lOMoARcPSD|44865983

Draft Design Report - Road material analysis

Engineering materials (Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology)

Scan to open on Studocu

Studocu is not sponsored or endorsed by any college or university

Downloaded by Moses Siyoyo (mosesjuniorsiyoyo@gmail.com)
 lOMoARcPSD|44865983

KWAME NKRUMAH UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND

TECHNOLOGY
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

CIVIL ENGINEERING DESIGN

GROUP: 16
MONKAH PAPA JOSEPH
INDEX NUMBER: 9719813
INCEPTION REPORT
(GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION)
Friday, September 23, 2016

Downloaded by Moses Siyoyo (mosesjuniorsiyoyo@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|44865983

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report gives account of the final report of the geotechnical investigations that was carried
out to determine the characteristics of the soil for the foundation design of the proposed
administration block, road infrastructure, parking lots and selection of suitable material geologic
origin for the Centre for Innovation and Engineering Excellence at the Kwame Nkrumah
University of Science and Technology.

Desk study was carried out to obtain data that aided in the reconnaissance survey which was
carried out immediately after the desk study. The data obtained from the desk study were the
geology and the seismicity of the site. Geologically of the site location, KNUST is located within
the Birrimian metasediments made up mainly of phyllites and greywacke. The proposed site had
a Horizontal Ground Acceleration (HGA) of 0.15g.

The locals of the area thus the farmers were consulted during the reconnaissance survey for the
nature of the site this was followed by sub-surface exploration. Also from the reconnaissance
survey the topography of the land sloped gently.

Sub-surface investigations consisting of excavation of test pits, percussion drilling, SPT and
Dynamic Cone Penetration Test (DCPT). There were 5 test pits dug (3 along the centre line of
the proposed road network 1 each for the internal road network and parking lot). The DCPT were
carried along the centre line of proposed road network (5) internal road network (7) and the
parking lots (5) to determine the in-situ CBR. The percussion drilling was performed at the
administration block. The drilling was done in accordance with the BS 5930 to obtain the
disturbed samples for the laboratory test and also visual inspection of the soil strata. SPT were
performed in the borehole to extract information about strength of the soil.

Laboratory test on samples collected indicated that the subsoil material at the site is
predominantly were silt and sand with clay and traces of gravel. The PI-chart also showed that
the fine portions of the subsoil material at the administration area highly plastic silt (MH). The
proposed road corridor was made up of soil samples that were A-2-6(0)/A-2-7(0) generally
excellent to good. The internal road network and the parking lot were fair to poor thus A-7-6.

Page i

Downloaded by Moses Siyoyo (mosesjuniorsiyoyo@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|44865983

An allowable settlement of 25mm was used (Ghana Building Code). Groundwater is expected
not have effect on the foundation since groundwater was not encountered. An allowable bearing
capacity of 328.34kN/m2 was obtained for the footing size of 1m x 1m to be placed at a depth of
1.5m.

The in-situ CBR obtained is 19% since it is a medium road we use the 75th percentile and 18%
for the laboratory CBR along the proposed road network. The internal road network had CBR of
14%. For the parking lot a CBR value of 22%.

The borrow material from Kwaso most of the test qualifies that the material may be used as base
material whilst the borrow material from Piase may also be used as sub-base material since most
of the test satisfy the GHA specification. Stabilizer of cement or lime or quarry dust may be
added to the material in an appropriate proportion of mix so as to improve on the quality of the
materials.

Most of the test performed on the quarry material did not pass for the intended purpose so it will
advisable to source for a much better material.
No drainage problems are expected and that simple drains appropriately designed will be able to
manage the surface runoff.

Page ii

Downloaded by Moses Siyoyo (mosesjuniorsiyoyo@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|44865983

Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................... i

GLOSSARY SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATION.............................................................................. vi
1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................ 1
1.1 Background ................................................................................................................................. 1
1.2 Goals and Objectives .................................................................................................................. 1
1.3 Scope of Work ............................................................................................................................. 1
2.0 GEO-ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERIZATION OF THE PROJECT SITE .......................... 4
2.1 Site Location and Accessibility .................................................................................................. 4
2.2 Topography ................................................................................................................................. 4
2.3 Site Description ........................................................................................................................... 4
2.3 Climate and Vegetation .............................................................................................................. 4
2.4 Site Geology................................................................................................................................. 4
2.5 Seismicity..................................................................................................................................... 6
3.0 METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................................................... 8
3.1 Desk Study................................................................................................................................... 9
3.2 Reconnaissance Study ................................................................................................................ 9
3.3 Field Work ................................................................................................................................ 10
3.3.1 Percussion Drilling ............................................................................................................ 12
3.3.2 Standard Penetration Test (SPT) ..................................................................................... 12
3.3.3 Dynamic Cone Penetration ............................................................................................... 13
3.3.4 Test Pitting ......................................................................................................................... 13
3.4 Laboratory Test ........................................................................................................................ 14
4.0 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS ........................................................................................................ 15
4.1 Soil Profile of Site ..................................................................................................................... 15
4.2 Subsurface Material ................................................................................................................. 17
4.3 Evaluation and Analysis of Soil Strength ............................................................................... 17
4.3.1 Settlement Analysis ........................................................................................................... 17
4.3.2 Foundation Analysis .......................................................................................................... 17
4.3.3 Road Pavement and Parking Lots ................................................................................... 19
4.4 Road Pavement (Sub-base and Base Material) ...................................................................... 23
4.5 Crushed Rock Aggregate (Quarry Material) ......................................................................... 25
5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION ........................................................................... 27
6.0 BILL OF QUANTITIES (BOQ) .................................................................................................... 29
7.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT........................................................... 31
7.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 31

Page iii

Downloaded by Moses Siyoyo (mosesjuniorsiyoyo@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|44865983

7.2 Scope .......................................................................................................................................... 31

7.3 Baseline Studies ........................................................................................................................ 31
7.4 Positive and Negative Impacts ................................................................................................. 32
7.4.1 Some Positive Impacts ....................................................................................................... 32
7.4.2 Some Negative Impacts ..................................................................................................... 32
7.5 Mitigation Measures................................................................................................................. 32
7.6 Monitoring Programme ........................................................................................................... 33
7.7 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................. 33
REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................................... 34
APPENDICES ...................................................................................................................................... 35
Appendix-A-Borehole logs & Trial pits logs ................................................................................ 36
Appendix-B-DCPT Results and Graphs ...................................................................................... 41
Appendix-C-Laboratory Graphs .................................................................................................. 51
Appendix-D-Quarry and Borrow Pit............................................................................................ 69
DISCLAIMER...................................................................................................................................... 73

LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1: Picture showing Site configuration .......................................................................................... 3
FIGURE 2: Geological Map of Ghana ........................................................................................................ 5
FIGURE 3: Geological map and the legends ............................................................................................... 6
FIGURE 4: Seismic risk map of Ghana (Amonoo-neizer, 1990) ................................................................ 7
FIGURE 5: Flow Chart showing sequence of work .................................................................................... 8
FIGURE 6: Picture Showing farming activities at the site ........................................................................ 10
FIGURE 7: Aerial map indicating points considered for investigation ....................................................... 5
FIGURE 8: Percussion drilling ........................................................................................................................................... 12
FIGURE 9: SPT .......................................................................................................................................... 12
FIGURE 10: Trial Pitting ........................................................................................................................... 13
FIGURE 11: Carrying out the DCPT ......................................................................................................... 13
FIGURE 12: Graph of Qallowable (kPa) against Width of footing ........................................................... 23
FIGURE 13: DCPT ranked values CBR against CBR (%)........................................................................ 23

Page iv

Downloaded by Moses Siyoyo (mosesjuniorsiyoyo@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|44865983

LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1: Assigned Horizontal Ground Acceleration ................................................................................ 7
TABLE 2: Summary of Laboratory Result for Administration Block ...................................................... 16
TABLE 3: Summary of Laboratory Result for the road network ............................................................... 18
TABLE 4: Factors for allowable bearing capacity .................................................................................... 18
TABLE 5: Allowable bearing capacity (kPa) and Corresponding Width (m) ............................................ 18
TABLE 6: Summary of the Compaction and CBR results ........................................................................ 20
TABLE 7: Summary of CBR Ranking for Pavement Design of Parking Areas and Road Network ........ 21
TABLE 8: Dimension of Pavement and Volume of Material Required .................................................... 23
TABLE 9: Dimension of Pavement and Volume of Material Required .................................................... 23
TABLE 10: Summary of Laboratory Results on Borrow Material ............................................................ 24
TABLE 11: Summary of Laboratory Test of Quarry Material .................................................................. 25
TABLE 12: Summary Sieve Analysis of Quarry Material ......................................................................... 26
TABLE 13: Chemical tests on Aggregate and the charges ........................................................................ 26

Page v

Downloaded by Moses Siyoyo (mosesjuniorsiyoyo@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|44865983

GLOSSARY SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATION

ABBREVIATION NAME
AASHTO American Association of State Highway
and Transport Officials

ASTM American Society for Testing and

Materials
BH Borehole
BS British Standard
CBR California Bearing Ratio
D Slope for CBR calculation
DCPT Dynamic Cone Penetration Test
EM Existing Moisture
ESAL Equivalent Standard Axle Load Factor
FS Factor of Safety
LL Liquid Limit
M/C Moisture Content
MDD Maximum Dry Density
N SPT N-Values
NMC Natural Moisture Content
OMC Optimum Moisture Content
PL Plastic Limit
PI Plasticity Index
Qall Allowable Bearing Capacity
Q ult Ultimate Bearing Pressure
SPT Standard Penetration Test

Page vi

Downloaded by Moses Siyoyo (mosesjuniorsiyoyo@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|44865983

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

The College of Engineering of the Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, the
largest public university established in Ghana for the training of engineers, medical personnel,
scientists and technologists, is to establish a Centre for Innovation and Engineering Excellence to
promote the Development of innovation and research.

