UNIVERSITY OF NAIROBI

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL AND CONSTRUCTION

ENGINEERING

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING INVESTIGATION REPORT FOR

PROPOSED OFFICE COMPLEX AND SLOPE STABILITY ASSESSMENT
AT KAKAMEGA TOWNSHIP FOR ONE ACRE FUND- A CASE STUDY.

By Awuor F. Ogallo, F16/1317/2010

A project submitted as a partial fulfillment

For the requirement for the award of the degree of

BACHELOR OF SCIENCE IN CIVIL ENGINEERING

PROJECT SUPERVIOR

Dr. Osano Simpson N.

2015

i
Abstract
A geotechnical site investigation is the process of collecting information and evaluating the
conditions of the site for the purpose of designing and constructing the foundation for a structure,
such as a building, plant or bridge in this case it is an office complex.

Good planning for and management of a geotechnical site investigation to obtain sufficient and
correct site information for designing a structure in a timely manner and with minimum cost for
the effort needed.

The collection of geotechnical data and the preparation of a report for a proposed structure
should be considered in four phases:

1) Project definition prepared by the owner in conjunction with an architect, if selected. The
project definition consists of architectural/engineering foundation criteria such as loading
and settlement; on or above ground structure; service life of structure, and proposed
design/ construction schedule.
2) Preliminary site and project evaluation conducted by the geotechnical consultant selected
for the geotechnical site investigation. It consists of preliminary site review of past
geotechnical investigations of nearby sites and a selection of likely foundation design(s)
based on published literature and the geotechnical consultant knowledge of the site. This
preliminary evaluation and a consensus by the owner are used to develop the detail of the
proposed geotechnical site investigation.
3) Geotechnical site investigation (trial pits and sampling) and laboratory testing for soils
characteristics.
4) Geotechnical report preparation with recommended foundation system options.

ii
Acknowledgement
I wish to express my sincere gratitude to my parents Mr. and Mrs. Okeyo for supporting and
encouraging me to come this far in life, and to those who made it possible for me to successfully
complete this project.

Special thanks t o my supervisor, Dr. Osano Simpson N., for his guidance, constructive criticism,
and understanding during the project period.

The department of Civil and Construction Engineering was of great assistance in providing
administrative and technical support in particular; the Chief Technologist, Mr. Ogallo, the
laboratory team, Mr. Oyier A Elly, Mr. Martin Mburu and Mr. Mathew among others.

Finally, my sincere regards to all my fellow students and friends, particularly Oduor Irene and
Oyugi Pamela, for their moral, material and physical assistance and support during the whole
project period.

God bless you all.

To God be the glory.

iii
Table of Contents
Abstract ........................................................................................................................................... ii
Acknowledgement ......................................................................................................................... iii
Table of contents……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….iii

LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................................................... vi

LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................................... viii
CHAPTER ONE ............................................................................................................................. 9
1. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 9
1.1 General introduction .............................................................................................................. 9
1.2 Site description ...................................................................................................................... 9
1.3 Problem statement ............................................................................................................... 11
1.4 Scope of study ..................................................................................................................... 11
1.5 objectives ............................................................................................................................. 14
CHAPTER TWO .......................................................................................................................... 15
2. LITERATURE REVIEW ......................................................................................................... 15
2.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 15
2.2 Site exploration ................................................................................................................... 15
2.2.1 Objective ....................................................................................................................... 15
2.2.2 Depth of exploration ..................................................................................................... 15
2.2.3 Lateral extent of exploration......................................................................................... 16
2.2.4 Phasing of site exploration ........................................................................................... 16
2.2.5 Procuring and handling of disturbed samples............................................................... 18
2.2.6 Procuring and handling of undisturbed samples........................................................... 18
2.2.6 Sampling in excavations ............................................................................................... 19
2.2.7 Frequency of sampling ................................................................................................. 19
2.3 Soil structure ....................................................................................................................... 19
2.3.1 Soil particles ................................................................................................................. 20
2.3.2 Electrical forces ............................................................................................................ 21
2.3.3 The limit of consistency of clays .................................................................................. 23

iv
 2.4 Soil mass and preliminary definitions ................................................................................. 24
2.4.1 Water content (moisture content) ................................................................................. 25
2.4.2 Density and unit weight of soil solids. ......................................................................... 25
2.4.3 Voids ratio and porosity ............................................................................................... 25
2.4.4 Degree of saturation...................................................................................................... 25
2.4.5 Density or unit weight of soil mass. ............................................................................. 25
2.5 Classification of soils....................................................................................................... 26
2.5.1 Particle-size classification ............................................................................................ 26
2.5.2 Highway Research Board Classification ...................................................................... 26
2.5.3 British soil classification .............................................................................................. 27
2.5.4 Unified soil classification System ................................................................................ 27
2.4.5 ASTM soil classification .............................................................................................. 27
2.5 Soil compaction ................................................................................................................... 28
2.5.1 Theory of compaction and factors influencing compacted density .............................. 28
CHAPTER THREE ...................................................................................................................... 32
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY..................................................................... 32
3.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 32
3.2 Desk study ........................................................................................................................... 32
3.3 Site investigation ................................................................................................................. 32
3.3.1 Trial Pits ....................................................................................................................... 32
3.3.2 Disturbed samples......................................................................................................... 33
3.3.3 Undisturbed samples..................................................................................................... 34
3.3.4 Sequence of work ......................................................................................................... 34
3.4 Laboratory Investigation ..................................................................................................... 35
3.4.1 Grading Test ................................................................................................................. 35
CHAPTER FOUR ......................................................................................................................... 42
4. DATA ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION ................................................................................ 42
4.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 42
4.2 Field Observation ................................................................................................................ 42
4.3 Laboratory Results .............................................................................................................. 43
4.3.1 Laboratory test results ................................................................................................ 43

v
 4.4 Discussions .......................................................................................................................... 45
4.4.1 Classification Tests ....................................................................................................... 45
4.4.2 Strength Tests ............................................................................................................... 47
4.4.2.2 Direct shear test ......................................................................................................... 48
4.4.2.3 Consolidation ............................................................................................................. 50
4.4.3 Bearing capacity ........................................................................................................... 50
4.4.4 Hydrogeology ............................................................................................................... 53
4.4.5 Assessment of Seismic Risks ....................................................................................... 54
CHAPTER FIVE .......................................................................................................................... 60
5. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................... 60
5.1 Conclusions ......................................................................................................................... 60
Soil classification ...................................................................................................................... 60
5.2 Recommendations ............................................................................................................... 61
CHAPTER SIX ............................................................................................................................. 63
6. REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................... 63
APPENDICES .............................................................................................................................. 61

vi
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 4-1 Atterberg limits results .............................................................................................35

TABLE 4-2: Grading results .........................................................................................................36

TABLE 4-3: Compaction results ..................................................................................................36

TABLE 4-4: Shear test results ......................................................................................................36

TABLE 4-5: Bulk density results ..................................................................................................36

TABLE 4-6: Consolidation results ................................................................................................37

TABLE 4-7: Description of soil based on plasticity index ............................................................37

TABLE 4-8: Quality of soil based on shrinkage limit ...................................................................38

TABLE 4-9: Comparison between MDD from compaction and MDD from bulk density
determination ................................................................................................................................40

TABLE 4-10: Soil type on the basis of Ф, ....................................................................................41

TABLE 4-11: Safe bearing capacities for soils in TPs 7 and 8 .....................................................44

TABLE 5-1: Soil classification of the various TPs .......................................................................51

TABLE 5-2: Recommended pressures at different depths ...........................................................52

vii
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1-1: position of Kakamega on map of Kenya ...................................................................2

FIGURE 1-2: map showing Kakamega area ..................................................................................3

FIGURE 2-1: Clay minerals ..........................................................................................................13

FIGURE 2-2: Van der waals bonding ...........................................................................................14

FIGURE 2-3: Hydrogen bonds ......................................................................................................15

FIGURE 2-4: the states of consistency .........................................................................................16

FIGURE 2-5: Relationship between dry density with moisture content .......................................21

FIGURE 3-1 Trial pit .....................................................................................................................25

FIGURE 3-2: Hand augering process ............................................................................................25

FIGURE 3-3: Undisturbed samples ..............................................................................................26

FIGURE 3-4: Grading sieves .........................................................................................................28

FIGURE 3-5: Cone penetrometer .................................................................................................29

FIGURE 3-6: Consolidation apparatus ..........................................................................................31

FIGURE 3-7: Determination of bulk density ................................................................................32

FIGURE 4-1: Site image ................................................................................................................35

FIGURE 4-2: Load settlement relationship ...................................................................................43

FIGURE 4-3: Level of earthquake risk in Kenya and surrounding countries ..............................46

FIGURE 4-4: Earthquake risk in Kenya ........................................................................................47

FIGURE 4-5: Earthquake hazard and intensity ............................................................................48

FIGURE 4-6: Earthquake hazard and intensity .............................................................................49

viii
CHAPTER ONE
1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 General introduction

A site investigation or soil survey is an essential part of the preliminary design work on any
important structure in order to obtain information regarding the sequence of strata and the ground
water level, and also to collect samples for identification and testing. In addition a site
investigation is often necessary to assess the safety of an existing structure or to investigate a
case where failure has occurred. Slope stability analysis is performed to assess the safe design of
human-made or natural slopes and the equilibrium conditions. This research aims at investigating
the geotechnical properties of 5.6 acres of land in Kakamega-Ikonyero area in order to determine
its suitability for the proposed two-storey office complex and to assess the stability of its slopes.

1.2 Site description

Kakamega is a county in the western part of Kenya. Kakamega area is extremely well watered,
annual averages varying between 60 and 74 in. of well distributed rainfall in different parts of the
quarter-degree area. As a result of this and the close network of permanent rivers and streams, it
is seldom that water- supply difficulties are encountered. Kakamega area is within the Nyanzian
System. Rocks of Nyanzian System occur in two portions only at the newly-mapped portion of
the area – a) in the immediate vicinity of Kakamega and (b) in the area east of Malaba towards
the Nandi Scarp.

The system is here made up predominantly of acid to basic lavas, with minor tuff and
agglomerate bands associated only with the intermediate rocks. Further west Pulfrey (1945 and
1946) noted a strong development of tuffs mainly associated with the acid members of the series
dman (1929), stockley (1943), Shackleton (1946) and the writer (1951) have considered that the
succession ranges from basic rocks at the base to acid at the top. The andesites are best
developed in the vicinity of Kakamega.

9
Elsewhere in the area they are of little importance. In hand-specimen they are medium grey-
green and often carry feldspar phenocrysts up to three-eighths of an inch in length. Less
commonly mafic materials are also visible to the naked eye. (A. Hudlestone, Msc. ,
F.G.S.,A.M.I.M.M.)

The terrain is particularly steep in some parts and fairly gentle in other parts facing Kakamega
Town. Slopes vary from steep dissected slopes (5-150) on fine grained silty clay loamy soils to
moderately steep slopes (30-450). Vegetation cover consist of maize plantations, grass and
undergrowth on the gentle slopes and trees and nappier grass plantation on the steep slopes,
though there are indications of clay mining near the boundary. The position of Kakamega town is
as indicated in the figures 1-1 and 1-2 below.

