Appendix 4.4 - FUO Geotechnical Survey

Federal University Otuoke
Bayelsa State
Nigeria
Geotechnical Survey of Campus Site
TEKS Geotechnical Consulting (Nigeria) Ltd | HAALP Consult Ltd
May 2013
HAALP Consult Limited & TEKS Geotechnical Consultancy (Nigeria) Limited | FUO |Geo Technical Survey |March-May 2013 1
Executive Summary
TEKS Geotechnical Consultancy (Nigeria) Limited, Port Harcourt, Rivers State was commissioned by
HAALP Consult Limited Associates Limited provide specialist advice regarding a geotechnical
investigation of the subsurface at the proposed site of the Federal University, Otuoke, Bayelsa State for
the purpose of providing up to date information about soil conditions that could assist with the physical
planning of the university campus site and the design of appropriate foundation system for building
structures and infrastructure to be developed within the site . The field investigations commenced on
Wednesday 27 February 2013 and were completed on Friday 15 March 2013 with the demobilization of
SPT Rigs and Hand Augers as well as geophysical tools from the project site.
Field investigations involved conducting detailed geotechnical drilling totalling eighteen (18 ) borings to
a depth of thirty (30) meters using percussion rigs and twenty-nine (29) borings using the Hand Auger to
3-meters in depth. The geotechnical drilling involved conducting a Standard Penetration Tests (SPT) and
taking both disturbed and undisturbed samples and testing these in laboratories to study their
geotechnical engineering parameters. A detailed geophysical study was also carried out. This comprised
of Vertical Electrical Sounding (VES) and Constant Separation Traversing (CST) to determine various soil
types and their corresponding apparent resistivity. Moreover, chemical analyses of the soil samples
were carried to ascertain their corrosivity.
The results of geotechnical investigations and laboratory testing carried out on the soil samples
obtained from the project site, suggest that basically about FIVE (5) identifiable soil horizons are present
and these are namely:
(i) Brownish Clayey layer (CL) - [Top Soil]
(ii) Greyish Organic Silty Clays (OL)
(iii) Greyish Clayey Silty Sands (SM) and (SC-SM)
(iv) Yellowish to whitish Silty Sands (SM)
(v) Well-graded Sands and Gravels (SW)
Groundwater was encountered during the investigation at depths ranging from 2.40m to 3.50m. The
various geotechnical engineering properties of each of the sub-soils are summarized in Tables 8a-8r of
this report. Tables E1 and E2 , below, show the summary of bearing capacity values derived from Field
SPT soundings and the results of chemical tests on soil samples collected from the Federal University
Otuoke project site.
Table E1: Summary of Bearing Capacity Values derived from Field SPT Soundings at the Federal University Otuoke
Project Site, Ogbia, Bayelsa State
S/No. Borings GPS Locations Range of Bearing

No. of Boring Northing Easting Pressures (kPa)
Boring Number [ S.F. = 3.00]
1. Campus (Phase 1) [Built-up 1 #1 N 04o 47’ E 006o 110.16 – 275.40 kPa
Site] 33.45” 19’19.92”
2. Engineering & 1 #5 N 04o 47’ E 006o 291.14 – 377.70kPa
Maintenance 30.04” 19’31.83”
3. Sports / Recreation 1 #4 N 04o 47’ E 006o 55.08 – 70.82 kPa
42.9” 19’34.8”
4. Research Park 1 #9 N 04o 47’ E 006o 70.82 – 291.14 kPa
43.70” 19’37.13”
5. Teaching Core 3 # 6, N 04o 47’ E 006o 118.03 – 220.32 kPa
7& 8 34.51” 19’35.54” 141.64 – 212.45 kPa
149.50 – 220.32 kPa
6. Central Administration 2 # 10 N 04o 47’ E 006o 141.64 – 267.53 kPa
Area & 11 43.61” 19’40.39” 86.56 - 354.09 kPa
7. Student Accommodation 2 # 12 N 04o 47’ E 006o 110.16 – 299.01 kPa
& 13 35.56” 19’42.08” 55.08 - 243.93 kPa
8. University Centre 1 # 18 N 04o 47’ E 006o 133.77 - 275.40 kPa
37.90” 19’45.71”
9. Senior Staff Housing Area 1 # 17 N 04o 47’ E 006o 141.64 – 314.75 kPa
44.37” 19’50.69”
10. Junior Staff Quarters 1 #2 N 04o 47’ E 006o 133.77 – 314.25 kPa
36.03” 19’19.04”
11. Registrar’s Residence Area 1 # 16 N 04o 47’ E 006o 133.78 – 314.75 kPa
39.35” 19’50.84”
12. Guest Cottages 1 # 15 N 04o 47’ E 006o 62.95 – 133.77 kPa
33.30” 19’52.12”
13. Vice-Chancellor’s Lodge 1 # 14 N 04o 47’ E 006o 86.56 – 204.59 kPa
27.81” 19’51.78”
14. University Commercial 1 #3 N 04o 47’ E 006o 62.95 – 141.64 kPa
Centre 41.04” 19’28.13”
Total No of Borings .x18 No. .x18 No.
Table E2: Results of Chemical Tests on the Soils at the Project Site
S/No. Site BH # Sample Depth of pH Cl- SO4-2 Organic
No. Sample value (g/g) (g/g) Matter
(m) (%)
1. Federal ZONE A
University,
Otuoke, Otuoke, BH #s A 2m 4.5 8.9 126.3 0.41
Bayelsa Site. 1,2,3,4,5 &9
2. Federal ZONE B
University,
BH #s
Otuoke, Otuoke, 6,7,8,12 B 4m 4.5 12.8 278.2 0.52
Bayelsa Site. &13
3. Federal ZONE C
University,
BH #s
Otuoke, Otuoke, 10,11,14,15, C 3m 4.7 13.2 298.2 0.64
Bayelsa Site. 16, 17 &18
4. Baseline Data
(far from site). BH2 BL3 3m 4.6 26.7 2.4 Not Detected
Allowable Code
5. Standards, - - - 7.00 2% of 5% of 0.00
[ ACI Code] concrete concrete
On the basis of the computations carried out on data retrieved from the field, the following conclusions
and recommendations are made:
(1) The obtained value for the Bearing Capacity for Isolated Footings to be used at the project site is
about 195.35 + 1.1867B [kPa] where B = Width of the Structure to be built. For a B = 5.00
meters, the Bearing Capacity has been found to be 201.284 kPa. The recommended depth of
emplacement of Isolated Footings is 1.50 meters. This value represents the bearing capacity of
the upper bearing Lateritic Clayey Sands at the Project Site.
(2) The obtained value for the Bearing Capacity for Continuous Strip Footings to be used at the
project site is about 153.35 + 1.483B [kPa] where B = Width of the Structure to be built. For a B =
5.00 meters, the Bearing Capacity has been found to be 160.76 kPa. The recommended depth of
emplacement of Continuous Strip Footings is 0.75 meters. This value represents the bearing
capacity of the upper bearing Lateritic Clays and Silty-Clays at the project site.
(3) The range of values obtained for the Bearing Capacity for Raft Footings at the Project Site, based
on the methods of Meyerhof (1974); Bowles (1988); Terzaghi & Peck (1967); Brinch Hansen
(1968) and the conventional SPT Method is between 76.55 and 208.86 kPa with an average of
122.85 kPa. The recommended depth of emplacement of Raft Footings is 1.50 meters. This
value represents the bearing capacity of the upper bearing Lateritic Clays and Silty-Clays at the
project site.
(4) A value of qallowed = [14.4] + [(9.964T)/( B x L)] kN / m2 can be used as the allowable Soil Pressure
on the soil at the project site, since this value should be less than the average value of the
allowable soil pressure (bearing capacity ), q(allow) of the soils at site. [Note: B = breadth; L =
Length of structures at site].
(5) The computed settlement data for the project area indicate that the Immediate Settlement
value for the Project Site is estimated to be about i = 0.0000132(T) (B) (meters), where T = the
Dead weight of the Buildings at site. This is the settlement expected to take place during the
construction phase of the Buildings at the project site.
(6) The computed settlement data for the project area indicate that the Long-Term Settlement
value for the buildings at the site is estimated to be about 0.000132 T + {(0.520) Log 10 (1
+0.01498 T)} (meters), where T = the estimated Dead Weight of the buildings. This is the
settlement expected to take place long after the construction phase of the buildings at the
various zones at the project sites.
(7) About 50% of the settlements will have taken place about 3.70 years after construction, while
90% of the settlement will take place after about 15.728 years after the completion of the
buildings at the University Complex.
(8) Since the buildings at a University Campus are subjected to live loads from the movements of
different numbers of students in a continuous day-to-day fashion over the years, the potential
of the silty soils becoming liquefied as a result of human traffic-induced vibration was also
assessed during this investigation, since this is a permanent structure for the foreseeable future.
Soil dynamics analysis carried out by us indicate that there will be no possibility of Soil
Liquefaction at the project site as a result of vibration from live loads and structures. This is
considered not to be possible, even though the groundwater table was found to be near the
surface, because of the absence of totally silty soils beneath the ground surface.
(9) Foundation concrete should be dense and impermeable for protection against Sulphate attack
especially in areas likely to be in contact with surface or groundwater.
(10) The pH value of 4.5 is low and therefore may enhance corrosion of buried pipes and metals.
(11) Generally the resistivity in the project area is quite high, which could have entailed non-
corrosive environment. However, for the slightly lower resistivity that could be expected during
the rainy season, it may therefore be recommended that some precautions be taken on the
pipe-works e.g. bonded Coatings of the pipes or better still a Cathodic Protection could be
incorporated.
(12) Sulphate-resistant Cement may be used for the foundation concrete (cement content not less
than 330 kg/m, Max. W/C 0.50 or Sulphate-resisting cement with cement content not less than
290 kg/m, Max. W/C 0.50)
(13) The specific values obtained at this site are higher than those recommended values by IEEE
Green Book (1992). Hence irrespective of the point chosen for Earthing at the project sited, the
earth conductivity must be improved upon by the addition of ground enhancement material
such as mixing charcoal and coke with salts like sodium chloride or magnesium chloride or
better still some of the artificial gels, and buried at depths of between 4 – 5 meters.
(14) The apparent resistivity values obtained for the specific depths are somehow high so that the
conductivity of the soil needs to be improved upon for any effective earthing facility to be put in
place. The area in terms of resistivity does not pose any problem as a corrosive soil. However,
due to seasonal changes especially during the wet season, the Resistivity is expected to be
lowered, the percentage of which depends on the amount of moisture available.
(15) The subsurface layers delineated consist of the topsoil, sand-and-clay, intercalating with each
other. The clay layer is deep in some of the areas investigated thus negating the use of shallow
foundations. Pile foundation will suffice for the area or any other design that will adequately take
care of the clay layers such as Raft Foundation.
(16) On the basis of the geotechnical considerations for structures such as the proposed University
single or multiple office Blocks; laboratory buildings and various categories and sizes of
Residential Buildings at the Campus site, the Geotechnical Consultants highly recommend that
the above findings be strictly adhered to.
Acknowledgements
We wish to register our profound gratitude to the management of HAALP Consult for the opportunity
given us to make our modest contributions to the Federal University Otuoke Project by carrying out
detailed, integrated Geotechnical and Geophysical investigations at the proposed site. In this vein, we
would like to appreciate the immense assistance we received during our field investigations from E.Z
Chmara (Director, HAALP Consult), Mr. Opiriba Ikiriko (HAALP Supervisor on site) and representatives of
the Director of Works (Dr. Oloye and his team) Federal University Otuoke. They were very helpful in
providing details about our scope of work during the field operations of our study.
The approval of the Vice Chancellor of the Federal University Otuoke, Bayelsa State is most graciously
acknowledged. The assistance of the Chief Security Officer (and his team) of the Federal university
Otuoke is also appreciated. TEKS Geotechnical Consultancy (Nigeria) Limited, would like to thank the
various field staff of TGCL for their execution of this work (supervisors, technicians/technologists, drillers
and assistant drillers especially Mr. Brown Otuma, the senior driller and his assistant drillers; laboratory
personnel, field assistants and drivers). Their contributions are also highly appreciated.
We also wish to acknowledge the wonderful cooperation of the Civil Engineering Department of the
Rivers State University of Science and Technology, Port Harcourt, where the soil samples were analysed
for geotechnical property evaluations. In this regard we are especially grateful to Venerable Dr.
(Engineer) Chukuigwe of the Petroleum/Petrochemical Department and Mr. Eferigbo of the Civil
laboratory. In the same vein, we sincerely thank the Laboratory staff of the Institute of Pollution Studies
(IPS), especially Mr. Ikoro, who undertook the careful chemical analyses of the soils from the project
site. Above all, we thank all staff of TEKS Geotechnical Consultancy (Nigeria) Limited, especially Ms.
Oghoin-Olem Cletus Oruene who did almost all the computer-graphics in the Report, Ms. Gift Nsirimaobi
and other staff for all their co-operations in the timely execution of this important project.
Sir (Professor) S.C. Teme Ms. Oghoin-olem C. Oruene

Managing Consultant Co-ordinating Consultant
List of Consultants
Project Coordinator: Ms. Oghoin-Olem Cletus Oruene, MNMGS.;

B.Sc. (Geology) UNN;
M.Sc. (Petroleum Geology) Ibadan
Data Collection
Senior Consultant: Sir(Prof.)S.C. Teme Ph.D; FNMGS; COMEG
Consultants Ms. O.Cletus Oruene.B.Sc.(Geology); M.Sc.(Geol)
Mr. Jacob Ori-itemem.B.Sc.(AUE PHC.)
Data Processing / Interpretation

Principal Consultant Sir(Prof.)S.C. Teme Ph.D; FNMGS; COMEG
Consultants Ms. O.Cletus Oruene.B.Sc.(Geology); M.Sc.(Geol)
Geology
Senior Consultants: Sir(Prof.) S.C. Teme FNMGS; COMEG.
Consultants Ms. O.Cletus Oruene.B.Sc. (Geology); M.Sc.(Geol)
Mr. Prosper Ogbunie.B.Sc.(Geol); M.Phil.(Env. Mgt)
Monitoring Mr. Olise Oppiah.B.Sc. (Geol); UPH
Geotechnical
Senior Consultant: Sir(Prof.) S.C. Teme FNMGS; COMEG.
Consultants Ms. O.Cletus Oruene B.Sc.(Geology); M.Sc.(Geol)
Mr. Prosper Ogbunie.B.Sc.(Geol); M.Phil.(Env. Mgt)
Mr. Alex Jamani. B.Sc.(Geol)
Auto-Cad Consultants Ms. O.Cletus Oruene.B.Sc. (Geology); M.Sc.(Geol)

Ms. Gift Nsirimobi (Secretary)
Logistics: Mr. Jacob Oritemem

Mr. Gibson Gboode (Yard superintendent)
TEKS/HAALP Steering Group Sir(Prof.)S.C. Teme Ph.D; FNMGS; COMEG

Mr Ikiriko Opiriba Karibi. Bachelor of Urban and Regional
Planning (B.URP) UNN, University Diploma RSUST; MNES;
MNITP
Mr Edward Zbigniew Chmara, MA (Urban & Regional
Planning); BSc (Econ), MRTPI
Table of Contents
Page
Cover Page
Executive Summary… … … … … … … … … I
Acknowledgements… … … … … … … … … … vi
List of Consultants… … … … … … … … … … vii
Table of Contents… … … … … … … … … … viii
List of Figures… … …. … … … … … … … … xiv
List of Tables… … … … … … … … … … … xvi
List of Appendices … … …. … … … … … … … xix
1.0 Introduction… … … … … … … … … 15
2.0 Description Of Project Site… … … … … … … 17
3.0 Subsurface Condition… … … … … … … … … 21
4.0 Geophysical Investigation… … … … … … … … 34
5.0 Discussion of Geophysical Results… … … … … … 60
6.0 Conclusion and Recommendation Based on Geophysical Investigation… 67
7.0 Chemical Tests Of Subsurface Materials … … … … … … 69
8.0 Laboratory and Field Investigations, Results and Analyses… … … 70
9.0 Discussion of Results of Investigations In Relation to Foundation System Design and Construction 118
10.0 Summary and Concluding Remarks… … … … … … … 151
Appendices… … … … … … .. … … .. … 154
List of Figures
Figure 1: A Site Assessment Chart (Modified after Andrew-SatCom-Africa)… … … … 16
Figure 2a: Vertical Satellite imagery of the site of the Federal University, Otuoke, Bayelsa State,
showing the distribution of the Boring points… … … … … … 17
Figure 2b: Orthogonal Satellite Imagery of Federal University Otuoke, Bayelsa State, showing the
distribution of the Boring points… … … … … … … 18
Figure 2c: Another Orthogonal view of the Satellite Imagery of Federal University Site, Otuoke
Bayelsa State, showing the distribution of the Boring points… … … … … 18
Figure 3: Topography and the Vegetation Pattern at the site of the Federal University, Otuoke,
Bayelsa State… … … … … … … … … 19
Figure 3b: Vegetation Pattern at the site of the Teaching Core of the Federal University, Otuoke,
Bayelsa State… … … … … … … … … 20
Figure 3c: Another Vegetation Pattern at the site of the Teaching Core of the Federal University,
Otuoke, Bayelsa State… … … … … … … … 20
Figures 4a: Setting up of a Percussion Rig used at the project site… … … … … 22
Figures 4b: Soil retrieval process by a combined team of two rigs during the Percussion drilling
at the project site… … … … … … … … … 23
Figure 5a: Schematic Fence Diagram showing the Borings in ZONE A at the Project Site…. … 31
Figure 5b: Schematic Fence Diagram showing the Borings in ZONE B at the Project Site… … 32
Figure 5c: Schematic Fence Diagram showing the Borings in ZONE C at the Project Site … 33
Figure 6a: Outline of Geophysical Sounding Profiles at the Federal University Otuoke … 35
Figure 6b: General Outlay of the Federal University, Otuoke showing Field Boring Locations… … 36
Figure 7a: The Geological Map of Bayelsa State… … …. … … … … 37
Figure 7b: The Geological Map of the Area Surveyed. … … … … 38
Figure 8a The Photograph of the Geophysical Survey Group during Investigation… … … 39
Figure 8b: The Photograph of the Geophysical Survey Group during Investigation… … … 39
Figure 8c: Mud-cracks at the Site Showing the Clayey Nature of the Soil in the Bulldozed Areas… 39
Figure 9a: The Schlumberger Depth Sounding Curves beneath VES 1... … … … 44
Figure 9b: The Schlumberger Depth Sounding Curves beneath VES 2... … … … 45
Figure 9c: The Schlumberger Depth Sounding Curves beneath VES 3... … … … 46
Figure 9d: The Schlumberger Depth Sounding Curves beneath VES 4... … … … 47
Figure 9e: The Schlumberger Depth Sounding Curves beneath VES 5... … … … 48
Figure 9f: The Schlumberger Depth Sounding Curves beneath VES 6... … … … 49
Figure 9g: The Schlumberger Depth Sounding Curves beneath VES 7... … … … 50
Figure 9h: The Schlumberger Depth Sounding Curves beneath VES 8... … … … 51
Figure 9i: The Schlumberger Depth Sounding Curves beneath VES 9... … … … 52
Figure 9j: The Schlumberger Depth Sounding Curves beneath VES 10... … … … 53
Figure 9k: The Schlumberger Depth Sounding Curves beneath VES 11... … … … 54
Figure 9l: The Schlumberger Depth Sounding Curves beneath VES 12... … … … 55
Figure 9m: The Schlumberger Depth Sounding Curves beneath VES 13... … … … 56
Figure 9n: The Schlumberger Depth Sounding Curves beneath VES 14... … … … 57
Figure 9o: The Schlumberger Depth Sounding Curves beneath VES 15... … … … 58
Figure 9p: The Schlumberger Depth Sounding Curves beneath VES 16... … … … 59
Figure 10a: The Geo-electric Section beneath Profile AA’... … … … … … 65
Figure 10b: The Geo-electric Section beneath Profile BB’… … … … … … 66
Figure 11: Schematic of dimensions of an Isolated Footing … … … … … 98
Figure 12: Schematic of dimensions of a Continuous Strip Footing… … … … … 102
Figure 13: Schematic representation the Raft Foundation… … .. … … … 104
Figure 14: Net Pressure on footing with backfill (assuming top of Raft footing above ground surface)… 111
Figure 15: Factors for Calculating the Average Immediate Settlement of Loaded Area… … … 114
Figure 16a: Plot of Pile Load Vs Depth for Pile Diameters of 400mm and 600mm at the Federal
University Otuoke Zone A [BH# 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 9]… … … … … 127
Figure 16b: Plot of Pile Load vs. Depth for Pile Diameters of 800mm and 1000mm at the Federal
University Otuoke Zone A [BH# 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 9]… … … … … 128
University Otuoke Zone B [BH# 6, 7, 8, 12 and 13]. .. … … … … 133
University Otuoke Zone B [BH# 6, 7, 8, 12 and 13]… … … … … 134
University Otuoke Zone C [BH# 10, 11, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18]… … … … 139
University Otuoke Zone C[BH# 10, 11, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18]… … … … 140
Figure 19: Correlation between field Liquefaction behavior of sands for level ground conditions and
penetration resistance, supplemented by data from large scale tests (after Seed, 1979)… 143
Figure 20: Range of Values of r/d for different soil profiles in Liquefaction Potentials analyses
(after Seed & Idriss, 1971)…. … … … … … … … 145
List of Tables
Table 1: Visual Inspection for Site Assessment… … … … … … … 16
Table 2: Ground Elevations and Ground Water Tables at Boring Locations at Project Site… .. 21
Table 3: Rough Indications of Soil Corrosivity vs. Resistivity… … … … … 63
Table 4a: Schlumberger Depth Sounding Data at Federal University Otuoke, Bayelsa State… … 67
Table 4b: Schlumberger Depth Sounding Data at Federal University Otuoke, Bayelsa State… … 68
Table 4c: The Geographical Coordinates of the Investigated Profiles at Federal University Otuoke,
State using Geographical Positioning Systems (GPS) Map 76s… … … … 68
Table 5: Summary of Bearing Capacity Values derived From Field SPT Soundings at the Federal
University Otuoke Project Site, Ogbia, Bayelsa State… … … … … 74
Table 6: Consolidation, Bearing and Drainage Characteristics of Materials of the Federal
University, Otuoke Site, Bayelsa State… … … … … … … 76
Table 7: Results of Chemical Tests on the Soils at the Project Site… … … … … 77
Table 8a: Summary of Geotechnical Properties for the Sub-Soils at the Federal University
Otuoke, Bayelsa State [Boring No.1] … … … … … … … 79
Table 8b: Summary of Geotechnical Properties for the Sub-Soils at the Federal University
Otuoke, Bayelsa State [Boring No. 2]… … … … … … … 80
Table 8c: Summary of Geotechnical Properties for the Sub-Soils at the Federal University
Otuoke, Bayelsa State [Boring No. 3] … … … … … … … 81
Table 8d: Summary of Geotechnical Properties for the Sub-Soils at the Federal University
Table 8e: Summary of Geotechnical Properties for the Sub-Soils at the Federal University
Table 8f: Summary of Geotechnical Properties for the Sub-Soils at the Federal University
Otuoke, Bayelsa State [Boring No.6]… … … … … … … 84
Table 8g: Summary of Geotechnical Properties for the Sub-Soils at the Federal University
Table 8h: Summary Of Geotechnical Properties For The Sub-Soils At The Federal University
Table 8i: Summary Of Geotechnical Properties For The Sub-Soils At The Federal University
Table 8j: Summary Of Geotechnical Properties For The Sub-Soils At The Federal University
Table 8k: Summary Of Geotechnical Properties For The Sub-Soils At The Federal University
Table 8l: Summary of Geotechnical Properties for the Sub-Soils at the Federal University
Table 8m: Summary of Geotechnical Properties for the Sub-Soils at the Federal University
Table 8n: Summary of Geotechnical Properties for the Sub-Soils at the Federal University
Otuoke, Bayelsa State [Boring No.14]… … … … … … … 92
Table 8o: Summary of Geotechnical Properties for the Sub-Soils at the Federal University
Table 8p: Summary of Geotechnical Properties for the Sub-Soils at the Federal University
Table 8q: Summary of Geotechnical Properties for the Sub-Soils at the Federal University
Table 8r: Summary of Geotechnical Properties for the Sub-Soils at the Federal University
Table 9: Values of Terzaghi Bearing Capacity Factors… … … … … … 99
Table 10: Meyerhof’s And Bowles’ Equations for Computing Footing Bearing Capacity… … … 106
Table 11: Values of Bearing Capacities of Project Site Sub-Soils, Based On SPT N-Values… … 107
Table 12: Bearing Capacity Values for the Federal University Otuoke, Bayelsa State Foundation
[Df = 1.50m], (Based On F.S = 3.0)… … … … … … … 109
Table 13: A Sensitivity Analysis of Bearing Capacities of Project Site Soils for Isolated and Raft
Foundations, Federal University Otuoke, Bayelsa State… … … … … 110
Table 14: The Final Average Values of Bearing Capacity for Isolated and Raft Foundations at
different Foundation Depths… … … … … … … … 110
Table 15: Summary of Computed Settlements at the Project Site… … … … … 116
Table 16: Summary of the Computed Rates of Settlements for the Site at the Federal University
Otuoke, Bayelsa State… … … … … … … … … 117
Table 17: Values of Pile Bearing Capacities for Various Pile Diameters for the Buildin Foundations… 122
Table 18a: Geotechnical Design of Pile Foundation for Proposed 2 or More Storey Buildings at
the Federal University Otuoke, Bayelsa State Project [Zone A- Casing Diameter: 400mm]… 123
Table 18b: Geotechnical Design of Pile Foundation for Proposed 2 or More Storey Buildings at
the Federal University, Otuoke, Bayelsa State Project [Zone A- Casing Diameter: 600mm]… 124
Table 18c: Geotechnical Design of Pile Foundation for Proposed 2 or More Storey Buildings at
the Federal University, Otuoke Bayelsa State Project [Zone A- Casing Diameter: 800mm]… 125
Table 18d: Geotechnical Design of Pile Foundation for Proposed 2 or More Storey Buildings at
the Federal University, Otuoke, Bayelsa State Project [Zone A- Casing Diameter: 1000mm]… 126
the Federal University, Otuoke, Bayelsa State Project [Zone B- Casing Diameter: 400mm]… 129
the Federal University, Otuoke, Bayelsa State Project [Zone C- Casing Diameter: 400mm]… 135
the Federal University, Otuoke Bayelsa State Project [Zone C- Casing Diameter: 1000mm]… 138
List of Appendices
Appendix Ai' - Borehole Logs … … … … … … … … … 155
Appendix Aii '- Hand Auger Borings … … … … … … … … 176
Appendix B - Geophysical Data … … … … … … … … … 106
Appendix C - Particle Size Distribution … … … … … … … … 210
Appendix D - Consistency Limits (Atterberg Limits) … … … … … … 232
APPENDIX E - Direct Shear Tests … … … … … … … … … 239
APPENDIX F - Unconsolidated-Undrained (U-U) Triaxial Compression Tests … … … … 246
APPENDIX G - Oedometer Consolidation Tests … … … … … … … 253
APPENDIX H - California Bearing Ratio (CBR) Test Results … … … … … … 259
APPENDIX I - Standard Compaction Test Results … … … … … … … 291
APPENDIX J - Refrences … … … … … … … … …
1. Introduction
TEKS Geotechnical Consultancy (Nigeria) Limited was sub-contracted by HAALP Consult Limited
to, among other things, carry out a geotechnical investigation of the subsurface at the proposed
site of the Federal University, Otuoke, Bayelsa State for the purpose providing specialist
technical advice that will assist with the detailed planning of the land-uses and the of design of
appropriate foundation systems for buildings and other infrastructure within the campus. This
study was undertaken with a view to determining the suitability of the sub-soils as bearing
media for the proposed project and where found unsuitable, recommend methods of improved
foundation systems for the structures envisaged for the area.
Soon after commissioning, a team comprising members from TEKS Geotechnical Consultancy
(Nigeria) Limited undertook a field survey that involved boring, sounding and soil samplings.
Eighteen (18) borings were made to final depths of 30.00 meters as directed by the client. The
boring employed the Shell-and-Auger Rig. The Standard Penetration Tests ( SPT ) were carried
out at appropriate depth intervals of 1.00 meters or where a change in lithology was observed
during the boring process. Both undisturbed samples (using Split Spoon Samplers and U-4 tubes)
and slightly disturbed soil samples (using shelling augers) were obtained during the boring
process.
The recovered soil samples were subjected to both field and laboratory visual examinations as
well as detailed laboratory testing. The overall investigation is intended to provide a geologic-
and geotechnical engineering investigation which will form the basis for the effective planning of
land-uses and sound engineering design of foundation systems for the proposed buildings and
infrastructure at the Federal University Otuoke Campus Site, Bayelsa State.
1.1 Objectives of The Consultancy Services

The objective of the Consultancy services is to carry out a geotechnical investigation in order to
obtain engineering properties of sub-soils at the site of the proposed buildings for an efficient
design of suitable foundation systems for the structures.
1.2.1 Methodology Of Site Investigation
The methodology of site investigation adopted included Visual Site Inspection and Soil Boring
1.2.1 Visual Site Inspection

A Visual inspection based on the following points contained in Table 1 below was used before
commencement of field borings.
Table 1a: Visual Inspection for Site Assessment

S/No. ITEMS TO BE DETERMINED REMARKS
1. Is Site Below Water Table? No
2. Does the In-Situ Material appear to have recently been placed there? No
3. Does the In-Situ Material have any clay content? Yes
4. Does the In-Situ Material have a fair amount of moisture? No
5. Is In-Situ Material non-cohesive? No
1.2.2 Use of Andrew-Satcom-Africa Site Assessment Chart {Asasac}

In using this system developed by the Andrew-SatCom Africa group, a series of eliminations
based on a chart is carried out to find the appropriate Sub-Soil Test required for each particular
site. The Chart is shown in Figure 1 below.
Figure 1a: A Site Assessment Chart (Modified after Andrew-SatCom-Africa)
If the answers to all the questions above are no, then type a soil investigation method is
recommended. if the answers to all the questions are yes, then Type C Soil Investigation Method
is recommended. If the site is situated in an area where there are signs of no excess water, the
materials are not imported and the in-situ materials are more of Clayey sands as against sands
and gravel then Type B Soil Investigation Method must be used.
Based on the site assessment derivable from Figure 1 above, it was observed that Site
Investigation Type B (Method 2) was the most appropriate method to be used at this site and it
was so employed.
2. Description of Project Site
2.1 Project Location

The project is located in Otuoke Community Area in Bayelsa State. Geographically, the project
site at the Federal University, Otuoke, Bayelsa State is situated approximately between
Latitudes 04° 47' 27.91"North and 04° 47' 44.37"North of the Equator and Longitudes 006° 19'
19.4"and 006° 19' 52.12" East of the Greenwich Meridian.. The Satellite Positions of the Project
site showing the locations of the borings is as shown in (Figs. 2a- 2c). An aerial view of the main
campus of the Federal University Otuoke is shown via satellite imageries in Figures 2a, 2b and
2c.
Figure 2a: Vertical Satellite imagery of the site of the Federal University Otuoke,
Bayelsa State, showing the distribution of the Boring points.
Figure 2b: Orthogonal Satellite Imagery of Federal University Site Otuoke, Bayelsa State,
showing thedistribution of the Boring points.
Figure 2c: Another Orthogonal view of the Satellite Imagery of Federal University Site,
Otuoke Bayelsa State , showing the distribution of the Boring points
2.2 Topography and Vegetation
The general topography of the proposed project site at the Federal University Otuoke, Bayelsa
State Is relatively flat lying and situated in an undeveloped area of Otuoke Community in Ogbia
Local Government Area of Bayelsa State. The project area is a low-lying, relatively flat-lying
terrain that had at the time of investigation an elevation ranging between 0.8m and 10.5m
above sea level.
The vegetation around the general area consists mostly of primary vegetation of tall trees
underlain by an undergrowth of shrubs, grasses and other forms of secondary vegetal growths
in places where the primary forest have been cleared for farming.
The general character of the vegetation around the project site at the time of the investigation is
shown in Figs. 3a to 3c.
Figure 3a: Topography and the Vegetation Pattern at the site of the Federal University,
Otuoke, Bayelsa State.
Figure 3b: Vegetation Pattern at the site of the Teaching Core of the Federal University,
Figure 3c: Another Vegetation Pattern at the site of the Teaching Core of the Federal
University, Otuoke, Bayelsa State.
3.0 Subsurface Condition
The Subsurface conditions at the project site were studied by sounding in the form of Standard
Penetration Testing (SPT) and boring holes with the aid of Shell-and-Auger Percussion Rig (Fig. 4)
while retrieving soil samples at specific depth intervals of 1.00 meters for purposes of visual
examination of soil samples, laboratory testing and classifications, as the case may be. The
bearing capabilities of the various soil horizons at the project site were assessed using the
Standard Penetration Test data. These methods provided valuable information about the
subsurface characteristics in the project area.
3.1 Local Geology

The site falls within the Niger Delta Basin. The site sits astride the Benin Formation, which is
often called the Coastal Plain Sands (Qp) of the Lower Quaternary (Pliocene-Pleistocene) and
Alluvium of Upper Quaternary (Recent sediments) and consists of sands and gravels. The
geological map of the area is shown in Fig. 5.
3.2 Water Table

The Water Table at the site was encountered at depths varying from 2.30m to 3.50m below
ground surface at the project site. The correlations of the groundwater table at the project site
is indicated in the Fence Diagrams for the three zones identified for the project site.
Table 2: Ground Elevations and Ground Water Table at Boring Locations at the Federal University
Project Site
ZONE BH # Ground Water Table Remarks
Elevation (m) [bgl]* *
.m (asl)*
1 5.30m 3.00m Elevation effect [as at 04 /03/13]
A 4 10.50m 2.50m Elevation effect [as at 04 /03/13]
B 8 2.10m 3.1m Elevation effect [as at 08 /03/13]
C 16 0.80m 2.80m Elevation effect [as at 04 /03/13]
3.3 Subsurface Explorations
The subsurface exploration programme at the project site comprised Shell-and-Auger borings
and soil samplings. The Standard Penetration Testing (SPT) was carried out during the Shell-and-
Auger boring exercise.
3.3.1 Borings
A total of eighteen (18) deep borings were made, each to a depth of 30.00 meters at this
project site, as shown on Figs. 5a - 5c.
3.3.2 Soundings
Standard Penetration Tests (SPTs) were carried out during the subsurface exploration-sounding
programme at the project site. The SPT curves are shown in Appendix ‘A’ of this report.
3.3.2.1 Standard Penetration Tests (SPT)

Standard Penetration Tests (SPT) were carried out at the sampling depth where cohesion-less ( c )
materials or c -  soils were encountered, during the boring exercise. The SPT values obtained are
contained in individual boring logs in Appendix A of this report.
Figures 4a: Setting up of a Percussion Rig used at the Project Site.
Figures 4b: Soil retrieval process by a combined team of two rigs during the Percussion
drilling at the Project Site.
3.3.3 Samplings
In general, disturbed samples were obtained during the drilling programme using the Shell-and-
Auger equipment. Within the zone of cohesive materials such as clays or sandy clays,
undisturbed soil samples were obtained during the percussion drilling with the aid of split-
spoons and U4-tubes. Disturbed soils taken during the drilling process are shown in Figure 4b
above. Sampling intervals during the drilling were 1.00-meters apart down to the end of the
boring. All the depths mentioned in this report are in relation to ground level at the time of
investigations.
3.4 Subsurface Profiles and Descriptions at the Project Site
3.4.1 Federal University Oyuoke, Bayelsa State (Borings No. 1 - 18)
The individual descriptions of the soil samples retrieved from the borings at the project site are
set out in the following sections of the report. The Project site has been sub-divided into three
(3) Zones, each representing a segment of the University Campus, for ease of project description
and implementation, especially during the Construction Phase.
The three (3) Zones and the boring numbers (#) represented are as follows:
ZONE A: The Campus Phase 1 Area BH# 1
Junior Staff Quarters Area BH# 2
University Commercial Centre Area BH# 3
Sports and Recreation Area BH# 4
Engineering & Maintenance Area BH# 5
Garden / Parks Area HA Hole # 7, 8, 9, 10 & 11
Research Area. BH# 9
Total number of borings in this Zone Six (6) and Five (5) Hand Auger
ZONE B: The Teaching Core Area BH# 6; 7 & 8
Student Accommodation Area BH# 12 & 13.
Total number of borings in this Zone Five (5)
ZONE C: The Central Administration Area BH# 10 & 11
University Centre Area BH# 18
Senior Staff Housing Area BH# 17
Registrar Housing Area BH# 16
Guest Cottages Area BH# 15
Pitch Putt Golf Area HA Hole # 19, 20, 21, 22 & 23
Vice-Chancellor’s Residential Area. BH# 14
Total number of borings in this Zone Seven (7)
The soil descriptions (below) are given in accordance with the groups as zoned above.
3.4.1.1 Zone A Soil Types

From Boring Numbers 1,2,3,4,5 and 9 that constitute ZONE A, there are basically Five (5) distinct
soil types I boring # 1,2,3,5 and 9 while boring # 4 has Four Soil types at the project site,
respectively as shown in Appendix A of this report. The Soil types as shown on the Fence
Diagram (Figure 5a) are:
(i) Brownish Clay Layer (CL) – Top Soil
(ii) Greyish Organic silty Clays (OH)
(iii) Greyish Clayey Sands (SC)
(iv) Whitish Silty Sands (SP) and
(v) Well-graded Gravelly-Sands (SW)
The Ground elevations and the attendant Ground Water Tables at the time of field
investigations at the project site [4th to 12th of March, 2013] are tabulated under the various
Zones. For Zone A, Table 2 shows the observed Water Tables and the Ground Elevations (using
the Hand-held GPS) for the height elevations, with a margin of error of about +.05m.
 Brownish Clay Layer (CL) – Top Soil
These materials represent the Top soil in all the Five (5) borings in this Zone at the
project site and was found to range in thickness between 0.50 meter and 1.00 meter
and is entirely made up of plastic Clays.The materials of this first upper layer have
moisture contents of between 5.5 – 8.4%. Under the Unified Soil Classification System
(USCS), the materials in this layer have been classified as Clays low to medium
consistencies (CL). Unconsolidated – Undrained (U-U) tri-axial test results on samples
from this layer indicate that the undrained friction angles (u) vary from 4° to 6° with
corresponding undrained cohesion (Cu) values of 45.60 to 60.50 KPa
 Greyish Organic Silty Clays Layer (OL)
These materials represent the second layer of the subsurface in Zone A at the project
site This layer was encountered at in five of the six borings within the zone and was
found to be between 2.00 m to 4.00m thick and is entirely made up of Grey Silty Clays .
The materials of this layer have moisture contents of between 7.50 – 8.5% and can be
classified as OL (Organic Silty Clays) under the USC system of Nomenclature.
Unconsolidated – Undrained (U-U) tri-axial test results on samples from this layer
indicate that the undrained friction angles (u) are between 6.0° and 8.0° with
corresponding cohesion (Cu) values of between 42.50 and 68.50 KPa.
 Greyish Clayey Sands Layer (SC)
These materials represent the third layer in this Zone at the project site and are found
to range in thickness between 2.50 meters and 6.00 meters and is entirely made up of
greyish Clayey Sands. The materials of this third layer have moisture contents of
between 4.0 – 6.5% Under the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS), the materials in
this layer have been classified as Silty Clays and Clayey Sands of low consistencies (SC).
indicate that the undrained friction angles (u) vary from 8°to 10°with corresponding
undrained cohesion (Cu) values of 44.80 to 50.50 KPa.
 Whitish Silty Sands Layer (SM)
These materials represent the Fourth layer of the subsurface at Zone A at the project
site and was encountered at five (5) of the six (6) borings at depths ranging from 3.00m
to 11.00m with thicknesses ranging between 4.00m and 11.00m. The layer is entirely
made up of whitish Silty Sands. The materials of this layer have moisture contents of
between 4.40 – 9.4%. Materials of this layer can be classified as SM (Silty Sands) under
the USC system of Nomenclature. Unconsolidated – Undrained (U-U) tri-axial test
results on samples from this layer indicate that the undrained friction angles (u) are
between 28. 0° and 30.0°with corresponding cohesion (Cu) values of 0.00 KPa.
 Well-graded Sands and Gravels Layer (SW)
These materials represent the Fifth layer of the subsurface in five of the six borings
carried out in Zone A at the project site. The layer was encountered at the six (6) borings
at depths ranging between 7.00m and 21m. This layer was found to be between 9.00 m
to 23.00m thick and is entirely made up of well-graded Sands and gravels to the final
depth of boring (ie 30.00m). The materials of this layer have moisture contents of
between 5.5 – 6.5%. Materials of this layer can be classified as SW (Well- Graded Sands)
under the USC system of Nomenclature. Unconsolidated – Undrained (U-U) tri-axial test
between 34.0° and 36.0° with corresponding cohesion (Cu) values of 0.00 KPa.
3.4.1.2 Zone B Soil Types

From Boring Numbers 6,7,8,12 and 13 that constitute ZONE B, there are basically between Four
(4) Soil Types in Boring #6, Five (5) Soil Types in Borings # 7,8, and 12 and Six (6) distinct soil
types in boring # 13 at the project site, respectively as shown in Appendix A of this report. The
Soil types as shown on the Fence Diagram (Figure 5b) are:

(ii) Greyish Organic silty Clays (OL)
(iii) Greyish Clayey Silty- Sands (SC-SM)
(iv) Yellowish Silty- Sands (SM) and
These materials represent the Top soil in all the Five (5) borings in this Zone at the
and is entirely made up of plastic Clays.The materials of this first upper layer have
moisture contents of between 5.5 – 8.4%. Under the Unified Soil Classification System
(USCS), the materials in this layer have been classified as Clays low to medium
from this layer indicate that the undrained friction angles (u) vary from 4° to 6°with
corresponding undrained cohesion (Cu) values of 45.60 to 60.50 KPa
 Greyish Organic Silty Clays Layer (OL)
These materials represent the second layer of the subsurface in ZONE B at the project
site This layer was encountered at in two of the five borings within the zone and was
found to be between 3.00 m to 6.00m thick and is entirely made up of Grey Silty Clays .
The materials of this layer have moisture contents of between 8.50 – 8.8% and can be
classified as OL (Organic Silty Clays) under the USC system of Nomenclature.
indicate that the undrained friction angles (u) are between 6.0° and 8.0° with
 Greyish Clayey Silty Sands Layer (SC-SM)
These materials represent the third layer in this Zone at the project site and are found to
occur in only four out of the five borings [#7.8,12 & 13] in this Zone. It is found to range
to range in thickness between 5.0 meters and 9.00 meters and is entirely made up of
greyish Clayey Silty-Sands. These materials represent the third layer in this Zone at the
project site and are found to occur in only four out of the five borings [#7.8,12 & 13] in
this Zone. It is found to range to range in thickness between 5.0 meters and 9.0 meters.
The materials of this third layer have moisture contents of between 5.0 – 8.5% Under
the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS), the materials in this layer have been
classified as Silty Clays and Clayey Silty Sands of low consistencies (SC). Unconsolidated –
Undrained (U-U) tri-axial test results on samples from this layer indicate that the
undrained friction angles (u) vary from 8° to 10°with corresponding undrained cohesion
(Cu) values of 44.80 to 50.50 KPa
 Whitish Silty Sands Layer (SM)
These materials represent the Fourth layer of the subsurface at Zone A at the project
site and was encountered at all the borings at depths ranging from 35.00m to 15.00m
with thicknesses ranging between 1.00m and 11.00m. The layer is entirely made up of
whitish Silty Sands. The materials of this layer have moisture contents of between 4.00 –
7.5%. Materials of this layer can be classified as SM (Silty Sands) under the USC system
of Nomenclature. Unconsolidated – Undrained (U-U) tri-axial test results on samples
from this layer indicate that the undrained friction angles (u) are between 28. 0°and
30.0° with corresponding cohesion (Cu) values of 0.00 KPa.
These materials represent the Fifth layer of the subsurface in all of the five borings
carried out in ZONE B at the project site. The layer was encountered at the five (5)
borings at depths ranging between 5.00m and 20m. This layer was found to be between
10.00 m to 25.00m thick and is entirely made up of well-graded Sands and gravels to the
final depth of boring (ie 30.00m). The materials of this layer have moisture contents of
between 34.0°and 36.0° with corresponding cohesion (Cu) values of 0.00 KPa.
3.4.1.3 Zone C Soil Types

From Boring Numbers 10,11,14,15,16,17 and 18 that constitute Zone C, there are basically
between Four (4) Soil Types in Boring #10,11,14,15,16,17, and 18at the project site, respectively
as shown in Appendix A of this report. The Soil types as shown on the Fence Diagram (Figure 5c)
are:
(ii) Greyish Organic silty Clayey Sands (SC-SM)
(iii) Greyish Silty- Sands (SM) and
(iv) Well-graded Gravelly-Sands (SW)

These materials represent the Top soil in all the Seven (7) borings in this Zone at the
and is entirely made up of plastic Clays. The materials of this first upper layer have
moisture contents of between 12.0 – 14.5%. Under the Unified Soil Classification
System (USCS), the materials in this layer have been classified as Clays low to medium
from this layer indicate that the undrained friction angles (u) vary from 4° to 6° with
corresponding undrained cohesion (Cu) values of 45.60 to 60.50 KPa.
 Greyish Yellow Organic Silty Clays Sands Layer (SC-SM)
These materials represent the second layer of the subsurface in ZONE C at the project
site This layer was encountered at four borings [# 10, 16, 17 and 18] within the zone and
was found to be between 3.00 m to 8.00m thick and is entirely made up of Grey Silty
Clays . The materials of this layer have moisture contents of between 6.50 – 8.0% and
can be classified as SC-SM (Silty Clayey Sands) under the USC system of Nomenclature.
indicate that the undrained friction angles (u) are between 5.0° and 10.0°with
 Greyish Silty Sands Layer (SM)
These materials represent the Third layer of the subsurface at Zone C at the project site
and was encountered at three borings at depths ranging from 10.00m to 17.00m with
thicknesses ranging between 4.00m and 9.00m. The layer is entirely made up of greyish
Silty Sands. The materials of this layer have moisture contents of between 4.00 – 6.5%.
Materials of this layer can be classified as SM (Silty Sands) under the USC system of
Nomenclature. Unconsolidated – Undrained (U-U) tri-axial test results on samples from
this layer indicate that the undrained friction angles (u) are between 28. 0° and 30.0°
with corresponding cohesion (Cu) values of 0.00 KPa.
These materials represent the Fourth layer of the subsurface in all of the Seven borings
carried out in Zone C at the project site. The layer was encountered at the Seven (7)
borings at depths ranging between 6.00m and 23m. This layer was found to be between
8.00 m to 14.00m thick and is entirely made up of well-graded Sands and gravels to the
final depth of boring (ie 30.00m). The materials of this layer have moisture contents of
between 34.0° and 36.0°with corresponding cohesion (Cu) values of 0.00 KPa.
3.5 Summary Of Soil Profiles

Within the project site tested, there are five (5) basic types of soil profiles namely:
(ii) Greyish Organic silty Clays (OL)
(iii) Yellowish Clayey Sands (SC )
(iv) Greyish Silty- Sands (SM) and
These basic soil types are found in these three Zones used in this study, as detailed in the Fence
Diagrams of each Zone (Figures 5a, 5b and 5c ).
3.5.1 Fence Diagrams of Project Site
The Fence Diagrams of the project site as derived from the eighteen (18) borings made at the site are shown in Figures 5b, 5c and 5d respectively
BH 5 BH 1
OH
OH BH 2
T
SC CL TT
OL OL
BH 9
SP BH 4 BH 3
TT OH
T
CL
CL SC
OL SC CL
SM SC-SM
SM SM
SM
SM SM
SM
S
W
S S S
W S W
W W
S
W
Topsoil (T) Organic silts and Organic Clayey Sands, Sand-Clay Silty Clayey Sands Mixtures (SC-SM)
silty clays (OL) Mixtures (SC)
Organic Clays Poorly-graded Sands
(OH) Inorganic clays, silty clays, Silty Sands, Sand-Silt
gravelly clays and lean clays Mixtures (SM) Well-graded Sands
(CL)
Figure 5a: Schematic Fence Diagram showing the Borings in ZONE A at the Project Site.
BH 13 BH 7 BH 6
T T T
CL BH 8
OH CL
BH 12 OL SM
T
SC-
OL CL
SM
SP SC-
SC- SM
SM SC-
SM
SM
SW
SM SP SM
SW SW
SW SW
Topsoil (T) Organic silts and Organic Clayey Sands, Sand-Clay Silty Clayey Sands Mixtures (SC-SM)
silty clays (OL) Mixtures (SC)

(OH) Inorganic clays, silty clays, Silty Sands, Sand-Silt
gravelly clays and lean clays Mixtures (SM)
(CL) Well-graded Sands
Figure 5b: Schematic Fence Diagram showing the Borings in ZONE B at the Project Site
BH 14
BH 15
T
T BH 18
BH 16
OH
BH 17 OH BH 10
OH
T BH 11
CL
T
OH OH CL OL
CL
SC-SM OL
CL
SM SC SC-SM
SC-SM
SM
SC-SM
SP
SP SP SM
SP
SP
SP
SW
SW SW SW
SW
SW
SW
Topsoil (T) Organic silts and Organic silty Clayey Sands, Sand-Clay Silty Clayey Sands Mixtures (SC-SM)
clays (OL) Mixtures (SC)
(OH) Inorganic clays, silty clays, Silty Sands, Sand-Silt Mixtures
gravelly clays and lean clays (CL) (SM)
Well-graded Sands
Figure 5c: Schematic Fence Diagram showing the Borings in ZONE C at the Project Site.
4.0 Geophysical Investigation
4.1 Introduction
Geophysical methods have become an important tool to complement direct methods of investigation
in geotechnical investigations (Ed Wightman, Frank Jalinoos, Philip Sirles, Kanaan Hanna 2003,
Adepelumi, A.A and Olorunfemi, M.O 2000). The methods are capable of producing information about
the subsurface without invading it and can go farther into a subsurface where direct drilling is not
capable of reaching.
One of the methods routinely used is the electrical resistivity method. It is capable of showing the
stratigraphic sequence of site, identification of hazard zones, delineation of hydrogeological regimes
and proffering the engineering properties of the subsurface. In general, the subsurface
characterization provided by geophysical exploration methods is valuable indicator for the
geotechnical evaluation for the following reasons:
 They allow non-destructive investigation below the surface of the ground
 They provide information between and below standard geotechnical borings
 They allow collection of data over large areas in very much shorter times than
most destructive methods.
 They can offer accurate and timely information for design quality and
performance.
TEKS Geotechnical Consultants (Nig) Ltd. carried out a geophysical survey involving an electrical
resistivity method at the site. The objectives of the survey were:
(i) To delineate the various layers that underlie the area vis-à-vis their resistivity
and thickness.
(ii) To recommend appropriate depth for foundation footings.
4.2 Site Description and Geology

As described previously in this report, the area surveyed is at the Federal University Otuoke, Balyelsa
State, is virgin land with swamps and dry lands in places. A site sketch is shown in Figure 6a and 6b.
The site falls within the Niger Delta region, which is made up of thick clastic sedimentary sequence
with age ranging from Eocene to Recent. It consists in ascending order, of the Akata Formation,
Agbada Formation and Benin Formation (Short and Stauble, 1967). The site sits astride the clays, sand
and the swampy mangrove of the Niger Delta. The geological map of the area is as shown in Figures
7a and 7b.
A A’
B’
Figure 6a: Outline of Geophysical Sounding Profiles at the Federal University Site, Otuoke, Bayelsa State.
Figure 6b: General Outlay of the Federal University, Otuoke, Bayelsa State showing Field Boring Locations.
Legend
Figure 7a: Geological Map of Bayelsa State.
Study Area (Clays Sand And Mangrove Swamps)
Figure 7b: Geological Map of the Area Surveyed.
Figure 8a: Photograph Of The Geophysical Survey Group During Investigation.
Figure 8b: Photograph of the Geophysical Survey Group During Investigation.
Figure 8c: Mud-cracks at the Site Showing the Clayey Nature of the Soil in the Bulldozed
Areas
4.2.1 Electrical Resistivity
The electrical resistivity method of geophysical investigations had been used on many occasions to
characterize the suitability of earth materials as an earthing media as it combines speed, accuracy and
cost-effectiveness in the determination of the various lithologic sequences within the subsurface.
The electrical resistivity of soil or rock is a property which depends on lithology and fluid content, thus
depending on the soil type and texture in conjunction with the type of fluid content, earth materials
respond to the passage of electric current differently. The method inject very low frequency current
into the earth mass through two stainless steel electrodes called the current electrodes and resulting
potential difference is measured by another pair of stainless steel electrodes called the potential
electrodes.
The Vertical Electrical Sounding (VES) technique was used to acquire the data in this investigation. The
VES is used to determine the variation in the electrical properties of the earth with depth and this
consists of taking a succession of apparent resistivity values for increasing electrode spacing. The
general norm is that large electrode spacing corresponds to increased depth of investigation.
The full Schlumberger and the half Schlumberger electrode array were utilized for data acquisition.
Sixteen Vertical Electrical Sounding (VES) profiles were occupied. The sounding stations are as shown
in Figure 6b. The inter-electrode spacing was varied from 1m to 50m which gives the specific depth
varying from 20m that is believed to be adequate for any earthing depth
4.3 Data Acquisition

The geophysical survey data was acquired using ABEM SAS 300 Terrameter. This is a signal averaging
system where consecutive readings are taken automatically and the results are averaged continuously.
The continuously updated running average is displayed as resistance automatically. It uses a
microprocessor to monitor and control all the measurement to ensure optimal accuracy and
sensitivity.
The electrical resistivity survey data was acquired using Super Mini-Res Earth Resisitivity Meter. High
resolution instrument using a synchronous detection for the receiver, so that data in noisy
environment could be effectively taking , it gives a continuous readout of resistance or induced
polarization depending on the button pressed. It has auto-ranging capability i.e. it automatically adapt
the instrument range to the signal value to measure. It also has the capability to create energetic wave
based upon the parameters supplied by the user. It has automatic filtering device (notch filters
50/60Hz). It is automatically calibrated at every switch-on. At the end of each cycle, the spontaneous
potential is dynamically deducted and the result displayed digitally as resistance in Ohms.
For the half schlumberger array used:

The apparent resistivity of the subsurface is calculated using the formula:
a 2
= 2πa R
……….…………………………………………….(1)
MN R
where,
R = resistance (Ohms)
a = apparent resistivity (Ohm-m)
a = distance between active current electrodes and the reference point (m)
MN = distance between potential electrodes (m)

π = Constant
For the full Schlumberger.

The apparent resistivity of the subsurface was calculated using the formula:
a = (AB/2)2 – (MN/2)2 л R ……………………………… (2)
MN
where:-
2πa
2
is called the geometric factor for half schlumberger
(AB/2)2–(MN/2)2 is called the geometric factor for full Schlumberger
MN
a = apparent resistivity (Ohm-m)
R = resistance (Ohms)
AB = distance between current electrodes (m)
MN = distance between potential electrodes (m)
Л = Constant
Sixteen (16) Vertical Electrical Soundings (VES) were carried out
4.4 Data Interpretation
The Vertical Electrical Sounding (VES) data was interpreted both qualitatively and quantitatively. For
the quantitative interpretation, the VES field data are presented as sounding curves-plots of apparent
resistivity as a function of the half electrode spacing. The quantitative interpretation of the sounding
curves involved partial curve matching (Orellana and Mooney, 1966) and computer iteration using
WINRESIST package (Vander Velpen 2004, ITC, 1T-RSG/CSD) and Winglink The interpretation results
are presented as in the graphs below.
4.4.1 Constant Separation Traversing [CST] Method

The Wenner Electrode Configuration was used for the Constant Separation Traversing (CST). This
method involves maintaining the current and the potential electrodes separation and moving the
entire array progressively along a profile. The electrode spacing were chosen such that a theoretical
interpretation of the electrical resistivity values could be made to a depth of about 6m. The idea is to
delineate lateral changes in the soil resistivity.
Sixteen (16) Vertical Electrical Soundings (VES) were carried out and two (2) Constant Separation
Traversing (CST) were also run across the property bringing the number of tests carried out to be
eight. The VES was run for the Earthing and Corrosivity tests while the CST was run across the site
for Cathodic protection tests.
An electrical resistivity method has been employed at the site to detect the Corrosivity of the soil; the
Cathodic protection procedure for the underground pipe works and verifies the electrical quality of
the soil within this property as an Earthing medium for the Earthing System for the .
4.4.2 Vertical Electrical Sounding [VES] Data

The data was processed qualitatively and qualitatively/semi-qualitatively.
4.4.2.1 Qualitative Interpretation

The sounding curves got were studied and it was discovered that all over the entire place surveyed,
the curve type is the KH type having five layers. Because of the distribution of the sounding stations
further semi-qualitative interpretations were carried out one of them involves calculation of specific
depths of investigation with the corresponding apparent Resistivity values written against it, the idea
here is to detect the distribution of the apparent Resistivity values.
The specific depth of investigation is defined as that depth, which contributes most to the total signal,
measured on the ground surface (Beck A.E 1981). This specific depth of investigation for Schlumberger
configuration is got through the formula:
D = 0.125 x (AB) … … … … … … … (2)
where:
D = specific depth of investigation
AB = the total distance between the two current electrodes
The results are presented as Table 4a and 4b below.
The Resistivity trend indicates an initial decrease with depth, to about 5m but later pick up and
increase in value with an increase in depth to the maximum depth explored. However the Resistivity
values are generally high implying that the conductivity is low.
4.4.2.2 Quantitative Interpretation

The VES data were interpreted by plotting on a log-log graph paper with the apparent resistivity (ƿa)
values on the ordinate and the electrode separation on the abscissa. The resulting curves were
interpreted manually using the partial curve matching method of Orellana and Mooney (1966), the
results were further iterated using RESIST computer software (Vander Velpen, 1988) to obtain the
layering model/parameters. The Schlumberger depth sounding curves are as presented in Figures 9a
through 9p. The result is presented as 2-D geoelectric sections along transect AA’ and BB’ (in Figures
10a and b).
Figure 9a: The Schlumberger Depth Sounding Curves beneath VES 1.
Figure 9b: The Schlumberger Depth Sounding Curves beneath VES 2.
Figure 9c: The Schlumberger Depth Sounding Curves beneath VES 3.
Figure 9d: The Schlumberger Depth Sounding Curves Beneath VES 4.
Figure 9e: The Schlumberger Depth Sounding Curves Beneath VES 5.
Figure 9f: The Schlumberger Depth Sounding Curves Beneath VES 6.
Figure 9g: The Schlumberger Depth Sounding Curves Beneath VES 7
Figure 9h: The Schlumberger Depth Sounding Curves Beneath VES 8.
Figure 9i: The Schlumberger Depth Sounding Curves Beneath VES 9.
Figure 9j: The Schlumberger Depth Sounding Curves Beneath VES 10
Figure 9k: The Schlumberger Depth Sounding Curves Beneath VES 11.
Figure 9l: The Schlumberger Depth Sounding Curves Beneath VES 12
Figure 9l: The Schlumberger Depth Sounding Curves Beneath VES 12.
Figure 9m: The Schlumberger Depth Sounding Curves Beneath VES 13
Figure 9n: The Schlumberger Depth Sounding Curves Beneath VES 14.
Figure 9n: The Schlumberger Depth Sounding Curves Beneath VES 14
Figure 9o: The Schlumberger Depth Sounding Curves Beneath VES 15.
Figure 9o: The Schlumberger Depth Sounding Curves Beneath VES 15
Figure 9p: The Schlumberger Depth Sounding Curves Beneath VES 16.
5.0 Discussion Of Geophysical Results
5.1 Discussion of Geophysical Results

The results obtained from the geophysical investigations at project site were used to evaluate
the potentials of applying Earthing materials at site and whether or not Cathodic Protection
would be applicable to buried metals at site.
5.1.1 The Apparent Resistivity Section

The sections drawn from the apparent resistivity values (Figures 10a and 10b) show the areal
distribution of the apparent resistivity. The sections depicts high resistivity values at the top,
lower resistivity values at the middle and further high resistivity values at the base. In both
sections the low resistivity value region is delimited by the 3500 Ohm-m contour.
5.1.2 The Geo-Electric Section

Both the 2-D geoelectric sections (Fig 10a-b) indicate five distinct subsurface geologic layers.
These consist of the topsoil, the lateritic sand, the clayey lateritic sand, coarse sand and gravelly
sand. The topsoil has resistivity values that vary from 1815 Ohm-m to 5394 Ohm-m. This
resistivity value is diagnostic of topsoil that is lateritic in nature. The depth to the base of this
layer varies from 0.6m to 0.7m. Lateritic sand constitutes the second layer; its resistivity value
varies from 6963 Ohm-m to 11334 Ohm-m. The depth to the base of this layer varies from 1.2m
to 2.0m. The third layer is made up of clayey lateritic sand. The resistivity value of this layer
varies from 3156 Ohm-m to 7583 Ohm-m and the depth to its base lies between 2.7m and
6.8m. Coarse sand constitutes the fourth layer; its resistivity value ranges from 1442 Ohm-m to
2755 Ohm-m. The depth to the base of this layer varies from 9.6m to 12.4m. Gravelly sand
constitutes the fifth layer; its resistivity value varies from 4326 Ohm-m to 5281 Ohm-m.
5.1.3 The Constant Separation Traversing [CST]

The resistivity values obtained are not too different in the two profile lines: this shows that the
ground is only slightly heterogeneous, which may be due to bedding. Moreover, there is not
much variation in resistivity values from one station to the other along a single profile thus
indicating there is no anomalous section such as clay infillings along the profiles.
5.1.4 Suitability of Project Site for Earthing

Earthing may be described as a system of electrical connections to the general mass of earth.
The earthing of an electrical installation has two purposes:
 To provide protection for persons or animals against the danger of electric
shock.
 To maintain the proper function of the electrical system.
The effectiveness of any earthing system is therefore dependent on the following:-
 the resistivity of the soil surrounding the earth rod,
 the contact resistance between the earthen rod and the surrounding soil and,
 the resistance of the earthen rod and connecting conductors.
Therefore, the resistivity of the soil in the vicinity of the earthen rod is very important. The soil
should be able to accept and dissipate the unwanted energy without raising the potential of the
earthing system. Low resistivity is required.
The factors chiefly affecting soil resistivity are:
(1) Soil Types

The soil composition can be: clay, gravel, loam, rock, sand, shale, silt, stones, etc
[Refer Tables 3a and b for typical soil resistivity values. ]
(2) Climate
Obviously, arid and good rainfall climates are at opposite extremes for conditions
of soil resistivity. The more moisture there is in the soil system, the lower the
resistivity and higher the higher the conductivity of electrical currents through such
soils.
(3) Seasonal Conditions

The effects of heat, moisture, drought and frost can introduce wide variations in
“normal” soil resistivity. Soil resistivity usually decreases with depth, and an
increase of only a few percent of moisture content in a normally dry soil will
markedly decrease soil resistivity and thus increase conductivity.
(4) Other Factors

Other soil properties conducive to low resistivity are chemical composition, soil
ionization, homogeneous grain size and even grain distribution - all of which have
much to do with retention of soil moisture, as well as providing good conditions for
a closely packed soil in good contact with the earth rod.
Given all the above factors, there is a large variation of soil resistivity between different soil
types and moisture contents.
Every earth is an individual and the only way to know that an earthing installation meets code
requirements is to carry out proper resistance measurements on site, which has been carried
out on this site. The Resistivity values got for the area surveyed from surface to a depth of
about 12.5m indicates a generally consistent high resistivity values (all greater than 1000 Ohm-
m) as indicated by all the figures drawn and this resistivity range is very high for any earthing
system to be put in place. Furthermore, the specific resistance at any of the sounded stations is
greater than 5 Ohms. According to the IEEE Green Book (1992), the grounding electrode
resistance of large electrical sub-stations for commercial and industrial sites should be in the
range of 2-5 Ohms. The specific values got at this site are higher than these suggested values.
Hence irrespective of the point chosen for Earthing at this area, the earth conductivity must be
improved upon by the addition of ground enhancement material, this is to enhance its
absorption power and increase its richness with charge carrying ions. This could be done by
mixing charcoal and coke with salts like sodium chloride or magnesium chloride or better still
some of the artificial gels. The depth recommended for any earthing system is 4m to 5m, this
depth lies within the low resistivity layer.
5.1.5 Corrosivity of the Project Site Subsurface Materials
Soil corrosion is a complex phenomenon, with a multitude of variables involved. Corrosivity of

soils to buried structures, pipelines and tanks is commonly found to be related to several key
parameters among them are:
 Soil resistivity
 Presence of chlorides and sulfates.
 Oxygen content.
 pH.
The chief among them is the resistivity of the soil. Variations in soil properties and
characteristics across three dimensions can have a major impact on corrosion of buried
structures. Typically, the most corrosive soils are those with low resistivity, low pH (for
steel/ductile iron), and the highest concentration of Chlorides and Sulphates. Wet conditions
are particularly difficult since these can result in concentration of corrosive species and
mechanical action that tend to break down protective corrosion films and coatings on metal
surfaces.
The following criteria were adopted for the interpretation of the of the soil resistivity (after
Davenport et al, 1981 and ANSI/AWWA C105/A21.5, 1993).
Table 3: Rough Indications of Soil Corrosivity vs. Resistivity.

(after Davenport et al, 1981 and ANSI/AWWA C105/A21.5, 1993)
Resistivity (Ohm-m) Soil Corrosivity Description
Below 5 Very corrosive
5 – 10 Corrosive
10 – 20 Moderately corrosive
20 – 100 Mildly corrosive
Above 300 Essentially non Corrosive
The progressively high resistivity values indicate increasing sand content. Therefore sandy soils with
high resistivity values are considered the least corrosive. The resistivity values obtained for the area
survey irrespective of the depth are very high when compared with this table.
The minimum resistivity value is in the range of 1442 Ohm-m to 2755 Ohm-m. Therefore, the soil is
practically non-Corrosive relative to the resistivity values found in the area at the time the test was
carried out. However, the resistivity is expected to change during the wet season, it is expected to be
lower in value. The percentage change cannot be predicted now, but it is not expected to fall into the
range of very corrosive soil, because the soil around the campus site is expected to be well drained
due to its sandy nature.
Moreover, the rate of aeration is expected to be high therefore the diffusivity/concentration of

oxygen, one of the factors affecting corrosion, are expected to be high because of the granular nature
of the sandy soil. Some precautions should therefore be taken on the pipe-works e.g. bonded
Coatings of the pipes or better still a Cathodic Protection could be done.
5.1.6 Discussion on the Corrosivity / Cathodic Protection in the Sub-soils at Project Site
Corrosion cells develop on a piece of metal exposed to different electrolytes and it is a particularly
common problem on underground structures. Potential differences develop, for example, on a long
continuous pipeline that passes through different types of soils. One portion of the line might be laid
in sandy loam while another lie in clay. Substantial natural pipeline currents (“long-line currents”) may
occur, which leads to corrosion cells as called “long line cells”. In soils of low resistivity where such
currents exit from the pipeline, the metal at the exit points is lost by anodic dissolution (that is,
corrosion). However, there is no too much variation in the resistivity values across the surveyed area.
The entire resistivity values overview however shows that there is no clay infilling, apart from pockets
of high Resistivity values as depicted by the apparent resistivity sections (Figures 10a & b) at shallow
depth, the resistivity values relative to horizontal distribution is fairly uniform.
Therefore except for increase in moisture content due to seasonal changes effect (which could not be
predicted at the time this test was being carried out), the Cathodic Protection need not be carried out,
ab initio. However, for the explanation of the changes that may occur during the wet season, when
the moisture content is expected to rise, the Cathodic Protection option could be done to take care of
these changes. The recommended method of Cathodic Protection should be the “impressed current
Method” because the resistivity of the area is generally high (greater than 50 Ohm-m) which is the
threshold value between using the “Sacrificial Anode method” and the “Impressed Current method”.
The subsurface had been processed into geoelectric sections along two major profiles named as AA’
and BB” The lithologies consists of clay and sand of varying textures. The geo-electric layer is as shown
in Figures 10a & b below.
Pitch and putt Student Teaching core Garden park Campus phase 1
DEPTH (M) Guest cottages golf accommodation
0 TOPSOIL
5 Clay
Medium Grained Sand To Coarse Sand
10
15 Fine Grained Sand Silty in Some Places
20
25
CLAY
30
35
40 Medium Grained Sand To Coarse

Sand
45
50
Figure 10a: The Geo-electric Section Beneath Profile AA’
University Sports/recreation Uni Comm
Senior staff Central Admin Research
DEPTH (M) center Centre
housing
0 Topsoil
Clay
5
Univ. comm.
10 center
15
Fi f Fine Grained Sand Silty in Some Medium Grained Sand To Coarse Sand
Places Places
20
25
30
Medium Grained Sand To Coarse Sand CLAY
35
Clay/Sandyclay/Clayey Sand
40
Medium grained sand to coarse sand
45
50
Figure 10b: The Geo-electric Section Beneath Profile BB’
6.0 Conclusions and Recommendation Based On Geophysical Investigation
The data got had been processed into specific depth of investigation profiles, apparent resistivity
sections and geo-electric sections. The apparent resistivity values got for the specific depths are
somehow high so that the conductivity of the soil needed to be improved upon for any earthing
facility to be put in place. The area in terms of resistivity does not pose any problem as a corrosive soil.
However, due to seasonal changes especially during the wet season, the Resistivity is expected to be
lowered, the percentage of which depends on the amount of moisture available. Therefore, a Cathodic
Protection could be done for buried pipe works. The criterion used is mostly based on current density
required and soil resistivity. Since the soil resistivity is much higher than 50 Ohm-m, the best method
to be used for the Cathodic Protection is the impressed current method.
The subsurface layers delineated consist of the topsoil, sand-and-clay, intercalating with each other.
The clay layer is deep in some of the areas investigated thus negating the use of shallow foundations.
Pile foundation will suffice for the area or any other design that will adequately take care of the clay
layers such as Raft Foundation.
TABLE 4a: Schlumberger Depth Sounding Data At Federal University Otuoke, Bayelsa State.
Half App. App. App. App. App. App. App. App. Resistivity
current Resistivity Resistivity Resistivity Resistivity Resistivity Resistivity Resistivity Ohm-m
electrode Ohm-m Ohm-m Ohm-m Ohm-m Ohm-m Ohm-m Ohm-m
spread
VES 1 VES 2 VES 3 VES 4 VES 5 VES 6 VES 7 VES 8
1 175 128 195 133 302 724 100 790

2 58 62 146 148 165 311 134 422
3 31 52 166 159 135 105 154 211
3 32 54 136 152 139 109 155 285
4 32 54 153 183 130 43 172 173
6 43 61 190 213 142 42 190 130
8 55 72 219 237 153 54 194 110
10 70 83 250 290 160 54 183 100
10 69 85 244 305 161 54 167 100
15 94 108 362 408 185 51 195 100
20 100 122 433 504 223 71 232 100
25 130 138 469 584 250 89 290 110
25 132 133 481 530 251 90 278 111
30 140 140 505 525 299 101 320 121
40 156 144 472 435 320 157 404 154
50 163 128 384 326 300 189 472 181
50 165 124 386 310 305 182 454 188
65 155 122 314 164 279 188 435 222
80 150 120 260 135 240 160 450 260
100 160 118 166 165 260 180 593 321
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
\
TABLE 4b: Schlumberger Depth Sounding Data at Federal University Otuoke, Bayelsa State
Half current App. App. App. App. App. App. App. App. Resistivity
electrode Resistivity Resistivity Resistivity Resistivity Resistivity Resistivity Resistivity Ohm-m
spread Ohm-m Ohm-m Ohm-m Ohm-m Ohm-m Ohm-m Ohm-m
1 106 775 338 651 769 155 149 181

2 603 379 123 380 301 77 131 39
3 295 292 89 168 135 66 104 38
3 335 280 89 167 131 59 99 42
4 156 260 58 68 73 62 92 53
6 46 216 41 56 39 59 94 80
8 45 140 40 45 37 61 103 106
10 35 100 40 45 37 67 118 124
10 25 92 38 48 36 71 135 110
15 38 70 31 56 42 81 130 137
20 55 80 33 66 52 104 135 151
25 70 110 34 78 56 114 132 172
25 56 91 34 79 61 120 139 171
30 69 114 30 89 69 127 130 163
40 102 143 33 110 85 131 117 132
50 122 165 39 145 100 132 122 117
50 123 164 40 141 91 131 121 119
65 172 207 42 178 105 125 125 110
80 231 260 48 211 122 120 112 100
100 276 329 59 256 152 160 102 121
TABLE 4c: The Geographical Coordinates of the Investigated Profiles at Federal University Otuoke, Bayelsa State using
Geographical Positioning Systems (GPS)
Sounded Point Latitude Longitude
VES 1 N4°47.893' E006°19.612'

VES 2 N 4°47. 765' E006°19.622'
VES 3 N 4°47.691' E006°19.658'
VES 4 N 4°47.681' E006°19.638'
VES 5 N 4°47.606' E006°19.684'
VES 6 N 4°47.604' E006°19.682'
VES 7 N 4°47.723' E006°19.712'
VES 8 N 4°47.658' E006°19.750'
VES 9 N 4°47.668' E006°19.769'
VES 10 N 4°47.646' E006°19.723'
VES 11 N 4°47.597' E006°19.818'
VES 12 N 4°47.621' E006°19.766'
VES 13 N 4°47.678' E006°19.779'
VES 14 N 4°47.919' E006°19.544'
VES 15 N 4°47.949' E006°19 633'
VES 16 N 4°47.779' E006°19.696'
\
7.0 Chemical Tests of Subsurface Materials
The following Chemical Tests were carried out on the subsurface materials of the Project site, namely:
o pH Values (Soils and Water, where applicable)
o Sulphate Content (Soil and Water)
o Chloride Content (Soil and Water)
o Organic Matter Content (Soil)
7.1 pH Values (Soils and Water, where applicable)

The Water Table at the Project site was not reached during the drilling, hence only the pH of soil
samples were obtained. Average values of pH obtained at the site, of 4.5, indicate that the soils are
slightly to moderately acidic, which is deleterious to buried metal pipes at the site.
7.2 Sulphate Content (Soil and Water)

The Sulphate Contents of the site soil materials were observed to be between 126.3 and 266.50 g / g
thus indicating that Sulphate is above the normal level and therefore deleterious to buried metals such
as pipes etc to be placed at the project site. No Sulphate Content was determined for the ground
water because groundwater was not encountered during the boring process at the site.
7.3 Chloride Content (Soil and Water, where applicable)

The Chloride Contents of the site soil materials were observed to be between 8.9 and 11.9 g / g thus
indicating that Chloride is below the normal level and therefore not deleterious to buried metals such
as pipes etc to be placed at the project site.No Chloride Content was determined for the ground water
because groundwater was not encountered during the boring process at the site.
7.4 Organic Matter Content (Soil)

The Organic Matter Contents of the site soil materials in terms of Total Carbon were observed to be
about 0.41%thus indicating No Crude Oil Pollution at the project site.
Block soil sampling was also carried out at the Project site for purposes of carrying out Direct Shear
Box Tests to determine the Residual values of both Cohesion ( c) and Friction ( ).
\
7.5 Recommendations based on Geo-chemical Investigations at Project Site

The chemical data got had been assessed on the basis of reactivity and corrosivity of the soils to
metals and salts. This will in turn have affects on pipes and metals in the soil. The pH of the soils
seems to be acidic and therefore can lead to corrosion of the soils with buried metals at site. There will
then be the need to provide Cathodic Protection for buried metals such as pipes etc. Both Sulphate
and Chloride values are high and this can lead to reactivity of the soil thus leading to high corrosivity
values and the potential for corrosion of buried metals and others.
8.0 Laboratory and Field Investigations - Results And Analyses
The following laboratory tests were carried out on selected samples recovered from the borings.
 Visual Classification of Soil Samples
 Grain Size Analysis
 Consistency Limits (Atterberg Limits)
 Unit Weights determinations
 Unconsolidated-Undrained Tri-axial Tests
 Direct Shear Tests on Block samples
 Oedometer Consolidation Tests
8.1 Visual Classification of Soil Samples

Basically, the soils that constitute the subsurface materials at the project site are:
Brownish Clay Layer (CL) – Top Soil that occurs on top, underlain by Grayish organic Silty Clays (OL)
layer, Yellowish Clayey Sands (SC), Greyish Silty-Sands (SM) and Well-graded Gravelly-sands (SW)
which extends to the end of the borings at the project site.
8.2 Grain Size Analysis

Grain size analysis involved both dry sieving and wet hydrometer analyses on the field obtained
samples. Results of the grain size analysis are presented in Tables 8a-8p and Appendix B of this
report.
\
8.3 Consistency of The Soil Samples

The consistency of the soils at the proposed sites was studied by evaluating the Atterberg limits which
comprise liquid limits, plastic limits and hence plasticity indices. Also measured were natural moisture
contents and the Liquidity Indices of the soil samples.
8.3.1 Atterberg Limits
8.3.1.1 Liquid Limits (LL)

The liquid limit was determined in accordance with the recommended tests ASTM D423 and AASHTO
T89 and the results are contained in Tables 8a-8p and Appendix C of this report.
8.3.1.2 Plasticity Indices (PI)

Plasticity indices are by definition the arithmetic differences between liquid limits and plastic limits,
details of which are contained in the tests ASTM D424 and AASHTO T91.
The plasticity indices for the soils from the project sites are contained in Tables 8a-8r and Appendix C
of this report.
8.3.1.3 Natural Moisture Contents (NMC)

The natural moisture contents of the soil samples were determined in accordance with recommended
standards and expressed as percentages of oven-dry weights of soils.
Values of natural moisture contents for the soils at the project site are contained in Tables 8a-8r and
Appendix C of the report.
8.3.1.4 Unit Weights

The unit weights of the soil materials in each subsurface soil horizon at the proposed project site were
determined. Obtained unit weight values for respective soil types are presented in Tables 8a-8r.
8.4 Soil Shear Strength Tests

Laboratory tests carried out to evaluate the shear strength of project site soils include the
Unconsolidated-Undrained (U-U) Triaxial Test and the Direct Test. The strength properties of the
subsurface materials at the project site were evaluated and assessed by means of the Undrained-
Unconsolidated (UU) triaxial compression tests only.
\
In the Undrained-Unconsolidated Triaxial Tests, values of both undrained cohesion (Cu) and undrained
friction angle (u) were obtained as indices of strength of the c- materials at the site. Each specimen
of 35mm diameter and 110mm height was prepared from slightly disturbed samples obtained with U-4
shelby tubes of 120mm diameter and tested in unconsolidated-undrained (U-U) compression using cell
pressures of 50.0, 100.0 and 200KPa, respectively.
The values of cohesion (Cu) and friction angles (u) are contained in Tables 8a-8r and Appendix D of the
report.
8.5 Soil Bearing Capacity

The bearing capacity values of the subsurface materials at the proposed project sites were evaluated
by means of the Terzaghi One-Dimensional Oedometer Consolidation Test. Two parameters were
determined and obtained during the laboratory consolidation testing.
(i) The coefficient of volume compressibility (Mv); This determines the area that is likely to be
compressible under a given amount of load; and
(ii) The coefficient of consolidation (Cv), which is an indication of the likely rate of settlement per
annum under the given loading conditions.
8.5.1 Oedometer Consolidation Tests

One-dimensional Oedometer Consolidation Tests were carried out over a pressure range of between
50.00 and 400.00 kPa on cohesive soil samples from the project site.
Values of coefficient of consolidation (Cv) and coefficient of volume compressibility (MV) obtained from
the tests are contained in Tables 8a-8r and Appendix E.
8.5.1.1 Coefficient of Volume Compressibility ( Mv ):

The oedometer tests carried out on some site soil samples from the boring at the site indicate that the
Coefficient of Volume Compressibility ( Mv ) of the Brownish lateritic Silty Clay (CL) on top under
confining pressures of between 50.00 and 400.00 kPa was between 0.08 and 0.18 m2/MN.
8.5.1.2 Coefficient Of Consolidation (Cv).

The oedometer tests carried out on some site soil samples from the borings indicate that the
Coefficient of Consolidation (Cv) for the Brownish lateritic Clayey Sand (SC) was between 0.69 and 0.78
m2/yr under an overburden pressure of 50.00kPa, while it was between 0.78 – 0.82 m2/year under an
overburden pressure of 400.00 kPa..
The bearing capacity and drainage characteristics of the site materials are shown in Tables 5 & 6.
\
8.5.2 Direct Shear Tests (Cr & r )

The Direct Shear tests carried out on some site block soil samples from the Test Pits indicate that the
Residual Cohesion (Cr ) for the Brownish lateritic Clayey Sands (SC) was 38.00kPa under an overburden
pressure of 50.00kPa, while it was 42.50 kPa under an overburden pressure of 400.00 kPa. On the
other hand, the Residual Friction angle (r ) was obtained as between 6o and 8o under the above
pressure regimes. These values and drainage characteristics of the site materials are shown in Table 6.
8.5.3 Field Spt-N Values:

The field sounding in terms of conventional Standard Penetration Tests (SPT) carried out on the
subsurface materials at the Project site are shown in Appendix A. From Appendix A, it is observed the
Brownish lateritic Clayey Sands (SC) materials had SPT N-values of between 16 and 22. The Brownish
well-graded Sands and Gravels had SPT N-values of between 26 and > 50 (Refusal),
These values of SPT N-values when converted to Allowable Net Soil Pressures (qllow ) according to the
method of Peck, Hanson and Thornburn (1974) employing the modified relationship:
.qa = 1/F.S{ 0.22 N (0.1073(1000)} kPa --- --- --- --- (3)
where:
F.S = Factor of Safety = 3.0
gives the following approximate allowable net soil pressures for the various soil layers as:
(i) Brownish Clay layer (CL) = 125.898 – 173.110 kPa

(ii) Greyish Organic Silty Clays (OL) =
(iii) Yellowish Clayey Sands (SC) =
(iv) Greyish Silty-Sands (SM and =
(v) Well-graded Sands and gravels (SW) = 299.01 – > 393.43 kPa
{ a Factor of Safety of 3.0 has been applied to all values }
\
Table 5: Summary of Bearing Capacity Values Derived from Field SPT Soundings at the Federal
University Otuoke Project Site, Ogbia, Bayelsa State
S/No. BORINGS GPS LOCATIONS RANGE OF BEARING

No. of Boring Northing Easting PRESSURES (kPa)
Borings Number [ S.F. = 3.00]
#
1. Campus (Phase 1) 1 #1 N 04o 47’ E 006o 110.16 – 275.40 kPa
[Built-up Site] 33.45” 19’19.92”
2. Engineering & 1 #5 N 04o 47’ E 006o 291.14 – 377.70kPa
Maintenance 30.04” 19’31.83”
3. Sports / Recreation 1 #4 N 04o 47’ E 006o 55.08 – 70.82 kPa
42.9” 19’34.8”
4. Research Park 1 #9 N 04o 47’ E 006o 70.82 – 291.14 kPa
43.70” 19’37.13”
5. Teaching Core 3 # 6, N 04o 47’ E 006o 118.03 – 220.32 kPa
7& 8 34.51” 19’35.54” 141.64 – 212.45
kPa
149.50 – 220.32 kPa
6. Central 2 # 10 N 04o 47’ E 006o 141.64 – 267.53
Administration Area & 11 43.61” 19’40.39” kPa
86.56 - 354.09 kPa
7. Student 2 # 12 N 04o 47’ E 006o 110.16 – 299.01 kPa
Accommodation & 13 35.56” 19’42.08” 55.08 - 243.93 kPa
8. University Centre 1 # 18 N 04o 47’ E 006o 133.77 - 275.40 kPa
37.90” 19’45.71”
9. Senior Staff Housing 1 # 17 N 04o 47’ E 006o 141.64 – 314.75 kPa
Area 44.37” 19’50.69”
10. Junior Staff Quarters 1 #2 N 04o 47’ E 006o 133.77 – 314.25 kPa
36.03” 19’19.04”
11. Registrar’s Residence 1 # 16 N 04o 47’ E 006o 133.78 – 314.75 kPa
Area 39.35” 19’50.84”
12. Guest Cottages 1 # 15 N 04o 47’ E 006o 62.95 – 133.77 kPa
33.30” 19’52.12”
13. Vice-Chancellor’s 1 # 14 N 04o 47’ E 006o 86.56 – 204.59 kPa
Lodge 27.81” 19’51.78”
14. University Commercial 1 #3 N 04o 47’ E 006o 62.95 – 141.64 kPa
Centre 41.04” 19’28.13”
Total No of Borings .x18 .x18
No. No.
8.6 Road Pavement Investigations, Results And Analyses
8.6.1 California Bearing Ratios (CBR)
\
The California bearing Ratios CBR) tests were carried out on Twenty-Nine (29) soil samples obtained
from the project Sites for both soaked and un-soaked tests. These tests were conducted in accordance
with specifications contained in ASTM D1883.
The results of these tests are contained in Appendix “G” of this report.
8.6.1.1 CBR (Natural)

The soil samples from the Project area were subjected to un-soaked (natural) CBR test. Un-soaked CBR
values []
along the Road Alignments ranged from 25.80% to 50.50 %. According to the Overseas Road Note
31, “a minimum CBR of 15% is specified at the highest anticipated moisture content measured on
samples compacted in the laboratory at the specified field density”
8.6.1.2 CBR ( 24-Hour Soaking )
The samples from the project area were subjected to 24 – hour soaked CBR test, to evaluate the
influence of submergence of the materials to water.
Results indicate that the soils from the project area have a range of CBR (soaked) values of between
18.00% to 32.30 %. These values are very adequate for use as sub-base materials for road pavements.
[Overseas Road Note 31].
8.7 AASHTO Compaction

The AASHTO compaction tests were carried out in accordance with the specifications contained in
AASHTO T99 on soil samples from road alignments.
The Maximum Dry Densities (MDD) and the Optimum Moisture Content (OMC) obtained are contained
in Appendix “H” and in Tables 8a-8r of this Report.
8.7.1 Maximum dry Densities (MDD)

The Maximum Dry Densities (MDD) for the materials the Road Alignments vary from 1.98 to 2.76
Mg/m3.
8.7.2 Optimum Moisture Contents (OMC)

The Optimum Moisture Contents (OMC) required for the compaction of the soil materials obtained
from the road alignment vary from 8.00% to 14.50%.
\
8.8 Drainage Conditions

Generally, the Water Table was not encountered during the boring exercises at the project site. This
however means that the Water Table was deeper than the final boring depth of 20.00 meters at the
site. Values of coefficients of Permeability (k) obtained during consolidation tests on the top Brownish
lateritic Clayey Sands layer (SC) indicate that these materials are of low Permeability values, k values of
–4
the order of 1.5 x 10 m/sec. These values of permeability, k have been derived from grain-sizes
after the method of Hazen (1893).
How these affect drainage and consolidation characteristics of the various soil profiles at the project
site at the Federal University Otuoke, Project Site are shown in Table 6 above of this report.
Table 6: Consolidation, Bearing and Drainage Characteristics of Materials of the Federal University,
Otuoke Site, Bayelsa State.
Site ZONE # Qu Bearing Coefficient Coefficient of Coefficient of Remarks

Values Strength of Consolidation Permeability
from C / Compress- (Cv) m2/yr (K) cm/sec
SPT ibility
N- (Mv) m2/MN
Values
[kPa]
Federal ZONE A 55.08 0.00 – 0.14 0.24 Material
University, strength
to 52.80kPa
Otuoke, BH #s - - 1.75 x10 – 8 adequate
Otuoke, 1,2,3,4,5 &9 377.70 / for
Bayelsa 4o – 0.38 0.88 Bungalows
State. in all places
25.40o but require
rafts and
piles for
multiple
storey
buildings
Federal ZONE B 55.08 0.0 kPa 0.14 0.24 As above
University,
Otuoke, BH #s 6,7,8,12 to & - - 1.25 x 10 – 2
Otuoke, &13
Bayelsa 299.01 34o – 36o 0.38 0.88
State.
Federal ZONE C 62.95 1.0 kPa 0.14 0.24 As above

University,
Otuoke, BH #s to & - - 1.25 x 10 – 2
Otuoke, 10,11,14,15,
Bayelsa 16, 17 &18 354.09 34o – 36o 0.38 0.88
State.
\
8.9 Summary Of Test Results – Federal University, Otuoke, Bayelsa State
The summary of all test results obtained from the project site are contained in Tables 8a-8r of this
Report.
8.9.1 Geotechnical Investigation Test Results on Subsurface Materials

The geotechnical Results are as contained in Tables 8a-8r and in Appendix A of this Report.
8.9.2 Geophysical Investigation Test Results on Subsurface Materials

The geophysical Results are as discussed in Sections 4.0 through 6.0 and as contained in Appendix B of
this Report
8.9.3 Chemical Investigation Test Results on Subsurface Materials.

The Chemical Results are as discussed in Sections 7 of this Report. However, the Summary of the
Laboratory Results for the chemical tests are as contained in Table 7 below.
Table 7: Results of Chemical Tests on the Soils at the Project Site

S/No. Site BH # Sample Depth pH Cl- SO4-2 Organic
No. of value (g/g) (g/g) Matter
Sample (%)
(m)
1. Federal ZONE A
University,
Otuoke, BH #s A 2m 4.5 8.9 126.3 0.41
Otuoke, 1,2,3,4,5 &9
Bayelsa Site.
2. Federal ZONE B
University,
Otuoke, BH #s B 4m 4.5 12.8 278.2 0.52
Otuoke, 6,7,8,12
Bayelsa Site. &13
3. Federal ZONE C
University,
Otuoke, BH #s C 3m 4.7 13.2 298.2 0.64
Otuoke, 10,11,14,15,
Bayelsa Site. 16, 17 &18
4. Baseline Data
(far from site). BH2 BL3 3m 4.6 26.7 2.4 ND*
Allowable Code
5. Standards, - - - 7.00 2% of 5% of 0.00
[ ACI Code] concrete concrete
* ND – Not Detected
\
8.10 Discussion Of Results Of Investigations In Relation To Foundation Systems Design And Construction For
The Federal University, Otuoke Site, Bayelsa State.
8.10.1 General
A total of eighteen (18) Shell-and-Auger borings were made at the project site to a depth of 30.00
meters as previously mentioned. Also, two (2) geophysical profiles were completed at the project site
\
TABLE 8a: SUMMARY OF GEOTECHNICAL PROPERTIES FOR THE SUB-SOILS AT THE FEDERAL UNIVERSITY, OTUOKE, BAYELSA STATE
[BORING No.1]
Soil Type Sam Depth USC Soil Consistency Sat. U –U triaxial Oedometer AASHTO Soun- Grain size Distribution Pattern
No. (m) Class Unit Tests Compaction dings
Consolidation Tests (% Passing Sieve Sizes)
Wt
.wn LL PI Mv Cv
(%) (%) (%) kN/m3 u Cu (m2 / MN) x 10-4 (m2 / yr.) OMC MDD SPT > 4.75 75 2
(o ) kPa 50.00 400.00 50.00 400. (N ) 4.75 mm
kPa kPa kPa kPa mm
Brownish Clayey 1/1 0.00 CL 4.0 48.2 12.8 17.8 4 52.8 0.14 0.38 0.60 0.88 88 44 38 24
1/2 1.00 CL 4.5 46.0 15.6 17.8 - 50.2 -- -- - - 74 42 36 22
Layer ( CL)
1/3 2.00 CL 4.5 44.0 18.2 17.8 6 46.8 0.16 0.34 0.72 0.76 72 40 36 20
Greyish Organic 1/4 3.00 OL 6.4 48.2 12.8 17.8 4 48.2 0.14 0.38 0.60 0.88 - 64 36 18 4
Silty Clay layer 1/5 4.00 OL 6.8 46.0 15.6 17.8 - 46.5 -- -- - - - 62 34 16 2
(OL) 1/6 5.00 OL 10.0 44.0 18.2 17.8 4 38.8 0.16 0.34 0.72 0.76 - 42 22 14 4
1/7 6.00 OL 10.2 47.5 14.6 18.4 8 40.2 - 0.28 0.54 0.65 - 30 25 12 4
BH Greyish Clayey 1/8 7.00 SC 6.4 20.6 10.4 20.8 8 5.00 - 0.28 0.60 0.24 - 34 36 18 4
#1 Sand layer (SC) 1/9 8.00 SC 6.8 16.5 9.5 18.8 - - - -- - - - 22 34 16 2
110 9.00 SC 6.2 15.5 8.5 19.8 8 12.5 - 0.14 0.72 0.46 - 22 22 14 -
1/11 10.00 SC 7.4 16.5 6.5 19.4 - - - 0.28 0.54 0.25 - 10 25 12 -
1/12 11.00 SC 8.0 16.4 6.4 18.8 10 14.8 - 0.22 0.60 0.24 - 06 22 10 -
Poorly graded 1/13 12.0 SP 4.4 NP NP 24.6 23.8 0.0 - - - - 12.5 24.6 35 34 12 10 2
Sands 1/14 13.0 SP 5.8 NP NP 24.8 24.8 0.0 - - - - - - - 28 14 10 1
1/15 14.0 SP 5.2 NP NP 23.8 24.6 0.0 - - - - - - - 26 14 8 -
1/16 15.0 SP 5.4 NP NP 24.8 24.8 0.0 - - - - 13.8 26.8 32 24 13 7 4
1/17 16.0 SP 5.0 NP NP 24.6 23.8 0.0 - - - - - - - 20 14 8 2
1/18 17.0 SP 4.0 NP NP 24.8 24.8 0.0 - - - - - - - 28 10 9 5
1/19 18.0 SP 5.2 NP NP 23.8 24.6 0.0 - - - - - - 29 26 11 6 2
1/20 19.0 SP 5.4 NP NP 24.8 24.8 0.0 - - - - 14.2 25.6 - 28 12 8 2
1/21 20.0 SP 5.2 NP NP 24.6 24.6 0.0 - - - - - - - 24 10 6 1
1/22 21.0 SP 5.0 NP NP 24.8 24.8 0.0 - - - - - - 32 26 09 8 1
12.5 24.8
Well-graded 1/23 22.0 SP 5.0 NP NP 24.6 23.8 0.0 - - - - - - 42 20 14 8 2
gravelly sands 1/24 23.0 SP 4.0 NP NP 24.8 24.8 0.0 - - - - - - - 28 10 9 5
layer 1/28 27.0 SP 5.2 NP NP 23.8 24.6 0.0 - - - - - - - 26 11 6 2
1/29 28.0 SP 5.4 NP NP 24.8 24.8 0.0 - - - - - - 45 28 12 8 2
1/30 29.0 SP 5.2 NP NP 24.6 24.6 0.0 - - - - - - - 24 10 6 1
1/31 30.0 SP 5.0 NP NP 24.8 24.8 0.0 - - - - - - 38 26 09 8 1
Water Table(WT) = >3.0 meters from the ground surface
\
TABLE 8b: SUMMARY OF GEOTECHNICAL PROPERTIES FOR THE SUB-SOILS AT THE FEDERAL UNIVERSITY, OTUOKE, BAYELSA STATE
[BORING No. 2]
Wt
.wn LL PI Mv Cv
(o ) kPa 50.00 400.00 50.00 400. (N ) 4.75 mm
kPa kPa kPa kPa mm
2/2 1.00 CL 4.5 46.0 15.6 17.8 - 50.2 -- -- - - 74 42 36 22
Layer ( CL)
2/3 2.00 CL 4.5 44.0 18.2 17.8 6 46.8 0.16 0.34 0.72 0.76 72 40 36 20
(OL) 2/6 5.00 OL 10.0 44.0 18.2 17.8 4 38.8 0.16 0.34 0.72 0.76 - 42 22 14 4
2/7 6.00 OL 10.2 47.5 14.6 18.4 8 40.2 - 0.28 0.54 0.65 - 30 25 12 4
#2 Sand layer (SC) 2/9 8.00 SC 6.8 16.5 9.5 18.8 - - - -- - - - 22 34 16 2
210 9.00 SC 6.2 15.5 8.5 19.8 8 12.5 - 0.14 0.72 0.46 - 22 22 14 -
2/11 10.00 SC 7.4 16.5 6.5 19.4 - - - 0.28 0.54 0.25 - 10 25 12 -
2/12 11.00 SC 8.0 16.4 6.4 18.8 10 14.8 - 0.22 0.60 0.24 - 06 22 10 -
Sands 2/14 13.0 SP 5.8 NP NP 24.8 24.8 0.0 - - - - - - - 28 14 10 1
2/15 14.0 SP 5.2 NP NP 23.8 24.6 0.0 - - - - - - - 26 14 8 -
2/16 15.0 SP 5.4 NP NP 24.8 24.8 0.0 - - - - 13.8 26.8 32 24 13 7 4
2/17 16.0 SP 5.0 NP NP 24.6 23.8 0.0 - - - - - - - 20 14 8 2
2/18 17.0 SP 4.0 NP NP 24.8 24.8 0.0 - - - - - - - 28 10 9 5
2/19 18.0 SP 5.2 NP NP 23.8 24.6 0.0 - - - - - - 29 26 11 6 2
2/20 19.0 SP 5.4 NP NP 24.8 24.8 0.0 - - - - 14.2 25.6 - 28 12 8 2
2/21 20.0 SP 5.2 NP NP 24.6 24.6 0.0 - - - - - - - 24 10 6 1
2/22 21.0 SP 5.0 NP NP 24.8 24.8 0.0 - - - - - - 32 26 09 8 1
12.5 24.8
layer 2/28 27.0 SP 5.2 NP NP 23.8 24.6 0.0 - - - - - - - 26 11 6 2
2/29 28.0 SP 5.4 NP NP 24.8 24.8 0.0 - - - - - - 45 28 12 8 2
2/30 29.0 SP 5.2 NP NP 24.6 24.6 0.0 - - - - - - - 24 10 6 1
2/31 30.0 SP 5.0 NP NP 24.8 24.8 0.0 - - - - - - 38 26 09 8 1
\
TABLE 8c: SUMMARY OF GEOTECHNICAL PROPERTIES FOR THE SUB-SOILS AT THE FEDERAL UNIVERSITY, OTUOKE, BAYELSA STATE.
[BORING No. 3]
Wt
.wn LL PI Mv Cv
(o ) kPa 50.00 400.00 50.00 400. (N ) 4.75 mm
kPa kPa kPa kPa mm
3/2 1.00 CL 4.5 46.0 15.6 17.8 - 50.2 -- -- - - 74 42 36 22
Layer ( CL)
3/3 2.00 CL 4.5 44.0 18.2 17.8 6 46.8 0.16 0.34 0.72 0.76 72 40 36 20
(OL) 3/6 5.00 OL 10.0 44.0 18.2 17.8 4 38.8 0.16 0.34 0.72 0.76 - 42 22 14 4
3/7 6.00 OL 10.2 47.5 14.6 18.4 8 40.2 - 0.28 0.54 0.65 - 30 25 12 4
#3 Sand layer (SC) 3/9 8.00 SC 6.8 16.5 9.5 18.8 - - - -- - - - 22 34 16 2
310 9.00 SC 6.2 15.5 8.5 19.8 8 12.5 - 0.14 0.72 0.46 - 22 22 14 -
3/11 10.00 SC 7.4 16.5 6.5 19.4 - - - 0.28 0.54 0.25 - 10 25 12 -
3/12 11.00 SC 8.0 16.4 6.4 18.8 10 14.8 - 0.22 0.60 0.24 - 06 22 10 -
Sands 3/14 13.0 SP 5.8 NP NP 24.8 24.8 0.0 - - - - - - - 28 14 10 1
3/15 14.0 SP 5.2 NP NP 23.8 24.6 0.0 - - - - - - - 26 14 8 -
3/16 15.0 SP 5.4 NP NP 24.8 24.8 0.0 - - - - 13.8 26.8 32 24 13 7 4
3/17 16.0 SP 5.0 NP NP 24.6 23.8 0.0 - - - - - - - 20 14 8 2
3/18 17.0 SP 4.0 NP NP 24.8 24.8 0.0 - - - - - - - 28 10 9 5
3/19 18.0 SP 5.2 NP NP 23.8 24.6 0.0 - - - - - - 29 26 11 6 2
3/20 19.0 SP 5.4 NP NP 24.8 24.8 0.0 - - - - 14.2 25.6 - 28 12 8 2
3/21 20.0 SP 5.2 NP NP 24.6 24.6 0.0 - - - - - - - 24 10 6 1
3/22 21.0 SP 5.0 NP NP 24.8 24.8 0.0 - - - - - - 32 26 09 8 1
12.5 24.8
layer 3/28 27.0 SP 5.2 NP NP 23.8 24.6 0.0 - - - - - - - 26 11 6 2
3/29 28.0 SP 5.4 NP NP 24.8 24.8 0.0 - - - - - - 45 28 12 8 2
3/30 29.0 SP 5.2 NP NP 24.6 24.6 0.0 - - - - - - - 24 10 6 1
3/31 30.0 SP 5.0 NP NP 24.8 24.8 0.0 - - - - - - 38 26 09 8 1
\
TABLE 8d: SUMMARY OF GEOTECHNICAL PROPERTIES FOR THE SUB-SOILS AT THE FEDERAL UNIVERSITY, OTUOKE, BAYELSA STATE.
[BORING No.4]
Wt
.wn LL PI Mv Cv
(o ) kPa 50.00 400.00 50.00 400. (N ) 4.75 mm
kPa kPa kPa kPa mm
4/2 1.00 CL 4.5 46.0 15.6 17.8 - 50.2 -- -- - - 74 42 36 22
Layer ( CL)
4/3 2.00 CL 4.5 44.0 18.2 17.8 6 46.8 0.16 0.34 0.72 0.76 72 40 36 20
4/4 3.00 CL 4.5 42.0 16.8 17.8 4 46.8 - - - -
Whitish Silty 4/5 12.0 SM 4.4 NP NP 24.6 23.8 0.0 - - - - 12.5 24.6 35 34 12 10 2
Sands (SM) 4/6 13.0 SM 5.8 NP NP 24.8 24.8 0.0 - - - - - - - 28 14 10 1
4/7 14.0 SM 5.2 NP NP 23.8 24.6 0.0 - - - - - - 32 26 14 8 -
4/8 15.0 SM 5.4 NP NP 24.8 24.8 0.0 - - - - 13.8 26.8 - 24 13 7
BH 4
#4 Well-graded 4/9 22.0 SP 5.0 NP NP 24.6 23.8 0.0 - - - - - - 42 20 14 8 2
layer 4/11 27.0 SP 5.2 NP NP 23.8 24.6 0.0 - - - - - - - 26 11 6 2
4/12 28.0 SP 5.4 NP NP 24.8 24.8 0.0 - - - - - - 45 28 12 8
2
4/13 29.0 SP 5.2 NP NP 24.6 24.6 0.0 - - - - - - - 24 10 6
4/14 30.0 SP 5.0 NP NP 24.8 24.8 0.0 - - - - - - 38 26 09 8 1
4/15 30.0 SP 5.0 NP NP 24.6 24.8 0.0 - - - - - - 42 20 14 8 1
4/16 29.0 SP 4.0 NP NP 24.8 24.6 0.0 - - - - - - - 28 10 9 2
4/17 28.8 SP 5.2 NP NP 23.8 24.8 0.0 - - - - - - - 26 11 6 5
4/18 28.0 SP 5.4 NP NP 24.8 24.6 0.0 - - - - - - 45 28 12 8 2
4/19 28.0 SP 5.2 NP NP 24.6 24.82 0.0 - - - - - - - 24 10 6 2
4/20 27.6 SP 5.0 NP NP 24.6 4.8 0.0 - - - - - - 38 20 14 5 1
4/21 28.8 SP 4.0 NP NP 24.8 24.6 0.0 - - - - - - 42 28 10 9
2
4/22 29.0 SP 5.2 NP NP 23.8 24.8 0.0 - - - - - - - 26 11 6
4/23 28.0 SP 5.4 NP NP 24.8 24.6 0.0 - - - - - - - 28 12 8 5
4/24 28.0 SP 5.2 NP NP 24.6 24.82 0.0 - - - - - - 45 24 10 6 2
4/25 24.0 SP 5.0 NP NP 24.6 4.8 0.0 - - - - - - - 20 14 6 2
4/26 24.0 SP 4.0 NP NP 24.8 24.6 0.0 - - - - - - 38 28 10 9 1
4/27 28.6 SP 5.2 NP NP 23.8 24.8 0.0 - - - - - - 42 26 11 6 2
4/28 28.8 SP 5.4 NP NP 24.8 24.6 0.0 - - - - - - - 28 12 8 5
4/29 28.8 SP 5.2 NP NP 24.6 24.8 0.0 - - - - - - - 24 10 6 2
4/30 26.8 SP 5.2 NP NP 25.2 25.4 0.0 - - - - - - 45 20 09 8
2
4/31 28.8 SP 4.8 NP NP 24.8 24.8 0.0 - - - - - - - 18 08 4
- - 38 12 02 2 1
-
-
-
\
TABLE 8e: SUMMARY OF GEOTECHNICAL PROPERTIES FOR THE SUB-SOILS AT THE FEDERAL UNIVERSITY, OTUOKE, BAYELSA STATE.
[BORING No. 5]
Wt
.wn LL PI Mv Cv
(o ) kPa 50.00 400.00 50.00 400. (N ) 4.75 mm
kPa kPa kPa kPa mm
5/2 1.00 CL 4.5 46.0 15.6 17.8 - 50.2 -- -- - - 74 42 36 22
Layer ( CL)
5/3 2.00 CL 4.5 44.0 18.2 17.8 6 46.8 0.16 0.34 0.72 0.76 72 40 36 20
(OL) 5/6 5.00 OL 10.0 44.0 18.2 17.8 4 38.8 0.16 0.34 0.72 0.76 - 42 22 14 4
5/7 6.00 OL 10.2 47.5 14.6 18.4 8 40.2 - 0.28 0.54 0.65 - 30 25 12 4
Greyish Clayey 5/8 7.00 SC 6.4 20.6 10.4 20.8 8 5.00 - 0.28 0.60 0.24 - 34 36 18 4
Sand layer (SC) 5/9 8.00 SC 6.8 16.5 9.5 18.8 - - - -- - - - 22 34 16 2
510 9.00 SC 6.2 15.5 8.5 19.8 8 12.5 - 0.14 0.72 0.46 - 22 22 14 -
5/11 10.00 SC 7.4 16.5 6.5 19.4 - - - 0.28 0.54 0.25 - 10 25 12 -
BH 5/12 11.00 SC 8.0 16.4 6.4 18.8 10 14.8 - 0.22 0.60 0.24 - 06 22 10 -
#5
Sands 5/14 13.0 SP 5.8 NP NP 24.8 24.8 0.0 - - - - - - - 28 14 10 1
5/15 14.0 SP 5.2 NP NP 23.8 24.6 0.0 - - - - - - - 26 14 8 -
5/16 15.0 SP 5.4 NP NP 24.8 24.8 0.0 - - - - 13.8 26.8 32 24 13 7 4
5/17 16.0 SP 5.0 NP NP 24.6 23.8 0.0 - - - - - - - 20 14 8 2
5/18 17.0 SP 4.0 NP NP 24.8 24.8 0.0 - - - - - - - 28 10 9 5
5/19 18.0 SP 5.2 NP NP 23.8 24.6 0.0 - - - - - - 29 26 11 6 2
5/20 19.0 SP 5.4 NP NP 24.8 24.8 0.0 - - - - 14.2 25.6 - 28 12 8 2
5/21 20.0 SP 5.2 NP NP 24.6 24.6 0.0 - - - - - - - 24 10 6 1
5/22 21.0 SP 5.0 NP NP 24.8 24.8 0.0 - - - - - - 32 26 09 8 1
12.5 24.8
layer 5/28 27.0 SP 5.2 NP NP 23.8 24.6 0.0 - - - - - - - 26 11 6 2
5/29 28.0 SP 5.4 NP NP 24.8 24.8 0.0 - - - - - - 45 28 12 8 2
5/30 29.0 SP 5.2 NP NP 24.6 24.6 0.0 - - - - - - - 24 10 6 1
5/31 30.0 SP 5.0 NP NP 24.8 24.8 0.0 - - - - - - 38 26 09 8 1
\
TABLE 8f: SUMMARY OF GEOTECHNICAL PROPERTIES FOR THE SUB-SOILS AT THE FEDERAL UNIVERSITY, OTUOKE, BAYELSA STATE.
[BORING No.6]
Wt
.wn LL PI Mv Cv
(o ) kPa 50.00 400.00 50.00 400. (N ) 4.75 mm
kPa kPa kPa kPa mm
6/2 1.00 CL 4.5 46.0 15.6 17.8 - 50.2 -- -- - - 74 42 36 22
Layer ( CL)
6/3 2.00 CL 4.5 44.0 18.2 17.8 6 46.8 0.16 0.34 0.72 0.76 72 40 36 20
6/4 3.00 CL 4.5 42.0 16.8 17.8 4 46.8 - - - -
Sands (SM) 6/6 13.0 SM 5.8 NP NP 24.8 24.8 0.0 - - - - - - - 28 14 10 1
6/7 14.0 SM 5.2 NP NP 23.8 24.6 0.0 - - - - - - 32 26 14 8 -
6/8 15.0 SM 5.4 NP NP 24.8 24.8 0.0 - - - - 13.8 26.8 - 24 13 7 4
BH
#6 Well-graded 6/9 22.0 SP 5.0 NP NP 24.6 23.8 0.0 - - - - - - 42 20 14 8 2
layer 6/11 27.0 SP 5.2 NP NP 23.8 24.6 0.0 - - - - - - - 26 11 6 2
6/12 28.0 SP 5.4 NP NP 24.8 24.8 0.0 - - - - - - 45 28 12 8 2
6/13 29.0 SP 5.2 NP NP 24.6 24.6 0.0 - - - - - - - 24 10 6 1
6/14 30.0 SP 5.0 NP NP 24.8 24.8 0.0 - - - - - - 38 26 09 8 1
6/15 30.0 SP 5.0 NP NP 24.6 24.8 0.0 - - - - - - 42 20 14 8 2
6/16 29.0 SP 4.0 NP NP 24.8 24.6 0.0 - - - - - - - 28 10 9 5
6/17 28.8 SP 5.2 NP NP 23.8 24.8 0.0 - - - - - - - 26 11 6 2
6/18 28.0 SP 5.4 NP NP 24.8 24.6 0.0 - - - - - - 45 28 12 8 2
6/19 28.0 SP 5.2 NP NP 24.6 24.82 0.0 - - - - - - - 24 10 6 1
6/20 27.6 SP 5.0 NP NP 24.6 4.8 0.0 - - - - - - 38 20 14 5 2
6/21 28.8 SP 4.0 NP NP 24.8 24.6 0.0 - - - - - - 42 28 10 9 5
6/22 29.0 SP 5.2 NP NP 23.8 24.8 0.0 - - - - - - - 26 11 6 2
6/23 28.0 SP 5.4 NP NP 24.8 24.6 0.0 - - - - - - - 28 12 8 2
6/24 28.0 SP 5.2 NP NP 24.6 24.82 0.0 - - - - - - 45 24 10 6 1
6/25 24.0 SP 5.0 NP NP 24.6 4.8 0.0 - - - - - - - 20 14 6 2
6/26 24.0 SP 4.0 NP NP 24.8 24.6 0.0 - - - - - - 38 28 10 9 5
6/27 28.6 SP 5.2 NP NP 23.8 24.8 0.0 - - - - - - 42 26 11 6 2
6/28 28.8 SP 5.4 NP NP 24.8 24.6 0.0 - - - - - - - 28 12 8 2
6/29 28.8 SP 5.2 NP NP 24.6 24.8 0.0 - - - - - - - 24 10 6 1
6/30 26.8 SP 5.2 NP NP 25.2 25.4 0.0 - - - - - - 45 20 09 8 -
6/31 28.8 SP 4.8 NP NP 24.8 24.8 0.0 - - - - - - - 18 08 4 -
- - 38 12 02 2 -
\
TABLE 8g: SUMMARY OF GEOTECHNICAL PROPERTIES FOR THE SUB-SOILS AT THE FEDERAL UNIVERSITY, OTUOKE, BAYELSA STATE.
[BORING No. 7]
Wt
.wn LL PI Mv Cv
(o ) kPa 50.00 400.00 50.00 400. (N ) 4.75 mm
kPa kPa kPa kPa mm
7/2 1.00 CL 4.5 46.0 15.6 17.8 - 50.2 -- -- - - 74 42 36 22
Layer ( CL)
7/3 2.00 CL 4.5 44.0 18.2 17.8 6 46.8 0.16 0.34 0.72 0.76 72 40 36 20
(OL) 7/6 5.00 OL 10.0 44.0 18.2 17.8 4 38.8 0.16 0.34 0.72 0.76 - 42 22 14 4
7/7 6.00 OL 10.2 47.5 14.6 18.4 8 40.2 - 0.28 0.54 0.65 - 30 25 12 4
#7 Sand layer (SC) 7/9 8.00 SC 6.8 16.5 9.5 18.8 - - - -- - - - 22 34 16 2
710 9.00 SC 6.2 15.5 8.5 19.8 8 12.5 - 0.14 0.72 0.46 - 22 22 14 -
7/11 10.00 SC 7.4 16.5 6.5 19.4 - - - 0.28 0.54 0.25 - 10 25 12 -
7/12 11.00 SC 8.0 16.4 6.4 18.8 10 14.8 - 0.22 0.60 0.24 - 06 22 10 -
Sands 7/14 13.0 SP 5.8 NP NP 24.8 24.8 0.0 - - - - - - - 28 14 10 1
7/15 14.0 SP 5.2 NP NP 23.8 24.6 0.0 - - - - - - - 26 14 8 -
7/16 15.0 SP 5.4 NP NP 24.8 24.8 0.0 - - - - 13.8 26.8 32 24 13 7 4
7/17 16.0 SP 5.0 NP NP 24.6 23.8 0.0 - - - - - - - 20 14 8 2
7/18 17.0 SP 4.0 NP NP 24.8 24.8 0.0 - - - - - - - 28 10 9 5
7/19 18.0 SP 5.2 NP NP 23.8 24.6 0.0 - - - - - - 29 26 11 6 2
7/20 19.0 SP 5.4 NP NP 24.8 24.8 0.0 - - - - 14.2 25.6 - 28 12 8 2
7/21 20.0 SP 5.2 NP NP 24.6 24.6 0.0 - - - - - - - 24 10 6 1
7/22 21.0 SP 5.0 NP NP 24.8 24.8 0.0 - - - - - - 32 26 09 8 1
12.5 24.8
layer 7/28 27.0 SP 5.2 NP NP 23.8 24.6 0.0 - - - - - - - 26 11 6 2
7/29 28.0 SP 5.4 NP NP 24.8 24.8 0.0 - - - - - - 45 28 12 8 2
7/30 29.0 SP 5.2 NP NP 24.6 24.6 0.0 - - - - - - - 24 10 6 1
7/31 30.0 SP 5.0 NP NP 24.8 24.8 0.0 - - - - - - 38 26 09 8 1
\
TABLE 8h: SUMMARY OF GEOTECHNICAL PROPERTIES FOR THE SUB-SOILS AT THE FEDERAL UNIVERSITY, OTUOKE, BAYELSA STATE.
[BORING No. 8]
Wt
.wn LL PI Mv Cv
(o ) kPa 50.00 400.00 50.00 400. (N ) 4.75 mm
kPa kPa kPa kPa mm
8/2 1.00 CL 4.5 46.0 15.6 17.8 - 50.2 -- -- - - 74 42 36 22
Layer ( CL)
8/3 2.00 CL 4.5 44.0 18.2 17.8 6 46.8 0.16 0.34 0.72 0.76 72 40 36 20
(OL) 8/6 5.00 OL 10.0 44.0 18.2 17.8 4 38.8 0.16 0.34 0.72 0.76 - 42 22 14 4
8/7 6.00 OL 10.2 47.5 14.6 18.4 8 40.2 - 0.28 0.54 0.65 - 30 25 12 4
Greyish Clayey 8/8 7.00 SC 6.4 20.6 10.4 20.8 8 5.00 - 0.28 0.60 0.24 - 34 36 18 4
Sand layer (SC) 8/9 8.00 SC 6.8 16.5 9.5 18.8 - - - -- - - - 22 34 16 2
810 9.00 SC 6.2 15.5 8.5 19.8 8 12.5 - 0.14 0.72 0.46 - 22 22 14 -
8/11 10.00 SC 7.4 16.5 6.5 19.4 - - - 0.28 0.54 0.25 - 10 25 12 -
BH 8/12 11.00 SC 8.0 16.4 6.4 18.8 10 14.8 - 0.22 0.60 0.24 - 06 22 10 -
#8
Sands 8/14 13.0 SP 5.8 NP NP 24.8 24.8 0.0 - - - - - - - 28 14 10 1
8/15 14.0 SP 5.2 NP NP 23.8 24.6 0.0 - - - - - - - 26 14 8 -
8/16 15.0 SP 5.4 NP NP 24.8 24.8 0.0 - - - - 13.8 26.8 32 24 13 7 4
8/17 16.0 SP 5.0 NP NP 24.6 23.8 0.0 - - - - - - - 20 14 8 2
8/18 17.0 SP 4.0 NP NP 24.8 24.8 0.0 - - - - - - - 28 10 9 5
8/19 18.0 SP 5.2 NP NP 23.8 24.6 0.0 - - - - - - 29 26 11 6 2
8/20 19.0 SP 5.4 NP NP 24.8 24.8 0.0 - - - - 14.2 25.6 - 28 12 8 2
8/21 20.0 SP 5.2 NP NP 24.6 24.6 0.0 - - - - - - - 24 10 6 1
8/22 21.0 SP 5.0 NP NP 24.8 24.8 0.0 - - - - - - 32 26 09 8 1
12.5 24.8
layer 8/28 27.0 SP 5.2 NP NP 23.8 24.6 0.0 - - - - - - - 26 11 6 2
8/29 28.0 SP 5.4 NP NP 24.8 24.8 0.0 - - - - - - 45 28 12 8 2
8/30 29.0 SP 5.2 NP NP 24.6 24.6 0.0 - - - - - - - 24 10 6 1
8/31 30.0 SP 5.0 NP NP 24.8 24.8 0.0 - - - - - - 38 26 09 8 1
\
TABLE 8i: SUMMARY OF GEOTECHNICAL PROPERTIES FOR THE SUB-SOILS AT THE FEDERAL UNIVERSITY, OTUOKE, BAYELSA STATE.
[BORING No.9]
Wt
.wn LL PI Mv Cv
(o ) kPa 50.00 400.00 50.00 400. (N ) 4.75 mm
kPa kPa kPa kPa mm
9/2 1.00 CL 4.5 46.0 15.6 17.8 - 50.2 -- -- - - 74 42 36 22
Layer ( CL)
9/3 2.00 CL 4.5 44.0 18.2 17.8 6 46.8 0.16 0.34 0.72 0.76 72 40 36 20
(OL) 9/6 5.00 OL 10.0 44.0 18.2 17.8 4 38.8 0.16 0.34 0.72 0.76 - 42 22 14 4
9/7 6.00 OL 10.2 47.5 14.6 18.4 8 40.2 - 0.28 0.54 0.65 - 30 25 12 4
#9 Sand layer (SC) 9/9 8.00 SC 6.8 16.5 9.5 18.8 - - - -- - - - 22 34 16 2
910 9.00 SC 6.2 15.5 8.5 19.8 8 12.5 - 0.14 0.72 0.46 - 22 22 14 -
9/11 10.00 SC 7.4 16.5 6.5 19.4 - - - 0.28 0.54 0.25 - 10 25 12 -
9/12 11.00 SC 8.0 16.4 6.4 18.8 10 14.8 - 0.22 0.60 0.24 - 06 22 10 -
Sands 9/14 13.0 SP 5.8 NP NP 24.8 24.8 0.0 - - - - - - - 28 14 10 1
9/15 14.0 SP 5.2 NP NP 23.8 24.6 0.0 - - - - - - - 26 14 8 -
9/16 15.0 SP 5.4 NP NP 24.8 24.8 0.0 - - - - 13.8 26.8 32 24 13 7 4
9/17 16.0 SP 5.0 NP NP 24.6 23.8 0.0 - - - - - - - 20 14 8 2
9/18 17.0 SP 4.0 NP NP 24.8 24.8 0.0 - - - - - - - 28 10 9 5
9/19 18.0 SP 5.2 NP NP 23.8 24.6 0.0 - - - - - - 29 26 11 6 2
9/20 19.0 SP 5.4 NP NP 24.8 24.8 0.0 - - - - 14.2 25.6 - 28 12 8 2
9/21 20.0 SP 5.2 NP NP 24.6 24.6 0.0 - - - - - - - 24 10 6 1
9/22 21.0 SP 5.0 NP NP 24.8 24.8 0.0 - - - - - - 32 26 09 8 1
12.5 24.8
layer 9/28 27.0 SP 5.2 NP NP 23.8 24.6 0.0 - - - - - - - 26 11 6 2
9/29 28.0 SP 5.4 NP NP 24.8 24.8 0.0 - - - - - - 45 28 12 8 2
9/30 29.0 SP 5.2 NP NP 24.6 24.6 0.0 - - - - - - - 24 10 6 1
9/31 30.0 SP 5.0 NP NP 24.8 24.8 0.0 - - - - - - 38 26 09 8 1
\
TABLE 8j: SUMMARY OF GEOTECHNICAL PROPERTIES FOR THE SUB-SOILS AT THE FEDERAL UNIVERSITY, OTUOKE, BAYELSA STATE.
[BORING No.10]
Wt
.wn LL PI Mv Cv
(o ) kPa 50.00 400.00 50.00 400. (N ) 4.75 mm
kPa kPa kPa kPa mm
10/2 1.00 CL 4.5 46.0 15.6 17.8 - 50.2 -- -- - - 74 42 36 22
Layer ( CL)
10/3 2.00 CL 4.5 44.0 18.2 17.8 6 46.8 0.16 0.34 0.72 0.76 72 40 36 20
10/4 3.00 CL 4.5 42.0 16.8 17.8 4 46.8 - - - -
Greyish Silty- 10/5 4.0 SM 4.4 NP NP 24.6 5.0 8.0 - - - - 12.5 24.6 35 34 12 10 2
Clayey Sands (SC- 10/6 5.0 SM 5.8 NP NP 24.8 6.0 9.0 - - - - - - - 28 14 10 1
SM) 10/7 6.0 SM 5.2 NP NP 23.8 6.0 8.0 - - - - - - 32 26 14 8 -
10/8 7.0 SM 5.4 NP NP 24.8 6.0 - - - - - 13.8 26.8 - 24 13 7 4
BH 10/9 8.00 SM 4.4 NP NP 24.6 5.0 - - - - - 12.5 24.6 35 34 12 10 2
# 10 10/10 9.00 SM 5.8 NP NP 24.8 6.0 - - - - - - - - 28 14 10 1
10/11 10.0 SM 5.2 NP NP 23.8 6.0 - - - - - - - 32 26 14 8 -
10/12 11.0 SM 5.4 NP NP 24.8 6.0 - - - - - 13.8 26.8 - 24 13 7 4
- -
Greyish poorly- 10/13 12.00 SP 5.2 NP NP 23.8 24.6 0.0 - - - - - - 32 26 14 8 -
graded sands 10/14 13.00 SP 5.4 NP NP 24.8 24.8 0.0 - - - - - - - 24 13 7 4
10/15 14.00 SP 5.2 NP NP 23.8 24.6 0.0 - - - - - - - 26 14 8 -
10/16 15.00 SP 5.4 NP NP 24.8 24.8 0.0 - - - - - - 28 24 13 7 4
10/17 16.00 SP 5.2 NP NP 23.8 24.6 0.0 - - - - - - - 26 14 8 -
10/18 17.00 SP 5.4 NP NP 24.8 24.8 0.0 - - - - - - 30 24 13 7 4
Well-graded 10/19 18.0 SW 5.0 NP NP 24.6 23.8 0.0 - - - - - - 42 20 14 8 2
gravelly sands 10/20 19.0 SW 4.0 NP NP 24.8 24.8 0.0 - - - - - - 45 24 10 6 1
layer 10/21 20.0 SW 5.2 NP NP 23.8 24.6 0.0 - - - - - - - 26 09 8 1
10/22 21.0 SW 5.4 NP NP 24.8 24.8 0.0 - - - - - - 38 20 14 8 2
10/23 22.0 SW 5.2 NP NP 24.6 24.6 0.0 - - - - - - 42 28 10 9 5
10/24 23.0 SW 5.0 NP NP 24.8 24.8 0.0 - - - - - - - 26 11 6 2
10/25 24.0 SW 5.0 NP NP 24.6 24.8 0.0 - - - - - - - 28 12 8 2
10/26 25.0 SW 4.0 NP NP 24.8 24.6 0.0 - - - - - - 45 24 10 6 1
10/27 26.8 SW 5.2 NP NP 23.8 24.8 0.0 - - - - - - - 20 14 5 2
10/28 27.0 SW 5.4 NP NP 24.8 24.6 0.0 - - - - - - 38 28 10 9 5
10/29 28.0 SW 5.2 NP NP 24.6 24.82 0.0 - - - - - - 42 26 11 6 2
10/30 29.0 SW 5.0 NP NP 24.6 4.8 0.0 - - - - - - - 28 12 8 2
10/31 30.0 SW 4.0 NP NP 24.8 24.6 0.0 - - - - - - 45 24 10 6 1
\
TABLE 8k: SUMMARY OF GEOTECHNICAL PROPERTIES FOR THE SUB-SOILS AT THE FEDERAL UNIVERSITY, OTUOKE, BAYELSA STATE.
[BORING No.11]
Wt
.wn LL PI Mv Cv
(o ) kPa 50.00 400.00 50.00 400. (N ) 4.75 mm
kPa kPa kPa kPa mm
11/2 1.00 CL 4.5 46.0 15.6 17.8 - 50.2 -- -- - - 74 42 36 22
Layer ( CL)
11/3 2.00 CL 4.5 44.0 18.2 17.8 6 46.8 0.16 0.34 0.72 0.76 72 40 36 20
11/4 3.00 CL 4.5 42.0 16.8 17.8 4 46.8 - - - -
SM) 11/7 6.0 SM 5.2 NP NP 23.8 6.0 8.0 - - - - - - 32 26 14 8 -
11/8 7.0 SM 5.4 NP NP 24.8 6.0 - - - - - 13.8 26.8 - 24 13 7 4
BH 11/9 8.00 SM 4.4 NP NP 24.6 5.0 - - - - - 12.5 24.6 35 34 12 10 2
# 11 11/10 9.00 SM 5.8 NP NP 24.8 6.0 - - - - - - - - 28 14 10 1
11/11 10.0 SM 5.2 NP NP 23.8 6.0 - - - - - - - 32 26 14 8 -
11/12 11.0 SM 5.4 NP NP 24.8 6.0 - - - - - 13.8 26.8 - 24 13 7 4
- -
11/15 14.00 SP 5.2 NP NP 23.8 24.6 0.0 - - - - - - - 26 14 8 -
11/16 15.00 SP 5.4 NP NP 24.8 24.8 0.0 - - - - - - 28 24 13 7 4
11/17 16.00 SP 5.2 NP NP 23.8 24.6 0.0 - - - - - - - 26 14 8 -
11/18 17.00 SP 5.4 NP NP 24.8 24.8 0.0 - - - - - - 30 24 13 7 4
layer 11/21 20.0 SW 5.2 NP NP 23.8 24.6 0.0 - - - - - - - 26 09 8 1
11/22 21.0 SW 5.4 NP NP 24.8 24.8 0.0 - - - - - - 38 20 14 8 2
11/23 22.0 SW 5.2 NP NP 24.6 24.6 0.0 - - - - - - 42 28 10 9 5
11/24 23.0 SW 5.0 NP NP 24.8 24.8 0.0 - - - - - - - 26 11 6 2
11/25 24.0 SW 5.0 NP NP 24.6 24.8 0.0 - - - - - - - 28 12 8 2
11/26 25.0 SW 4.0 NP NP 24.8 24.6 0.0 - - - - - - 45 24 10 6 1
11/27 26.8 SW 5.2 NP NP 23.8 24.8 0.0 - - - - - - - 20 14 5 2
11/28 27.0 SW 5.4 NP NP 24.8 24.6 0.0 - - - - - - 38 28 10 9 5
11/29 28.0 SW 5.2 NP NP 24.6 24.82 0.0 - - - - - - 42 26 11 6 2
11/30 29.0 SW 5.0 NP NP 24.6 4.8 0.0 - - - - - - - 28 12 8 2
11/31 30.0 SW 4.0 NP NP 24.8 24.6 0.0 - - - - - - 45 24 10 6 1
\
TABLE 8l: SUMMARY OF GEOTECHNICAL PROPERTIES FOR THE SUB-SOILS AT THE FEDERAL UNIVERSITY, OTUOKE, BAYELSA STATE.
[BORING No.12]
Wt
.wn LL PI Mv Cv
(o ) kPa 50.00 400.00 50.00 400. (N ) 4.75 mm
kPa kPa kPa kPa mm
12/2 1.00 CL 4.5 46.0 15.6 17.8 - 50.2 -- -- - - 74 42 36 22
Layer ( CL)
12/3 2.00 CL 4.5 44.0 18.2 17.8 6 46.8 0.16 0.34 0.72 0.76 72 40 36 20
12/4 3.00 CL 4.5 42.0 16.8 17.8 4 46.8 - - - -
Sands (SM) 12/6 5.0 SM 5.8 NP NP 24.8 24.8 0.0 - - - - - - - 28 14 10 1
12/7 6.0 SM 5.2 NP NP 23.8 24.6 0.0 - - - - - - 32 26 14 8 -
12/8 7.0 SM 5.4 NP NP 24.8 24.8 0.0 - - - - 13.8 26.8 - 24 13 7 4
BH
# 12 Whitish poorly- 12/9 8.00 SP 5.2 NP NP 23.8 24.6 0.0 - - - - - - 32 26 14 8 -
layer 12/13 12.0 SW 5.2 NP NP 23.8 24.6 0.0 - - - - - - - 26 09 8 1
12/14 13.0 SW 5.4 NP NP 24.8 24.8 0.0 - - - - - - 38 20 14 8 2
12/15 14.0 SW 5.2 NP NP 24.6 24.6 0.0 - - - - - - 42 28 10 9 5
12/16 15.0 SW 5.0 NP NP 24.8 24.8 0.0 - - - - - - - 26 11 6 2
12/17 16.0 SW 5.0 NP NP 24.6 24.8 0.0 - - - - - - - 28 12 8 2
12/18 17.0 SW 4.0 NP NP 24.8 24.6 0.0 - - - - - - 45 24 10 6 1
12/19 18.8 SW 5.2 NP NP 23.8 24.8 0.0 - - - - - - - 20 14 5 2
12/20 19.0 SW 5.4 NP NP 24.8 24.6 0.0 - - - - - - 38 28 10 9 5
12/21 20.0 SW 5.2 NP NP 24.6 24.82 0.0 - - - - - - 42 26 11 6 2
12/22 21.0 SW 5.0 NP NP 24.6 4.8 0.0 - - - - - - - 28 12 8 2
12/23 22.0 SW 4.0 NP NP 24.8 24.6 0.0 - - - - - - - 24 10 6 1
12/24 23.0 SW 5.2 NP NP 23.8 24.8 0.0 - - - - - - 45 20 14 6 2
12/25 24.0 SW 5.4 NP NP 24.8 24.6 0.0 - - - - - - - 28 10 9 5
12/26 25.0 SW 5.2 NP NP 24.6 24.82 0.0 - - - - - - 38 26 11 6 2
12/27 26.0 SW 5.0 NP NP 24.6 4.8 0.0 - - - - - - 42 28 12 8 2
12/28 27.0 SW 4.0 NP NP 24.8 24.6 0.0 - - - - - - - 24 10 6 1
12/29 28.0 SW 5.2 NP NP 23.8 24.8 0.0 - - - - - - - 20 09 8 -
12/30 29.0 SW 5.4 NP NP 24.8 24.6 0.0 - - - - - - 45 18 08 4 -
12/31 30.0 SW 5.2 NP NP 24.6 24.8 0.0 - - - - - - - 12 02 2 -
\
TABLE 8m: SUMMARY OF GEOTECHNICAL PROPERTIES FOR THE SUB-SOILS AT THE FEDERAL UNIVERSITY, OTUOKE, BAYELSA STATE.
[BORING No.13]
Wt
.wn LL PI Mv Cv
(o ) kPa 50.00 400.00 50.00 400. (N ) 4.75 mm
kPa kPa kPa kPa mm
13/2 1.00 CL 4.5 46.0 15.6 17.8 - 50.2 -- -- - - 74 42 36 22
Layer ( CL)
13/3 2.00 CL 4.5 44.0 18.2 17.8 6 46.8 0.16 0.34 0.72 0.76 72 40 36 20
(OL) 13/6 5.00 OL 10.0 44.0 18.2 17.8 4 38.8 0.16 0.34 0.72 0.76 - 42 22 14 4
13/7 6.00 OL 10.2 47.5 14.6 18.4 8 40.2 - 0.28 0.54 0.65 - 30 25 12 4
# 13 Sand layer (SC) 13/9 8.00 SC 6.8 16.5 9.5 18.8 - - - -- - - - 22 34 16 2
13/10 9.00 SC 6.2 15.5 8.5 19.8 8 12.5 - 0.14 0.72 0.46 - 22 22 14 -
13/11 10.00 SC 7.4 16.5 6.5 19.4 - - - 0.28 0.54 0.25 - 10 25 12 -
13/12 11.00 SC 8.0 16.4 6.4 18.8 10 14.8 - 0.22 0.60 0.24 - 06 22 10 -
Sands 13/14 13.0 SP 5.8 NP NP 24.8 24.8 0.0 - - - - - - - 28 14 10 1
13/15 14.0 SP 5.2 NP NP 23.8 24.6 0.0 - - - - - - - 26 14 8 -
13/16 15.0 SP 5.4 NP NP 24.8 24.8 0.0 - - - - 13.8 26.8 32 24 13 7 4
13/17 16.0 SP 5.0 NP NP 24.6 23.8 0.0 - - - - - - - 20 14 8 2
13/18 17.0 SP 4.0 NP NP 24.8 24.8 0.0 - - - - - - - 28 10 9 5
13/19 18.0 SP 5.2 NP NP 23.8 24.6 0.0 - - - - - - 29 26 11 6 2
13/20 19.0 SP 5.4 NP NP 24.8 24.8 0.0 - - - - 14.2 25.6 - 28 12 8 2
13/21 20.0 SP 5.2 NP NP 24.6 24.6 0.0 - - - - - - - 24 10 6 1
13/22 21.0 SP 5.0 NP NP 24.8 24.8 0.0 - - - - - - 32 26 09 8 1
12.5 24.8
layer 13/28 27.0 SP 5.2 NP NP 23.8 24.6 0.0 - - - - - - - 26 11 6 2
13/29 28.0 SP 5.4 NP NP 24.8 24.8 0.0 - - - - - - 45 28 12 8 2
13/30 29.0 SP 5.2 NP NP 24.6 24.6 0.0 - - - - - - - 24 10 6 1
13/31 30.0 SP 5.0 NP NP 24.8 24.8 0.0 - - - - - - 38 26 09 8 1
\
TABLE 8n: SUMMARY OF GEOTECHNICAL PROPERTIES FOR THE SUB-SOILS AT THE FEDERAL UNIVERSITY, OTUOKE, BAYELSA STATE.
[BORING No.14]
Wt
.wn LL PI Mv Cv
(o ) kPa 50.00 400.00 50.00 400. (N ) 4.75 mm
kPa kPa kPa kPa mm
Brownish Organic 14/1 0.00 OH 4.0 48.2 12.8 17.8 4 52.8 0.14 0.38 0.60 0.88 88 44 38 24
14/2 1.00 OH 4.5 46.0 15.6 17.8 - 50.2 -- -- - - 74 42 36 22
Silty Clayey Layer
14/3 2.00 OH 4.5 44.0 18.2 17. 6 46.8 0.16 0.34 0.72 0.76 72 40 36 20
(OH) 14/4 3.00 OH 4.0 48.2 12.8 17.8 4 52.8 - - - -
14/5 4.00 OH 4.5 46.0 15.6 17.8 - 50.2 - - - -
(OL) 14/8 7.00 OL 10.0 44.0 18.2 17.8 4 38.8 0.16 0.34 0.72 0.76 - 42 22 14 4
BH 14/9 8.00 OL 10.2 47.5 14.6 18.4 8 40.2 - 0.28 0.54 0.65 - 30 25 12 4
# 14
Greyish Silty Sand 14/10 9.00 SC 6.4 20.6 10.4 20.8 8 5.00 - 0.28 0.60 0.24 - - - 34 36 18 4
layer (SM) 14/11 10.00 SC 6.8 16.5 9.5 18.8 - - - -- - - - - - 22 34 16 2
1412 11.00 SC 6.2 15.5 8.5 19.8 8 12.5 - 0.14 0.72 0.46 - - - 22 22 14 -
14/13 12.00 SC 7.4 16.5 6.5 19.4 - - - 0.28 - - - - - 10 25 12 -
14/14 13.00 SC 8.0 16.4 6.4 18.8 10 14.8 - - - - - - - 06 22 10 -
14/15 14.00 SC 6.2 15.5 8.5 19.8 8 12.5 - - - - - - -
14/16 15.00 SC 7.4 16.5 6.5 19.4 - - - - - - - - -
14/17 16.00 SC 8.0 16.4 6.4 18.8 10 14.8 - 0.22 0.46 0.26 - - -
Sands 14/19 18.0 SP 5.8 NP NP 24.8 24.8 0.0 - - - - - - - 28 14 10 1
14/20 19.0 SP 5.2 NP NP 23.8 24.6 0.0 - - - - - - - 26 14 8 -
14/21 20.0 SP 5.4 NP NP 24.8 24.8 0.0 - - - - 13.8 26.8 32 24 13 7 4

gravelly sands 14/23 22.0 SW 4.0 NP NP 24.8 24.8 0.0 - - - - - - - 28 10 9 5
layer 14/24 23.0 SW 5.2 NP NP 23.8 24.6 0.0 - - - - - - - 26 11 6 2
14/25 24.0 SW 5.4 NP NP 24.8 24.8 0.0 - - - - - - 45 28 12 8 2
14/26 25.0 SW 5.2 NP NP 24.6 24.6 0.0 - - - - - - - 24 10 6 1
14/27 26.0 SW 5.0 NP NP 24.8 24.8 0.0 - - - - - - 38 26 09 8 1
14/28 27.00 SW 5.0 NP NP 24.6 23.8 0.0 - - - - - - 42 26 11 8 2
14/29 28.00 SW 4.0 NP NP 24.8 24.8 0.0 - - - - - - - 28 12 9 5
14/30 29.00 SW 5.2 NP NP 23.8 24.6 0.0 - - - - - - - 24 10 6 2
14/31 30.00 SW 5.4 NP NP 24.8 24.8 0.0 - - - - - - 45 26 09 8 2
\
TABLE 8o: SUMMARY OF GEOTECHNICAL PROPERTIES FOR THE SUB-SOILS AT THE FEDERAL UNIVERSITY, OTUOKE, BAYELSA STATE.
[BORING No.15 ]
Wt
.wn LL PI Mv Cv
(o ) kPa 50.00 400.00 50.00 400. (N ) 4.75 mm
kPa kPa kPa kPa mm
Brownish Organic 15/1 0.00 OH 4.0 48.2 12.8 17.8 4 52.8 0.14 0.38 0.60 0.88 88 44 38 24
15/2 1.00 OH 4.5 46.0 15.6 17.8 - 50.2 -- -- - - 74 42 36 22
Silty Clayey Layer
15/3 2.00 OH 4.5 44.0 18.2 17. 6 46.8 0.16 0.34 0.72 0.76 72 40 36 20
(OH) 15/4 3.00 OH 4.0 48.2 12.8 17.8 4 52.8 - - - -
15/5 4.00 OH 4.5 46.0 15.6 17.8 - 50.2 - - - -
(OL) 15/8 7.00 OL 10.0 44.0 18.2 17.8 4 38.8 0.16 0.34 0.72 0.76 - 42 22 14 4
15/9 8.00 OL 10.2 47.5 14.6 18.4 8 40.2 - 0.28 0.54 0.65 - 30 25 12 4
Greyish Silty Sand 15/10 9.00 SC 6.4 20.6 10.4 20.8 8 5.00 - 0.28 0.60 0.24 - - - 34 36 18 4
layer (SM) 15/11 10.00 SC 6.8 16.5 9.5 18.8 - - - -- - - - - - 22 34 16 2
BH 1512 11.00 SC 6.2 15.5 8.5 19.8 8 12.5 - 0.14 0.72 0.46 - - - 22 22 14 -
# 15/13 12.00 SC 7.4 16.5 6.5 19.4 - - - 0.28 - - - - - 10 25 12 -
15/14 13.00 SC 8.0 16.4 6.4 18.8 10 14.8 - - - - - - - 06 22 10 -
15
15/15 14.00 SC 6.2 15.5 8.5 19.8 8 12.5 - - - - - - -
15/16 15.00 SC 7.4 16.5 6.5 19.4 - - - - - - - - -
15/17 16.00 SC 8.0 16.4 6.4 18.8 10 14.8 - 0.22 0.46 0.26 - - -
Sands 15/19 18.0 SP 5.8 NP NP 24.8 24.8 0.0 - - - - - - - 28 14 10 1
15/20 19.0 SP 5.2 NP NP 23.8 24.6 0.0 - - - - - - - 26 14 8 -
15/21 20.0 SP 5.4 NP NP 24.8 24.8 0.0 - - - - 13.8 26.8 32 24 13 7 4

gravelly sands 15/23 22.0 SW 4.0 NP NP 24.8 24.8 0.0 - - - - - - - 28 10 9 5
layer 15/24 23.0 SW 5.2 NP NP 23.8 24.6 0.0 - - - - - - - 26 11 6 2
15/25 24.0 SW 5.4 NP NP 24.8 24.8 0.0 - - - - - - 45 28 12 8 2
15/26 25.0 SW 5.2 NP NP 24.6 24.6 0.0 - - - - - - - 24 10 6 1
15/27 26.0 SW 5.0 NP NP 24.8 24.8 0.0 - - - - - - 38 26 09 8 1
15/28 27.00 SW 5.0 NP NP 24.6 23.8 0.0 - - - - - - 42 26 11 8 2
15/29 28.00 SW 4.0 NP NP 24.8 24.8 0.0 - - - - - - - 28 12 9 5
15/30 29.00 SW 5.2 NP NP 23.8 24.6 0.0 - - - - - - - 24 10 6 2
15/31 30.00 SW 5.4 NP NP 24.8 24.8 0.0 - - - - - - 45 26 09 8 2
\
TABLE 8p: SUMMARY OF GEOTECHNICAL PROPERTIES FOR THE SUB-SOILS AT THE FEDERAL UNIVERSITY, OTUOKE, BAYELSA STATE.
[BORING No. 16]
Wt
.wn LL PI Mv Cv
(o ) kPa 50.00 400.00 50.00 400. (N ) 4.75 mm
kPa kPa kPa kPa mm
Greyish Organic 16/1 0.00 OH 4.0 48.2 12.8 17.8 4 52.8 0.14 0.38 0.60 0.88 88 44 38 24
16/2 1.00 OH 4.5 46.0 15.6 17.8 - 50.2 -- -- - - 74 42 36 22
Clay Layer (OH)
16/3 2.00 OH 4.5 44.0 18.2 17.8 6 46.8 0.16 0.34 0.72 0.76 72 40 36 20
16/4 3.00 OH 4.5 42.0 16.8 17.8 4 46.8 - - - -
16/5 4.00 OH 4.5 46.0 18.2 17.8 - - - - - -
SM) 16/8 7.0 SM 5.2 NP NP 23.8 6.0 8.0 - - - - - - 32 26 14 8 -
BH 16/9 8.0 SM 5.4 NP NP 24.8 6.0 - - - - - 13.8 26.8 - 24 13 7 4
# 16 16/10 9.00 SM 4.4 NP NP 24.6 5.0 - - - - - 12.5 24.6 35 34 12 10 2
16/11 10.00 SM 5.8 NP NP 24.8 6.0 - - - - - - - - 28 14 10 1
16/12 11.00 SM 5.2 NP NP 23.8 6.0 - - - - - - - 32 26 14 8 -
16/13 12.00 SM 5.4 NP NP 24.8 6.0 - - - - - 13.8 26.8 - 24 13 7 4
- -
16/16 15.00 SP 5.2 NP NP 23.8 24.6 0.0 - - - - - - - 26 14 8 -
16/17 16.00 SP 5.4 NP NP 24.8 24.8 0.0 - - - - - - 28 24 13 7 4
16/18 17.00 SP 5.2 NP NP 23.8 24.6 0.0 - - - - - - - 26 14 8 -
16/19 18.00 SP 5.4 NP NP 24.8 24.8 0.0 - - - - - - 30 24 13 7 4
16/20 19.00 SP 5.4 NP NP 24.8 24.8 0.0 - - - - - - 32 26 14 8 -
16/21 20.00 SP 5.2 NP NP 23.8 24.6 0.0 - - - - - - - 24 13 7 4
16/22 21.00 SP 5.4 NP NP 24.8 24.8 0.0 - - - - - - - 26 14 8 -
layer 16/25 24.00 SW 5.2 NP NP 23.8 24.6 0.0 - - - - - - - 26 09 8 1
16/26 25.00 SW 5.4 NP NP 24.8 24.8 0.0 - - - - - - 38 20 14 8 2
16/27 26.00 SW 5.2 NP NP 24.6 24.6 0.0 - - - - - - 42 28 10 9 5
16/28 27.00 SW 5.0 NP NP 24.8 24.8 0.0 - - - - - - - 26 11 6 2
16/29 28.00 SW 5.0 NP NP 24.6 24.8 0.0 - - - - - - - 28 12 8 2
16/30 29.00 SW 4.0 NP NP 24.8 24.6 0.0 - - - - - - 45 24 10 6 1
16/31 30.00 SW 5.2 NP NP 23.8 24.8 0.0 - - - - - - - 20 14 5 2
\
TABLE 8q: SUMMARY OF GEOTECHNICAL PROPERTIES FOR THE SUB-SOILS AT THE FEDERAL UNIVERSITY, OTUOKE, BAYELSA STATE.
[ BORING No. 17]
Wt
.wn LL PI Mv Cv
(o ) kPa 50.00 400.00 50.00 400. (N ) 4.75 mm
kPa kPa kPa kPa mm
17/2 1.00 OH 4.5 46.0 15.6 17.8 - 50.2 -- -- - - 74 42 36 22
Clay Layer (OH)
17/3 2.00 OH 4.5 44.0 18.2 17.8 6 46.8 0.16 0.34 0.72 0.76 72 40 36 20
17/4 3.00 OH 4.5 42.0 16.8 17.8 4 46.8 - - - -
17/5 4.00 OH 4.5 46.0 18.2 17.8 - - - - - -
SM) 17/8 7.0 SM 5.2 NP NP 23.8 6.0 8.0 - - - - - - 32 26 14 8 -
BH 17/9 8.0 SM 5.4 NP NP 24.8 6.0 - - - - - 13.8 26.8 - 24 13 7 4
# 17 17/10 9.00 SM 4.4 NP NP 24.6 5.0 - - - - - 12.5 24.6 35 34 12 10 2
17/11 10.00 SM 5.8 NP NP 24.8 6.0 - - - - - - - - 28 14 10 1
17/12 11.00 SM 5.2 NP NP 23.8 6.0 - - - - - - - 32 26 14 8 -
17/13 12.00 SM 5.4 NP NP 24.8 6.0 - - - - - 13.8 26.8 - 24 13 7 4
- -
17/16 15.00 SP 5.2 NP NP 23.8 24.6 0.0 - - - - - - - 26 14 8 -
17/17 16.00 SP 5.4 NP NP 24.8 24.8 0.0 - - - - - - 28 24 13 7 4
17/18 17.00 SP 5.2 NP NP 23.8 24.6 0.0 - - - - - - - 26 14 8 -
17/19 18.00 SP 5.4 NP NP 24.8 24.8 0.0 - - - - - - 30 24 13 7 4
17/20 19.00 SP 5.4 NP NP 24.8 24.8 0.0 - - - - - - 32 26 14 8 -
17/21 20.00 SP 5.2 NP NP 23.8 24.6 0.0 - - - - - - - 24 13 7 4
17/22 21.00 SP 5.4 NP NP 24.8 24.8 0.0 - - - - - - - 26 14 8 -
layer 17/25 24.00 SW 5.2 NP NP 23.8 24.6 0.0 - - - - - - - 26 09 8 1
17/26 25.00 SW 5.4 NP NP 24.8 24.8 0.0 - - - - - - 38 20 14 8 2
17/27 26.00 SW 5.2 NP NP 24.6 24.6 0.0 - - - - - - 42 28 10 9 5
17/28 27.00 SW 5.0 NP NP 24.8 24.8 0.0 - - - - - - - 26 11 6 2
17/29 28.00 SW 5.0 NP NP 24.6 24.8 0.0 - - - - - - - 28 12 8 2
17/30 29.00 SW 4.0 NP NP 24.8 24.6 0.0 - - - - - - 45 24 10 6 1
17/31 30.00 SW 5.2 NP NP 23.8 24.8 0.0 - - - - - - - 20 14 5 2
\
TABLE 8r: SUMMARY OF GEOTECHNICAL PROPERTIES FOR THE SUB-SOILS AT THE FEDERAL UNIVERSITY, OTUOKE, BAYELSA STATE.
[ BORING No. 18]
Wt
.wn LL PI Mv Cv
(o ) kPa 50.00 400.00 50.00 400. (N ) 4.75 mm
kPa kPa kPa kPa mm
18/2 1.00 OH 4.5 46.0 15.6 17.8 - 50.2 -- -- - - 74 42 36 22
Clay Layer (OH)
18/3 2.00 OH 4.5 44.0 18.2 17.8 6 46.8 0.16 0.34 0.72 0.76 72 40 36 20
18/4 3.00 OH 4.5 42.0 16.8 17.8 4 46.8 - - - -
18/5 4.00 OH 4.5 46.0 18.2 17.8 - - - - - -
SM) 18/8 7.0 SM 5.2 NP NP 23.8 6.0 8.0 - - - - - - 32 26 14 8 -
BH 18/9 8.0 SM 5.4 NP NP 24.8 6.0 - - - - - 13.8 26.8 - 24 13 7 4
# 18 18/10 9.00 SM 4.4 NP NP 24.6 5.0 - - - - - 12.5 24.6 35 34 12 10 2
18/11 10.00 SM 5.8 NP NP 24.8 6.0 - - - - - - - - 28 14 10 1
18/12 11.00 SM 5.2 NP NP 23.8 6.0 - - - - - - - 32 26 14 8 -
18/13 12.00 SM 5.4 NP NP 24.8 6.0 - - - - - 13.8 26.8 - 24 13 7 4
- -
18/16 15.00 SP 5.2 NP NP 23.8 24.6 0.0 - - - - - - - 26 14 8 -
18/17 16.00 SP 5.4 NP NP 24.8 24.8 0.0 - - - - - - 28 24 13 7 4
18/18 17.00 SP 5.2 NP NP 23.8 24.6 0.0 - - - - - - - 26 14 8 -
18/19 18.00 SP 5.4 NP NP 24.8 24.8 0.0 - - - - - - 30 24 13 7 4
18/20 19.00 SP 5.4 NP NP 24.8 24.8 0.0 - - - - - - 32 26 14 8 -
18/21 20.00 SP 5.2 NP NP 23.8 24.6 0.0 - - - - - - - 24 13 7 4
18/22 21.00 SP 5.4 NP NP 24.8 24.8 0.0 - - - - - - - 26 14 8 -
layer 18/25 24.00 SW 5.2 NP NP 23.8 24.6 0.0 - - - - - - - 26 09 8 1
18/26 25.00 SW 5.4 NP NP 24.8 24.8 0.0 - - - - - - 38 20 14 8 2
18/27 26.00 SW 5.2 NP NP 24.6 24.6 0.0 - - - - - - 42 28 10 9 5
18/28 27.00 SW 5.0 NP NP 24.8 24.8 0.0 - - - - - - - 26 11 6 2
18/29 28.00 SW 5.0 NP NP 24.6 24.8 0.0 - - - - - - - 28 12 8 2
18/30 29.00 SW 4.0 NP NP 24.8 24.6 0.0 - - - - - - 45 24 10 6 1
18/31 30.00 SW 5.2 NP NP 23.8 24.8 0.0 - - - - - - - 20 14 5 2
8.10.2 Soil Bearing Pressures
On the basis of field investigations and laboratory tests performed, we have the following
observations about the safe bearing pressures that can be borne by each of the identified subsoil
layers at the project site. In making these comments, account has been taken of comparative
values of bearing pressures obtained in similar soil conditions elsewhere within the Niger Delta sub-
region and adjoining flanks (Teme, 1989, 1994, 1995, 1997, 1998, 1999a, 1999b, 1999c, 1999d,
1999e, 2000a, 2000b, 2001a, 2001b, 2001c, 2002a, 2003a,b and c; 2004 a-n; 2005 a-z; 2006 a-d;
2007 a-e; 2008 a-e; 2009a-c; 2010 a-b; 2011 1-d; 2012 a-b and 2013 a-b). The soil pressures that
can be borne by each soil horizon identified at the project site have been provided in Section 8.5 of
this Report and need not be mentioned here.
8.10.3 Foundation Type Options Recommended

On the basis of the subsurface soil types encountered at this project site and bearing in mind the
depth to Water table at the site, it is recommended that Shallow Foundations should be used for
the Federal University Otuoke Project Site, Bayelsa State.
 Shallow Foundations
It is recommended that Shallow Foundations should be adopted at the project siteson the
basis of the Lithologic configuration of the subsurface there. (see Logs in Appendix A1 of
this Report).
 Isolated Footings
It is being proposed that Office buildings, Residential buildings and Classrooms of less than
one storey at the project site should employ the use of Isolated Footings and possibly Rafts
as foundations. In this regard, the bearing capacities of the proposed Isolated Footings are
being calculated in this section of the Report to serve as applicable values for the Isolated
Footings that would be used in the service life of the such buildings.
8.10.4 Design Considerations for the Isolated Footings

In using Isolated footings, the following properties of the foundation are to be taken into effect,
namely:
(a) Depth of Footing Df, and
(b) Width or Breadth of the Isolated footing B (for square footings).
 Depth of foundation below ground surface (Df)
The depth of the foundation below ground surface is taken to be that depth from the
ground surface to the base of the foundation level, as shown in the Figure 11. For this
project site, the recommended depth of isolated footings for Office Buildings is taken as
1.50 meters.
 Width of base of isolated footing at the Project Site.

The Width of the foundation footing below ground surface is taken to be that horizontal
dimension in the x-axis of the foundation level, as shown in the Figure 11. For this project
site, the recommended Width of isolated footings for Office Buildings is taken as 5.00
meters.
 Length of Base of isolated Footing at the Project Site.

The Length of the foundation footing below ground surface is taken to be that horizontal
dimension in the z-axis of the foundation level, as shown in the Figure 11. For this project
site, the recommended Length of Isolated Footings for Office Buildings is taken as 5.00
meters.
Load from Super- structure
Width x
Length
Figure 11: Schematic of dimensions of an Isolated Footing.
The Net Ultimate Bearing Capacity for Isolated Footings is given as follows (according to Tomlinson
(1980)):-
qnf = 1.3 cNc + po (Nq – 1 ) + 0.4  B N . … … … (4)
where:
c = cohesion of soil at site, ~ 50 kPa.
Nc = Terzaghi Bearing Capacity factor with respect to cohesion, (available in Table 9)
Nq = Terzaghi Bearing Capacity factor with respect to surcharge, (available in Table 9)
N = Terzaghi Bearing Capacity factor with respect to unit weight, (available in Table 9)
B = width or breadth of the Isolated footing, = B meters (assumed)
 = unit weight of the soil materials at site. = 17.8 kN/m3
po = effective pressure of overburden soil at foundation level, = ‘Df. = (17.8 kN/m3) ( 1.50m)
= 26.70kPa
1.3 = shape factor of footing with respect to cohesion.
Table 9: Values of Terzaghi Bearing Capacity Factors
 (degrees) Nc N Nq
0 5.14 0 1.00
5 6.5 0.10 1.60
10 8.40 0.50 2.50
15 11.00 1.40 4.00
20 14.8 3.50 6.40
25 20.70 8.10 10.70
30 30.00 18.10 18.40
35 46.00 41.10 33.30
40 75.30 100.00 64.20
45 134.00 254.00 135.00
At a depth of 1.50m (recommended by the Geotechnical Consultants) at this site, we have the
following soil properties:
.c = 50.00 kPa  = 10.0o N = 0.50
 = 17.8 kN/m3 Nc = 8.40 Nq = 2.50
Assuming a Factor of Safety (F.S) = 3.0 Also assuming that B/L ~ 1.00 = 5/5
we have:
 qallow = 1/3 {(1.3)(50.00) ( 8.4) + ( 26.70 kPa) ( 2.50 – 1) + ( 0.4) ( 17.8 kN/m3) ( B m) (0.50) }
= 1/3 { 1.3 x 420} + { 40.05} + { 3.56 B} ]
= 195.35 + 1.1867 B kPa
Hence, the Net Ultimate Bearing Capacity for the Isolated footing of B meter square for office
buildings at the Federal University Otuoke project site in Bayelsa State is found to be about 195.35
+ 1.1867 B kPa.
8.10.5 Continuous Strip Footings

Residential Buildings and Classroom Blocks of less than One-Storey at the Project site.
It is being proposed that Residential buildings at the project site should employ the use of
Continuous Strip Footings as foundations. In this regard, the bearing capacities of the proposed
Continuous Strip Footings are being calculated in this section of the Report to serve as applicable
values for the Continuous Strip Footings that would be used in the service life of the proposed
Continuous Strip buildings.
8.10.6 Design Considerations for the Continuous Strip Footings

In using Continuous Strip footings, the following properties of the foundation are to be taken into
effect, namely:
(b) Width and Breadth of the Isolated footing B and L (for Continuous Strip
footings).
 Depth of Foundation below ground surface (Df)
The depth of the foundation below ground surface is taken to be that depth from the
ground surface to the base of the foundation level, as shown in the Figure 12. From boring
and sounding records obtained at the project site, the Continuous Strip Footing should be
borne at depths of 0.75 meter below the ground level. This depth range coincides with the
lateritic Clayey Sands (SC) layer. This will necessitate the removal of about 0.75 meter of
this overburden at the site during the foundation construction phase of the project.
 Width of Base of isolated Footing at the project site.

The width of the foundation footing below ground surface is taken to be that horizontal
dimension in the x-axis of the foundation level, as shown in the Figure 12. The width of the
base of the footing at the site shall be as directed by the clients. For this project site, the
recommended Width of Continuous Strip footings for Residential Buildings is taken as B
meters.
 Length of Base of isolated Footing at the project site.

The Length of the foundation footing below ground surface is taken to be that horizontal
dimension in the z-axis of the foundation level, as shown in the Figure 12. For this project
site, the recommended Length of Continuous Strip Footings for Residential Buildings is
taken as L meters. Annotated parts of the Continuous Strip Footing as shown in Figure 12
are given by:
W = Width of the base of the footing
L = Length of the foundation footing
Df = Depth of the foundation below ground surface
P = Net Pressure on Footing
BL = Foundation Footing Area
P / (BL) = Stress on soil
8.10.7 Calculation Of Ultimate Bearing Capacities For The Continuous Strip Footing Foundations At the Site
Assuming Df = 0.75 m [ for Strip Footings at Site]
B = Width of the Strip Footing as shall be directed by the client)
The Net Ultimate Bearing Capacity for Continuous Strip Footings is given by the following according
to Tomlinson (1980):-
qnf = cNc + po (Nq – 1 ) +  (B/2) N . … … … (5)
= cNc + po (Nq – 1 ) + /2 B N … … … (5)
where:
c = cohesion of soil at site, ~ 50 kPa.
Nc , Nq and N = Terzaghi Bearing Capacity factors obtainable in Table 9 above.
B = width or breadth of the Isolated footing, = 1.50 meters (assumed)
 = unit weight of the soil materials at site. = 17.8 kN/m3
po = effective pressure of overburden soil at foundation level, = ‘Df. = (17.8 kN/m3)
( 1.50m)
Line Load [P]
Line Load [P]
Depth of Foundation [ Df ] = 0.75 meter

Width [B]
Length of Continuous Strip Footing [L]
Figure 12: Schematic of dimensions of a Continuous Strip Footing
At a foundation depth of 0.75m at this site (recommended By the Geotechnical Consultants), we

have the following soil properties:
.c = 50.00 kPa  = 10.0o N = 0.50
 = 17.8 kN/m3 Nc = 8.40 Nq = 2.50
Assuming a Factor of Safety (F.S) = 3.0 we have from equation (5) above:
 q allow = 1/3 {(50.00) ( 8.4) + ( 26.70 kPa) ( 2.50 – 1) + ( 0.5) ( 17.8 kN/m3) ( B) (0.50) }
= 1/3 {{ 420} + { 40.05} + { 4.45 B}}
= 153.35 + 1.483B kPa
The Net Ultimate Bearing Capacity for Continuous Strip Footing of B meters length for Residential
Buildings at the Federal University Otuoke Project Site, Bayelsa State is found to be about 153.35 +
1.483B kPa [compared with q(allow) = 195.35 + 1.1867 B kPa obtained for the Isolated Footing for
Offices]. Settlement considerations are by the virtue of the inherent use of these equations limited
to 25.4 mm. The use of the Factor of Safety of 3.0 takes care of any unexpected high settlement
values that may likely be obtained for this site.
8.11 Raft Footing

Multiple-Storey Buildings at the Federal University Otuoke, Bayelsa State Project site.
It is being proposed that Multiple-Storey Buildings at the project site should employ the use of Raft
Footings as foundations. In this regard, the bearing capacities of the proposed Raft Footings are
being calculated in this section of the Report to serve as applicable values for the Raft Footings that
would be used in the service life of the Federal University Otuoke, Bayelsa State Project site.
8.12 Design Considerations for Raft Footings

In using Raft footings, the following properties of the foundation are to be taken into effect,
namely:
(b) Width of the Raft footing B.
 Depth of foundation below ground surface (Df )

From boring and sounding records obtained at the project site, the Raft Footing should be
borne at depths of 1.70 metres comprising 1.50 meters below the ground level and 0.20
meter above the ground level. This depth range coincides with the brownish, Lateritic
Clayey Sand (SC) layer. This will necessitate the removal of about 1.50 meters of this
overburden at the site during the foundation construction phase of the project.
P = Weight of Super Structures
Height of top of Raft above

ground = 0.20m Ground Surface
Ground Surface
Depth of Raft
Beneath ground
Surface Df = 1.50m
x Width of Footing, y x
Width of Foundation, B
Figure 13: Schematic representation of the Raft Foundation Footing
 Width of base of the Raft Footings (B)

The width of the Raft footings at the site is estimated to be about B = ( y + 2x) metres as
shown schematically in Fig.13 above, where:
y = width of the base of the building,
x = 1.00 meter additional to the width of the base of the building.
 Length of the Raft Footings (L)
The Length of the Raft footing is the same as the length of the building in question. This is
to be provided by Client.
8.13 Computations of Bearing Capacities for The Federal University, Otuoke Project Site, Bayelsa State.
In computing the bearing capacities of the soils at the various boring sites at the project site, several
classical computational methods have been used. These methods include the following:-
a) SPT Method
b) Terzaghi’s Method
c) Meyerhof’s Method
d) Bowles Method
e) Brinch Hansen’s Method.
8.13.1 Bearing Capacity Based on the “SPT Method”
The allowable net soil pressure for the design of Rigid Raft based on the “SPT” field data, may with
sufficient accuracy be taken as:
qa (tons / sq. ft ) = 0.22 N --- --- --- --- --- --- (1)
where: N = SPT value (corrected for Water Table effects)
At a depth of 1.50 meters at the project site, an average value of SPT N-value of 17 was obtained.
Thus,
qa (tons / sq. ft) = 0.22 ( 17 ) = 3.74 tons / sq. ft
= ( 3.74 ) ( 0.1073) = 0.4013 MPa
= 401.302 KPa.
For a Safety Factor of 3.0 the allowable Bearing Capacity ( based on The SPT- Method ) = 133.77
kPa
[Note: This value of bearing capacity can be conveniently used for a depth range of 1.50 - 2.50
meters.]
8.13.2 Bearing Capacity Based on Laboratory Data ( Using Terzaghi Formula)

Using the Terzaghi Formula for bearing capacity computations (based on laboratory results from
soil testing), we have:
qu = qc / F.S = 1/F.S {{ ( 1-0.2 B/L )  B/L.N } + { (1 + 0.20 B/L) c Nc} + { ( Df Nq )}} --- ( 6 )
where,
B = width of Raft Foundation = 5.00m; L = Length of Raft Foundation = 10.00m (assumed)
 = unit weight of soil at foundation level
N, Nc, Nq = Terzaghi bearing Capacity Factors obtainable from Table 5 above.
qu = qc / F.S = 1/3 { { ( 0.80 x 0.50) 17.8kPa x 0.50 } + { (1.20 x 0.50) 50.00kPa x 8.40
+ {(17.8kPa) ( 1.50m) ( 2.50).
= 1/3 { 322.31 } = 107.44 Kpa.
8.13.3 Bearing Capacity Based on the Meyerhof’s Method

Meyerhof (1956; 1974) proposed some empirical equations for the determination of the allowable
bearing capacity of footings from SPT N-values for 2.52-cm settlements. This equation is shown in
Table 10 below. However, Bowles (1988) observed that the Meyerhof’s equation was too
conservative and came up with a modified version based on additional field data. His equation is
also shown for some boundary conditions in same Table 10 below.
Table 10: Meyerhof’s and Bowles’ Equations for Computing Footing Bearing Capacity.
Meyerhof (1974) Bowles (1988) Boundary Conditions
qa = 12 N kd qa = 12 N kd B  1.22m --- (7a)
qa = 12N B + 0.305 2
qa = 12.5 N B + 0.305 2
kd B  1.22 m --- (7b)
B B
Note: Kd = 1 + 0.33 D / B  1.33 suggested by Meyerhof ( 1974)
qa units: KN/m2 @ SI system
Since B  1.22 m, we use the following Meyerhof’s relationship (eqn. 7b),
2
qa = 12 N B + 0.305 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ( 7b )
B
where: N= SPT value (corrected for water table effects).
Meyerhof’s Method
At a depth of the proposed 1.50 meters at the project site, an SPT N-value of 17 minimum was
obtained,
 qu (kN/m2) = ( 12 x 17 ) { ( 5.00 + 0.305) / 5.00 } 2 = 229.647 kN/m2 [where B ~ 5.00m,
assumed]
Hence,
.qu ( kN/m2 ) = 229.647 kPa
Applying a factor of safety of 3.0 gives,
q(allow). = 76.549 KN/m2
8.13.4 Bearing Capacity of the Federal University Otuoke Project Site, Bayelsa State Foundation Based on
the Bowles’ Method
Bowles (1988) modified Meyerhof’s equation is shown for some boundary conditions in Table 10
above.
At a depth of the proposed 1.50 meters at the project site, a minimum SPT N-value of 17. was
obtained. Thus,
For B  1.22 m, the following relationship (eqn. 7b of Bowles) is applicable,
qa = 12.5N B + 0.305 2 kd --- --- --- --- --- --- --- (7b)
B
where,
Kd = 1 + 0.33 ( D/B )  1.33 --- --- --- --- --- (8)
= 1 + 0.33 ( 1.50 / 5.00 )
= 1.099
 q u = 12.5 ( 17 ) { (5.00 + 0.305) / 5.00 } 2 ( 1.099)
= 262.898 kPa
For a Factor of Safety of 3.0,
.q (allow) = qu / F.S = 262.898 / 3.0 = 87.6326 KPa.
.q(allow) = 87.6326 KPa.
Table 11: Values of Bearing Capacities of Project Site Sub-soils, based on SPT N-values.
SPT N-values. Bearing Capacity qu [ kPa ] Remarks

@ Method of Analysis
Boring. Isolated Continuous Meyerhof’s Bowles’
Location Footing Strip Footing Method Method
Depth of Fdn.
( Df ) meters
1.50m 0.75m 1.50m 1.50m
ZONE C 195.35 + 153.35 + 76.549

1.1867 B kPa 1.483BkPa Bearing capacities
[ 201.284]* [ 160.76 ]* obtained at this
depth based on the two
methods are relatively low
* = for B = 5.00m
8.13.5 Bearing Capacity Based on Brinch Hansen's Method

The Ultimate bearing capacity according to the Brinch Hansen's Method is as follows:
Qu = - c Cot.  + (q + c Cot. ) Nq sq dq + 0.5 B N s d --- --(9)
where,
parameters are as defined in Equations (6) above.
For horizontal ground surface, horizontal footing base, the ground and inclination factors all equal
to unity (1)
Hence, assuming a q = 200 kPa, substituting the same soil conditions and the relevant factors into
Equation (9) gives:
qu = { -50.00 kPa [ Cot 10o ]} + { (200 kPa + 50.00kPa (Cot 10o )) (2.50)(1)(1)}
+ { 0.50(5.00)(0.50)(1)(1)}
= 626.586 kPa
q(allowable) = qu / F.S = 208.862 KPa
The Brinch Hansen equation for the ultimate Bearing Capacity for the project site soils is given by
the following:-
.qf = cNc scdcicbcgc + po Nq sqdqiqbqgq + 0.50 γ B Nγ s γ d γ i γ b γ g γ … … … …( 10a )
Where:
γ = density of soil below foundation level,
B = width of foundation,
c = undrained cohesion of soil
po = [γsoil - γwater ] Df = [ 17.80 – 1.00] Df = effective pressure of overburden soil at
foundation level
Df = Depth of foundation [ variable ]
Nγ, Nq, and Nc are bearing capacity factors,
s γ, sq and sc are shape factors
d γ dq, dc, are depth factors
i γ iq, ic are load inclination factors
b γ bq bc are base inclination factors
g γ gq, gc are ground surface inclination factors
Since the project site is relatively flat, we can conveniently assume that the depth, shape, load
inclination and ground surface inclination factors = 1.00. Results of a sensitivity analysis of bearing
capacities of the various analytical methods with depth are shown in Table 12. In summary
therefore, the values of the bearing capacity based on Raft type (at foundation bearing level of 1.50
meters) for the Federal University Otuoke, Bayelsa State Foundation based on the various classical
geotechnical computation methods are as given in Table 12 below, for purposes of comparison and
analysis.
Table 12: Bearing Capacity Values For The Federal University Otuoke, Bayelsa State Foundation [Df =
1.50m], (Based On F.S = 3.0 )
SPT Bearing Capacity Computational Methods Field Average

N- Methods Values
value (kPa) (kPa) (kPa)
Foundation Type Options
Isolated Continuous RAFT FOUNDATIONS
Footings Strip Meyerhof Bowles Terzaghi Brinch
Footings (1974) (1988) & Peck Hansen SPT
(1967) (1968)
Depth of Foundation (m)
1.50m 0.75m 1.50m
17 201.284 160.76 76.55 87.63 107.44 208.86 133.77 139.47
On the
OK OK OK OK OK High side OK Acceptable
These values are however, below the upper values for bearing capacity (380 to 470 kPa) cautioned
for use by Bowles (1977, page 124).
Settlement considerations are by the virtue of the inherent use of these equations limited to 25.4
mm. The use of the Factor of safety of 3.0 takes care of any unexpected high settlement values that
may likely be obtained for this site.
From the above, it could be observed that the range of Soil Bearing Capacity values useable at the
proposed Federal University Otuoke, Bayelsa State, based on a foundation depth (Df ) of 1.50
meters for a B value = 5.00 meters = 76.549 to 208.86 kPa with an average of 139.47 kPa.
The above values of bearing capacity are based on the empirical methods of Bowles (1988),
Meyerhof (1974), Terzaghi and Peck (1967); Hansen ( 1968 ) and proven field methods using the
SPT techniques (Peck, Hansen and Thornburn, 1974).
The soil profiles at the given Project site are quite homogeneous as shown in the Fence diagrams
given in Figures 5a; 5b; and 5c, respectively.
A Sensitivity Analysis of the Bearing Capacity of the soils for both Isolated and Raft Footings for
depths ranging from 0.50m; 1.00m; 1,50m; 2,00m and 2,50 meters was carried out and the results
are as shown in Table 13.
Table 13: A Sensitivity Analysis of Bearing Capacities of Project Site soils for Isolated and Raft Foundations,
Federal University Otuoke, Bayelsa State
S/No. Foundation Bearing Capacity Values for Foundation Types Remarks
Depth [ kPa]
(m) Foundation Types
Isolated RAFT FOUNDATION
Footings
Analytical Methods adopted
Meyerhof’s Bowles’ Terzaghi Brinch
(1974) (1988) & Hansen’s
Peck (1968)
(1967)
1. 0.50 192.38 76.55 82.37 92.01 161.83 There is an increase

of bearing capacity
2. 1.00 196.83 76.55 85.00 99.43 168.83 with depth except
the Meyerhof’s
3. 1.50 201.28 76.55 87.63 106.84 175.83 Method
4. 2.00 205.73 76.55 90.26 114.26 182.83
5. 2.50 210.18 76.55 92.89 121.68 189.83
Table 14: The Final Average Values of Bearing Capacity for Isolated and Raft Foundations at
Different Foundation Depths.
S/No. Foundation Final Average Bearing Capacity Values Remarks
Depth [kPa]
(m) Foundation Types
Isolated Footing Raft Foundations
1. 0.50 192.38 103.20 The values of the Final Average

Bearing Capacity for the Raft
2. 1.00 196.83 107.45 Foundations are the averages for
the Four (4) types of Foundation
3. 1.50 201.28 111.72 designs used in this Report.
4. 2.00 205.73 115.98
5. 2.50 210.18 120.24
8.14 Re-Assessment if Allowable Bearing Capacity at 1.5m Depth At The Site Of The Federal University,
A re-assessment of both the Net Soil Pressure (q net ) and the allowable bearing capacity ( qallow ) at
the specified depth of foundation of 2.50 meters for the Federal University, Otuoke, Bayelsa State
is as follows:
8.14.1 ZONE A.
From Figure 14 below, the net pressure increase is given by:
.qnet = Dc ( c - s ) + P / Af … … … … … (10)
= [ ( 1.50) m ( 27.4 – 17.8 ) kN / m3 ] + [ (T x 9.964) / ( B x L )] kN / m2
= {[ 14.4 ] + [9.964T/( B x L ) ]} kN / m2
where:
T = Weight of Building Super structure [kN]
 qnet = [14.4] + [(9.964T)/( B x L)] kN / m2
For stability of the Foundation, q net  q allow. [14.4] + [(9.964T)/( B x L)] kN / m2… (11)
[This situation only holds good for “Raft Foundations” ]
We can recommend that a qnet = [1.44] + [(9.964T)/( B x L)] kN / m2 be used in the design of the
Raft Foundation at the Federal University, Otuoke, Bayelsa State.
P
Ground Surface
.
 (concrete) Df = 1.70m
d = 1.50m
q
.a
Af = b x l B
q
Af = B x L
L
Figure 14: Net Pressure on footing with backfill (assuming top of Raft footing above ground
surface).
8.14.2 On the basis of the computations carried out above, the following recommendations are hereby
made:-
(1) A range of values of between 76.549 to 208.86 kPa with an average of 139.47 kPa. has
been found to be the bearing capacity of the upper bearing Lateritic Clayey Sand (SC) layer for
purposes of supporting the 1-2 storey buildings at the Federal University Otuoke, Bayelsa State.
(2) A depth of about 1.50 meters should be excavated before placement of building Foundation
at the Project Site.
(3) The width of the Raft Foundation in all cases should be taken as ( B + 2x ) meters, where: B
= width of the base of the building, and x = 1.00 m as allowance around the perimeter of the
excavation.
(4) A value of qnet = [1.44] + [(9.964T)/( B x L)] kN / m2 can be used as the Net Soil Pressure on
the soil at the project site, since this value should be less than the average value of the allowable
soil pressure, q(allow) (bearing capacity ) of the soils at site. [Note: B = breadth; L = Length of
structures at site ].
Settlement considerations are by the virtue of the inherent use of these equations limited to 25.4
mm. The use of the Factor of safety of 3.0 takes care of any unexpected high settlement values that
may likely be obtained for this site.
8.15 Settlement and Rates Of Settlements

The likely settlements that may arise as a result of loading on the various structures should be
computed taking into account the dimensions of the structure and the subsurface lithology beneath
the applied Foundations structures. It should be known that the Final settlement of foundation
footings is the Sum Total of Immediate settlement during construction phase and the Long-term
settlement after T90 ie 90% of consolidation.
8.15.1 Estimation of Settlements of More Than 2- Storey Building Foundations on The Clayey Sand Stratum
at a Depth Of 0.75 Meters or 1.50 Meters.
A classical equation for settlement of foundation (Christian,J.T. et al .(1978)) is given as:

Average Settlement = i = (µ1µ0 qn B) / Ed … … … … … (12)
where:
the factors µ1 and µ0 are related to the depth (Df ) of the foundation, the thickness of the H
of the compressible layer and Length /Width (L/B) ratio of the foundation. Values of these
factors are shown in the Figure 15 below.
where,
mv = average coefficient of volume compressibility obtainable
from laboratory tests on soils from the site. = 0.16 x 10-4 m2 / MN
H = thickness from bottom of Foundation to
competent layer below [ eg. Sandy layer] = 7.50 m [ from Boring # 1
at site ]
B = Width of the foundation.
qn = Imposed load on the soil .
µ1 = 0.50
µ0 = 0.96
Ed = 1/ mv = 1 /( 0.16 x 10 -4) m2 /MN
= 62,500 MN/ m2
 i = (0.50 x 0.96 x qn (kN/ m2 )x B (m)) / 62,500 MN/ m2
= 7. 68 x 10-6 qn B [in meters]
I = 7. 68 x 10-6 qn B [in meters]
Figure 15: Factors for Calculating the Average Immediate Settlement Of Loaded Area.
(after Christian and Carrier (1978)
8.5.2 Computation of Immediate Settlements in the Clayey Sand Stratum at The Site.
The stresses transmitted to the surface of the Clayey Sands Layer at the project site can be given
as:
 { immediate settlement, I + final settlement , Sc }
where:
immediate settlement, I , can be computed from laboratory Oedometer data.
Using the method of Skempton and Bjerrum (1957) we observe that the oedometer settlement
(oed ) at the point of foundation level is given as:
oed = mv . z . H … … … … … … … … (13a)
where,
mv = average coefficient of volume compressibility obtainable
from laboratory tests on soils from the project site.
z = average effective vertical stress imposed on the soil by the superstructure,
H = thickness of the compressible layer from bottom of foundation to competent layer.
When we represent the vertical stress distribution pattern by a triangular distribution, the above
equation becomes:-
Oedometer settlement, i = mv . z . H
= mv x 0.55 qn x 1.5 B … … … … (13b)
But,
mv = 0.16 x 10-4 m2 / MN
B = [Width of the Production Building]
.qn = imposed load = T (MPa)
 i = (0.16 x 10-4 m2/MN ) ( 0.55) (T MPa) (1.5 x B m )
=
I = 0.0000132(T)(B) m
8.5.3 Terzaghi’s (1943) Classical Equation For Settlement Computation:

Terzaghi’s (1943) classical equation for settlement is given as:
Sc = Cc / 1+eo [Ho. Log10 { vo + v } / vo]. … … … … … ( 14 )
where:
Sc = final settlement (in cm) of layer of thickness H (m).
H = thickness of compressible layer beneath base of foundation = 7.50 m
vo = vertical stress in kN/m2 induced at the center of layer by the net
foundation pressure qn = ( 17.8 kN/m3 ) ( 3.75m) = 66.75 kPa
Cc = Compression Index ~ 0.009 ( wL – 10 ) = 0.009( 20.4 – 10) = 0.0936
v = imposed Structural loads on the soil
~ T kPa
 Sc = Cc / 1+ eo Ho. Log10 { vo + v } / vo
= 0.0936 / 1+ 0.8) (7.50m) log10 { (66.75 kPa + T kPa) / 66.75kPa}.
= { 0.520 } log10 {1 + T / 66.75} cm
Sc = { 0.520} log10 {1 + 0.01498T}
Total settlement for the project site is therefore given as:

 total = i + Sc … … … … … … … (15)
= 0.000132T m + { 0.520} log10 {1 + 0.01498T }m
The summary of the computed estimated values of settlements for the project site is shown in
Table 15.
Table 15: Summary of Computed Settlements at the Project Site
Project Site Computed Settlements (cm) Remarks
Immediate Long-term Total
settlement Settlement (Hf) Settlement
(i) ( total)
Federal
University, 0.000132T { 0.520} log10 {1 + 0.000132T + Compressible layer
Otuoke, m 0.01498T }m { 0.520} log10 {1 + beneath foundation
Bayelsa 0.01498T }m level = 7.50 m
State.
8.5.4 Estimation Of The Rate Of Consolidation Settlement

The time period required for either 50% or 90% of the final foundation settlements can be
computed using the relationship:
t (years) = T . d2 … … … … … … (16 )
Cv
where:
d = H (thickness of clay layer measured from
foundation level to point where z is small, such as 10 – 20
kPa for drainage in one direction or d=H/2 for drainage at
top and bottom of clay stratum) = 3.75 m
Cv = Average of coefficient of consolidation
over the range of pressures involved (obtainable either
from tri-axial compression or oedometer tests).
= 0.76 m2 / yr.
T = time factor which for the given condition
of loading and drainage at the project site corresponds to
T 50 = 0.20 and T 90= 0.85
From equation ( 16 ) above, the time period required for a 50% of final foundation settlement for
the brownish Lateritic Clayey Sand (SC) layer is estimated at:-
. t 50 = ( 0.20 ) ( 3.75) 2
0.76
t 50 = 3.700 years

Similarly, t90 is estimated as:-

T 90 = ( 0.85 ) ( 3.75 )2
0.76
t90 = 15.728 years
A summary of the Rates of Settlements computed for the site at The Federal University Otuoke Campus Site
is shown in the Table 16.
Table 16: Summary of the computed Rates of Settlements for the site at the Federal University Otuoke, Bayelsa
State.
Project Site Rates of Settlement Remarks

(years)
T50 T90
Federal University, Otuoke,
Bayelsa State 3.700 15.728 Over a compressive layer of 7.50m
beneath foundation level
9.0 Discussion of Results of Investigations in Relation to Foundation System Design
and Construction for The Proposed Structures at The Federal University,
9.1 General
A total of Eighteen (18) Shell-and-Auger borings and Twenty-Nine (29) Hand-Auger borings were
made at the project site to a depth of 30.00 meters and 3.00meters, respectively as previously
mentioned.
9.2 Soil Bearing Pressures

On the basis of field investigations and laboratory tests performed, the following comments are
being made about safe bearing pressures that can be borne by each of the identified subsoil layers
at the project site. In making these comments, emphasis has also been placed on comparative
values of bearing pressures obtained in similar soil conditions elsewhere within the Niger Delta sub-
region and adjoining flanks (Teks Geotechnical Consultancy, 1989, 1994, 1995, 1997, 1998, 1999a,
1999b, 1999c, 1999d, 1999e, 2000a, 2000b, 2001a, 2001b, 2001c, 2002, 2003a, 204 (a-h), 2005 (a –
m), 2006 (a-s), 2007 (a –e); 2008 (a-d); 2009(a-c); 2010(a-d); 2011(a-c); 2012(a-c) and 2013 (a-b)).
The soil pressures that can be borne by each soil horizon identified at project site have been given
in previous Sections of this Report and are not repeated here.
9.3 Foundation Type Options Recommended

On the basis of the subsurface soil types encountered at this project site and bearing in mind the
proposed project for the sites, is recommended that Deep Foundations should be used for the
proposed 2 - 3–Storey Buildings at the Project site.
9.3.1 Deep Foundation Options

In using Deep foundations, Piles are recommended. The type of piles recommended is Steel Hollow
Cylindrical Piles filled with Reinforced Concrete because of their durability and their relative ease of
installation at site.
9.3.1 Storey Buildings With Two or More Floors, at the Federal University Complex, Otuoke, Bayelsa State
 Steel Hollow Cylindrical Piles filled with Reinforced Concrete Foundations
The design of the Concrete Reinforced Steel Hollow Cylindrical Piles Foundation on the basis of the
detailed field investigations carried out at the project site should take the following into
considerations.
 Depth of embedment of Piles (Df )

From boring and sounding records obtained from the Eighteen (18) borings at the project
site, the tips of the Concrete Reinforced Steel Hollow Cylindrical Piles Foundation should be
borne at a Minimum depth of 24.00 meters or at refusals. This is the horizon where Well
Graded Sand (depending on the locations) was observed to occur at the site during the
subsurface investigation.
 Factor of Safety of the Pile Foundation

The Factor – of – Safety (FS) of pile foundation is defined as the ratio of the imposed Load
on the pile to the mobilized bearing capacity of the soil (equal to the sum of base
resistance and skin resistance).
.ie,
F.S = Qu ’ / Q --- --- --- --- --- -- (17)
For the recommended pile under consideration, the Ultimate Carrying Capacity, Qu , can be
assessed using equation (---) above as follows:-
For a Steel Pipe diameter of 400mm and a Factor of Safety (F.S) of 3.0.
Imposed Load on the piles = Wt. Of Super-structure + Wt of sub-structural pad overlying

the pile cap
Assuming the total Load of the Superstructure, = (T) Tons, and Area of each Pier = (As ), then
the Total imposed Net soil pressure (q net) is:
.q net = Dc ( c - s ) + ( hf ) ( ’ ) + T /As --- --- --- --- (18)
= {(1.50m) (2.96 – 2.78) kN/m2 + (24.00m) (2.78 – 1.00)}/1000 +

{(T x 9.964) / (2  x300.00 2 x15)}/1000 MN/m2
where:
T = Weight of Super structure.
= (42.99 +7.34 x 10 -7 T)
For stability of the Foundation, q net  q allow … … … (19)
 Cross-Sectional Area of Reinforced Steel Hollow Cylindrical Piles

The proposed cross-sectional area for each of the Reinforced Steel Hollow Cylindrical Piles
is taken as ( R 2) which is approximately ~  x (400/2)2 m2 ~.0.3141592654 m2 as shown
schematically in this cross-sectional area serves for the Building.
 Computation Of Ultimate Carrying Capacities Of Piles Of Different

Diameters
The Ultimate Carrying Capacity of Piles is dependent on the sum of the Ultimate Resistance
of the base of the pile and the Ultimate Skin Friction (Shaft Resistance) of the pile
considered.
Qu = Q b + Qs … … … … … … …(20)
Where:
Qb = base resistance of tip of pile
Qs = Skin Friction of pile
 Steel Cylindrical Hollow Pile
9.3.3 Base Resistance Of Piles

Net unit base resistance qult = qf = p = pd (Nq –1)… … … … (21)
where:
Pd = effective overburden pressure at pile base level
For a pile depth of 24.00 meters, for Borehole #1 at the project site we have:
Pd = 37.8kN/m2
Qb = 37.8 (24.36 - 1)
= 0.883 MN
9.3.4 Shaft Resistance {Unit Skin Friction } Of Piles

The total Ultimate Skin Friction on pile shaft is given as:
f = Ks. Pd. tan  --- --- --- --- … --- (22)
However, the failure load of the pile Qu = load at failure applied to the pile Q’u + Wt of the
Pile (Wp)
.ie:
Qu ’ = Qu - W p = Q b + Q s
= Ab Pd (Nq –1) + Qs
= A b P d N q - A b P d + Qs
But weight of pile  weight of soil displaced

 Qs = Pd {Ab Nq + Ks tan  As } --- --- --- --- --- (23)
where:
Ab = cross-sectional area of pile
As = embedded surface area of pile
Pd = average effective overburden pressure over embedded depth of pile
Qs = Pd{{ (  . r2 ) (24.36)} + { 1.1 x tan (2/3 (30.00)) ( D.24.00)}}
Qs = {0.662r2 + 0.254 D} MN
 Ultimate Carrying Capacity of piles (Q ult) =
Qb + Qs = 0.883MN+ {0.662r2 + 0.254 D} MN … … … … (24)
Qu’ = 0.883MN+ {0.662r2 + 0.254 D} MN
(Qult) = Qu’ == 0.883MN+ {0.662r2 + 0.254 D} MN … … … (25)
Table 17: Values of Pile Bearing Capacities for various Pile Diameters for the Building Foundations
S/No. Pile Diameter Pile Bearing Capacity Pile Bearing Capacity
D(mm) (Qu' )(MN) (Qu' )(MN)
(Qu' )(MN)
F.S = 3.0 F.S = 4.0
1 100 0.910055 0.303350 0.227514
2 200 0.94042 0.313473 0.235105
3 300 0.974095 0.324698 0.243524
4 400 1.01108 0.337027 0.252770
5 500 1.051375 0.350458 0.262844
6 700 1.141895 0.380632 0.285474
7 1000 1.3025 0.434083 0.325625
8 1200 1.42612 0.475373 0.356530
Table 18a: GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN OF PILE FOUNDATION FOR PROPOSED 2 OR MORE STOREY BUILDINGS AT THE FEDERAL UNIVERSITY, OTUOKE, BAYELSA STATE
PROJECT.
[AVERAGE BORING PARAMETERS - [ Based on the Berezantsev’s Method for soils with Cohesion (c) and Friction ()]
ZONE # A SOILS {BORING # 1,2,3,4,5& 9} [CASING DIAMETER ( B) = 400mm]
Lithology Thickness Depth Frictional Cohension (c) Effective Ks =0.5tan 2 q0 =γb n Diameter Perimeter (P) δ =2/3ф TAN δ
[∆L] [m] At Angleф [kPa] Density(γsat) [450 + ф/2] ∆Ln (D) m 2pr (0o)
Bottom [deg] [kN/m3] [kN/m2]
(m)
CL 2 2 4 45.6 12.19 0.0078 6.095 0.4 1.25664 2.66667 0.046576
OL 4 6 6 65 4.5 0.72 8.83 0.4 1.25664 4 0.069927
SC 6 12 18 12.8 9.79 0.227 18.62 0.4 1.25664 12 0.212557
SP 10 22 32 0 16.5 7.006 47.99 0.4 1.25664 21.3333 0.390555
SP 4 26 32 0 16.5 7,006 89.96 0.4 1.25664 21.3333 0.390555
SW 4 30 36 0 28.6 0.0144 161.9 0.4 1.25664 24 0.44523
Ab m Nc Nq Nγ (P*ΣqoKstanδ∆L) Pile Shaft Load Pile End Load Qu = Qb Q Σ Total Pile

(Qf ) [kN] (qb)[kN] + Qf (allowed) Load
(P*ΣqoKstanδ∆L) (cNc+q0Nq)Ab [kN] = Qu/F.S (allowable)
[F.S = [F.S = 2.50]
2.50] [MN]
0.125664 43.2 30.86 0 0.00442853 0.00556506 271.1843823 271.1899 108.47598 0.108475979
0.125664 9.36 3.12 54 1.77827097 2.23464643 79.91597053 82.15062 32.860247 0.032968723
0.125664 7.44 1.86 0 5.39054091 6.77396933 16.31938049 23.09335 9.2373399 0.009270309
0.125664 40.8 29.14 54 1313.11623 1650.11438 175.7321316 1825.847 730.3386 0.730347874
0.125664 30.8 19.8 26 984604.592 1237293.51 223.8337221 1237517 495006.94 495.0076698
0.125664 43.2 30.86 54 4.15196434 5.21752446 627.8467494 633.0643 253.22571 0.748233379
Pile Diameter = 400mm = 0.400m
FEDERAL UNIVERSITY, OTUOKE BAYELSA STATE - ZONE A - 400mm DIAMETER PILE - TGCL - 28 - 04- 2013.
[ BH#s: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, & 9 ]
Table 18b: GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN OF PILE FOUNDATION FOR PROPOSED 2 OR MORE STOREY BUILDINGS AT THE FEDERAL UNIVERSITY, OTUOKE, BAYELSA STATE
PROJECT
[AVERAGE BORING PARAMETERS - [Based on the Berezantsev’s Method for soils with Cohesion (c) and Friction ()]

Lithology Thickness [∆L] Depth Friction Cohension (c) Effective Density Ks =0.5tan 2 q0 =γb n Diamete Perimeter δ =2/3ф TAN δ (0o)
[m] At al [kPa] (γsat) [kN/m3] [450 + ф/2] ∆Ln r (D) m (P) 2pr
Botto Angleф [kN/m2]
m (m) [deg]
CL 2 2 4 45.6 12.19 0.0078 6.095 0.6 1.88496 2.66667 0.04658

OL 4 6 6 65 4.5 0.72 8.83 0.6 1.88496 4 0.06993
SC 6 12 18 12.8 9.79 0.227 18.62 0.6 1.88496 12 0.21256
SP 10 22 32 0 16.5 7.006 47.99 0.6 1.88496 21.3333 0.39056
SP 4 26 32 0 16.5 7,006 89.96 0.6 1.88496 21.3333 0.39056
SW 4 30 36 0 28.6 0.0144 161.9 0.6 1.88496 24 0.44523
Ab m Nc Nq Nγ ΣqoKsTANδ∆L Pile Shaft Load Pile End Load Qu = Qb Q Σ Total Pile

(Qf ) [kN] (qb)[kN] + Qf (allowed Load
(P*ΣqoKstanδ∆L) (cNc+q0Nq)A [kN] )= (allowable)
b Qu/F.S [F.S = 2.50]
[F.S = [MN]
2.50]
0.28274 43.2 30.86 0
0.00443 0.00835 610.165 610.173 244.069 0.24407
0.28274 9.36 3.12 54
1.77827 3.35197 179.811 183.163 73.2652 0.07351
0.28274 7.44 1.86 0
5.39054 10.161 36.7186 46.8796 18.7518 0.01883
0.28274 40.8 29.14 54
1313.12 2475.17 395.397 2870.57 1148.23 1.14825
0.28274 30.8 19.8 26
984605 1855940 503.626 1856444 742578 742.579
0.28274 43.2 30.86 54
4.15196 7.82629 1412.66 1420.48 568.193 1.31077
[ BH#s: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, & 9 ]
Table 18c: GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN OF PILE FOUNDATION FOR PROPOSED 2 OR MORE STOREY BUILDINGS AT THE FEDERAL UNIVERSITY, OTUOKE, BAYELSA STATE PROJECT

Lithology Thicknes Depth At Frictional Cohensio Effective Ks q0 =γb n Diameter Perimeter δ =2/3ф TAN δ
s [∆L] [m] Bottom Angleф n (c) Density =0.5tan 2 ∆Ln (D) m (P) 2pr (0o)
(m) [deg] [kPa] (γsat) [450 + [kN/m2]
[kN/m3] ф/2]
CL 2 2 4 45.6 12.19 0.0078 6.095 0.8 2.51328 2.66667 0.04658

OL 4 6 6 65 4.5 0.72 8.83 0.8 2.51328 4 0.06993
SC 6 12 18 12.8 9.79 0.227 18.62 0.8 2.51328 12 0.21256
SP 10 22 32 0 16.5 7.006 47.99 0.8 2.51328 21.3333 0.39056
SP 4 26 32 0 16.5 7,006 89.96 0.8 2.51328 21.3333 0.39056
SW 4 30 36 0 28.6 0.0144 161.9 0.8 2.51328 24 0.44523
Ab m Nc Nq Nγ ΣqoKsTAN Pile Shaft Pile End Qu = Qb + Q (allowed) Σ Total Pile Load (allowable) [F.S = 2.50]
δ∆L Load (Qf ) Load Qf [kN] = Qu/F.S [MN]
[kN] (qb)[kN] [F.S =
(P*ΣqoKst (cNc+q0N 2.50]
anδ∆L) q)Ab
0.50266 43.2 30.86 0 0.00443 0.01113 1084.74 1084.75 433.899 0.4339
0.50266 9.36 3.12 54 1.77827 4.46929 319.664 324.133 129.653 0.13009
0.50266 7.44 1.86 0 5.39054 13.5479 65.2775 78.8255 31.5302 0.03166
0.50266 40.8 29.14 54 1313.12 3300.23 702.929 4003.16 1601.26 1.60129
0.50266 30.8 19.8 26 984605 2474587 895.335 2475482 990193 990.195
0.50266 43.2 30.86 54 4.15196 10.435 2511.39 2521.82 1008.73 1.99892
[ BH#s: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, & 9 ]
Table 18d: GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN OF PILE FOUNDATION FOR PROPOSED 2 OR MORE STOREY BUILDINGS AT THE FEDERAL UNIVERSITY, OTUOKE, BAYELSA STATE
PROJECT
Lithology Thickness Depth At Frictional Cohension (c) Effective Density Ks =0.5tan 2 q0 =γb n Diameter Perimeter δ =2/3ф TAN δ (0o)
[∆L] [m] Bottom (m) Angleф [kPa] (γsat) [kN/m3] [450 + ф/2] ∆Ln (D) m (P) 2pr
[deg] [kN/m2]
CL 2 2 4 45.6 12.19 0.0078 6.095 1 3.1416 2.66667 0.04658

OL 4 6 6 65 4.5 0.72 8.83 1 3.1416 4 0.06993
SC 6 12 18 12.8 9.79 0.227 18.62 1 3.1416 12 0.21256
SP 10 22 32 0 16.5 7.006 47.99 1 3.1416 21.3333 0.39056
SP 4 26 32 0 16.5 7,006 89.96 1 3.1416 21.3333 0.39056
SW 4 30 36 0 28.6 0.0144 161.9 1 3.1416 24 0.44523
Ab m Nc Nq Nγ ΣqoKsTANδ∆L Pile Shaft Load Pile End Load Qu = Qb + Q (allowed) Σ Total
(Qf ) [kN] (qb)[kN] Qf [kN] = Qu/F.S Pile Load
(P*ΣqoKstanδ∆L) (cNc+q0Nq)Ab [F.S = (allowable)
2.50] [F.S =
2.50]
[MN]
0.7854 43.2 30.86 0 0.00443 0.01391 1694.9 1694.92 677.967 0.67797

0.7854 9.36 3.12 54 1.77827 5.58662 499.475 505.061 202.025 0.2027
0.7854 7.44 1.86 0 5.39054 16.9349 101.996 118.931 47.5724 0.04778
0.7854 40.8 29.14 54 1313.12 4125.29 1098.33 5223.61 2089.44 2.08949

0.7854 30.8 19.8 26 984605 3093234 1398.96 3094633 1237853 1237.86
0.7854 43.2 30.86 54 4.15196 13.0438 3924.04 3937.09 1574.83 2.81269
Diameter = 1000mm =1.0m ZONE # A SOILS {BORING # 1,2,3,4,5& 9} [CASING DIAMETER ( B) = 1000mm]
BH#s: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, & 9 ]
Depth 400mm Pile Diameter - Federal University Depth 600mm Pile Diameter- Federal University
(m) ZONE # A. (m) ZONE # A.
0 0 0 0
0 0.0224692 0 0.05015648
4 0.0576352 4 0.12121825
8 0.263772 8 0.51066881
14 0.8160352 14 1.50340727
22 2.1035707 22 3.76618006
30 3.8943775 30 6.9134243
Federal University, Otuoke Zone A
Figure 16a: Plot of Pile Load Vs Depth for Pile Diameters of 400mm and 600mm at the Federal University Otuoke Zone A.
[ BH# 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 9 ]
800mm Pile Diameter- Federal University Depth 1000m Pile Diameter- Federal University
Depth ZONE # A. (m) ZONE # A.
(m)
0 0.088812 0 0.138436
4 0.207978 4 0.317915
8 0.834239 8 1.234484
14 2.377016 14 3.436861
22 5.836005 22 8.313047
30 10.64704 30 15.09523
Federal University, Otuoke Zone A Federal University, Otuoke Zone A
Figure 16b: Plot of Pile Load vs. Depth for Pile Diameters of 800mm and 1000mm at the Federal University Otuoke Zone A
[ BH# 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 9 ]
Table 19a: GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN OF PILE FOUNDATION FOR PROPOSED 2 OR MORE STOREY BUILDINGS AT THE FEDERAL UNIVERSITY, OTUOKE, BAYELSA
STATE PROJECT
ZONE # B SOILS {BORING # 6,7,8,12 & 13} [CASING DIAMETER ( B) = 400mm]

Frictional Effective
Depth At
Lithology Thicknes Angleф Cohension (c) Density(γsat) Ks =0.5tan 2 q0 =γb n ∆Ln Diameter Perimeter δ =2/3ф TAN δ (0o)
Bottom (m)
s [∆L] [m] [deg] [kPa] [kN/m3] [450 + ф/2] [kN/m2] (D) m (P) 2pr
CL 2 2 4 56.4 9.85 0.0078 6.095 0.4 1.25664 2.666667 0.0465759
OL 4 6 6 65 4.5 0.67 8.83 0.4 1.25664 4 0.069927
SC 5 11 18 10.4 10.6 0.227 18.62 0.4 1.25664 12 0.2125571
SP 6 17 32 0 22.3 7.006 47.99 0.4 1.25664 21.33333 0.3905551
SP 4 21 32 0 22.5 7 89.96 0.4 1.25664 21.33333 0.3905551
SW 9 30 36 0 27.8 0.0144 161.9 0.4 1.25664 24 0.4452299
Pile Shaft Load Σ Total Pile

Ab m ΣqoKsTANδ∆L (Qf ) [kN] Pile End Load Q (allowed) = Load (allowable)
(P*ΣqoKstanδ∆L) (qb)[kN] Qu = Qb + Qf Qu/F.S [F.S [F.S = 2.50]
Nc Nq Nγ (cNc+q0Nq)Ab [kN] = 2.50] [MN]
0.13192789
0.125664 43.2 30.86 0 0.00442853 0.00556506 329.8141781 329.8197 131.9279 7
0.03293010
0.125664 9.36 3.12 54 1.65477993 2.07946265 79.91597053 81.99543 32.798173 1
0.125664 7.44 1.86 0 4.49211743 5.64497444 14.07552411 19.7205 7.8881994 0.00792113
0.46632822
0.125664 40.8 29.14 54 787.869737 990.068627 175.7321316 1165.801 466.3203 5
0.58491722
0.125664 30.8 19.8 26 984.604592 1237.29351 223.8337221 1461.127 584.45089 3
0.25641938
0.125664 43.2 30.86 54 9.34191976 11.73943 627.8467494 639.5862 255.83447 9
Diameter = 400mm = 0.4m ZONE # B SOILS [CASING DIAMETER ( B) = 400mm]
{BORING # 6,7,8,12& 13}
Table 19b: GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN OF PILE FOUNDATION FOR PROPOSED 2 OR MORE STOREY BUILDINGS AT THE FEDERAL UNIVERSITY, OTUOKE, BAYELSA
STATE PROJECT
[ AVERAGE BORING PARAMETERS - [Based on the Berezantsev’s Method for soils with Cohesion (c) and Friction ()]
Depth
At Frictional TAN δ
Lithology δ =2/3ф
Thickness Bottom Angleф Cohension (c) Effective Density Ks =0.5tan 2 q0 =γb n ∆Ln Diameter Perimeter (0o)
[∆L] [m] (m) [deg] [kPa] (γsat) [kN/m3] [450 + ф/2] [kN/m2] (D) m (P) 2pr
CL 2 2 4 56.4 9.85 0.0078 6.095 0.6 1.88496 2.666667 0.046576
OL 4 6 6 65 4.5 0.67 8.83 0.6 1.88496 4 0.069927
SC 5 11 18 10.4 10.6 0.227 18.62 0.6 1.88496 12 0.212557
SP 6 17 32 0 22.3 7.006 47.99 0.6 1.88496 21.33333 0.390555
SP 4 21 32 0 22.5 7 89.96 0.6 1.88496 21.33333 0.390555
SW 9 30 36 0 27.8 0.0144 161.9 0.6 1.88496 24 0.44523
Σ Total
Pile Load
Pile Shaft Load
Q (allowed) = (allowable)
Ab m ΣqoKsTANδ∆L (Qf ) [kN]
Pile End Load Qu/F.S [F.S =
(P*ΣqoKstanδ∆L)
Nc Nq Nγ (qb)[kN] Qu = Qb + Q f [F.S = 2.50]
(cNc+q0Nq)Ab [kN] 2.50] [MN]
0.282744 43.2 30.86 0 0.004429 0.008348 742.0819 742.0902 296.8361 0.296836
0.282744 9.36 3.12 54 1.65478 3.119194 179.8109 182.9301 73.17205 0.073469
0.282744 7.44 1.86 0 4.492117 8.467462 31.66993 40.13739 16.05496 0.016128
0.282744 40.8 29.14 54 787.8697 1485.103 395.3973 1880.5 752.2001 0.752216
0.282744 30.8 19.8 26 984.6046 1855.94 503.6259 2359.566 943.8265 0.944579
0.282744 43.2 30.86 54 9.34192 17.60915 1412.655 1430.264 572.1057 0.57305
{BORING # 6,7,8,12& 13}
Table 19c: GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN OF PILE FOUNDATION FOR PROPOSED 2 OR MORE STOREY BUILDINGS AT THE FEDERAL UNIVERSITY, OTUOKE, BAYELSA STATE
PROJECT

Frictional
Depth At
Layer Thickness Angleф Cohension (c) Effective Density Ks =0.5tan 2 q0 =γb n ∆Ln Diameter Perimeter δ =2/3ф TAN δ (0o)
Bottom (m)
[∆L] [m] [deg] [kPa] (γsat) [kN/m3] [450 + ф/2] [kN/m2] (D) m (P) 2pr
CL 2 2 4 56.4 9.85 0.0078 6.095 0.8 2.51328 2.666667 0.046576
OL 4 6 6 65 4.5 0.67 8.83 0.8 2.51328 4 0.069927
SC 5 11 18 10.4 10.6 0.227 18.62 0.8 2.51328 12 0.212557
SP 6 17 32 0 22.3 7.006 47.99 0.8 2.51328 21.33333 0.390555
SP 4 21 32 0 22.5 7 89.96 0.8 2.51328 21.33333 0.390555
SW 9 30 36 0 27.8 0.0144 161.9 0.8 2.51328 24 0.44523
Σ Total Pile
Pile Shaft Load Q (allowed) Load
Ab m ΣqoKsTANδ∆L (Qf ) [kN] Pile End Load = Qu/F.S (allowable)
(P*ΣqoKstanδ∆L) (qb)[kN] Qu = Qb + Qf [F.S = [F.S = 2.50]
Nc Nq Nγ (cNc+q0Nq)Ab [kN] 2.50] [MN]
0.502656 7.44 1.86 0 0.004429 0.01113 216.621 216.6321 86.65284 0.086653

0.502656 28 18 54 1.65478 4.158925 994.7261 998.885 399.554 0.399641
0.502656 9.33 3.36 0 4.492117 11.28995 80.22148 91.51143 36.60457 0.037004
0.502656 43.2 30.86 54 787.8697 1980.137 744.4192 2724.556 1089.823 1.08986
0.502656 30.8 19.8 26 984.6046 2474.587 895.3349 3369.922 1347.969 1.349059
{BORING # 6,7,8,12& 13}
PROJECT
Effective
Depth At
Frictional Density
Layer Bottom Δ =2/3ф TAN δ (0o)
Thickness Angleф Cohension (γsat) Ks =0.5tan 2 q0 =γb n ∆Ln Diameter Perimeter
(m)
[∆L] [m] [deg] (c) [kPa] [kN/m3] [450 + ф/2] [kN/m2] (D) m (P) 2pr
CL 2 2 4 56.4 9.85 0.0078 6.095 1 3.1416 2.666667 0.046576
OL 4 6 6 65 4.5 0.67 8.83 1 3.1416 4 0.069927
SC 5 11 18 10.4 10.6 0.227 18.62 1 3.1416 12 0.212557
SP 6 17 32 0 22.3 7.006 47.99 1 3.1416 21.33333 0.390555
SP 4 21 32 0 22.5 7 89.96 1 3.1416 21.33333 0.390555
SW 9 30 36 0 27.8 0.0144 161.9 1 3.1416 24 0.44523
Nc Nq Nγ Σ Total
Pile Shaft
Pile End Pile Load
Load (Qf )
ΣqoKsTANδ∆ Load Q (allowed) = (allowable)
Ab m [kN]
L (qb)[kN] Qu/F.S [F.S =
(P*ΣqoKstan
(cNc+q0Nq)A
Qu = Qb + Qf [F.S = 2.50]
δ∆L)
b [kN] 2.50] [MN]
0.7854 7.44 1.86 0 0.004429 0.013913 338.4703 338.4842 135.3937 0.135394
0.7854 28 18 54 1.65478 5.198657 1554.259 1559.458 623.7833 0.623919
0.7854 9.33 3.36 0 4.492117 14.11244 125.3461 139.4585 55.7834 0.056407
0.7854 43.2 30.86 54 787.8697 2475.172 1163.155 3638.327 1455.331 1.455387
0.7854 30.8 19.8 26 984.6046 3093.234 1398.961 4492.195 1796.878 1.798333
0.7854 43.2 30.86 54 9.34192 29.34858 3924.042 3953.391 1581.356 1.583155
Diameter = 1000mm =1.0m ZONE # B SOILS [CASING DIAMETER ( B) = 1000mm]
{BORING # 6,7,8,12& 13}
Depth (m) 400mm Pile Diameter- Federal University Depth 600mm Pile Diameter- Federal University
ZONE # B. (m) ZONE # B.
2 0.025838 2 0.05688602
4 0.0613 4 0.12852234
8 0.268393 8 0.51977963
11 0.562201 11 1.08568312
18 1.516965 18 2.78500138
30 3.904754 30 6.82820574
Federal University, Otuoke Zone B Federal University, Otuoke Zone B
Figure 17a: Plot of Pile Load vs. Depth for Pile Diameters of 400mm and 600mm at the Federal University Otuoke Zone B
[ BH# 6, 7, 8, 12 and 13 ]
Depth 800mm Pile Diameter- Federal University Depth 1000mm Pile Diameter- Federal University
(m) ZONE # B. (m) ZONE # B.
2 0.100021 2 0.155241
4 0.220126 4 0.336112
8 0.849293 8 1.256933
11 1.770753 11 2.61741
18 4.392741 18 6.340183
30 10.39904 30 14.61726
Federal University, Otuoke Zone B Federal University, Otuoke Zone B
Figure 17b: Plot of Pile Load vs. Depth for Pile Diameters of 800mm and 1000mm at the Federal University Otuoke Zone B
[ BH# 6, 7, 8, 12 and 13 ]
Table 20a: GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN OF PILE FOUNDATION FOR PROPOSED 2 OR MORE STOREY BUILDINGS AT THE FEDERAL UNIVERSITY, OTUOKE, BAYELSA STATE
PROJECT
ZONE # C SOILS {BORING # 10,11,14,15, 16, 17 & 18} [CASING DIAMETER ( B) = 400mm]
Depth At Frictional Effective q0 =γb n
Layer Thickness Bottom Angleф Cohension Density (γsat) Ks =0.5tan 2 ∆Ln Diameter Perimeter (P) δ =2/3ф TAN δ (0o)
[∆L] [m] (m) [deg] (c) [kPa] [Kn/m3] [450 + ф/2] [kN/m2] (D) m 2pr
CL 5 5 4 56.4 8.4 0.72 6.095 0.4 1.25664 2.66667 0.046576
OL 8 13 6 65 6.7 0.7201 8.83 0.4 1.25664 4 0.069927
SC 5 18 18 10.4 10.6 0.34 18.62 0.4 1.25664 12 0.212557
SP 4 22 32 0 22.3 7.006 0.756 0.4 1.25664 21.3333 0.390555
SP 4 26 32 0 22.5 7 89.96 0.4 1.25664 21.3333 0.390555
SW 4 30 36 0 27.8 2 161.9 0.4 1.25664 24 0.44523
Pile Shaft Pile End

ΣqoKsTANδ∆ Load (Qf ) [kN] Load Q (allowed) = Σ Total Pile
L (P*ΣqoKstanδ∆ (qb)[kN] Qu/F.S Load (allowable)
Ab m Nc Nq Nγ L) (cNc+q0Nq)A Qu = Qb + [F.S = [F.S = 2.50]
b Qf [kN] 2.50] [MN]
233.458704
0.125664 30.8 19.8 0 1.02196747 1.2842452 9 234.743 93.89718 0.09389718
66.5966421 28.42662
0.125664 7.8 2.6 54 3.5570359 4.4699136 1 71.06656 2 0.028520519
21.4925652 11.97903
0.125664 10 3.6 0 6.72828161 8.4550278 5 29.94759 7 0.012007558
1.71003571
0.125664 28 18 54 8.27435607 10.3978868 2 12.10792 4.843169 0.004855177
503.3281
0.125664 7.44 1.86 26 984.604592 1237.29351
21.0268042 1258.32 3 0.503332983
402.831031 450.9948
0.125664 30.8 19.8 54 576.661713 724.656175 7 1127.487 8 0.451498216
Diameter = 400mm = 0.40m ZONE # C SOILS [CASING DIAMETER ( B) = 400mm]
{BORING # 10,11,14,15, 16, 17 & 18}
Table 20b: GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN OF PILE FOUNDATION FOR PROPOSED 2 OR MORE STOREY BUILDINGS AT THE FEDERAL UNIVERSITY, OTUOKE, BAYELSA STATE
PROJECT
Lithology Thickness [∆L] Depth At Frictional Cohension (c) Effective Ks =0.5tan 2 q0 =γb n Diameter Perimeter δ =2/3ф TAN δ (0o)
[m] Bottom Angleф [kPa] Density (γsat) [450 + ф/2] ∆Ln (D) m (P) 2pr
(m) [deg] [kN/m3] [kN/m2]
CL 5 5 4 56.4 8.4 0.72 6.095 0.6 1.88496 2.66667 0.04658

OL 8 13 6 65 6.7 0.7201 8.83 0.6 1.88496 4 0.06993
SC 5 18 18 10.4 10.6 0.34 18.62 0.6 1.88496 12 0.21256
SP 4 22 32 0 22.3 7.006 0.756 0.6 1.88496 21.3333 0.39056
SP 4 26 32 0 22.5 7 89.96 0.6 1.88496 21.3333 0.39056
SW 4 30 36 0 27.8 2 161.9 0.6 1.88496 24 0.44523
Ab m Nc Nq Nγ ΣqoKsTANδ∆L Pile Shaft Pile End Load Qu = Qb + Q (allowed) Σ Total
Load (Qf ) [kN] (qb)[kN] Qf [kN] = Qu/F.S Pile Load
(P*ΣqoKstanδ∆ (cNc+q0Nq)Ab [F.S = (allowable)
L) 2.50] [F.S =
2.50]
[MN]
0.28274 30.8 19.8 0 1.02197 1.92637 525.282 527.208 210.883 0.21088

0.28274 7.8 2.6 54 3.55704 6.70487 149.842 156.547 62.6189 0.06283
0.28274 10 3.6 0 6.72828 12.6825 48.3583 61.0408 24.4163 0.02448
0.28274 28 18 54 8.27436 15.5968 3.84758 19.4444 7.77776 0.0078
0.28274 7.44 1.86 26 984.605 1855.94 47.3103 1903.25 761.3 0.76131
0.28274 30.8 19.8 54 576.662 1086.98 906.37 1993.35 797.342 0.7981
{BORING # 10,11,14,15, 16, 17 & 18}
Table 20c: GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN OF PILE FOUNDATION FOR PROPOSED 2 OR MORE STOREY BUILDINGS AT THE FEDERAL UNIVERSITY, OTUOKE,
BAYELSA STATE PROJECT
Lithology Thickness [∆L] Depth At Frictional Cohension Effective Ks =0.5tan 2 q0 =γb n Diameter Perimeter δ =2/3ф TAN δ (0o)
[m] Bottom Angleф (c) [kPa] Density (γsat) [450 + ф/2] ∆Ln (D) m (P) 2pr
(m) [deg] [kN/m3] [kN/m2]
CL 5 5 4 56.4 8.4 0.72 6.095 0.8 2.51328 2.666667 0.046576

OL 8 13 6 65 6.7 0.7201 8.83 0.8 2.51328 4 0.069927
SC 5 18 18 10.4 10.6 0.34 18.62 0.8 2.51328 12 0.212557
SP 4 22 32 0 22.3 7.006 0.756 0.8 2.51328 21.33333 0.390555
SP 4 26 32 0 22.5 7 89.96 0.8 2.51328 21.33333 0.390555
SW 4 30 36 0 27.8 2 161.9 0.8 2.51328 24 0.44523
Ab m Nc Nq Nγ ΣqoKsTANδ∆ Pile Shaft Pile End Load Qu = Qb + Q (allowed) Σ Total
L Load (Qf ) [kN] (qb)[kN] Qf [kN] = Qu/F.S Pile Load
L) 2.50] [F.S =
2.50]
[MN]
0.50266 30.8 19.8 0 1.02197 2.56849 933.835 936.403 374.561 0.37456

0.50266 7.8 2.6 54 3.55704 8.93983 266.387 275.326 110.131 0.11051
0.50266 10 3.6 0 6.72828 16.9101 85.9703 102.88 41.1521 0.04126
0.50266 28 18 54 8.27436 20.7958 6.84014 27.6359 11.0544 0.0111
0.50266 7.44 1.86 26 984.605 2474.59 84.1072 2558.69 1023.48 1.02349
{BORING # 10,11,14,15, 16, 17 & 18}
PROJECT
Lithology Thickness Depth Frictional Cohension Effective Ks =0.5tan 2 q0 =γb n Diameter Perimeter δ =2/3ф TAN δ (0o)
[∆L] [m] At Angleф (c) [kPa] Density (γsat) [450 + ф/2] ∆Ln (D) m (P) 2pr
Bottom [deg] [kN/m3] [kN/m2]
(m)
CL 5 5 4 56.4 8.4 0.72 6.095 1 3.1416 2.66667 0.04658

OL 8 13 6 65 6.7 0.7201 8.83 1 3.1416 4 0.06993
SC 5 18 18 10.4 10.6 0.34 18.62 1 3.1416 12 0.21256
SP 4 22 32 0 22.3 7.006 0.756 1 3.1416 21.3333 0.39056
SP 4 26 32 0 22.5 7 89.96 1 3.1416 21.3333 0.39056
SW 4 30 36 0 27.8 2 161.9 1 3.1416 24 0.44523
Ab m Nc Nq Nγ ΣqoKsTANδ∆ Pile Shaft Pile End Load Qu = Qb + Q (allowed) = Σ Total
L Load (Qf ) [kN] (qb)[kN] Qf [kN] Qu/F.S Pile Load
L) 2.50] [F.S =
2.50]
[MN]
0.7854 30.8 19.8 0 1.02197 3.21061 1459.12 1462.33 584.931 0.58493
0.7854 7.8 2.6 54 3.55704 11.1748 416.229 427.404 170.962 0.17155
0.7854 10 3.6 0 6.72828 21.1376 134.329 155.466 62.1864 0.06236
0.7854 28 18 54 8.27436 25.9947 10.6877 36.6824 14.673 0.01474
0.7854 7.44 1.86 26 984.605 3093.23 131.418 3224.65 1289.86 1.28988
Diameter = 1000mm =1.0m ZONE # C SOILS [CASING DIAMETER ( B) = 1000mm]
{BORING # 10,11,14,15, 16, 17 & 18}
Depth 400mm Pile Diameter- Federal University, Otuoke ZONE # C. Depth 600mm Pile Diameter- Federal University, Otoke
(m) (m) ZONE # C.
0 0 0
2.5 0.0141545 2.5 0.03083482
3.9 0.0712164 3.9 0.14961423
5.9 0.1955823 5.9 0.39806665
9.9 0.5636482 9.9 1.09099955
19.9 1.9364009 19.9 3.45291834
30 4.0656774 30 7.11319815
Federal University, Otuoke Zone C

Federal University, Otuoke Zone C
Figure 18a: Plot of Pile Load vs. Depth for Pile Diameters of 400mm and 600mm at the Federal University Otuoke Zone C
[BH# 10, 11, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18]
Depth 800mm Pile Diameter- Federa University, Otuoke ZONE Depth 1000mm Pile Diameter- Federal University, Otuoke
(m) C (m) ZONE # C.
0 0 0 0
2.5 0.053917 2.5 0.083401
3.9 0.256538 3.9 0.391989
5.9 0.670346 5.9 1.012422
9.9 1.782036 9.9 2.636757
19.9 5.33498 19.9 7.582587
30 10.83717 30 15.2376
Federal University, Otuoke Zone C Federal University, Otuoke Zone C
Figure 18b: Plot of Pile Load vs. Depth for Pile Diameters of 800mm and 1000mm at the Federal University Otuoke Zone C.
[ BH# 10, 11, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 13 ]
Table 21: Summary Of Pile Bearing Capacities at Different Pile Diameters in each Zone of the Project Site at the
Federal University Otuoke, Bayelsa State.
S/No. ZONE Pile diameter (mm) Total Pile load (MN)

400 0.7482 Campus Phase I;
1. A 600 1.3107 Engineering &
Maintenance;
800 1.9984
Sports / Recreation
1000 2.8134 Area;
University
Commercial Center
400 0.2568 Teaching Core;

2. 600 0.5736 Students’
B Accommodation;
800 1.3496
1000 1.5835
400 0.4528 University Centre;

3. C 600 0.7981 Senior Staff
Housing;
800 1.0236
Registrar’s
1000 1.2894 Residence Area
;Guest Cottages;
Vice-Chancellor’s
Lodge
Based on the soil properties observed at the various Zones of the University Complex, the Bearing
Capacities of the Piles to maximum depths of 30.00 meters at different Pile diameters are as shown
above. These values will guide the Contractors during constructions of the various buildings in the
process of expansion of the University with time.
9.3.2 Soil Liquefaction Potentials at the Project Site

Studies by Seed and Lee (1966); Seed and Idris (1967; 1971), Prakash and Gupta (1970); Finn et al.
(1970); Castro and Poulos (1976); Casagrande (1976); Seed (1976); Finn et al (1976) and Gupta (1979)
have demonstrated that liquefaction characteristics of a soil depend upon a large number of factors.
Although it may not be possible at this stage of knowledge to determine an index in terms of one
parameter, Christian and Swiger (1975) have shown that the Standard Penetration test (SPT) values N
have a potential of solving this problem.
The factors that affect the liquefaction potentials of sands and silts are:-
 Grain Size Distribution
 Density of sand and silt deposits ( initial relative density)
 Vibration characteristics strain history
 Location of drainage and dimensions of deposit,
 Magnitude and nature of superimposed loads
 Method of soil formation (soil structure)
 Period under sustained loads
 Previous strain history
 Entrapped air, and
 In-situ moisture content.
9.3.2.1 Liquefaction Analyses from Standard Penetration Test (SPT-N) Data

Seed (1979) used relationships established at the Waterways Experimental Station (WES) and superimposed
these on plots of SPT values (N) versus Cyclic Stress Ratios (CSR) of [o / v’ ] and thus obtained results for
earthquakes of different magnitudes. Such a plot is shown in Figure 19. Prakash (1981) has recommended
the use of the following steps in evaluating the potentials for soil liquefactions at project sites subjected to
machine vibrations.
These are:
(a) The Standard Penetration Record with depth, corrected for overburden in accordance with
recommendations given by Peck, Hansen and Thornburn, (1974)
(a) Unit weights
(b) Location of Water Table,
(c) Expected magnitude of earthquake that is likely to be brought about by vibrating machines
at the project site.
The steps recommended for computations leading to evaluations of liquefaction potentials are:
1) Determine the shear stress [av ] to be caused by expected earthquakes using the relationship:
av ~ 0.65 x [h / g ]amax x r/d … …. … … …. (26)
where:
 = Unit weight of soil
h = depth of overburden
g = acceleration due to gravity
amax = maximum earthquake acceleration expected
r/d = factor obtainable from charts (see Figure 19)
2) Determine [o / v’ ] from Figure 19 and compute o .
3) A comparison of av and o shows if liquefaction occurs or not for a given site.
If av > o , then Liquefaction occurs
If not, then Liquefaction does not occur.
Figure 19: Correlation between field Liquefaction behaviour of sands for level ground conditions
and penetration resistance, supplemented by data from large scale tests (after Seed, 1979).
9.3.2.2 Soil Liquefaction Potentials At The Federal University Site, Otuoke, Bayelsa State.
Using the Standard Penetration Tests (SPT) values obtained at the Eighteen (18) borings at the Project site
and adopting an average Saturated Unit Weight of 2.76 Mg/m3 at three magnitudes of earthquake Intensities
of M = 6, 7.5 and 8.25, the estimated / calculated liquefaction potentials of the soils at the Federal University
Otuoke project site are as follows:
(a) Liquefaction Potentials for Earthquake Intensity, of M = 6.0
Computation of Shear Stress Causing Liquefaction, [o ]
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
Depth
(m)  v’ CN* N N1 = o / v’ o
N x CN [ Fig. 18] [Col. 2 x
Col.6]kPa
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
_
2.50 1.95 0.778 17 13.226 0.21 0.409
3.00 2.34 0.717 20 14.34 0.28 0.655
5.00 3.90 0.547 25 13.675 0.38 1.48
7.00 5.46 0.434 25 10.85 0.38 2.075
9.00 7.02 0.350 26 9.10 0.39 2.74
11.00 19.36 0.011 42 0.462 0.75 14.52
13.00 23.14 -0.049 48 -2.352 -- --
15.00 26.70 -0.097 55 -5.335 -- --
17.00 30.26 -0.138 57 -7.87 -- --
19.00 33.82 -0.176 61 -8.42 -- --

__________________________________________________________________________________________________
_
* = CN = 0.77 Log 10 20 / ¯p ... … … … … … … … … ( 27)
where:
p = effective overburden pressure at the elevation of the SPT (kPa).
ii) Computation of Shear Stress developed during earthquake, av
where:
av ~ 0.65 . [h ] . [amax /g] . [ r/d]
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Depth
(m) amax/g  r/d av
[ t / ft3 ] [kPa]
1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
________________________________________________________________________________________________
2.50 0.1 0.5556 0.99 0.089
3.00 0.1 0.5556 0.98 0.106
5.00 0.1 0.5556 0.97 0.175
7.00 0.1 0.5556 0.95 0.240
9.00 0.1 0.5556 0.92 0.299
11.00 0.1 0.8678 0.89 0.552
13.00 0.1 0.8678 0.82 0.601
15.00 0.1 0.8678 0.78 0.660
17.00 0.1 0.8678 0.72 0.690
19.00 0.1 0.8678 0.68 0.728

______________________________________________________________________________________________
Figure 20: Range of Values of r/d for different soil profiles in Liquefaction Potentials analyses
(after Seed & Idriss, 1971).
(b) Liquefaction Potentials for Earthquake Intensity, of M = 7.5
Computation of Shear Stress causing Liquefaction.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
Depth
(m)  v’ CN* N N1 = o / v’ o
N x CN [ Fig. 18] [Col. 2 x Col.6]kPa
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
2.50 1.95 0.778 17 13.226 0.16 0.312
3.00 2.34 0.717 20 14.34 0.21 0.491
5.00 3.90 0.547 25 13.675 0.28 1.092
7.00 5.46 0.434 25 10.85 0.28 1.528
9.00 7.02 0.350 26 9.10 0.27 1.895
11.00 19.36 0.011 42 0.462 0.60 11.616
13.00 23.14 -0.049 48 -2.352 -- --
15.00 26.70 -0.097 55 -5.335 -- --
17.00 30.26 -0.138 57 -7.87 -- --
19.00 33.82 -0.176 61 -8.42 -- --

________________________________________________________________________________________________
(c) Liquefaction Potentials for Earthquake Intensity, of M = 8.25
Computation of Shear Stress causing Liquefaction

____________________________________________________________________________________________
Depth
(m)  v’ CN* N N1 =  o /  v’ o
N x CN [ Fig. 18] [Col. 2 x Col.6]kPa
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
2.50 1.95 0.778 17 13.226 0.13 0.254
3.00 2.34 0.717 20 14.34 0.18 0.421
5.00 3.90 0.547 25 13.675 0.25 0.975
7.00 5.46 0.434 25 10.85 0.25 1.365
9.00 7.02 0.350 26 9.10 0.24 1.685
11.00 19.36 0.011 42 0.462 0.42 8.131
13.00 23.14 -0.049 48 -2.352 0.62 14.347
15.00 26.70 -0.097 55 -5.335 -- --
17.00 30.26 -0.138 57 -7.87 -- --
19.00 33.82 -0.176 61 -8.42 -- -

__________________________________________________________________________________________________
9.3.3 Summary of Results on Soil Liquefaction Potentials at the Federal University Otuoke Project Site, Bayelsa State.
(i) Earthquake Intensity M = 6.0
Depth av*  o* av > o Remarks

(m)
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
2.50 0.089 0.409 No Liquefaction Not Possible

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
(ii) Earthquake Intensity M = 7.5

(m)
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
(iii) Earthquake Intensity M = 8.25

(m)
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
At all Intensities of Earthquake [M = 6.0; 7.50 and 8.25 ], there is little possibility of any Liquefaction occurring
at the Federal University, Otuoke site in Bayelsa State, Nigeria. This can be explained by the fact that the
Water Table at site is about 3.00 meters below the ground surface. Most Liquefaction occurs when Water
Table is near ground surface.
9.4 Other Recommendations
Some soil properties that were determined during the oedometer tests sample evaluations included the
following:
(i) Poisson’s ratio of between 0.45 to 0.50
(ii) Shear Modulus, G of 4.50 MPa
(iii) Modulus of Elasticity Es of 62,500 MN/ m2
9.4.1 Stability Of Soil Slopes

The soil materials down to a depth of 6.00 meters at the project site are made up of brownish lateritic Clayey
Sands (SC). These are c and  soils that can be excavated to depths of 5.00 meters or more without possible
collapse. For a cohesive soil profile such as at the project site, the maximum Intensity of pressure is given as :
max = 1.0 KA γ H … … … … … … … … ( 28 )
= [ 1 x 0.25094 x 17.8 kNm-3 x 6.00m ]
= 26.80kPa
where:
KA = 1 – m 4 c / γH = Active earth Pressure = [ 1 – (0.40 x 4 x 50.00 kPa / 17.8 kNm-3 x H)]
= 0.25094
γ = density of soil
H = depth of cut, = 6.00m
c = average cohesion of clay
m = a coefficient ~ 0.40 [ Tomlinson, 1980]
An open excavation in a normally consolidated clays [ lateritic clays inclusive] can stand vertically
without support provided the height of the face of the slope does not exceed the Critical Height (H c),
where:
Hc = 4c / γ … … … … … … … … … ( 29 )
where:
c = cohesion of clayey soil
γ = density of clayey soil.
An applicable and adaptable range of values of critical heights for various consistencies have been given by
Tomlinson (1980) below:
Table 21: Critical Heights (Hc) corresponding to various Consistencies [after: Tomlinson, 1980].
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Very soft Soft Firm
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
Cohesion (kN.m2 ) 0.00 – 17.50 17.50 – 35.00 35.00 - 70.00
Critical height (m) 4.00 4–8 8 - 16
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
9.4.2 Land Preparation

Preparation of the site for construction purposes should take into consideration the clearing of the
vegetation through up-rooting and removal of top soil. From the logs of the borings at the site, it is
recommended that a depth of 0.25 m to 0.30m of top soil should be removed. This depth should therefore
form the pre-foundation emplacement level at the project site.
9.4.3 Earth Works

Earth works such as cut and fill will take place at the project site either for earthing, pipe laying or drainage
construction. Cuts with slope angles ( θ ) of ~ 90 o can be made but these should not be allowed to remain
open for too long (a couple of days in the dry season). Embankments as either bond walls or surrounding
dykes of storage tanks can be carried out to heights of about 1.00 to 1.75 meters above the cleared site. If
evidence of slope instabilities occur on these embankment slopes, conventional methods of slope analysis
such as the method of slices or the STABL SLOPE Programme of Purdue University (Lovell et al 1980) should
be applicable, if desired.
9.4.3.1 Road Construction

Roads to be constructed within the Site could make use of the earth work removed during the clearing
exercise and borrow materials from borrow pits in neighbouring lands.
CBR [California Bearing Ratios] obtained on tests carried out on site soil samples as contained in Appendix G
of this Report should be used in the design of pavements. Values of CBR (Un-Soaked) for the site materials
varied from 14.52 % to 22.08%; while CBR (Soaked) varied from 6.90% to 14.17%. These values are within
the limits acceptable for use as sub-bases [ Overseas Road Notes Tables 6.6 & 6.7 pp 26 ].
9.4.3.2 Retaining Walls And Dykes
Embankments and dykes surrounding Gas Storage tanks at the project site need to be constructed on the
basis of available engineering properties of site soils. For adequate compaction purposes, the Optimum
Moisture Content (OMC) and the Maximum Dry density (MDD) of the earth materials provide data for
engineered embankment compactions. Values of OMC and MDD obtained for the site soils are contained in
Appendix H of this Report. Values of Optimum Moisture Contents (OMC) for the soils range from 14.50% to
16.00 %, while values of Maximum Dry Densities (MDD) for these soils ranged from 1.98 Mg/m 3 to 2.90
Mg/m3 .
10.0 Summary and Concluding Remarks
On the basis of field investigations and laboratory testing carried out on the soil samples obtained from the
project site, it is observed that basically about FIVE (5) identifiable soil horizons are present and this are
namely:
(i) Brownish Clayey layer (CL) - [TOP SOIL]
(ii) Greyish Organic Silty Clays (OL)
(iii) Greyish Clayey Silty Sands (SM) and (SC-SM)
(iv) Yellowish to whitish Silty Sands (SM)
(v) Well-graded Sands and Gravels (SW)
The various geotechnical engineering properties of each of the sub-soils are summarized in Table 8a-8r of this
report.
On the basis of the computations carried out above, the following recommendations are hereby made:-
(1) The obtained value for the Bearing Capacity for Isolated Footings to be used at the Project Site is
about 195.35 + 1.1867B [kPa] where B = Width of the Structure to be built. For a B = 5.00 meters,
the Bearing Capacity has been found to be 201.284 kPa. The recommended depth of emplacement
of Isolated Footings is 1.50 meters. This value represents the bearing capacity of the upper bearing
Lateritic Clayey Sands at the project site.
(2) The obtained value for the Bearing Capacity for Continuous Strip Footings to be used at the Project
Site is about 153.35 + 1.483B [kPa] where B = Width of the Structure to be built. For a B = 5.00
meters, the Bearing Capacity has been found to be 160.76 kPa. The recommended depth of
emplacement of Continuous Strip Footings is 0.75 meters. This value represents the bearing
capacity of the upper bearing Lateritic Clays and Silty-Clays at the project site.
(3) The range of values obtained for the Bearing Capacity for Raft Footings at the project site, based on
the methods of Meyerhof (1974); Bowles (1988); Terzaghi & Peck (1967); Brinch Hansen (1968) and
the conventional SPT Method is between 76.55 and 208.86 kPa with an average of 122.85 kPa. The
recommended depth of emplacement of Raft Footings is 1.50 meters. This value represents the
bearing capacity of the upper bearing Lateritic Clays and Silty-Clays at the project site.
(4) A value of qallowed = [14.4] + [(9.964T)/( B x L)] kN / m2 can be used as the allowable Soil Pressure on
the soil at the project site, since this value should be less than the average value of the allowable
soil pressure (bearing capacity ), q(allow) of the soils at site. [ Note: B = breadth; L = Length of
structures at site ].
(5) The computed settlement data for the project area indicate that the Immediate Settlement values
for the Project Site is estimated to be about i = 0.0000132(T)(B) (meters) , where T = the Dead
weight of the Buildings at site. This is the settlement expected to take place during the construction
phase of the Buildings at the Project site.
(6) The computed settlement data for the project area indicate that the Long-Term Settlement value
for the Buildings at the Site is estimated to be about 0.000132 T + {(0.520) Log 10 (1 +0.01498 T)}
(meters) , where T = the estimated Dead Weight of the Buildings. This is the settlement expected to
take place long after the construction phase of the Buildings at the various zones at the Project
sites.
(7) About 50% of the settlements must have taken place about 3.70 years after construction, while
90% of the settlement will take place after about 15.728 years after the completion of the Buildings
at the University Complex.
(8) Since the buildings at a University Campus are subjected to Live Loads from the movements of
different numbers of students in a continuously day-to-day fashion over the years, the potentials of
the silty soils becoming liquefied as a result of human traffic-induced vibration was also assessed
during this investigation, since this is a permanent structure for ages to come. Soil dynamics
analysis carried out by us indicate that there will be no possibility of Soil Liquefaction at the Project
Site as a result of vibration from Live Loads and structures. This was found not to be possible even
though the groundwater table was found near the ground surface because of the absence of totally
silty soils beneath the ground surface.
(9) Foundation concrete should be dense and impermeable for protection against Sulphate Attack
especially in areas likely to be in contact with surface or groundwater.
(10) The pH value of 4.5 is low and therefore may enhance corrosion of buried pipes and metals.
(11) Generally the resistivity in the project area is quite high which could have entailed non-
corrosive environment. However, for the slightly lower resistivity that could be expected
during the rainy season, it may therefore be recommended that some precautions be
taken on the pipe-works e.g. bonded Coatings of the pipes or better still a Cathodic
Protection could be done.
(12) Sulphate-resistant Cement may be used for the foundation concrete (cement content not
less than 330 kg/m3, Max. W/C 0.50 or Sulphate-resisting cement with cement content not
less than 290 kg/m3, Max. W/C 0.50)
(13) The specific values got at this site are higher than those recommended values by IEEE Green
Book (1992). Hence irrespective of the point chosen for Earthing at the project sited, the
earth conductivity must be improved upon by the addition of ground enhancement
material such as mixing charcoal and coke with salts like sodium chloride or magnesium
chloride or better still some of the artificial gels, and buried at depths of between 4 – 5
meters.
(14) Finally, on the basis of the geotechnical considerations for structures such as the proposed
University single or multiple Office Blocks; Laboratory Buildings and various categories and
sizes of Residential Buildings at the Campus site, the Geotechnical Consultants highly
recommend that the above findings be strictly adhered to.
Appendices
Appendix ‘A1’
Borehole Logs
LOCATIONS OF BORING POINTS AT THE FEDERAL UNIVERSITY OTUOKE PROJECT SITE
S/No BORING ELEVATION GPS LOCATIONS WATER REMARKS

. No. ABOVE SEA NORTHINGS EASTINGS TABLE
LEVEL DEPTH
(m) (m)
1. BH # 1 5.30m N 04o47’33.45’’ E 006o19’19.92’’
2. BH # 2 3.00m N 04o47’36.30’’ E 006o19’19.40’’
3. BH # 3 4.00m N 04o47’41.04’’ E 006o19’28.13’’
4. BH # 4 10.50m N 04o47’42.90’’ E 006o19’34.80’’
5. BH # 5 3.00m N 04o47’30.04’’ E 006o19’31.83’’
6. BH # 6 4.00m N 04o47’34.51’’ E 006o19’35.54’’
Elevations are
7. BH#7 5.30m N 04o47’29.20’’ E 006o19’38.99’’
approximated
8. BH#8 2.10m N 04o47’35.70’’ E 006o19’38.70’’
to the error
9. BH#9 4.00m N 04o47’43.70’’ E 006o19’37.13’’
levels of the
10. BH#10 3.60m N 04o47’43.61’’ E 006o19’40.39’’ GPS
11. BH#11 4.00m N 04o47’42.46’’ E 006o19’43.18’’ equipment
12. BH#12 3.10m N 04o47’35.56’’ E 006o19’42.08’’
13. BH#13 3.00m N 04o47’32.22’’ E 006o19’45.16’’
14. BH#14 3.00m N 04o47’27.91’’ E 006o19’51.78’’
15. BH#15 4.00m N 04o47’33.30’’ E 006o19’52.12’’
16. BH#16 0.80m N 04o47’39.35’’ E 006o19’50.84’’
17. BH#17 6.00m N 04o47’44.37’’ E 006o19’50.69’’
18. BH#18 3.00m N 04o47’37.90’’ E 006o19’45.71’’
Figure A1: Sub-surface Log of BH# 1 (Built-up Area) at the Federal University Campus, Otuoke.
Figure A2: Sub-surface Log of BH# 2 (Junior Staff Qtrs) at the Federal University Campus, Otuoke.
Figure A3: Sub-surface Log of BH# 2 (Junior Staff Qtrs) at the Federal University Campus, Otuoke .
Figure A4: Sub-surface Log of BH# 3 (University Commercial Centre) at the Federal University Campus,
Figure A5: Sub-surface Log of BH# 4 (Sports / Recreation Centre) at the Federal University Campus,
Figure A6: Sub-surface Log of BH# 5 (Engineering & Maintenance) at the Federal University Campus,
Figure A7: Sub-surface Log of BH# 6 (Teaching Core) at the Federal University Campus,
Figure A10: Sub-surface Log of BH# 8 (Research Centre) at the Federal University Campus,
Otuoke, Bayelsa State
Figure A11: Sub-surface Log of BH# 10 (Central admin) at the Federal University Campus,
Figure A12: Sub-surface Log of BH# 11 (Central Admin) at the Federal University Campus,
Figure A13: Sub-surface Log of BH# 12 (Student Accommodation) at the Federal University Campus,
Figure A14: Sub-surface Log of BH# 13 (Student Accommodation) at the Federal University Campus,
Figure A15: Sub-surface Log of BH# 14 (Vice-Chancellor’s Lodge) at the Federal University Campus,
Figure A16: Sub-surface Log of BH# 15 (Guest Cottages) at the Federal University Campus,
Figure A17: Sub-surface Log of BH# 16 (Registrar’s Residence) at the Federal University Campus,
Figure A17: Sub-surface Log of BH# 17 (Senior Staff Housing) at the Federal University Campus,
Figure A18: Sub-surface Log of BH# 17 (University Centre) at the Federal University Campus,
Appendix Aii
Shallow Hand-Auger Logs.
APPENDIX ‘A3’
Appendix B
Geophysical Data
TABLE B1: SCHLUMBERGER DEPTH SOUNDING DATA AT FEDERAL UNIVERSITY OTUOKE
Half cur App. App. App. App. App. App. App. App.
electrode Resistivity Resistivity Resistivity Resistivity Resistivity Resistivity Resistivity Resistivity
spread Ohm-m Ohm-m Ohm-m Ohm-m Ohm-m Ohm-m Ohm-m Ohm-m

1 175 128 195 133 302 724 100 790
2 58 62 146 148 165 311 134 422
3 31 52 166 159 135 105 154 211
3 32 54 136 152 139 109 155 285
4 32 54 153 183 130 43 172 173
6 43 61 190 213 142 42 190 130
8 55 72 219 237 153 54 194 110
10 70 83 250 290 160 54 183 100
10 69 85 244 305 161 54 167 100
15 94 108 362 408 185 51 195 100
20 100 122 433 504 223 71 232 100
25 130 138 469 584 250 89 290 110
25 132 133 481 530 251 90 278 111
30 140 140 505 525 299 101 320 121
40 156 144 472 435 320 157 404 154
50 163 128 384 326 300 189 472 181
50 165 124 386 310 305 182 454 188
65 155 122 314 164 279 188 435 222
80 150 120 260 135 240 160 450 260
100 160 118 166 165 260 180 593 321
TABLE B2 SCHLUMBERGER DEPTH SOUNDING DATA AT FEDERAL UNIVERSITY OTUOKESTATE (cont’d)
Half cur App. App. App. App. App. App. App. App.
electrode Resistivity Resistivity Resistivity Resistivity Resistivity Resistivity Resistivity Resistivity
spread Ohm-m Ohm-m Ohm-m Ohm-m Ohm-m Ohm-m Ohm-m Ohm-m

1 106 775 338 651 769 155 149 181
2 603 379 123 380 301 77 131 39
3 295 292 89 168 135 66 104 38
3 335 280 89 167 131 59 99 42
4 156 260 58 68 73 62 92 53
6 46 216 41 56 39 59 94 80
8 45 140 40 45 37 61 103 106
10 35 100 40 45 37 67 118 124
10 25 92 38 48 36 71 135 110
15 38 70 31 56 42 81 130 137
20 55 80 33 66 52 104 135 151
25 70 110 34 78 56 114 132 172
25 56 91 34 79 61 120 139 171
30 69 114 30 89 69 127 130 163
40 102 143 33 110 85 131 117 132
50 122 165 39 145 100 132 122 117
50 123 164 40 141 91 131 121 119
65 172 207 42 178 105 125 125 110
80 231 260 48 211 122 120 112 100
100 276 329 59 256 152 160 102 121
TABLE B3: THE GEOGRAPHICAL COORDINATES OF THE INVESTIGATED PROFILES AT
FEDERAL UNIVERSITYOTUOKE USING GEOGRAPHICAL POSITIONING
SYSTEMS (GPS )
SOUNDED POINT LATITUDE LONGITUDE
VES 1 40 47.893’ 60 19.612’

VES 2 40 47. 765’ 60 19.622’
VES 3 40 47.691’ 60 19.658’
VES 4 40 47.681’ 60 19.638’
VES 5 40 47.606’ 60 19.684’
VES 6 40 47.604’ 60 19.682’
VES 7 40 47.723’ 60 19.712’
VES 8 40 47.658’ 60 19.750’
VES 9 40 47.668’ 60 19.769’
VES 10 40 47.646’ 60 19.723’
VES 11 40 47.597’ 60 19.818’
VES 12 40 47.621’ 60 19.766’
VES 13 40 47.678’ 60 19.779’
VES 14 40 47.919’ 60 19.544’
VES 15 40 47.949’ 60 19 633’
VES 16 40 47.779’ 60 19.696’
Appendix C
Particle Size Distribution
SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION OF THE FEDERAL UNIVERSITY PROJECT,
OTUOKE, BAYELSA STATE.
PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION PATTERN
( BOTH SIEVE ANALYSIS AND HYDROMETER ANALYSIS )
(BOREHOLE # 1)
Soil Type Sample Depth Natural % Passing sieves sizes by wt and hydrometer tests
No. (m) Moisture
Content >4.75mm 4.75mm 75 2
(NMC)
% Dry Wt.
Brownish Clayey layer (CL) 1/1 0.00 4.0 88 44 38 24
1/2 1.00 4..5 74 42 36 22
[ Slightly plastic, moderately stiff ] 1/3 2.00 4.5 72 40 36 20
Greyish Organic Silty-Clay (OL) 1/ 4 3.00 6.40 64 36 18 4

1/5 4.00 6.80 62 34 16 2
1/6 5.00 10.10 42 22 14 4
1/7 6.00 10.20 30 25 12 4
Greyish Clayey Sands Layer (SC) 1/8 7.00 6.4 34 36 18 4

1/9 8.00 6.8 22 34 16 2
1/10 9.00 6.2 22 22 14 -
1/11 10.00 7.4 10 25 12 -
1/12 11.00 8.0 06 22 10 -
Poorly graded Sands (SP) 1/13 12.00 4.4 34 12 10 2

1/14 13.00 5.8 28 14 10 1
1/15 14.00 5.2 26 14 8 -
1/16 15.00 5.4 24 13 7 4
1/17 16.00 5.0 20 14 8 2
1/18 17.00 4.0 28 10 9 5
1/19 18.00 5.2 26 11 6 2
1/20 19.00 5.4 28 12 8 2
1/21 20.00 5.2 24 10 6 1
1/22 21.00 5.0 26 09 8 1
Well-graded Gravelly Sands layer 1/23 22.00 5.0 20 14 8 2
(SW) 1/24 23.00 4.0 28 10 9 5
1/25 24.00 5.3 26 11 6 2
1/26 25.00 5.4 28 12 8 2
1/27 26.00 5.2 24 10 6 1
1/28 27.00 5.2 26 09 8 1
1/29 28.00 5.4 24 14 8 2
1/30 29.00 5.2 25 10 9 1
1/31 30.00 5.0 22 12 6 2
- Continued -

(BOREHOLE # 2)
No. (m) Moisture
Content >4.75mm 4.75mm 75 2
(NMC)
% Dry Wt.
2/2 1.00 4..5 74 42 36 22
[ Slightly plastic, moderately
2/3 2.00 4.5 72 40 36 20
stiff ]

2/5 4.00 6.80 62 34 16 2
2/6 5.00 10.10 42 22 14 4
2/7 6.00 10.20 30 25 12 4
Greyish Clayey Sands Layer 2/8 7.00 6.4 34 36 18 4

(SC) 2/9 8.00 6.8 22 34 16 2
2/10 9.00 6.2 22 22 14 -
2/11 10.00 7.4 10 25 12 -
2/12 11.00 8.0 06 22 10 -

2/14 13.00 5.8 28 14 10 1
2/15 14.00 5.2 26 14 8 -
2/16 15.00 5.4 24 13 7 4
2/17 16.00 5.0 20 14 8 2
2/18 17.00 4.0 28 10 9 5
2/19 18.00 5.2 26 11 6 2
2/20 19.00 5.4 28 12 8 2
2/21 20.00 5.2 24 10 6 1
2/22 21.00 5.0 26 09 8 1
Well-graded Gravelly Sands 2/23 22.00 5.0 20 14 8 2
layer (SW) 2/24 23.00 4.0 28 10 9 5
2/25 24.00 5.3 26 11 6 2
2/26 25.00 5.4 28 12 8 2
2/27 26.00 5.2 24 10 6 1
2/28 27.00 5.2 26 09 8 1
2/29 28.00 5.4 24 14 8 2
2/30 29.00 5.2 25 10 9 1
2/31 30.00 5.0 22 12 6 2
- Continued -

(BOREHOLE # 3)
No. (m) Moisture
Content >4.75mm 4.75mm 75 2
(NMC)
% Dry Wt.
3/2 1.00 4..5 74 42 36 22

3/5 4.00 6.80 62 34 16 2
3/6 5.00 10.10 42 22 14 4
3/7 6.00 10.20 30 25 12 4

3/9 8.00 6.8 22 34 16 2
3/10 9.00 6.2 22 22 14 -
3/11 10.00 7.4 10 25 12 -
3/12 11.00 8.0 06 22 10 -

3/14 13.00 5.8 28 14 10 1
3/15 14.00 5.2 26 14 8 -
3/16 15.00 5.4 24 13 7 4
3/17 16.00 5.0 20 14 8 2
3/18 17.00 4.0 28 10 9 5
3/19 18.00 5.2 26 11 6 2
3/20 19.00 5.4 28 12 8 2
3/21 20.00 5.2 24 10 6 1
3/22 21.00 5.0 26 09 8 1
(SW) 3/24 23.00 4.0 28 10 9 5
3/25 24.00 5.3 26 11 6 2
3/26 25.00 5.4 28 12 8 2
3/27 26.00 5.2 24 10 6 1
3/28 27.00 5.2 26 09 8 1
3/29 28.00 5.4 24 14 8 2
3/30 29.00 5.2 25 10 9 1
3/31 30.00 5.0 22 12 6 2
- Continued -
(BOREHOLE # 4)
No. (m) Moisture
Content >4.75mm 4.75mm 75 2
(NMC)
% Dry Wt.
4/2 1.00 4..5 74 42 36 22
4/4 3.00 4.4 68 42
Whitish Silty Sands (SM) 4/5 4.00 4.4 34 12 10 2

4/6 5.00 5.8 28 14 10 1
4/7 6.00 5.2 26 14 8 -
4/8 7.00 5.4 24 13 7 4
Well-graded Gravelly Sands layer 4/9 8.00 42 20 14 8 2

(SW) 4/10 9.00 - 28 10 9 5
4/11 10.00 - 26 11 6 2
4/12 11.00 45 28 12 8 2
4/13 12.00 - 24 10 6 1
4/14 13.00 38 26 09 8 1
4/15 14.00 42 20 14 8 2
4/16 15.00 - 28 10 9 5
4/17 16.00 - 26 11 6 2
4/18 17.00 45 28 12 8 2
4/19 18.00 - 24 10 6 1
4/20 19.00 38 20 14 5 2
4/21 20.00 42 28 10 9 5
4/22 21.00 - 26 11 6 2
4/23 22.00 - 28 12 8 2
4/24 23.00 45 24 10 6 1
4/25 24.00 - 20 14 6 2
4/26 25.00 38 28 10 9 5
4/27 26.00 42 26 11 6 2
4/28 27.00 - 28 12 8 2
4/29 28.00 - 24 10 6 1
4/30 29.00 45 20 09 8 -
4/31 30.00 - 18 08 4 -
- Continued –
(BOREHOLE # 5)
No. (m) Moisture
Content >4.75mm 4.75mm 75 2
(NMC)
% Dry Wt.
5/2 1.00 4..5 74 42 36 22

5/5 4.00 6.80 62 34 16 2
5/6 5.00 10.10 42 22 14 4
5/7 6.00 10.20 30 25 12 4

5/9 8.00 6.8 22 34 16 2
5/10 9.00 6.2 22 22 14 -
5/11 10.00 7.4 10 25 12 -
5/12 11.00 8.0 06 22 10 -

5/14 13.00 5.8 28 14 10 1
5/15 14.00 5.2 26 14 8 -
5/16 15.00 5.4 24 13 7 4
5/17 16.00 5.0 20 14 8 2
5/18 17.00 4.0 28 10 9 5
5/19 18.00 5.2 26 11 6 2
5/20 19.00 5.4 28 12 8 2
5/21 20.00 5.2 24 10 6 1
5/22 21.00 5.0 26 09 8 1
(SW) 5/24 23.00 4.0 28 10 9 5
5/25 24.00 5.3 26 11 6 2
5/26 25.00 5.4 28 12 8 2
5/27 26.00 5.2 24 10 6 1
5/28 27.00 5.2 26 09 8 1
5/29 28.00 5.4 24 14 8 2
5/30 29.00 5.2 25 10 9 1
5/31 30.00 5.0 22 12 6 2
- Continued -
(BOREHOLE # 6 )
No. (m) Moisture
Content >4.75mm 4.75mm 75 2
(NMC)
% Dry Wt.
6/3 1.00 4..5 74 42 36 22
[ Slightly plastic, moderately
6/4 2.00 4.5 72 40 36 20
stiff ] 3.00 4.4 68 42
Whitish Silty Sands (SM) 6/5 4.00 4.4 34 12 10 2

4/6 5.00 5.8 28 14 10 1
6/7 6.00 5.2 26 14 8 -
6/8 7.00 5.4 24 13 7 4
Well-graded Gravelly Sands 6/9 8.00 42 20 14 8 2

layer (SW) 6/10 9.00 - 28 10 9 5
6/11 10.00 - 26 11 6 2
6/12 11.00 45 28 12 8 2
6/13 12.00 - 24 10 6 1
6/14 13.00 38 26 09 8 1
6/15 14.00 42 20 14 8 2
6/16 15.00 - 28 10 9 5
6/17 16.00 - 26 11 6 2
6/18 17.00 45 28 12 8 2
6/19 18.00 - 24 10 6 1
6/20 19.00 38 20 14 5 2
6/21 20.00 42 28 10 9 5
6/22 21.00 - 26 11 6 2
6/23 22.00 - 28 12 8 2
6/24 23.00 45 24 10 6 1
6/25 24.00 - 20 14 6 2
6/26 25.00 38 28 10 9 5
6/27 26.00 42 26 11 6 2
6/28 27.00 - 28 12 8 2
6/29 28.00 - 24 10 6 1
6/30 29.00 45 20 09 8 -
6/31 30.00 - 18 08 4 -
TEKS GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANCY (NIGERIA) LIMITED.
GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS – ASTM D422-90. Boring#: 1 Sample # 8; Depth: 7.00m




GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS – ASTM D422-90. Boring# 7: Sample # 23; Depth: 22.00m











Appendix D
Consistency Limits (Atterberg Limits)
SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION OF THE FEDERAL UNIVERSITY PROJECT, OTUOKE, BAYELSA STATE.
CONSISTENCY LIMITS (ATTERBERG LIMITS)

(INCLUDING FIELD MOISTURE CONTENTS)
(BOREHOLE # 1)
Soil Type Sample Depth Saturated Unit Soil Consistency

No. (m) Weight
Wn LL PI
(%) (%)
(KN/m3.)
Brownish lateritic Clayey Sand layer 1/1 0.00 17.8 4.0 48.2 12.8
1/2 1.00 17.8 4.5 46.0 15.6
(SC) 1/3 2.00 17.8 4.5 44.0 18.2
[ Slightly plastic, moderately stiff ]
Greyish Organic Silty Clays (OL) 1/4 3.00 17.8 6.4 48.2 12.8
1/5 4.00 17.8 6.8 46.0 15.6
1/6 5.00 17.8 10.0 44.0 18.2
1/7 6.00 18.4 10.2 47.5 14.6
Greyish Clayey Sands (SC) 1/8 7.00 20.8 6.4 20.6 10.4
1/9 8.00 18.8 6.8 16.5 9.5
1/10 9.00 19.8 6.2 15.5 8.5
1/11 10.00 19.4 7.4 16.5 6.5
1/12 11.00 18.8 8.0 16.4 6.4
Poorly graded sands (SP) 1/13 12.00 24.6 4.4 NP NP

1/14 13.00 24.8 5.8 NP NP
1/15 14.00 23.8 5.2 NP NP
1/16 15.00 24.8 5.4 NP NP
1/17 16.00 24.6 5.0 NP NP
1/18 17.00 24.8 4.0 NP NP
1/19 18.00 23.8 5.2 NP NP
1/20 19.00 24.8 5.4 NP NP
1/21 20.00 24.6 5.2 NP NP
1/12 21.00 24.8 5.0 NP NP
Greyish well-graded sands and 1/11 10.00 27.6 5.4 NP NP

gravels layer (SW) 1/12 11.00 27.6 5.6 NP NP
1/13 12.00 27.6 6.5 NP NP
1/14 13.00 27.8 6.5 NP NP
1/15 14.00 27.8 7.6 NP NP
1/16 15.00 27.8 8.2 NP NP
1/17 16.00 27.8 8.4 NP NP
1/18 17.00 27.8 8.2 NP NP
1/19 18.00 27.8 8.2 NP NP
1/20 19.00 27.8 8.2 NP NP
1/21 20.00 27.8
- Continued -

(BOREHOLE # 2)

No. (m) Weight
Wn LL PI
(%) (%)
(KN/m3.)
2/2 1.00 17.8 4.5 46.0 15.6
(SC) 2/3 2.00 17.8 4.5 44.0 18.2
2/5 4.00 17.8 6.8 46.0 15.6
2/6 5.00 17.8 10.0 44.0 18.2
2/7 6.00 18.4 10.2 47.5 14.6
2/9 8.00 18.8 6.8 16.5 9.5
2/10 9.00 19.8 6.2 15.5 8.5
2/11 10.00 19.4 7.4 16.5 6.5
2/12 11.00 18.8 8.0 16.4 6.4

2/14 13.00 24.8 5.8 NP NP
2/15 14.00 23.8 5.2 NP NP
2/16 15.00 24.8 5.4 NP NP
2/17 16.00 24.6 5.0 NP NP
2/18 17.00 24.8 4.0 NP NP
2/19 18.00 23.8 5.2 NP NP
2/20 19.00 24.8 5.4 NP NP
2/21 20.00 24.6 5.2 NP NP
2/12 21.00 24.8 5.0 NP NP

2/13 12.00 27.6 6.5 NP NP
2/14 13.00 27.8 6.5 NP NP
2/15 14.00 27.8 7.6 NP NP
2/16 15.00 27.8 8.2 NP NP
2/17 16.00 27.8 8.4 NP NP
2/18 17.00 27.8 8.2 NP NP
2/19 18.00 27.8 8.2 NP NP
2/20 19.00 27.8 8.2 NP NP
2/21 20.00 27.8 8.1 NP NP
- Continued -

(BOREHOLE # 3)

No. (m) Weight
Wn LL PI
(%) (%)
(KN/m3.)
3/2 1.00 17.8 4.5 46.0 15.6
(SC )[ Slightly plastic, moderately stiff 3/3 2.00 17.8 4.5 44.0 18.2
]
3/5 4.00 17.8 6.8 46.0 15.6
3/6 5.00 17.8 10.0 44.0 18.2
3/7 6.00 18.4 10.2 47.5 14.6
3/9 8.00 18.8 6.8 16.5 9.5
3/10 9.00 19.8 6.2 15.5 8.5
3/11 10.00 19.4 7.4 16.5 6.5
3/12 11.00 18.8 8.0 16.4 6.4

3/14 13.00 24.8 5.8 NP NP
3/15 14.00 23.8 5.2 NP NP
3/16 15.00 24.8 5.4 NP NP
3/17 16.00 24.6 5.0 NP NP
3/18 17.00 24.8 4.0 NP NP
3/19 18.00 23.8 5.2 NP NP
3/20 19.00 24.8 5.4 NP NP
3/21 20.00 24.6 5.2 NP NP
3/12 21.00 24.8 5.0 NP NP

3/13 12.00 27.6 6.5 NP NP
3/14 13.00 27.8 6.5 NP NP
3/15 14.00 27.8 7.6 NP NP
3/16 15.00 27.8 8.2 NP NP
3/17 16.00 27.8 8.4 NP NP
3/18 17.00 27.8 8.2 NP NP
3/19 18.00 27.8 8.2 NP NP
3/20 19.00 27.8 8.2 NP NP
3/21 20.00 27.8 8.1 NP NP
- Continued -

(BOREHOLE # 4)

No. (m) Weight
Wn LL PI
(%) (%)
(KN/m3.)
Brownish Clay layer (CL) 4/1 0.00 17.8 4.0 48.2 12.8
4/2 1.00 17.8 4.5 46.0 15.6
[ Slightly plastic, moderately stiff ] 4/3 2.00 17.8 4.5 44.0 18.2
4/4
Whitish Silty Sands (SM) 4/5 4.00 24.6 4.4 NP NP

4/6 5.00 24.8 5.8 NP NP
4/7 6.00 23.8 5.2 NP NP
4/8 7.00 24.8 5.4 NP NP
Well-graded Gravelly Sands layer 4/9 8.00 27.6 5.4 NP NP

(SW) 4/10 9.00 27.6 5.6 NP NP
4/11 10.00 27.6 6.5 NP NP
4/12 11.00 27.8 6.5 NP NP
4/13 12.00 27.8 7.6 NP NP
4/14 13.00 27.8 8.2 NP NP
4/15 14.00 27.8 8.4 NP NP
4/16 15.00 27.8 8.2 NP NP
4/17 16.00 27.8 8.2 NP NP
4/18 17.00 27.8 8.2 NP NP
4/19 18.00 27.8 8.1 NP NP
4/20 19.00 27.6 5.4 NP NP
4/21 20.00 27.6 5.6 NP NP
4/22 21.00 27.6 6.5 NP NP
4/23 22.00 27.8 6.5 NP NP
4/24 23.00 27.8 7.6 NP NP
4/25 24.00 27.8 8.2 NP NP
4/26 25.00 27.8 8.4 NP NP
4/27 26.00 27.8 8.2 NP NP
4/28 27.00 27.8 8.2 NP NP
4/29 28.00 27.8 8.2 NP NP
4/30 29.00 27.8 8.1 NP NP
4/31 30.00 28.2 8.4 NP NP
- Continued -

(BOREHOLE # 5)

No. (m) Weight
Wn LL PI
(%) (%)
(KN/m3.)
5/2 1.00 17.8 4.5 46.0 15.6
(SC )[Slightly plastic, moderately stiff] 5/3 2.00 17.8 4.5 44.0 18.2
5/5 4.00 17.8 6.8 46.0 15.6
5/6 5.00 17.8 10.0 44.0 18.2
5/7 6.00 18.4 10.2 47.5 14.6
5/9 8.00 18.8 6.8 16.5 9.5
510 9.00 19.8 6.2 15.5 8.5
511 10.00 19.4 7.4 16.5 6.5
5/12 11.00 18.8 8.0 16.4 6.4

5/14 13.00 24.8 5.8 NP NP
5/15 14.00 23.8 5.2 NP NP
5/16 15.00 24.8 5.4 NP NP
5/17 16.00 24.6 5.0 NP NP
5/18 17.00 24.8 4.0 NP NP
5/19 18.00 23.8 5.2 NP NP
5/20 19.00 24.8 5.4 NP NP
5/21 20.00 24.6 5.2 NP NP
5/12 21.00 24.8 5.0 NP NP

5/13 12.00 27.6 6.5 NP NP
5/14 13.00 27.8 6.5 NP NP
5/15 14.00 27.8 7.6 NP NP
5/16 15.00 27.8 8.2 NP NP
5/17 16.00 27.8 8.4 NP NP
5/18 17.00 27.8 8.2 NP NP
5/19 18.00 27.8 8.2 NP NP
5/20 19.00 27.8 8.2 NP NP
5/21 20.00 27.8 8.1 NP NP
- continued -

(BOREHOLE # 6)

No. (m) Weight
Wn LL PI
(%) (%)
(KN/m3.)
Brownish Clay layer (CL) 6/1 0.00 17.8 4.0 48.2 12.8
6/2 1.00 17.8 4.5 46.0 15.6
[ Slightly plastic, moderately stiff ] 6/3 2.00 17.8 4.5 44.0 18.2
6/4
Whitish Silty Sands (SM) 6/5 4.00 24.6 4.4 NP NP

6/6 5.00 24.8 5.8 NP NP
6/7 6.00 23.8 5.2 NP NP
6/8 7.00 24.8 5.4 NP NP
Well-graded Gravelly Sands layer 6/9 8.00 27.6 5.4 NP NP

(SW) 6/10 9.00 27.6 5.6 NP NP
6/11 10.00 27.6 6.5 NP NP
6/12 11.00 27.8 6.5 NP NP
6/13 12.00 27.8 7.6 NP NP
6/14 13.00 27.8 8.2 NP NP
6/15 14.00 27.8 8.4 NP NP
6/16 15.00 27.8 8.2 NP NP
6/17 16.00 27.8 8.2 NP NP
6/18 17.00 27.8 8.2 NP NP
6/19 18.00 27.8 8.1 NP NP
6/20 19.00 27.6 5.4 NP NP
6/21 20.00 27.6 5.6 NP NP
6/22 21.00 27.6 6.5 NP NP
6/23 22.00 27.8 6.5 NP NP
6/24 23.00 27.8 7.6 NP NP
6/25 24.00 27.8 8.2 NP NP
6/26 25.00 27.8 8.4 NP NP
6/27 26.00 27.8 8.2 NP NP
6/28 27.00 27.8 8.2 NP NP
6/29 28.00 27.8 8.2 NP NP
6/30 29.00 27.8 8.1 NP NP
6/31 30.00 28.2 8.4 NP NP
Appendix E
Direct Shear Tests
SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION OF THE FEDERAL UNIVERSITY OTUOKE PROJECT, BAYELSA STATE.
DIRECT SHEAR STRENGTH ( UNDRAINED – UNCONSOLIDATED)
Soil Type Sample No. Depth Residual Cohesion Residual Friction Angle
(m)
( Cr)  (residual)
(KN/m2.)
Brownish Clayey Layer (CL)
1/3 2.00 52.8 4
3/6 5.00 38.8 8
6/4 3.00 46.8 4
8/7 6.00 40.2 8
12/4 3.00 46.0 4
Stress – Strain Curves and Shear Strength versus Normal Stress Plots are given in Appendix D.
C r = 52.80 KPa
KPa φr= 4.0 o
Tan φ = 1.1578
130.0
100.0
50.00 Φ = 4.0o
0.00
. . . . . .
50 100 150 200 250 300
kPa Normal Stress  KPa
240.00 Specimen No. 1 2 3
c Initial Water Content (%) Wn 24.9% 24.9% 24.9%
%
200.00
Dry Density gm/cc γd 1.86 1.86 1.86
Saturation (%) So 76.8 76.2 76.5
Void ratio .e o 0.76 0.70 0.80
Before Water content % wn 24.8% 24.8% 24.8%
100.00 shear Dry density (gm/cc) γd 1.72 1.72 1.72
Saturation (% ) So 62.2 62.1 61.7
Void ratio eo 0.71 0.70 0.70
Minor Principal Stress KPa σ3 50.0 100.0 200.0
a Max. Dev. Stress ( Kpa) (σ1 - σ3 ) max 140.0 180.0 200.0
0.00 b Time to ( 1 - 2 ) max ( min ) .t1 15.0 18.0 28.00
5 10 15 Ultimate deviator stress ( 1 - 3 ) ult. KPa 50.0 120.0 140.0
Axial Strain  mm Initial Diameter ( mm) Do 35.0 35.0 35.00
Controlled Strained Test Initial Height ( mm ) Ho 11.0 11.0 11.0
Description Of Specimens: Brownish Clay Layer. CL
LL 17.6 PL 9.0 PI 8.6 GS 1.86 Type of specimen: UD Type of Test U–U

REMARKS: Test carried out on Undisturbed Project: FEDERAL UNIVERSITY,OTUOKE, BAYELSA STATE
specimens of soil in an Un-consolidated and Un-
Sample No: D1 / 10 Borehole No: ONE (1)
drained condition.
Depth elev. 2 00 m
LAB: TGCL / UST Date: 3/04/2013
DIRECT SHEAR TEST REPORT D 1/3
FIGURE E1/3: Direct Shear Test Report on soils from FEDERAL UNIVERSITY, OTUOKE, BAYELSA STATE.
C r = 38.80 KPa
KPa φr= 8.0 o
Tan φ = 0.1578
130.0
100.0
50.00 Φ = 8.0o
0.00
. . . . . .
50 100 150 200 250 300
%
200.00
Saturation (%) So 76.8 76.2 76.5
Void ratio .e o 0.76 0.70 0.80
Saturation (% ) So 62.2 62.1 61.7
Void ratio eo 0.71 0.70 0.70
0.00 b Time to ( 1 - 2 ) max ( min ) .t1 15.0 18.0 28.00

drained condition. Sample No: D3 / 6 Borehole No: THREE (3)
Depth elev. 5 00 m
C r = 46.80 KPa
KPa φr= 4.0 o
Tan φ = 0.1578
130.0
100.0
50.00 Φ = 4.0o
0.00
. . . . . .
50 100 150 200 250 300
%
200.00
Saturation (%) So 76.8 76.2 76.5
Void ratio .e o 0.76 0.70 0.80
Saturation (% ) So 62.2 62.1 61.7
Void ratio eo 0.71 0.70 0.70
0.00 b Time to ( 1 - 2 ) max ( min ) .t1 15.0 18.0 28.00

drained condition. Sample No: D6 / 4 Borehole No: SIX (6)
Depth elev. 3 00 m
C r = 40.20 KPa
KPa φr= 8.0 o
Tan φ = 0.1578
130.0
100.0
50.00 Φ = 8.0o
0.00
. . . . . .
50 100 150 200 250 300
%
200.00
Saturation (%) So 76.8 76.2 76.5
Void ratio .e o 0.76 0.70 0.80
Saturation (% ) So 62.2 62.1 61.7
Void ratio eo 0.71 0.70 0.70
0.00 b Time to ( 1 - 2 ) max ( min ) .t1 15.0 18.0 28.00

drained condition. Sample No: D8 /7 Borehole No: EIGHT (8)
Depth elev. 6 00 m
C r = 46.80 KPa
KPa φr= 4.0 o
Tan φ = 0.1578
130.0
100.0
50.00 Φ = 4.0o
0.00
. . . . . .
50 100 150 200 250 300
%
200.00
Saturation (%) So 76.8 76.2 76.5
Void ratio .e o 0.76 0.70 0.80
Saturation (% ) So 62.2 62.1 61.7
Void ratio eo 0.71 0.70 0.70
0.00 b Time to ( 1 - 2 ) max ( min ) .t1 15.0 18.0 28.00

drained condition. Sample No: D 12 / 4 Borehole No: TWELVE (12)
Depth elev. 3 00 m
Appendix F
Unconsolidated-Undrained
(U-U) Triaxial
Compression Tests.
SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION OF THE FEDERAL UNIVERSITY, OTUOKE PROJECT, BAYELSA STATE.
UNCONSOLIDATED-UNDRAINED (U-U) TRIAXIAL

COMPRESSION TEST RESULTS.
BORING # 1;3;6;12 &18
Soil Type Sample Depth Natural U-U Friction Undrained Shear Poisson’s Ratio
No. (m) Moisture Angle (  ) Cohesion Modulus
content (o) ( Cu ) G (  )
(NMC) Kpa MPa)
{% Dry Wt.}
Brownish lateritic 1/2 0.00 5.5 8.0 50.20 4.5 0.4
Clayey Sand layer
3/4 3.00 6.4 4.0 48.20 4.5 0.4
(SC)
[ Slightly plastic, 6/5 4.00 4.4 24.0 0.00 4.5 0.4
moderately stiff ]
Greyish well-graded 12/12 11.00 4.0 24.0 0.00 4.5 0.5

sands and gravels
layer (SW) 18/14 13.00 4.5 34.0 0.00 4.5 0.5
NOTE: The specimens were tested in Undrained Compression using Cell Pressures of 50, 100 and 200
KN/m2 respectively.
C = 50.20 KPa
KPa φ = 8.0 o
Tan φ = 0.06992
130.0
100.0
50.00 Φ = 8.0o
0.00
. . . . . .
50 100 150 200 250 300
%
200.00
Saturation (%) So 76.8 76.2 76.5
Void ratio .e o 0.76 0.70 0.80
Saturation (% ) So 62.2 62.1 61.7
Void ratio eo 0.71 0.70 0.70
0.00 b Time to ( 1 - 2 ) max ( min ) .t1 15.0 18.0 28.00
Description Of Specimens: Greyish Organic Clay Layer. CL

REMARKS: Test carried out on Undisturbed Project: FEDERAL UNIVERSITY, OTUOKE, BAYELSA STATE
drained condition. Sample No: E 1 /21 Borehole No: ONE (1)
Depth elev. 1. 00 m
TRI-AXIAL COMPRESSION TEST REPORT E 1/2
FIGURE F1/2: Quick Triaxial Compression Test Report on soils from FEDERAL UNIVERSITY, OTUOKE, BAYELSA
STATE.
C = 48.20 KPa
KPa φ = 4.0 o
Tan φ = 0.06992
130.0
100.0
50.00 Φ = 4.0o
0.00
. . . . . .
50 100 150 200 250 300
%
200.00
Saturation (%) So 76.8 76.2 76.5
Void ratio .e o 0.76 0.70 0.80
Saturation (% ) So 62.2 62.1 61.7
Void ratio eo 0.71 0.70 0.70
0.00 b Time to ( 1 - 2 ) max ( min ) .t1 15.0 18.0 28.00
Description Of Specimens: Greyish Organic Clay Layer. CL

Sample No: E 3 / 4 Borehole No: THREE (3)
drained condition.
Depth elev. 3. 00 m
TRI-AXIAL COMPRESSION TEST REPORT E¾
FIGURE F 3/4: Quick Triaxial Compression Test Report on soils from FEDERAL UNIVERSITY, OTUOKE, BAYELSA
STATE.
C = 0.00 KPa
φ = 34.0 o
KPa
Tan φ = 1.6745
130.0
100.0
50.00
Φ = 34o
0.00
. . . . . .
50 100 150 200 250 300
c Initial Water Content (%) Wn 12.00 12.0% 12.0%
% %
200.00
Dry Density gm/cc γd 2.64 264 2.64
Saturation So 62.6 62.3 61.7
Void ratio .e o 0.76 0.70 0.80
100.00 shear Dry density gm/cc γd 2.64 2.64 1.42
Void ratio eo 0.72 0.70 0.71
a Max. Dev. Stress KPa (σ1 - σ3 ) max 138 180.0 200.0
0.00 b Time to ( 1 - 2 ) max ( min ) .t1 35.0 46.0 60.00
Description Of Specimens: Well-graded Sands and gravels . SW
LL NP PL NP PI NP GS 2.78 Type of specimen: UD Type of Test U–U

drained condition. Sample No: E 6 / 5 Borehole No: SIX (6)
Depth elev. 4. 00 m
TRI-AXIAL COMPRESSION TEST REPORT E6/5
STATE.
C = 0.00 KPa
φ = 34.0 o
KPa
Tan φ = 1.6745
130.0
100.0
50.00
Φ = 34o
0.00
. . . . . .
50 100 150 200 250 300
% %
200.00 Dry Density gm/cc γd 2.64 264 2.64
Void ratio .e o 0.76 0.70 0.80
Void ratio eo 0.72 0.70 0.71
0.00 b Time to ( 1 - 2 ) max ( min ) .t1 35.0 46.0 60.00
Description Of Specimens: Poorly-graded Sands and gravels . SP

drained condition. Sample No: E 12 / 12 Borehole No: TWELVE (12)
Depth elev. 11. 00 m
STATE.
C = 0.00 KPa
φ = 34.0 o
KPa
Tan φ = 1.6745
130.0
100.0
50.00
Φ = 34o
0.00
. . . . . .
50 100 150 200 250 300
% %
200.00
Dry Density gm/cc γd 2.64 264 2.64
Void ratio .e o 0.76 0.70 0.80
Void ratio eo 0.72 0.70 0.71
0.00 b Time to ( 1 - 2 ) max ( min ) .t1 35.0 46.0 60.00
Description Of Specimens: Well-graded Sands and gravels . SW

drained condition. Sample No: E 18 / 14 Borehole No: EIGHTEEN (18)
Depth elev. 13. 00 m
STATE.
Appendix G
Oedometer Consolidation Tests
SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION THE FEDERAL UNIVERSITY, OTUOKE BAYELSA STATE
RESULTS OF OEDOMETER CONSOLIDATION TESTS
Soil Type Sample Depth Natural Coefficients of Coefficient of

No. (m) Moisture Compressibility Consolidation
Content (Mv) ( Cv )
(NMC) m2 / MN ( m2 / year
{% Dry t.} CONFINING PRESSURE (kPa)
50.00 400.00 50.00 400.00
Brownish Lateritic Clayey 1/6 5.00 7.20 0.16 x 10-4 0.34 x 10-4 0.72 0.76
Sand Layer (SC)
5/5 4.00 5.00 0.28 0.24 0.60 0.24
7/6 5.00 5.00 0.16 0.34 0.72 0.76
17/3 2.00 5.00 0.16 0.34 0.72 0.72
OEDOMETER CONSOLIDATION TEST
Bore hole No.: ONE Date : 18- 04 - 2013

Sample No. 1/ 6 Job : Federal University, Otuoke
Bayelsa State
Depth : 5. 00m Operator: TGCL
Test Pressure Range 50.00 - 400.00 KN / m2
Cv = T 90 . H dr 2 . where: T90 = 0.848 ( Taylor1948 )

t 90
Hdr = 2.06 cm = thickness of
TEKS GEOTECHNICAL
test sample
CONSULTANCY (NIG) LTD.
= ( 0.848 ) ( 1.03 ) 2
11 CHIKE STREET,
60.705 t90 = 60.705 min.
OFF NTA ROAD,
MGBUOBA, PHC.
= 0. 01482 cm2/min ≈ 0.78 m2/yr
Ro ( 0% U )
-- 0.00
o
-- 0.10
o
o R 90 = 90 % U Consolidation
-- 0.20
-- 0.30 o
o
o
o
--0.40 o
o
.t90 = (60.705)2
= 7.79min
-- 0.50
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 1 4.00 16.00 18.00
√ Time (Min ) 1/2
Figure G 1/ 6 : Determination of Coefficient of Consolidation ( Cv ) on soils from the Federal University Complex, Otuoke,
Bayelsa State, using Taylor's (1948) "Square Root of Time "Method.
Bore hole No.: FIVE Date : 20- 04 - 2013

Bayelsa State

t 90
TEKS GEOTECHNICAL
test sample
= ( 0.848 ) ( 1.03 ) 2
11 CHIKE STREET,
60.705 t90 = 60.705 min.
OFF NTA ROAD,
MGBUOBA, PHC.
= 0. 01482 cm2/min ≈ 0.76 m2/yr
Ro ( 0% U )
-- 0.00
o
-- 0.10
o
-- 0.20
-- 0.30 o
o
o
o
--0.40 o
o
.t90 = (60.705)2
= 7.79min
-- 0.50
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00 18.00
√ Time (Min ) 1/2
Bore hole No.: SEVEN Date : 21- 04 - 2013

Bayelsa State

t 90
TEKS GEOTECHNICAL
test sample
= ( 0.848 ) ( 1.03 ) 2
11 CHIKE STREET,
60.705 t90 = 60.705 min.
OFF NTA ROAD,
MGBUOBA, PHC.
= 0. 01482 cm2/min ≈ 0.76 m2/yr
Ro ( 0% U )
-- 0.00
o
-- 0.10
o
-- 0.20
-- 0.30 o
o
o
o
--0.40 o
o
.t90 = (60.705)2
= 7.79min
-- 0.50
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00 18.00
√ Time (Min ) 1/2
Bore hole No.: SEVENTEEN Date : 23- 04 - 2013

Bayelsa State

t 90
TEKS GEOTECHNICAL
test sample
= ( 0.848 ) ( 1.03 ) 2
11 CHIKE STREET,
60.705 t90 = 60.705 min.
OFF NTA ROAD,
MGBUOBA, PHC.
= 0. 01482 cm2/min ≈ 0.74 m2/yr
Ro ( 0% U )
-- 0.00
o
-- 0.10
o
-- 0.20
-- 0.30 o
o
o
o
--0.40 o
o
.t90 = (60.705)2
= 7.79min
-- 0.50
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00 18.00
√ Time (Min ) 1/2
Appendix H
California Bearing Ratio (CBR)
Tests Results.
SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION AT THE FEDERAL UNIVERSITY, OTUOKE PROJECT, BAYELSA STATE.
CALIFORNIA BEARING RATIO (CBR)

TEST RESULTS.
NATURAL C.B.R. VALUES

SAMPLE NO. DEPTH MOISTURE
(M) CONTENT UNSOAKED SOAKED
(NMC) (%) (%)
(% Dry Wt.)
ZA1/1 1.00 17.40 14.62 7.01
ZA 1/2 1.00 19.30 19.00 10.05
ZA 2/3 2.00 17.70 14.70 7.73
ZA 2/4 3.00 18.24 21.00 12.61
ZA 2/5 1.00 18.90 22.00 14.14
ZA 1/6 1.00 18.88 19.47 11.93
ZA 1/7 2.00 18.21 21.60 13.82
ZA 2/8 3.00 17.32 19.10 10.33
ZA 3/9 8.00 16.86 14.68 7.73
ZA 3/10 1.00 18.40 21.46 14.11
ZB 1/11 1.00 16.73 14.52 6.90
ZB 2/12 2.00 18.30 21.50 13.75
ZB 3/13 3.00 14.70 22.08 14.17
ZB 1/14 1.00 17.52 19.09 10.00
ZB 3/15 1.00 19.25 22.05 14.10
ZB /16 2.00 17.40 14.62 7.01
ZB /17 3.00 19.30 19.00 10.05
ZB /18 1.00 17.70 14.70 7.73
ZB /19 1.00 18.24 21.00 12.61
ZC/20 2.00 17.32 18.20 9.90
ZC /21 3.00 18.40 22.08 14.17
ZC /22 2.00 17.32 19.10 10.33
ZC /23 1.00 14.70 22.08 14.17
ZC /24 1.00 19.30 14.70 7.01
ZC /25 2.00 17.70 21.00 10.05
ZC /26 3.00 18.24 18.20 7.73
ZC /27 2.00 17.32 22.08 12.61
ZC /28 3.00 18.40 19.10 14.14
ZC /29 2.00 17.32 22.08 11.93
TEKS GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANCY (NIG.) LTD.
15 CHURCHILL ROAD CBR TEST
P.O.BOX 9587, PORT HARCOURT, B.S 1377 Test No. 15
RIVERS STATE
NIGERIA.
Contract ----------------------------
Source: Federal University, Otuoke, Bayelsa State No: ----------------------------
Date: 24th March, 2013
Material: Brownish Lateritic Silty Sandy Clay (SC) Location: Federal University, Otuoke, Bayelsa State
Sample #: ZA1/1
PENETR- STD
ATION LOAD
TEST No. 1 TEST No. 2 TEST No. 3
DIAL CORR- LOAD CBR DIAL CORR- LOAD CBR DIAL CORR- LOAD CBR
(mm) (kN)) READING ECTED kN % READING ECTED kN % READING ECTED kN %
READI READING READING
NG
0.625
1.250
1.880
2.50 13.34 8.10 0.81 0.97 7.27 7.40 0.74 0.90 6.75
3.75
5.00 20.02 13.93 1.39 1.71 8.54 13.30 1.33 1.64 8.19
6.250
7.500 16.00 1.60 1.96 9.80 15.40 1.54 1.88 9.40
8.800
10.00
11.25
12.50
PLOT OF LOAD AGAINST PENETRATION Type of Test SOAKED 24 HOURS

OF PLUNGER Surcharge 22.24 N(5 lb)
Proving Ring No KDF 606 A

2.5
Proving Ring Factor .1.225/Div
2 1 kN = 224.84 lb
Dial Reading (KN)
1.5
Penetration CBR %
1 0.1 in 7.27 6.75
0.2 in 8.54 8.19
0.5
(Selected) Average
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
CBR – 7.01 %
Penetration of Plunger (m m )
Top Bottom
RIVERS STATE
NIGERIA.
Contract ----------------------------
Material: Brownish Lateritic Silty Sandy Clay (SC) Date: 24th March, 2013
Location: Federal University, Otuoke, Bayelsa State
Sample #: ZA 2/2
PENETR- STD
ATION LOAD
(mm) (kN)) READIN ECTED kN % READIN ECTED Kn % READING ECTED kN %
G READING G READING READING
0.625
1.250
1.880
2.50 13.34 8.40 0.84 1.10 8.25 7.20 0.72 0.96 7.20
3.75
5.00 20.02 16.00 1.600 1.97 9.80 14.2 1.42 1.92 9.60
6.250
7.500 18.60 1.86 2.29 11.40 17.7 1.77 2.19 10.90
8.800
10.00
11.25
12.50

2.5 Proving Ring Factor .1.225/Div
Dial Reading (KN)
1 kN = 224.84 lb
2
1.5
1 Penetration CBR %
0.5 0.1 in 8.25 7.20
0.2 in 9.80 9.60
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 (Selected) Average
Penetration of Plunger (m m ) CBR – 7.73 %
Top Bottom
RIVERS STATE
NIGERIA.
Contract ----------------------------
Sample #: ZA 1/2
PENETR- STD
ATION LOAD
(mm) (kN)) READIN ECTED kN % READIN ECTED kN % READING ECTED kN %
G READIN G READING READING
G
0.625
1.250
1.880
2.50 13.34 17.50 1.75 2.00 14.99 16.50 1.65 1.90 14.24
3.75
5.00 20.02 24.60 2.46 2.96 14.78 22.10 2.21 2.78 13.88
6.250
7.500 30.10 3.01 3.48 17.38 28.10 2.81 3.24 16.18
8.800
10.00
11.25
12.50
PLOT OF LOAD AGAINST PENETRATION Type of Test UNSOAKED

4 Proving Ring No KDF 606 A
3.5 Proving Ring Factor . 1.225/Div
Dial Reading (KN)
3 1 kN = 224.84 lb
2.5
2 Penetration CBR %
1.5 0.1 in 14.99 14.24
1
0.2 in 14.78 13.88
0.5
(Selected) Average
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
CBR – 14.62 %
Top Bottom
RIVERS STATE
NIGERIA.
Contract ----------------------------
Sample #: ZA1/4
PENETR- STD
ATION LOAD
0.625
1.250
1.880
2.50 13.34 11.10 1.11 1.44 10.79 9.70 0.97 1.20 9.00
3.75
5.00 20.02 21.60 2.16 2.41 12.04 18.10 1.81 2.15 10.74
6.250
7.500 22.90 2.29 2.52 12.59 20.90 2.09 2.29 11.44
8.800
10.00
11.25
12.50

OF PLUNGER
Surcharge 22.24 N(5 lb)
3
2.5
Dial Reading (KN)

2 1 kN = 224.84 lb
1.5
1 Penetration CBR %
0.5 0.1 in 10.79 9.00
0.2 in 12.04 10.74
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
(Selected) Average
Penetration of Plunger (mm)
CBR – 9.90 %
Top Bottom
RIVERS STATE
NIGERIA.
Contract ----------------------------
Sample #: ZA1/4
PENETR- STD
ATION LOAD
0.625
1.250
1.880
2.50 13.34 12.00 1.20 1.46 11.00 9.80 0.98 1.21 9.10
3.75
5.00 20.02 21.90 2.19 2.42 12.08 18.20 1.82 2.17 10.84
6.250
7.500 23.00 2.30 2.54 12.70 20.90 2.09 2.29 11.44
8.800
10.00
11.25
12.50
PLOT OF DIAL LOAD Vs PENETRATION OF Type of Test SOAKED

PLUNGER
3
Surcharge 22.24N(5lb)

2.5
Proving Ring Factor 1.225/Div
Dial Load(KN)
2 1 kN = 224.84 lb
1.5 Penetration CBR %

1 0.1 in 11.00 9.10
0.2 in 12.08 10.84
0.5
0 (Selected) Average
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 CBR – 10.05 %
Penetration of Plunger(m m )
Top Bottom
RIVERS STATE
NIGERIA.
Contract ----------------------------
Sample #: ZA 1/6
PENETR- STD
ATION LOAD
(mm) (kN)) READING ECTED kN % READIN ECTED kN % READING ECTED kN %
READING G READING READING
0.625
1.250
1.880
2.50 13.34 15.70 1.57 1.77 13.30 13.90 1.39 1.59 11.92
3.75
5.00 20.02 22.40 2.24 2.75 13.74 20.30 2.03 2.54 12.69
6.250
7.500 26.40 2.64 3.00 14.99 24.90 2.49 2.86 14.29
8.800
10.00
11.25
12.50
Type of Test SOAKED(24 HOURS)

PLOT OF DIAL LOAD Vs PENETRATION OF
Surcharge 22.24 N (5LB)
PLUNGER
3.5 Proving Ring No KDF 606 A
3 Proving Ring Factor 1.225/div

1 kN = 224.84 lb
Dial Load(KN)
2.5
2

1 0.1 in 13.30 11.92
0.5
0.2 in 13.74 12.69
0
(Selected) Average
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Penetration of Plunger(m m ) CBR – 12.61 %
Top Bottom
RIVERS STATE
NIGERIA.
Contract ----------------------------
Sample #: ZA 1/7
PENETR- STD
ATION LOAD
(mm) (kN)) READIN ECTED kN % READING ECTED kN % READING ECTED kN %
G READIN READING READING
G
0.625
1.250
1.880
2.50 13.34 11.10 1.11 1.46 10.95 9.90 0.99 1.30 9.70
3.75
5.00 20.02 21.80 2.18 2.54 12.69 18.10 1.81 2.20 10.99
6.250
7.500 22.90 2.29 2.72 13.59 20.90 2.09 2.39 11.94
8.800
10.00
11.25
12.50
PLOT OF LOAD AGAINST PENETRATION Type of Test SOAKED

OF PLUNGER
3
2.5
Dial Reading (KN)

2 1 kN = 224.84 lb
1.5
1 Penetration CBR %
0.5 0.1 in 10.95 9.70
0.2 in 12.69 10.99
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
(Selected) Average
Penetration of Plunger (mm)
CBR – 10.33 %
Top Bottom
RIVERS STATE
NIGERIA.
Contract ----------------------------
Sample #: ZA 2/1
PENETR- STD
ATION LOAD
G READING READING READING
0.625
1.250
1.880
2.50 13.34 8.40 0.84 1.06 8.00 7.20 0.72 0.93 6.97
3.75
5.00 20.02 16.00 1.600 1.90 9.49 14.2 1.42 1.82 9.09
6.250
7.500 18.60 1.86 2.29 11.40 17.7 1.77 2.19 10.90
8.800
10.00
11.25
12.50

Dial Reading (KN)
1 kN = 224.84 lb
2
1.5
1 Penetration CBR %
0.5 0.1 in 8.00 6.97
0.2 in 9.49 9.09
0
Top Bottom
RIVERS STATE
NIGERIA.
Contract ----------------------------
Sample #: ZA 2/8
PENETR STD
-ATION LOAD
G READING READING READING
0.625
1.250
1.880
2.50 13.34 14.00 1.40 1.71 12.84 11.90 1.19 1.47 11.01
3.75
5.00 20.02 24.20 2.42 2.96 14.80 21.20 2.12 2.47 12.33
6.250
7.500 27.10 2.71 3.28 16.38 25.50 2.55 3.14 15.68
8.800
10.00
11.25
12.50
Type of Test SOAKED

PLUNGER Surcharge 22.24 N(5lb)
3 Proving Ring Factor 1.225/Div
1 kN = 224.84 lb
Dial Load(KN)
2.5
Penetration CBR %
2
0.1 in 12.84 11.01
1.5 0.2 in 14.80 12.33
1
(Selected) Average
0.5
CBR – 11.93 %
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Top Bottom
RIVERS STATE
NIGERIA.
Contract ----------------------------
Sample #: ZB 2/9
PENETR- STD
ATION LOAD
0.625
1.250
1.880
2.50 13.34 27.10 2.71 3.00 22.49 25.50 2.55 2.72 20.40
3.75
5.00 20.02 43.10 4.31 4.62 23.08 40.09 4.09 4.36 21.78
6.250
7.500 46.08 4.08 4.79 23.93 42.80 4.28 4.42 22.08
8.800
10.00
11.25
12.50
Type of Test UNSOAKED

PLOT OF LOAD AGAINST PENETRATION
Surcharge 22.24 N(5lb)
OF PLUNGER
6
5 1 kN = 224.84 lb
Dial Reading (KN)
3 Penetration CBR %
0.1 in 22.49 20.40
2
0.2 in 23.08 21.78
1
(Selected) Average
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
CBR – 21.46 %
Top Bottom
RIVERS STATE
NIGERIA.
Contract ----------------------------
Sample #: ZB 2/10
PENETR- STD
ATION LOAD
0.625
1.250
1.880
2.50 13.34 8.10 0.81 0.97 7.27 7.40 0.74 0.90 6.75
3.75
5.00 20.02 13.93 1.39 1.71 8.54 13.30 1.33 1.64 8.19
6.250
7.500 16.00 1.60 1.96 9.80 15.40 1.54 1.88 9.40
8.800
10.00
11.25
12.50


2.5
2 1 kN = 224.84 lb
Dial Reading (KN)
1.5
Penetration CBR %
1
0.1 in 7.27 6.75
0.5
0.2 in 8.54 8.19
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 CBR – 7.01 %
Top Bottom
RIVERS STATE
NIGERIA.
Contract ----------------------------
Sample #: ZB 2/11
PENETR- STD
ATION LOAD
0.625
1.250
1.880
2.50 13.34 8.40 0.84 1.10 8.25 7.20 0.72 0.96 7.20
3.75
5.00 20.02 16.00 1.600 1.97 9.80 14.2 1.42 1.92 9.60
6.250
7.500 18.60 1.86 2.29 11.40 17.7 1.77 2.19 10.90
8.800
10.00
11.25
12.50

Dial Reading (KN)
1 kN = 224.84 lb
2
1.5
1 Penetration CBR %
0.5 0.1 in 8.25 7.20
0.2 in 9.80 9.60
0
Top Bottom
RIVERS STATE
NIGERIA.
Contract ----------------------------
Sample #: ZB 2/12
PENETR- STD
ATION LOAD
0.625
1.250
1.880
2.50 13.34 17.50 1.75 2.00 14.99 16.50 1.65 1.90 14.24
3.75
5.00 20.02 24.60 2.46 2.96 14.78 22.10 2.21 2.78 13.88
6.250
7.500 30.10 3.01 3.48 17.38 28.10 2.81 3.24 16.18
8.800
10.00
11.25
12.50

4
Proving Ring Factor . 1.225/Div
3.5
1 kN = 224.84 lb
Dial Reading (KN)
3
2.5
2 Penetration CBR %
1.5 0.1 in 14.99 14.24
1
0.2 in 14.78 13.88
0.5
(Selected) Average
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
CBR – 14.62 %
Top Bottom
RIVERS STATE
NIGERIA.
Contract ----------------------------
Sample #: ZB 2/13
PENETR- STD
ATION LOAD
0.625
1.250
1.880
2.50 13.34 11.10 1.11 1.44 10.79 9.70 0.97 1.20 9.00
3.75
5.00 20.02 21.60 2.16 2.41 12.04 18.10 1.81 2.15 10.74
6.250
7.500 22.90 2.29 2.52 12.59 20.90 2.09 2.29 11.44
8.800
10.00
11.25
12.50

OF PLUNGER
3
2.5
Dial Reading (KN)

2 1 kN = 224.84 lb
1.5
1 Penetration CBR %
0.5 0.1 in 10.79 9.00
0.2 in 12.04 10.74
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
(Selected) Average
Penetration of Plunger (mm) CBR – 9.90 %
Top Bottom
RIVERS STATE
NIGERIA.
Contract ----------------------------
Sample #: ZB 2/14
PENETR STD
-ATION LOAD
G READING G READING READIN
G
0.625
1.250
1.880
2.50 13.34 12.00 1.20 1.46 11.00 9.80 0.98 1.21 9.10
3.75
5.00 20.02 21.90 2.19 2.42 12.08 18.20 1.82 2.17 10.84
6.250
7.500 23.00 2.30 2.54 12.70 20.90 2.09 2.29 11.44
8.800
10.00
11.25
12.50
Type of Test: SOAKED
PLUNGER
1 kN = 224.84 lb
2.5
Dial Load(KN)

1 0.1 in 11.00 9.10
0.2 in 12.08 10.84
0.5
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 CBR – 10.05 %
Top Bottom
P.O.BOX 9587, PORT HARCOURT,
RIVERS STATE B.S 1377 Test No. 15
NIGERIA.
Contract ----------------------------
Sample #: ZB 2/15
PENETR STD
-ATION LOAD
0.625
1.250
1.880
2.50 13.34 15.70 1.57 1.77 13.30 13.90 1.39 1.59 11.92
3.75
5.00 20.02 22.40 2.24 2.75 13.74 20.30 2.03 2.54 12.69
6.250
7.500 26.40 2.64 3.00 14.99 24.90 2.49 2.86 14.29
8.800
10.00
11.25
12.50
Type of Test SOAKED(24 HOURS)

Surcharge 22.24 N (5LB)
PLUNGER
3 Proving Ring Factor 1.225/div

1 kN = 224.84 lb
Dial Load(KN)
2.5
2

1 0.1 in 13.30 11.92
0.5
0.2 in 13.74 12.69
0
(Selected) Average
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Penetration of Plunger(m m ) CBR – 12.61 %
Top Bottom
RIVERS STATE
NIGERIA.
Contract ----------------------------
Sample #: ZB 2/16
PENETR- STD
ATION LOAD
G READIN G READING READING
G
0.625
1.250
1.880
2.50 13.34 11.10 1.11 1.46 10.95 9.90 0.99 1.30 9.70
3.75
5.00 20.02 21.80 2.18 2.54 12.69 18.10 1.81 2.20 10.99
6.250
7.500 22.90 2.29 2.72 13.59 20.90 2.09 2.39 11.94
8.800
10.00
11.25
12.50
PLOT OF LOAD AGAINST PENETRATION Type of Test : SOAKED

OF PLUNGER
3
2.5
Dial Reading (KN)

2 1 kN = 224.84 lb
1.5
1 Penetration CBR %
0.5 0.1 in 10.95 9.70
0.2 in 12.69 10.99
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
(Selected) Average
Penetration of Plunger (mm) CBR – 10.33 %
Top Bottom
RIVERS STATE
NIGERIA.
Contract ----------------------------
Sample #: ZB 2/17
PENET STD
R- LOAD
ATION (kN)) READIN ECTED kN % READING ECTED kN % READING ECTED kN %
(mm) G READIN READING READIN
G G
0.625
1.250
1.880
2.50 13.34 8.40 0.84 1.06 8.00 7.20 0.72 0.93 6.97
3.75
5.00 20.02 16.00 1.600 1.90 9.49 14.2 1.42 1.82 9.09
6.250
7.500 18.60 1.86 2.29 11.40 17.7 1.77 2.19 10.90
8.800
10.00
11.25
12.50
PLOT OF LOAD AGAINST PENETRATION Type of Test : SOAKED 24 HOURS


Dial Reading (KN)
2 1 kN = 224.84 lb
1.5
1 Penetration CBR %
0.5 0.1 in 8.00 6.97
0.2 in 9.49 9.09
0
Top Bottom
RIVERS STATE
NIGERIA.
Contract ----------------------------
Sample #: ZB 2/18
PENETR- STD
ATION LOAD
(mm) (kN)) READIN ECTED kN % READING ECTED kN % READIN ECTED kN %
G READING READING G READING
0.625
1.250
1.880
2.50 13.34 14.00 1.40 1.71 12.84 11.90 1.19 1.47 11.01
3.75
5.00 20.02 24.20 2.42 2.96 14.80 21.20 2.12 2.47 12.33
6.250
7.500 27.10 2.71 3.28 16.38 25.50 2.55 3.14 15.68
8.800
10.00
11.25
12.50
Type of Test : SOAKED

PLUNGER Surcharge 22.24 N(5lb)
1 kN = 224.84 lb
Dial Load(KN)
2.5
2
1.5
1 Penetration CBR %
0.5 0.1 in 12.84 11.01
0.2 in 14.80 12.33
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Penetration of Plunger(m m ) (Selected) Average
Top Bottom CBR – 11.93 %
RIVERS STATE
NIGERIA.
Contract ----------------------------
Sample #: ZB 2/19
PENETR- STD
ATION LOAD
0.625
1.250
1.880
2.50 13.34 27.10 2.71 3.00 22.49 25.50 2.55 2.72 20.40
3.75
5.00 20.02 43.10 4.31 4.62 23.08 40.09 4.09 4.36 21.78
6.250
7.500 46.08 4.08 4.79 23.93 42.80 4.28 4.42 22.08
8.800
10.00
11.25
12.50

OF PLUNGER
6
5 1 kN = 224.84 lb
Dial Reading (KN)
3 Penetration CBR %
0.1 in 22.49 20.40
2
0.2 in 23.08 21.78
1
(Selected) Average
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
CBR – 21.60 %
Top Bottom
RIVERS STATE
NIGERIA.
Contract ----------------------------
Sample #: ZB 2/20
PENETR STD
-ATION LOAD
0.625
1.250
1.880
2.50 13.34 16.20 1.62 1.92 14.39 15.60 1.56 1.86 13.94
3.75
5.00 20.02 24.60 2.46 2.96 14.78 22.10 2.21 2.78 13.88
6.250
7.500 30.10 3.01 3.48 17.38 28.10 2.81 3.24 16.18
8.800
10.00
11.25
12.50

4
3.5
1 kN = 224.84 lb
Dial Reading (KN)
3
2.5
2
Penetration CBR %
1.5
0.1 in 14.39 13.94
0.2 in 14.78 13.88
1
0.5
(Selected) Average
0 CBR – 14.10 %
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Top Bottom
RIVERS STATE
NIGERIA.
Contract ----------------------------
Sample #: ZC 2/21
PENETR STD
-ATION LOAD
0.625
1.250
1.880
2.50 13.34 27.20 2.72 3.03 22.71 25.80 2.58 2.86 21.44
3.75
5.00 20.02 43.10 4.31 4.64 23.18 40.00 4.00 4.37 21.83
6.250
7.500 46.10 4.61 4.80 23.98 42.80 4.28 4.42 22.08
8.800
10.00
11.25
12.50
Type of Test : UNSOAKED

OF PLUNGER
5 1 kN = 224.84 lb
Dial Reading (KN)
2 Penetration CBR %
0.1 in 22.71 21.44
1
0.2 in 23.18 21.87
0
Top Bottom
RIVERS STATE
NIGERIA.
Contract ----------------------------
Sample #: ZC 2/22
PENETR- STD
ATION LOAD
0.625
1.250
1.880
2.50 13.34 27.10 2.71 3.00 22.49 25.5S 2.55 2.82 21.14
0
3.75
5.00 20.02 43.20 4.32 4.65 23.23 40.10 4.10 4.37 21.83
6.250
7.500 46.10 4.61 4.80 23.98 42.80 4.28 4.42 22.08
8.800
10.00
11.25
12.50

OF PLUNGER
6
5 1 kN = 224.84 lb
Dial Reading (KN)
2
Penetration CBR %
0.1 in 22.49 21.14
1 0.2 in 23.18 21.87
0
Top Bottom
RIVERS STATE
NIGERIA.
Contract ----------------------------
Sample #: ZC 2/23
PENETR- STD
ATION LOAD
0.625
1.250
1.880
2.50 13.34 12.00 1.20 1.46 11.00 9.80 0.98 1.21 9.00
3.75
5.00 20.02 23.00 2.30 2.54 12.70 20.90 2.09 2.29 11.44
6.250
7.500 27.00 2.70 3.30 16.50 22.90 2.29 2.80 14.00
8.800
10.00
11.25
12.50
PLUNGER
1 kN = 224.84 lb
2.5
Dial Load(KN)

1 0.1 in 11.00 9.00
0.2 in 12.70 11.44
0.5
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 CBR – 10.00 %
Top Bottom
RIVERS STATE
NIGERIA.
Contract ----------------------------
Sample #: ZC 2/24
PENETR STD
-ATION LOAD
0.625
1.250
1.880
2.50 13.34 17.50 1.75 2.00 14.99 16.50 1.65 1.90 14.24
3.75
5.00 20.02 24.60 2.46 2.96 14.78 22.10 2.21 2.78 13.88
6.250
7.500 30.10 3.01 3.48 17.38 28.10 2.81 3.24 16.18
8.800
10.00
11.25
12.50

4
3.5
1 kN = 224.84 lb
Dial Reading (KN)
3
2.5
2
1 0.1 in 14.99 14.24
0.5 0.2 in 14.78 13.88
0
Top Bottom
RIVERS STATE
NIGERIA.
Contract ----------------------------
Sample #: ZC 2/25
PENETR- STD
ATION LOAD
0.625
1.250
1.880
2.50 13.34 16.20 1.62 1.91 14.32 15.60 1.56 1.86 13.88
3.75
5.00 20.02 24.60 2.46 2.96 14.78 22.10 2.21 2.85 14.24
6.250
7.500 30.10 3.01 3.48 17.38 28.10 2.81 3.24 16.18
8.800
10.00
11.25
12.50

4
3.5
1 kN = 224.84 lb
Dial Reading (KN)
3
2.5
2
1 0.1 in 14.32 13.88
0.5
0.2 in 14.78 14.24
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
(Selected) Average
Top Bottom
RIVERS STATE
NIGERIA.
Contract ----------------------------
Sample #: ZC 2/26
PENETR STD
-ATION LOAD
0.625
1.250
1.880
2.50 13.34 16.20 1.62 1.91 14.32 15.60 1.56 1.86 13.88
3.75
5.00 20.02 24.60 2.46 2.96 14.78 22.10 2.21 2.85 14.24
6.250
7.500 30.10 3.01 3.48 17.38 28.10 2.81 3.24 16.18
8.800
10.00
11.25
12.50

4
3.5
1 kN = 224.84 lb
Dial Reading (KN)
3
2.5
2
1 0.1 in 14.32 13.88
0.5
0.2 in 14.78 14.24
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
(Selected) Average
Top Bottom
RIVERS STATE
NIGERIA.
Contract ----------------------------
Sample #: ZC 2/27
PENETR- STD
ATION LOAD
0.625
1.250
1.880
2.50 13.34 16.20 1.62 1.91 14.32 15.60 1.56 1.86 13.88
3.75
5.00 20.02 24.60 2.46 2.96 14.78 22.10 2.21 2.85 14.24
6.250
7.500 30.10 3.01 3.48 17.38 28.10 2.81 3.24 16.18
8.800
10.00
11.25
12.50

4
3.5
1 kN = 224.84 lb
Dial Reading (KN)
3
2.5
2
1 0.1 in 14.32 13.88
0.5
0.2 in 14.78 14.24
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
(Selected) Average
Top Bottom
RIVERS STATE
NIGERIA.
Contract ----------------------------
Sample #: ZC 2/28
PENETR- STD
ATION LOAD
(mm) (kN)) READIN ECTED kN % READIN ECTED kN % READIN ECTED kN %
G READING G READING G READIN
G
0.625
1.250
1.880
2.50 13.34 27.20 2.72 3.03 22.71 25.80 2.58 2.86 21.44
3.75
5.00 20.02 43.10 4.31 4.64 23.18 40.00 4.00 4.37 21.83
6.250
7.500 46.10 4.61 4.80 23.98 42.80 4.28 4.42 22.08
8.800
10.00
11.25
12.50

OF PLUNGER
5 1 kN = 224.84 lb
Dial Reading (KN)
2 Penetration CBR %
0.1 in 22.71 21.44
1
0.2 in 23.18 21.87
0
Top Bottom
RIVERS STATE
NIGERIA.
Contract ----------------------------
Sample #: ZC 2/29
PENETR- STD
ATION LOAD
0.625
1.250
1.880
2.50 13.34 27.10 2.71 3.00 22.49 25.5S 2.55 2.82 21.14
0
3.75
5.00 20.02 43.20 4.32 4.65 23.23 40.10 4.10 4.37 21.83
6.250
7.500 46.10 4.61 4.80 23.98 42.80 4.28 4.42 22.08
8.800
10.00
11.25
12.50

OF PLUNGER
6
5 1 kN = 224.84 lb
Dial Reading (KN)
2
Penetration CBR %
0.1 in 22.49 21.14
1 0.2 in 23.18 21.87
0
Top Bottom
Appendix I
Standard CompactionTest Results
PROJECT: SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION AT THE FEDERAL UNIVERSITY COMPLEX, OTUOKE,
BAYELSA STATE.
RESULTS OF STANDARD COMPACTION TEST RESULTS
SAMPLE No. DEPTH NATURAL OPTIMUM MAXIMUM

[m] MOISTURE. MOISTURE DRY DENSITY
CONTENT. CONTENT (MDD)
(NMC) (OMC)
(% Dry Wt.). (% Dry Wt) (Mg / m3 )
A1/1 1.00 17.40 15.20 1.98
A1/7 6.00 19.80 14.90 2.12
A2/10 9.00 18.15 14.72 2.19
C2/1 1.00 16.72 16.00 1.92
C2/7 6.00 18.10 15.00 2.09
C3/11 10.00 14.41 14.68 2.20
C3/4 3.00 17.88 15.21 1.96
C4/7 6.00 18.54 15.00 2.07
C4/11 10.00 14.70 14.68 2.20
BP5/2 1.00 16.49 15.14 1.98
BP5/7 6.00 19.80 14.89 2.12
BP6/10 9.00 17.41 14.73 2.18
NOTE: The Dry Density Versus Moisture Content Plots for all samples tested are shown in Figure H1
through H10.
PROJECT: SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION AT THE FEDERAL UNIVERSITY COMPLEX, OTUOKE,
BAYELSA STATE.
RESULTS OF STANDARD COMPACTION TEST RESULTS
SAMPLE No. DEPTH NATURAL OPTIMUM MAXIMUM

[m] MOISTURE. MOISTURE DRY DENSITY
CONTENT. CONTENT (MDD)
(NMC) (OMC)
(% Dry Wt.). (% Dry Wt) (Mg / m3 )
A1/2 1.00 17.40 15.20 1.98
A1/6 5.00 19.80 14.90 2.12
A1/9 8.00 18.15 14.72 2.19
A2/9 8.00 18.12 14.75 2.19
B1/6 5.00 18.10 15.00 2.09
B1/8 5.00 18.20 15.50 2.10
C1/2 1.00 16.72 16.00 1.90
C1/11 10.00 14.41 16.00 1.92
C3/4 3.00 17.88 15.21 1.96
C3/6 5.00 18.54 15.00 2.90
C3/10 10.00 14.75 14.68 2.20
C3/12 10.00 14.60 14.8 2.18
C4/10 10.00 14.80 14.5 2.24
C3/10 9.00 14.80 14.68 2.20
C3/11 10.00 16.49 15.14 1.98
C3/6 5.00 19.80 14.89 2.12
C3/10 9.00 17.41 14.73 2.18
NOTE: The Dry Density Versus Moisture Content Plots for all samples tested are shown in Figure H1
through H17.
15 CHURCHILL ROAD, PORT HARCOURT.
COMPACTION TEST.
TYPE OF COMPACTION: Standard Compaction

JOB: Federal University, Otuoke Bayelsa State
SAMPLE No. A 1/9
DEPTH RANGE: 8.00m DATE: 25th March, 2013
3.00
ZAV
2.60
OZR
(Mg / m3 )
2.20
Density
Dry
1.80
BPA 1/9
1.40
5.00 10.00 20.00 30.00
Moisture Content (% Dry Wt. )
Optimum Moisture Content = 14.72 %
Maximum Dry Density = 2.19 Mg / m 3
Figure I1: Plot of Dry Density versus Moisture Content
COMPACTION TEST.

SAMPLE No. A 1/2; A 1/6; A 1/10

DEPTH RANGE: 0.50 – 9.00m DATE: 26th March, 2013.
3.00
OZR
ZAV
2.60
(Mg / m3 )
2.20 o
o
Density
o o
o
o
Dry
1.80 o o
BPA1/9
BPA1/6
1.40 BPA 1/1
5.00 10.00 20.00 30.00
Optimum Moisture Content = 15.20 to 14.72 %
Maximum Dry Density = 1.98 to 2.19 Mg / m3
COMPACTION TEST.

SAMPLE No. C 1/10

3.00
OZR
ZAV
2.60
(Mg / m3 )
2.20
Density
o
Dry
1.80 o
o
o
1.40
BPC 1/1
5.00 10.00 20.00 30.00
Maximum Dry Density = 1.92 Mg / m3
COMPACTION TEST.

SAMPLE No. C 3/6

3.00
OZR
ZAV
2.60
(Mg / m3 )
2.20
o
Density
o
Dry
1.80
o
BPC 1/6
1.40
5.00 10.00 20.00 30.00

COMPACTION TEST.

SAMPLE No. D 3/10

3.00
OZR
ZAV
2.60
(Mg / m3 )
o
2.20
Density
o
o
Dry
1.80
BPC 1/10
1.40
5.00 10.00 20.00 30.00

COMPACTION TEST.

SAMPLE No. C 1/1; F 3/6; F 3/10

DEPTH RANGE: 0.50 – 10.00m DATE: 28th March, 2013
3.00
OZR
ZAV
2.60
(Mg / m3 )
o
2.20
o
Density
o
o
o
Dry
1.80 o
BPC 1/10
o
BPC 1/6 o
o
1.40
BPC 1/1
5.00 10.00 Wopt. 20.00 30.00
COMPACTION TEST.

SAMPLE No. D 3/11

3.00
ZAV
2.60
OZR
(Mg / m3 )
2.20 o
o
Density
o
Dry
1.80
BPC3/10
1.40
5.00 10.00 20.00 30.00

COMPACTION TEST.

SAMPLE No. A1/6

3.00
ZAV
2.60
OZR
(Mg / m3 )
2.20
Density
Dry
1.80
BPA 1/9
1.40
5.00 10.00 20.00 30.00
COMPACTION TEST.

SAMPLE No. E3 3/11

3.00
OZR
ZAV
2.60
(Mg / m3 )
o
2.20
o
Density
o o
o
o
Dry
1.80 o o
BPA1/9
BPA1/6
1.40 BPA 1/1
5.00 10.00 20.00 30.00

COMPACTION TEST.

SAMPLE No. C1/2

DEPTH RANGE: 1.00m DATE: 6th April, 2013
3.00
OZR
ZAV
2.60
(Mg / m3 )
2.20
Density
o
Dry
1.80 o
o
o
1.40
BPC 1/1
5.00 10.00 20.00 30.00
Figure I10: Plot of Dry Density Versus Moisture Content
COMPACTION TEST.

SAMPLE No. B 1/6

3.00
OZR
ZAV
2.60
(Mg / m3 )
2.20
o
Density
o
Dry
1.80
o
BPC 1/6
1.40
5.00 10.00 20.00 30.00

COMPACTION TEST.

SAMPLE No. C3/6

3.00
OZR
ZAV
2.60
(Mg / m3 )
o
2.20
Density
o
o
Dry
1.80
BPC 1/10
1.40
5.00 10.00 20.00 30.00
Maximum Dry Density = 2.12 – 2.20 Mg / m3
COMPACTION TEST.

SAMPLE No. C 1/11

3.00
OZR
ZAV
2.60
(Mg / m3 )
o
2.20
o
Density
o
o
o
Dry
1.80 o
BPC 1/10
o
BPC 1/6 o
o
1.40
BPC 1/1
5.00 10.00 Wopt. 20.00 30.00

COMPACTION TEST.

SAMPLE No. C 3/11

3.00
ZAV
2.60
OZR
(Mg / m3 )
2.20 o
o
Density
o
Dry
1.80
BPC3/10
1.40
5.00 10.00 20.00 30.00

COMPACTION TEST.

SAMPLE No. C3/4

DEPTH RANGE: 3.00m DATE: 21st April, 2013
3.00
OZR
ZAV
2.60
(Mg / m3 )
2.20 o
o
o
Density
o
o
o
o
Dry
1.80 o
BPC 3/10
o
BPC 3/6
BPC 3/3
1.40
5.00 10.00 20.00 30.00

COMPACTION TEST.

SAMPLE No. C 3/11

3.00
ZAV
2.60
OZR
(Mg / m3 )
2.20
o
Density
o
o
Dry
1.80
BPD 3/6
1.40
5.00 10.00 20.00 30.00
COMPACTION TEST.

SAMPLE No. B 3/12

3.00
OZR
ZAV
2.60
(Mg / m3 )
2.20
o
o
Density
o
o
o
o o
Dry
1.80 o
BPD 3/9 o
BPD 3/6
1.40 BPD 3/1
5.00 10.00 20.00 30.00
Appendix J
References
REFERENCES.
ANSI/AWWA C105/A21.5 (1993), American National Standard for Polyethylene Encasement for
Ductile Iron Pipe Systems. American Water Works Association (Publishers). Denver, Colorado.
ANSI / IEEE Green Book Standard, pp 142-1982.
Beck A.E. (1981), Physical Principles of Exploration Methods, Ontario, Canada, 234pp
Christian, J.T. and Carrier, W.D.,Janbu, Bjerrun and Kjaernsli’s chart reinterpretation, Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, 15,v123v128 )1978 and discussion , 15 436 – (1978)
Davenport et al, (1981), Geotechnical investigations for corrosive soils. UNAM Proceedings
De Beer, E. and Martens, A (1957), A method of computation of an Upper limit for the Influence of the
Heterogeneity of Sand Layers in The Settlement of Bridges, Proc. 4th Int. Conference, Soil Mech. London
vol. 1 pp 275 – 282.
Bowles, J.E. ( 1977 ), Foundation Analysis and Design. 2nd Edition. McGraw-Hill Book Company, New
York., 750 pages.
Butler, F.G. ( 1974), Review Paper: Heavily consolidated Clays, in: Proc. Conf. On Settlement of
Structures Pentech Press, Cambridge, p 531 – 578.
Cernica, J.N, (1995), Geotechnical Engineering: Foundation Design. John Wiley & Sons Inc. 486 pages.
Christian J.T. and Carrier, W.D. (1978) Janbu, Bjerrum and Kjaernsli’s chart Re-interpreted. Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 15, pp 123-128.
Hansbo, S. (1994), Foundation Engineering. Developments in Geotechnical Series No. 75. Elsevier
Amsterdam. 519 pages.
Hansen, J.B., (1968), A revised extended formular for bearing capacity, Danish Geotechnical Institute
Bulletin, No. 28.
Janbu, N., Bjerrum, L. and Kjaernsli, B (1956) Norwegion Geotechnical Institute Publication No. 16.
Meyerhof, G.G., (1963), Some recent research on bearing capacity of foundations Canadian
Geotechnical Journal. Vol. 1 pp 16 – 26.
Orellana E. and Mooney H.M. (1966), Master Table and Curves for Vertical Electrical Sounding over
layered structures,Madrid, 33pp
Overseas Road Note 31(1993), Guide to the Structural Design of Bitumen-Surfaced Roads in Tropical
andSub-Tropical Countries. Overseas Centre, Transport Research Laboratory [TRL], Crownthorne
Berkshire
Peck, R.B; Hansen, W.E; Thornburn, T.H. (1974), Foundation Engineering.
2nd Edition. John Wiley & Sons Inc. New York; 514 pages.
Skempton, A.W. and MacDonald, H.H (1956), The allowable Settlement of Buildings, Proc. Of Civil
Engineers, part 3, vol. 5 pp 727 – 784.
Teks Geotechnical Consultancy (Nigeria) Limited. (1989), Geotechnical Investigation for the foundation
of the UF85 Plant at the National Fertilizer Company of Nigeria, (NAFCON), Onne, Rivers State. Technical
Report to NAFCON Ltd.
Teks Geotechnical Consultancy (Nigeria) Limited. (1992), Subsurface Investigations for the Control of
Gully Erosion at Agulu-Nanka, Anambra State of Nigeria. Technical Report submitted to
SCHWARTZ KRISTOFFEL ENGINEERING SERVICES (NIG.) Ltd, 126 pages.
Teks Geotechnical Consultancy (Nigeria) Limited, and Edet, A.E. (1995), Report on Geotechnical
Investigations for the Structures at the NIBS Complex, Onne. Technical report.
Teks Geotechnical Consultancy (Nigeria) Limited, ( 1997 ), Report on the Geotechnical Investigations for
the Skid-Mounted N2 Plant at the N.N. P.C Refinery, Eleme, near Port Harcourt, Rivers State. Technical
Report submitted to Morpol Industrial Corporation Ltd. 67 pages.
Teks Geotechnical Consultancy (Nigeria) Limited, ( 1998 ), Report on Geotechnical investigations for the
Provision of Additional Mixed LPG
Loading Facilities for Butanisation Project, Port Harcourt Refinery Complex, Alesa-Eleme, Rivers State.
Technical Report submitted to Morpol Industrial Corporation Ltd. 73 pages.
Teks Geotechnical Consultancy (Nigeria) Limited. ( 1999a), Report on Geotechnical Investigations for the
Submersible Pump Foundation at the Additional Mixed LPG Loading Facilities for Butanisation Project,
Port Harcourt Refinery Complex,
Alesa-Eleme, Rivers State. Technical Report submitted to Morpol Industrial Corporation Ltd., 53 pages.
Teks Geotechnical Consultancy (Nigeria) Limited. ( 1999b), Report on Geotechnical Investigations for
The Rehabilitation Project No. 18 – NEW RAW
WATER TANK AND FACILITIES, Port Harcourt Refinery Company, Alesa-Eleme, Rivers State. Technical
Report submitted to CHROME CONSORTIUM, PHRC Premises, Alesa-Eleme, June. 88 pages
Teks Geotechnical Consultancy (Nigeria) Limited, ( 1999c ), Report on Geotechnical Investigations for
the Foundation Design for A Residential
Building at Amassoma, Southern Ijaw Local Government Area, Bayelsa State, Nigeria. Technical Report
submitted to HFP Engineering Nigeria Limited, Ahoada Industrial Estate, Rivers State, July. 29 pages.
Teme, S.C., ( 1999d ), Report on Geotechnical Investigations for the Foundation Design for the Unipole
Advertisement Tower at the Oil Mill Junction Eleme, Port Harcourt, Rivers State, Nigeria. Technical
Report submitted to ALB SALAH ASSOCIATES, Lagos. September. 68 pages.
Teks Geotechnical Consultancy (Nigeria) Limited., ( 1999e ), Report on Geotechnical Investigations for
the Foundation Design for the Unipole Advertisement Tower at Upper Iweka by Police Station by Niger
Bridge, Onitsha, Anambra State, Nigeria. Technical Report submitted to ALB SALAH ASSOCIATES, Lagos.
October. 68 pages.
Teks Geotechnical Consultancy (Nigeria) Limited, ( 2000a ), Report on Geotechnical Investigations for
the Foundation Design for the Bridge Abutments Along The Proposed Gwara – Sii – Iyanorom – Nkoro –
Kalaibiama – Opobo Road. Rivers State, Nigeria. Technical Report submitted to TOM-JAJA ASSOCIATES,
6 Uyo Street, Rumuomasi Port Harcourt. July. 130 pages.
Teks Geotechnical Consultancy (Nigeria) Limited , (2000b), Report on Geotechnical Investigations for
the Foundation Design of the NAL MERCHANT BANK PLC Building Complex, Trans-Amadi Industrial
Area, Port Harcourt. Technical Report submitted to NAL Merchant Bank Plc, Port Harcourt, 95 pages.
Teks Geotechnical Consultancy (Nigeria) Limited S.C., (2001a), Report on Geotechnical Investigations for
the Foundation Design of the Students’ Cafeteria Building Complex, Niger Delta University (NDU),
Wilberforce Island, Bayelsa State. Technical Report submitted to Bayelsa State Government, Niger Delta
University, Port Harcourt, 65 pages.
Teks Geotechnical Consultancy (Nigeria) Limited, (2001b), Report on Geotechnical Investigations for the
Foundation Design of the Hostel (East Wing) Building Complex, Niger Delta University (NDU),
Wilberforce Island, Bayelsa State.. Technical Report submitted to Bayelsa State Government, Niger
Delta University, Port
Harcourt, 52 pages.
Teks Geotechnical Consultancy (Nigeria) Limited, (2001c), Report on Geotechnical Investigations for the
Foundation Design of A residential Building Complex at the Naval Base, Onura Onne, Rivers State..
Technical Report submitted to Echikwa Phillips Partnership, 32 Trans-Amadi Industrial Layout, Port
Harcourt, 52 pages.
Teks Geotechnical Consultancy (Nigeria) Limited, (2002, Report on Geotechnical Investigations and
Foundation designs for Elevated water Tanks (ORO-N-WT-4) for the Akwa Ibom State Water
Corporation: UKUKO-ORON Local Government Area. Technical Reports submitted to MotherCat Limited,
Kaduna, 54 pages.
Teks Geotechnical Consultancy (Nigeria) Limited, (2002c), Report on Sand search for Civil Works at the
Etekwuru I & II Link Road – Phase I, Imo State, Nigeria. Technical Reports submitted to ChrisBrown
International Limited, Port Harcourt. 56 pages.
Teks Geotechnical Consultancy (Nigeria) Limited, (2002d), Report on Geotechnical Investigation and
Foundation Design for Agape Bible Church Building, Presidential Estate, Port Harcourt. Technical
Reports submitted to Agape Bible Church, Port Harcourt.58 pages.
Teks Geotechnical Consultancy (Nigeria) Limited, (2002e), Report on Geotechnical Investigation for the
Unwana Erosion and Flood Control Project Unwana Beach, Afikpo, Ubeyi LGA Ebonyi State. Technical
Reports
submitted to Anambra-Imo River Basin & Rural Development Authority, Owerri, Imo State. 88 pages.
Teks Geotechnical Consultancy (Nigeria) Limited, (2003a), Report on Geotechnical Investigation for the
MTN Cell Radio Tower Installation: STADIUM ROAD JUNCTION, Port Harcourt, Rivers State Technical
Reports
submitted to MTN Nigeria. Lagos 88 pages.
Teks Geotechnical Consultancy (Nigeria) Limited, (2003f), