Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Cover
page .............................................................................................................
......................................
Table of
Contents ......................................................................................................
.................................1
List of
Tables ...........................................................................................................
....................................2
List of
Plates ...........................................................................................................
......................................2
List of
Figures .........................................................................................................
.....................................3
Executive
Summary.......................................................................................................
...............................4
CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION
1.1 General
Background .................................................................................................
............................5
1.2 Scopes of
work .............................................................................................................
.........................5
1.3 Brief Description of the Site
6
CHAPTER TWO FIELD AND LABORATORY WORKS
2.1 Surface
Exploration ..................................................................................................
...........................8
Page 1
2.2 Subsurface
Exploration ..................................................................................................
.....................8
2.2.1 Dynamic Cone Penetrometer
Test ....................................................................................8
2.2.2 Test
Pitting ..........................................................................................................
..................9
2.2.3 Hand Auger
Sampling ......................................................................................................
...9 2.2.4 Table of test pit
coordinates ..........................................................................................10
2.2.5 Pictures showing exploratory
activities .........................................................................14
2.2.6 Pictures showing DCP
tests .............................................................................................15
2.3 Laboratory
Testing..........................................................................................................
.....................16
2.3.1 Natural Moisture
Contents................................................................................................16
2.3.2 Particle size
analysis ........................................................................................................
...16
2.3.3 Atterberg
Limits ...........................................................................................................
......16
2.3.4 Direct Shear
Test ..............................................................................................................
..17
2.3.5 Consolidation Test
17
2.3.6 Plate showing laboratory test in
progress................................................................18
Page 2
Direct
Shear
Test .........................................................................................................
.......................20
3.6 Bearing
Capacity ..................................................................................................
...............................21
3.7 Consolidation
test ..........................................................................................................
.....................22
3.8 Dynamic
Cone
Penetration
Test
Results ........................................................................................23
CHAPTER FOUR SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
4.1 General
Conclusions .................................................................................................
.........................24
4.2
Recommendations .......................................................................................
......................................24
Page 3
4.3
Limitations ...................................................................................................
.......................................24
REFERENCES
. 26
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1 Coordinates and Elevations of DCP/Test Pits
..
Table 3.1 Summary of Test Results
.
Table 3.2 Laboratory Bearing Capacity ..
..
Table 3.3 DCP Bearing Capacity
Results ............................................................................................
LIST OF PLATES
Plate I: Showing Excavation/soil sampling at the Proposed Site
.
Plate II: Laboratory Activities at Tectonics Engineering & Consults Ltd,
Abuja ..
LIST OF FIGURES
Plate I: Showing the sites Layout
..
Page 4
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
................................................................................Natural Moisture
Contents
APPENDIX B
..................................................................................Particle Size Analysis
Graphs
APPENDIX C..................................................................................
Atterberg Limits Results
APPENDIX D
..................................................................................Direct Shear Graphs
APPENDIX E ...................................................................................
Consolidation Test Plots
APPENDIX
F...................................................................................DCP Bearing
Capacity Plots
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The subsurface exploration and geotechnical engineering services
requested for the site of Bauchi State University along Bauchi-Karri road
have been completed. Subsurface conditions at the subject site were
explored by 120 (One hundred and twenty) test pits taken to a depth of
1.5m each. The results of the sampling and the coordinates of its
approximate locations are included in this report.Also,twenty points were
tested for in-situ bearing capacity values with the use of the dynamic
Page 5
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1 General Background
Successful engineering projects often involves the use of engineering
principles in the appropriate manner which in turn answers concerns
such as safety and economy. Such concerns includes and is not limited to
a proper understanding of site conditions on which projects are to be
built.
To
this
end,
Tectonics
Engineering
&
Consults
Ltd
was
laboratory analysis .
Samples were taken at detailed positions and locations and
further
logged
in
on
which
series
of
tests
were
performed
on
the
content,
Atterberg
limits
tests
were
performed
on
Page 8
Page 9
CHAPTER TWO
FIELD AND LABORATORY WORKS
2.1 Surface Exploration
The investigation involved surface exploration. The consultants team
traversed the entire site and the surroundings noting its features and
existing structures.
2.2 Subsurface Exploration
The field crew visited the site in August, 2014 for field explorations,
logging and sampling. The explorations included surface, accessible
exploration methods by test pits and sampling and DCP. Various soil
samples were collected. These samples were examined visual manually
Page 10
It is to be noted that the rods are generally quite short, and as each
new rod was added they are usually being turned through one or
more revolutions, in order to reduce friction.
2.2.2 Test Pits
The test pits were generally located at 120 locations within the site.
