You are on page 1of 18

UGANDA CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY

FACULTY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENT

BACHELOR OF SCIENCE IN CIVIL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING


YEAR THREE
FOUNDATION ENGINEERING SOIL INVESTIGATION REPORT
Group member
SYLVIA KPANGE
MUGABI GILBERT
NASSANGA RHODAH
KWESIGA SIMON
ADIBAKO RICHARD
MBAZIRA APUULI
DANIEL
KABYANGA CRISPUS
OWANI ISAAC
AKSANTI MUGANGA
JULIEN

Registration number
IS12B32/761
S13B32/437
S13B32/503
S13B32/318
S12B32/011
S13B32/423
S13B32/
S13B32/612
IS12B32/

Signature

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY............................................................................................ 3
2.0 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................... 4
3.0 OBJECTIVES.......................................................................................................... 4
4.0 SCOPE OF ASSIGNMENT....................................................................................... 4
5.0 SITE DESCRIPTION................................................................................................ 5
5.1 Site topography................................................................................................. 5
5.2 Surface and subsurface conditions....................................................................5
5.3 Regional Geology.............................................................................................. 6
6.0 FIELD INVESTIGATION........................................................................................... 7
6.1 Sampling........................................................................................................... 8
6.2 Penetration test................................................................................................. 9
7.0 LABORATORY TEST............................................................................................. 10
8.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS...............................................................................10
9.0 CONCLUSIONS.................................................................................................... 10

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


This report describes the geo technical investigation of the site adjacent to the Sciences
Laboratory Block at the uphill end. This assignment was conducted by the third year Bachelor of
Science in Civil and Environmental Engineering students at Uganda Christian University.
A systematic approach was used to identify the nature of soils at the site and their characteristics
and the observations and test results were used to design an appropriate shallow foundation for a
building that would be constructed there. Recommendations are also made for this type of
foundation.

2.0 INTRODUCTION
The third year students of Bachelor of Science In Civil and Environmental Engineering at
Uganda Christian University were tasked to find to design a foundation which is structurally
stable and suitable for the site adjacent to the to the Science Laboratory Block on the uphill end.
This report highlights observations arising from visual inspections, site tests and subsequent
analysis. The reason for the selection of a particular foundation has been well explained.
Conclusions and recommendations have been made in case action needs to be taken in some
areas.

3.0 OBJECTIVES
To design an appropriate and structural safe foundation
To find out the geo-technical properties of the soil at the site.
To make appropriate recommendations for any construction on the site

4.0 SCOPE OF ASSIGNMENT


The scope of investigation for this study comprises the following:1. Collecting information such as geological and geotechnical maps related to the site,
capital facilities, and land use maps.
2. Making visits for site reconnaissance in order to collect information about site nature,
topography of the site, geological features and other properties concerning the site.
3. Digging of a trial pit and sampling of disturbed and undisturbed samples.
4. Performing of the Dynamic Cone Penetration test(DCP test) and laboratory tests,
including moisture content test
5. Applying engineering analysis and evaluation of field findings and laboratory results.

5.0 SITE DESCRIPTION


This site is located in Uganda Christian university main campus, opposite the technology park
science laboratory. The region where this site is located is generally hilly. It is enclosed by a
storey building which is used for laboratory activities on its left side but has bare land with trees
on it at the opposite side and it is directly accessible without any major obstructions. There is an
existing murrum access road adjacent to it but there no existing building on the site. There are no
activities so no actual land use and its neighboring building is still standing firmly.

5.1 Site topography


The site is relatively flat but its surrounding topography is gently sloping indicating that the site
was previously hilly but was leveled for construction activities. It has no current use and is
covered with a green vegetation of equal height signifying the presence of the same type of top
soil rich in nutrients within the area. The grass present is fresh and green showing the presence
of a fertile soil.

5.2 Surface and subsurface conditions


According to the site survey carried out, there are generally similarities and continuities of the
subsurface materials however some variations were noticed when the trial pit was dug. At the
inspected site, the groundwater was not encountered in the trial pit.
The surface is covered green vegetation of equal height signifying the presence of the same type
of top soil rich in nutrients within the area. The grass present is fresh and green showing the
presence of a fertile soil.
Visual profiling was done to determine the profile of the soil and it was found out that the soil
had two layers. The top layer which is called overburden soil which is dark brown in color had
roots which 0.4m deep into the soil profile. The second layer of the soil was reddish brown in
color.
The subsurface soil is a plastic soil as it stucked together when touched showing high level of
plasticity due to the fact that it has a higher moisture content. When the soil was rolled, it broke
when forced was applied showing a high percentage of clay with a bit of silt through its stiffness.
It can be termed as a silty clay soil.

5.3 Regional Geology


Soils within the Mukono and Nawakokie field areas overlie undifferentiated Precambrian
granitic gneiss of the basement complex and shales, quartzites and phyllites of the Toro system
(Geological survey Department, 1965). Concentrations of Ce in freshly exposed country rocks
from these areas lay within the range of 14 to 140 ppm and 58 to 112 ppm respectively.
Concentrations of Mg in similar samples ranged from 200 to 28000 and from 60 to 10000 ppm
respectively. The soils may be grossly divided into reducing, grey, quartz-rich soils that are found

within the lower valley floors and swamps, and oxidizing, red iron rich loams that constitute the
mid slopes. Both types of soils yielded pH values between 5 and 6 on saturation with distilled
H2O. The higher ground on which the majority of settlements are found exhibit only sporadic
occurrences of laterite (partially as a result of land improvement). In addition, samples of soil
were collected from the central and southern regions of Uganda that overlie lithological units
containing granites of post basement age; members of the Mityana series, the karagwe-Ankolean
System and the Bunyoro Series: mafic volcanic of Mesozoic to Tertiary age; and Pleistocene
volcanic and sedimentary rocks.
The highest Mg and Ce concentrations are associated with the Mesozoic to Tertiary and
Pleistocene volcanic (carbonatitic) soils from the vicinity of Fort Portal, the rift valley and
Tororo. Mg and Ce concentrations within soils developed on the other sampled soils lay within
the range observed in soils overlying the Toro system and the Basement Complex gneisses. It is
therefore difficult to attribute the spatial distribution in EMF cases to the similar spatial
distribution of these units with the Mukono-Luwero-Kampala triangle.