Figure 1-1 position of Kakamega on map of Kenya

10
Figure 1-2 map showing Kakamega town

1.3 Problem statement

Some parts in the area have moderately steep slope (30-450), this pose a problem in the stability
of the slopes, and can bring about earth movements which can be in the form of falls, slides or
flows. The area has also in the recent past experienced earthquake though of mild nature as
recorded in the mercalli scale, it is within zone VI based on earthquake intensity. This has to be
taken care of in the design of foundations. Properties of the soil are to be determined from the
various tests to allow for the safe design of foundations.

1.4 Scope of study

Soil masses may be divided into two classes; homogenous or regular soil and non-homogenous
or erratic soil. A regular soil mass is a deposit of one material with uniform or uniformly varying
properties, or a deposit of strata of different materials, each material having fairly uniform or
uniformly varying properties, each stratum having essentially constant thickness, and the
configuration of the strata being approximately horizontal.

11
An erratic soil mass is one in which the soil or soil strata are not uniform or consistent in
properties, elevation, thickness, or extent. Unfortunately, deposits of erratic nature are found
more frequently than regular deposits. For erratic soil deposits, the refinements of sampling and
testing warranted in a uniform deposit is seldom justified, since anything less than an infinite
number of tests cannot possibly give results representative of the soil mass as a whole.
Investigations of erratic deposits generally evolve into a program for determining the location
and extent of the weaker strata and lenses, and possibly the properties of the weak soil.

There are many available means by which the character and nature of soil deposits may be
investigated. The choice of methods depends upon a number of factors, such as;

 The type of exploration- whether it is preliminary or for design purposes.

 The extent of the survey – whether only the surface soils need to be studied or data on
deep strata is desired.
 The area covered by the survey- square miles or small areas.
 The type of information needed- whether soil properties need to be known or only the
depth the bed rock is required.
 The nature of the soil deposit and the equipment available.

Exploration method can be divided into two classes: surface exploration and sub-surface
exploration. The distinction between the two methods is that sub-surface exploration consists of
those methods which require physical entry of a tool into the soil.

The most important procedure, which is always performed whenever a soil study is initiated, is
research. Research starts with a study of the various maps that may be obtained of the area. To
this end, photo-murals, topographic maps, and geologic maps are useful. This is followed by a
more intensive study of the geologic history of the area. In this connection, state and federal
publications and records are extremely useful.

The purpose of research is to establish the type, and, therefore, the nature of the soils and rock
likely to be encountered. Information obtained from the general site geology is then verified, in
so far as is possible, by direct observation of the site. Sub-surface explorations are made to verify
or to amplify the data obtained by surface methods.

12
Any method or device which involves physical penetration of the soil is classed as sub-surface
exploration. There are many ways in which this penetration can be made, and the choice hinges
mainly on the information needed and the soil conditions. The most common method is the
digging of trial/ test pits, they allow for visual inspection of the soil profile. Static methods have
been developed to give data on relative consistency of cohesive soils. The equipment consists of
a slender conical penetration point, which may have a twist-drill shape. The point is fastened to
the lower end of a string of drill rods, and is forced into the soil by means of static weight. Hand
augers can also be used to explore a soil deposit. Auger holes are excellent for field
classification, since every part of the profile is available for visual inspection. (Karol, R.H.)

Sampling- two types of soil sample can be obtained: disturbed sample and undisturbed sample.

Disturbed samples - the auger parings or the contents of the shell can be collected as disturbed
soil samples. Such soil has been remoulded and is of no use for shear strength tests but is useful
for identification tests (L.L and P.L., particle size distribution, etc)

Undisturbed samples (cohesive soil) - in a trial pit samples can be cut out by hand if care is
taken. The hand auger can be used to obtain useful samples for unconfined compression tests and
employs 38mm sampling tubes with a length of 200mm.

Undisturbed samples (sands) - if care is taken it is possible to extract a sand sample by cutting
from the bottom or sides of a trial pit. In a borehole, above ground water level, sand is damp and
there is enough temporary cohesion to allow samples to be collected in sampling tubes, but
below ground water level tube sampling is not possible.

The standard penetration test is normally used for cohesionless soils, although Terzaghi & Peck
(1948) give an approximate relationship for clays.

Plate loading tests are more applicable to cohesionless soils than cohesive soils due to the time
necessary for the latter to reach full consolidation. Generally two tests are carried out as a check
on each other, different sized plates of the same shape being used in granular soils so that the
settlement of the proposed foundation can be evolved from the relationship between the two
plates. The loading is applied in increments and is increased up to two or three times the
proposed loading. (G.N. Smith)

13
1.5 objectives

 To carry out geotechnical investigation on Ikonyero area.

 To design foundation based on the results from the tests carried out.
 To recommend remedies for the slopes in case they are found to be unstable.

14
CHAPTER TWO

2. LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Introduction

Wherever the ground is not level, gravitational and seepage forces tend to cause soil movement
from higher to lower elevations. These forces induce shearing stresses within the soil mass, and a
shear failure results if the shearing strength along any possible failure plane is less than the sum
of the shearing stresses. Stability analyses often indicate isolated points or areas within a soil
mass where shearing stresses exceed shearing strength. However, shearing failure will not occur
unless the total resistance on some plane through the weak area is smaller than the total force on
the plane.

2.2 Site exploration

2.2.1 Objective

The object of site exploration is to get information about the following:

a) Sequence and extent of each soil and rock stratum in the region likely to be affected by
the proposed works.
b) Nature of the stratum and engineering properties of soil and rock which may affect the
design and mode of construction of proposed structure and its foundation
c) Location of ground water and possible corrosive effect of soil and water on foundation
materials.

The above information is obtained by various methods of subsurface exploration.

2.2.2 Depth of exploration

In general, any exploration should be carried to a depth which includes all strata likely to
undergo undesirable settlement or shear failure due to structural loading. This depth up to which

15
the net loading intensity or the stress increment due to structural loading, can produce perceptible
contribution to settlement or shear failure may be called the significant depth. The significant
depth depends on the type of structure, intensity of loading, size, shape and disposition of the
loaded areas and also on the soil profile and the physical properties of the soil constituting the
substrata. If q is the intensity of structural loading at the foundation level, the depth below the
foundation level at which the vertical net loading intensity equals 0.2q or 0.1q is often assumed
to define the significant depth.

The mode of stress distribution is affected by the type of foundation and the relative spacing
between the various foundations. Closely spaced foundations have a cumulative effect in
extending the pressure bulb to much greater depths. Similarly, deep foundations like cylinders
and piles transmit stresses to much greater depths. Such foundations require exploration to
considerable depths. In case of floating basement foundation where the weight of excavated soil
is such that the net loading intensity induced at the foundation level due to the construction of the
structure is almost negligible, it is generally sufficient to explore to a depth which may be
affected during construction.

2.2.3 Lateral extent of exploration

The lateral extent of exploration depends mainly upon the degree of variation in the substance
strata in the horizontal direction and it can be determined only on the site by making a few
preliminary borings and soundings on the site. The disposition and spacing of test pits or borings
should be such as to reveal any major changes in thickness, depth, or properties of the strata
coming under the influence of the proposed engineering works and also the immediate
surroundings.

2.2.4 Phasing of site exploration

2.2.4.1 General exploration

All subsurface explorations, field and laboratory testing are carried out in two stages: general and
detailed. The scope of general exploration is restricted to the determination of depth, thickness,

16
extent and composition of each soil stratum, location of rock and ground water, and also to
obtain approximate information regarding strength and compressibility of the various strata.
Information obtained from the general exploration is considered sufficient for the design and
execution of minor and routine engineering works. General exploration is recommended even for
major works, if the soil profile is erratic or irregular, as in erratic soil deposits elaborate methods
of subsurface exploration, sampling and testing may prove to be impracticable and
uneconomical.

General exploration is carried out by exploratory boring, representative sampling and in situ
penetration and sounding tests. In some cases, geophysical methods supplemented by borings are
used. Auger, auger and shell, and wash boring are the usual methods of making exploratory
borings. Test pits may be used for shallow depths.

Disturbed but representative samples are collected directly from open excavations or from
boreholes by means of an auger, shell or open drive thick-wall sampler. The samples are
subjected to simple field and laboratory identification and classification tests. In situ water
content, density and voids ratio are determined from samples obtained by split-tube samplers.

2.2.4.2 Detailed exploration

Large engineering projects involving heavy complex structures and costly foundations require
detailed subsurface exploration, field and laboratory testing. The scope of detailed exploration is
ordinarily restricted to the determination of engineering properties of only those strata which are
shown by general exploration to be critical. Moreover, detailed exploration is justified only in
regular soil deposits having more or less parallel boundaries between different strata.

The object of detailed exploration may be to determine one of the following parameters: shear
strength and compressibility of both coarse-grained and fine-grained soils, density index and
permeability of coarse-grained soils. These properties are determined by procuring and testing
mostly undisturbed samples by field tests. Field tests which may be performed are; in situ
permeability tests, penetration tests, in situ vane tests, pile driving and pile loading tests, and
plate loading.

17
2.2.5 Procuring and handling of disturbed samples

2.2.5.1 Hand sampling

While excavating test pits, shafts and trenches, etc, it is quite convenient to retain representative
disturbed samples from different elevations and strata. Appropriate quantities should be stored in
proper containers, such as tightly woven canvas bags, cans, bins or wooden boxes. Glass jars are
suitable for small quantities.

2.2.5.2 Auger sampling

Auger samples, though badly mixed, are good enough for identification and classification tests.
Each auger-load of soil brought out of the hole is placed on a strip of cleared ground in order of
its sampling depth. If the soil is essentially of the same type, it may be deposited in one or more
adjacent heaps and another series of heaps with clear spacing from first soil started when the soil
type changes.

2.2.5.3 Drive sampling

The process of obtaining representative samples from exploratory bore holes by driving thick-
wall samplers is known as drive sampling. The samples obtained are sometimes termed dry
samples to distinguish them from washed samples collected from return fluid in wash boring.

2.2.6 Procuring and handling of undisturbed samples.

2.2.6.1 Use of stationary piston sampler

The sampler is lowered to the bottom of the hole with the piston fixed in the extended position so
that the bottom end of the sampler remains plugged. The piston rod which was clamped with the
drill rods during lowering operation is now released from the drill rods and clamped to the casing
or held independently in such a way that the piston remains stationary and the sampling tube is
driven ahead into the undisturbed soil in one continuous stroke, without rotation. The piston rod
is again clamped to the drill rods and the whole assembly is withdrawn.

18
2.2.6.2 Use of rotary sampler

For sampling soils, a rotary sampler with inner tube shoe protruding beyond the cutting teeth of
the outer tube is used. The extension of the inner tube shoe beyond the outer cutting teeth is
adjusted according to the soil type, being more for soft, loose and slightly cohesive soils and less
for harder soils. The speed of rotation is adjusted that it will not tear or break the sample.