The Centre will be a science and technology park that will link academia to industry. Various
innovative and research products would be displayed for industry to view. It would also develop
a links between the researchers and businesses that would be interested in the product.

The College of Engineering has therefore commissioned an Architectural Firm to undertake the
general planning and the design of the architectural aspects of the Centre. Preliminary planning
and designs of the various facilities for the hospital have been completed and approved by the
Client. It is now required to undertake the engineering design aspects of the proposed Centre.

The Client has therefore commissioned us, 8M/S EDCIV 2016/17 Civil Group 169 design team to
undertake a review of the preliminary layout proposed by the previous consultant and also carry
out a detailed engineering design of the Infrastructure facilities for the proposed project.

1.2 Goals and Objectives

The science and technology is to serve the following purpose;

I. Create closer relations between the related industry and the students.
II. Industry to use new knowledge through research of students for their products

1.3 Scope of Work

For the design of the infrastructure, road pavement and parking facility a geotechnical
investigation would be carried out at the site to confirm and make appropriate recommendations
in the design report to help for the safe and economic design of the infrastructural facilities.

M/S EDCIV 2016/17 Civil Group 16 Page 1

Downloaded by Moses Siyoyo (mosesjuniorsiyoyo@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|44865983

The geotechnical investigation has been designed to involve:

I. Desk study
II. Reconnaissance study
III. Field work
IV. Laboratory work
V. Data analysis and report production
VI. Bill of quantities
VII. Environmental Impact assessment
As per the terms of reference, the scope of work for the geotechnical investigation includes:
I. Administration Block
i. To carry out the appropriate geotechnical investigation to support the safe and economic
design of the foundation of the warehouse.
ii. To provide the necessary information about the sources and quality of construction materials
of geologic origin.

II. Road Pavement Design and Car Park Design

i. To carry out the appropriate investigation to support the safe and economic design of the
pavement of the road network and parking areas.
ii. To provide the necessary information about the sources and quality of construction materials
of geologic origin required

III. Environmental Impact Assessment Report

The report of each specialization should cover the following:
i. Identify the positive environmental impacts of the project.
ii. Identify the negative environmental impact of the project.
iii. Identify appropriate mitigation measures to lessen the objectionable impacts.
iv. Draft appropriate management clauses and actions to be included in the Contract document
during implementation and operation of the facilities.
v. Develop a monitoring programme for each of the facilities to ensure that mitigation being
implemented is effective.

M/S EDCIV 2016/17 Civil Group 16 Page 2

Downloaded by Moses Siyoyo (mosesjuniorsiyoyo@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|44865983

vi. Assess Traffic impacts, especially at the main entrance from the network of roads around the
development.
vii. Assess the cost of Environmental Management Plan.

Figure 6: Picture showing Site configuration

M/S EDCIV 2016/17 Civil Group 16 Page 3

Downloaded by Moses Siyoyo (mosesjuniorsiyoyo@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|44865983

2.0 GEO-ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERIZATION OF THE PROJECT

SITE

2.1 Site Location and Accessibility

The proposed site is located at KNUST, between the college if engineering and the new college of arts
building. The distance is approximately 1km-2km from college of engineering when using the only access
route.

2.2 Topography

The site is characterized by relatively gentle topography.

2.3 Site Description

The site had been cleared of the moist semi-deciduous forest and overgrown by grass and isolated trees.
The soils per our observations were dark and loamy which is good for farming. Existing structures
includes New College of Art and Social Sciences Block. The site sloped gently.
The area has a good drainage. There is the Bibini stream runs through the southern part of the site and the
local farmers use as irrigation.

2.3 Climate and Vegetation

The project area lies within the wet semi-equatorial climatic zone which is characterized by high rainfall
and high humidity occurring between the months of July and October. There are two rainfall maxima, but
the mean annual rainfall is between 125cm and 200cm. The first rainy season is from May to June with
the heaviest rainfall in June, and the second rainy season is from September to October. The vegetation in
the wet semi-equatorial climatic zone is classified as moist deciduous forest. (Dickson & Benneh 1980)

2.4 Site Geology

Geological formation which is underlying Kumasi metropolis, within which the project site falls consists
of rocks, which belong to the early Proterozoic Birimian System.

The rocks are metasediments and felsic granitoids. Metasediments cover about 45% of the metropolis and
consist mainly of phyllites, metagreywackes and schists. Structurally, the rocks are folded and they
generally strike and dip to northeast and southeast respectively with the amount of dip varying from 35 o
to 89o. The granitoids are variably textured with muscovite and biotite-rich micas. They occur as large

M/S EDCIV 2016/17 Civil Group 16 Page 4

Downloaded by Moses Siyoyo (mosesjuniorsiyoyo@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|44865983

batholiths, which are cut by pegmatite, quartz veins and minor intrusives (amphibolites and dolerites),
(Murray, 1961).

Figure 2: Geological Map of Ghana

M/S EDCIV 2016/17 Civil Group 16 Page 5

Downloaded by Moses Siyoyo (mosesjuniorsiyoyo@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|44865983

Figure 3: Geological map and the legends

2.5 Seismicity

A study of the seismic risk map of Ghana, shown in Figure 4 was done to determine the risk to
the infrastructures due to seismic activities. This study showed that the area has Horizontal
Ground Acceleration (HGA) of 0.15g. Thus, no serious seismic activity is anticipated at the site.
However, seismic response may be considered in the design process.

M/S EDCIV 2016/17 Civil Group 16 Page 6

Downloaded by Moses Siyoyo (mosesjuniorsiyoyo@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|44865983

Figure 4: Seismic Risk Map of Ghana

Table 1: Assigned Horizontal Ground Acceleration

Zone 0 1 2 3
Horizonta
l ground
0 0.15 0.25 0.35
accelerati
on (g)

M/S EDCIV 2016/17 Civil Group 16 Page 7

Downloaded by Moses Siyoyo (mosesjuniorsiyoyo@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|44865983

3.0 METHODOLOGY
For the design of any project it is very necessary for the team of consultants to adopt methods in
order to achieve the objectives of the project. The methodologies must be appropriate, safe and
economic. These methodologies are desk study, reconnaissance study, and field work
(excavation, in-situ test and sampling). The site investigation will be done in accordance to the
Code of Practice for Site Investigations, BS 5930 and 1377: 1990. The flowchart below gives the
sequence for the investigation approach:

Site Investigation

Desk Study Reconnaissance Field Work

Study

Excavation, in-situ Field Test

test, and Sampling

Laboratory Test

Report

Figure 5: Flow Chart showing sequence of work

M/S EDCIV 2016/17 Civil Group 16 Page 8

Downloaded by Moses Siyoyo (mosesjuniorsiyoyo@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|44865983

3.1 Desk Study

We carry out a desk study which is the first stage to identify the geotechnical and/or geo-
environmental characteristics of the ground in sufficient detail to enable economic design to help
minimize the risk of unforeseen ground conditions which can cause increased costs and/or
schedule delays.
A desk study was undertaken to obtain information on the site. The study consisted of an
overview of the topography, geology, climate and vegetation, accessibility, seismicity, historical
records, especially in relation to floods, landslides and subsidence and also engineering records
and reports on any major works in the vicinity of the site. All this aided us to the selection of
boring method to use and other field test we will be conducted on the site

3.2 Reconnaissance Study

On 17th September, 2016, between the hours of 15:00-17:00 GMT, the team carried out a
reconnaissance survey for us to confirm the desk study information that will aid us in planning
field work.
The proposed site is located at Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology between
the College of Engineering and the College of Arts building along the Ayeduase fence wall.
From the college of engineering to the proposed site a 5minutes walk-time. There was no
construction activity going on at the proposed site. The ground was floored with sandy-loam soil
material, overgrown grass and isolated trees. There were farming activities at the location. I had
an interaction with the farmers on the site to gain knowledge about the nature of the land.
Shallow dug out wells were observed which indicated that the water table was just shallow deep
from the land surface. There was no history of floods from the locals. The land slopped gently.
The College of Arts building which is closed to the proposed site was checked for cracks and any
undesirable defects.
I accessed the proposed road infrastructure. The proposed road from the Petroleum Building at
the college of engineering to the proposed passed through the Bibini stream and a densly marshy
area. There is a need to weed or clear the area for me to carry out the necessarily geotechnical
investigation.

M/S EDCIV 2016/17 Civil Group 16 Page 9

Downloaded by Moses Siyoyo (mosesjuniorsiyoyo@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|44865983

Figure 6: Picture Showing farming activities at the site

3.3 Field Work

After the desk study and reconnaissance survey the team had a meeting and the discussed the
various design that was going to be carried out at the proposed site and how the geotechnical
investigation is going to be relevant to their design. Consultation with the structural engineer we
identified the critical columns of the administration block and in case needs be water storage
tank. With that information I concluded that the critical columns and the just a column of the
water tank are the points on the layout that I will consider and conduct my geotechnical
investigation. Also consultation from the highway engineer we identified points on the proposed
route and parking area where I will carry out relevant geotechnical investigation.
Geotechnical engineers from each group went to the site to identify the exact locations that our
investigations will be carried out. A tape measure and the site layout were used for this exercise.
There was an existing landmark at the proposed site that was used as a reference point in the
determination of the exact area using trigonometry.

M/S EDCIV 2016/17 Civil Group 16 Page 10

Downloaded by Moses Siyoyo (mosesjuniorsiyoyo@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|44865983

Figure 7: Aerial map indicating points considered for investigation

The following are the field test that was carried out in accordance with the BS 5930-1990;
Administration Block
I. Percussion drilling
II. Standard Penetration Test

M/S EDCIV 2016/17 Civil Group 16 Page 11

Downloaded by Moses Siyoyo (mosesjuniorsiyoyo@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|44865983

Road Network and Car Park

I. 5 trail pits (4 for road network and 1 for the car parks) of dimensions 1m x 1.5m x 1m to
check the strata of the subsurface soil and obtain samples for laboratory tests.
II. 12 DCPT was carried out at intervals of 100m along the centre line of the road network and
internal road network. 5 DCPT for the parking area to determine the in-situ CBR.

3.3.1 Percussion Drilling

On 16th October, 2016 at 07:00 GMT-12:45 GMT the team conducted percussive drilling at the
point which the critical column of the administration block is located on the layout at a depth
10.450m from the surface. Disturbed samples was taken to the Soil Mechanics laboratory for
relevant laboratory test (soil index properties and engineering test) at a depth of 1m interval and
logged. Refer to Appendix A for logs

3.3.2 Standard Penetration Test (SPT)

Standard penetration test was carried simultaneously with the percussive drilling in the borehole
excavated by the drill. 8 SPTS were done in the borehole at 1m interval for the first 3 and the last
5 at 1.5m interval. Samples were taken using the split-spoon sampler and logged.

Figure 8: Percussion drilling Figure 9: SPT

M/S EDCIV 2016/17 Civil Group 16 Page 12

Downloaded by Moses Siyoyo (mosesjuniorsiyoyo@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|44865983

3.3.3 Dynamic Cone Penetration

Saturday 22nd October 2016 between the hours 11:00-14:00 GMT the dynamic Cone Penetration
test was conducted. The test was done assess the in-situ California Bearing Ratio (CBR) of the
subgrade material of the road network. The tests involve the dropping of an 8kg hammer through
a height of 575mm onto an anvil to cause the penetration of a 60 o cone into the soil. The number
of blows to cause a penetration of 100mm into the soil was recorded and used in the computation
of the CBR of the soil. Plots and summary of the DCP test result are presented in Appendix B.

3.3.4 Test Pitting

Sunday 23rd October 2016 all 5 trial pits of dimensions 1m x 1.5m x 1m were excavated using
pick axe and shovel along the centre line of the proposed road network and the parking lots and
were logged. Logs of the test pits are presented in Appendix A
Samples (disturbed) were taken to the Soil Mechanics laboratory for soil index test and soil
engineering test. Trial pit 2 along the proposed road corridor having the coordinate 6.67124°N
1.56376°W groundwater was encountered at 0.6m beneath the surface of the ground.

Figure 10: Trial Pitting Figure 11: Carrying out the DCPT

M/S EDCIV 2016/17 Civil Group 16 Page 13

Downloaded by Moses Siyoyo (mosesjuniorsiyoyo@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|44865983

3.4 Laboratory Test

All the tests will conducted in the Civil Engineering Department Laboratory and the test will be
carried out using the specification of BS 1377:1990. The samples will first be air dried before
following tests are carried out:
I. Moisture Content.
Moisture content is defined as the ratio of the mass of water in a given soil mass to the mass of
dry solids. It is expressed as a percentage. This gives us the NMC
II. Particle size distribution (wet sieve analysis and hydrometer test).
Particle Size Distribution test- The particle size distribution test gives us the texture of the soil.
The test consists of the sieve analysis and the hydrometer test. The sieve analysis test will be
done for coarser particles, thus soils that will be retained on the No. 200 sieve. The hydrometer
which will be done using Stoke9s law will be done to determine the finer samples, soil that can
pass through sieve No. 200.
III. Atterberg Limits (Cone Penetration Method)

The liquid limit is the boundary water content between the plastic and liquid states. The plastic
limit is the moisture content that defines where the soil changes from a semi-solid state to a
plastic state.Plasticity Index is the range of water content over which a soil behaves in a plastic
state. It is the difference between the liquid limit and the plastic state.

IV. Compaction test

This is a test which be done to improve the density of the soil by adding water and reducing the
air volume in the soil.
V. Specific Gravity(Glass Jar)

The specific gravity of a soil is used in the phase relationship of air, water and solids in a given
volume of the soil. Specific gravity is the ratio of the mass of unit volume of soil at a stated
temperature to the mass of the same volume of gas-free distilled water at a stated temperature.

VI. California bearing capacity (CBR)

This is a test conducted for evaluating the suitability of subgrade and other materials used in sub-
base and base of a flexible pavement.

M/S EDCIV 2016/17 Civil Group 16 Page 14

Downloaded by Moses Siyoyo (mosesjuniorsiyoyo@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|44865983

4.0 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

4.1 Soil Profile of Site
The percussion that was carried out indicated that the depth 0.1m – 1m was generally reddish
brown, damp, soft, silty and clay. The soil samples from the subsequent depths had similar
properties. They were mostly shades of brown, damp, stiff, clayey silt. Mica was present. Refer
to Appendix A for logs
Along the route corridor of the proposed major road and the parking lot (TP4) at the project area,
the test pits showed brownish, moist soft dense gravelly SAND with silt between 0.2m-1m.
Groundwater was encountered at TP2 along the road corridor 0.6m deep from the ground
surface. Refer to Appendix A for logs

Table 2: Summary of Laboratory Result for Administration Block

Depth NMC Specific ATTERBERG PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS REMARKS

(m) (%) Gravity LIMITS TEST, (HYDROMETER) (%)
(%)
LL PL PI Clay Silt Sand Gravel
(C) (M) (S) (G)
0.1-1.0 20.00 1.58 49.0 21.0 28 46.0 22.0 30.0 2.0 Low Plastic Clay.

1.0-2.0 25.07 2.17 53.0 31.0 22 37.0 31.0 29.0 3.0 Highly plastic Clay.

2.0-3.0 18.79 2.18 52.0 31.0 21 25.0 34.0 32.0 9.0 Highly plastic Silt.

4.0-5.0 20.35 2.15 56.0 34.0 22 12.0 47.0 39.0 2.0 Highly Plastic Silt..
7.0-8.0 22.89 2.15 59.0 33.0 26 4.0 38.0 57.0 1.0 Silty Sand.

9.0- 26.36 2.25 59.0 40 19 8.0 41.0 48.0 3.0 Silty Sand..
10.0

M/S EDCIV 2016/17 Civil Group 16 Page 15

Downloaded by Moses Siyoyo (mosesjuniorsiyoyo@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|44865983

Table 3: Summary of Laboratory Result for the Subgrade material along the road network and the parking lot

PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION ATTERBERG LIMIT CLASSIFICATION

MOISTURE
GENERAL
DESCRIP TION LAYER DEPTH (m) CONTENT
REMARKS
(%) FINES SAND GRAVEL LL PL PI AASHTO

excellent to
TRIALPIT 1 1 0.6 - 1.00 18.74 20.42 75.58 4 18 NP 18 A-2-6(0)
good

excellent to
TRIALPIT2 1 0.29- 1.00 27.18 14.7 73.27 12.03 17 NP 17 A-2-6(0)
good

excellent to
TRIAL PIT 3 1 0.20 - 1.00 24.5 35 63 2 48.66 24.5 24.16 A-2-7(3)
good

TRIAL PIT 4 1 0.18 - 1 31.73 48.28 51.01 0.71 51 21.57 29 A-7-6(10) fair to poor

TRIALPIT 5 1 0.10-1.00 18.24 37 49.68 13.32 58 29.1 28.47 A-7-6(6) fair to poor

M/S EDCIV 2016/17 Civil Group 16 Page 16

Downloaded by Moses Siyoyo (mosesjuniorsiyoyo@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|44865983

4.2 Subsurface Material

Data from the laboratory tests showed that the average moisture content determined on samples
from the borehole was 22%. Along the proposed route corridor, The PI-chart also showed that
the fine portions of the subsoil material at the administration block are silt which is highly plastic
(MH) when using the unified classification system.
The particle size distribution test result indicates that the subsoil material within the
administration area is predominantly SILT with sand and clay, and traces of gravel.
The subgrade material encountered along the proposed road (TP1, TP2, and TP3) area was also
predominantly SAND with significant From the AASHTO classification and a class of A-2-6 (0)
and is excellent to good. For the internal road network and the parking, TP5 and TP4
respectively the were classed as A-7-6(6) and A-7-6(10) and are fair to poor.

