GEOTECHNICAL

INVESTIGATION
GROUP 3

Katureebe H.J 219266042, Oyama Madiya 218188285,

Neo Tamako 216415055
Sobekwa 217822711 Ndyaluvana L 219219672
Contents
AIM.......................................................................................................................................................4
WET PREPARATION, DRY PREPARATION AND PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS............................5
Introduction.......................................................................................................................................5
Apparatus..........................................................................................................................................5
Procedure...........................................................................................................................................6
Calculations...................................................................................................................................7
Theory...............................................................................................................................................7
TESTS TO DETERMINE ATTERBERG LIMITS................................................................................9
DETERMINATION OF THE LIQUID LIMIT OF SOILS BY MEANS OF THE FLOW CURVE
METHOD..........................................................................................................................................9
Definition;.....................................................................................................................................9
Apparatus.......................................................................................................................................9
Procedure.......................................................................................................................................9
Calculations.................................................................................................................................10
Linear shrinkage...............................................................................................................................12
Introduction.................................................................................................................................12
Apparatus....................................................................................................................................12
Procedure....................................................................................................................................12
Calculations.................................................................................................................................12
THE DETERMINATION OF THE PLASTIC LIMIT AND PLASTICITY INDEX OF SOILS.....13
Theory.........................................................................................................................................13
Plastic limit..................................................................................................................................13
Plasticity index.............................................................................................................................13
Apparatus....................................................................................................................................13
Procedure....................................................................................................................................13
Calculations.................................................................................................................................14
THE DETERMINATION OF THE GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION IN SOILS BY MEANS OF A
HYDROMETER.............................................................................................................................15
Introduction.....................................................................................................................................15
Stokes law....................................................................................................................................15
Implications of Stokes law............................................................................................................15
APPARATUS..................................................................................................................................15
PROCEDURE.................................................................................................................................16
Calculations.....................................................................................................................................16
Hydrometer readings...................................................................................................................17

1|Page
MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY AND OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT.........................................18
Maximum dry density......................................................................................................................18
Optimum moisture content.............................................................................................................18
Apparatus........................................................................................................................................18
Method............................................................................................................................................18
Mixing.........................................................................................................................................18
Preparation of mould...................................................................................................................19
Compaction.................................................................................................................................19
Moisture Content.........................................................................................................................19
Mass of mould.............................................................................................................................19
Calculations.....................................................................................................................................19
CALIFORNIA BEARING RATIO (CBR) TEST................................................................................23
General............................................................................................................................................23
Apparatus........................................................................................................................................23
Method............................................................................................................................................23
Preparation of moulds..................................................................................................................23
Compaction.................................................................................................................................23
Soaking........................................................................................................................................24
Draining after soaking.................................................................................................................24
Penetration...................................................................................................................................24
Calculations.................................................................................................................................24
Conclusion.......................................................................................................................................28
Atterberg limits................................................................................................................................28
Findings and Conclusions.............................................................................................................28
Comments...................................................................................................................................28
California Bearing Ratio...................................................................................................................28
Findings and Conclusions.............................................................................................................28
Comments...................................................................................................................................28
Hydrometer.....................................................................................................................................28
Findings and conclusions.............................................................................................................28
Comments...................................................................................................................................28
Task 2...................................................................................................................................................29
Definition of soils and gravels..........................................................................................................29
Material Classification Systems........................................................................................................29
Crushed stone......................................................................................................................................30
Sieve analysis...................................................................................................................................30

2|Page
 Grading modulus.............................................................................................................................30
Flakiness index.................................................................................................................................30
The liquid limit.................................................................................................................................30
The plasticity index..........................................................................................................................30
The linear shrinkage.........................................................................................................................30
The maximum dry density...............................................................................................................31
The swell..........................................................................................................................................31
Classification criteria............................................................................................................................31
G1 classified material.......................................................................................................................31
G2 and G3 classified material..........................................................................................................31
References...........................................................................................................................................32

3|Page
AIM
We have been appointed to design and construct a new road that links to a two small rural towns. As
part of the geotechnical investigation, we excavated trial pits at various locations along the proposed
route.
The aim is to perform various tests to establish the profile of the soil and collect samples for
testing in the laboratory. To verify the suitability of the ground that we are going to construct
the proposed road on. These tests include the following;
 Determination of the liquid limit of soils by means of the flow curve method.
 Determination of the plastic limit and plasticity index of soils.
 Determination of the linear shrinkage of the soil.
 Determination of the percentage material passing a 0.075mm sieve in a soil sample.
 Determination of the Relative Density of the soil.
 Determination of the grain size distribution in the soil, by means of a hydrometer.
 Determination of the maximum dry density and optimum moisture content.
 Determination of the California Bearing Ratio.

4|Page
WET PREPARATION, DRY PREPARATION AND PARTICLE SIZE
ANALYSIS.
Introduction
Wet sieving is a procedure used to evaluate particle size distribution or gradation of a
granular material. When dry sieving cannot produce adequate degree of separation between
individual particle sizes we use wet preparation.[ CITATION TMH13 \l 7177 ]
The wet sieving procedure applies to solids with the following properties:
 Practically insoluble in water
 Not affected by water; for example: solids that wouldn’t expand when wet
 Remain unchanged by heat up to 110°C
Wet sieving is an ideal sample preparation process for specimens with a high fraction of
granular materials and enough fines content present to make sieving difficult. The fines can
stick together in clumps, preventing an accurate assessment by sieving. Wet sieving is also
useful for direct particle sizing of problem materials including:[ CITATION SAN13 \l 7177 ]
 Soils and mineral aggregates with high fine contents
 Materials that are fragile but not soluble,
such as coal or other minerals
 Lightweight powders
 Kaolin and fillers
 Abrasives

Kaolin Powder

Apparatus
 A riffler with 19.0 mm openings.

 The following test sieves, complying with SABS 197 i.e. a 63,0 mm, 53,0 mm, 37,5
mm, 2~,5 mm, 19,0 mm, 13,2 mm, 4,75 mm, 2,0 mm and 0,425 mm sieve, with pan
and cover.

 A balance with a pan to weigh up to 5 kg, accurate to 19.

 Basins and pans:

5|Page
  Mortar and pestle

 Hotplates or ring gas-burners.

 A drying oven, thermostatically controlled

and capable of maintaining a temperature
105 to 110 oC.

 Brushes:

 A supply tank for distilled water.

 A steel-bladed spatula, with a blade about

100 mm long A riffler with 19.0 mm openings.
Procedure.
 The sample is emptied from the sample bag and poured through the riffler by slowly
tilting the bag.
 At the same time the bag is moved to and fro along the full length of the riffler
ensuring an even flow of the material.
 The sample is poured onto the 450mm diameter, 19.0 mm opening sieve which is
placed above a basin, any large soil aggregations or clods retained on the sieve are
disintegrated and crushed and added to the portion passing the sieve.
 The material is sieved into the 2mm, 0.425mm sieves and the pan.
 The material retained by the pan is weighed and recorded.
 The remains on the 2mm and 0.425mm sieves are then submerged in water.
 The material was then boiled for 1 minute while stirring it and we waited for it to cool
down.
 We then sieved the material on the 0.425 mm sieve and the liquid material that passes
through this sieve is placed in the oven for 24 hours at 105° C−110° C .
 The material that remains is placed into another basin and placed to dry on a hot plate.
 The dry material is sieved through the 63 mm / 53 mm/ 37.5 mm/ 26.5 mm/ 19mm/
13.2 mm/ 4.7 mm/ 2mm/ 0.425 mm sieves and the pan.
 After sieving, the material retained on each sieve is weighed and the masses are
recorded.
 The material passing through the 0.425 mm sieve is added to the soil fine portion
obtained by dry sieving.
 After 24 hours, the material in the oven is removed and loosened with a spatula.
 This material is then sieved through the 0.425 mm sieve and the material that is
retained on the sieve is placed into a motor and grinded using a pestle and also passed
through the 0.425mm sieve. The fines obtained are then added to those obtained by
dry sieving.[CITATION SAN13 \l 7177 ]

6|Page
Calculations
Theory
The mass retained on each sieve is expressed as a percentage of the total mass of dry material. We then obtained the percentage of material passing each
sieve using the percentage retained.

The Percentages are then plotted on a suitable grading sheet.

SIEVE ANALYSIS - TMH 1 Test Method A1(a)

Sieve Retained Retained Passing

mm g % %

75.0 0 0 100

63.0 0 0 100

53.0 0 0 100

37.50 0 0 100

26.50 0 0 100

19.00 0 0 100

13.20 0.155 6.9 93.1

4.750 0.518 23.1 70.0

2.000 0.300 13.4 56.6

0.425 0.903 40.2 16.4

Pan 0.370 16.4 0

7|Page
 D 60
Uniformity coefficient ( U )=
D 10
2.655
¿
0.200
¿ 13.275

Our uniformity coefficient between 5 and 15

that means our material is NON-
UNIFORM.

8|Page
TESTS TO DETERMINE ATTERBERG LIMITS.
We determined the moisture content limits i.e. where our soil goes from one moisture state to
another moisture state.
At low moisture the soil will behave as a solid, but with increasing moisture, it becomes
plastic. With excess moisture it will flow like a liquid. This is very important when trying to
build with or build on these type of materials.
The two commonly determined Atterberg Limits represent the moisture contents at which a
specific soil’s behaviour changes from solid to plastic (Plastic Limit) and from plastic to
liquid (Liquid Limit).
These tests are carried out on soil fines that are obtained from our material using the wet
preparation and dry preparation methods

DETERMINATION OF THE LIQUID LIMIT OF SOILS BY MEANS OF THE

FLOW CURVE METHOD
Definition;
The liquid limit of a soil is the moisture content, expressed as a percentage of the mass of the
oven dried soil, at the boundary between the liquid and plastic states.

The moisture content at this boundary is arbitrarily defined as the liquid limit and is the
moisture content at a consistency as determined by means of the standard liquid limit
apparatus.[ CITATION TMH13 \l 7177 ]

Apparatus
 A liquid limit device.
 A grooving tool.
 A calibrating plate with a thickness of 100 mm.
 A porcelain evaporating dish with a diameter of about 100mm.
 A spatula with a slightly flexible blade.
 A burette with a capacity of 50 ml or 100ml.
 A drying oven thermostatically controlled and capable of maintaining a temperature of 105 to
110 degrees Celsius.
 Suitable container

Procedure
 48 grams of the thoroughly mixed soil fines (material passing through 0.425 mm sieve).
 Distilled water is added by means of a burette and the moist material is then is then
thoroughly mixed for 10 minutes with a spatula.
 When sufficient water has been mixed with the soil to form a stiff consistency, approximately
three quarters of the wet soil is transferred to the brass bowl of the liquid limit device, mixed
slightly and flattened out in the front portion of the bowl with the spatula.
 The material is then divided into two equal portions with one cut of the grooving tool.
 The device is then operated at a speed which results in two taps per second being applied to
the soil, until the lower parts of the faces of the two soil portions have flowed together and
made contact across a distance of about 10 mm.

9|Page
  The number of taps required to close the groove across this distance is recorded.
 The procedure is repeated for two additional determinations on the soil in the bowl of the
liquid limit device.
 Sufficient water is added each time in order to obtain three samples of varying consistencies,
such that at least one determination will be made in
preferably each of the following ranges of taps; 28-35,
22-28 and 15-22.
 The moist material which has been left over in the
bowl is at once transferred to the shrinkage trough, for
the determination of the linear shrinkage.
 The moist material which has been left over in the
porcelain dish is set aside for the determination of the
plastic limit.
 The containers with the soil samples are weighed, after
which the samples are oven dried to constant mass at
105 to 110 C.
 The material is dried overnight.
 When the containers are removed from the oven, the
lids are replaced to prevent the absorption of moisture,
and after being allowed to cool, they weighed again.
 The loss in mass is the mass of water which is then
expressed as a percentage of the oven-dried mass of
soil[ CITATION TMH13 \l 7177 ]. Finding Number of taps for sample 1

Calculations
Moisture content
mass of water
Moisture Content ( )= × 100
Mass of Oven−dried sample
Liquid Limit
A flow curve of moisture content vs corresponding number of taps is then drawn.
The flow curve should be a straight line of best fit going through the three points.
The moisture content corresponding to 25 taps is interpolated from the curve and taken as the liquid
limit of the soil.
Arithmetic for Sample 1
Mass of water = (mass of Container + wet soil)-(mass of Container + dry soil)
=0.020-0.019
= 0.001 g
Mass of dry soil= (mass of Container+ dry soil) - Mass of container
=0.019- 0.009
=0.010 g

mass of wet
moisture content= ×100
mass of dry

10 | P a g e
 0.001
¿ ×100
0.010
= 10%

Container No. 1 2 3
Mass of Container + wet soil (g) 0.020 0.018 0.021
Liquid Limit

Mass of Container + dry soil (g) 0.019 0.017 0.019

Mass of water 0.001 0.001 0.002
Mass of container (g) 0.009 0.009 0.009
Mass of dry soil (g) 0.010 0.008 0.010
Moisture content (%) 10 13 20
Number of blows / taps 32 27 20

The procedure is repeated for all 3 samples and a graph of Moisture content vs Number of blows is
plotted

Object 17

11 | P a g e
Linear shrinkage
Introduction
The linear shrinkage is the decrease in a chosen dimension, expressed as a percentage of the original
dimension of the soil mass, when the moisture content is reduced from the liquid limit to an oven-dry
state.
Apparatus

 A shrinkage trough.
 A small thick-bristle brush.
 A spatula with a slightly flexible blade.
 A drying oven, capable of maintaining a temperature of 105 to 110 degrees Celsius.
 A pair of dividers and a millimetre scale.

Procedure
 The test should be run immediately after the liquid
limit test has been completed so that the moist
material left over can be used for filling the trough
without further mixing.
 Fill one half of the trough with the moist soil by
taking small pieces of soil on the spatula and
pressing the soil down against the one end of the
trough and working along the trough until the
whole side is filled and the soil
 The trough with wet material is now placed in a
drying oven and dried at 105-110oC over night
 The loose dust and sand is removed from the ends
as well as loose material between cracks by carefully Measuring the gap created
inverting the trough while the dry material is held in place
 The gap between the end of the soil bar and the end of the trough is measured as the change
in linear dimension[ CITATION TMH13 \l 7177 ]
Calculations
∆ length after dry
Linear shrinkage= ×100
initial length
2.9
¿ ×100
150
¿ 1.9
Linear Shrinkage
Length before drying (mm) 0.00
Length after drying (mm) 2.9
Linear Shrinkage (%) 1.9

12 | P a g e
THE DETERMINATION OF THE PLASTIC LIMIT AND PLASTICITY INDEX OF
SOILS
Theory
Plastic limit; the plastic limit of a soil is the moisture content, expressed as a percentage of the
mass of the oven-dried soil, at the boundary between the plastic and semi-solid state.

Plasticity index; the plasticity index of a soil is the numerical, difference between the liquid
limit and the plastic limit of the soil and indicates the magnitude of the range of the moisture
contents over which the soil is in a plastic condition.

Apparatus

 A ground-glass plate measuring 150 mm x 220 mm

 Suitable containers which will prevent the loss of moisture during weighing.
 A balance to weigh up to 100 gm, accurate to 0.01gm
 A drying oven, capable of maintaining a temperature of 105 to 110 C.

Procedure
 Approximately 2 to 3 grams of the moist soil is set aside from the liquid limit determination.
 It is then rolled into a thread of uniform diameter throughout its length. As a rule, the rolling
is done between the palms of your hands.
 When the diameter of the thread is 3 mm, the soil is again shaped into an ellipsoidal shape
and rolled out. This process is continued until the crumbling of the soil prevents the formation
of a thread approximately 3 mm in diameter.
 Ensure that the thread is not broken up or crumbled by applying excessive pressure, but that
it crumbles on account of a lack of plasticity.
 The crumbled soil thread is transferred to a container for the determination of its moisture
content.
 The containers with the soil samples are weighed, after which the samples are oven-dried to a
constant mass at 105 to 110 degrees Celsius overnight.
 The containers are removed from the oven, allowed to cool down and the mass of dry sample
is weighed[ CITATION TMH13 \l 7177 ].

13 | P a g e
Calculations
Theory
Plastic limit;

mass of water
Plastic limit = × 100
Massof Oven−dried sample
Plasticity Index;

The plasticity index is obtained by subtracting the plastic limit from the liquid limit

Arithmetic for Sample 1

Mass of water = (mass of Container + wet soil)-(mass of Container + dry soil)

=0.012 – 0.011

= 0.001 g

Mass of dry soil= (mass of Container+ dry soil) - Mass of container

=0.011- 0.006

=0.005 g

0.001
Plastic limit = ×100
0.005
¿ 20
We repeated the above methodology for all 3 samples

Container No. 1 2 3
Plastic Limit

Mass of Container + wet soil (g) 0.012 0.017 0.017

Mass of Container + dry soil (g) 0.011 0.016 0.015
Mass of water 0.001 0.001 0.002
Mass of container (g) 0.006 0.006 0.006
Mass of dry soil (g) 0.01 0.01 0.01
Moisture content (%) 20 10 22

The plastic limit is determined as the average of the 3 moisture contents

20+10+22
Plastic limit =
3
¿ 17

14 | P a g e
THE DETERMINATION OF THE GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION IN SOILS BY
MEANS OF A HYDROMETER
Introduction
This method covers the quantitative determination of the distribution of particle sizes in soils.
The distribution of particles sizes larger than 0,075 mm is determined by sieving, while the
distribution of particle sizes smaller than 0,075mm is determined by a sedimentation process,
based on Stokes' law using a specially calibrated hydrometer.
Although it does not give absolute results, it gives comparable and consistent data.
Stokes law
Stokes law is a formula for determining the rate of sedimentation. It states that a particle moving
through a viscous liquid attains a constant velocity or sedimentation rate.
The rate can be very slow for particles whose density is close to that of the liquid, for particles whose
diameter is small.

Implications of Stokes law

 High density materials settle more rapidly than low density materials.
 Slow moving, highly viscous fluids such as mudflows can transport coarser grained materials
than less viscous fluids such as rivers despite their higher velocity.

From Stokes law it is possible to calculate the diameter, D of the particle that settles a
distance, h in time, t as follows;
18 μw h
( γ s−γ w ) > ¿
D=√ ¿
concentration sedimentationafter time t × S f
finer than D=
concentration of original suspension

Where;
μw =viscocity of water
h=depthof hydrometer
γ s=density of solid
γ w =density of water

APPARATUS
 Bouycous cylinder graduated at 1130 and 1205 ml
 Bouycous hydrometer
 A stop watch
 Sodium silicate solution
 Canning jar

15 | P a g e
PROCEDURE

 We weighed 100g of the fine material.

 We then transferred the weighed sample to a canning jar and poured about 400ml of distilled
water.
 Then added 5ml of Sodium silicate solution to the sample on the jar.
 We stirred the soil mixture using spatula and left it to stand tor overnight.
 After 24 hours we then dispersed it for 15 minutes with the standard dispersing paddle.
 We then poured the suspension into the Bouyoucos cylinder and then rinsed the canning jar
with distilled water from the wash-
bottle.
 We then filled the cylinder with
distilled water to the 1205 ml mark
with the hydrometer inside.
 We removed the hydrometer and
inverted the cylinder 30 times, using a
stopper over the mouth of the cylinder
to ensure that the temperature is
uniform throughout.
 We then inserted the hydrometer on
the cylinder with the suspension.
 We then started the stop watcher and
took the hydrometer readings at 18
seconds, 40 seconds, 1 hour and after
6 hours, the results were then
recorded[ CITATION TMH13 \l
Adding Sodium silicate to suspension
7177 ].

Calculations
( ρs− ρw ) >¿
18 uh
D=√
¿
D= particle diameter
Ps = Density of solid
Pw = Density of water
g = acceleration due to gravity
u = dynamic viscosity of fluid

t= settling time
Can further be simplified to
L
D=K √
t
D= Diameter (mm)
L = length (cm)

16 | P a g e
T = time (min)
The value K is a function of temperature and particle density and can be obtained from the Table 4
provided. The value of effective depth (L) for the ASTM 152H hydrometer can be found on Table 5.
Room temperature = 20 degrees

Sand (Gs) = 2.65

K= 0.0137
Mass of fines used (g) = 100grams according to TMH1
10.9
D=0.0137 √ = 0.055 mm
0.67
Hydrometer reading
Correction = ×100
Mass of soil

Corrected sedimentation after timet

% finer than D = × sf (stokes law)
concentrationof original suspension
34
= ×16.4 = 0.05576×100 = 5.576
100
All tables used for hydrometer analysis calculations are from Bowles, J.E., 1992, Engineering
Properties of Soils and Their Measurement, Fourth Edition: McGraw-Hill, New York, 241p

Hydrometer readings
Time(s) Diameter Reading Corr. Length(cm) Passing ( ¿
Reading
18 0.082 34 34 10.7 5.576
40 0.055 33 33 10.9 5.420
60 0.054 3 3 15.8 0.492
360 0.022 0 0 16.3 0

17 | P a g e
MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY AND OPTIMUM MOISTURE
CONTENT
Maximum dry density: The maximum density of a material for a specific compactive
effort is the highest density obtainable when the compaction is carried out on the material at
varied moisture contents.

Optimum moisture content: The optimum moisture content for a specific

compactive effort is the moisture content at which the maximum density is obtained.

Apparatus
 A mould, with a detachable collar and
base plate
 Sieves: 19.0 mm and 4.75 mm complying
with SABS 197.
 A 4,536 kg tamper with a 50.8 diameter
face and with a sheath to give a 457.2 ± 2
mm drop.
 A steel straight-edge, about 300 mm in
length and having one bevelled edge.
 A riffler. 19 mm Sieve complying with SABS 197
 A mixing basin.
 A garden trowel.
 A weighing scale.
 Motor and Pestle
 Measuring Cylinders
Method
Mixing
 5 samples of 7 kg of the sample material in different pans and water of different amounts is
added to each sample to obtain different moisture contents according to the specification
below;

Sample Mass of Sample Percentage of water to Mass of water to be

(grams) be added added (grams)
1 7000 3% 210
2 7000 6% 420
3 7000 9% 630
4 7000 12% 840
5 7000 15% 1050

18 | P a g e
Preparation of mould
 The volume of the mould is determined.
 The clean, dry mould is weighed and
assembled on the base plate with the
spacer plate.
 Two 150mm rounds of filter paper are
placed on the spacer plate to prevent the
material from sticking to the plate. The
collar is then fitted to the
mould[ CITATION TMH13 \l 7177 ].
Compaction
 The moist material is now mixed again
and about 1,000gram of material is
weighed out and transferred to the mould.
 The surface of the soil is levelled by hand
by pressing down and light tamping, and
tamped 55 times with a 4,536 kg tamper
5 of 7 kgs each samples in Pans
which is dropped exactly 457.2 mm.
 The blows must be well distributed over the whole layer when the tamper is raised,
the operator should ensure that the guide sheath is resting on the soil and that the
tamper is right at the top of the sheath before the tamper is dropped.
 The procedure is repeated for 5 layers in each mould[ CITATION TMH13 \l 7177 ].

Moisture Content
 A representative sample is taken from each basin and weighed to determine the
moisture content.
 The sample is then placed in the oven for 24 hours and reweighed to determine the
new mass after 24 hours

Mass of mould

 Remove the mould with compacted material from the base plate and weigh it
accurately to the nearest 5 gram.
 The compacted material can now be removed from the mould with an extruder or
other suitable means.
The process is repeated for all 5 samples

Calculations
Moisture content.
Mass of Water
Moisture Content ( MC)= × 100
Mass of soil
Mass of water= ( mass of container +wet material )−(mass of container +dry material)

Mass of soil=( mass of container + dry material )−mass of container

19 | P a g e
Dry Density
Density Wet Mass
Dry Density=
1+ Moisture Content
Where;
Wet Mass
Density of wet Mass=
Volume of Mould

Calculation for MDD sample 1

Mass of wet material = (Mass of mould + wet material) – mass of mould
= (9305) - 4680
= 4625g

Volume of mould = Area of base × Height

π d2
= ×h
4

152× 10−3 ¿ 2
¿
π¿
¿¿
−3 3
¿ 2.74 ×10 m
Mass of wet material
Wet density =
Volume of mould
4625
Wet density= −3
2.74 ×10
=1688.0 Kg/m 3

Mass of water = (mass of Container + wet soil)-(mass of Container + dry soil)

= (0.290)-(0.276)
=0.014g
Mass of dry soil= (mass of Container+ dry soil) - Mass of container
=0.276- 0.100
=0.176 g
mass of wet
moisture content= ×100
mass of dry
0.014
¿ × 100
0.176

20 | P a g e
 =8%
wet density
Dry density =
1+moisture content ( )
1688
¿
1+ 8
3
= 1563 kg /m
MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY AND OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT - Test Method: SANS 3001-GR 30

Mould No. 1 2 3 4 5
Mass of mould + wet material (g) 9305 9670 9610 9480 9465
Mass of mould (g) 4680 4680 4680 4680 4680

Mass of wet (g) 4625 4990 4930 4800 4785

Volume (m^3) 0.00274 0.00274 0.00274 0.00274 0.00274

Wet density (kg/m^3) 1688.0 1821.2 1799.3 1751.8 1746.4

Container No.
Mass of Container + wet soil (g) 0.290 0.315 0.310 0.373 0.440
Mass of Container + dry soil (g) 0.276 0.296 0.286 0.332 0.390

Mass of water (g) 0.014 0.019 0.024 0.041 0.050

Mass of container (g) 0.100 0.130 0.120 0.110 0.112

Mass of dry soil (g) 0.176 0.166 0.166 0.222 0.278

Moisture content (%) 8 11 14.5 18.5 22

Dry density (kg/m3) 1563.0 1640.7 1571.4 1478.3 1431.5

Maximum Dry Density (kg/m3) 1640.7

Optimum Moisture Content (%) 11

Moisture-density relationship
After the calculations have been completed the moisture contents were plotted graphically against the
respective dry densities. The peak of the curve indicates the optimum moisture content and the
maximum density of the material when compacted under this particular effort.

21 | P a g e
 Object 100

The Optimum moisture content and Maximum dry density is interpolated from the peak of the
curve

Max . Dry Density=¿ 1640.7

Optimum Moisture Content =¿ 11%

22 | P a g e
CALIFORNIA BEARING RATIO (CBR) TEST
General
The California Bearing Ratio (CBR) test is a penetration test meant for the evaluation of subgrade strength
of roads and pavements. The CBR test was developed by the California Division of Highway and is the
most widely used method for the design of flexible pavement.[ CITATION TMH13 \l 7177 ]

It is the ratio of force per unit area required to penetrate a soil mass with standard circular piston
at the rate of 1.25 mm/min. to that required for the corresponding penetration of a standard
material.

Apparatus
 Moulds with a detachable collar, a base plate, spacer plate and perforated soaking base plates.

 A 4.536 kg gram tamper with a 50.8 mm diameter face and with a sheath to give a 467.2 mm
drop.

 A 2,495 kg tamper with a 50.8 diameter face and with a sheath to give a 304.8 mm drop.

 Annular 4,536 surcharge weights for use during soaking or alternatively a combined unit for
items

 Perforated plates.

 A steel straight-edge

 A tripod.
 Dial gauges reading, to be fitted on tripod for measuring swell and one for measuring
depth of penetration
 A compression testing machine
Method
Preparation of moulds
 The volumes of three moulds are determined.
 The clean dry moulds are then weighed and one is assembled ready for tamping. Two
150 mm rounds of filter paper are placed on the spacer plate and the collar is fitted to
the mould.

Compaction
 The moist material (at the specified moisture content obtained using MDD) is
transferred from the tin to the mixing bath. It is thoroughly but rapidly mixed.
 The first mould is now tamped full of material, the excess material removed and only
the mould with the material weighed. A representative sample for moisture content is
now taken from the mixing bath.
 The procedure is repeated for the following specifications;
 4,536 kg tamper, 457.2 mm drop, five layers and 55 blows per layer.
 4,536 kg tamper, 457.2 mm drop, five layers and 25 blows per layer.
 2,495 kg tamper, 304.8 mm drop, three layers and 55 blows per layer.
The average of the two moisture content determinations, taken after the compaction of the
first and second moulds, is taken as the moulding moisture content for all three moulds.

23 | P a g e
24 | P a g e
Soaking
Each mould then placed on the filter paper with the finished off surface facing downwards
and screwed down tightly onto the soaking plate a perforated plate with adjustable stern is
then placed on top.
The whole assembly is then transferred to an empty soaking bath.
The tripod with the dial gauge is then placed on the moulds

Draining after soaking

After four days' soaking, the mould, with perforated plate is removed from the water. The
water is poured out by holding the mould in a slanting downward position and holding the
perforated plate and soaking weight in position.
It is held like this for about one minute and then returned to its normal position and allowed
to drain for 15 minutes on a grid or on a layer of chippings. The perforated plate with stem
and the soaking weight are removed carefully.

Penetration
We then loaded the moulds onto the penetration machine and obtained the force at different
penetration depths

Calculations
Swell (per cent)
( k−L)
S= ×100
127
Where;

S=swell expressed as a percentage of height of moulded material before soaking

k =dial guage reading after four day s' soaking

L=dial guage reading before soaking

California Bearing Ratio

For each specimen, the stress strain curve is drawn on a natural scale, i.e. the load readings are plotted
against the depth of penetration. The curves in initial stages have a concave upwards, in order to
obtain the true strain – stress relation. The point of intersection is the taken as the zero depth of
penetration.
Using the new zero, we read off the load at 2.54mm and 5.08 mm penetration. The readings for the
above depths of penetration are expressed as a percentage of the California standard.

Penetration California Standard

Millimetres Kilo Newtons (KN)
2.54 13.344
5.08 20.016

The percentage is called the California Bearing ratio (CBR) at the Particular depth. We used the CBR
at 2.54 mm penetration to assess the quality of material.

25 | P a g e
MDD Calculations
Mass of wet material = (Mass of mould + wet material) – mass of mould
= (9760) - 4823
= 4937g

Volume of mould = Area of base × Height

π d2
= ×h
4

152× 10−3 ¿ 2
¿
π¿
¿¿
−3 3
¿ 3.00 ×10 m
Mass of wet material
Wet density =
Volume of mould
4823
Wet density=
3.00 × 10−3
=1608 Kg/m 3

Mass of water = (mass of Container + wet soil)-(mass of Container + dry soil)

= (250)-(225)
=25g
Mass of dry soil= (mass of Container+ dry soil) - Mass of container
=225- 120
=105 g
mass of wet
moisture content= ×100
mass of dry
25
¿ ×100
105
= 24 %
wet density
Dry density =
1+moisture content ( )
1608
¿
1+24
3
= 1297 kg /m
Dry Density
Actual Compaction( )= × 100
Maximum Dry Density

26 | P a g e
 1297
= ×100
1640.7
=79%

27 | P a g e
 C.B.R. : Test Method: SANS 3001-GR 40

MOD AASHTO: 1640.7 MDD (for CBR)

OMC: 11 Compaction Effort A B C
mm A B C Mass of mould + wet material (g) 9670 9785 9770
0.635 0.12 0.13 0.15 Mass of mould (g) 4680 4820 4825
1.27 0.24 0.28 0.29 Mass of wet material (g) 4990 4965 4945
1.905 0.42 0.43 0.44 Volume of mould (m ) 3
0.003 0.003 0.003
2.54 0.64 0.62 0.58 Wet density (kg/ m3) 1821.2 1655 1648
3.175 0.70 0.90 0.66 Container No. 1 2 3
3.81 1.16 1.20 0.75 Mass of Container + wet soil (g) 0.315 0.315 0.315
4.445 1.46 1.42 0.87 Mass of Container + dry soil (g) 0.296 0.296 0.296
5.08 1.78 1.67 1.35 Mass of water (g) 0.019 0.019 0.019
5.715 2.14 1.93 1.69 Mass of container (g) 0.130 0.130 0.130
6.35 2.43 2.25 1.98 Mass of dry soil (g) 0.166 0.166 0.166
6.985 2.70 2.52 2.23 Moisture content (%) 11 11 11
7.62 2.98 2.76 2.48 Dry density (kg/m )3
1640.7 1491 1484.7
8.255 3.30 2.92 2.78 Actual Compaction achieved (%) 100 90.9 90.5
8.89 3.60 3.10 3.05
9.525 3.88 3.35 3.29
Penetration reading (kN) from graph Swell after 4 days of soaking (initial length = 170 mm)
mm Before (mm) 0 0 0
2.5 5.26% 7.52% 4.14% After (mm) 82 82.8 85
5.0 15.04% 14.29% 9.02% Swell (%) 48.2 48.7 50

28 | P a g e
This is a graph showing the relation between the CBR and Dry density read at 2.5mm

CBR vs Dry density

8
7
6
5
CBR (%)

4
3
2
1
0
1460 1480 1500 1520 1540 1560 1580 1600 1620 1640 1660
Dry density (kg/m^3)

29 | P a g e
Conclusion
During the course of the experiment, we have come across several factors that classify or indicate the
properties and the nature of the soil.

Atterberg limits
Findings and Conclusions
When we tested the soil according to the atterberg limits, a plasticity index of -3 was obtained. This
value clarifies that the soil has no plasticity.

Comments
A soil may or may not deform under stress would be related to whether it is cohesive or non-
cohesive. If some soils do not have sufficient mechanical interlock they require amounts of cohesive
materials to give a satisfactory performance. A deficiency of clay binder may cause ravelling of
gravel wearing courses during dry weather and excessive permeability.

California Bearing Ratio

Findings and Conclusions
On the 100% compaction effort a CBR value of 5.26% was read at a penetration of 2.5 mm. This
value indicates that the soil is sandy. [ CITATION Jon17 \l 7177 ]

Comments
The lower the value of the CBR, the weaker the strength of the subgrade. This indicates that a
subgrade of this material will be poor in strength of withstanding loads.

Hydrometer
Findings and conclusions
At 18 seconds the hydrometer read a value of 34 and at 40seconds the reading was 33 then after an
hour the reading was 3.

Comments
This indicates that the particles were quite heavy and settled at an accelerated velocity in the first few
seconds, after an hour almost all the particles were settled. After 6 hours the particles were all settled.
This means a highly sandy soil

Silt = 6%
Sand = 50%
Gravel = 44%
Therefore our
material is gravely
– sand material.

[ CITATION
TMH13 \l 7177 ]

30 | P a g e
Task 2
Definition of soils and gravels
Soil can be defined as a material consisting of rock particles, sand, silt, and clay and is formed by the
gradual decomposition of rocks due to natural processes that include;
Disintegration of rock that occurs due to stresses arising from expansion or contraction with
temperature.
Weathering and decomposition due to chemical changes that occur when water, oxygen and carbon
dioxide gradually combine with minerals within the rock formation, thus breaking it down to sand and
clay.
Transportation of soil materials by wind, water and ice to form different soil formations, such as those
found in river deltas, sand dunes and glacial deposits.
Temperature, rainfall and drainage play an important roles in the formation of soils in different
climatic regions.

Material Classification Systems

Graded crushed stone; G1, G2, G3.
Natural gravels; G4, G5, G6.
Gravel-soil; G7, G8, G9, G10.
Waterbound Macadam; WM.
Dump Rock; DR.

List of all tests performed on crushed stone

 Sieve size analyses.

 Grading modulus.
 Flakiness Index
 Liquid limit test.
 Linear shrinkage test.
 California Bearing Ratio (CBR).
 Maximum Dry Density (MDD).
 Hydrometer test.

31 | P a g e
Crushed stone
Sieve analysis
A sieve analysis (or gradation test) is a practice or procedure used (commonly used in civil
engineering) to assess the particle size distribution (also called gradation) of a granular material by
allowing the material to pass through a series of sieves of progressively smaller mesh size and
weighing the amount of material that is stopped by each sieve as a fraction of the whole mass.
[ CITATION Wik19 \l 7177 ]
The crushed stone is sieved through 53mm to 0.075mm sieve sizes and the retained material is
compared to the ranges specified on the TRH14 document.

Grading modulus

It is obtained by calculating the material retained in the last three sieves 2mm, 0.425mm and
0.075mm.

Flakiness index

The Flakiness Index of a coarse aggregate is the mass of particles in that aggregate, expressed as a
percentage of the total mass of that aggregate, which will pass the slot or slots of specified width
for the appropriate size fraction

The liquid limit

The liquid limit of a soil is the moisture content, expressed as a percentage of the mass of the
oven-dried soil, at the boundary between the liquid and plastic states.

The liquid limit of the crushed stone is compared to the specified maximum liquid limit on the
TRH14 document.

The plasticity index

The plasticity index of a soil is the numerical, difference between the liquid limit and the plastic
limit of the soil and indicates the magnitude of the range of the moisture contents over which the
soil is in a plastic condition.

The plastic index of the material is obtained and compared to the required maximum that is
specified. The plasticity of the material is less than 4.

The linear shrinkage

The linear shrinkage of a soil for the moisture content equivalent to the liquid limit, is the
decrease in one dimension, expressed as a percentage of the original dimension of the soil mass,
when the moisture content is reduced from the liquid limit to an oven-dry state.

The linear shrinkage percentage of the material is compared to the maximum required percentage,
and for crushed stone the linear shrinkage is less than 3%.

32 | P a g e
 The maximum dry density
The maximum density of a material for a specific compactive effort is the highest density
obtainable when the compaction is carried out on the material at varied moisture contents.
The maximum dry density of the crushed stone is compared to the specified one on the document and
falls within the range.

The swell
The swell of the crushed stone of the material is also compared to the specified one on the
document.

Classification criteria

G1 classified material
G1 quality material was developed during the late 1950’s when some observant Engineers noticed
that this material would sometimes, after a sudden downpour and towards the end of its
compaction cycle, exhibit the tendency to expel some of its fines (minus 0.075mm material),
resulting in the aggregate “locking up” into a tightly knit matrix, instead of becoming unstable as
other gravels do under similar circumstances.
G1 quality material should be obtained from the same sound parent rock or clean, sound boulders
i.e. fines can be introduced to achieve the required grading, but they must come from the same
parent rock.
It is exceptionally water resistant and the only unbound road building material found to increase
in bearing capacity to accommodate any increase in loading up.

G2 and G3 classified material

G2 and G3 quality materials specifications are slightly more lenient, and allow the use of coarse
gravel as a parent material, as well as the additional of non-parent fines.
It is sometimes preferred because it doesn’t have to be produced and constructed to as tight
specifications as G1.

33 | P a g e
References
Jones, J., 2017. California bering ratio typical valus. [Online]
Available at: https://www.cbrtesting.com/california-bearing-ratio-typical-values/
[Accessed 18 May 2019].

SANS, 2013. Wet preparation and particle size, Pretoria: SABS Standards Division.

TMH1, 2013. Materials Testing, PRETORIA: South African Pavement Engineering Manual.

TRH14, 1985. Technical Recommendations for Highways, Pretoria: Department of Transport .

Wikipedia, 2019. Wikipedia. [Online]

Available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sieve_analysis
[Accessed 20 May 2019].

34 | P a g e
ANNEXURE

35 | P a g e
GROUP NO. 3
CIVIL ENGINEERING
CONSTRUCTIONS IIA (CCOV201)

ANNEXURE A – MARKING GUIDELINE

Section Mark
Report presentation 10
Cover page and table of contents and page numbering 3
General neatness and presentation  Report structure/coherence 2
Stating purpose of the report, etc. 2
3

Video 30
• Making a video of all the tests 18
• Accurate and proper description of tests, methods and apparatus 12

Results & Calculations cy of raw data 88

• Accura and interpretation
− Relative density 1
− MDD 3
− CBR 5
− Sieve analysis 2
− Hydrometer analysis 2
− Atterberg limits 2

• Presen tation of results and calculations (use forms and typed) 5

• Correc tness of results and calculations
− 3
Relative density
− 15
MDD
− 25
CBR 8
− Sieve analysis 5
− Hydrometer analysis 12
− Atterberg limits
15
Conclusion and recommendations for Task 1 3
• Conclusions and findings drawn from the experiment 5
• Comments on the particular soil sample and results 2
• Application of relevant theory 5
• Proper Classification of material
Task 2 22
• Listing all tests performed on crushed stone (TRH14 and/or COLTO) 7
• Proper description of properties 10
• Explain classification criteria 5

Referencing 5
• Citation in text 3
• Reference list 2

Attendance of lab demonstrations for tests not included in the report 5

36 | P a g e
Total 175

Group Mark = /175 = %

GROUP NO. 3

This is to declare that we have participated as follows in the executing all tasks:
Student Number Student Name % Participation Mark Allocated (%)
219219672 Ndyaluvana L 100
218188285 Madiya O 100
216415055 Tamako NT 100

217822711 Sobekwa O 100

219266042 Katureebe HJ 100

NB: each student’s mark will depend on their participation.

37 | P a g e
38 | P a g e
39 | P a g e