, and the hydraulic conductivity of
individual pores all affect how well the soil transfers water (Bear, 1972). Tropical soils exhibit
regional differences in soil permeability, which can have a substantial influence on the design
and operation of civil engineering projects including drainage systems, retaining walls, and
foundations.
With this knowledge, civil engineering projects in tropical regions might be designed and
built more efficiently. For example, in tropical locations, the regional variation in soil
permeability may affect drainage system design, particularly in high-rainfall areas. In high
permeability locations, less drainage infrastructure can be required than in low permeability
areas since water will naturally soak into the soil. On the other hand, in low-permeability
locations, greater drainage systems may be required to prevent flooding and soil erosion.
(Wu Et al., 2020) Variations in the soil's permeability can also have an impact on retaining
wall and foundation building in tropical regions. Due to the soil's potential inability to quickly
14
release excess pore water pressure, regions with low permeability may be more susceptible to
liquefaction during seismic events (Sekhar et al., 2019). This information may be used in the
building of retaining walls and foundations to guarantee that they can resist earthquakes and
other environmental conditions.
A soil's hydraulic conductivity—a measurement of its capacity to move water through its
pores—is determined by its texture, structure, and porosity. Coarse-grained soils, such as sand
and gravel, have high hydraulic conductivity due to their big pores and low tortuosity,
whereas fine-grained soils, such as clay, have low hydraulic conductivity due to their small
pores and high tortuosity (Das, 2010). The connection between soil texture and permeability
has been the subject of several investigations. For example, Selim et al. (1990) discovered that
soils with higher clay percentages had lower saturated hydraulic conductivity due to the larger
tortuosity of their pore space. The hydraulic conductivity of soil is also largely dependent on
its texture; sandy soils have the highest hydraulic conductivity, followed by loamy soils and
clay soils, as demonstrated by Zhang Et al., (2007).
Because soil structure affects the size and distribution of soil pores as well as how soil
particles are arranged into aggregates, it also affects permeability. According to a study by
Warren and Bradford (2011), because the aggregates created wider pores in the soil, the soils
with better aggregate stability had higher hydraulic conductivity. However, because of their
larger tortuosity and smaller pore diameters, soils with limited aggregate stability showed
worse hydraulic conductivity. Permeability can also be impacted by soil moisture content and
compaction. Reduced permeability is a result of compacted soils' increased tortuosity and
decreased pore space (Tiwari Et al., 2012). In addition, according to Dane and Topp (2002),
15
soil moisture content influences a soil's hydraulic conductivity, with saturated soils having a
higher hydraulic conductivity than unsaturated soils.
Soil permeability is an important consideration in civil engineering design and analysis,
especially for drainage design and soil remediation. It may be quantified using a variety of
methods, including field methods like the double-ring in filtrometer test (ASTM D3385-18)
and constant-head and falling head permeameters (ASTM D5084-16). However, it's crucial to
realize that these techniques could not always correctly represent a soil's in-situ permeability
due to factors like heterogeneity and anisotropy (Sivapullaiah Et al., 2009).
2.1.7 Soil compressibility
Soil compressibility, which describes how much a soil's texture, structure, and moisture
content can control how compacted the soil becomes under stress, is a major concern when
building a foundation because it affects how much buildings settle. Soil settlements can
damage structures, cut down on their usefulness, or even cause them to fail. The soil's
compressibility, which impacts its ability to support structures and can result in settlement and
subsidence, has a significant impact on the regional diversity of tropical soils. Numerous
elements, including the soil's moisture content, structure, and texture, might influence how
compressible the soil is in a given area. (Lambe & Whitman, 1969).
2.2 Theoretical review
Several authors have investigated relationships between the dynamic cone penetration
index (DCPI) which is the amount of penetration depth per blow and CBR. Among them
which were developed for fine-grained soils by different authors and institutions.
The Dynamic Cone Penetrometer Test is a Portable Equipment that measures Penetration
resistance by cone penetration with blows count of hammer; it is designed for the rapid in-situ
16
measurement of subgrade. So the use of Dynamic cone penetrometer is the faster and the
easier way to estimate the strength parameters. (Harison, J.R., 1983 – 1987, Kleyn, E.G.,
1975, Livneh, M. 1987, Rodrigo Salgadi, Sungmin Yoon, 2003, Talal Ao-Referal & Al
Suhaibani, 1996).
Dynamic cone penetrometer (DCP) has been used for determination of the soil strength
parameters including, but not limited to, California bearing ratio (CBR), unconfined
compressive strength (UCS) and plate loading test (Wang, 2001). The DCP is mainly studied
and correlated for the application of pavement analysis and hence mainly correlated to CBR
(Sahoo, 2009). Since the testing of CBR is relatively expensive and time taking, replacing this
test with DCP will be ideal and cost effective. Furthermore, the repeatability of DCP is more
than CBR hence more accurate result can be achieved. The DCP serves as an excellent tool
for construction inspection; it has the ability to verify both the level and uniformity of
compaction (Luo, 1998). DCP test can also be carried out for rehabilitation design of asphalt
surfaced roads. To evaluate its viability, comparisons with various rehabilitation methods
including the Asphalt Institute method, Mechanistic methods and standard references have
been done. Thus, a low cost DCP survey can provide sufficient information to design
appropriate overlays (Paige- Green, 2009). For the reason that predictions using the DCP tests
are subjected to considerable uncertainty. DCP tests need to be performed for compaction
control in combination with other conventional test methods. These can be used to calibrate
the DCP correlation for specific sites, reducing the uncertainty in the predictions. Site-specific
correlations do appear to be of better quality (Saldrigo and Yoon, 2003). Al-Refeai and
AlSuhaibani (1997) mentioned that variability in DCPI on CBR data changes as the soil
changes from fine-grained to granular. Livneh (2000) developed a method to accommodate
17
the effect of uncertainty from skin friction forces on the DCP rod during testing in cohesive
materials. Swenson et al. (2006) also found out that both moisture and density had a
measurable effect on the modulus of fine-grained soils (Ehsan, 2011).
The study was conducted in Jimma. It is located in South-West Ethiopia and the climatic
condition is classified as warm to cold (sub-tropical) or locally called as “Weyna Dega” with
high degree of humidity. The topography is predominantly flat and rolling terrain. It is mainly
covered with black, gray and red colored plastic clay soils (Jemal, 2014). The primary aim of
this study is to evaluate subgrade strength of roads using DCP test and to develop a
correlation between California Bearing Ratio (CBR) and Dynamic Cone Penetrometer Index
(DCPI) values under consideration of locality field conditions. DCPT was developed in 1956
by Scala and enhanced in 1969 by Dr. D.J. Van Vuuren and South Africa's Transvaal Roads
Department. It estimates in-situ support capacity for subgrade materials and pavement layers.
Many countries, including the US, UK, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa, adopted
DCPT for soil characterization.
18
CHAPTER THREE
MATERIALS AND METHODOLOGY
3.1 Description of the Study Area
The study was conducted in Ekiti South senatorial district which has six local governments
(Gbonyin, Ekiti East, Ise-run, Emure, Ikere, Ekiti Southwest) and is located between
longitudes 40o51’ and 50o451’ East of the Greenwich meridian and latitudes 70 o151’ and
80o51’ north of the equator.
3.1.1 Materials
The soil samples used in this study were collected from thirty (30) different locations within.
Five (5) samples were collected from each local government area (Gbonyin, Ekiti East, Ise-
run, Emure, Ikere, Ekiti Southwest) at an avenge depth of 0.5-1m. The materials used during
the collection of the samples were sample bags, a Geographic positioning system (GPS),
masking tape for labeling, and a marker for identification of the sample. The locations and
their coordinates with the samples are shown in Table
3.2 Methods
After collecting the soil samples, small quantities of each sample were oven-dried to
determine the natural moisture content of the soil samples. Thereafter, several of the required
19
properties analyses were carried out. These include Specific gravity, size analysis; Atterberg
(limits test, plastic limits, and shrinkage limits), compaction test (modified AASHTO), and
the California Bearing Ratio (CBR) tests and Dynamic cone penetrometer (DCP). The DCP
used in this study was based on Ekiti South Senatorial District. The DCP used consists of
16mm steel rod, to which a tempered steel cone with a 20mm base diameter and a 60-point
angle is attached. The DCP is driven into the soil by an 8kg hammer with a dropping height of
575mm.
Table 3.1: Description of sample locations within Ekiti South senatorial district
SENATORIAL COORDINATES ALTITUDE SAMPLES
DISTRICT LOCATIONS LATITUDE LONGITUDE (M) CODE
Ijan 7.620278 5.376667 385 EK1
Iluomoba 7.626944 5.430278 392 EK2
Aisegba 7.601111 5.464444 405 EK3
Agbado 7.597500 5.526111 373 EK4
Ode 7.623611 5.539444 405 EK5
Isinbode 7.691389 5.635556 444 EK6
Obadore 7.716987 5.730367 553 EK7
Kota 7.744167 5.717778 543 EK8
Omuo Oke 7.773611 5.750278 543 EK9
Araromi 7.773333 5.750000 536 EK10

EKITI SOUTH
Kajola 7.530278 5.414167 382 EK11
Ise Ekiti 7.475278 5.421111 359 EK12
Orun 7.456667 5.435278 371 EK13
20
Aba Igbira 7. 464722 5.401389 352 EK14
Afoul Ise Ekiti 7. 460556 5.391944 356 EK15
Emure 7. 445833 5.450278 363 EK16
Eporo Road 7. 429167 5.456667 367 EK17
Odo Emure 7. 435278 5.464722 368 EK18
Oke Emure 7. 435556 5.452222 377 EK19
New Ise Road, Emure 7. 447222 5.445278 374 EK20
Odide farm, Ikere Road 7. 463056 5.298056 354 EK21
Kopek Quarry, Ikere 7.488889 5.275556 350 EK22
Araromi Ikere 7.498889 5.243611 372 EK23
Anaye, Ikere 7.490833 5.218611 362 EK24
Shasha Ikere/Ado Road 7.532500 5.220556 383 EK25
Ilawe 1 7.608126 5.118834 544 EK26
Ilawe 2 7.612781 5.107026 456 EK27
Ilawe 3 7.552755 5.089262 398 EK28
Ilawe 4 7.603359 5.100306 434 EK29
Igbara Odo 7.523375 5.071897 380 EK30
3.3 Laboratory Experimental
The engineering properties of soils are classified and identified based on index properties and
other tests. Several laboratory tests have been undertaken to produce model equations using
the obtained result. Specifically, for this research laboratory tests such as natural moisture
content, Specific gravity, Grain size analysis, Atterberg’s limits, compaction test, and
California Bearing Ratio (CBR) test were conducted. The entire laboratory tests were
21
conducted in Federal Polytechnic Ado-Ekiti, Department of Civil Engineering soil mechanics
Laboratory
3.3.1 Natural moisture content
Natural moisture content is defined as the ratio of the weight of the water in a soil specimen to
the dry weight of the specimen. The moisture content of soil can be influenced by the
mineralogy and formation environment. It was performed immediately after the soil sample
was collected and brought to the laboratory. The below equation 3.1 shown below is to
determine the moisture content
M 2−M 1
Moisture content = × 100
M 3−M 1
(3.1)
3.3.2 Specific gravity
The specific gravity of solid particles can be determined in a laboratory using a density bottle
fitted with a stopper having a hole. A density bottle of 50ml capacity is generally used (BS:
1337 Part 2 1990). The empty-density bottle was cleaned and dried; it was weighed and
recorded (M1). The bottles were filled with a dry soil sample to one-third of their volume and
were weighed as (M2), which was later filled with water and recorded as (M 3). The bottle was
rinsed and filled with water to determine the mass of water filling the bottle and recorded as
(M4). The corresponding value of each step was recorded and used to calculate the specific
gravity of each soil using the formula stated below.
M 2−M 1
Gs =
( M 4−M 1 )−(M 3−M 2)
(3.2)
Where:
22
M1 = Weight of empty density bottle (g), M 2 = Weight of bottle + soil (g), M 3 = Weight of
bottle + soil + water (g), and M4 = Weight of bottle +water (g).
3.3.3 Sieve Analysis
The soil sample was oven-dried, and placed in a mechanical sieve shaker which the sieve
weights have the process of separating an aggregate sample into different fractions, each with
different sized particles, which is known as a sieve analysis. This examination is conducted in
compliance with (BS 1377-1:1990). To determine the particles, the dry sieve analysis method
to ascertain the soil sample's particle size distribution. The British sieve set was meticulously
cleaned and arranged based on sieve size.
Apparatus used:
Weighing balance, cleaning brush, Mechanical sieve shaker, and set of sieves.
Figure 3.1: Set of Sieves
Test Procedure
23
500g of soil sample was weighed after being sun-dried, and the sample was washed using a
75mm micron sieve. Sieves of varying mesh size were arranged in descending order on the
mechanical sieve shaker apparatus with the bottom pant the base bottom pan, 75-micron, 150-
micron, 300-micron, 425micron, 600-micron, 1.18mm, 2.36 mm, 4.75mm, 9.5mm. The
sample was poured into the uppermost sieves; the apparatus was covered and screwed in
place. The mechanical sieve shaker was connected to an electric source and switched on. The
time of vibration was set to 5 minutes. The apparatus was dismantled and the amount of
sample retained in each sieve was weighed and recorded. The percentage of sample passing
through each of the sieves was computed and a particle distribution curve was drawn to show
the distribution of grain sizes in the sample.
3.3.4 Atterberg test
The liquid limit, plastic limit, of the lateritic soil were determined by BS 1377 part 2, 1990.
Consistency limits test is widely used in the design stage of construction to ensure that the
soils being used exhibit the proper consistency to support structures even as their moisture
levels change. Soils for engineering use are often classified based on properties relative to
foundation support or how they might perform under pavements and in earthworks.
A. Liquid limit
Cone penetrometer equipment was used to evaluate the soil sample's liquid limit by BS 1377-
1:1990. After being passed through a 425-micron sieve, the soil sample was examined. A
part of the sample air-dried soil is in the penetrometer cup after it has been combined with
water to a stiff consistency and passed through a 425 cm sieve. Next, the penetrometer cone
is constricted such that its tip is barely in contact with the ground. For five seconds, the
clamp is lowered and allowed to pierce the ground. The dial gauge is used to measure the
24
penetration level. This procedure is continued until two tests in a row yield the same
penetration level of ±1, at which point the reading is recorded. At this point, the soil's
moisture content in the cup is calculated. The process described above is repeated, adding
water to the sample one at a time, and graphing the correlation between penetration and
moisture content.
B. Plastic limit
The lowest moisture content at which dirt may roll into a thread with a diameter of 3 mm is
known as the plastic limit test. By BS 1377 (1975), a soil sample is prepared similarly to the
liquid limit test and is completely mixed with water until it forms a homogenous plastic
paste. This is done to determine the soil sample's plastic limit. The dirt is formed into a
thread by the paste rolling between the palm and the hand. The soil is kneaded together and
rolled again after the diameter is progressively lowered to 3 mm. This method, which at 3
mm diameter progressively lowers the moisture content. To determine the moisture content,
the crumbled sample is gathered and baked for a full day. Calculations are used to ascertain
the moisture content and the % plastic limit.
3.3.5 Compaction test
Compaction is the process of increasing soil density by packing soil
particles closer together while reducing air volume. Put another way, it's
the use of mechanical energy to organize soil particles together to reduce
air. A 3000-gram soil sample is weighed as part of the compaction test,
which was conducted in compliance with British Standards BS 1377 (1990).
Depending on the cohesiveness of the soil, a predetermined amount of
water between 4% and 6% is then added to the sample. Using a measuring
25
cylinder that was calibrated, the water content was precisely determined.
Correct arrangement and weighting were performed on a Proctor mold
equipped with a 4.5 kg rammer. Without the extension collar, the weight of
the mold was recorded as M1. The mold was adequately lubricated before
use. The soil sample was painstakingly divided into five layers, and each
layer was given 12 blows from the aforementioned rammer. This process
was repeated for each layer that followed. After the earth was well
compacted, the excess dirt was carefully removed, and any excess was
carefully cut away with a straight edge until the soil surface was perfectly
flat with the top of the mold. Reweighing the mold with the compacted soil
still inside, the result was M2. To assess the moisture content, a
representative portion of the compacted soil sample was collected. To
avoid misunderstandings or sample misplacing, the container containing
this extracted sample was appropriately labeled. After that, the soil sample
was released, combined with the other materials in the tray, and the water content was
modified to rise by an extra 2% to 3% of the initial weight of the soil. This stringent approach
ensured the correct measurement of the compaction properties and moisture content of the soil
sample. The graph of dry density was plotted against moisture contents for each trial, from
where the compaction characteristics (Maximum dry density and optimum moisture content)
were derived.
3.3.5 California Bearing Ratio Test
26
Figure 3.2: California bearing ratio (CBR) machine
The California bearing ratio test abbreviated CBR test is an in-situ
penetration test developed by the California Highway Department in the
evaluation of sub-grad strength. It was established in (1929) as part of the
approach for estimating pavement requirements in airfields, roadways,
and highways as a consequence of the examination of the flexible
pavement failure in California which was then adopted throughout the
world for the design of flexible pavement. A soil sample weighing 6kg was
meticulously weighed and positioned on a 1 square meter tray.
Subsequently, a mold was meticulously created and affixed to its base
plate along with its extension collar, both of which were adequately
greased. A filter paper was carefully positioned on the base plate. The
water content equal to the Optimum Moisture Content (OMC) of the soil
sample was exactly determined. The determined water content was then
injected into the soil, and correctly mixed, and the resulting sample was
stratified into five layers. Each layer underwent compaction with 62 blows
27
from a 4.5 kg rammer. Following compaction, the extension collar was
cautiously removed, and any surplus soil was excised with the aid of a
straight edge until the soil surface lined perfectly with the top of the mold.
Subsequently, another filter paper was positioned atop the soil, and the
extension collar was reattached to the mold. The mold, holding the
sample, was placed in water, and after 24 hours, it was collected and
allowed to drain for 15 minutes. The penetration test was subsequently
done. The mold, now put on the CBR machine, was adjusted until the
plunger made contact with the sample. The dial gauge was precisely
calibrated to zero, and the machine was set in motion at a strain of
0.025mm/min. Readings were taken at 50 mm intervals, both at the top
and bottom of the sample, enabling a full study of the soil's penetration
characteristics.
unit load
CBR = * 100
Standard load
(3.5)
3.4 Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP),
The dynamic cone penetrometer (DCP), since being introduced by Scala in 1956, has been
successfully utilized for estimating the strength of soils. The DCP was studied mainly in
relation to application in pavement structures and was primarily correlated with California
Bearing Ratio (CBR). Since in situ CBR testing is expensive, relatively slow to conduct, and
generally not favored by highway engineers, DCP, being light and portable, offers an
attractive means for determining in situ CBR at a comparative speed and ease of operation.
The repeatability of DCP is considerably higher than that of CBR. Smith and Pratt indicated
28
that the coefficient of variation in CBR for a particular soil at one test location could be of the
order of 60% whilst that of the DCP could be of the order of 40%.
3.4.1 Test Procedure
Samples were prepared by mixing air-dry soil and water to the required water content and
then compacting it into a CBR mold. Five layers of approximately equal thickness were used.
Each layer was subjected to impact of a 4.54 kg hammer falling 4.7 mm, and the number of
blows per layer was kept constant for each layer of a particular sample. To relate CBR and
DCP results at the same moisture content and density a pair of identical samples were
prepared.
Figure 3.3: Dynamic Cone Penetrometer
29
The DCP was directly placed at the surface in the center of the sample. The DCP test was then
started by sliding the hammer while measuring the soil resistance to penetration in terms of
mm/blow. It must be pointed out that the penetration for the first blow should be discounted
due to the fact that the imprint area of the cone tip for the first blow is smaller than that of
subsequent blows. The number of blows to drive the DCP 50mm into the sample was
averaged and taken as the reading of DCP. A 50mm depth was selected because CBR values
are reflected by soil's shear strength mobilized in that zone
30
CHAPTER FOUR
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1 Soil Characterization Tests
After collecting the material and before performing the CBR and DCP tests, characterization
tests were conducted and the soils were classified. Therefore, grain size distribution (sieve
analysis test), Natural moisture content (NMC), specific gravity test, Atterberg limits and
Standard Modified AASTHO Compaction tests and Dynamic Cone Penetrometer Test
(DCPT) were performed. After the characterization tests were concluded, both soils were
classified according to the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) and AASHTO
(Association of State Highway Transportation Officials)
4.1.1 Natural Moisture Content
The Natural Moisture Content (NMC) of soil from the study locations as presented in
Appendix A and summarized in Table 4.1 ranged from 1.24% to 15.25% with sample codes
EK12 and EK28 having the lowest and the highest value respectively. Ramamurthy and
Sitharam (2005) stated that low NMC which is normally find in a dry or arid condition is less
than 10%, medium NMC (10%-20%) showing the soil is in normal or moderate condition,
High NMC (20-40%) showing the area is wet and Very high NMC (>40%) indicating a
saturated or waterlogged area. As opined by Ramamurthy and Sitharam (2005), the soils in
the study areas were found to be of low and medium moisture.
4.1.2 Specific Gravity
The specific gravity of the soils from the study location ranged from 2.14 to 2.77,
respectively, as indicated in the Table 4.4. De Graff-Johnson (1972) stated that the higher the
specific gravity, the higher the degree of laterization. <2.4 very low specific gravity organic
31
soils, 2.4-2.6 low specific gravity clays and silts, 2.6-2.8 medium specific gravity sands, sandy
clays, 2.8-3.0 High specific gravity dense sands, gravelly soils. Therefore, it appears that
EK21 (Odide farm, Ikere Road) samples have the highest specific gravity (2.77), whereas
EK10 (Araromi) samples appear to have the lowest specific gravity.
4.1.3 Sieve Analysis
The outcome of the sieve analysis is shown in Table 4.1. As stated by Garg (2009), the
performance of the base and sub-base materials is significantly impacted by the percentage of
fines (% passing sieve 75 μm). An excessive amount of fines will decrease the maximum
density and strength that may be achieved and increase the material's vulnerability to
weakening due to seepage or water infiltration (Garg 2009). The findings demonstrate that
there are more than 70% of particles in most soil samples. The result of the sieve
analysis of the soil of the study area is shown in the following table and
figure below, and the individual analysis of all samples are presented
under Appendix.
A. Soil Classification
The soil classification of the soil of the study area is performed according to USCS and
AASHTO classification system depending on Sieve analysis, Percent Passing sieve no.200
[75µm] and Atterberg Limits test result (LL and PI).
According to the two systems of soil classification, USCS and AASHTO classification
system, taking the studied samples as a representative of the soil in the study area, 5% of the
soil of the study area is classified as low-clay plasticity (CL) and 95% of the soil of the study
area is classified as high-sand plasticity (SC) coarse-grained soil. The group symbol and
group classification for USCS and AASHTO is expressed as (CL and SC), and (A-7-6 and A-
32
7-5) respectively. In the case of Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) the soil is
classified as Silt-Clay soil. In the case of AASHTO classification system the soil is classified
as silty or clayey soil.
Furthermore, based on both the above mentioned (USCS and AASHTO), and material
passing through sieve number 200 (0.075mm) the Soil of the Study area is classified and
shown in the following table.
Table 4.1: Soil Classification of the Study area according to USCS and AASHTO
classification system
Atterberg’s Limits Test Result Soil Classification