4.3 Evaluation and Analysis of Soil Strength

4.3.1 Settlement Analysis
Settlement is a soil parameter that affects the allowable bearing capacity of a soil and this can be
obtained from the summation of immediate settlement, consolidation settlement and secondary
compression. Settlement could not be obtained from the laboratory so an allowable settlement of
25mm according to the Ghana Building Code was used.

4.3.2 Foundation Analysis

For any building to be resilient it is necessary to determine the strength of the soil that the
building is going to be placed on. The strength of the soil which is going to support the building
is called the bearing capacity. The bearing capacity is obtained by using the Terzagh9s bearing
capacity equation. The Terzargh9s bearing capacity equation is dependent on the shear strength
parameter (i.e. C, ϕ and σ). During the investigation the strength parameters of the soil could not
be extracted so the SPT-N values were for computing the bearing capacity
The qallow values are also derived from the SPT and DCP correlation studies of sower and Hedges
(1966).. Using a footing placement depth of 1.5m, width 1m (square footing) and a tolerable
settlement of 25mm the equation below was used

M/S EDCIV 2016/17 Civil Group 16 Page 17

Downloaded by Moses Siyoyo (mosesjuniorsiyoyo@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|44865983

( )

Where qa= allowable bearing capacity for settlement 25mm

N= Average SPT-N values from in-situ test.
B= Width o foundation
D= Depth of foundation

Table 4: Factors for allowable bearing capacity

Factor F1 F2 F3 F4
Value 0.04 0.06 0.30 1.20

From the computation, using the equation the allowable bearing capacity was obtained as
328.34kN/m2
Table 5: Allowable bearing capacity (kPa) and Corresponding Width (m)

BEARING CAPACITY
Qallowable (kPa) Width (m)
328.34 1.00
328.34 1.20
322.76 1.40
289.38 1.60
248.28 1.80
217.12 2.00
192.73 2.20
173.15 2.40
164.75 2.50

M/S EDCIV 2016/17 Civil Group 16 Page 18

Downloaded by Moses Siyoyo (mosesjuniorsiyoyo@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|44865983

4.3.3 Road Pavement and Parking Lots

4.3.3.1 In-situ CBR

The bearing strength of the soil for the road pavement and parking area was evaluated with result
from the DCP test. This test is done to get the in-situ nature and variation in the shear strength of
the surficial soils with depth. Graphs of penetration against cumulative number of blows were
plotted and the gradients of each layer, D values obtained. The CBR values are estimated using
the following equation;

Log (CBR) =2.48 – 1.057Log (D)

The values obtained here were supported with what was obtained in the laboratory test to come
out with the CBR value to be used by the highway engineer for the structural design of the
pavement and parking areas. See results in Appendix B.

4.3.3.2 Laboratory CBR

The laboratory CBR was performed in accordance with the BS 1377-1990 part 4 to determine
the bearing strength of the road pavement and parking area. The test was done by compacting the
soil sample by using the OMC and the MDD, after which the soil sample was soaked for a period
of 94hours. After the 94hours we removed the sample and performed one point CBR on each
sample.
A graph of Load (kN) against penetration (mm) were plotted for each trial pits. The loads that
caused penetration of 2.5mm and 5mm were determined from the graph and compared to a
standard rock. Refer to Appendix C. We compared the two loads the highest percentage was
taken as the CBR value the equation below was used to estimate the CBR value;
Load (kN) = Division (div) × Proving ring constant (kN/div).

( )

The percentage of swell was also determined measuring the change in height to the original
height of soil and multiplying by 100%. The swell gives indication of how the soil displaces
when it has been flooded.

M/S EDCIV 2016/17 Civil Group 16 Page 19

Downloaded by Moses Siyoyo (mosesjuniorsiyoyo@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|44865983

Table 6: Summary of the Compaction and CBR results

SAMPLE DEPTH COMPACTION SWELL

ID (mm) CBR% %
OMC MDD(g/cm3) 2.5m 5mm
(%) m
TP1 0.60-1.00 6.80 2.10 9 18 0.28
TP2 0.29-1.00 6.50 2.05 74 114 1.13
TP3 0.20-1.00 10.20 1.99 24 32 -0.92
TP4(Parking 0.18-1.00 11.20 1.97 13 14 -0.38
Lot)
TP5(Internal 0.10-1.00 18.70 1.68 22 22 -1.25
Road)
*(-) indicates the soil sample reduced in change in length.

M/S EDCIV 2016/17 Civil Group 16 Page 20

Downloaded by Moses Siyoyo (mosesjuniorsiyoyo@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|44865983

Table 7: Summary of CBR Ranking for Pavement Design of Parking Areas and
Road Network

Ranked CBR Frequency Number of CBR

(f) values ≥ ranked % of CBR values
Values(n) ≥ ranked value
percentile

2 2 45 118.42
4 1 43 113.16
5 1 42 110.53
6 1 41 107.89
7 2 40 105.26
8 1 38 100.00
9 2 37 97.37
10 1 35 92.11
11 1 34 89.47
14 3 33 86.84
17 2 30 78.95
19 2 28 73.68
20 1 26 68.42
21 1 25 65.79
24 3 24 63.16
29 1 21 55.26
31 1 20 52.63
39 1 19 50.00
40 1 18 4.7.37
41 1 178 44.74
45 2 16 42.11
52 1 14 36.84
54 3 13 34.21
64 1 10 26.32
82 1 9 23.68
111 1 8 21.05
∑f = 38

M/S EDCIV 2016/17 Civil Group 16 Page 21

Downloaded by Moses Siyoyo (mosesjuniorsiyoyo@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|44865983

350

300

Qallowable (kPa) 250

200

150 Qallowable

100

50

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Width (m)

Figure 12: Graph of Qallowable (kPa) against Width (m) of footing

ROAD CBR % of CBR values ≥ ranked value (percentile)

DCPT
140.00%

120.00%

100.00%
Ranked CBR

80.00%

60.00%

40.00%

20.00%

0.00%
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
% of CBR values ≥ ranked value (percentile)

ROAD CBR % of CBR values ≥ ranked value (percentile)

Figure 13: DCPT ranked values CBR against CBR (%)

M/S EDCIV 2016/17 Civil Group 16 Page 22

Downloaded by Moses Siyoyo (mosesjuniorsiyoyo@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|44865983

4.4 Road Pavement (Sub-base and Base Material)

The strength of any soil is affected by certain parameter such as the moisture content, particle
size distribution, consistency limits (liquid limit, plastic limit and plastic index) and density.
Pavement design of any road, we determine the strength of the soil by using the California
Bearing Ratio (CBR) test. In order to provide the necessary information about the sources and
quality of borrow pit materials of geologic origin for the sub-base and base construction.

This lead to a search in the environs of the project area by considering proximity that is
reasonable to reduce haul during construction of the road networks. We considered two borrow
pits and they are the Kwaso and Piase Borrow pits which we visited and samples taken to
determine their suitability. Unfortunately due time constraints we could not perform the test so
data obtained from M/S EDCIV 2015/16 were used to check the suitability of the borrow pit
material which were compared with the Ghana Highway Authority (GHA) specification. From
the data the Kwaso borrow material qualified used as a base material and that of the Piase
material also qualified as a subbase material. Below are tables which gives the summary the
dimension of pavement and its required volume material required and table 11 gives us the test
conducted on the borrow materials.