The pits were excavated by hand in order that the soil could be
Page 11
examined in situ and samples taken. Topsoil was stripped from the
pit area before the start of the work and was stockpiled separately
until completion.
Hand auger was used by two men, who press down on the crossbar as they rotate it thus advancing the hole. Once the auger was
full, or has collected sufficient material, it was brought back to the
surface and the soil removed.
The hand auger samples were recommended for the borrow pit
areas where the samples were collected at 1.0 2.0m maximum
depths.
It is rule of thumb that in stiff or very stiff clays, hand-auger
progress will be very slow, and the depth of boring may have to be
limited to about 5 m or less. When such clays contain gravel,
cobbles or boulders it will not normally be possible to advance the
hole at all. In uncemented sands or gravels, it will not be possible
to advance the hole below the water table, since casing cannot be
used and the hole will collapse either on top of the auger (which
makes it difficult to recover the auger from the hole) or when the
auger is being removed. Only samples of very limited size can be
obtained from the hole.
Table 2.1 presents the coordinates and elevations of the test
locations
Page 12
NORTHINGS
EASTINGS
TP1
TP2
TP3
TP4
TP5
TP6
TP7
TP8
TP9
TP10
TP11
TP12
TP13
TP14
TP15
TP16
TP17
TP18
TP19
TP20
10 22' 78.1"
10 22' 7.78"
10 22' 7.55"
10 22' 7.36"
10 22' 7.06"
10 22' 6.66"
10 22' 7.41"
10 22' 7.91"
10 22' 8.43"
10 22' 5.43"
10 22' 9.46"
10 22' 9.99"
10 22' 0.45"
10 23' 0.98"
10 23' 0.84"
10 23' 1.57"
10 23' 1.46"
10 23' 1,.29"
10 23' 0.89"
10 23' 0.46"
00955' 92.9"
00955' 8.86"
00955' 8.31"
00955' 6.89"
00955' 3.67"
00955' 3.32"
00955' 2.83"
00955' 3.62"
00955' 4.35"
00955' 5.43 "
00955' 6.31"
00955' 7.62"
00955' 7.94"
00955' 8.79"
00955' 9.44"
00955' 9.64"
00955' 8.47"
00955' 7.93"
00955' 7.40"
00955' 6.45"
TP21
TP22
TP23
TP24
TP25
TP26
TP27
TP28
TP29
TP30
TP31
TP32
TP33
TP34
TP35
TP36
TP37
TP38
TP39
TP40
10 23' 0.05"
10 22' 9.91"
10 22' 9.50"
10 22' 9.40 "
10 22' 9.04"
10 22' 9.92"
10 23' 0.16"
10 23' 0.68"
10 23' 1.10"
10 23' 1.30"
10 23' 1.68"
10 23' 2.00"
10 23' 2.67"
10 23' 3.01"
10 23' 2.43"
10 23' 2.32"
10 23' 2.32"
10 23' 2.63"
10 23' 3.20"
10 23' 0.04"
00955'
00955'
00955'
00955'
00955'
00955'
00955'
00955'
00955'
00955'
00955'
00955'
00955'
00955'
00955'
00955'
00955'
00955'
00955'
00955'
5.67"
4.85"
3.77"
2.81"
2.37"
2.52"
3.12"
3.56"
4.18"
4.51"
5.08"
5.95"
6.67"
7.33"
7.59"
8.19"
8.68"
9.04"
9.86"
0.04"
Page 13
ELEVATI
ON (m)
565
568
567
564
563
564
568
567
569
571
570
567
566
569
564
561
565
565
566
568
568
569
569
564
558
560
561
560
562
562
563
563
561
560
560
559
564
560
557
556
REMARK
Not far from road
TP41
TP42
TP43
TP44
TP45
TP46
TP47
TP48
TP49
TP50
TP51
TP52
TP53
TP54
TP55
TP56
TP57
TP58
TP59
TP60
TP61
TP62
TP63
TP64
TP65
TP66
TP67
TP68
TP69
TP70
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
TP71
23'
23'
23'
23'
23'
23'
23'
23'
23'
23'
23'
23'
23'
23'
23'
23'
23'
23'
23'
23'
23'
23'
23'
23'
23'
23'
23'
23'
23'
23'
0.46"
0.02"
9.42"
8.67"
7.62"
6.47"
6.02"
4.92"
3.60"
2.92"
2.52"
1.85"
1.59"
1.93"
2.29"
2.76"
3.13"
3.53"
4.48"
4.61"
4.86"
5.02"
5.26"
5.53"
5.84"
6.08"
6.44"
6.65"
7.08"
7.85"
553
555
559
558
560
563
564
561
558
556
556
553
552
552
553