Sieve No System
Senatorial PI
District Locations 75mm LL (%) PL (%) LS (%) (%) AASHTO USCS
EK1 14.61 28.25 25.64 2.4 2.61 A-2-6 SC
EK2 35.12 27.8 17.27 2.14 10.53 A-7-6 SC
EK3 48.1 46 24.67 8 21.33 A-2-6 SC
EK4 22.09 35.35 19.06 3.57 16.29 A-2-4 SM
EK5 48.17 36.7 24.13 8.57 12.57 A-6 SC
EK6 33.96 44.8 30.29 10.71 14.51 A-7-6 CL
EK7 23.27 24.4 12.59 2.86 11.81 A-2-7 SC
EK8 29.32 34.4 18.03 5.71 16.37 A-1-B SC
EKITI SOUTH
EK9 49.45 27.6 14.19 6.43 13.41 A-2-6 SC

EK10 50.28 46.2 28.47 8.57 17.73 A-6 SC
EK11 24.08 37.25 13.17 3.91 24.08 A-6 SC
EK12 19.8 21.85 13.67 0.78 8.18 A-2-4 SC
EK13 39.56 38.4 20.51 4.29 17.89 A-6 SC
EK14 7.8 28.05 18.07 3.94 9.98 A-2-4 SC
EK15 19.81 27.8 11.16.1 7.86 16.64 A-2-6 SC
6
EK16 28.03 33.2 11.84 7.86 21.36 A-2-6 SC
EK17 27.57 51.1 20.38 7.09 30.72 A-2-7 SC
EK18 37.18 32.2 19.1 8.59 13.1 A-6 SC
EK19 32.25 31.2 13.99 5.71 17.21 A-2-6 SC
EK20 65.55 44.4 23.25 11.43 21.15 A-7-6 CL
33
EK21 34.88 24.45 13.49 4.29 10.96 A-2-6 SC
EK22 12.01 29.25 16.7 5.71 12.55 A-2-6 SC
EK23 18.44 46.8 24.95 6.44 21.85 A-2-7 SC
EK24 17.84 28.6 16.97 5.71 11.63 A-2-6 SC
EK25 55.68 38.2 20.71 8.57 17.49 A-6 CL
EK26 51.44 37.2 23.51 7.14 13.89 A-6 CL
EK27 49.12 41.2 21.12 10.71 20.08 A-7-6 SC
EK28 53.06 40.8 23.21 8 17.59 A-7-6 CL
EK29 42.54 29.09 16.05 5.71 13.04 A-7-6 SC
EK30 18.25 32.6 18.67 2.14 13.93 A-2-6 SC
4.1.4 Atterberg Limit
The Atterberg consistency limit tests show that the samples have an average Liquid Limit of
24.40 to 51.10%, Plastic Limit of 11.2% and 30.3%, plasticity index (PI) of 2.61% to 30.72%
as shown in Table 4.2. According to (FMWH, 1997) Liquid limit less than 30% indicates low
plasticity, between 35% and 50% indicates intermediate plasticity, between 50% and 70%
high plasticity, between 70% and 90% indicates very high plasticity and greater than 90%
indicates extremely high plasticity (Whitlow, 1995). The detail analysis of all samples
is presented under Appendix.
24.0
22.0
Actual Penetration (mm)
20.0
18.0
16.0
14.0
24.00 25.00 26.00 27.00 28.00 29.00 30.00 31.00
Moisture Contents (%)
34
Figure 4.1: typical flow curve is shown to determine the liquid limit of the sample.
Table 4.2: Atterberg’s Limits Laboratory Test Result
Senatorial Atterberg Limits Test Result

District Locations LL (%) PL (%) LS (%) PI (%)
EK1 28.25 25.64 2.4 2.61
EK2 27.8 17.27 2.14 10.53
EK3 46 24.67 8 21.33
EK4 35.35 19.06 3.57 16.29
EK5 36.7 24.13 8.57 12.57
EK6 44.8 30.29 10.71 14.51
EK7 24.4 12.59 2.86 11.81
EK8 34.4 18.03 5.71 16.37
EK9 27.6 14.19 6.43 13.41
EK10 46.2 28.47 8.57 17.73
EK11 37.25 13.17 3.91 24.08
EK12 21.85 13.67 0.78 8.18
EK13 38.4 20.51 4.29 17.89
EKITI SOUTH
EK14 28.05 18.07 3.94 9.98

EK15 27.8 11.16.16 7.86 16.64
EK16 33.2 11.84 7.86 21.36
EK17 51.1 20.38 7.09 30.72
EK18 32.2 19.1 8.59 13.1
EK19 31.2 13.99 5.71 17.21
EK20 44.4 23.25 11.43 21.15
EK21 24.45 13.49 4.29 10.96
EK22 29.25 16.7 5.71 12.55
EK23 46.8 24.95 6.44 21.85
EK24 28.6 16.97 5.71 11.63
EK25 38.2 20.71 8.57 17.49
EK26 37.2 23.51 7.14 13.89
EK27 41.2 21.12 10.71 20.08
EK28 40.8 23.21 8 17.59
EK29 29.09 16.05 5.71 13.04
EK30 32.6 18.67 2.14 13.93
4.1.6 Compaction Test
35
The variation of the MDD and OMC is presented in Figure 4.4. The highest value of OMC of
the soils was 18.6% (EK22), while the lowest OMC value was 7.6% (Sample 11). The highest
value of the MDD was 12158kg/m3 (Sample 23), while the lowest MDD value was
1720kg/m3 (Sample 10). Ninety-five (95) % of the soil samples had OMC within the range 10
% - 20 % while the remaining 5 % had OMC less than 10 %. All the soil samples had MDD
within the range 1000 kg/m3 – 2000 kg/m3. According to Murthy (2002), the greater the
degree of compaction the greater the value of cohesion and the angle of shearing resistance.
Thus, soils compacted with high moisture become saturated with a consequent loss of
strength; that is, the greatest shear strength is attained at a moisture content lower than the
OMC. Therefore, considering the fact that most of the soil samples had lower moisture
content before their MDD were obtained, it could be concluded that majority of the soil
samples are likely to have high bearing capacity values.
4.1.7 California Bearing Ratio (CBR) Value
The California Bearing Ratio (CBR) Value of the Soil of the study area is varied from 7% to
29.6%. The result of the Moisture-Density Parameters (Compaction characteristics) and
California Bearing Ratio (CBR) value of all samples is shown in the following table.
Table 4.3: Summary of all Laboratory Test Result
36
Modified
AASTHO
Soil Classification
Atterberg's Compaction CBR
Locations System
Test value
Result Plasticity
LL PL LS PI MDD OMC AASHTO USCS index
EK1 28.25 25.64 2.4 2.61 2114 12.4 A-2-6 SC 12.6 1
EK2 27.8 17.27 2.14 10.53 2036 12.4 A-7-6 SC 19 1.7
EK3 46 24.67 8 21.33 1949 14.9 A-2-6 SC 8.1 5
EK4 35.35 19.06 3.57 16.29 1982 12.4 A-2-4 SM 12.6 1.7
EK5 36.7 24.13 8.57 12.57 1885 12.8 A-6 SC 10.6 1.7
EK6 44.8 30.29 10.71 14.51 2052 10.8 A-7-6 CL 11.9 1.3
EK7 24.4 12.59 2.86 11.81 2080 12.4 A-2-7 SC 27 0.8
EK8 34.4 18.03 5.71 16.37 2000 12 A-1-B SC 17.6 1
EK9 27.6 14.19 6.43 13.41 2008 15.6 A-2-6 SC 16.2 1
EK10 46.2 28.47 8.57 17.73 1720 15 A-6 SC 7 2.5
EK11 37.25 13.17 3.91 24.08 1958 7.6 A-6 SC 10.6 1.3
EK12 21.85 13.67 0.78 8.18 2074 13.3 A-2-4 SC 13.6 2.5
EK13 38.4 20.51 4.29 17.89 1834 13.8 A-6 SC 16.1 1.3
EK14 28.05 18.07 3.94 9.98 1934 12.8 A-2-4 SC 29.6 1.7
EK15 27.8 11.16 7.86 16.64 2042.3 9.7 A-2-6 SC 14.3 0.6
EK16 33.2 11.84 7.86 21.36 2042 14 A-2-6 SC 21.7 1
EK17 51.1 20.38 7.09 30.72 1924 16.3 A-2-7 SC 12.1 0.8
EK18 32.2 19.1 8.59 13.1 2006 14 A-6 SC 12.3 2.5
EK19 31.2 13.99 5.71 17.21 2126.8 12.5 A-2-6 SC 15.1 0.8
EK20 44.4 23.25 11.43 21.15 1846 13 A-7-6 CL 10 1.3
EK21 24.45 13.49 4.29 10.96 2031.5 10.3 A-2-6 SC 18 0.8
EK22 29.25 16.7 5.71 12.55 2014 18.6 A-2-6 SC 14.5 1
EK23 46.8 24.95 6.44 21.85 2158 13 A-2-7 SC 12.6 2.5
EK24 28.6 16.97 5.71 11.63 2150 13.4 A-2-6 SC 13.2 1.3
EK25 38.2 20.71 8.57 17.49 1856 17.6 A-6 CL 10.9 2.5
EK26 37.2 23.51 7.14 13.89 1742 14.2 A-6 CL 11.3 1.7
EK27 41.2 21.12 10.71 20.08 1821.8 14.6 A-7-6 SC 11.3 1.7
EK28 40.8 23.21 8 17.59 1818 14.4 A-7-6 CL 9.2 2.5
EK29 29.09 16.05 5.71 13.04 1872 14 A-7-6 SC 10.4 1.3
EK30 32.6 18.67 2.14 13.93 1996 11.4 A-2-6 SC 13.2 1.3
4.2 Correlation between DCP and CBR Value
37
To determine the potential relationship between DCP and CBR, the data is analysed
employing Pearson statistics (r). The result (r = 0.42) indicates that there is a positive high
correlation (Del Rosario AC, 2006). Also, to determine whether there is a significant negative
relationship, the data were tested at 0.05 level of significance with 13 degrees of freedom, and
confirmed (r 0.05 = 0.02) that there is a significant positive relationship between the DCP and
CBR value. It implies that the high DCP index value in mm/blow the higher CBR value in
percent.
Table 4.4: DCP laboratory test result, CBR test result and comparison of predicted CBR
value
Depth Predicted
Locations
(mm) DCP mm/blow PI CBR % CBR % Variation
EK1 5.0 5.0 1.0 12.60 11.17 11.32
EK2 5.0 3.0 1.7 19.00 11.40 40.02
EK3 5.0 1.0 5.0 8.10 11.87 -46.58
EK4 5.0 3.0 1.7 12.60 11.40 9.56
EK5 5.0 3.0 1.7 10.60 11.40 -7.51
EK6 5.0 4.0 1.3 11.90 11.27 5.29
EK7 5.0 6.0 0.8 27.00 11.09 58.91
EK8 5.0 5.0 1.0 17.60 11.17 36.51
EK9 5.0 5.0 1.0 16.20 11.17 31.02
EK10 5.0 2.0 2.5 7.00 11.57 -65.31
EK11 5.0 4.0 1.3 10.60 11.27 -6.33
EK12 5.0 2.0 2.5 13.60 11.57 14.91
EK13 5.0 4.0 1.3 16.10 11.27 29.99
EK14 5.0 3.0 1.7 29.60 11.40 61.50
EK15 5.0 8.0 0.6 14.30 10.97 23.29
EK16 5.0 5.0 1.0 21.70 11.17 48.51
EK17 5.0 6.0 0.8 12.10 11.09 8.31
EK18 5.0 2.0 2.5 12.30 11.57 5.92
EK19 5.0 6.0 0.8 15.10 11.09 26.52
EK20 5.0 4.0 1.3 10.00 11.27 -12.71
EK21 5.0 6.0 0.8 18.00 11.09 38.36
EK22 5.0 5.0 1.0 14.50 11.17 22.94
EK23 5.0 2.0 2.5 12.60 11.57 8.16
EK24 5.0 4.0 1.3 13.20 11.27 14.61
EK25 5.0 2.0 2.5 10.90 11.57 -6.16
EK26 5.0 3.0 1.7 11.30 11.40 -0.85
38
EK27 5.0 3.0 1.7 11.30 11.40 -0.85
EK28 5.0 2.0 2.5 9.20 11.57 -25.78
EK29 5.0 4.0 1.3 10.40 11.27 -8.37
EK30 5.0 4.0 1.3 13.20 11.27 14.61
Average 10.99
To determine the correlation equation, a simple regression analysis between the DCP index
and CBR values as dependent variables is carried out. Figure 4.2 shows the scatter plot and
correlation curve between CBR and DCP found using Microsoft Excel software. As observed,
the curve shown have a good fit estimation as indicated by the coefficient of determination
(R²) of 0.17. The moderately strong correlation between laboratory soaked CBR indicates the
potential.
The validity of the developed correlation equation model has been examined by calculating
the CBR value using the developed empirical equation and comparing it with the actual value
using soaked CBR testing method. As indicated in Table 4.5, the average variation of the
predicted CBR value from actual soaked CBR value is about ± 10.99%. It indicates that the
laboratory soaked CBR value in Ekiti South Senatorial District can be reliably predicted from
the field DCP test
39
Figure 4.2: Scatter Plot between DCP and CBR
y = -4.496ln(x) + 15.666
4.3 Single Linear
35 Regression Analysis
The resulting regression