Figure 1: map of Uganda showing regional geology

6.0 FIELD INVESTIGATION


The field investigation was carried out on the 22/03/16 from 9:45am to 10:30am. The following
tools were used to carry out the in situ site investigations;

Hoe
Spade
Shovel
Dynamic cone Penetrometer
Core cutter
Dolly

Firstly, a rectangular trial pit of about 1m was dug using a hoe and a spade. A shovel was used to
clear the debris off the pit.

Figure 1: Excavating the trial pit


machine

Figure 2: Assembling the DCP

6.1 Sampling
Both disturbed and undisturbed samples were taken at the trial pit. The undisturbed sample was
taken using a core cutter which was rammed into the pit by a dolly. A hoe was den used to dig
around the core cutter so that the sample can be removed. It was then placed in a polythene bag
and tied to maintain the moisture content and other in situ conditions of the soil.
The disturbed sample was also picked from the excavated soil and placed in a polythene bag.

Figure 3: Undisturbed soil sample

Figure 4: Disturbed soil

sample

6.2 Penetration test


A dynamic cone Penetrometer was used to carry out the penetration teat. This instrument consists
of a 60kg hammer, a 600 cone and a meter rule.
It was operated by three people, one person held the instrument vertically, the second made the
blows, and the third person made the booking. The following were recorded from the two tests
conducted on the surface of the ground and in the pit;

Trail pit 1 DCP at 00m


No of blows
0
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

Readings
216
233
241
247
264
286
318
362
413
440
469
502
537
572
609
655
698
743
791
838
918

Trail pit 1 depth 1.1m


No of blows
0
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
1

250
321
377
418
530
591
639
742
784
825
875
916

7.0 LABORATORY TEST


The main test that was carried out in the laboratory was the moisture content test. The soil
samples from the disturbed sample were placed in three different labelled cans, weighed and put
in an oven at 1050C and then weighed again after 24 hours.
Can No.
Weight of empty can
Weight of can + wet
soil
Weight of can + dry
soil

T1
6
22

T2
5
22

T3
65
102

18

18

92

8.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

Moisture content

Let W1 = weight of can


W2= weight of can +wet sample
W3= weight of can +dry sample

SAMPLE ONE

Moisture content=

W 2w 3
2218
x 100=
x 100
w 3w1
186

=33.3%

SAMPLE 2
Moisture content=

W 2w 3
2218
x 100=
x 100
w 3w1
185
=30.8%

SAMPLE 3

Moisture content=

W 2w 3
10292
x 100=
x 100
w 3w1
9265
=37.04%

Average moisture content =

33.3+ 30.8+ 37.04


3

= 33.7 %

CALCULATING FOR UNIT WEIGHT ()


= x g
m
= v

m=

mass of cutter +soil mass of cutter


1000

2672949
1000

=1.723kg.

2
V= r h
2
= 0.05 x 0.13

=1.02x10

-3

m3

1.23
= 1.02 x 103
= 1689.2 kg/m3
=1689.2 x 9.81
=16571.2 N/m3
= 16.57 KN/m3

CALCULATION OF ALLOWABLE BEARING CAPACITY


q

allow =

10 x CBR + h

h= (716/2000) + 1
=1.358 m
q

allow =

10 x 5 + 16.57x1.358
=72.502 KN/m2

300450 x 0.55
450
= 0.117m

L
0.117 6
L 0.702
Adjusted to L= 1m

2 x1
= 3
= 0.667 m
Adjusted to 1m

OBTAINING CONTACT PRESSURE

450
6 X 0.117
(1
)
1X1
1

= 450( 1 0.702

actual

max=765.9 KN/m2

actual

min=134.1 KN/m2

However this is less than the allowable pressure, hence need for adjusting
the dimensions of the foundation.
Using L=2
Adjusted to L= 2m

2 x2
3

= 1.33m
Adjusted to 2m
OBTAINING CONTACT PRESSURE

450
6 X 0.117
(1
)
2X2
2

= 112.5( 1 0.351

actual

max=151.9875 KN/m2

actual

min=73.0125 KN/m2

But q actual is greater than Q allowable, hence need for more adjustments of
foundation dimensions.

ADJUSTING L=3

2 x3
3

=2m
Adjusted to 3m
OBTAINING CONTACT PRESSURE

450
6 X 0.117
(1
)
3 X3
3

= 50( 1 0.234
Q act max=61.7 KN/m2
Q act min=38.3 KN/m2

9.0 CONCLUSIONS

Hence Q actual is less than allowable bearing pressure as required.


Therefore the dimensions are L=3m
B=3m

DCP REPORTS
APPENDICES

Figure 5: Carrying out the DCP test on ground surface

Figure 6: Carrying out the DCP test

Figure 7 Undisturbed sample


Packed samples

Pictures from the moisture content Tests

Figure 8: Disturbed sample

Figure 9:

Figure 10: Wet soil samples in cans before putting the in the oven

You might also like