Table 8: Dimension of Pavement and Volume of Material Required

Layer Thickness(m) Width(m) Length(m) Volume(m3)

Sub-base 0.2 10.5 1044 2740
Base 0.20 10.5 1044 2192

Table 9: Dimension of Pavement and Volume of Material Required

BORROW PIT PROXIMITY TO CAPACITY VOLUME

PROJECT (m3) REQUIRED (m3)
SITE(Km)
PIASE 12.0 3500 143
KWASO 11.7 5250 114

M/S EDCIV 2016/17 Civil Group 16 Page 23

Downloaded by Moses Siyoyo (mosesjuniorsiyoyo@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|44865983

Table 10: Summary of Laboratory Results on Borrow Material

SAMPLE Mate Liqui Plasti Linear MDD OM PM GM Swell

LOCATI rial d city shrinka (g/cm C (%) (%) (mm/
ONS Limit Index ge Sieve Analysis 3) (%) CBR (%) %)
Clas (%) (%) (mm/%
s )
75 37.5 20 10 5 2 0.425 0.075 97 94 93
mm mm mm mm Mm mm mm Mm
Specificat G60 f30 f12 f6 100 80- 60- 45- 30- 20- 8-33 5-22 60 60 60 f250 g1.95 0.5
ion(GHA) 100 100 90 75 50
G40 f30 f14 f7 - - - - - - - - 40 40 40 f250 g1.5 0.5

Piase 35 6 - 100 92.3 91.1 73.5 45.8 23.4 11.4 8.2 2.10 11 34.1 23 20 68.5 2.57 0.43
borrowed
pit
Kwaso 23.48 7.98 - 100 100 85.3 63.8 41.0 23.9 12.6 8.03 2.21 12 107 97 73 100.5 2.55
borrowed
pit

M/S EDCIV 2016/17 Civil Group 16 Page 24

Downloaded by Moses Siyoyo (mosesjuniorsiyoyo@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|44865983

4.5 Crushed Rock Aggregate (Quarry Material)

The use of crushed rock aggregate in the road pavement design for wearing course,
Northern Mines and Quarry located at Kona was visited and aggregate was taken. Also with the
quarry materials the necessary test could not be done to determine their suitability. Results
obtained from M/S EDCIV 2015/16 of the aggregate tests obtained were compared with the
GHA specification for use of crushed rock aggregate as a wearing course material and all the
results satisfied the criteria. It is advised that routine test be carried out on aggregates brought
from the quarry site to ensure conformity with the specification. From the test result, it showed
that not all the test passed the specification.

Table 11: Summary of Laboratory Test of Quarry Material

Test Aggregate sizes Value Chipping class 4 TEST METHOD

Heavy vehicles per
day in one
direction(0-25)
Ten Percent Fines 10/14 mm 135kN g210 BS 812-Part 111
Value (passing 14mm sieve
and retained on 10mm
sieve)
Aggregate Impact 14mm 19.0 % BS 812-Part 110
Value
Elongation Index 10/14 mm 19.5% BS 812-Part 105-2
(passing 14mm sieve
and retained on 10mm
sieve)
Flakiness Index 10/14 mm 28% f25 BS 812-Part 105-1
(passing 14mm sieve
and passing on 10mm
sieve)
Los Angeles 12.5/19.5mm 28.1% f35 ASTM C-131
Abrasion, LAA 9.5/12.5mm
(20mm)
Water Absorption 0.17%

M/S EDCIV 2016/17 Civil Group 16 Page 25

Downloaded by Moses Siyoyo (mosesjuniorsiyoyo@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|44865983

Table 12: Summary Sieve Analysis of Quarry Material

Specification for
14mm Nominal
size(MRT, 2006)
SEIVE SIZE(mm) Percentage passing
37.5 100 100
20 100 100
14 91 95-100
10 48 0-20
5 15 -
2.36 0 -

It should be noted that if the aggregate are to be used for concreting (columns, beams, slabs) for
the construction of the Administration Block, the following test are to performed on the
aggregate together with the sand so as to prevent the chemicals from reacting with cement

Table 13: Chemical tests on Aggregate and the charges

Item Description Rate (GH₵)

No.
1 Sulphate Content

1.10 Sodium Sulphate Soundness (S.S.S)

1.20 Alkali Silica Reaction

1.30 Chlorides

1.40 Organic Impurities

1.50 pH

M/S EDCIV 2016/17 Civil Group 16 Page 26

Downloaded by Moses Siyoyo (mosesjuniorsiyoyo@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|44865983

5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION

From the analyses, the following conclusions have been arrived at:
I. The soil type at the site is residual soil derived from the weathering of the underlying
phyllites. The predominant soil at the site is silt and sand with significant amount of clay and
some gravel mostly found on the surface.

II. Groundwater was encountered along the proposed road corridor at the TP2 at depth 0.6m from
the ground surface the time of the investigation.

III. The allowable bearing capacities as determine by the SPT, since shear strength parameters
could not be extracted by using the triaxial test at depths 1.5m was 328.34kPa.
IV. An allowable settlement of 25mm was used ato compute the allowable bearing capacity.
V. The subgrade material classified as A-2 and A-7 along the road corridor and internal road
networks respectively by the AASHTO classification system. Along the proposed road
corridor quality were good and that of the internal road network poor. So for the materials on
the internal road network soil improvement is required.
VI. The borrow material from Kwaso most of the test qualifies the material to be used as base
material since it satisfy the specification of G60 whilst the borrow material from Piase may
also be used as sub-base material since most of the test satisfy the GHA specification of G40.
Stabilizer of cement or lime or quarry dust may be added to the material in an appropriate
proportion of mix so as to improve on the quality of the materials.
VII. Crushed rock aggregate test results obtained were found to be acceptable per the MRT
specification for use of crushed rock aggregate as base course.

Based on the conclusions, the following recommendations are made:

I. The bearing capacity of 328.34kPa should be used in the design of the foundations at the
administration area with footings placed at 1.5m. From this it will be economically good to
use pad footing of width 1m x 1m.
II. To eliminate possible differential settlements, ground beams may be incorporated in the
foundation design. Any other structural design to eliminate differential settlements is advised.

M/S EDCIV 2016/17 Civil Group 16 Page 27

Downloaded by Moses Siyoyo (mosesjuniorsiyoyo@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|44865983

III. Drainage problems are not expected and that simple drains appropriately designed will be able
to manage the surface runoff.
IV. Since the subgrade material for the internal road network is of poor quality, it is advised that
initial conditioning of the subgrade (such as compaction) should be done prior to the
placement of other layers to improve it strength.
V. Routine test on the aggregate from the quarry site should be conducted to ensure it conformity
with the MRT specification.
VI. The relative compaction that should be achieved is 95% from the lab.

M/S EDCIV 2016/17 Civil Group 16 Page 28

Downloaded by Moses Siyoyo (mosesjuniorsiyoyo@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|44865983

6.0 BILL OF QUANTITIES (BOQ)

The bill of quantities gives the overall cost of the project. The bill of quantities was done using the
CESMM 3.
CESMM ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QTY. UNIT AMOUNT
CODE RATE GH¢

TRIAL PITS nr 5 50.00 250.00

B112
Trial pits in material
other than rock, depth
1m
B212 LIGHT WEIGHT nr 1 3000.00 3000.00
PERCUSSION
BOREHOLES
SITE TESTS AND
OBSERVATIONS
B513 Dynamic cone
penetration test nr 17 20.00 340.00
LABORATORY TEST

B711 Moisture content nr 11 25.00 275.00

determination

nr 11 70..00 770.00
B712 Atterberg limits

B713 Specific Gravity nr 5 30 150.00

B715 Particle size analysis by nr 6 60.00 360.00
hydrometer

B731 Standard Compaction nr 5 150.00 750.00

B768 California Bearing Ratio, nr 5 40.00 200.00

each specimen
compacted in five layers
with 55 blows per layer

Aggregate Impact Value nr 1 200 200.00

M/S EDCIV 2016/17 Civil Group 16 Page 29

Downloaded by Moses Siyoyo (mosesjuniorsiyoyo@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|44865983

Loss Angeles Abrasion nr 1 250 250.00

Flakiness nr 1 125 125.00

Elongation nr 1 125 125.00

Water absorption nr 1 200 150.00

B831 PROFFESIONAL SERVICE

Project site visitation nr 5 10 50.00

B840 Preparation and Lump 100 100.00

submission of report sum
GRAND TOTAL 7535.00

M/S EDCIV 2016/17 Civil Group 16 Page 30

Downloaded by Moses Siyoyo (mosesjuniorsiyoyo@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|44865983

7.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT

7.1 Introduction

Environmental impact assessment involves the process of assessing the project and identifying,
predicting, evaluating and mitigating the positive or negative effects it has on the environment,
society and the economy. This report, therefore, gives account on the possible positive and
negative impacts of the project during the geotechnical site investigation and also to provide a
remedy of the impacts.

7.2 Scope

The Environmental Protection Agency that the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) under
the Environmental Protection Agency Act, 1994 Act 490, be provided before any construction is
undertaken. The following are the processes that will be gone through.