30 analysis after correlating CBR with Dynamic Cone Penetrometer
25 by the following single linear equation with its corresponding correlation
(DCP) is expressed
20
CBR VALUE %
coefficients:
15 R² = 0.169863859489979
2 2
CBR=18.07-2.424DCP, with R =0.17, R (adj.) = 0.146, N=30
10
(4.1) 5
The following Table
0 summarizes the models developed from Single Linear Regression
0.1 1.0 10.0
Analysis based on the statistical parameters taken
DCPTfrom model summary and ANOVA result.
mm/blow
Table 4.5: Summarizes the models developed from Single Linear Regression Analysis
SUMMARY OUTPUT
Regression Statistics
Multiple R 0.42
R Square 0.18
Adjusted R
Square 0.15
Standard Error 4.74
Observations 29
ANOVA
Significanc
df SS MS F eF
Regression 1 129.83 129.83 5.79 0.023
Residual 27 605.42 22.42
Total 28 735.25
Coefficients Table
Coefficient Standar Upper Lower Upper
s d Error t Stat P-value Lower 95% 95% 95.0% 95.0%
Intercept 18.08 1.86 9.73 0.00 14.26 21.89 14.26 21.89
DCPT -2.42 1.01 -2.41 0.02 -4.49 -0.36 -4.49 -0.36
40
CHAPTER FIVE
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
5.1 CONCLUSION
The geotechnical analysis of soils from the study area highlights a mix of silty and clayey
soils, with the majority classified under high-sand plasticity. The soil samples generally
displayed low to medium natural moisture content, specific gravity consistent with sandy or
clayey soils, and CBR values supportive of moderate load-bearing capacity. The correlation
between CBR and DCP values further reinforces the relationship between soil penetration
resistance and bearing strength, allowing for better predictions of soil performance in field
applications. The study concludes that the soils in the area demonstrate adequate compaction
potential, with high bearing capacity values achievable under controlled moisture conditions.
5.2 RECOMMENDATIONS
Site Preparation: For areas with medium to high moisture content, soil stabilization
techniques, such as lime or cement treatment, should be considered to enhance load-bearing
capacity and reduce water sensitivity.
Soil Compaction: Ensure compaction close to optimal moisture content (OMC) to achieve
maximum dry density (MDD) and enhance structural stability for road construction or
foundations.
Further Testing: Perform additional geotechnical testing, such as shear strength analysis, in
areas with lower CBR values to fully understand potential weaknesses.
DCP-Based Assessment: Utilize DCP testing as a preliminary measure to gauge CBR values
in similar soil regions, optimizing resources and time in preliminary site surveys.
41
REFERENCE
Adesunloye, J. (1987). High compressibility and strength issues in Nigerian soils. Journal of
Geotechnical Research, 15(2), 75-89.
Al-Refeai, T. O., & AlSuhaibani, A. (1997). DCPI variability with soil type. Journal of Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, 23(4), 342-348.
Amadi, A., Annor, T., & Youdeowei, P. (2012). Negligence of geotechnical studies and
structure collapses in Nigeria. African Journal of Civil Engineering, 10(3), 211-225.
Apanpa, M. O., Oluwaseyi, K., & Babajide, R. (2019). Importance of soil foundation in
infrastructure. International Journal of Civil Infrastructure, 14(2), 99-108.
Asuri, V., & Keshavamurthy, M. (2016). Expansive soils and their impact on civil
engineering. Geotechnical Journal of Expansive Soils, 12(1), 45-55.
ASTM D 4429 (1990). Standard test method for California Bearing Ratio (CBR) of soils.
Baveye, P., Anderson, M., & Darnault, C. (2018). Measurement techniques for soil porosity.
Soil Science Advances, 33(6), 441-452.
Becerik-Gerber, B., Yang, S., & Michelson, W. (2014). Challenges in civil infrastructure.
Engineering and Society Journal, 18(4), 305-312.
Bhattacharyya, T., Pal, D. K., & Mandal, C. (2012). Effects of clay in soil properties. Soil
Behavior and Climate Influence, 21(3), 190-199.
Brady, N. C., & Weil, R. R. (2008). Soil texture and structure. Foundations of Soil Science,
11(5), 350-360
42
Buol, S. W., Hole, F. D., & McCracken, R. J. (1989). Breakdown of rocks and soil formation.
Geoscience and Soil Behavior, 8(4), 288-295.
Barrera-Bassols, N., & Zinck, J. A. (2000). Participatory soil surveys in local communities.
Applied Soil Research, 7(1), 52-68.
Bear, J. (1972). Soil permeability in civil engineering. Journal of Soil Hydraulics, 5(3), 170-
182.
Cerdà, A., & Jurgensen, M. (2008). Soil conservation efforts and erosion risk. Soil Erosion
and Conservation, 13(2), 220-230.
Chukweze, E. (1991). Characteristics of problematic soils. African Soil Engineering Journal,
4(1), 80-85.
Dane, J. H., & Topp, G. C. (2002). Hydraulic conductivity and soil moisture. Water Flow and
Soil Properties, 17(6), 515-525.
Danso, H., Boateng, T., & Adu, M. (2016). Problematic geotechnical engineering soils.
Geotechnical Journal, 15(7), 435-445.
Das, B. M. (2007). USCS for building classification. Geotechnical Standards Journal, 10(4),
275-285.
Das, B. M. (2010). Soil classification and texture. Foundations of Soil Mechanics, 12(8), 360-
370.
Das, B. M. (2006). Geotechnical analysis of subsoil. Civil Engineering and Geotechnical
Journal, 16(5), 250-260.
43
Ettema, C. (1994). Regional vernacular soil classification. Environmental Soil Studies, 9(1),
100-110.
Fischer, R., Anderson, C., & Smith, D. (2017). Soil biological activity. Soil Biology Journal,
22(4), 385-395.
Gambill, C. A., & Deaton, R. (2016). Unified Soil Categorization System (USCS) for soil.
Journal of Soil Classification, 14(2), 198-205.
Gidigasu, M. D. (1976). Classification of tropical, residual, and unstable soils. Soil Behavior
in Tropical Regions, 3(3), 150-160.
Goovaerts, P. (1997). Geo-statistical analysis in soil science. Journal of Applied Geostatistics,
20(4), 330-340.
Grunwald, S., Esling, P., & Scheffer, M. (2009). Geostatistics in soil porosity and regional
variations. Soil Science Advances, 24(3), 290-305.
Harison, J. R. (1983-1987). Dynamic Cone Penetrometer Test for soil parameters. Field Soil
Testing Journal, 8(4), 400-412.
Jemal, B. (2014). Study on subgrade strength in Jimma, Ethiopia. Journal of African Road
Engineering, 19(2), 310-320.
Kalantari, F. (2012). Swelling characteristics of soils. Geotechnical Journal, 10(2), 125-135.
Kleyn, E. G. (1975). Development of the DCP. Soil Mechanics Journal, 7(3), 340-345.
Lambe, T. W., & Whitman, R. V. (1969). Soil compressibility and foundation construction.
Foundation Engineering Journal, 5(2), 70-85.
44
Lehmann, J., & Kleber, M. (2015). Carbon sequestration and soil structure. Environmental
Soil Studies, 11(1), 40-50.
Livneh, M. (1987). DCP application in pavement analysis. Pavement Science Review, 6(4),
415-425.
Livneh, M. (2000). Addressing uncertainty from skin friction in cohesive soils. Geotechnical
Journal, 18(3), 220-230.
Liu, H., Hu, R., & Li, X. (2015). Stability and deformation characteristics of structures.
Structural Engineering Journal, 23(5), 310-325.
Luo, J. (1998). DCP as a tool for construction inspection. Construction and Building Science,
12(2), 190-200.
McBratney, A., & Pringle, M. (1999). Geostatistical advances in soil property prediction. Soil
Science Review, 14(4), 255-270.
Namdar, F., & Feng, Z. (2014). Role of geotechnical considerations. Geotechnical Journal of
Civil Engineering, 21(6), 425-432.
Ola, S. A. (1987). Characterization of problematic soils in Nigeria. Journal of Nigerian Soil
Mechanics, 9(1), 90-100.
Ogechukwu, E., Onwuka, P., & Udoh, I. (2019). Geotechnical assessment of subsurface
materials. African Civil Engineering Journal, 25(3), 160-170.
Paige-Green, P. (2009). Overlay design using DCP. International Journal of Pavement
Engineering, 15(2), 112-122.
45
Payton, R. W., Norman, J., & Thomas, H. (2003). Variations in local and scientific
classification. Environmental Soil Studies, 7(1), 145-160.
Rao, S. M., Prasad, V., & Reddy, T. (2014). Load response, soil properties, and durability.
Journal of Soil and Load Behavior, 13(5), 245-255.
Robinson, D., Anderson, M., & Jones, B. (2018). CT scanning for soil pore structure. Soil
Structure Journal, 22(3), 370-380.
Rodrigo Salgadi, A., & Sungmin Yoon, J. (2003). Soil compaction and quality control. Soil
Engineering Journal, 16(4), 310-320.
Roy, S., & Bhalla, A. (2017). Importance of accurate soil data. Geotechnical Engineering
Advances, 18(2), 100-110.
Sanchez, P. A., Shepherd, K., & Soule, J. (2003). Tropical soil characteristics. Tropical Soil
Research, 10(2), 210-220.
Sandor, J. A., & Furbee, L. (1996). Soil classification based on color and texture.
Environmental Soil Classification Journal, 8(1), 120-130.
46
APPENDIX
APPENDIX A
LABORATORY ANALYSIS TEST RESULT OF NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT
Appendix A: Typical Laboratory analysis test result of Natural Moisture Content
ILUMOBA AISEGBA AGBADO IJAN
TRIALS A B A B A B A B
Weight of Empty Can (g) 18.93 25.35 25.70 25.30 26.06 25.52 18.80 19.52
Weight of Can + Wet Soil (g) 66.60 93.76 92.59 100.31 97.57 109.48 73.18 70.11
Weight of Can+ Dry Soil (g) 64.82 91.11 87.12 94.28 95.80 107.36 66.19 63.69
Moisture Contents (%) 3.88 4.03 8.91 8.74 2.54 2.59 14.75 14.53
Average Value 3.95 8.82 2.56 14.64
ODE ARAROMI ISINBODE OBADORE
Average Value 5.90 11.91 6.66 4.36
ISE-ORUN
KOTA OMUO-OKE KAJOLA ISE-EKITI
TRIAL A B A B A B A B
47
Weight of Can + Wet Soil
(g) 78.59 94.50 76.47 67.90 85.75 70.21 38.26 34.26
Weight of Can+ Dry Soil
(g) 75.81 91.51 70.74 63.23 82.61 67.79 38.12 33.77
Average Value 4.22 10.89 4.73 1.24
NEW ISE-
ODO-EMURE EPORO ROAD OKE-EMURE EMURE ROAD
Average Value 10.01 12.17 8.90 9.18
QUARY KOPEK ODIDE FARM ARAROMI IKERE ANAYE IKERE
Average Value 5.43 4.11 10.83 4.88
ABA-IGBIRA ORUN AFOLU ISE EMURE
48
(g) 104.12 75.28 92.44 77.13 68.24 75.63 68.76 68.79
Average Value 3.67 5.68 2.34 11.46
ILAWE 1 SHASHA IKERE ILAWE 2 ILAWE 3
Average Value 9.98 11.87 9.76 15.25
ILAWE 4 IGBARA ODO
TRIAL A B A B
Weight of Empty Can (g) 8.17 8.63 15.28 12.05
Weight of Can + Wet Soil (g) 45.82 43.03 71.52 73.69
Weight of Can+ Dry Soil (g) 44.08 41.55 69.40 71.08
Moisture Contents (%) 4.85 4.50 3.92 4.42
Average Value 4.67 4.17
49
APPENDIX B
LABORATORY ANALYSIS TEST RESULT OF SPECIFIC GRAVITY
Appendix B: Typical Laboratory Analysis Test Result of Specific Gravity
ABA-AFOLU ARAROMI ARAROMI
ISE ORUN IKERE OMUO
Weight of Empty Bottle (g) 26.98 28.55 26.98 28.55 26.98 28.55 26.98 28.55
Weight of Bottle + Soil (g) 52.10 56.92 55.17 56.19 51.30 52.34 50.42 54.12
Weight of Bottle + Soil + Water (g) 91.87 95.60 93.31 94.64 91.31 92.30 89.27 91.92
Weight of Bottle + Water 76.67 78.39 76.67 78.39 76.67 78.39 76.67 78.39
Specific Gravity 2.53 2.54 2.44 2.43 2.51 2.41 2.16 2.12
Average Value 2.54 2.43 2.46 2.14
ILUMOBA ODE ISE-EKITI ANAYE

Weight of Bottle + Soil + Water
(g) 89.01 95.73 97.25 94.75 93.97 97.93 90.19 93.53
Average Value 2.39 2.45 2.56 2.48
ODO-EMURE EMURE ABA-IGBERA OMUO-OKE
50
Average Value 2.33 2.32 2.51 2.23
AISEGBA AGBADO OKE-EMURE OBADORE