2.2.6 Sampling in excavations

Sampling in open excavations like the test pits and shafts, etc, afford best undisturbed samples
both for cohesive and cohesionless soils. Samples can be obtained either by block or chunk
sampling or by the use of thin-wall core cutters and samplers. A chunk sample is a hand-cut
sample and it can be obtained both from the bottom and the side of a pit.

2.2.7 Frequency of sampling

In intermittent sampling, undisturbed soil samples are obtained at every change in stratum and at
intervals not exceeding 1.5 metres within a continuous stratum. On important investigations such
as the foundations for an earth dam or other heavy structures involving settlement computations,
it is desirable to take continuous undisturbed samples. In such cases, the boring may, in fact, be
entirely accomplished by the sampling operations alone; it may, however, be necessary to
enlarge the bore hole and drive the casing after each sample is taken.

2.3 Soil structure

The arrangement of the solids, water and air within a soil mass and the interaction forces
between these constituents of a soil mass are referred to as soil structure. Soil structure is an
important factor which influences soil properties, such as permeability, compressibility, shear
resistance and many others. The following factors are related to the soil structure: size, shape,
mineralogical composition and electrical properties of soil particles, nature and properties of soil
water, forces acting between the constituents of a soil mass, and the mode of soil formation and
the subsequent disturbance.

19
2.3.1 Soil particles

Solid particles in soil masses resulting from the disintegration of rocks are of mineral
composition. The particles of coarse-grained soils are composed of primary minerals, that is,
they are the same as existing in present-day rocks. The particles are irregularly shaped, but
usually not far from equidimensional. Such particles are termed bulky particles and they can be
thought to be of rough-edged shapes approaching spheres. These particles are characterized by
an absence of claylike property, such as plasticity or cohesion. Also, their behavior is governed
primarily by gravitational forces or mass energy rather than colloidal forces. Particles of gravels,
sands and inorganic, non-plastic silts fall in this category.

The particles of fine-grained soils are composed predominantly of crystalline minerals, although
amorphous material may also be present, but it is considered to have little or no effect on soil
behavior. When these minerals develop plasticity and cohesion they are termed as clay minerals.
If the properties of plasticity and cohesion are absent, they are non-clay minerals; in spite of their
fineness in size.

Clay minerals are the principal components of clays and the non-clay minerals constitute mainly
the inorganic silts. A clay may have in varying proportions the non-clay minerals. About 15
minerals are classified as clay minerals. These minerals are divided into four main groups:
kaolinite, montmorillonite, illite and palygorskite.

Clay minerals are termed the secondary minerals which during the process of their formation
due to chemical weathering of rocks usually assume the shape of sheets or plates and sometimes
of rods, tubes or fibres.

Because of their size and shape, the clay particles have high specific surface and thus behave as
colloid. A colloid is a particle whose specific surface is so high that its behavior is controlled by
surface energy rather than mass energy.

The structures of various clay minerals are as shown below in figure 2-1.

20
Figure 2-1: clay minerals

2.3.2 Electrical forces

The electrical forces that participate in the building of a soil structure may be grouped under
three categories: primary valence bonds, secondary valence bonds, and electrostatic forces.
Primary valence bonds are the forces which hold atoms together to form molecules; they are also
known as intermolecular bonds. Secondary valence bonds, also called intermolecular bonds, are
the forces which link atoms in one molecule to atoms in another molecule. Secondary valence
bonds are of two types: van der waals forces and hydrogen bonds.

The van der waals forces are the electrical or electromagnetic attractive forces between systems
of molecules and they are thought to develop from electrical moments existing in the individual
molecules. Although a molecule is electrically neutral, it may have its atoms arranged in such a
way that their centres of action of the positive and negative charges do not coincide, and
therefore, an electrical moment is developed. A system with an electrical moment is known as a
polar system or a dipole.

21
Figure 2-2: Van der waals bonding

Van der waals forces develop due to three types of dipoles: permanent, induced and fluctuating.
The force of attraction between the oppositely charged ends of permanent dipoles is called the
orientation effect. When a non-polar molecule becomes polar in an electrical field, it is said to be
an induced dipole and the resulting force due to induced polarization is called the induction
effect. Since all electrons oscillate constantly, they periodically assume unsymmetrical positions
in all molecules and result in the formation of temporary, fluctuating dipoles. The intermolecular
dipoles is called the dispersion effect. From amongst these three effects, the orientation
contributes the maximum to the van der waals forces.

When an atom of hydrogen is strongly attracted by two other atoms, a hydrogen bond is formed;
the hydrogen atom cannot decide with which of the atoms it wants to link, and therefore, it
oscillates between them. The primary valence bonds are the strongest. The hydrogen bonds are
considerably weaker than the primary valence bonds. However, both these types of bonds are too
strong to be broken under the stress normally applied in engineering to a soil system. On the
other van der waals forces are much weaker than the other two. They are greatly influenced by
applied stresses and by the changes in the nature of the soil-water system. These forces have
their unique importance as they contribute to clay strength and cause soils to hold water

22
Figure 2-3: hydrogen bonds

2.3.3 The limit of consistency of clays

A clay deposit in the process of formation, i.e., during sedimentation at the bottom of lake, of a
pond, or of other slow-flowing waters, has as first the consistency of liquid mud in this state, if
the removed from the deposit, it will not keep its shape by itself and will easily flow.

As the volume of voids of the deposit decreases, the clay becomes more compact and loses its
capacity to flow. However, it is still fairly soft and plastic i.e., laterally unrestrained clay has the
capacity of altering its shape under the effect of an applied force without any appreciable change
of volume, and of subsequently retaining the newly acquired shape.

Under further compression or drying clay loses its plastic properties and is apt to crumble if
remolded; it has reached the semisolid state.

After further compression or drying the clay finally reaches a state when it will not reduce its
volume any further, i.e., it will stop shrinking. This corresponds to a change in color; the clay
takes on a lighter shade. It has then reached the solid state.

The limits between the liquid, the plastic, the semisolid, and the solid states of a fine-grained soil
are respectively termed the liquid, the plastic, and the shrinkage limits.

They have a collective name of consistency limits and are also referred to as atterberg limits.
These limits are generally expressed by the water content of a given soil at a particular limit or
by the corresponding void ratio. By consistency is meant the degree of resistance of a fine-
grained soil to flow or to deformation in general.

23
The difference between the water contents at the liquid limit and that at the plastic limit indicates
the range of plasticity of a given soil and is referred to as the plasticity index (PI)

PI= LL- PL

Where PI- plasticity index

LL-liquid limit

PL- plastic limit

Figure 2-4: the four states of consistency of clay

2.4 Soil mass and preliminary definitions

A soil mass is an aggregation of soil particles forming a porous structure. The pores may be
filled with water or air or both.

24
2.4.1 Water content (moisture content)

Is defined as the ratio of the mass of water present in a given soil mass to the dry mass of solid
particles, and is expressed as a percentage.

2.4.2 Density and unit weight of soil solids.

The density of solids is the mass of solids per unit volume of solids.

The unit weight of solids is the weight per unit volume of solids.

Specific gravity the specific gravity G of soil particles is defined as the ratio of the weight given
volume of solid soil particles to the weight of an equal volume of distilled water at a stated
temperature, or simply, it is the ratio of the unit weight or density of soil solids to that of water.

2.4.3 Voids ratio and porosity

Voids ratio is the ratio of the volume of voids to the volume of soil solids in a given soil mass.
Porosity is the ratio of the volume of voids to the total volume of the mass. The porosity is
usually expressed as a percentage.

2.4.4 Degree of saturation

It is the ratio of the volume of water present in a given mass to the total volume of voids. The
degree of saturation is expressed as a percentage.

2.4.5 Density or unit weight of soil mass.

The density of a soil mass is its mass per unit volume. It is dependent on the specific gravity of
solids, voids ratio and degree of saturation.

Bulk density- it is the total mass or weight of a soil mass per unit of its total volume.

Dry density- it is the mass of soil solids per unit of total volume (prior to drying) of a soil mass.

Saturated density- it is the bulk density of a soil mass when fully saturated.

25
Submerged density- it is the submerged mass of soil solids per unit of total volume of a soil
mass, that is, the mass of soil solids in air minus the ,mass of water displaced by solids per unit
of total volume of soil mass.

2.5 Classification of soils

The object of classifying soils is to arrange them into groups according to their properties and
engineering behavior. Thus, if the group to which a soil belongs is determined, it would be
possible to predict its behavior.

2.5.1 Particle-size classification

In this system the soil is arranged into different groups or fractions to the particle-size
distribution. A number of arbitrary systems have been suggested, differing mainly in the sizes
specified as the limits of the different fractions. The two commonly used particle-size scale are
the one suggested by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and the other by U.S.
Bureau of Soils and U.S. Public Roads Administration (PRA).

2.5.2 Highway Research Board Classification

This system of classification was adopted by the U.S. Public Roads Administration in 1942 and
subsequently revised by the US Highway Research Board in 1945 is known as the Public Roads
Administration (PRA) classification or the Highway Research Board (HRB) classification
system. This system of classification is based on relative performance of soils when used for a
specific engineering purpose (pavement construction). In this system, soil types are classified
primarily on the basis of particle composition and the plasticity characteristics.

The term group index used in the HRB classification is a means of rating the value of a soil as a
subgrade material within its own group. It is not used in order to place a soil in a particular
group. The higher the value of the group index, the poorer is the quality of the material. The
group index is a function of the amount of material passing the 75-micron IS sieve.

26
2.5.3 British soil classification

The British soil classification system is based on the particle size distribution and the plasticity
as plotted on a plasticity chart. The plasticity chart is a plot of the soil PI against LL. In the
British soil classification any cobbles and boulders retained on 63mm BS Sieve Size are removed
from the soil before the classification. The percentage of this very coarse portion is determined
and mentioned in the report. The soil groups in the classification are noted by the group symbols
composed of main and qualifying descriptive letters.

2.5.4 Unified soil classification System

Like the British soil classification system, the Unified Soil Classification System is based on the
particle size distribution and the plasticity as plotted on a plasticity chart. The plasticity chart is a
plot of the soil PI against LL. The main difference with the British soil classification is that the
detail in the unified classification is reduced. In effect the classification is simplified. Thus the
separation of the coarse and the fine grained soils is basically determined on the 50% percentage
fraction instead of the 35 and 65% used in the British classification system. In addition the
division of the plasticity chart is limited to the 50% value for the lower and the higher plasticity
for the purposes of classifying the fine grained soils.
The system is based on both grain size and plasticity characteristics of soils. In this system soils
are broadly divided into three divisions;
1. Course-grained soils – if more than 50% by weight is retained on No. 200 ASTM sieves
(American Society for Testing Materials)
2. Fine-grained soils – if more than 50% by weight passes through No. 200 ASTM sieve
3. Organic soils

2.4.5 ASTM soil classification

The ASTM classification system is a revised version of the widely recognized Unified Soil
Classification (USC (system which was adopted by several U.S Government Agencies in 1952 as

27
an out-growth of the Airfiedl Classification System developed by A. Casagrande. The USC-
system is also reported by Wagner.

