Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
First and foremost, we would like to express our gratitude to our lecturer, Mr Deejaysing Jogee, for his
invaluable support and guidance during the conduction of the Geotechnical Engineering module, which
helped us to better grasp the practical aspects of soil mechanics.
Furthermore, we would like to pay a special tribute to all the Technicians of the Soil Mechanics
Laboratory, who guided us throughout the experiments carried out and enabled us to improve our
practical skills.
Finally, we would like to thank all those who have, directly or indirectly, helped us in conducting the
required experiments and in the writing of this group report.
Table of Contents
Preface .................................................................................................................................................... 1
1.0 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 2
2.0 Aim and objectives ........................................................................................................................... 2
2.1 Aim ............................................................................................................................................... 2
2.2 Objectives ..................................................................................................................................... 2
3.0 Literature Review.............................................................................................................................. 3
3.1 Weathering and soil formation ...................................................................................................... 3
3.2 Soil classification .......................................................................................................................... 3
3.3 Soils of Mauritius.......................................................................................................................... 4
3.4 Geology of site .............................................................................................................................. 4
4.0 Methodology ..................................................................................................................................... 6
4.1 Description of soil cut ................................................................................................................... 6
4.2 Field tests and sampling ................................................................................................................ 7
4.2.1 Sampling .................................................................................................................................... 8
4.3 Laboratory tests............................................................................................................................. 8
4.3.1 Determination of moisture content ........................................................................................ 8
4.3.1.1 Apparatus ........................................................................................................................ 8
4.3.1.2 Test Procedures ............................................................................................................... 8
4.3.1.3 Health and Safety .......................................................................................................... 10
4.3.1.4 Precautions .................................................................................................................... 10
4.3.2 Determination of liquid limit ............................................................................................... 10
4.3.2.1 Apparatus ...................................................................................................................... 10
4.3.2.2 Soil sample preparation................................................................................................. 11
4.3.2.3 Test Procedures ............................................................................................................. 11
4.3.2.4 Health and Safety .......................................................................................................... 12
4.3.2.4 Precautions .................................................................................................................... 12
4.3.3 Determination of plastic limit .............................................................................................. 12
4.3.3.1 Apparatus ...................................................................................................................... 12
List of figures
Figure 1- Location of road cut. ............................................................................................................... 5
Figure 2 - Part of road cut. ...................................................................................................................... 6
Figure 3 - Quartering process.................................................................................................................. 9
Figure 4 - Samples in pans before drying. ............................................................................................ 10
Figure 5 - Penetrometer apparatus. ....................................................................................................... 11
Figure 6 - Crumbled threads of soil. ..................................................................................................... 13
Figure 7 - Granular structure of peds. ................................................................................................... 15
Figure 8 - Bottom layer. ........................................................................................................................ 16
Figure 9 - Soil Map of Mauritius (MSIRI, 1965).................................................................................. 22
List of tables
Table 1- Colour of different soil layers. ................................................................................................ 16
Table 2 - Data collection for the determination of moisture contents. .................................................. 17
Table 3 - Penetration results for the determination of liquid limit of the main strata. .......................... 17
Table 4 - Data collected for the determination of plastic limit of the main strata. ............................... 17
Table 5 - Diary of activities. ................................................................................................................. 18
Table 6 - Contribution of team members. ............................................................................................. 20
Preface
This document is a group report pertaining to the mini-project assigned to students from Level 2 of the
BEng (Hons) Civil Engineering programme related to the Geotechnical Engineering module. This
report has been written as a group and is not a complete one and should be read in conjunction with the
individual reports, to be submitted apart.
The sections covered in this group report include the following:
1. Introduction
2. Literature Review
3. Aims and objectives
4. Methodology
5. Test results
6. ECSA ELO 4 (partly)
7. ECSA ELO 8
The complementary sections, listed below, are found in the individual reports. They are:
1. Abstract
2. Data Analysis
3. Recommendations
4. Conclusion
5. ECSA ELO 4 (partly).
6. ECSA ELO 6.
1|Page
1.0 Introduction
Soil essentially consists of mineral constituents, organic matter, water and air which takes different
forms on the earth surface or beneath depending on its origins, distribution patterns as well as the
different interactions occurring with time and compositional changes. The study of soil is important to
any civil engineer and is mostly evident from geotechnical investigations performed, during which the
engineering properties of soils are assessed before the design phase or during feasibility studies. Part of
this investigation requires the ability to describe the surficial and subsoils but to also classify the soils
according to an adopted standard.
As part of our geology module, the study of soil formation and classification was undertaken. For this
mini-project, we were tasked as a group of 4 students to select a cut within 3 m to 4 m. Both qualitative
and quantitative description of the soil horizons was required based on the British Standards.