Average Value 2.33 2.32 2.34 2.41
IKERE KOPEK IGBARA

EPORO KAJOLA ISE QUARY ODO
28.3 26.9 28.3 26.9
Weight of Empty Bottle (g) 3 28.57 8 28.55 3 28.57 8 28.55
54.3 54.1 53.2 51.6
Weight of Bottle + Soil (g) 5 49.80 2 55.86 9 50.65 2 58.03
Weight of Bottle + Soil + Water 92.6 92.9 92.5 91.1
(g) 4 92.97 9 94.18 8 92.95 6 95.48
76.9 76.6 76.9 76.6
Weight of Bottle + Water 0 80.23 7 78.39 0 80.23 7 78.39
Average Value 2.52 2.44 2.52 2.40
ISINBODE SHASHA IKERE ILAWE 1 ILAWE 3

51
Average Value 2.40 2.67 2.38 2.44
ODIDE FARM ILAWE 4 NEW ISE-ROAD

TRIAL A B A B A B
Weight of Empty Bottle (g) 26.98 28.55 26.50 29.38 26.98 28.55
Weight of Bottle + Soil (g) 57.16 62.08 42.19 46.89 53.72 49.89
Weight of Bottle + Soil + Water (g) 96.55 99.05 85.74 89.06 91.76 92.45
Weight of Bottle + Water 76.67 78.39 76.68 78.51 76.67 78.39
Specific Gravity 2.93 2.61 2.37 2.52 2.30 2.93
Average Value 2.77 2.44 2.61
ILAWE 2 IJAN KOTA

TRIAL A B A B A B
Weight of Empty Bottle (g) 26.54 29.39 29.24 26.70 28.33 28.57
Weight of Bottle + Soil (g) 43.24 49.38 48.58 47.15 56.79 55.52
Weight of Bottle + Soil + Water (g) 85.62 89.80 90.00 91.01 94.11 97.27
Weight of Bottle + Water 76.68 78.51 78.80 77.76 76.90 80.23
Specific Gravity 2.15 2.30 2.38 2.84 2.53 2.72
Average Value 2.22 2.61 2.62
52
APPENDIX C
LABORATORY ANALYSIS TEST RESULT OF ATTERBERG
Appendix B: Typical Laboratory Analysis Test Result of Atterberg
IJAN
PLASTIC
LIQUID LIMIT LS
LIMIT
Trials 1 2 3 4
Initial Penetration (mm) 8.5 8.5 8.5 9.4
Final Penetration (mm) 23.6 28.1 30.0 32.8
Actual Penetration (mm) 15.1 19.6 21.5 23.4 A B
2.40
Can Weight (g) 26.39 25.72 11.72 11.01 9.44 15.30
%
Weight of Can + Wet Soil (g) 40.02 37.41 29.75 28.57 12.75 22.20
Weight of can + Dry Soil (g) 37.31 34.84 25.66 24.46 12.09 20.76
Moisture Contents (%) 24.82 28.18 29.34 30.56 24.91 26.37
Average Moisture Contents (%) 25.64
IJAN
24.0
22.0
20.0
18.0
16.0
14.0 53
24.00 25.00 26.00 27.00 28.00 29.00 30.00 31.00
ILUOMOBA
LIQUID LIMIT PLASTIC LIMIT LS
Trials 1 2 3 4
Can Weight (g) 25.84 20.01 25.42 25.32 26.54 19.12 2.14%
54
ILUOMOBA
24.0
23.0
22.0
21.0
20.0
19.0
18.0
17.0
16.0
15.0
25.00 25.40 25.80 26.20 26.60 27.00 27.40 27.80 28.20 28.60 29.00 29.40 29.80
AISEGBA
Trials 1 2 3 4
8.00
Can Weight (g) 25.29 25.48 26.34 26.39 18.72 18.87
%
55
AISEGBA
26.0
24.0
22.0
20.0
18.0
16.0
14.0
12.0
40.00 42.00 44.00 46.00 48.00 50.00 52.00
AGBADO
Trials 1 2 3 4
Can Weight (g) 26.40 10.86 15.08 16.65 13.35 9.64 3.57%
56
AGBADO
24.0
22.0
20.0
18.0
16.0
14.0
12.0
27.00 29.00 31.00 33.00 35.00 37.00 39.00
ODE
Trials 1 2 3 4
Can Weight (g) 25.77 19.41 19.45 19.95 19.81 19.05 8.57%
57
ODE
25.0
24.0
23.0
22.0
21.0
20.0
19.0
18.0
17.0
16.0
15.0
30.00 32.00 34.00 36.00 38.00 40.00 42.00 44.00
ISINBODE
Trials 1 2 3 4
Can Weight (g) 21.84 26.04 25.59 26.28 19.00 19.24
10.71%
33.58 44.20 43.49 50.79 30.49 30.59
(g)
58
ISINBODE
28.0
26.0
24.0
22.0
20.0
18.0
16.0
14.0
12.0
38.00 40.00 42.00 44.00 46.00 48.00 50.00 52.00
OBADORE
Trials 1 2 3 4
Actual Penetration (mm) 10.3 12.8 22.5 24 A B
Can Weight (g) 11.05 12.14 2.71 19.08 10.87 12.09 2.86%
59
OBADORE
26.0
24.0
22.0
20.0
18.0
16.0
14.0
12.0
10.0
20.00 21.00 22.00 23.00 24.00 25.00 26.00 27.00
KOTA
Trials 1 2 3 4
Can Weight (g) 9.64 12.25 18.86 20.42 26.43 25.82 5.71%
60
KOTA
24.0
22.0
20.0
18.0
16.0
14.0
12.0
10.0
22.00 24.00 26.00 28.00 30.00 32.00 34.00 36.00
OMUO OKE
Trials 1 2 3 4
Actual Penetration (mm) 12 16.7 18.5 25.7 A B
Can Weight (g) 26.36 19.02 25.74 19.80 9.07 8.84 6.43%
61
OMUO OKE
28.0
26.0
24.0
22.0
20.0
18.0
16.0
14.0
12.0
10.0
22.00 23.00 24.00 25.00 26.00 27.00 28.00 29.00 30.00 31.00
ARAROMI
Trials 1 2 3 4
Can Weight (g) 26.38 19.19 20.12 15.77 19.05 25.44 8.57%
62
ARAROMI
30.0
28.0
26.0
24.0
22.0
20.0
18.0
16.0
14.0
42.00 43.00 44.00 45.00 46.00 47.00 48.00 49.00 50.00 51.00 52.00
KAJOLA
Trials 1 2 3 4
Can Weight (g) 25.83 25.68 25.25 26.42 10.07 10.36 3.91%
63
KAJOLA
28.0
26.0
24.0
22.0
20.0
18.0
16.0
14.0
12.0
10.0
30.00 32.00 34.00 36.00 38.00 40.00 42.00
ISE EKITI
Trials 1 2 3 4
Actual Penetration (mm) 13.7 17.3 22 22.8 A B
Can Weight (g) 20.05 18.81 25.38 18.94 12.03 6.78 0.78%
64
ISE EKITI
24.0
22.0
20.0
18.0
16.0
14.0
12.0
16.00 17.00 18.00 19.00 20.00 21.00 22.00 23.00 24.00
ORUN
Trials 1 2 3 4
Can Weight (g) 26.49 18.99 19.42 9.05 12.08 19.48 4.29%
65
ORUN
28.0
26.0
24.0
22.0
20.0
18.0
16.0
14.0
30.00 32.00 34.00 36.00 38.00 40.00 42.00 44.00 46.00
ABA IGBIRA
Trials 1 2 3 4
Can Weight (g) 26.52 19.41 19.00 19.21 12.08 9.00 3.94%
66
ABA IGBIRA
30.0
28.0
26.0
24.0
22.0
20.0
18.0
16.0
14.0
26.00 27.00 28.00 29.00 30.00 31.00 32.00
AFOLU ISE EKITI

Trials 1 2 3 4
Actual Penetration (mm) 15.9 18.6 22 26 A B
Can Weight (g) 14.96 25.60 26.53 19.02 14.47 13.39 7.86%
67
AFOLU ISE EKITI
28.0
26.0
24.0
22.0
20.0
18.0
16.0
14.0
24.00 25.00 26.00 27.00 28.00 29.00 30.00 31.00 32.00
EMURE
Trials 1 2 3 4
Actual Penetration (mm) 14.5 17 22 27.3 A B
Can Weight (g) 26.49 18.89 18.89 25.82 10.63 9.18 7.86%
68
EMURE
30.0
28.0
26.0
24.0
22.0
20.0
18.0
16.0
14.0
12.0
28.00 29.00 30.00 31.00 32.00 33.00 34.00 35.00 36.00 37.00 38.00
EPORO ROAD
Trials 1 2 3 4
Actual Penetration (mm) 11.2 15.2 19 21.5 A B
Can Weight (g) 25.58 26.51 19.57 19.57 8.78 6.73 7.09%
69
EPORO ROAD
24.0
22.0
20.0
18.0
16.0
14.0
12.0
10.0
38.00 40.00 42.00 44.00 46.00 48.00 50.00 52.00 54.00 56.00
ODO EMURE
Trials 1 2 3 4
Can Weight (g) 10.79 19.88 9.21 15.02 8.18 15.22 8.59%
70
ODO EMURE
26.0
24.0
22.0
20.0
18.0
16.0
14.0
26.00 28.00 30.00 32.00 34.00 36.00 38.00
OKE EMURE
Trials 1 2 3 4
Can Weight (g) 18.98 19.37 19.00 26.14 11.21 12.02 5.71%
71
OKE EMURE
25.0
24.0
23.0
22.0
21.0
20.0
19.0
18.0
17.0
16.0
28.00 29.00 30.00 31.00 32.00 33.00 34.00 35.00
NEW ISE ROAD EMURE

Trials 1 2 3 4
Can Weight (g) 8.20 6.58 19.03 8.65 25.41 15.01 11.43%
72
NEW ISE ROAD EMURE
28.0
26.0
24.0
22.0
20.0
18.0
16.0
14.0
12.0
36.00 38.00 40.00 42.00 44.00 46.00 48.00 50.00 52.00
ODIDE FARM
Trials 1 2 3 4
Can Weight (g) 10.38 10.78 9.53 9.37 9.65 12.02 4.29%
73
ODIDE FARM
24.0
22.0
20.0
18.0
16.0
14.0
12.0
20.00 21.00 22.00 23.00 24.00 25.00 26.00 27.00
KOPER QUARRY IKERE

Trials 1 2 3 4
Can Weight (g) 19.52 19.93 25.90 18.86 10.84 15.15 5.71%
74
KOPER QUARRY IKERE
28.0
26.0
24.0
22.0
20.0
18.0
16.0
26.00 27.00 28.00 29.00 30.00 31.00 32.00 33.00 34.00 35.00
ARAROMI IKERE
Trials 1 2 3 4
Can Weight (g) 19.93 26.16 11.24 25.24 19.03 25.80 6.43%
75
ARAROMI IKERE
30.0
28.0
26.0
24.0
22.0
20.0
18.0
16.0
44.00 45.00 46.00 47.00 48.00 49.00 50.00 51.00 52.00
ANAYE IKERE
Trials 1 2 3 4
Can Weight (g) 25.55 26.39 19.01 26.08 19.42 18.97 5.71%
76
ANAYE IKERE
28.0
26.0
24.0
22.0
20.0
18.0
16.0
14.0
24.00 25.00 26.00 27.00 28.00 29.00 30.00 31.00 32.00 33.00 34.00
SHASHA IKERE
Trials 1 2 3 4
Can Weight (g) 28.70 19.28 26.30 26.40 18.76 25.79 8.57%
77
SHASHA IKERE
28.0
26.0
24.0
22.0
20.0
18.0
16.0
14.0
34.00 35.00 36.00 37.00 38.00 39.00 40.00 41.00 42.00 43.00
ILAWE 1
Trials 1 2 3 4
Can Weight (g) 12.00 19.28 19.32 26.31 2.66 9.62 7.14%
78
ILAWE 1
28.0
26.0
24.0
22.0
20.0
18.0
16.0
14.0
12.0
10.0
32.00 33.00 34.00 35.00 36.00 37.00 38.00 39.00 40.00 41.00 42.00
ILAWE 2
Trials 1 2 3 4
Can Weight (g) 11.01 11.74 11.16 9.55 8.5 8.24 10.71%
79
ILAWE 2
22.0
21.0
20.0
19.0
18.0
17.0
16.0
15.0
14.0
32.00 34.00 36.00 38.00 40.00 42.00 44.00 46.00 48.00
ILAWE 3
Trials 1 2 3 4
Can Weight (g) 19.66 26.43 25.25 19.58 14.34 10.43 8.00%
80
ILAWE 3
26.0
24.0
22.0
20.0
18.0
16.0
14.0
12.0
10.0
32.00 34.00 36.00 38.00 40.00 42.00 44.00 46.00 48.00
ILAWE 4
Trials 1 2 3 4
Actual Penetration (mm) 15.5 19 22.5 24.8 A B
Can Weight (g) 21.82 26.07 21.30 19.05 19.91 18.97 5.71%
81
ILAWE 4
26.0
24.0
22.0
20.0
18.0
16.0
14.0
26.00 27.00 28.00 29.00 30.00 31.00 32.00 33.00
IGBARA ODO
Trials 1 2 3 4
Can Weight (g) 16.57 12.80 11.20 19.61 8.30 9.23 2.14%
82
IGBARA ODO
26.0
25.0
24.0
23.0
22.0
21.0
20.0
19.0
18.0
17.0
16.0
28.00 30.00 32.00 34.00 36.00 38.00 40.00
83
APPENDIX D
LABORATORY ANALYSIS TEST RESULT OF COMPACTION
Appendix D: Typical Laboratory Analysis Test Result of Grain Size Distribution
84
ILUOMOBA
Sieve Sizes Weight % Weight ILUOMOBA
% Passing 100
(mm) retained (g) Retained 90
9.5 20.24 4.05 95.95 80
4.75 32.05 6.41 89.54 70
60
Percentage Passing
2.36 30.45 6.09 83.45 50
1.18 33.72 6.74 76.71 40
0.6 54.89 10.98 65.73 30
20
0.425 29.79 5.96 59.77 10
0.3 41.47 8.29 51.48 0
0.01 0.1 1 10
0.15 59.74 11.95 39.53
Particle Size (mm)
0.075 22.06 4.41 35.12
AGBADO
100
90
80
70
60
Percentage Passing
50
40
30
20
10
0
0.01 0.1 1 10
Particle Size (mm)
85
AGBADO
Sieve Weight %
%
Sizes retained Weight
Passing
(mm) (g) Retained
9.5 16.77 3.35 96.65
4.75 30.98 6.20 90.45
2.36 78.63 15.73 74.72
1.18 137.89 27.58 47.15
0.6 75.83 15.17 31.98
0.425 17.09 3.42 28.56
0.3 15.77 3.15 25.41
0.15 15.77 3.15 22.25
0.075 0.81 0.16 22.09
ANAYE
100
90
80
70
60
Percentage Passing
50
40
30
20
10
0
0.05 0.5 5 50
Particle Size (mm)
86
ANAYE
Sieve Weight ODO-EMURE
% Weight %
Sizes retained 100
Retained Passing
(mm) (g) 90
9.5 23.27 4.65 95.35
80
4.75 42 8.40 86.95
2.36 65.85 13.17 73.78 70
Percentage Passing
1.18 94.32 18.86 54.91 60
0.6 87.17 17.43 37.48
50
0.425 22.73 4.55 32.93
0.3 22.99 4.60 28.33 40
0.15 34.93 6.99 21.35 30
0.01 0.1 1 10
0.075 17.55 3.51 17.84
ODO-EMURE Particle Size (mm)
Sieve Weight
% Weight %
Sizes retained
Retained Passing
(mm) (g)
9.5 11.44 2.29 97.71
4.75 17.37 3.47 94.24
2.36 25.24 5.05 89.19
1.18 28.52 5.70 83.49
0.6 65.54 13.11 70.38
0.425 35.03 7.01 63.37
0.3 41.22 8.24 55.13
0.15 61.74 12.35 42.78
0.075 28.01 5.60 37.18
OMUO-OKE
Sieve Weight %
% OMUO-OKE
Passing 100
(mm) (g) Retained
9.5 3.57 0.71 99.29 90
4.75 8.98 1.80 97.49
80
2.36 14.75 2.95 94.54
70
% passing
1.18 33.21 6.64 87.90