The ASTM SC-system is related to the physical properties inherent in the soil and not to a
particular use, and hence, it may be used for all of engineering problems involving the soils. The
system is based on soil behavior which, in turn, reflects the physical properties. The soil
properties used in the system are the particle size characteristics, liquid limit and the plasticity
index. The system identifies three major soil divisions: coarse-grained soils, fine-grained soils,
and highly organic soils, which are further subdivided into a total of 15 basic soil groups. Each
group is assigned a group symbol(s) and name and thereby the soil is classified.

2.5 Soil compaction

The compaction of soil is defined as the process of packing soil particles closely together by
mechanical manipulation, thus increasing the dry density of soil

2.5.1 Theory of compaction and factors influencing compacted density

The various factors influencing compaction are: water content, amount of compaction, type of
soil, method of compaction and admixtures. The influence of these factors on compaction is
discussed below:

2.5.1.1 Water content

The water content affects principally the resistance to relative movement of soil particles,
particularly of the fines of a soil. The resistance to particle movement is provided by the friction
between the particles and the attractive and repulsive forces of the adsorbed water layers. When
only a relatively small amount of water is present in soil, it is firmly held by the electrical forces
at the surfaces of soil particles with a high concentration of electrolyte which prevents the diffuse
double layers surrounding the particles from developing fully. The double layer depression leads
to a low interparticle repulsion and the particles do not move over one another easily. Thus at a
low water content, less compaction or low density with high percentage of air voids is obtained.
The increase of water content results in expansion of double layer and a reduction in the net

28
attractive forces between particles to slide more easily past one another into a more oriented and
denser state of packing together. The increase in dry density with reduction in air voids continues
till the optimum water content is reached. Each soil type has its own optimum water content for
a given compactive effort or compactive pressure. At the optimum water content the soil has the
maximum dry density as shown in figure 1-7.

Figure 2-5: relationship between dry density with moisture content

After the optimum water content is reached, the air voids approach approximately a constant
value as further increase in water content does not cause any appreciable decrease in them, even
though a more orderly arrangement of particles may exist at higher water contents. The total
voids due to water and air in combination go on increasing with increase of water content beyond
the optimum, and hence, the dry density of the soil falls.

2.5.1.2 Amount of compaction

For all types of soil and with all methods of compaction, the effect of increasing the compactive
energy is to increase the maximum dry density and to decrease the optimum water content.

29
At any given water content, the greater the compactive effort used, the greater is the density. The
increase in density with increasing compactive effort is, however, more pronounced at water
contents below the optimum, when the air voids are large. At high water contents and high
degrees of saturation, increased compactive effort may merely align particles without
significantly altering the particle spacing, and therefore, it does not result in a substantial
increase in the dry density.

2.5.1.3 Type of soil

The maximum dry density which can be obtained by compaction depends upon the type of soil.
Well graded coarse-grained soils attain a much higher density than the fine-grained soils. Heavy
clays attain relatively the lowest densities. Because of the greater surface area of the particles,
fine grained soils require more water for their lubrication and thus have higher optimum water
contents.

For cohesionless soils containing very little or no fines, the water content has little influence
upon the compacted density. At lower water contents and particularly under a low compactive
effort, the density may decrease as compared to that produced by the same compactive effort for
the air-dried or oven-dried soil. This decrease in density is due to the capillary tension which is
not fully counteracted by the compactive effort and which holds the particles in a loose state
resisting compaction. The attainment of maximum density at full saturation should be considered
due to any lubrication action of water, but rather due to the reduction of effective pressure
between soil particles by hydrostatic pressure.

The addition of even small amounts of fines (silt or clay) to coarse-grained soils permits the
development of a greater density with increasing water contents for the same compactive effort.

2.5.1.4 Method of compaction

The type of compaction or manner in which a compactive effort is applied also considerably
influence the density obtained. Different compaction methods, both in the laboratory and the
field, develop their own lines of optimums which may be very much different from one another.
The weight of the equipment, the manner of operation, such as dynamic, static, kneading or

30
rolling, the time and the area of contact between the compacting element and the soil are
apparently important variables.

2.5.1.5 Admixtures

A number of admixtures other than soil material are incorporated in soil to modify its
compaction properties. The admixtures have a special application in stabilized soil construction.

31
CHAPTER THREE

3. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY

3.1 Introduction

This chapter presents the methodology used when carrying out the study, the sampling procedure
and how the data was collected.

3.2 Desk study

The researcher did an in-depth desk research to obtain information on the geology of the area
that already existed in print or published media and on the internet. A study of the geology of the
area was useful in planning a site investigation because of the following:

 The study helped in the prediction of the type and properties of rocks and soils and
therefore the most appropriate method of Site investigation.
 Knowledge of the geology helped to interpret data obtained from the investigation.

3.3 Site investigation

The locations of the TPs were marked on the site.

3.3.1 Trial Pits

Five trial pits were excavated. The excavation of the trial pits was conducted manually and
advanced by manual augering to approximately 3.0m depths below ground level with recovery of
samples done at pre-determined intervals. Fig 3-1 shows the locations of the TPs while Fig 3-2
shows a progress photograph of one of the trial pit being excavated.

32
Figure 3-1: trial pit

After the excavation of the TPs, samples were then recovered, both undisturbed and disturbed,
for laboratory investigations.

3.3.2 Disturbed samples

The disturbed samples were obtained from each of the excavated trial pits by the use of a hand
auger. The samples were placed inside polythene bags and then tied with a rope. Care was taken
to mark the polythene bags to identify each sample to its trial pit. Disturbed samples were
collected as shown in Fig 3-2.

Figure 3-2: Hand augering process

33
3.3.3 Undisturbed samples

The undisturbed samples were obtained from the excavated trial pits with the use of a metal core
cutter. The core was placed in the excavated trial pits and driven downwards into the soil in order
to obtain the soil in its insitu condition. The metal core cutter was then pulled out with the soil
inside it intact and marked with its respective trial pit number. The undisturbed samples were
marked as shown in Fig 3-3.

Figure 3-3 undisturbed sample

3.3.4 Sequence of work

Setting out of the locations was done on site using hand-held GPS receiver. The trial pit was
cordoned with barrier tape prior to excavation.

On completion of the observation and recovery of samples, the TPS were reinstated by
backfilling, and the next set of trial pit area again cordoned with barrier tape and the procedure
repeated.

The following sequence for excavation of trial pits was adopted

 Proposed Office Complex Site

TP4, TP5, TP7, TP8 and TP9

34
3.4 Laboratory Investigation

The following laboratory tests were carried out to determine the engineering properties of the
soil of the site.

3.4.1 Grading Test

3.4.1.1 Determination of the particle size distribution (dry sieving method)

Objective

To determine quantitatively the particle size distribution in a soil down to the fine sand size.

Introduction

Particle size distribution of any soil assemblage is expressed by a plot of percent finer by the
weight versus diameter in millimeters. Particle size distribution enables us understand the nature
of soils encountered during civil engineering works. The grain size distribution of coarse grained
soils is determined by sieve analysis and the percent finer passing a given sieve determined.

Dry sieve analysis is used to determine the grain size distribution of coarse- grained soil. Oven
dried soil with lumps thoroughly broken down is passed through a number of sieves. The weight
of soil retained on each sieve is determined and based on these weights the cumulative percent
passing a given sieve is determined. Generally referred to as percent finer

35
Figure 3-4 Grading sieves

The test was carried out as described in BS 1377- Part 2: 9.3

3.4.1.2 Hydrometer analysis of soil size particle distribution

Objective

To determine quantitatively the particle size distribution in a soil containing at least 10% fines
from the coarse sand size down (0.06mm)

Introduction

Hydrometer analysis is a widely used method of obtaining an estimate of the distribution of soil
particle sizes from the No. 200 (0.075 mm) sieve to around 0.01 mm. The data are presented on
a semi-log plot of percent finer vs. particle diameters and may be combined with the data from a
sieve analysis of the material retained (+) on the No.200 sieve. The principal value of the
hydrometer analysis appears to be to obtain the clay fraction (generally accepted as the percent
finer than 0.002 mm).This test is done when more than 20% pass through No.200 sieve and 90%
or more passes the No. 4 (4.75 mm) sieve.

The procedure was carried out as described in BS 1377- Part 2:9.5

36
3.4.1.3 Determination of the liquid limit

General

Two main types of tests are specified for liquid limit determination. The first is the cone
penetrometer method, which is fundamentally more satisfactory than the alternative because it is
essentially a static test depending on soil shear strength. It is also easier to perform and gives
more reproducible results. The second is the much earlier casagrande type of test which has been
used for many years as a basic for soil classification and correlation of engineering properties.
This test introduces dynamic effects and is more susceptible to discrepancies between operators.

Cone penetrometer method (definitive method)

General

This method covers the determination of the liquid limit of a sample of soil in its natural state, or
of a sample of soil from which material retained on a 425um test sieve has been removed.

The procedure was carried out as described in BS 1377- Part 2: 4.3

Figure 3-5: cone penetrometer

37
3.4.1.4 Determination of plastic limit and plasticity index

General

The plastic limit is the empirically established moisture content at which a soil becomes too dry
to be plastic. It is used together with the liquid limit to determine the plasticity index which when
plotted against the liquid limit on the plasticity chart provides a means of classifying cohesive
soils.

The procedures were carried out as described in BS 1377- Part 2:5

3.4.1.5 Determination of plastic limit

General

This method covers the determination of the plastic limit of a soil sample, i.e. the lowest
moisture content at which the soil in its natural state or of soil from which material retained on a
425 um test sieve has been removed.

Derivation of plasticity index and liquidity index

Procedure

The moisture content is determined wa , of the fraction passing a 425 um test sieve of the sample
of soil in its natural condition.

The liquid limit wL is determined and the plastic limit Wp

Calculations

The plasticity index is determined from the equation:

The liquid index, IL , from the equation:

38
3.4.1.6 Determination of one-dimensional consolidation properties

Objective

To determine the magnitude and rate of the consolidation of a saturated or near-saturated

specimen of soil in the form of a disc confined laterally, subjected to vertical axial pressure, and
allowed to drain freely from the top and bottom surfaces.

The procedure was carried out as described in BS 1377: Part 6

Figure 3-6: consolidation apparatus

3.4.1.7 Determination of bulk density

General

This method covers the determination of the of bulk density of natural or compacted insitu soil.

The procedure was carried out as described in BS 1377- Part 9

39
Figure 3-7: determination of bulk density

Calculations and expressions of results

The bulk density of the soil is calculated from the equation:

Where ms is the mass of soil and core cutter (g)

Mc is the mass of core cutter (g)
Vc is the internal volume of core cutter (ml)
The dry density is calculated from the equation

Where
W is the moisture content of the soil (in %)

3.4.1.8 Dynamic compaction using a 2.5 kg rammer

This test covers the determination of the dry density of soil when it is compacted in a specified
manner over a range of moisture contents. The range includes the optimum moisture content at
which the maximum dry density for this degree of compaction is obtained.