1. Conduct a baseline study.

2. Identify the positive impacts.

3. Identify the negative impacts.

4. Identify appropriate mitigation measures to minimise the negative impacts.

5. Ensure that the mitigation measures are implemented by developing a monitoring Programme.

7.3 Baseline Studies

Under this, data collected from the site is recorded. The data should include the species that will
be endangered and they comprise plants and animals. The effects of site investigation on them
will be studied. From the baseline studies the investigations that will be carried will affect the
vegetation of the proposed site since the site is to be cleared before carrying out any field test.
During drilling of the borehole it will cause noise pollution. Trial pits that will be dug will affect
the farmers because their farmlands are situated exactly along the proposed road network.

M/S EDCIV 2016/17 Civil Group 16 Page 31

Downloaded by Moses Siyoyo (mosesjuniorsiyoyo@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|44865983

7.4 Positive and Negative Impacts

7.4.1 Some Positive Impacts

1. The project will serve as a source of employment to people in the nearby community.

7.4.2 Some Negative Impacts

1. Destruction of the habitats of living organisms. Also some organisms living in the soil may
lose their lives.

2. Air pollution which results from dust particles emitted during the digging of trial pits.
Inhalation of dust can go a long way to cause respiratory diseases.

3. Water may be retained in dug pits and this serves as a breeding site for harmful organisms
like mosquitoes (vector of malaria) and snakes which pose danger to humans.

4. Land pollution: Deforestation due to the removal of trees and shrubs during field
explorations. Removal of surface vegetation leads to erosion.

5. Generation of intolerable noise from the operation of mechanical equipment.

7.5 Mitigation Measures

Below are the mitigation measures to be taken during site investigation:

1. Dug holes should be filled immediately after tests have been carried out.

2. Reforestation should be practiced after construction.

3. Operators of mechanical equipment should wear safety clothing like safety boots, coats and
ear plugs.

4. Temporary drains should be created to direct unwanted water in order to prevent the retention
of water.

M/S EDCIV 2016/17 Civil Group 16 Page 32

Downloaded by Moses Siyoyo (mosesjuniorsiyoyo@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|44865983

7.6 Monitoring Programme

1. It shall be ensured that, all the mitigation measures provided are adhered to.

2. The progress of the implementation of the mitigation measures should be assessed.

7.7 Conclusion
All the possible positive and negative impacts of the project, in relation to site investigation have
been analysed and it can be guaranteed that mitigation measures will be strictly adhered to
ensure safe execution of the project.

M/S EDCIV 2016/17 Civil Group 16 Page 33

Downloaded by Moses Siyoyo (mosesjuniorsiyoyo@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|44865983

REFERENCES

Amonoo-Neizer, K. (1990), Building and Road Research Institute. Code of practice: Seismic
Design of Concrete Structures
British Standards Institution (1990) BS1377: Methods of Test for Soil for Civil Engineering
Analysis and Modeling Vol. 1.
Dickson, K. B. and Benneh, G. A. (2004), A New Geography of Ghana. Revised Edition. Longman
Group UK Limited. 170pp
Kesse, G.O. (1985),The Mineral and Rock Resources of Ghana.A. A.Balkema, Rotterdam, The
Netherlands, 610pp
Terzaghi, Karl (1843), Theoretical Soil Mechanics. New York: John Wiley and Sons Inc.
Tomlinson, M.J. (1990): Foundation Design and Construction, 6th Edition: Longman ELBS.
Murray R. J., 1961: The Geology and Economic Resource of the Kumasi Area Gold Coast
Geological Survey bulletin No.26
Bowles, J.E (1977), Foundation Analysis and Design 5th Edition.

M/S EDCIV 2016/17 Civil Group 16 Page 34

Downloaded by Moses Siyoyo (mosesjuniorsiyoyo@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|44865983

APPENDICES

M/S EDCIV 2016/17 Civil Group 16 Page 35

Downloaded by Moses Siyoyo (mosesjuniorsiyoyo@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|44865983

Appendix-A-Borehole logs & Trial pits logs

M/S EDCIV 2016/17 Civil Group 16 Page 36

Downloaded by Moses Siyoyo (mosesjuniorsiyoyo@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|44865983

M/S EDCIV 2016/17 Civil Group 16 Page 37

Downloaded by Moses Siyoyo (mosesjuniorsiyoyo@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|44865983

M/S EDCIV 2016/17 Civil Group 16 Page 38

Downloaded by Moses Siyoyo (mosesjuniorsiyoyo@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|44865983

M/S EDCIV 2016/17 Civil Group 16 Page 39

Downloaded by Moses Siyoyo (mosesjuniorsiyoyo@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|44865983

M/S EDCIV 2016/17 Civil Group 16 Page 40

Downloaded by Moses Siyoyo (mosesjuniorsiyoyo@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|44865983

Appendix-B-DCPT Results and Graphs

Cummulative no. of blows

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
0

200
Penetration(mm)

400 Layer 1
Layer 2
600
y = 28.809x + 119.85
800

1000

1200

DCPT 1
D-
SOIL LAYER THICKNESS(mm) VALUE CBR
1 200 64.286 3.705279
2 800 28.809 8.655232

Cumulative No. of Blows

0 2 4 6 8 10 12
0

200
Penetration(mm)

400
Layer 1
600

800

1000

1200

DCPT 2
D-
SOIL LAYER THICKNESS(mm) VALUE CBR
1 1000 100 2.322737

M/S EDCIV 2016/17 Civil Group 16 Page 41

Downloaded by Moses Siyoyo (mosesjuniorsiyoyo@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|44865983

CUMMULATIVE NO. OF BLOWS

0 20 40 60 80 100
0

200
y = 29.293x + 44.949
PENETRATION(mm)

400 Layer 1
Layer 2
600

800

1000 y = 6.0725x + 437.26

1200

DCPT 3
D-
SOIL LAYER THICKNESS(mm) VALUE CBR
1 400 29.293 8.504144
2 600 6.0725 44.87253

M/S EDCIV 2016/17 Civil Group 16 Page 42

Downloaded by Moses Siyoyo (mosesjuniorsiyoyo@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|44865983

Cumulative No of Blows
0 20 40 60 80 100
0

y = 127.27x + 54.545
200
Layer 1
y = 17.742x + 275.81
Penetration/mm

400 Layer 2
Layer 3
600
y = 5.3009x + 425.07 Layer 4

800

1000 y = 11.16x + 149.72

1200

DCPT 4
D-
SOIL LAYER THICKNESS(mm) VALUE CBR
1 300 127.270 1.800133
2 200 17.7420 14.44789
3 200 5.3009 51.80390
4 300 11.160 23.58408

M/S EDCIV 2016/17 Civil Group 16 Page 43

Downloaded by Moses Siyoyo (mosesjuniorsiyoyo@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|44865983

Cumulative No of Blows
0 10 20 30 40 50
0

y = 46.154x + 23.077
200

Layer 1
Penetration (mm)

400
y = 18.443x + 127.05
8 Layer 2
600 Layer 3

800

1000 y = 25x - 25

1200

DCPT 5
D-
SOIL LAYER THICKNESS(mm) VALUE CBR
1 200 32.143 5.259334
2 400 18.443 13.86807
3 400 25.000 10.05489

M/S EDCIV 2016/17 Civil Group 16 Page 44

Downloaded by Moses Siyoyo (mosesjuniorsiyoyo@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|44865983

Cumulative No of Blows
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
0
y = 100x
200

Layer 1
Penetration (mm)

400
Layer 2
600 Layer 3

800

1000 y = 12.704x - 401.3

1200

DCPT 6
D-
SOIL LAYER THICKNESS(mm) VALUE CBR
1 100 100.0000 2.322737
2 600 6.9681 38.79968
3 300 12.7040 20.56529

Cumulative No of Blows
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
0
y = 4.2514x + 10.721
200
Layer 1
Penetration (mm)

400
Layer 2
y = 6.6769x - 124.22
600 Layer 3

800 y = 2.5757x + 383.8

1000

1200

DCPT 7
D-
SOIL LAYER THICKNESS(mm) VALUE CBR
1 200 4.2514 65.40963
2 500 6.6769 40.5905
3 300 2.5757 111.0922

M/S EDCIV 2016/17 Civil Group 16 Page 45

Downloaded by Moses Siyoyo (mosesjuniorsiyoyo@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|44865983

Cumulative No of Blows
0 50 100 150 200
0

200
Penetration (mm)

400
Layer 1
600 y = 6.0903x + 5.5787

800

1000

1200

DCPT 8
D-
SOIL LAYER THICKNESS(mm) VALUE CBR
1 1000 6.0903 44.73392

Cumulative No of Blows
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
0

200
Penetration (mm)

400
Layer 1
600 y = 10.283x + 5.4816

800

1000

1200

DCPT 9
D-
SOIL LAYER THICKNESS(mm) VALUE CBR
1 1000 10.283 25.71517

M/S EDCIV 2016/17 Civil Group 16 Page 46

Downloaded by Moses Siyoyo (mosesjuniorsiyoyo@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|44865983

Cumulative No of Blows
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
0
y = 4.3478x
200 Layer 1
y = 9.325x - 119.63
Penetration (mm)