551
553
553
552
552
552
552
551
551
551
551
549
555
555
558
10 23' 6.75"
00955' 7.85"
558
close to rock
TP72
TP73
TP74
TP75
TP76
10
10
10
10
10
00955'
00955'
00955'
00955'
00955'
7.70"
8.25"
8.43"
8.96"
9.02"
557
554
553
550
551
close to rock
TP77
TP78
10 23' 7.02"
10 23' 7.21"
00955' 9.64"
00956' 0.24"
551
551
Close to stream
TP79
TP80
TP81
TP82
TP83
10
10
10
10
10
00956'
00956'
00956'
00955'
00955'
0.57"
0.46"
0.31"
9.89"
9.64"
553
552
551
551
550
Road track
Road track
TP84
TP85
10 23' 7.92"
10 23' 8.10"
00955' 9.20"
00955' 8.75"
550
551
23'
23'
23'
23'
23'
23'
23'
23'
23'
23'
3.96"
4.18"
4.29"
4.42"
4.27"
4.05"
3.95"
3.31"
3.21"
3.10"
3.08"
3.32"
3.64"
3.85"
3.96"
4.14"
4.27"
4.70"
5.19"
5.43"
5.95"
6.13"
6.43"
6.70"
6.98"
7.18"
7.35"
7.59"
7.91"
8.22"
7.04"
7.18"
7.13"
7.14"
7.44"
7.44"
7.77"
8.02"
7.85"
8.02"
00955'
00955'
00955'
00955'
00955'
00955'
00955'
00955'
00955'
00955'
00955'
00955'
00955'
00955'
00955'
00955'
00955'
00955'
00955'
00955'
00955'
00955'
00955'
00955'
00955'
00955'
00955'
00955'
00955'
00955'
Page 14
Close to footpath
Close to rock
Close to track
road
TP86
TP87
TP88
TP89
10
10
10
10
23'
23'
23'
23'
TP90
10 23' 9.22"
TP91
TP92
TP93
TP94
TP95
TP96
10 23' 89.57"
10 23' 9.65"
10 23' 9.39"
10 24' 0.07"
10 24' 0.07 "
10 24' 0.66"
24'
24'
24'
24'
24'
7.93"
8.59"
8.67"
8.72"
8.44"
7.75"
7.33"
7.04"
552
552
551
551
00955' 7.83"
549
Close to rock
00955'
00955'
00955'
00955'
00955'
00955'
7.71"
7.13"
6.62"
6.78"
6.39"
6.53"
547
548
549
547
546
547
Close to rock
00955'
00955'
00955'
00955'
00955'
6.90"
7.23"
7.55"
7.25"
7.94"
544
543
545
548
548
TP97
TP98
TP99
TP100
TP101
10
10
10
10
10
TP102
TP103
TP104
10 24' 0.63"
10 24' 1.45"
10 24' 2.20"
00955' 8.04"
00955' 8.77"
00955' 8.78"
547
546
543
TP105
TP106
TP107
TP108
TP109
TP110
TP111
TP112
TP113
TP114
TP115
TP116
TP117
TP118
TP119
TP120
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
00955'
00955'
00955'
00956'
00955'
00956'
00955'
00956'
00956'
00956'
00956'
00956'
00956'
00956'
00955'
00955'
542
541
542
544
544
544
545
545
546
547
549
550
549
551
548
549
24'
24'
24'
24'
24'
24'
24'
24'
24'
24'
24'
24'
24'
24'
24'
24'
1.07"
1.12"
1.02"
0.39"
0.37"
00955'
00955'
00955'
00955'
2.57"
2.67"
9.36"
2.19"
1.93"
0.09"
1.27"
0.84"
0.46"
0.04"
9.74"
1.33"
9.76"
9.24"
9.19"
9.04"
8.92"
9.36"
9.77"
0.02"
0.39"
0.09"
9.71"
0.07"
0.45"
0.85"
1.08"
1.33"
1.87"
0.25"
9.31"
8.93"
Close to track
road
Close to track
road
NORTHINGS
EASTINGS
Page 15
ELEVATIO
N (m)
REMARKS
POINT
1
POINT
2
POINT
3
POINT
4
POINT
5
POINT
6
POINT
7
POINT
8
POINT
9
POINT
10
POINT
11
POINT
12
POINT
13
POINT
14
POINT
15
POINT
16
POINT
17
POINT
18
POINT
19
POINT
20
10 23' 2.69"
562
10 23' 3.89"
00955' 7.09"
562
10 23' 3.79"
00955' 6.36"
563
10 23' 3.39
00955' 6.19"
563
10 23' 4.06"
00955' 5.86"
562
10 23' 3.97
00955' 4.43"
556
10 23' 4.29"
00955' 3.86"
554
10 23' 4.71"
00955' 3.53"
553
10 23' 5.51"
00955' 3.34"
550
10 23' 6.12"
550
10 23' 6.49"
00955' 4.58"
549
10 23' 6.56"
00955' 5.31"
541
10 23' 6.46"
00955' 6.12"
553
10 23' 6.16"
00955' 6.61"
560
10 23' 6.68"
00955' 6.99"
551
10 23' 5.40"
00955' 7.13"
560
10 23' 5.17"
00955' 77.6"
559
10 23' 4.67"
00955' 8.38"
558
close to gully
10 23' 4.09"
00955' 9.01"
558
close to gully
10 23' 3.00"
00955' 7.95"
560
Page 16
Close to footpath
Field team
digging for
test pit
samples.