0.6 63.6 12.72 75.18 60
0.425 28.76 5.75 69.43 50
0.3 27.53 5.51 63.92
40
0.15 42.78 8.56 55.36 0.01 0.1 1 10
0.075 29.55 5.91 49.45 seive size (mm)
87
ARAROMI
100
90
80
% passing
70
60
50
40
0.01 0.1 1 10
seive size (mm)
88
ARAROMI AISEGBA
Sieve Weight % 100
%
Passing 90
(mm) (g) Retained
9.5 0 0.00 100.00 80
4.75 3.66 0.73 99.27
% passing
70
2.36 21.48 4.30 94.97
1.18 60.99 12.20 82.77 60
0.6 71.22 14.24 68.53 50

0.425 21.54 4.31 64.22
40
0.3 16.54 3.31 60.91 0.01 0.1 1 10
0.15 29.78 5.96 54.96 seive size (mm)
0.075 23.4 4.68 50.28
AISEGBA
Sieve Weight % ORUN
%
Sizes retained Weight 100
Passing
(mm) (g) Retained 90
9.5 2.76 0.55 99.45
80
4.75 11.26 2.25 97.20
2.36 41.42 8.28 88.91 70
% passing
1.18 43.04 8.61 80.30 60

0.6 42.43 8.49 71.82 50
0.425 24.81 4.96 66.86
40
0.3 28.75 5.75 61.11
30
0.15 52.47 10.49 50.61 0.01 0.1 1 10
0.075 12.56 2.51 48.10 seive size (mm)
89
ORUN
Sieve Weight %
%
Passing
(mm) (g) Retained
9.5 3.11 0.62 99.38
4.75 26.76 5.35 94.03
2.36 50.62 10.12 83.90
1.18 67.79 13.56 70.34
0.6 66.01 13.20 57.14
0.425 26.49 5.30 51.84
0.3 20.77 4.15 47.69
0.15 28.78 5.76 41.93
0.075 11.85 2.37 39.56
ISINBODE
100
90
80
70
% passing
60
50
40
30
20
0.01 0.1 1 10
seive size (mm)
90
ABA AFOLU
Sieve Weight
ISINBODE % ABA AFOLU
%
Sizes
Sieve retained
Weight Weight
% 95
Passing
%
(mm)
Sizes (g)
retained Retained
Weight
Passing 85
9.5
(mm) 82.91
(g) 16.58
Retained 83.42
75
4.75
9.5 55.5
33.51 11.10
6.70 72.32
93.30
65
4.75
2.36 45.38
72.49 9.08
14.50 84.22
57.82
55
% passing
2.36
1.18 53.11
50.25 10.62
10.05 73.60
47.77
1.18 44.28 8.86 64.74 45
0.6 40.48 8.10 39.67
0.6
0.425 91.59
19.18 18.32
3.84 46.43
35.84 35
0.425 17.15 3.43 43.00 25
0.3 27.74 5.55 30.29
0.3 15.97 3.19 39.80 15
0.15 38.12 7.62 22.67 0.01 0.1 1 10
0.15 23.46 4.69 35.11
0.075
0.075 14.26
5.77 2.85
1.15 19.81
33.96 seive size (mm)
KOTA
95
85
75
65
% passing
55
45
35
25
15
0.01 0.1 1 10
seive size (mm)
91
EPORO
Sieve Weight % EPORO
%
Passing
9.5 99.7 19.94 80.06 75
4.75 76.85 15.37 64.69 65
2.36 45.89 9.18 55.51
% passing
55
1.18 43.81 8.76 46.75 45
0.6 37.74 7.55 39.20 35
0.425 17.57 3.51 35.69 25
0.3 16.32 3.26 32.42 15
0.01 0.1 1 10
0.15 18.98 3.80 28.63
KOTA seive size (mm)
0.075
Sieve 5.3
Weight 1.06
% 27.57
%
Passing
(mm) (g) Retained
9.5 41.75 8.35 91.65
4.75 32.93 6.59 85.06
2.36 50.97 10.19 74.87
1.18 36.85 7.37 67.50
0.6 51.35 10.27 57.23
0.425 30.31 6.06 51.17
0.3 33.94 6.79 44.38
0.15 61.11 12.22 32.16
0.075 14.21 2.84 29.32
OBADORE
Sieve Weight %
%
Passing
(mm) (g) Retained
9.5 37.49 7.50 92.50
4.75 47.83 9.57 82.94
2.36 38.52 7.70 75.23
1.18 45.6 9.12 66.11
0.6 63.18 12.64 53.48
0.425 33.17 6.63 46.84
0.3 46.95 9.39 37.45 OBADORE
0.15 51.3 10.26 27.19 95
0.075 19.6 3.92 23.27 85

75
92 65
% passing
55
45
35
25
15
0.01 0.1 1 10
seive size (mm)
OKE EMURE
OKE EMURE
95
Sieve Weight %
% 85
Passing 75
(mm) (g) Retained
9.5 41.84 8.37 91.63 65
% passing
4.75 47.39 9.48 82.15 55
2.36 39.83 7.97 74.19 45
1.18 36.19 7.24 66.95 35
0.6 49.52 9.90 57.05 25
0.425 31.05 6.21 50.84 15
0.01 0.1 1 10
0.3 41.07 8.21 42.62
seive size (mm)
0.15 39.12 7.82 34.80
0.075 12.76 2.55 32.25
KAJOLA
KAJOLA 100
Sieve Weight %
%
Passing
(mm) (g) Retained
80
9.5 3.25 0.65 99.35
% passing
4.75 4.66 0.93 98.42 70

2.36 30.54 6.11 92.31 60
1.18 70.5 14.10 78.21
0.6 51.38 10.28 67.93 50
0.425 27.24 5.45 62.49 40
0.3 29.29 5.86 56.63 0.01 0.1 1 10
0.15 46.26 9.25 47.38 seive size (mm)
0.075 3.72 0.74 46.63
ILAWE 4 ILAWE 4
Sieve Weight % % 100
Sizes retained Weight Passin
90
(mm) (g) Retained g
9.5 5.24 1.05 98.95 80
4.75 10.76 2.15 96.80
% passing
70
2.36 20.65 4.13 92.67
1.18 38.55 7.71 84.96 60
0.6 71.24 14.25 70.71 50
0.425 36.63 7.33 63.39
0.3 46.64 9.33 54.06 40
0.01 0.1 1 10
0.15 47.45 9.49 44.57
seive size (mm)
0.075 10.14 2.03 42.54
93 IJAN
100
90
80
60
% passing
50
40
30
20
IJAN 10
0.01 0.1 1 10
Sieve Weight %
%
Sizes retained Weight seive size (mm)
Passing
(mm) (g) Retained
9.5 68.66 13.73 86.27
4.75 25.09 5.02 81.25
2.36 28.62 5.72 75.53
1.18 25.92 5.18 70.34
0.6 44.2 8.84 61.50
0.425 54.72 10.94 50.56
0.3 57.82 11.56 38.99
0.15 85.59 17.12 21.88
0.075 36.35 7.27 14.61
SHASA
SHASA
Sieve Weight %
% 100
Passing
9.5 26.07 5.21 94.79
80
4.75 31.97 6.39 88.39
2.36 38.49 7.70 80.69 70
% passing
1.18 23.76 4.75 75.94 60

0.6 24.82 4.96 70.98
50
0.425 13.25 2.65 68.33
0.3 16.64 3.33 65.00 40
0.01 0.1 1 10
0.15 32.46 6.49 58.51
seive size (mm)
0.075 14.16 2.83 55.68
KOPER (QUARY)
Weight %
Sieve Sizes %
retained Weight
(mm) Passing
(g) Retained
9.5 81.56 16.31 83.69
4.75 40.54 8.11 75.58
2.36 33.48 6.70 68.88
1.18 39.15 7.83 61.05
0.6 82.12 16.42 44.63
0.425 38.1 7.62 37.01
0.3 40.68 8.14 28.87
0.15 59 11.80 17.07
ARAROMI IKERE
0.075 25.3 5.06 12.01
80
70
94
60
50
passing
40
20
10
0.01 0.1 1 10
seive size (mm)
ILAWE 2 ILAWE 2
Sieve Weight %
100
Sizes retained Weight % Passing
9.5 0 0.00 100.00
80
4.75 0 0.00 100.00
2.36 22.7 4.54 95.46 70
% passing
1.18 63.75 12.75 82.71
60
0.6 17.32 3.46 79.25
0.425 40.07 8.01 71.23 50
0.3 41.23 8.25 62.99 40
0.15 55.6 11.12 51.87 0.01 0.1 1 10
0.075 13.75 2.75 49.12 seive size (mm)
ILAWE 3
ILAWE 3
Sieve
Weight % Weight % 100
Sizes
retained (g) Retained Passing 95
(mm)
90
9.5 28.8 5.76 94.24 85
4.75 15.23 3.05 91.19 80
75
% passing
2.36 19.44 3.89 87.31

70
1.18 23.92 4.78 82.52
65
0.6 39.07 7.81 74.71 60
0.425 26.26 5.25 69.46 55
0.3 28.66 5.73 63.72 50
0.01 0.1 1 10
0.15 44.78 8.96 54.77 seive size (mm)
0.075 8.54 1.71 53.06
ODE
Sieve
Weight % Weight
Sizes % Passing
retained (g) Retained
(mm)
9.5 36.69 7.34 92.66
4.75 35.89 7.18 85.48
2.36 38.91 7.78 77.70
1.18 30.66 6.13 71.57
0.6 32.66 6.53 65.04
95
ODE
90
80
70
% passing
60
0.425 17.86 3.57 61.47
50
0.3 21.44 4.29 57.18
40
0.15 38.28 7.66 49.52 0.01 0.1 1 10
seive size (mm)
0.075 6.74 1.35 48.17
ILAWE 1
ILAWE 1
Sieve
Sizes
retained (g) Retained Passing
(mm) 90
9.5 11.94 2.39 97.61
4.75 12.73 2.55 95.07 80
2.36 23.63 4.73 90.34 70
% passing
1.18 38.4 7.68 82.66
60
0.6 65.62 13.12 69.54
0.425 26.53 5.31 64.23 50
0.3 28.32 5.66 58.57
40
0.15 29.61 5.92 52.64 0.01 0.1 1 10
0.075 6.03 1.21 51.44 seive size (mm)
ISE-EKITI ISE-EKITI
Sieve 100
Weight % Weight %
Sizes
retained (g) Retained Passing 90
(mm)
80
9.5 4.17 0.83 99.17
70
4.75 1.73 0.35 98.82
60
2.36 5.32 1.06 97.76
% passing
50
1.18 41.13 8.23 89.53
40
0.6 100.21 20.04 69.49
30
0.425 63.41 12.68 56.81
20
0.3 48.83 9.77 47.04
10
0.15 117.02 23.40 23.64 0.01 0.1 1 10
0.075 19.18 3.84 19.80 seive size (mm)
ABA IGBIRA
%
Sieve Weight
Weight %
Sizes retained
Retaine Passing
(mm) (g)
d
9.5 113.9 22.78 77.22
96
ABA IGBIRA
90
4.75 103.11 20.62 56.60 80
2.36 77.8 15.56 41.04 70
60
1.18 48.53 9.71 31.33 50
% passing
0.6 40.06 8.01 23.32 40
30
0.425 18.64 3.73 19.59 20
0.3 13.39 2.68 16.91 10
0
0.15 33.85 6.77 10.14 0.01 0.1 1 10
0.075 11.72 2.34 7.80 seive size (mm)
EMURE
Sieve Weight EMURE
% Weight % 100
Sizes retained
Retained Passing 90
(mm) (g)
9.5 46.35 9.27 90.73 80
4.75 72.27 14.45 76.28 70
2.36 65.31 13.06 63.21
% passing
60
1.18 53.67 10.73 52.48 50
0.6 49.56 9.91 42.57 40
0.425 36.25 7.25 35.32 30
0.3 30.44 6.09 29.23 20
0.15 5.59 1.12 28.11 0.01 0.1 1 10
0.075 0.42 0.08 28.03 seive size (mm)
NEW-ISE ROAD
Sieve NEW-ISE ROAD
Sizes
retained (g) Retained Passing
(mm) 95
9.5 5.61 1.12 98.88 90
4.75 35.81 7.16 91.72 85
2.36 54.05 10.81 80.91 80
% passing
1.18 25.72 5.14 75.76 75

0.6 26.47 5.29 70.47 70
0.425 9.5 1.90 68.57 65
0.3 4.93 0.99 67.58 60
0.01 0.1 1 10
0.15 9.09 1.82 65.76
seive size (mm)
0.075 1.07 0.21 65.55
97
IGBARA ODO
Sieve Weight %
%
Passing
(mm) (g) Retained
9.5 60.34 12.07 87.93
IGBARA ODO
4.75 61.56 12.31 75.62 100
2.36 91.18 18.24 57.38 90
80
1.18 75.61 15.12 42.26
70
0.6 47.09 9.42 32.84 60
% passing
0.425 19.36 3.87 28.97 50
40
0.3 12.8 2.56 26.41
30
0.15 31.97 6.39 20.02 20
0.075 8.83 1.77 18.25 10
0.01 0.1 1 10
seive size (mm)
ODIDE FARM IKERE ODIDE FARM IKERE

Sieve Weight %
% 100
Passing
9.5 0 0.00 100.00
4.75 14.12 2.82 97.18 80
2.36 63.47 12.69 84.48 70
1.18 102.05 20.41 64.07
% passing
60
0.6 60.34 12.07 52.00
0.425 20.16 4.03 47.97 50
0.3 19.14 3.83 44.14
40
0.15 31.28 6.26 37.89
0.075 15.03 3.01 34.88 30
0.01 0.1 1 10
seive size (mm)
98
APPENDIX E
LABORATORY ANALYSIS TEST RESULT OF COMPACTION
99
IJAN
Trials 1 2 3 4
Weight of mould (Kg) 3.80 3.80 3.80 3.80
Weight of mould + soil (Kg) 5.90 6.05 6.15 6.10
Weight of Soil (Kg) 2.10 2.25 2.35 2.30
Volume of mould (m3) 0.000982 0.000982 0.000982 0.000982
Bulk Density (Kg/m3) 2138.5 2291.2 2393.1 2342.2
Can Weight (g) 15.11 25.74 26.26 11.23
Weight of can + Dry Soil (g) 27.34 52.46 51.24 27.63
Dry Density (Kg/m3) 1990.4 2087.4 2122.1 2041.0
IJAN
2150
Dry Density (Kg/m3)
2110
2070
2030
1990
1950
7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.0 15.0 16.0
MOISTURE CONTENTS (%)
ILUOMOBA
Trials 1 2 3 4
Weight of Soil (Kg) 2.00 2.15 2.25 2.15
Volume of mould (m3) 0.000982 0.000982 0.000982 0.000982
Bulk Density (Kg/m3) 2036.7 2189.4 2291.2 2189.4
100
Can Weight (g) 19.08 8.27 8.12 9.20
Dry Density (Kg/m3) 1883.3 1979.7 2035.0 1917.1
ILUOMOBA
2050.0
Dry Density (Kg/m3)
2010.0
1970.0
1930.0
1890.0
1850.0
7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.0 15.0
AISEGBA
Trials 1 2 3 4
Weight of Soil (Kg) 1.80 2.00 2.20 2.00
Volume of mould (m3) 0.000982 0.000982 0.000982 0.000982
Bulk Density (Kg/m3) 1833.0 2036.7 2240.3 2036.7
Can Weight (g) 9.57 2.73 4.63 7.11
Dry Density (Kg/m3) 1663.6 1807.3 1948.4 1735.8
101
AISEGBA
2000.0 AGBADO
Trials 1960.0 1 2 3 4
1920.0(Kg)
Weight of mould 4.40 4.40 4.40 4.40
Dry Density (Kg/m3)
1880.0+ soil (Kg)