400 Layer 2
Layer 3
600
Layer 4
800
y = 12.969x - 699.83
1000

1200

DCPT 10
D-
SOIL LAYER THICKNESS(mm) VALUE CBR
1 100 4.3478 63.87767
2 400 9.325 28.51551
3 200 5.0737 54.25899
4 300 12.969 20.12138

Cumulative No of Blows
0 50 100 150 200 250
0
y = 2.6708x - 5.0529
200
Penetration (mm)

400 Layer 1
Layer 2
600
y = 5.0798x - 173.26
800

1000

1200

DCPT 12
D-
SOIL LAYER THICKNESS(mm) VALUE CBR
1 200 2.6708 106.9154
2 800 5.0798q 54.19012

M/S EDCIV 2016/17 Civil Group 16 Page 47

Downloaded by Moses Siyoyo (mosesjuniorsiyoyo@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|44865983

Cumulative No of Blows
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
0

200 y = 3.1013x - 11.544

Penetration (mm)

400 Layer 1
Layer 2
600

800

1000 y = 5.1396x - 337.88

1200

DCPT 13
D-
SOIL LAYER THICKNESS(mm) VALUE CBR
1 500 3.1013 91.29316
2 500 5.1396 53.52389

Cumulative No of Blows
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
0

y = 39.474x + 7.8947
200
Penetration (mm)

400 Layer 1
Layer 2
600 y = 15.139x + 171.07

800

1000

1200

DCPT 14
D-
SOIL LAYER THICKNESS(mm) VALUE CBR
1 200 39.474 6.204391
2 500 15.139 17.08588

M/S EDCIV 2016/17 Civil Group 16 Page 48

Downloaded by Moses Siyoyo (mosesjuniorsiyoyo@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|44865983

Cumulative No of Blows
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
0
y = 64.286x + 14.286
200
Penetration (mm)

400 Layer 1

y = 13.143x + 175.05 Layer 2

600

800

1000

1200

DCPT 15
D-
SOIL LAYER THICKNESS(mm) VALUE CBR
1 200 64.286 3.705279
2 800 13.143 19.83992

Cumulative No of Blows
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
0

200

y = 33.333x
Layer 1
Penetration (mm)

400
Layer 2
600 Layer 3
y = 18.132x + 276.92

800

1000 y = 6.8289x + 608.63

1200

DCPT 16
D-
SOIL LAYER THICKNESS(mm) VALUE CBR
1 600 33.333 7.41859661
2 200 18.132 14.11961595
3 200 6.8289 39.6361309

M/S EDCIV 2016/17 Civil Group 16 Page 49

Downloaded by Moses Siyoyo (mosesjuniorsiyoyo@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|44865983

Cumulative no of Blows
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
0
y = 150x + 50
200

Layer 1
Penetration (mm)

400
Layer 2
600 Layer 3
y = 32.053x + 188.63
800

1000 y = 15.116x + 522.09

1200

DCPT 17
D-
SOIL LAYER THICKNESS(mm) VALUE CBR
1 200 150.000 1.513113615
2 600 32.053 7.732088238
3 200 15.116 17.11335717

M/S EDCIV 2016/17 Civil Group 16 Page 50

Downloaded by Moses Siyoyo (mosesjuniorsiyoyo@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|44865983

Appendix-C-Laboratory Graphs

BH1-0.1-1m
Grading Curve BH1 (0.1 - 1m) CLAY-46%
SILT-22%
100.00
SAND-30%
90.00
GRAVEL-2%
Percentage Passing (%)
80.00
70.00
60.00
50.00
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00
0.00 0.01 0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00
Particle Size (mm)

BH1-1-2m
Grading Curve BH1 (1 - 2m) CLAY-37%
100.00
SILT-31%
SAND-29%
90.00
GRAVEL-3%
Percentage Passing (%)

80.00
70.00
60.00
50.00
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00
0.00 0.01 0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00
Particle Size (mm)

M/S EDCIV 2016/17 Civil Group 16 Page 51

Downloaded by Moses Siyoyo (mosesjuniorsiyoyo@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|44865983

BH1-2-3m
Grading Curve BH1 (2 - 3m) CLAY-25%
SILT-34%
100.00
SAND-32%
90.00
GRAVEL-9%

Percentage Passing (%)

80.00
70.00
60.00
50.00
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00
0.00 0.01 0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00
Particle Size (mm)

BH1-4m-5m
Grading Curve BH1 (4 - 5m) CLAY-12%
SILT-47%
100.00
SAND-39%
90.00 GRAVEL-2%
Percentage Passing (%)

80.00
70.00
60.00
50.00
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00
0.00 0.01 0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00
Particle Size (mm)

M/S EDCIV 2016/17 Civil Group 16 Page 52

Downloaded by Moses Siyoyo (mosesjuniorsiyoyo@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|44865983

BH1-7-8m
Grading Curve BH1 (7 - 8m) FINES-4%
SILT-38%
100.00
SAND-57%
GRAVEL-1%
Percentage Passing (%)
80.00

60.00

40.00

20.00

0.00
0.00 0.01 0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00
Particle Size (mm)

BH1-9-10m
Grading Curve BH1 (9 - 10m) CLAY-8%
SILT-41%
100.00
SAND-48%
90.00 GRAVEL-5%
80.00
Percentage Passing (%)

70.00
60.00
50.00
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00
0.00 0.01 0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00
Particle Size (mm)

M/S EDCIV 2016/17 Civil Group 16 Page 53

Downloaded by Moses Siyoyo (mosesjuniorsiyoyo@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|44865983

TP1-0.6-1.0m
Grading Curve (TP1) FINES-21%
100.00 SAND-75%
GRAVEL-4%
90.00

80.00
Percentage Passing(%)
70.00

60.00

50.00

40.00

30.00

20.00

10.00

0.00
0.010 0.100 1.000 10.000
Sieve Size(mm)

TP1-0.2-0.6m
Grading Curve (TP2) FINES-15%
100.00 SAND-73%
GRAVEL-12%
90.00
80.00
Percentage Passing(%)

70.00
60.00
50.00
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Sieve Size(mm)

M/S EDCIV 2016/17 Civil Group 16 Page 54

Downloaded by Moses Siyoyo (mosesjuniorsiyoyo@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|44865983

TP3-0.2-1m
Grading Curve (TP3) FINES-35%
100.00 SAND-63%
GRAVEL-2%
90.00

80.00
Percentage Passing(%)

70.00

60.00

50.00

40.00

30.00

20.00

10.00

0.00
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Sieve Size(mm)

TP4-0.18-1m
Grading Curve (TP4) FINES-48%
100.00 SAND-51%
GRAVEL-1%
90.00

80.00
Percentage Passing(%)

70.00

60.00

50.00

40.00

30.00

20.00

10.00

0.00
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Sieve Size(mm)

M/S EDCIV 2016/17 Civil Group 16 Page 55

Downloaded by Moses Siyoyo (mosesjuniorsiyoyo@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|44865983

TP5-0.1-1m
Grading Curve (TP5) FINES-37%
100.00 SAND-50%
GRAVEL-13%
90.00
Percentage Passing(%) 80.00

70.00

60.00

50.00

40.00

30.00

20.00

10.00

0.00
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Sieve Size(mm)

M/S EDCIV 2016/17 Civil Group 16 Page 56

Downloaded by Moses Siyoyo (mosesjuniorsiyoyo@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|44865983

COMPACTION CURVE
1.700
TP5
1.680

1.660
Dry Density, g/cm3

1.640

1.620

1.600
Series1
1.580

1.560

1.540

1.520
0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00
Moisture Content, (%)

COMPACTION CURVE
2.150
TP1
2.100

2.050
Dry Density, g/cm3

2.000

1.950 Series1

1.900

1.850

1.800
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00
Moisture Content, (%)

M/S EDCIV 2016/17 Civil Group 16 Page 57

Downloaded by Moses Siyoyo (mosesjuniorsiyoyo@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|44865983

COMPACTION CURVE
2.000
TP3

1.950
Dry Density, g/cm3

1.900

1.850 Series1

1.800

1.750
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00
Moisture Content, (%)

COMPACTION CURVE
2.000
TP4

1.950

1.900
Dry Density, g/cm3

1.850

1.800 Series1

1.750

1.700

1.650
0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00
Moisture Content, (%)

M/S EDCIV 2016/17 Civil Group 16 Page 58

Downloaded by Moses Siyoyo (mosesjuniorsiyoyo@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|44865983

COMPACTION CURVE
2.08
TP2
2.06

2.04
Dry Density(g/cm3)

2.02

1.98

1.96

1.94
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Moisture Content(%)

M/S EDCIV 2016/17 Civil Group 16 Page 59

Downloaded by Moses Siyoyo (mosesjuniorsiyoyo@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|44865983

PLASTICITY CHART A-Line

60
CE
BH1(0.1m-
CLAY 1m)
BH11(1m-
50 2m)
C
M BH1(2m-
3m)
BH1(4m-
40 5m)
CH
BH1(7m-
MV
Plasticity Index, %

8m)
CI BH1(9m-
30 10m)