The procedure was carried out as described in AASHTO

40
3.1.4.9 Determination of shear strength

Objective

To measure the shear strength of a soil variation in the load applied normal to the plane of shear.

Scope

This test involves the determination of the effective shear strength parameters for specimens of
saturated soil which have been subjected to isotropic consolidation and then sheared in
compression, under a constant confining pressure, by increasing the axial strain. The test apply to
specimens in the form of right cylinders of nominal diameters usually from 38 mm to about 100
mm and a height approximately equal to twice the diameter.

The procedure was carried out as described in BS 1377- Part 8.

41
CHAPTER FOUR
4. DATA ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION
4.1 Introduction
This chapter includes the observations and findings from the field, laboratory results
interpretations and the general discussions.

Data analysis is the process of evaluating data using analytical and logical reasoning to examine
each component of the data provided.

4.2 Field Observation

The terrain is particularly steep in some parts and fairly gentle in other parts facing Kakamega
Town. Slopes vary from steep dissected slopes (5-150) on fine grained silty clay loamy soils to
moderately steep slopes (30-450). Vegetation cover consisted of maize plantations, grass and
undergrowth on the gentle slopes and trees and nappier grass plantation on the steep slopes.

Along the boundary after the steep slope lies a permanent stream, an indication that the area
holds huge amount of underground water. Further downstream there are signs of recent soil
mining activities, contributing to further soil degradation of the area.

Existing vegetation cover in the area has resulted in natural protection of the area to erosion, as
the top soil fairly looked intact and stable.

42
Figure 4-1: site image

4.3 Laboratory Results

4.3.1 Laboratory test results

4.3.1.1 Atterberg limits

TP LL (%) PL (%) PI (%) LS (%)

7 57 31.4 26 13

5 59 25.6 33 16

8 43 21 22 11

9 45 20 25 12

4 31 19 12 6

Table 4-1 Atterberg Results

43
4.3.1.2. Grading Test Results

TP Fines (%)

7 49.6

5 56.2

9 41.5

4 29.3

8 38.9

Table 4-2: Grading results

4.3.1.3 Compaction

TP MDD (Kg/m3) OMC (%)

7 1732.5 15.2

5 1614.4 18.4

9 1779.7 12.6

4 1668.9 17.7

8 1848.5 11.9

Table 4-3: Compaction results

4.3.1.4 Shear

TP Cohesion Angle of internal friction Ф

(Kg/cm2) (degrees)

7 0.11 24

44
8 0.12 24

Table 4-4: Shear Test results

4.3.1.5 Bulk Density

TP Moisture content (%) Dry Density (g/cm3)

7 19.49 1.598

8 15.9 1.714

Table 4-5: Bulk density results

4.3.1.6 Consolidation

TP Coefficient of Coefficient of
volume change, mv consolidation, cv
(m2/KN) (mm2/min)

7 0.210 0.010

8 0.250 0.240

Table 4-6: consolidation results

4.4 Discussions

4.4.1 Classification Tests

4.4.1.1 Atterberg Limits

Consistency represents the relative ease with which the soils may be deformed. Consistency may
also be looked upon as the degree of firmness of a soil and is often directly related to strength.
This is applicable specifically to clay soils and is generally related to the water content.

45
Burmister (1947) classified plastic properties of soils according to their plasticity indices as
follows:

Plasticity Index plasticity

0 Non-plastic

1-5 Slight

5-10 Low

10-20 Medium

20-40 High

>40 Very

Table 4-7: Description of soil based on plasticity index

The soil under our observation has variable characteristic with the soil varying from medium
plasticity to high plasticity.

At the liquid limit the soil grains are separated by water just enough to deprive the soil mass of
shear strength. At the plastic limit the soil moisture does not separate the soil grains, and has
enough surface tension to effect contact between the soil grains, causing the soil mass to behave
as a semi-solid.

4.4.1.2 Shrinkage Index

It is defined as the difference between the plastic and shrinkage limits of a soil; in other words, it
is the range of water content within which a soil is in a semi-solid state of consistency. (C.
Venkatramaiah)

The shrinkage limits indicates whether a soil is a swelling type or not. The soil having a
shrinkage limit around 10 is of high swelling type. The type of soil according to the degree of
shrinkage may be classified as per the table below:

46
Shrinkage Limit (%) Quality of soil

<5 Good

5-10 Medium good

10-15 Poor

>15 Very poor

Table 4-8: Quality of soil based on shrinkage limit

(V.N.S Muthy) based on the table above it can be seen that soil from TP 5 can be said to be very
poor since its shrinkage limit is 16 which is slightly greater than 15.

4.4.2 Strength Tests

4.4.2.1 Compaction

To determine the soil moisture-density relationship and to evaluate a soil as to its suitability for
making fills for a specific purpose, the soil is subjected to a compaction test.

Proctor (1933) showed that there exists a definite relationship between the moisture content and
the dry density on compaction and that, for a specific amount of compaction energy used, there is
a particular moisture content at which a particular soil attains its maximum dry density. Such a
relationship provides a satisfactory practical approach for quality control of fill construction in
the field.

4.4.2.1.1 Control of compaction in the field

Control of compaction in the field consists of checking the water content in relation to the
laboratory optimum moisture content and the dry unit weight achieved in-situ in relation to the
laboratory maximum dry unit weight from a standard compaction test. Typically, each layer is
tested at several random locations after it has been compacted. The required density can be

47
specified either by ‘relative compaction’ (also called degree of compaction) or by the final-void
content.

Typical values of dry unit weights achieved may be as high as 2250kg/m3 for well-graded gravel
and may be as low as 14140kg/m3 for clays. Approximate ranges of optimum moisture content
may be 6-10% for sands, 8-12% for sand-silt mixtures, 11-15% for silts and 13-21% for clays.
(as got from modified AASHO tests). Soils from all the TPs have a percentage of moisture
content ranging from 11.9 to 18.4, signifying that soils are clay.

A variation of 5-10% is allowed in the field specification of dry unit weight at random locations,
provided the average is about the specified value.

There is no much variation in the maximum dry density for TPs 7 and 8, obtained from
compaction and from bulk density determination.

TP Maximum dry density from Maximum dry density from

compaction(kg/m3) bulk density determination
(kg/m3)

7 1732.5 1598

8 1848.5
1714
Table 4-9: comparison between MDD from compaction and MDD from bulk density determination

4.4.2.2 Direct shear test

4.4.2.2.1 Shear strength of soil

Mohr (1900) presented a theory for rupture in materials. This theory contended that a material
fails because of a critical combination of normal stress and shear stress, and not from either
maximum normal or shear stress alone. Thus, the functional relationship between normal stress
and shear stress on a failure plane can be expressed in the form;

48
 ……………………………………………………………… (4.1)

Tf –shear stress on the failure plane

Ó – normal stress on the failure plane

The failure envelope defined by (4.1) is a curved line. For most soil mechanics problems, it is
sufficient to approximate the shear stress on the failure plane as a linear function of the normal
stress (Coulomb, 1776).

The relation can be written as ;

Whereby; C-cohesion

Ф- angle of internal friction

The preceding equation is called the Mohr-Coulomb failure criteria. In saturated soils, the total
normal stress at a point is the sum of the effective stress and the pore pressure, or

Typical values of drained angle of friction for sands and silts

Soil type Ф’

Sand: rounded grains

Loose 27-30

Medium 30-35

Dense 35-38

Sand: angular grains

Loose 30-35

Medium 35-40

49
 Dense 40-45

Gravel with some sand 34-48

Silts 26-35

Table 4-10: soil type on the basis of Ф,

The effective stress, is carried by the soil solids.

For normally consolidated clays, the friction angle Ф’ generally ranges from 20°-30°. For
overconsolidated clays, the magnitude of Ф’ decreases. For natural non-cemented
overconsolidated clay with preconsolidation pressure less than about 1000kN/m2, the magnitude
of C’ is in the range of 5-15kN/m2.

4.4.2.3 Consolidation

The compressibility of a clay soil can be expressed in terms of compression index (CV) or the
coefficient of volume compressibility (MV).

The value of CV ranges between about 0.075 for sandy clays of low compressibility to more than
0.3 for highly compressible soft clays. Hence the compressibility index increases with increasing
clay content and so with increasing liquid limit.

The coefficient of volume compressibility is defined as the volume change per unit volume per
unit increase in load. The value of MV for a given soil depends upon the stress range over which
it is determined. Values of MV range from below 0.05 for heavily overconsolidated tills to over
1.5 for very highly compressible organic clay soils.

The soils of TPs 7 and 8 can be said to be of low compressibility.

4.4.3 Bearing capacity

Movement of foundations under the influence of loading may occur as a result of overstressing
of the ground, which gives rise to plastic deformation in the ground beneath the foundation
structure. In extreme cases shear failure may occur. In order to avoid shear failure or substantial

50
shear deformation the foundation pressures used in design should have an adequate factor of
safety when compared with ultimate bearing capacity of the foundation. The ultimate bearing
capacity is the value of the net loading intensity that causes the ground to fail suddenly in shear.

If this is to be avoided, then a factor of safety must be applied to the ultimate bearing capacity,
the value obtained being referred to as the maximum safe bearing capacity. In other words, this is
the maximum net loading intensity that may be safely carried without the risk of shear failure.
However, even this value still may mean that there is a risk of excessive or differential
settlement. Thus, the allowable bearing capacity is the value that is used in design, this taking
into account all possibilities of failure, and so its value frequently is less than that of the safe
bearing capacity. The value of ultimate bearing capacity depends on the type of foundation
structure as well as the properties of the ground.

When a load is applied to a soil in gradually increasing amounts, the soil deforms and a load-
settlement curve can be plotted as below. When the failure load is reached, the rate of
deformation increases and the load settlement curve goes through a point of maximum curvature
that indicates that the soil has failed. The shape of the curve is influenced by the type of soil
involved, for example, dense sand and insensitive clay show a more gradual transition,
associated with progressive failure.

Figure 4-2: load-settlement relationship

51
4.4.3.1 Ultimate Bearing Capacity of Foundation- Bell’s Method

The classical earth pressure theory assumes that on exceeding a certain stress condition, rupture
surfaces are formed in the soil. The stress developed upon the formation of the rupture surfaces
is treated as the ultimate bearing capacity of soil.

The stress developed upon the formation of the rupture surfaces is treated as the ultimate bearing
capacity of soil.

The bearing capacity may be determined from the relation between the principal stresses at
failure.

Bell (1915) developed a formula applicable for cohesive soils, i.e., soils having both cohesion
and friction, as is the case with Kakamega soils.

From Bell’s Bearing Capacity Equation (1915) for C-Ф soils, the following equation can be
applicable to compute the Ultimate Bearing Capacity of soil samples.