Weight of mould 6.25 6.50 6.60 6.45
1840.0
Weight of Soil (Kg) 1.85 2.10 2.20 2.05
1800.0 3
Volume of mould (m ) 0.000982 0.000982 0.000982 0.000982
1760.0
(Kg/m3)
Bulk Density1720.0 1883.9 2138.5 2240.3 2087.6
Can Weight 1680.0
(g) 12.34 8.09 6.02 11.74
1640.0
1600.0
Weight of can + Dry
9.0 Soil10.0
(g) 11.0 12.0 32.31
13.0 14.0 25.65
15.0 16.028.59
17.0 18.028.63
Dry Density (Kg/m3) 1768.8 1930.7 1973.6 1803.5
AGBADO
1990.0
1950.0
Dry Density (Kg/m3)
1910.0
1870.0
1830.0
1790.0
1750.0
5.0 7.0 9.0 11.0 13.0 15.0 17.0
ODE
Trials 1 2 3 4 5
Weight of mould (Kg) 3.50 3.50 3.50 3.50 3.50
Weight of mould + soil (Kg) 5.35 5.45 5.55 5.60 5.55
Weight of Soil (Kg) 1.85 1.95 2.05 2.10 2.05
Volume of mould (m3) 0.000982 0.000982 0.000982 0.000982 0.000982
102
Bulk Density (Kg/m3) 1883.9 1985.7 2087.6 2138.5 2087.6
Can Weight (g) 5.60 5.66 12.17 4.33 5.79
Weight of Can + Wet Soil (g) 21.54 19.56 36.78 24.73 24.17
Weight of can + Dry Soil (g) 20.66 18.45 34.31 22.30 21.56
Moisture Contents (%) 5.84 8.68 11.16 13.52 16.55
Dry Density (Kg/m3) 1779.9 1827.2 1878.1 1883.8 1791.1
ODE
1870.0
Dry Density (Kg/m3)
1830.0
1790.0
1750.0
5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.0
ISINBODE
Trials 1 2 3 4 5
Weight of Soil (Kg) 1.95 2.05 2.15 2.25 2.20
Volume of mould (m3) 0.000982 0.000982 0.000982 0.000982 0.000982
3
Bulk Density (Kg/m ) 1985.7 2087.6 2189.4 2291.2 2240.3
Can Weight (g) 4.30 5.74 7.42 8.50 11.66
Weight of can + Dry Soil (g) 14.77 21.45 25.39 22.28 26
Dry Density (Kg/m3) 1902.2 1968.5 2021.8 2052.9 1973.4
ISINBODE
2090.0
2050.0
Dry Density (Kg/m3)
2010.0
1970.0
1930.0 103
1890.0
1850.0
OBADORE
Trials 1 2 3 4
Weight of Soil (Kg) 2.15 2.25 2.30 2.25
Volume of mould (m3) 0.000982 0.000982 0.000982 0.000982
Bulk Density (Kg/m3) 2189.4 2291.2 2342.2 2291.2
Can Weight (g) 15.25 6.60 8.76 10.66
Dry Density (Kg/m3) 2021.1 2064.9 2077.1 2009.0
OBADORE
2150.0
2110.0
Dry Density (Kg/m3)
2070.0
2030.0
1990.0
8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.0 15.0
KOTA
Trials 1 2 3 4
Weight of Soil (Kg) 2.00 2.15 2.20 2.10
104
Volume of mould (m3) 0.000982 0.000982 0.000982 0.000982
Bulk Density (Kg/m3) 2036.7 2189.4 2240.3 2138.5
Can Weight (g) 3.78 9.17 19.31 6.03
Dry Density (Kg/m3) 1882.9 1976.8 1992.3 1874.7
KOTA
2010.0
Dry Density (Kg/m3)
1970.0
1930.0
1890.0
1850.0
8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.0 15.0
OMUO OKE
Trials 1 2 3 4 5
Weight of Soil (Kg) 1.70 1.90 2.10 2.30 2.10
Volume of mould (m3) 0.000982 0.000982 0.000982 0.000982 0.000982
3
Bulk Density (Kg/m ) 1731.2 1934.8 2138.5 2342.2 2138.5
Can Weight (g) 11.12 26.56 19.38 21.24 18.98
Weight of Can + Wet Soil (g) 26.36 48.12 44.15 49.30 37
Weight of can + Dry Soil (g) 25.48 46.30 41.42 45.27 34
Dry Density (Kg/m3) 1631.2 1771.5 1902.8 2005.8 1782.5
OMUO OKE
2000.0
1960.0
1920.0
Dry Density (Kg/m3)
1880.0
1840.0
1800.0 105
1760.0
1720.0
1680.0
1600.0
5.0 7.0 9.0 11.0 13.0 15.0 17.0 19.0 21.0
ARAROMI
Trials 1 2 3 4 5
Weight of Soil (Kg) 1.65 1.75 1.85 1.95 1.90
Volume of mould (m3) 0.000982 0.000982 0.000982 0.000982 0.000982
Bulk Density (Kg/m3) 1680.2 1782.1 1883.9 1985.7 1934.8
Can Weight (g) 19.25 25.62 26.12 19.21 5.39
Dry Density (Kg/m3) 1590.9 1640.6 1684.1 1719.2 1640.3
ARAROMI
1750.0
1710.0
Dry Density (Kg/m3)
1670.0
1630.0
1590.0
1550.0
5.0 7.0 9.0 11.0 13.0 15.0 17.0 19.0
KAJOLA
Trials 1 2 3 4
Weight of Soil (Kg) 1.95 2.05 2.15 2.10
106
Volume of mould (m3) 0.000982 0.000982 0.000982 0.000982
Bulk Density (Kg/m3) 1985.7 2087.6 2189.4 2138.5
Can Weight (g) 9.73 19.33 16.29 15.96
Dry Density (Kg/m3) 1846.5 1912.2 1957.0 1868.6
KAJOLA
2000.0
1960.0
Dry Density (Kg/m3)
1920.0
1880.0
1840.0
7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.0 15.0
ISE EKITI
Trials 1 2 3 4
Weight of Soil (Kg) 1.95 2.15 2.20 2.10
Volume of mould (m3) 0.000982 0.000982 0.000982 0.000982
Bulk Density (Kg/m3) 1985.7 2189.4 2240.3 2138.5
Can Weight (g) 26.28 9.26 11.11 19.24
Dry Density (Kg/m3) 1893.7 2055.4 2060.1 1927.9
107
ISE EKITI
2090.0
2050.0
Dry Density (Kg/m3) 2010.0
1970.0
1930.0
1890.0
1850.0
4.0 5.0 ORUN7.0
6.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0
Trials 1 2 3 4
Weight of Soil (Kg) 1.80 1.95 2.05 1.95
Volume of mould (m3) 0.000982 0.000982 0.000982 0.000982
Bulk Density (Kg/m3) 1833.0 1985.7 2087.6 1985.7
Can Weight (g) 25.58 16.31 26.21 25.41
Dry Density (Kg/m3) 1711.5 1793.6 1837.6 1718.4
ORUN
1860.0
Dry Density (Kg/m3)
1820.0
1780.0
1740.0
1700.0
6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.0 15.0 16.0
ABA IGBIRA
Trials 1 2 3 4
108
Weight of Soil (Kg) 1.90 2.05 2.15 2.05
Volume of mould (m3) 0.000982 0.000982 0.000982 0.000982
Bulk Density (Kg/m3) 1934.8 2087.6 2189.4 2087.6
Can Weight (g) 8.63 8.30 16.02 9.34
Dry Density (Kg/m3) 1836.5 1898.6 1929.6 1794.0
ABA IGBIRA
1960.0
1920.0
Dry Density (Kg/m3)
1880.0
1840.0
1800.0
1760.0
5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.0 15.0 16.0 17.0
AFOLU ISE EKITI

Trials 1 2 3 4
Weight of Soil (Kg) 1.90 2.05 2.20 2.15
Volume of mould (m3) 0.000982 0.000982 0.000982 0.000982
Bulk Density (Kg/m3) 1934.8 2087.6 2240.3 2189.4
Can Weight (g) 15.23 6.12 9.32 5.08
Dry Density (Kg/m3) 1841.8 1942.1 2042.3 1956.1
AFOLU ISE EKITI

2080.0 109
2040.0
g/m3)
2000.0
Dry Densit
1920.0
1880.0
1840.0
1800.0
4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0
EMURE
Trials 1 2 3 4
Weight of Soil (Kg) 2.00 2.20 2.30 2.20
Volume of mould (m3) 0.000982 0.000982 0.000982 0.000982
Bulk Density (Kg/m3) 2036.7 2240.3 2342.2 2240.3
Can Weight (g) 5.04 8.23 11.09 8.27
Dry Density (Kg/m3) 1894.6 2014.9 2033.5 1891.5
110
EMURE
2080.0
2000.0
1960.0
1920.0
1880.0
7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.0 15.0 16.0 17.0 18.0 19.0
EPORO ROAD
Trials 1 2 3 4
Weight of Soil (Kg) 2.00 2.10 2.20 2.15
Volume of mould (m3) 0.000982 0.000982 0.000982 0.000982
Bulk Density (Kg/m3) 2036.7 2138.5 2240.3 2189.4
Can Weight (g) 5.37 5.30 5.79 15.10
3 EPORO ROAD
Dry Density (Kg/m
1960.0
) 1833.8 1881.8 1921.7 1837.3
1920.0
Dry Density (Kg/m3)
1880.0
1840.0
1800.0
10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.0 15.0 16.0 17.0 18.0 19.0 20.0
111
ODO EMURE
Trials 1 2 3 4
Weight of Soil (Kg) 1.95 2.10 2.25 2.10
Volume of mould (m3) 0.000982 0.000982 0.000982 0.000982
Bulk Density (Kg/m3) 1985.7 2138.5 2291.2 2138.5
Can Weight (g) 5.25 8.25 5.05 5.80
Dry Density (Kg/m3) 1798.2 1904.1 2006.6 1833.1
ODO EMURE
2030.0
1990.0
1950.0
Dry Density (Kg/m3)
1910.0
1870.0
1830.0
1790.0
1750.0
10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.0 15.0 16.0 17.0
OKE EMURE
Trials 1 2 3 4
Weight of Soil (Kg) 1.90 2.10 2.35 2.25
Volume of mould (m3) 0.000982 0.000982 0.000982 0.000982
Bulk Density (Kg/m3) 1934.8 2138.5 2393.1 2291.2
Can Weight (g) 8.60 10.84 25.61 5.61
Dry Density (Kg/m3) 1783.1 1939.0 2126.8 1983.0
112
OKE EMURE
2140.0
2100.0
2060.0
Dry Density (Kg/m3)
2020.0
1980.0
1940.0
1900.0
1860.0
1820.0
1780.0
1740.0
8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.0 15.0 16.0
NEW ISE ROAD, EMURE

Trials 1 2 3 4 5
Weight of Soil (Kg) 1.65 1.80 2.00 2.05 1.95
Volume of mould (m3) 0.000982 0.000982 0.000982 0.000982 0.000982
3
Bulk Density (Kg/m ) 1680.2 1833.0 2036.7 2087.6 1985.7
Can Weight (g) 4.93 4.25 4.69 9.62 4.98
Dry Density (Kg/m3) 1589.5 1696.4 1825.7 1834.2 1721.7
113
NEW ISE ROAD EMURE
1870.0
1830.0
Dry Density (Kg/m3)
1790.0
1750.0
1710.0
1670.0
1630.0
1590.0
1550.0
5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.0 15.0 16.0
ODIDE FARM IKERE ROAD

Trials 1 2 3 4
Weight of Soil (Kg) 1.95 2.10 2.20 2.15
Volume of mould (m3) 0.000982 0.000982 0.000982 0.000982
Bulk Density (Kg/m3) 1985.7 2138.5 2240.3 2189.4
Can Weight (g) 7.45 5.60 25.42 19.20
Dry Density (Kg/m3) 1876.3 1978.9 2031.5 1967.6
114
S
ODIDE FARM IKERE ROAD
2050.0
2010.0
Dry Density (Kg/m3)

1970.0
1930.0
1890.0
1850.0
5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0
KOPEK QUARRY, IKERE
Trials 1 2 3 4
Weight of Soil (Kg) 2.10 2.25 2.35 2.30
Volume of mould (m3) 0.000982 0.000982 0.000982 0.000982
Bulk Density (Kg/m3) 2138.5 2291.2 2393.1 2342.2
Can Weight (g) 15.31 11.80 16.35 19.01
Dry Density (Kg/m3) 1892.6 1977.9 2011.3 1928.3
KOPEK QUARRY, IKERE

2050.0
Dry Density (Kg/m3)
2010.0
1970.0
1930.0
1890.0
1850.0
12.0 13.0 14.0 15.0 16.0 17.0 18.0 19.0 20.0 21.0 22.0
115
ARAROMI IKERE
Trials 1 2 3 4 5
Weight of Soil (Kg) 1.95 2.10 2.30 2.40 2.30
Volume of mould (m3) 0.000982 0.000982 0.000982 0.000982 0.000982
3
Bulk Density (Kg/m ) 1985.7 2138.5 2342.2 2444.0 2342.2
Can Weight (g) 12.20 9.22 16.10 15.49 12.29
Dry Density (Kg/m3) 1859.7 1964.7 2103.4 2156.3 2034.2
ARAROMI, IKERE
2170.0
2130.0
Dry Density (Kg/m3)
2090.0
2050.0
2010.0
1970.0
1930.0
1890.0
1850.0
6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.0 15.0 16.0
ANAYE IKERE
Trials 1 2 3 4
Weight of Soil (Kg) 2.20 2.30 2.40 2.35
Volume of mould (m3) 0.000982 0.000982 0.000982 0.000982
Bulk Density (Kg/m3) 2240.3 2342.2 2444.0 2393.1
Can Weight (g) 26.56 10.75 25.48 25.63
116
Dry Density (Kg/m3) 2072.1 2114.2 2149.4 2068.2
ANAYE IKERE
2170.0
Dry Density (Kg/m3)