20 C - Clay
M - Silt
L - Low
Plasticity
C I -
Intermedia
10 te

MI SILT Plasticity
M H - High
Plasticity
V - Very
0
High
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Plasticity
Liquid limit, % E-
Extremely
High

M/S EDCIV 2016/17 Civil Group 16 Page 60

Downloaded by Moses Siyoyo (mosesjuniorsiyoyo@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|44865983

100.00 LIQUID LIMIT CHART SAMPLE 1

90.00

80.00

70.00
Moisture Content, %

60.00

50.00

40.00

30.00

20.00

10.00

0.00
1.00 10.00 100.00
Penetration (mm)

100.00 LIQUID LIMIT CHART SAMPLE 2

90.00

80.00

70.00
Moisture Content, %

60.00

50.00

40.00

30.00

20.00

10.00

0.00
1.00 10.00 100.00
Penetration (mm)

M/S EDCIV 2016/17 Civil Group 16 Page 61

Downloaded by Moses Siyoyo (mosesjuniorsiyoyo@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|44865983

100.00 LIQUID LIMIT CHART SAMPLE 3

90.00

80.00

70.00
Moisture Content, %

60.00

50.00

40.00

30.00

20.00

10.00

0.00
1.00 10.00 100.00
Penetration (mm)

100.00 LIQUID LIMIT CHART SAMPLE 4

90.00

80.00

70.00
Moisture Content, %

60.00

50.00

40.00

30.00

20.00

10.00

0.00
1.00 10.00 100.00
Penetration (mm)

M/S EDCIV 2016/17 Civil Group 16 Page 62

Downloaded by Moses Siyoyo (mosesjuniorsiyoyo@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|44865983

100.00 LIQUID LIMIT CHART SAMPLE 5

90.00

80.00

70.00
Moisture Content, %

60.00

50.00

40.00

30.00

20.00

10.00

0.00
1.00 10.00 100.00
Penetration (mm)

100.00 LIQUID LIMIT CHART SAMPLE 6

90.00

80.00

70.00
Moisture Content, %

60.00

50.00

40.00

30.00

20.00

10.00

0.00
1.00 10.00 100.00
Penetration (mm)

M/S EDCIV 2016/17 Civil Group 16 Page 63

Downloaded by Moses Siyoyo (mosesjuniorsiyoyo@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|44865983

100.00 LIQUID LIMIT CHART TP1

90.00

80.00

70.00
Moisture Content, %

60.00

50.00

40.00

30.00

20.00

10.00

0.00
1.00 10.00 100.00
PenetratIon (mm)

100.00 LIQUID LIMIT CHART TP3

90.00

80.00

70.00
Moisture Content, %

60.00

50.00

40.00

30.00

20.00

10.00

0.00
1.00 10.00 100.00
Penetration (mm)

M/S EDCIV 2016/17 Civil Group 16 Page 64

Downloaded by Moses Siyoyo (mosesjuniorsiyoyo@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|44865983

100.00 LIQUID LIMIT CHART TP4

90.00

80.00

70.00
Moisture Content, %

60.00

50.00

40.00

30.00

20.00

10.00

0.00
1.00 10.00 100.00
Penetration (mm)

100.00 LIQUID LIMIT CHART TP5

90.00

80.00

70.00
Moisture Content, %

60.00

50.00

40.00

30.00

20.00

10.00

0.00
1.00 10.00 100.00
Penetration (mm)

M/S EDCIV 2016/17 Civil Group 16 Page 65

Downloaded by Moses Siyoyo (mosesjuniorsiyoyo@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|44865983

7.00
TP1CBR CURVE
6.00

5.00

4.00
LOAD (kN)

3.00 CBR

2.00

1.00

0.00
0.000 1.000 2.000 3.000 4.000 5.000 6.000 7.000 8.000
PENETRATION (mm)

30
TP2 CBR CURVE

25

20
LOAD (kN)

15
CBR

10

0
0.000 1.000 2.000 3.000 4.000 5.000 6.000 7.000 8.000
PENETRATION (mm)

M/S EDCIV 2016/17 Civil Group 16 Page 66

Downloaded by Moses Siyoyo (mosesjuniorsiyoyo@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|44865983

10
TP3 CBR CURVE
9

6
LOAD (kN)

4 CBR

0
0.000 1.000 2.000 3.000 4.000 5.000 6.000 7.000 8.000
PENETRATION (mm)

4.00
TP4 CBR CURVE
3.50

3.00

2.50
LOAD (kN)

2.00
CBR
1.50

1.00

0.50

0.00
0.000 1.000 2.000 3.000 4.000 5.000 6.000 7.000 8.000
PENETRATION (mm)

M/S EDCIV 2016/17 Civil Group 16 Page 67

Downloaded by Moses Siyoyo (mosesjuniorsiyoyo@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|44865983

6
TP5 CBR CURVE

4
LOAD (kN)

3
CBR

0
0.000 1.000 2.000 3.000 4.000 5.000 6.000 7.000 8.000
PENETRATION (mm)

M/S EDCIV 2016/17 Civil Group 16 Page 68

Downloaded by Moses Siyoyo (mosesjuniorsiyoyo@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|44865983

Appendix-D-Quarry and Borrow Pit

GRADING CURVE OF SUBBASE

MATERIAL(PIASE)
100.0
90.0
80.0
70.0
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
0.00 0.01 0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00

GRADING CURVE OF BASE MATERIAL(KWASO)

100

90

80
PERCENTAGE PASSING(%)

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
SIEVE SIZE(mm)

M/S EDCIV 2016/17 Civil Group 16 Page 69

Downloaded by Moses Siyoyo (mosesjuniorsiyoyo@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|44865983

COMPACTION CURVE FOR SUBBASE

2.500
MDD=2.097g/cm3
OMC=10.60%
2.000
MDD(g/cm3)

1.500

1.000

0.500

0.000
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00
OMC(%)

COMPACTION CURVE FOR BASE MATERIAL

MDD=2.21g/cm3
2.500
OMC=11.50%

2.000
MDD(g/cm3)

1.500

1.000

0.500

0.000
0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00
OMC(%)

M/S EDCIV 2016/17 Civil Group 16 Page 70

Downloaded by Moses Siyoyo (mosesjuniorsiyoyo@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|44865983

CBR FOR SUBBASE MATERIAL(PIASE)

8.00

7.00 MDD 97

6.00

5.00
LOAD (KN)

55 BLOWS
4.00
25 BLOWS
3.00
10 BLOWS
2.00

1.00

0.00
0 2 4
PENETRATION(mm) 6 8

CBR CURVE FOR BASE MATERIAL(KWASO)

25

20

15
10 blows/ layer
25 blows/ layer
10 56 blows/ layer

0
0 1 2 PENETRATION(MM)
3 4 5 6

M/S EDCIV 2016/17 Civil Group 16 Page 71

Downloaded by Moses Siyoyo (mosesjuniorsiyoyo@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|44865983

CBR AGAINST RELATIVE COMPCTION FOR

SUBBASE MATERIAL(PEASE)
40.00
35.00
30.00
25.00
CBR

20.00
15.00
10.00
5.00
0.00
92 93 94 95 96 97 98
Relative dry density

CBR AGAINST RELATIVE COMPACTION FOR

BASE MATERIAL(KWASO)

120
100
80
CBR

60
40
20
0
85 87 89 91 93 95 97
Relative compaction

M/S EDCIV 2016/17 Civil Group 16 Page 72

Downloaded by Moses Siyoyo (mosesjuniorsiyoyo@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|44865983

DISCLAIMER
This report contains the geotechnical investigation that was carried out for the project Center for
Innovation and Engineering Excellence. It solely represents the interpretation of the sub-soil
condition derived from the field work and should not be used for any other project.

M/S EDCIV 2016/17 Civil Group 16 Page 73

Downloaded by Moses Siyoyo (mosesjuniorsiyoyo@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|44865983

lkl

M/S EDCIV 2016/17 Civil Group 16 Page 74

Downloaded by Moses Siyoyo (mosesjuniorsiyoyo@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|44865983

M/S EDCIV 2016/17 Civil Group 16 Page 75

Downloaded by Moses Siyoyo (mosesjuniorsiyoyo@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|44865983

M/S EDCIV 2016/17 Civil Group 16 Page 76

Downloaded by Moses Siyoyo (mosesjuniorsiyoyo@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|44865983

M/S EDCIV 2016/17 Civil Group 16 Page 1

Downloaded by Moses Siyoyo (mosesjuniorsiyoyo@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|44865983

M/S EDCIV 2016/17 Civil Group 16 Page 2

Downloaded by Moses Siyoyo (mosesjuniorsiyoyo@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|44865983

M/S EDCIV 2016/17 Civil Group 16 Page 3

Downloaded by Moses Siyoyo (mosesjuniorsiyoyo@gmail.com)