………………………………………………… eqn 4.1

√ ( )

Where: Ф= Angle of friction (degrees)

qu =ultimate bearing capacity (KN/m2)

D = depth (m)

ϒ= bulk density (KN/m3)

NФ=tan2( 45+ Ф/2)

Trial pit Depth Cohesion, Ф( Bulk Ultimate Factor of Safe

(m) C (KN/m2) degrees) Density Bearing safety bearing
(KN/m3) Capacity capacity
qu
(KN/m2)
TP 7 1.5 11 24 15.98 197 3 65
TP 8 1.5 12 24 17.14 212 3 70

Table 4-11: Safe bearing capacities for soils in TPs 7 and 8

52
The results of selective samples at the location of proposed office block gave Ultimate Bearing
Capacity ranging from 197 to 212 KN/m2. These are stiff clays. Safe Bearing Capacity (safety
factor of 3) varies between 65-70 KN/m2.

4.4.3.2 Footings

Footings distribute the load of a structure to the subsoil over an area sufficient to suit the
properties of the ground (Hanna 1987). Their size therefore is governed by the strength of the
foundation materials. If a footing supports a single column it is known as a spread or pad footing
whereas a footing beneath a wall is referred to as a strip or continuous footing. Spread footings
usually provide the most economical type of foundation structure but the allowable bearing
pressures must be chosen to provide an adequate factor of safety against shear failure in a soil
and to ensure that settlements are not excessive.

4.4.4 Hydrogeology

4.4.4.1 Introduction

Earths Scope Geo-Hydro Services (2012) performed resistivity tests to determine the depth and
volume of underground water in Kakamega North, and their results are further analyzed to
determine the hydrogeology of this area. In any case, this analysis should not form an accurate
assessment of the hydrogeology of the study area, as further more localized study is needed.

The hydrogeology of an area is normally intimately dependent upon the nature of the parent
rock, structural features, weathering processes, recharge mechanism and the form and frequency
of precipitation. The midland environment of Western Kenya offers a reasonable groundwater
potential. The relatively high rainfall, and the gently peneplain surface south of Elgon and West
of the Nandi escarpment are all favorable characteristics to ground water occurrence.

53
4.4.4.2 Resistivity Method

Earths Scope Geo-Hydro Services (2012) carried out Vertical electrical soundings (VES) to
probe the condition of the sub-surface and to confirm the existence of deep groundwater in a
nearby area, and forms a rough basis for an argument in the existence of aquiferous strata.

The interpretation results indicate a top superficial layer of resistivity 107 Ohm-m to a depth
0.6m below ground level interpreted to be dry sandy clay soils. This type of soil is encountered
in my area of investigation. This is underlain by a 441 Ohm-m resistivity layer to a depth of 5.0m
below ground level interpreted to be slightly weathered granodiorites.

Underlying this was a high resistivity layer of 165 Ohm-m to a depth of about 100m below
ground level interpreted to be weathered granodiorite. Below this and to a greater depth occurred
a high resistivity layer of 1500 Ohm-m interpreted to be fresh Basement rocks. The resistivity
layer of 165 Ohm-m at 100m below ground level was thus interpreted as the aquiferous layer and
water strike will be expected in this layer.

From the geological, hydrogeological and geophysical evidence gathered, it is concluded that the
investigated area is located in a hydrogeological zone characterized by a medium groundwater
potential. Medium and deep aquifers are expected in this area (Earths Scope-Geo Hydro services,
Hydrological assessment report)

A resistivity test should be carried out in order to accurately determine the depths of the aquifers.

4.4.5 Assessment of Seismic Risks

4.4.5.1 Overview

OCHA (2007) and WHO (2010) researched seismic activities in Kenya, and documented a useful
data that can be applied in identifying areas prone to seismic waves, and their impacts in design
of structure. In the report seismic risk, as a concept, is understood to be the product of seismic
hazard and seismic vulnerability.

54
4.4.5.2 Risks

Kenya is traversed by the seismically active Great Africa Rift Valley, one of the most earthquake
prone areas of the world. Consequently the area of the Great Rift Valley within Kenya and parts
of the Nyanza basin are prone to earthquake and volcanic activity. However casualties resulting
from the earthquakes have been low.

Based on data from the Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction 2013, figure 4-3
illustrates the level of earthquake risk in Kenya and surrounding countries. Figure 4-4 focuses
closer on Kenya. In these maps the green represents the degree of vulnerability to earthquake
loss with darker green meaning more significant loss. The yellow to red color represents the
degree of earthquake hazard with red being the most significant and yellow being less
significant.

Figure 4-3: Level of earthquake risk in Kenya and surrounding countries

55
Figure 4-4: Earthquake risk in Kenya

4.4.5.3 Earthquake hazard

Figures 4-5 and figures 4-6 demonstrate how earthquake hazard and intensity is most prominent
along the rift that runs from the north-west to the south-west borders. Figure 4-6 suggests that
there are areas in Kenya where earthquake activity can be destructive although most of western
Kenya faces strong and in some cases very strong earthquake intensity.

Figure 4-5: Earthquake hazard and intensity

56
Figure 4-6: Earthquake hazard and intensity

57
The response of structures on different foundation materials has proven surprisingly varied. In
general, structures not specifically designed for earthquake loadings have fared far worse on soft
saturated alluvium than on hard rock. In other words, amplitude and acceleration are much
greater on deep alluvium than on rock, although rigid buildings may suffer less on alluvium than
on rock.

58
59
CHAPTER FIVE

5. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Conclusions

Soil classification

Based on the classification results and visual observations of the trial pits; the soils from the TPs
can be classified according to unified soil classification system as shown in the table below.

TP Soil class Soil type

4 SC clayey SAND
5 CH Silty, clayey SAND
7 CH Silty, clayey SAND
8 SC Clayey SAND
9 SC Clayey SAND
Table 5-1: soil classification of the various TPs

There are two distinctive soil types as obtained from the classification tests; silty, clayey, SAND
and clayey SAND. In performing the strength tests a representative of the two soil types were
used, these were TPs 7 and 8.

Structural design of foundations involves studying two requirements; (a) A factor of safety of 2
or more (in this case it is 3) , available against bearing capacity failure under seismic loading and
(b) The permanent ground deformation that can be accommodated by the foundation system and
superstructure.

Post-construction settlement of foundations designed and constructed is not anticipated to exceed

25 mm based on the obtained values of coefficient of consolidation and coefficient of volume
compressibility.

Differential settlements between adjacent column footings should not exceed one-half of the
above value (25mm).The above settlement estimates are based on the assumption that the site
soils will not be allowed to increase in moisture content and that the site grading and drainage

60
recommendations presented in this report and the applicable building codes will be fully
implemented.

The site soils are moderately collapsible if allowed to increase in moisture content. If the soils
supporting footings are allowed to increase in moisture content, additional settlement of about
12.5mm per foot (0.318m) of wetted soil could occur. Foundations should therefore be designed
and constructed to tolerate the above settlement.

5.2 Recommendations

Recommended pressures at different depths for shallow foundations can be as summarized in the
table below.

Depth Allowable bearing Foundation soil type Recommended

capacity (Kpa) foundation type
(estimated
settlement < 25mm)
1.5-2.0 60-204 Loose Clayey Silty PAD/RAFT
Sand
2.0-2.5 67-134 Stiff Clayey Silty PAD/RAFT
Sand
3.0 159 Dense Gravelly PAD/RAFT
SAND
Table 5-2: Recommended pressures at different depths

To reduce settlement it is recommended that the foundation be set at 3.0m depth and the site is to
be graded to rapidly drain away from the structures. If the ground surface next to a building is to
be unpaved, its slope should not be less than 1 inch.

Results of cohesion and internal angle of friction from the shear box test, are moderately high
indicating that the slopes are generally stable with no or limited chances of failure. However, it is
recommended that the following be done:

61
  Simple removal of the slide material
 Growing of trees on the slopes at a spacing of 1 metre.
 Flattening or reconstruction of the slopes
 Installation of slope drainages such as deep cutoff trenches or dewatering with horizontal
drains.

In stabilization of slopes balanced cut and fill construction should be used in most terrain to
minimize earthwork.

Fill slopes in sensitive areas should be compacted or when the fill is constructed with erosive or
weak soils. Specific compaction procedures are used, such as wheel rolling, or use of specific
compaction equipment when available.

Kakamega area is based in an area of medium seismic hazard. The structural design of
substructure should take care of these expected vibrations and incorporate earthquake loads. The
site soils are moderately collapsible between 0m to 2.5m if allowed to increase in moisture
content.
Elaborate insitu testing methods such as standard penetration test should be employed in order to
determine the subsurface soil conditions including the exploration of the rocks.

62
CHAPTER SIX

6. REFERENCES
G.N. Smith (1987). 5th Edition, Elements of Soil Mechanics for Civil and Mining Engineers

R.H Karol, Louis J. Goodman, Theory of Practice of Foundation Engineering.

E.N Brodhead, The Stability of Slopes, Blackie Academic & Professional.

Braja M. Das, 2nd Edition, Fundamentals of Geotechnical Engineering.

V. N. S. Murthy, Geotechnical Engineering Series, Advanced Foundation Engineering.

C. Venkatramiah, New Age International Publishers, Revised 3rd Edition, Geotechnical

Engineering.

BS 1377: 1999: Part 2: Methods of testing for soils for civil engineering application.

BS 5930: 1999: Code of practice for site investigations.

A. Huddlestone, M. Sc. ,F.G.S.,A.M.I.M.M(2007). Geology of the Kakamega District , Report

No. 28, Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources , Mines and Geological Department

Earths Scope-Geo Hydro Services, Hydrogeological assessment report, Munyanya location,

Kakamega North District, Report No. 39/2012.

OCHA. (2007). Earthquake Risk in Africa: Modified Mercalli Scale. United Nations Office
for the Coordination of Humanitarian affairs (OCHA) Regional Office for Central and East
Africa.

Ralph B. Peck, Walter E. Hanson, Thomas H. Thorburn (1974). 2nd Edition, Foundation
Engineering

F. G. Bell (2004), Taylor & Swift Publishers. Engineering Geology and Construction.

AASHTO (1993). AASHTO guide for design of pavement structures. American Association
of State Highway and Transportation Official, Washington.