2|Page
transition from field observation to basic predictions for soil properties. The conventions used by the
different systems do vary, albeit by little.
3.3 Soils of Mauritius
Mauritius originates entirely from volcanic formation except for its coral reefs, dunes and beaches along
the coast. The alluvial deposits in northwest and west of the island are thin. The volcanic deposits have
been classified into 4 periods of activity; emergence, older volcanic series, intermediate volcanic series
and younger volcanic series. The recent lava flows has given rise to rocky soils formed from rocks with
very porous lava. This has allowed the soil to present with different properties as compared to the soils
formed from older series rocks. The soil groups has been classified into 2 groups mainly: intrazonal and
azonal (Mauritius Sugar Industry Research Institute, 1965)
The zonal soils of Mauritius has been classifies into 3 main groups:
Humic latosols
The low humic latosols formed from the intermediate lava are deep soils containing a high amount of
organic matter. They have silty clays textures with about 80% clay content. They have red to brown
colour in the A horizon and red to reddish brown on the B horizon. The humic latosols were formed
from the intermediate lava flows. The soil is clay and do not show any variation in texture over different
horizons. The humic ferruginous latosols occur on the younger and older volcanic series.
Intrazonal soils were formed from the late lava flows and consists of latosolic soils and dark magnesium
clays.
3.4 Geology of site
The road cut investigated was found along the Terre-Rouge Verdun Trianon Link road. The road is
situated on the Central Plateau region and is located in the humid zone. From the Mauritius Hydrology
Data Book (2010), the mean annual rainfall is approximately 2400mm per year. As there was no
prominent land mark, the approximate position is shown in Figure 1.
4|Page
From the MSIRI soil map (refer to appendix item A), the cut is found to lie in the region abbreviated
H2 which is also the soil group of Humic Latosols and further categorised as the Riche Bois soil.
However, the zone is close to the Belle Rive Humic Ferruginous Latosols and thus the soil may exhibit
transitional behaviour. According to the MSIRI, the Riche Bois soils have formed mostly from the
Intermediate lavas in the humid zones or higher (i.e. 1750mm to 3750mm). These soils are moderately
weathered.
The main characteristics of the Riche Bois soil are the reddish-brown colour of the soils due to the
relatively high concentrations of iron and aluminium oxides. The soil typically behaves as silty clays
and boundaries of horizons are usually gradual. The Riche Bois soils are transitional to the Humic
Ferruginous Latosols.
5|Page
4.0 Methodology
4.1 Description of soil cut
Figure 2.0 shows part of the cut considered.
The cut was investigated on Monday, the 24th of November 2014. The weather was clouded but there
was no rain.
The road cut stretched continuously for nearly 100 m along the road. The cut had a height on average
3.6 m. The slope was about 30o and the surface was straight throughout. Faded vertical mechanical
marks were visible.
The cut was also stepped as seen from Figure 2.0. One of the horizons, namely the bottom horizon lied
below the stepped region and had a nearly vertical surface.
Vegetation was present, mostly shrubs and wild plants on the topsoil layer. Some small grasses and
plants were also present on the step region. At discrete sections along the length of the cut, small extents
of colluvium was observed.
6|Page
Estimation of moisture content roughly by touch and sight and categorising as wet,
moist or dry.
Colour changes could not be mapped on-site due to the unavailability of a Munsell chart. This was
however done by using the dry sample in the laboratory.
7|Page
4.2.1 Sampling
For the sampling process, about 1.5 kg from all horizons other than the main horizon were taken using
a trowel. However, peds from the surface were not taken as these appeared coated in clay. The samples
were loosened using the trowel and placed quickly in polyethene bag which was also quickly closed.
Care was taken to remove any air and the top was carefully folded on itself to avoid moisture loss. They
were labelled using permanent markers.
The same sampling was performed for the main strata but about 5 kg was collected since more tests
would be performed. The sample was placed in a larger and stiffer bag so as not to rupture.
4.3 Laboratory tests
Other than simple field tests, simple laboratory tests were performed to provide a more definitive
description based on subsequent data acquired and the tests were used to determine:
1. The moisture content for all the horizons or strata.
2. The Atterberg limits for the thickest strata (also the middle strata) including the determination
of the liquid limit by the cone penetrometer and the plastic limit.
Metal container
Scoop
Trowel
2. The soil sample was mixed and piled on the flat glass plate using the scoop. Each scoopful of
soil was placed on top of the pile until the soil was uniformly distributed.
3. The soil was then flatten with a trowel giving it a circular shape.
4. Using a trowel the soil sample was first divided into two equal portion. Then the soil sample
was divided into 4 equal portions by separating the soil perpendicular to the line of the first
division.
5. Two diagonally opposite portion was discarded.
6. The soil sample was mixed again and the quartering process was repeated until about 30g of
soil sample is obtained.