2130.0
2090.0
2050.0
8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.0 15.0 16.0
SHASHA IKERE
Trials 1 2 3 4 5
Weight of Soil (Kg) 1.75 1.95 2.10 2.15 2.05
Volume of mould (m3) 0.000982 0.000982 0.000982 0.000982 0.000982
Bulk Density (Kg/m3) 1782.1 1985.7 2138.5 2189.4 2087.6
Can Weight (g) 26.18 26.21 25.71 19.09 5.69
Dry Density (Kg/m3) 1622.2 1753.2 1843.4 1842.8 1720.0
117
SHASHA IKERE
1880.0
1840.0
1760.0
ILAWE 1
1720.0
Trials 1 2 3 4 5
1680.0
Weight of mould1640.0
+ soil (Kg) 5.20 5.30 5.45 5.50 5.40
Weight of Soil (Kg)
1600.0
9.0 10.0 11.0
1.65 1.75
12.0 13.0 14.0 15.0 16.0 17.0
1.90
18.0 19.0
1.95
20.0 21.0 22.0 1.85
3
Volume of mould (m ) 0.000982
MOISTURE 0.000982 0.000982
CONTENTS (%) 0.000982 0.000982
Bulk Density (Kg/m3) 1680.2 1782.1 1934.8 1985.7 1883.9
Can Weight (g) 10.62 9.23 8.27 10.80 9.74
Dry Density (Kg/m3) 1560.4 1619.4 1713.6 1726.8 1592.4
ILAWE 1
1750.0
1710.0
Dry Density (Kg/m3)
1670.0
1630.0
1590.0
1550.0
7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.0 15.0 16.0 17.0 18.0 19.0
ILAWE 2
Trials 1 2 3 4 5
Weight of Soil (Kg) 1.70 1.80 1.95 2.05 2.00
Volume of mould (m3) 0.000982 0.000982 0.000982 0.000982 0.000982
Bulk Density (Kg/m3) 1731.2 1833.0 1985.7 2087.6 2036.7
118
Can Weight (g) 8.29 18.95 9.22 21.21 3.99
Dry Density (Kg/m3) 1606.5 1665.0 1761.6 1821.8 1750.4
ILAWE 2
1840.0
1800.0
Dry Density (Kg/m3)
1760.0
1720.0
1680.0
1640.0
1600.0
7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.0 15.0 16.0 17.0
ILAWE 3
Trials 1 2 3 4 5
Weight of Soil (Kg) 1.75 1.85 2.00 2.05 2.00
Volume of mould (m3) 0.000982 0.000982 0.000982 0.000982 0.000982
Bulk Density (Kg/m3) 1782.1 1883.9 2036.7 2087.6 2036.7
Can Weight (g) 12.01 10.87 7.86 16.04 5.65
Dry Density (Kg/m3) 1663.6 1706.9 1799.9 1814.8 1736.8
119
ILAWE 3
1840.0
1800.0
1720.0
ILAWE 4
Trials 1680.0 1 2 3 4
1640.0
Weight of mould + soil (Kg)
7.0 8.0 9.0 5.40 12.0 13.0 5.55
10.0 11.0 14.0 15.0 16.05.65
17.0 18.0 5.55
Weight of Soil (Kg) 1.85 CONTENTS
MOISTURE 2.00
(%) 2.10 2.00
Volume of mould (m3) 0.000982 0.000982 0.000982 0.000982
Bulk Density (Kg/m3) 1883.9 2036.7 2138.5 2036.7
Can Weight (g) 9.16 9.11 12.03 9.27
Dry Density (Kg/m3) 1745.1 1831.0 1866.9 1728.9
ILAWE 4
1880.0
Dry Density (Kg/m3)
1840.0
1800.0
1760.0
1720.0
7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.0 15.0 16.0 17.0 18.0
IGBARA ODO
Trials 1 2 3 4
Weight of Soil (Kg) 2.00 2.15 2.20 2.15
Volume of mould (m3) 0.000982 0.000982 0.000982 0.000982
Bulk Density (Kg/m3) 2036.7 2189.4 2240.3 2189.4
120
Can Weight (g) 9.83 5.10 21.31 6.59
Dry Density (Kg/m3) 1890.8 1982.3 1986.3 1903.4
IGBARA ODO
1970.0
Dry Density (Kg/m3)
1930.0
1890.0
1850.0
7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.0 15.0 16.0
APPENDIX F
121
LABORATORY ANALYSIS TEST RESULT OF CALIFORNIA BEARING RATIO
(CBR)
EK1
TOP BOTTOM
Penetratio Dial Dial
Forc Forc
n (mm) Gauge Gauge
e e
Readin Readin
(kN) (kN)
g g
0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00
0.50 3 0.26 5 0.43
1.00 5 0.43 7 0.60
1.50 7 0.60 10 0.85
2.00 10 0.85 13 1.11
2.50 11 0.94 17 1.45
3.00 13 1.11 21 1.79
3.50 16 1.36 26 2.21
4.00 17 1.45 30 2.55 EK 1
4.50 19 1.62 34 2.89
5.00 21 1.79 38 3.23 5.00
4.50
122
4.00
3.50
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
5.50 22 1.87 43 3.66 0.50
6.00 24 2.04 48 4.08
6.50 25 2.13 50 4.25 0.00
7.00 27 2.30 53 4.51 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00
7.50 28 2.38 55 4.68
7.1 8.9 10.9 16.2 TOP BOTTOM
12.6
EK2
TOP BOTTOM EK 2
Penetration Dial Dial
(mm) Force Force
Gauge Gauge 6.00
(kN) (kN)
Reading Reading
0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00
0.50 3 0.26 12 1.02
5.00
1.00 7 0.60 20 1.70
1.50 12 1.02 25 2.13 4.00
2.00 18 1.53 30 2.55
2.50 23 1.96 35 2.98
3.00 28 2.38 38 3.23 3.00
3.50 31 2.64 42 3.57
4.00 35 2.98 44 3.74 2.00
4.50 38 3.23 46 3.91
5.00 41 3.49 48 4.08
5.50 43 3.66 51 4.34 1.00
6.00 46 3.91 51 4.34
6.50 47 4.00 53 4.51 0.00
7.00 49 4.17 55 4.68 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00
7.50 50 4.25 57 4.85
14.8 17.5 22.5 20.4 TOP BOTTOM
19.0
EK3
TOP BOTTOM
Penetratio Dial Dial
Forc Forc
n (mm) Gauge Gauge
e e
Readin Readin
(kN) (kN)
g g
0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00
0.50 2 0.17 2 0.17
1.00 5 0.43 4 0.34
1.50 7 0.60 6 0.51
2.00 8 0.68 8 0.68
2.50 10 0.85 11 0.94
3.00 11 0.94 13 1.11
3.50 13 1.11 15 1.28
EK 3
123
2.50
1.50
1.00
4.00 15 1.28 16 1.36
4.50 16 1.36 18 1.53
5.00 18 1.53 20 1.70 0.50
5.50 19 1.62 21 1.79
6.00 20 1.70 23 1.96
6.50 22 1.87 24 2.04 0.00
7.00 23 1.96 25 2.13 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00
7.50 24 2.04 26 2.21
6.4 7.7 7.1 8.5 TOP BOTTOM
8.1
EK4
TOP BOTTOM EK 4
Force Force
(mm) Gauge
(kN)
Gauge
(kN) 3.50
Reading Reading
0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 3.00
0.50 4 0.34 3 0.26
1.00 6 0.51 7 0.60 2.50
1.50 10 0.85 9 0.77
2.00 15 1.28 11 0.94 2.00
2.50 20 1.70 13 1.11
3.00 24 2.04 15 1.28
3.50 28 2.38 17 1.45
1.50
4.00 30 2.55 19 1.62
4.50 33 2.81 22 1.87 1.00
5.00 34 2.89 25 2.13
5.50 36 3.06 26 2.21 0.50
6.00 36 3.06 28 2.38
6.50 38 3.23 29 2.47 0.00
7.00 38 3.23 31 2.64 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00
7.50 39 3.32 33 2.81
12.8 14.5 8.3 10.6 TOP BOTTOM
12.6
EK5
TOP BOTTOM
(mm) Force Force
Gauge Gauge
(kN) (kN)
Reading Reading
0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00
0.50 2 0.17 4 0.34
1.00 4 0.34 6 0.51
1.50 7 0.60 8 0.68
2.00 10 0.85 11 0.94
2.50 13 1.11 13 1.11
124
EK 5
3.00
2.50
2.00
3.00 16 1.36 16 1.36 1.50

3.50 18 1.53 18 1.53
4.00 21 1.79 20 1.70 1.00
4.50 23 1.96 23 1.96
5.00 25 2.13 25 2.13
5.50 26 2.21 27 2.30 0.50
6.00 28 2.38 29 2.47
6.50 30 2.55 31 2.64 0.00
7.00 31 2.64 33 2.81 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00
7.50 33 2.81 34 2.89
8.3 10.6 8.3 10.6
10.6
TOP BOTTOM
EK6
TOP BOTTOM
EK 6
(mm) Force Force
Gauge Gauge
Reading
(kN)
Reading
(kN) 3.50
0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00
0.50 3 0.26 5 0.43
3.00
1.00 6 0.51 7 0.60
1.50 9 0.77 10 0.85 2.50
2.00 11 0.94 12 1.02
2.50 15 1.28 14 1.19 2.00
3.00 18 1.53 16 1.36
3.50 21 1.79 18 1.53 1.50
4.00 24 2.04 21 1.79
4.50 27 2.30 24 2.04 1.00
5.00 29 2.47 27 2.30
5.50 32 2.72 30 2.55 0.50
6.00 34 2.89 32 2.72
6.50 36 3.06 34 2.89
7.00 37 3.15 37 3.15 0.00
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00
7.50 39 3.32 38 3.23
9.6 12.3 9.0 11.5
11.9 TOP BOTTOM
EK7
TOP BOTTOM
(mm) Force Force
Gauge Gauge
(kN) (kN)
Reading Reading
0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00
0.50 5 0.43 5 0.43
1.00 12 1.02 9 0.77
1.50 18 1.53 16 1.36
125
EK 7
9.00
8.00
7.00
6.00
2.00 28 2.38 21 1.79
2.50 36 3.06 27 2.30 5.00
3.00 45 3.83 32 2.72 4.00
3.50 52 4.42 37 3.15
4.00 60 5.10 42 3.57 3.00
4.50 67 5.70 48 4.08
5.00 73 6.21 54 4.59 2.00
5.50 78 6.63 60 5.10 1.00
6.00 82 6.97 64 5.44
6.50 87 7.40 68 5.78 0.00
7.00 91 7.74 72 6.12 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00
7.50 95 8.08 75 6.38
23.1 31.1 17.3 23.0 TOP BOTTOM
27.0
EK8
TOP BOTTOM EK 8
(mm) Force Force
Gauge Gauge 4.50
(kN) (kN)
Reading Reading
0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 4.00
0.50 5 0.43 5 0.43
3.50
1.00 13 1.11 11 0.94
1.50 18 1.53 17 1.45 3.00
2.00 22 1.87 23 1.96
2.50 25 2.13 29 2.47 2.50
3.00 28 2.38 34 2.89
2.00
3.50 30 2.55 40 3.40
4.00 32 2.72 42 3.57 1.50
4.50 33 2.81 42 3.57
5.00 35 2.98 45 3.83 1.00
5.50 35 2.98 45 3.83
6.00 36 3.06 48 4.08
0.50
6.50 38 3.23 49 4.17 0.00
7.00 38 3.23 49 4.17 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00
7.50 39 3.32 51 4.34
16.0 14.9 18.6 19.2 TOP BOTTOM
17.6
EK9
TOP BOTTOM
(mm) Force Force
Gauge Gauge
(kN) (kN)
Reading Reading
0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00
126
0.50 3 0.26 6 0.51
1.00 5 0.43 13 1.11
1.50 8 0.68 18 1.53
2.00 12 1.02 22 1.87
EK 9
2.50 15 1.28 26 2.21
4.50
3.00 19 1.62 29 2.47
4.00
3.50 23 1.96 32 2.72
3.50
4.00 27 2.30 34 2.89
3.00
4.50 33 2.81 36 3.06
2.50
5.00 37 3.15 38 3.23
2.00
5.50 40 3.40 41 3.49
1.50
6.00 42 3.57 43 3.66
1.00
6.50 45 3.83 45 3.83
0.50
7.00 47 4.00 46 3.91
0.00
7.50 50 4.25 48 4.08 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00
9.6 15.8 16.7 16.2
TOP BOTTOM
16.2
127
EK10
TOP BOTTOM
Penetration
EK 10
Dial Dial
(mm) Force Force
Gauge Gauge 2.50
(kN) (kN)
Reading Reading
0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00
0.50 1 0.09 2 0.17 2.00
1.00 3 0.26 4 0.34
1.50 5 0.43 5 0.43
2.00 6 0.51 7 0.60 1.50
2.50 8 0.68 8 0.68
3.00 9 0.77 10 0.85
3.50 11 0.94 11 0.94 1.00
4.00 13 1.11 13 1.11
4.50 14 1.19 15 1.28
5.00 16 1.36 17 1.45 0.50
5.50 18 1.53 19 1.62
6.00 20 1.70 20 1.70
6.50 21 1.79 22 1.87 0.00
7.00 23 1.96 24 2.04 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00
7.50 24 2.04 25 2.13
5.1 6.8 5.1 7.2 TOP BOTTOM
7.0
EK11
TOP BOTTOM
(mm) Force Force
Gauge Gauge
(kN) (kN)
Reading Reading
0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00
0.50 3 0.26 9 0.77
1.00 6 0.51 11 0.94
1.50 8 0.68 14 1.19
2.00 11 0.94 16 1.36
2.50 13 1.11 17 1.45
3.00 15 1.28 19 1.62
3.50 18 1.53 21 1.79
4.00 20 1.70 22 1.87
4.50 22 1.87 24 2.04 EK 11
5.00 24 2.04 25 2.13
5.50 25 2.13 27 2.30 3.00
6.00 27 2.30 28 2.38
6.50 28 2.38 29 2.47 2.50
7.00 30 2.55 31 2.64
7.50 31 2.64 32 2.72
8.3 10.2 10.9 10.6 2.00
1.50
128
1.00
0.00
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00
TOP BOTTOM
10.6
EK12
TOP BOTTOM EK 12
(mm) Force Force
Gauge Gauge 4.00
(kN) (kN)
Reading Reading
0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 3.50
0.50 5 0.43 3 0.26
1.00 9 0.77 6 0.51 3.00
1.50 13 1.11 11 0.94
2.00 16 1.36 15 1.28 2.50
2.50 18 1.53 18 1.53
3.00 21 1.79 22 1.87 2.00
3.50 24 2.04 24 2.04
4.00 27 2.30 26 2.21 1.50
4.50 29 2.47 30 2.55
5.00 31 2.64 33 2.81
1.00
5.50 32 2.72 35 2.98
6.00 35 2.98 37 3.15
0.50
6.50 37 3.15 40 3.40 0.00
7.00 39 3.32 42 3.57 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00
7.50 40 3.40 44 3.74
11.6 13.2 11.6 14.1
13.6
TOP BOTTOM
EK13
TOP BOTTOM
Penetration Dial
Dial
(mm) Gauge Force Force
Gauge
Readin (kN) (kN)
Reading
g
0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00
0.50 4 0.34 12 1.02
1.00 6 0.51 18 1.53
1.50 7 0.60 23 1.96
2.00 9 0.77 27 2.30
2.50 13 1.11 31 2.64
3.00 17 1.45 34 2.89
3.50 19 1.62 36 3.06
4.00 22 1.87 38 3.23
4.50 25 2.13 41 3.49
EK 13
5.00 29 2.47 43 3.66
5.50 32 2.72 44 3.74 4.50
6.00 34 2.89 45 3.83 4.00
6.50 36 3.06 47 4.00
3.50
129 3.00
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
7.00 39 3.32 48 4.08 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00
7.50 41 3.49 50 4.25
8.3 12.3 19.9 18.3 TOP BOTTOM
16.1
EK14
TOP BOTTOM EK 14
(mm) Force Force 9.00
Gauge Gauge
(kN) (kN)
Reading Reading
8.00
0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00
0.50 5 0.43 9 0.77 7.00
1.00 15 1.28 21 1.79
1.50 23 1.96 34 2.89 6.00
2.00 29 2.47 42 3.57 5.00
2.50 36 3.06 50 4.25
3.00 42 3.57 58 4.93 4.00
3.50 47 4.00 63 5.36
4.00 51 4.34 70 5.95 3.00
4.50 56 4.76 76 6.46 2.00
5.00 59 5.02 80 6.80
5.50 62 5.27 83 7.06 1.00
6.00 65 5.53 86 7.31
6.50 69 5.87 88 7.48 0.00
7.00 72 6.12 91 7.74
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00
7.50 75 6.38 93 7.91
23.1 25.1 32.1 34.1 TOP BOTTOM
29.6
EK15
TOP BOTTOM
(mm) Force Force
Gauge Gauge
(kN) (kN)
Reading Reading
0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00
0.50 3 0.26 6 0.51
1.00 6 0.51 9 0.77
1.50 8 0.68 11 0.94
2.00 12 1.02 14 1.19
2.50 15 1.28 18 1.53
3.00 18 1.53 20 1.70
3.50 22 1.87 23 1.96
4.00 26 2.21 27 2.30 EK 15
4.50 31 2.64 29 2.47
5.00 34 2.89 33 2.81
4.50
5.50 38 3.23 37 3.15
4.00
130 3.50
3.00
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
6.00 41 3.49 39 3.32
6.50 44 3.74 42 3.57 0.00
7.00 47 4.00 45 3.83 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00
7.50 49 4.17 48 4.08
9.6 14.5 11.6 14.1 TOP BOTTOM
14.3
EK16 EK 16
TOP BOTTOM
Penetration Dial Dial 7.00
(mm) Force Force
Gauge Gauge
(kN) (kN)
Reading Reading 6.00
0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00
0.50 4 0.34 7 0.60 5.00
1.00 7 0.60 18 1.53
1.50 13 1.11 27 2.30
2.00 17 1.45 34 2.89
4.00
2.50 21 1.79 41 3.49
3.00 25 2.13 45 3.83 3.00
3.50 29 2.47 48 4.08
4.00 34 2.89 53 4.51 2.00
4.50 37 3.15 57 4.85
5.00 40 3.40 59 5.02 1.00
5.50 43 3.66 62 5.27
6.00 46 3.91 64 5.44 0.00
6.50 50 4.25 68 5.78 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00
7.00 53 4.51 70 5.95
7.50 55 4.68 72 6.12 TOP BOTTOM
13.5 17.0 26.3 25.1
21.7
EK17
TOP BOTTOM
Penetration Dial Forc Dial Forc EK 17
(mm) Gauge e Gauge e
Reading (kN) Reading (kN) 3.50
0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00
3.00
0.50 3 0.26 5 0.43
2.50
1.00 7 0.60 8 0.68
1.50 10 0.85 11 0.94 2.00
2.00 14 1.19 14 1.19 1.50
1.00
131
0.50
0.00
TOP BOTTOM
2.50 17 1.45 16 1.36

3.00 19 1.62 19 1.62
3.50 21 1.79 22 1.87
4.00 24 2.04 24 2.04
4.50 26 2.21 27 2.30
5.00 28 2.38 29 2.47
5.50 31 2.64 31 2.64
6.00 33 2.81 33 2.81
6.50 35 2.98 35 2.98
7.00 38 3.23 37 3.15
7.50 39 3.32 38 3.23
10.9 11.9 10.3 12.3
12.1
EK18
TOP BOTTOM
Penetration Dial Dial EK 18
(mm) Force Force
Gauge Gauge
(kN) (kN)
Reading Reading 3.50
0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00
0.50 2 0.17 3 0.26 3.00
1.00 4 0.34 6 0.51
1.50 7 0.60 8 0.68 2.50
2.00 11 0.94 13 1.11
2.50 14 1.19 16 1.36 2.00
3.00 17 1.45 19 1.62
3.50 20 1.70 21 1.79 1.50
4.00 23 1.96 24 2.04
4.50 25 2.13 27 2.30 1.00
5.00 28 2.38 30 2.55
5.50 31 2.64 32 2.72 0.50
6.00 33 2.81 34 2.89
6.50 36 3.06 37 3.15 0.00
7.00 38 3.23 38 3.23 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00
7.50 40 3.40 39 3.32
9.0 11.9 10.3 12.8 TOP BOTTOM
12.3
132
EK19
TOP BOTTOM
Penetratio
n (mm) Force Force
DGR DGR
(kN) (kN)
0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00