63
APPENDICES

APPENDIX A: BULK DENSITY

APPENDIX B: SHEAR TEST

APPENDIX C: ATTERBERG LIMITS

APPENDIX D: CONSOLIDATION

APPENDIX E: SIEVE ANALYSIS

APPENDIX F: COMPACTION

64
APPENDIX A

APPENDIX A: BULK DENSITY RESULTS

SAMPLE SOURCE: KAKAMEGA

Depth (m) Test pit ID: Sample Type UNDISTURBED SAMPLE
Test date: 6-Oct-14 Sample Description:
Specification According to BS 1377:1990 Location:

Sample Number 1A TP 7 1A TP 8

Mass of core cutter + Wet soil(g) 210 227

Mass of core cutter(g) 147 153.5

Mass of wet soil(g) 63 73.5

Volume of core cutter(cm3) 33 37

Bulk density (g/cm3) 1.909 1.986

Container No. 58B 39B

Mass of wet soil + Container(g) 145 163

Mass of dry soil + Container(g) 135 152.5

Mass of Container(g) 83.7 86.5

Loss in Moisture (g) 10 10.5

Mass of Dry soil 51.3 66

Moisture Content (%) 19.49 15.9

Dry density(g/cm3) 1.598 1.714

65
APPENDIX B: SHEAR TEST RESULTS

APPENDIX B1: SHEAR TEST RESULTS TP7

DIRECT SHEAR TEST

LOADS APPLIED
weight of hanger = 4.5 kg Area of shear box = 36 square cm
1st load = 32.2 kg
Total = 1st load + weight of hanger = 36.7 kg

2nd load =68.5 kg

Total = 2nd load + weight of hanger = 73.4 kg

3rd load = 105kg

Total = 3rd load + weight of hanger = 109.5 kg

Normal stress = applied load/area of shear box shear stress = shear force at failure/ area of shear box

Normal stress = 1.02 kg per square cm Shear stress = 0.54 kg per square cm

Normal stress = 2.04 kg per square cm Shear stress = 1.03 kg per square cm

Normal stress = 3.04 kg per square cm Shear stress = 1.42 kg per square cm

A graph of shear stress against normal

stress
3

2.5
Shear stress (kg per square cm)

1.5 y = 0.4358x + 0.1106

R² = 0.9964

0.5

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
Normal Stress (kg per square cm)

C = 0.11 kg/cm²

Ø = 24°

66
APPENDIX B2: SHEAR TEST RESULTS –TP8

DIRECT SHEAR TEST

LOADS APPLIED
weight of hanger = 4.5 kg Area of shear box = 36 square cm
1st load = 32.2 kg
Total = 1st load + weight of hanger = 36.7 kg

2nd load =68.5 kg

Total = 2nd load + weight of hanger = 73.4 kg

3rd load = 105kg

Total = 3rd load + weight of hanger = 109.5 kg

Normal stress = applied load/area of shear box shear stress = shear force at failure/ area of shear box

Normal stress = 1.02 kg per square cm Shear stress = 0.55 kg per square cm

Normal stress = 2.04 kg per square cm Shear stress = 1.07 kg per square cm

Normal stress = 3.04 kg per square cm Shear stress = 1.44 kg per square cm

A graph of shear stress against normal

stress
3

2.5
Shear stress (kg per square cm)

1.5 y = 0.4408x + 0.1237

R² = 0.9917

0.5

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
Normal Stress (kg per square cm)

C = 0.12 kg/cm²

Ø = 24°

67
APPENDIX C: ATTERBERG LIMITS

APPENDIX C1: ATTERBERG LIMITS- TP 7

Site: 5.6 Acre Farm Location: 1 ATP 7 Date received:

Sample classification: Lab Ref: Sample number:
Sampled by: Depth: Date tested: 9/10/2014

LIQUID LIMIT PLASTIC LIMIT

Container number 2 46 22 14 3 1K
Initial dial reading (mm) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Final dial reading (mm) 15.6 17.1 20 22.5
Mass of container + Wet soil, M2 (g) 55.9 64.7 68.1 59.7 17.8 10.9
Mass of container + Dry soil, M3 (g) 46.7 52.3 49.2 47.7 15.7 9.5
Mass of container, M1 (g) 28.3 28.9 16.4 27.9 8.9 5.1
Mass of moisture, (M2-M3) (g) 9.2 12.4 18.9 12.0 2.1 1.4
Mass of dry soil, (M3-M1) (g) 18.4 23.4 32.8 19.8 6.8 4.4
Moisture contet (%) 50.0 53.0 57.6 60.6 30.9 31.8

PLASTIC LIMIT = 31.350267 %

62.0
LIQUID LIMIT LINEAR SHRINKAGE

61.0
LS = 1 - Length of dried sample x 100
60.0
Initial length of sample
59.0

58.0 LS = 13 LL 57
Moisture Content (%)

57.0

56.0 PLASTICITY INDEX / PLASTICITY MODULUS

55.0
Plasticity Index, PI = LL - PL
54.0
PI = 26 %
53.0

52.0 LIQUID LIMIT = 57% Plasticity Moduludlus = PI x 0.425 mm % Pass

51.0 PM =
50.0

49.0 SOIL CLASSIFICATION

USCS AASHTO
48.0
15 17 19 21 23 25

Penetration (mm)

68
APPENDIX C2: ATTERBERG LIMITS RESULTS- TP8

Liquid Limit Plastic Limit

Container No 32 5 8 13 1T DD
Penetration (mm) 15.5 17.7 20.1 22.3
Wt of Container + Wet Soil (g) 78.2 88.3 72.3 74.6 16.5 16.8
Wt of Container + Dry Soil (g) 62.5 67 56.6 57 14.8 15.1
Wt of Container (g) 31.2 27.3 29.3 28.1 8.8 8.9
Wt of Moisture (g) 15.7 21.3 15.7 17.6 1.7 1.7
Wt of Dry Soil (g) 31.3 39.7 27.3 28.9 6 6.2
Moisture Content (%) 50.16 53.65 57.51 60.90 28.33 27.42

No1 140 No 1 120

Linear Shrinkage Initial Length (mm) Final Length (mm)
No 2 140 No 2 121

70.00

65.00

60.00
Moisture Content (%)

55.00

50.00

45.00

40.00
10 100

Penetration

Liquid Limit 57
Plastic Limit 28
Plasticity Index 29
Linear Shrinkage (%) 14

69
APPENDIX C3: ATTERBERG LIMITS RESULTS- TP5

LIQUID LIMIT PLASTIC LIMIT

Container number O 6 1P WX 4R MA
Initial dial reading (mm) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Final dial reading (mm) 15.3 17 20.1 22
Mass of container + Wet soil, M2 (g) 69.5 75 76.1 78.7 16.9 16.8
Mass of container + Dry soil, M3 (g) 55.2 58.5 56.1 57.7 15.2 15.2
Mass of container, M1 (g) 29.1 29.4 22.5 23.6 8.9 8.6
Mass of moisture, (M2-M3) (g) 14.3 16.5 20.0 21.0 1.7 1.6
Mass of dry soil, (M3-M1) (g) 26.1 29.1 33.6 34.1 6.3 6.6
Moisture contet (%) 54.8 56.7 59.5 61.6 27.0 24.2

PLASTIC LIMIT = 25.6132756 %

62.0
LIQUID LIMIT LINEAR SHRINKAGE

LS = 1 - Length of dried sample x 100

61.0
Initial length of sample

60.0
LS = 16 LL 59
Moisture Content (%)

59.0
PLASTICITY INDEX / PLASTICITY MODULUS

58.0
Plasticity Index, PI = LL - PL
PI = 33 %
57.0

LIQUID LIMIT = 59% Plasticity Moduludlus = PI x 0.425 mm % Pass

56.0
PM =

55.0
SOIL CLASSIFICATION
USCS AASHTO
54.0
15 17 19 21 23 25

Penetration (mm)

70
APPENDIX C4: ATTERBERG LIMITS RESULTS- TP 9

LIQUID LIMIT PLASTIC LIMIT

Container number 35 5 31 37 5F ZB
Initial dial reading (mm) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Final dial reading (mm) 15.4 17.2 20 22.5
Mass of container + Wet soil, M2 (g) 75.5 82 87.7 92.8 15.5 15.5
Mass of container + Dry soil, M3 (g) 62.2 66.3 69.1 71.7 14.4 14.4
Mass of container, M1 (g) 29.5 29.8 28.7 27.5 8.8 8.9
Mass of moisture, (M2-M3) (g) 13.3 15.7 18.6 21.1 1.1 1.1
Mass of dry soil, (M3-M1) (g) 32.7 36.5 40.4 44.2 5.6 5.5
Moisture contet (%) 40.7 43.0 46.0 47.7 19.6 20.0

PLASTIC LIMIT = 19.8214286 %

50.0
LIQUID LIMIT LINEAR SHRINKAGE

49.0 LS = 1 - Length of dried sample x 100

48.0 Initial length of sample

47.0
LS = 12 LL 45
Moisture Content (%)

46.0
PLASTICITY INDEX / PLASTICITY MODULUS
45.0

44.0 Plasticity Index, PI = LL - PL

PI = 25 %
43.0

42.0 LIQUID LIMIT = 45% Plasticity Moduludlus = PI x 0.425 mm % Pass

PM =
41.0

40.0 SOIL CLASSIFICATION

USCS AASHTO
39.0
15 17 19 21 23 25

Penetration (mm)

71
APPENDIX C5: ATTERBERG LIMITS RESULTS- TP4

LIQUID LIMIT PLASTIC LIMIT

Container number 1P 14 1 5B 235 C
Initial dial reading (mm) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Final dial reading (mm) 17.1 15.5 19.5 23.5
Mass of container + Wet soil, M2 (g) 46 53 66.3 55.3 18.6 16.1
Mass of container + Dry soil, M3 (g) 41.0 47.2 57.2 48.0 16.9 14.8
Mass of container, M1 (g) 22.4 16.1 27.8 28.9 8.1 8
Mass of moisture, (M2-M3) (g) 5.0 5.8 9.1 7.3 1.7 1.3
Mass of dry soil, (M3-M1) (g) 18.6 31.1 29.4 19.1 8.8 6.8
Moisture contet (%) 26.9 18.6 31.0 38.2 19.3 19.1

PLASTIC LIMIT = 19.217914 %

40.0
LIQUID LIMIT LINEAR SHRINKAGE
39.0
38.0
37.0
LS = 1 - Length of dried sample x 100
36.0 Initial length of sample
35.0
34.0
33.0 LS = 6 LL 31
32.0
Moisture Content (%)

31.0
30.0 PLASTICITY INDEX / PLASTICITY MODULUS
29.0
28.0
27.0
Plasticity Index, PI = LL - PL
26.0
25.0 PI = 12 %
24.0
23.0
22.0 LIQUID LIMIT = 31% Plasticity Moduludlus = PI x 0.425 mm % Pass
21.0
20.0 PM =
19.0
18.0
17.0 SOIL CLASSIFICATION
16.0 USCS AASHTO
15.0
15 17 19 21 23 25

Penetration (mm)

72
APPENDIX D: CONSOLIDATION RESULTS

APPENDIX D1: CONSOLIDATION RESULTS- TP7

DIA OF RING 50 mm HEIGHT OF RING 20 mm AREA (A) 19.6 cm²

STAGE - AFTER TEST

MEASURED THICKNESS OF SPECIMEN (H1) 20 mm
WET SPECIMEN 75.7 g

MASS OF RING + WATCH GLASS + DRY SPECIMEN … g

MASS OF RING … g

MASS OF WATCH GLASS … g

MASS OF DRY SPECIMEN (ms) 65.2 g

MASS OF MOISTURE 10.5 g

MOISTURE CONTENT (m) 16.1 %

BULK DENSITY (Ƿ) 1.93 g/cm³

DRY DENSITY (Ƿd) 1.66 g/cm³

DEGREE OF SATURATION (Sr) m /(Ƿw/Ƿd - 1/Gs ) 72.0 %

DENITY OF SOIL PARTICLES MEASURED/ASSUMED Gs Ƿw 2.64 g/cm³

HEIGHT OF SOIL PARTICLES (H0) (ms x 1000)/(Gs Ƿw x A) 12.6 mm

APPLIED TOTAL THICKNESS OF PERCENTAGE HEIGHT OF VOIDS RATIO

PRESSURE DEFLECTION SPECIMEN,H THICKNESS VOIDS
D (H1-D) H/H1 X 100 (H-H0) H-H0/H0

KN/M² mm mm mm

0 0 20.00 100.00 7.42 0.59

50 0.18 19.82 99.10 7.24 0.58

100 0.21 19.61 98.05 7.03 0.56

FLOODED 100 0.02 19.59 97.95 7.01 0.56

200 0.27 19.32 96.60 6.74 0.54

400 0.79 18.53 92.65 5.95 0.47

73
APPENDIX D2: CONSOLIDATION RESULTS- TP8

DIA OF RING 50 mm HEIGHT OF RING 20 mm AREA (A) 19.6 cm²

STAGE - AFTER TEST

MEASURED THICKNESS OF SPECIMEN (H1) 20 mm
WET SPECIMEN 76.9 g

MASS OF RING + WATCH GLASS + DRY SPECIMEN … g

MASS OF RING … g

MASS OF WATCH GLASS … g

MASS OF DRY SPECIMEN (ms) 63.9 g

MASS OF MOISTURE 13 g

MOISTURE CONTENT (m) 20.3 %

BULK DENSITY (Ƿ) 1.96 g/cm³

DRY DENSITY (Ƿd) 1.63 g/cm³

DEGREE OF SATURATION (Sr) m /(Ƿw/Ƿd - 1/Gs ) 86.3 %

DENITY OF SOIL PARTICLES MEASURED/ASSUMED Gs Ƿw 2.64 g/cm³

HEIGHT OF SOIL PARTICLES (H0) (ms x 1000)/(Gs Ƿw x A) 12.3 mm

APPLIED TOTAL THICKNESS OF PERCENTAGE HEIGHT OF VOIDS RATIO

PRESSURE DEFLECTION SPECIMEN,H THICKNESS VOIDS
D (H1-D) H/H1 X 100 (H-H0) H-H0/H0

KN/M² mm mm mm

0 0 20.00 100.00 7.67 0.62

50 0.14 19.86 99.30 7.53 0.61

100 0.2 19.66 98.30 7.33 0.60

FLOODED 100 0.01 19.65 98.25 7.32 0.59

200 0.25 19.40 97.00 7.07 0.57

400 0.85 18.55 92.75 6.22 0.50

74
APPENDIX E: SIEVE ANALYSIS

SIEVE ANALYSIS
CLIENT
SAMPLE SOURCE KAKAMEGA
Depth (m) 1.20M Test pit ID: 1A TP 7
Test date: 23-Sep-14 Specimen
Specification According to BS 1377:1990

Pan mass (gm) 0

Initial dry sample mass + pan (gm)
Initial dry sample mass (gm) 100 Fine mass 49.6
Washed dry sample mass + pan (gm) Fine percent 49.6
Washed dry sample mass (gm) 50.4 Acceptance Criteria

Wet & Dry Sieve Analysis to BS 1377

Hydrometer Analysis to BS 1377
Retained mass % Retained Cumulative passed
Sieve size (mm)
(gm) (%) percentage (%)
Date Time In min Temp o C. Rh1 Rh HR D(mm) K(%) K(corrected)
20 0 0.0 100.0 9AM 0.5 20 28.5 29 8.8 0.0568 91 45
10 0 0.0 100.0
5 0 0.0 100.0
2.36 5.3 5.3 94.7 1 20 27 27.5 9.4 0.0415 86 43
1.18 12.3 12.3 82.4 2 20 25 25.5 10.2 0.0306 79 39
0.6 13.2 13.2 69.2 4 20 22.5 23 11.2 0.0227 71 35
0.425 5.5 5.5 63.7 8 20 21 21.5 11.8 0.0164 66 33
0.3 6 6.0 57.7 15 20 19 19.5 12.6 0.0124 60 30
0.15 4.5 4.5 53.2 30 20 17 17.5 13.4 0.009 53 27
0.075 3.6 3.6 49.6 60 20 14.5 15 14.5 0.0067 45 22
<0.075 49.6 49.6 120 20 12 12.5 15.5 0.0049 37 18
TOTAL 100 240 20 10 10.5 16.5 0.0036 31 15
1440 20 5.5 6 18.1 0.0015 16 8
GRADING CURVE - HYDROMETER ANALYSIS

100

90

80
Passing (% )

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Sieves (mm)

75
 SIEVE ANALYSIS
CLIENT
Sample source KAKAMEGA
Depth (m) 1.5M SAMPLE 1A TP 8 Sr. No.
Test date: 8-Oct-14 Location:
Specification According to BS 1377:1990. Sample Description:

Pan mass (gm) 0

Initial dry sample mass + pan (gm)
Initial dry sample mass (gm) 100 Fine mass (gm) 38.9
Washed dry sample mass + pan (gm) Fine percent (%) 38.9
Washed dry sample mass (gm) 61.1 Acceptance Criteria (%)

Cumulative passed Acceptance Criteria

Sieve size (mm) Retained mass (gm) % Retained (%)
percentage (%) Min(%) Max (%)
20 0 0.0 100.0
14 0 0.0 100.0
10 0 0.0 100.0
5 0 0.0 100.0
2.36 7.1 7.1 92.9
1.18 16.4 16.4 76.5
0.6 16.3 16.3 60.2
0.425 6.9 6.9 53.3
0.3 3.9 3.9 49.4
0.15 6.1 6.1 43.3
0.075 4.4 4.4 38.9
38.9 38.9
100
GRADING CURVE

100

90

80

70
Passing (%)

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100

Sieves (mm)

76
 SIEVE ANALYSIS
CLIENT
SAMPLE SOURCE KAKAMEGA
Depth (m) 1.5M Test pit ID: 1A TP5
Test date: 9-Oct-14 Specimen
Specification According to BS 1377:1990

Pan mass (gm) 0

Initial dry sample mass + pan (gm)
Initial dry sample mass (gm) 100 Fine mass 56.2
Washed dry sample mass + pan (gm) Fine percent 56.2
Washed dry sample mass (gm) 43.8 Acceptance Criteria

Wet & Dry Sieve Analysis to BS 1377

Hydrometer Analysis to BS 1377
Retained mass % Retained Cumulative passed
Sieve size (mm)
(gm) (%) percentage (%)
Date Time In min Temp o C. Rh1 Rh HR D(mm) K(%) K(corrected)
20 0 0.0 100.0 9AM 0.5 20 27.5 28 9.2 0.0581 87 49
10 0 0.0 100.0
5 1.8 1.8 98.2
2.36 3.8 3.8 94.4 1 20 26.5 27 9.6 0.042 84 47
1.18 9.9 9.9 84.5 2 20 25 25.5 10.4 0.0309 79 45
0.6 11.1 11.1 73.4 4 20 23.5 24 10.9 0.0224 75 42
0.425 5.1 5.1 68.3 8 20 22 22.5 11.4 0.0162 70 39
0.3 3.8 3.8 64.5 15 20 20.5 21 12 0.0121 65 36
0.15 4.7 4.7 59.8 30 20 18.5 19 12.8 0.0088 58 33
0.075 3.6 3.6 56.2 60 20 16.5 17 13.6 0.0064 52 29
<0.075 56.2 56.2 120 20 15.5 16 14 0.0046 49 27
TOTAL 100 240 20 13 13.5 15 0.0034 41 23
1440 20 10 10.5 16.3 0.0014 31 17
GRADING CURVE - HYDROMETER ANALYSIS

100

90

80
Passing (% )

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Sieves (mm)

77
 SIEVE ANALYSIS
CLIENT
SAMPLE SOURCE KAKAMEGA
Depth (m) 1.30M Test pit ID: 1 TP 9
Test date: 23-Sep-14 Specimen
Specification According to BS 1377:1990

Pan mass (gm) 0

Initial dry sample mass + pan (gm)
Initial dry sample mass (gm) 100 Fine mass 41.5
Washed dry sample mass + pan (gm) Fine percent 41.5
Washed dry sample mass (gm) 58.5 Acceptance Criteria

Wet & Dry Sieve Analysis to BS 1377

Hydrometer Analysis to BS 1377
Retained mass % Retained Cumulative passed
Sieve size (mm)
(gm) (%) percentage (%)
Date Time In min Temp o C. Rh1 Rh HR D(mm) K(%) K(corrected)
20 0 0.0 100.0 9AM 0.5 20 29.5 30 8.2 0.0548 94 39
10 0 0.0 100.0
5 1.5 1.5 98.5
2.36 3.8 3.8 94.7 1 20 26.5 27 9.6 0.042 84 35
1.18 13.4 13.4 81.3 2 20 23 23.5 11 0.0318 73 30
0.6 17.8 17.8 63.5 4 20 19.5 20 12.4 0.0238 62 26
0.425 5.8 5.8 57.7 8 20 16 16.5 13.8 0.0178 50 21
0.3 4.9 4.9 52.8 15 20 13.5 14 15.3 0.0137 42 17
0.15 6.4 6.4 46.4 30 20 10.5 11 16 0.0099 32 13
0.075 4.9 4.9 41.5 60 20 8 8.5 17.1 0.0072 24 10
<0.075 41.5 41.5 120 20 6.5 7 17.7 0.0052 19 8
TOTAL 100 300 20 4.5 5 18.5 0.0034 13 5
1440 20 4.5 5 18.5 0.0015 13 5
GRADING CURVE - HYDROMETER ANALYSIS

100

90

80
Passing (% )

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Sieves (mm)

78
 SIEVE ANALYSIS
CLIENT
Sample source KAKAMEGA
Depth (m) 1.5M SAMPLE 1A TP 4 Sr. No.
Test date: 8-Oct-14 Location:
Specification According to BS 1377:1990. Sample Description:

Pan mass (gm) 0

Initial dry sample mass + pan (gm)
Initial dry sample mass (gm) 100 Fine mass (gm) 29.3
Washed dry sample mass + pan (gm) Fine percent (%) 29.3
Washed dry sample mass (gm) 70.7 Acceptance Criteria (%)

Cumulative passed Acceptance Criteria

Sieve size (mm) Retained mass (gm) % Retained (%)
percentage (%) Min(%) Max (%)
20 0 0.0 100.0
14 0 0.0 100.0
10 0 0.0 100.0
5 1 1.0 99.0
2.36 16.3 16.3 82.7
1.18 24.5 24.5 58.2
0.6 14.9 14.9 43.3
0.425 5.2 5.2 38.1
0.3 2.9 2.9 35.2
0.15 3.6 3.6 31.6
0.075 2.3 2.3 29.3
29.3 29.3
100
GRADING CURVE

100

90

80

70
Passing (%)

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100

Sieves (mm)

79