7. Three clean dry metal containers were weighed on the electronic balance. The reference number
of the metal containers were noted.
8. The metal containers were filled with the soil sample and their respective weights were found.
9. The metal containers with the soil sample were then placed in a drying oven at a temperature
of 105C to 110C for 24 hours.
10. The whole procedure was repeated for the other soil samples.
11. After 24 hours the weight of each metal container was obtained and noted.
9|Page
Use of heat proof gloves when placing and removing the metal container from the hot drying
oven.
4.3.1.4 Precautions
The metal containers were filled completely with the soil sample to avoid loss of mass during
transportation.
Cone penetrometer
Palette knives
Glass plate
425m sieve
Metal cup
Watch
Dryer
10 | P a g e
Drying oven.
5. The cone was locked in position and the dial gauge was lowered to the locked position of the
cone shaft. The dial reading was set to zero.
6. The cone was released for 5 seconds and then it was locked again in its new position. The dial
reading was taken after lowering the gauge to the displaced position of the cone shaft.
7. The difference between the two dial readings gave the penetration of the cone in mm.
8. The whole procedure is repeated using same sample of soil and an average value was found.
9. The moisture content of the sample was found using the oven-drying method.
10. The moisture content of the soil sample was altered by adding a little water and the whole
experiment is repeated for soil samples with 7 different moisture content.
4.3.2.4 Health and Safety
Heat proof gloves were used when placing and removing the metal container from the hot
drying oven.
Care was taken while handling the metal cup due to its sharp edges.
The steel cone was avoided from being touched while cleaning due to its pointed apex.
4.3.2.4 Precautions
The steel cone was cleaned before each experiment since it would not penetrate the soil if it
was dirty due to friction and it would slip further into the soil if it is wet.
The spreading of the soil sample was avoided over the glass plate while conducting the
penetrometer test since this would cause evaporation of water hence change in moisture content.
After the addition of water the soil sample was done carefully and properly to ensure uniform
distribution of the water.
12 | P a g e
Heat proof gloves were used when placing and removing the metal container from the hot
drying oven.
4.3.3.4 Precautions
The rolling of the prepared soil sample was done on a clean glass plate to avoid any external
impurity causing the soil crumbling which would have led to biased results.
It was ensured that the hands of the experimenter carrying out the thread rolling process were
moderately humid to ensure that the crumbling did not occur due to friction only.
13 | P a g e
Topsoil layer
This horizon had the lowest depth compared to the other horizons of about 0.3 m on average. The soil
was mostly fine but contained many randomly scattered stones, the latter being mostly gravels and some
cobbles in a slightly weathered state. The soil was in disturbed condition as some region parts showed
soil accumulation and uprooted plants.
The soil structure consisted mostly of concretions which were dry to the touch. The horizon contained
many roots of varying sizes possibly from the wild shrubs and grass growing on the soil. The soil also
gave a moderate odour indicating the presence of organic matter. The boundary of this horizon was a
clear horizontal plane and was accentuated by the colour change with respect to the next horizon.
Furthermore, the dilatancy test showed that water no apparent quick reaction indicating low silt content.
It required ample force to crush a dry sample. A moist sample could be penetrated with relative ease
when using the thumb.
(ii)
Main strata
The horizon was found to be the thickest out of the four with a thickness on average 1.8 m. The boundary
to the adjacent lower horizon was gradual and not as distinct as with the topsoil. In some places, the
boundary appeared inclined sloping downwards.
The peds from this horizon appeared weakly developed and broke on removal with the trowel. The
surface of the horizon contained illuvial deposits possibly by rain as the surface peds were covered with
clay. Some cracks were visible on the surface of this horizon. There was some black deposit or mottling
on the surface (see Figure 2.0). Roots were absent.
The dilatancy test showed a moderately quick reaction indicating the presence of silt. A dry ped from
the horizon could be broken with relative ease into powder indicating lower clay proportion.
(iii)
The third horizon was nearly as thick as the main strata but of a thickness varying from 0.9 m to 1 m.
The boundary of this horizon with respect to the main strata was gradual and sometimes even
discontinuous. The horizon was coated in clayey illuvium and the soil just beneath was considerably
red in colour.
14 | P a g e
This horizon also contained several rocks outcrops which were in a state of weathering; partially
weathered rocks with some only slightly weathered. The surface of the horizon contained about 30% of
rocks by visual inspection. The structure of the peds was mostly granular as indicated by figure 3.0 and
roots were not present.
The soil itself was fine grained by observation and felt only slightly moist. The peds were removed
fairly easily using the trowel. The test for dilatancy showed a slow reaction. A dry ped was slightly hard
to break.