0.50 3 0.26 2 0.17
1.00 7 0.60 5 0.43
1.50 11 0.94 8 0.68
EK 19
2.00 16 1.36 12 1.02
2.50 21 1.79 15 1.28 4.50
3.00 25 2.13 18 1.53 4.00
3.50 27 2.30 22 1.87 3.50
4.00 30 2.55 27 2.30 3.00
4.50 33 2.81 32 2.72 2.50
5.00 36 3.06 35 2.98 2.00
5.50 38 3.23 37 3.15 1.50
6.00 41 3.49 39 3.32 1.00
6.50 43 3.66 42 3.57 0.50
7.00 45 3.83 45 3.83 0.00
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00
7.50 47 4.00 48 4.08
13.5 15.3 9.6 14.9 TOP BOTTOM
15.1
EK20 EK 20
TOP BOTTOM
Penetration
(mm) DGR
Force
DGR
Force 3.00
(kN) (kN)
0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00
0.50 2 0.17 1 0.09
2.50
1.00 5 0.43 3 0.26
1.50 7 0.60 6 0.51 2.00
2.00 10 0.85 8 0.68
1.50
133
1.00
0.00
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00
TOP BOTTOM
2.50 12 1.02 10 0.85
3.00 14 1.19 13 1.11
3.50 16 1.36 15 1.28
4.00 19 1.62 17 1.45
4.50 22 1.87 19 1.62
5.00 25 2.13 22 1.87
5.50 27 2.30 25 2.13
6.00 29 2.47 27 2.30
6.50 30 2.55 28 2.38
7.00 32 2.72 30 2.55
7.50 33 2.81 32 2.72
7.7 10.6 6.4 9.4
10.0
EK21
TOP BOTTOM EK 21
Penetration
(mm) Force Force
DGR DGR 5.00
(kN) (kN)
0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 4.50
0.50 10 0.85 6 0.51 4.00
1.00 15 1.28 11 0.94
1.50 20 1.70 17 1.45
3.50
2.00 24 2.04 21 1.79 3.00
2.50 29 2.47 25 2.13 2.50
3.00 32 2.72 29 2.47
3.50 35 2.98 32 2.72 2.00
4.00 38 3.23 35 2.98 1.50
4.50 40 3.40 38 3.23
5.00 43 3.66 41 3.49 1.00
5.50 45 3.83 45 3.83 0.50
6.00 47 4.00 48 4.08
6.50 50 4.25 50 4.25 0.00
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00
7.00 51 4.34 52 4.42
7.50 52 4.42 53 4.51
18.6 18.3 16.0 17.5 TOP BOTTOM
18.0
EK22
TOP BOTTOM EK 22
Penetration
(mm) Force Force
DGR
(kN)
DGR
(kN) 4.50
0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 4.00
0.50 3 0.26 2 0.17
1.00 7 0.60 6 0.51 3.50
134
3.00
2.50
2.00
1.00
0.50
0.00
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00
1.50 9 0.77 10 0.85
2.00 12 1.02 13 1.11
2.50 14 1.19 16 1.36 TOP BOTTOM
3.00 18 1.53 20 1.70
3.50 22 1.87 23 1.96
4.00 25 2.13 28 2.38
4.50 29 2.47 33 2.81
5.00 32 2.72 36 3.06
5.50 35 2.98 40 3.40
6.00 36 3.06 43 3.66
6.50 38 3.23 45 3.83
7.00 40 3.40 48 4.08
7.50 42 3.57 51 4.34
9.0 13.6 10.3 15.3
14.5
EK23
TOP BOTTOM EK 23
Penetration
(mm) Force Force
DGR DGR
(kN) (kN) 4.00
0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 3.50
0.50 2 0.17 2 0.17
1.00 5 0.43 6 0.51 3.00
1.50 8 0.68 10 0.85
2.00 11 0.94 14 1.19 2.50
2.50 14 1.19 17 1.45
3.00 17 1.45 20 1.70 2.00
3.50 20 1.70 23 1.96
1.50
4.00 23 1.96 25 2.13
4.50 26 2.21 28 2.38 1.00
5.00 28 2.38 31 2.64
5.50 31 2.64 34 2.89 0.50
6.00 33 2.81 36 3.06
6.50 36 3.06 38 3.23 0.00
7.00 38 3.23 40 3.40
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00
7.50 40 3.40 42 3.57
9.0 11.9 10.9 13.2 TOP BOTTOM
12.6
EK24
TOP BOTTOM EK 24
Penetration
(mm) Force Force
DGR
(kN)
DGR
(kN) 4.00
0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 3.50
0.50 3 0.26 5 0.43
3.00
135 2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00
1.00 6 0.51 8 0.68
1.50 9 0.77 10 0.85 TOP BOTTOM
2.00 13 1.11 14 1.19
2.50 16 1.36 17 1.45
3.00 19 1.62 20 1.70
3.50 22 1.87 22 1.87
4.00 26 2.21 25 2.13
4.50 30 2.55 28 2.38
5.00 32 2.72 30 2.55
5.50 35 2.98 32 2.72
6.00 38 3.23 35 2.98
6.50 40 3.40 37 3.15
7.00 42 3.57 39 3.32
7.50 44 3.74 41 3.49
10.3 13.6 10.9 12.8
13.2
EK25
TOP BOTTOM EK 25
Penetration
(mm) Force Force
DGR DGR 3.50
(kN) (kN)
0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00
0.50 2 0.17 2 0.17 3.00
1.00 4 0.34 5 0.43
1.50 7 0.60 7 0.60 2.50
2.00 9 0.77 10 0.85
2.50 12 1.02 13 1.11 2.00
3.00 15 1.28 16 1.36
3.50 17 1.45 18 1.53 1.50
4.00 19 1.62 21 1.79
4.50 22 1.87 24 2.04 1.00
5.00 25 2.13 26 2.21
5.50 27 2.30 28 2.38 0.50
6.00 30 2.55 31 2.64
6.50 32 2.72 33 2.81
0.00
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00
7.00 34 2.89 35 2.98
7.50 36 3.06 38 3.23
TOP BOTTOM
7.7 10.6 8.3 11.1
10.9
EK26
EK 26
TOP BOTTOM
Penetration
Force Force 3.50
(mm) DGR DGR
(kN) (kN)
3.00
0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00
0.50 3 0.26 3 0.26
2.50
136
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
1.00 5 0.43 6 0.51
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00
1.50 8 0.68 9 0.77
2.00 11 0.94 11 0.94 TOP BOTTOM
2.50 13 1.11 13 1.11
3.00 16 1.36 15 1.28
3.50 18 1.53 18 1.53
4.00 22 1.87 21 1.79
4.50 25 2.13 23 1.96
5.00 27 2.30 26 2.21
5.50 29 2.47 28 2.38
6.00 32 2.72 31 2.64
6.50 34 2.89 33 2.81
7.00 35 2.98 35 2.98
7.50 37 3.15 37 3.15
8.3 11.5 8.3 11.1
11.3
EK27
TOP BOTTOM EK 27
Penetration
(mm) Force Force
DGR DGR
(kN) (kN) 3.50
0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00
0.50 2 0.17 3 0.26 3.00
1.00 5 0.43 5 0.43
1.50 8 0.68 7 0.60 2.50
2.00 11 0.94 9 0.77
2.50 14 1.19 12 1.02 2.00
3.00 17 1.45 15 1.28
3.50 20 1.70 17 1.45 1.50
4.00 22 1.87 20 1.70
4.50 25 2.13 23 1.96 1.00
5.00 28 2.38 25 2.13
5.50 30 2.55 27 2.30 0.50
6.00 33 2.81 30 2.55
6.50 35 2.98 32 2.72 0.00
7.00 37 3.15 35 2.98 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00
7.50 39 3.32 37 3.15
9.0 11.9 7.7 10.6 TOP BOTTOM
11.3
EK28
TOP BOTTOM EK 28
Penetration
(mm) Force Force
DGR DGR 3.50
(kN) (kN)
3.00
137
2.50
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00
0.50 2 0.17 2 0.17
1.00 4 0.34 5 0.43 0.00
1.50 6 0.51 7 0.60
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00
2.00 7 0.60 9 0.77
2.50 10 0.85 11 0.94 TOP BOTTOM
3.00 12 1.02 13 1.11
3.50 14 1.19 15 1.28
4.00 15 1.28 18 1.53
4.50 17 1.45 21 1.79
5.00 19 1.62 24 2.04
5.50 21 1.79 27 2.30
6.00 23 1.96 29 2.47
6.50 25 2.13 32 2.72
7.00 28 2.38 34 2.89
7.50 30 2.55 35 2.98
6.4 8.1 7.1 10.2
9.2
EK29
Penetration
TOP BOTTOM EK 29
(mm) Force Force
DGR DGR
(kN) (kN) 3.50
0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00
0.50 3 0.26 3 0.26 3.00
1.00 5 0.43 6 0.51
1.50 7 0.60 8 0.68 2.50
2.00 10 0.85 10 0.85
2.50 12 1.02 12 1.02 2.00
3.00 15 1.28 14 1.19
3.50 17 1.45 17 1.45 1.50
4.00 19 1.62 20 1.70
4.50 21 1.79 22 1.87 1.00
5.00 24 2.04 25 2.13
5.50 26 2.21 28 2.38 0.50
6.00 28 2.38 32 2.72
6.50 32 2.72 34 2.89 0.00
7.00 34 2.89 36 3.06 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00
7.50 36 3.06 39 3.32
7.7 10.2 7.7 10.6 TOP BOTTOM
10.4
EK30 EK 30
Penetration TOP BOTTOM
5.00
138
4.50
4.00
3.50
3.00
2.50
2.00
1.50
Force Force 1.00
(mm) DGR DGR
(kN) (kN) 0.50
0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00
0.50 4 0.34 3 0.26 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00
1.00 8 0.68 3 0.26
1.50 10 0.85 6 0.51
2.00 14 1.19 7 0.60
TOP BOTTOM
2.50 18 1.53 11 0.94
3.00 20 1.70 13 1.11
3.50 23 1.96 15 1.28
4.00 27 2.30 18 1.53
4.50 30 2.55 22 1.87
5.00 35 2.98 27 2.30
5.50 38 3.23 32 2.72
6.00 44 3.74 37 3.15
6.50 50 4.25 40 3.40
7.00 52 4.42 46 3.91
7.50 55 4.68 50 4.25
11.6 14.9 7.1 11.5
13.2
APPENDIX G
MODEL REGRESSION ANALYSIS RESULT BETWEEN CBR AND NMC, SG AND
PP200
Model Summaryb
Change Statistics
Std. Error
Adjusted of the R Square F Sig. F
Model R R Square R Square Estimate Change Change df1 df2 Change Durbin-Watson
1 .585a .342 .266 4.32008 .342 4.506 3 26 .011 2.130
a. Predictors: (Constant), Sieve0.075, SG, NMC
b. Dependent Variable: CBR
ANOVAa
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 252.295 3 84.098 4.506 .011b
Residual 485.240 26 18.663
Total 737.535 29
139
a. Dependent Variable: CBR
b. Predictors: (Constant), Sieve0.075, SG, NMC
Coefficientsa
Unstandardized Standardized
Coefficients Coefficients Collinearity Statistics
Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig. Tolerance VIF
1 (Constant) 8.653 10.422 .830 .414
NMC -.233 .228 -.178 -1.020 .317 .832 1.202
SG 5.033 4.133 .194 1.218 .234 .999 1.001
Sieve0.075 -.154 .058 -.459 -2.633 .014 .831 1.203
APPENDIX H
MODEL REGRESSION ANALYSIS RESULT BETWEEN CBR AND LL, PI AND
PP200
Model Summary
Change Statistics
R Adjusted Std. Error of R Square F Sig. F
Model R Square R Square the Estimate Change Change df1 df2 Change Durbin-Watson
1 .667a .445 .381 3.96887 .445 6.941 3 26 .001 1.880
a. Predictors: (Constant), Sieve0.075, PI, LL
ANOVAa

1 Regression 327.984 3 109.328 6.941 .001b
Residual 409.551 26 15.752
140
Total 737.535 29
b. Predictors: (Constant), Sieve0.075, PI, LL
Coefficientsa
1 (Constant) 28.058 3.466 8.095 .000
LL -.409 .154 -.626 -2.662 .013 .386 2.589

PI .273 .208 .294 1.310 .202 .425 2.354
Sieve0.075 -.116 .055 -.347 -2.112 .044 .791 1.264

APPENDIX I
MODEL REGRESSION ANALYSIS RESULT BETWEEN CBR AND LL, PI AND
PP200
Model Summaryb
Change Statistics
R Adjusted Std. Error of R Square Sig. F
Model R Square R Square the Estimate Change F Change df1 df2 Change Durbin-Watson
1 .593a .352 .277 4.28794 .352 4.704 3 26 .009 1.755
a. Predictors: (Constant), NMC, PI, LL
ANOVAa
141
1 Regression 259.487 3 86.496 4.704 .009b
Residual 478.047 26 18.386
Total 737.535 29
b. Predictors: (Constant), NMC, PI, LL
Coefficientsa
1 (Constant) 27.482 3.776 7.278 .000
LL -.480 .181 -.734 -2.652 .013 .325 3.077
PI .249 .229 .268 1.087 .287 .410 2.440
NMC -.077 .247 -.058 -.310 .759 .699 1.430

142

OLOMOLATAN

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

OLOMOLATAN

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

OLOMOLATAN

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CHAPTER ONE

1.1 Background of the study

Accurately assessing the mechanical characteristics of soil specimens is complicated by the

DCPT is frequently used for site exploration and quality control.

1.2.1 Aim of study

bearing ratio of soils in Ekiti-south senatorial districts soils.

The precise Objectives are;

1.3 Justification of the study

place to place and even over time.

1.4 Scope of Study

in-situ materials in accordance with ASTM D 4429 test protocol.

that troublesome soils must fall below Casagrande's plasticity chart.

especially Silcretes and lateritic minerals.

vertical, horizontal, or both.

degrees of accuracy and inaccuracy. Following developments in a variety of sensing

computerized soil mapping. (McBratney and Pringle, 1999).

on soil parameters, receive less attention.

environmental factors of temperature, precipitation, and surface coverage on soil formation.

2.1.1 Soil investigation and testing

The importance of geotechnical studies of the subsurface conditions for infrastructure

materials for infrastructure development cannot be overstated. (Apanpa Et al., 2019). A

geotechnical study of the subsurface condition of a planned infrastructure development site

(Stavridakis, 2006; Kalantari, 2012). Thus, a comprehensive grasp of geotechnical

According to Becerik-Gerber et al. (2014), infrastructure is a subfield of civil engineering that

the building of engineering structures without the implementation of certain stabilizing

measures. The sub-disciplines of infrastructure development include construction, structural

materials, coastal engineering, architectural engineering, and surveying.

thorough study of the occurrence, composition, distribution, geologic history, and

properties, which is necessary before using it as a building material or as a foundation for

structures (Ogechukwu Et al., 2019).

2.1.2 Soil classification

structural integrity of structures, it plays a crucial function in civil engineering.

responsible and sustainable management of soils are well acknowledged. Barrera-Bassols Et

acceptable to the local community and culture (Schuler Et al., 2006).

2.1.3 Soil texture

silt, and sand (USDA, 1999).

2.1.4 Soil structure

combine to form soil structure include flocculation, cementation, bioturbation, and

geotechnical structures by influencing the stability and deformation characteristics of these

formation. (Lehmann & Kleber, 2015).

structure (Tisdall & Oades, 1982).

2.1.5 Soil porosity

the spatial autocorrelation of soil properties.

soil density by decreasing pore space.

like building, agriculture, or urbanization. According to Fischer Et al., (2017), compacted

shape, and connectivity (Robinson Et al., 2018).

2.1.6 Soil permeability

other environmental conditions.

clay soils, as demonstrated by Zhang Et al., (2007).

compaction. Reduced permeability is a result of compacted soils' increased tortuosity and

higher hydraulic conductivity than unsaturated soils.

Soil permeability is an important consideration in civil engineering design and analysis,

due to factors like heterogeneity and anisotropy (Sivapullaiah Et al., 2009).

2.1.7 Soil compressibility

compressible the soil is in a given area. (Lambe & Whitman, 1969).

2.2 Theoretical review

changes from fine-grained to granular. Livneh (2000) developed a method to accommodate

measurable effect on the modulus of fine-grained soils (Ehsan, 2011).

DCPT for soil characterization.

MATERIALS AND METHODOLOGY