Page 17
Hand auger
used to
extract
samples .
Page 18
Engineer
taking notes
of number of
blows
recorded.
The following tests were conducted on the collected samples for the
purpose of soil classification and design:
Consolidation
The individual solid particles in a soil can have different sizes and
shapes, and these characteristics also have a significant effect on its
engineering behaviour. Therefore, geotechnical engineers often assess
the distribution of particle sizes in a soil and the shapes of the particles
in the soil.
Particle size analysis expresses quantitatively the proportion by mass of
the various sizes of the particles present in the soil. A distribution
analysis is a necessary index test for soils especially coarse-grained
soils, in that it presents the relative proportions of different sizes of
particles. From this, it is possible to tell whether the soil consists of
predominantly gravel, sand, silt or clay sizes and to a limited extent
which of the sizes range is likely to control the engineering properties.
2.3.3 Atterberg Limits
Liquid limit, plastic limit and shrinkage limit are known as the
Atterberg Limits. These are used to assess the plasticity of a finegrained soils and its consistency at various moisture contents.
The liquid limit is the empirically established moisture content at which
a soil passes from the liquid state to the plastic state. It provides a
means of classifying a soil especially when the plastic limit is also
known.
The plastic limit is the empirically established moisture content at which
a soil becomes too dry to be plastic. It is used together with the liquid
Page 20
limit to determine the plasticity index which when plotted against the
liquid limit on the plasticity chart provides means of classifying a
cohesive soil.
Shrinkage due to drying is significant in clays but less so in silts and
sands. These tests enable the shrinkage limit of clays to be determined.
i.e the moisture content below which a clay ceases to shrink. They also
provide ways of quantifying the amount of shrinkage likely to be
experienced by clays in terms of shrinkage ratio, volumetric shrinkage
and linear shrinkage.
2.3.4 Direct Shear Test
The drained shear strength (effective stress analysis) is of most
importance for granular soils. The shear strength of granular soils is
often measured in the direct shear apparatus, where a soil specimen is
subjected to a constant vertical pressure while a horizontal force is
applied to the top of the shear box so that the soil specimen is sheared
in half along a horizontal shear surface. By plotting the vertical pressure
versus shear stress at failure, the effective friction angle as well as
effective cohesion can be obtained.
2.3.5 Consolidation Test
The consolidation test (also known as oedometer test) is the primary
laboratory test used to study the settlement and expansion behaviour of
soils. The consolidation test should only be performed on undisturbed soil
specimens, or in the case of studies behaviour, on specimens compacted
to anticipated field and moisture condition.
In order to evaluate the suitability of a foundation or earth structure, it is
necessary to design against both bearing capacity failure and excessive
settlement. For foundations on cohesive soils, the principal design
criterion is typically the latter - the control of expected settlements
within the limits considered tolerable for the structure. As a result, once
allowable foundation displacements have been established, the estimate
Page 21
of total settlement over the service life of the structure is a major factor
in the choice of foundation design.
Page 22
Page 23
The test was conducted in accordance with BS 1377 part 2: 1990. The
detailed results are presented in Appendix B.
The gradation test results indicated that the bulk of the soils to be
predominantly coarse - grained as evident from the estimate of the
percentage passing sieve #200 even though a few fall in the category
of fine-grained soils. These generally range between 4.4% and 68.4%.
These according to USCS are largely considered coarse grained soils.
Page 24
The summary of the gradation test results are presented in Table 3.2;
while the details are shown in the Appendix B.
3.3 Atterberg Limits
These were also performed in line with the specification of BS 1377
part 2: 1990. The results are presented in Appendix C.
The liquid limit test was conducted using the Casagrande liquid limit
apparatus. The majority of the results obtained for the test pit samples
showed non plastic and low to medium plasticity values in consonant
with the sieve results.
The direct shear test was conducted in accordance with BS 1377: Part
7: 1990.
KN/m2 while angle of repose are between 5.50 and 21.40. Detailed
results of the test are presented in Appendix E. But the summary is as
presented in Table 3.2 below.
3.6 Bearing Capacity
Page 25
qult =
Qult
1
=c N c + D f N q+ B N ...............................for strip footing
BL
2
qult =c N c (1+0.3
B
)+ D f N q +0.4 B N .....for square/rectangular footings
L
N q=tan 2 450 +
( tan )
e
2
N =1.5( N q 1) tan
q all=
qnet
+ Df
F
TP
NO.
Dept
h
(m)
C'
(KN/m
2
)
'(0)
b
(KN/m
3
)
1.5
21.2
7.4
22.0
Nc
Nq
qnet
(KN/m
2
)
FO
S
qall
(KN/
m2)
220
106
13
1.5
6.9
21.4
22.0
16.2
7.36
3
15
1.5
39.2
5.5
22.0
6.65 1.64
17
1.5
12.5
24.8
18.6
18
1.5
4.8
25.7
21.0
46
1.5
1.2
21.9
21.0
57
1.5
24.8
11.6
21.0
9.09 2.87
60
1.5
3.8
8.6
19.1
7.76 2.17
68
1.5
6.6
22.6
18.6
76
1.5
14.6
17.7
21.0
81
1.5
25.8
20.2
21.0
93
1.5
18.2
9.6
21.0
8.17 2.38
11
8
1.5
24.4
7.3
19.1
7.27 1.93
20.4 10.4
3
4
21.7 11.4
8
8
16.7
7.74
7
17.5
8.31
7
12.8
5.11
7
15.0
6.53
2
8
3.7
4
0.0
9
6.5
4
7.5
7
4.0
7
0.5
7
0.2
7
4.5
7
1.9
7
3.0
5
0.3
5
0.1
8
395
165
315
138
607
230
545
213
306
133
321
138
93
60
389
158
368
154
624
240
226
107
233
106
3.7 Consolidation
Page 28
The trends of the Bearing Capacity obtained from the DCP generally
fluctuate with depth in most cases.A value of 60kN/m2 is determined
for the site.This in line with standard practice may be considered for
design purpose which may prove adequate to safely support the
anticipated load from the building .
0.5
21
92
46
108
27
68
65
70
92
78
21
158
58
87
40
65
68
183
250
98
1.0
127
56
75
268
105
74
119
164
150
94
161
173
172
151
105
98
170
358
464
214
Page 29
1.5
198
66
145
355
112
255
2.0
2.5
102
137
159
219
190
231
287
206
183
190
269
419
303
369
411
285
CHAPTER FOUR
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
4.0 General Conclusions
The geotechnical investigation for the site of Bauchi State University
along Bauchi karri road was successfully completed by Tectonics
Engineering and consults and the results are detailed in this report.
The soils underlying the site are classified based on Unified Soil
Classification System (USCS) for the proposed building area; this
assumes soil having liquid limit greater than 50 and/or plasticity index in
excess of 30 to be of high plasticity. While soil recording more than 50%
of its particle passing sieve #200 is considered fine grained soil. Based
on these criteria, the soils underlying the site are predominantly coarse
grained because they generally fall in the latter category. The group
symbol of the soil is SM which is silty sand With gravel .The
compressibility assessment of the soil suggests highly compressible
property therefore all structures are expected to be designed to
structural adequacy in line with standard engineering practices and
procedures. Also, primary consolidation settlement is anticipated.
4.1 RecommendationsBased on the results of our findings, the following
A bearing capacity
Page 30
4.2 Limitations
from
those
encountered.
Geotechnical
investigation
the
investigation
was
conducted.
As
result,
any
Page 31
REFERENCES:
1. D. P. Donald, M. R. Yeung and W. A. Kitch; (2011): Geotechnical
Engineering, Principles and Practices
Publisher: Pearson, Second Edition. California.
2. C. A. Kogbe; (1989): Geology of Nigeria
Publisher: Rock View (Nigeria) Limited, Second Revised Edition.
Jos, Nigeria.
3. BS 1377: Parts 2,3,4,5 & 7 of 1990
4. BS 8004 of 1986 and BS 5930 of 1992.
Page 32
APPENDICES
Page 33