(iv)
Bottom horizon
The bottom-most horizon was separated from the third horizon by a step region. It was adjacent to a
side ditch. The horizon was about 0.5m thick on average. The horizon appeared to have parent rocks
which were in a state of weathering. About 10 cm from the top contained some soil peds. These peds
had a blocky structure as is evident from figure 4.0 and were moist. Very little to no roots were observed.
The peds were densely packed and requiring much effort for removal using the trowel.
Dilatancy test could not be performed as the soil peds were hard, even when moistened. The dry peds
were very hard and could not be broken using finger pressure.
15 | P a g e
Soil origin
129,132,140
Bottom horizon
26,71,32
130,141,186
Topsoil
192,183,11
16 | P a g e
Soil layer
Top soil
Red soil
Pan reference
number
192
183
11
132
140
129
Mass of pan
/g
18.47
18.78
15.45
17.98
18.9
17.69
71
32
26
15.58
15.93
15.38
56.83
48.75
57.33
43.33
37.75
43.88
186
141
130
9.67
18.36
19.17
68.31
72.34
68.26
58.64
63.2
60.4
Bottom
layer
Main
strata
Moisture content
reference number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Mass of
pan / g
18.28
15.19
18.46
18.94
15.83
18.03
15.52
Mass of pan +
wet soil / g
29.63
17.85
26.02
36.21
18.81
35.58
22.37
Mass of pan +
dry soil / g
25.88
16.96
23.48
30.40
17.80
29.36
19.91
Penetration
1 /mm
13.5
14
15.4
16.6
19.6
22.4
25.2
Penetration
2 / mm
13.5
14.1
15.6
16.9
19.7
22.8
25.5
Pan reference
number
94
14
52
weight of
empty tin/g
15.04
15.12
15.38
17 | P a g e
Date
24/11/2014
25/11/2014
25/11/2014
26/11/2014
1/12/2014
2/12/2014
06 - 11/ 12/ 2014
It is to be noted that all effective writings and other written works pertaining to the report was done as
a group and there were regular group meetings to evaluate the progress of the report.
4.2 Summary
To complete this report within the given time frame, a strategic plan needed to be adopted by all team
members to ensure that the work progressed as smoothly as possible and to ensure that everybody are
on the same page whenever an activity has been carried out. A flow diagram of the adopted strategic
plan is shown on the following page.
18 | P a g e
Literature Review
Discussion of report
and Methodology
research on the
outline
19 | P a g e
Section
Abstract
Introduction
Aims &
Objectives
Literature
Review
Methodology
Sub-Section
Contributing members
Busawon Heetendr
Veeramah Avinaash
Aims
Objectives
Lubrun Veeresh
Tirouvalen Appasamy
Weathering
Soil Classification
Soils of Mauritius
Veeramah Avinaash
Lubrun Veeresh
Busawon Heetendr
Busawon Heetendr & Lubrun
Veeresh
Geology of site
Description of cut
soil strata
Field tests and
Sampling
Laboratory tests
Test Results
Conclusion
Veeramah Avinaash
Busawon Heetendr &
Tirouvalen Appasamy
Determination of
moisture contents
Determination of liquid
limit
Determination of plastic
limit
Colour of different soil
layers
Determination of
moisture contents
Determination of liquid
limit
Determination of plastic
limit
Veeramah Avinaash
Lubrun Veeresh
Busawon Heetendr
Tirouvalen Appasamy
Tirouvalen Appasamy
Lubrun Veeresh
Veeramah Avinaash
Busawon Heetendr
All team members
20 | P a g e
References
1. Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (2010), Soil Classification, [Online],
Available at: http://www.fao.org/soils-portal/soil-survey/soil-classification/en/, Accessed on
09.12.2014.
2. Whitlow.R (1995), Basics Soil Mechanics, 3rd Edition, Ch. 1, p. 16-18.,Longman Publishers,
London, United Kingdom.
3. Lutgens.T (2009), Essential of Geology, 11th Edition, Ch. 5, p. 125-131, Pearson Education,
United States of America.
4. Mauritius Sugar Industry Research Institute (1965), Soil Map of Mauritius Provisional
Classification.
5. Butler. E (1990), Soil Classification for Soil Survey, Oxford Science Publications, Oxford,
United Kingdom.
6. Terzarghi. K (1964), Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice, 3rd Edition, Wiley-Interscience
Publications, United States of America.
7.
8.
Waugh, David (2000), Geography: an integrated approach, 3rd Edition, p. 272. Gloucester,
U.K.
9. British Standard 1377 Part 2: 1990 (1996), Methods of tests for soil for Civil Engineering,
British Standard Institution, London, United Kingdom.
21 | P a g e
Appendix
Item 1 - Soil Map of Mauritius (MSIRI, 1965)
22 | P a g e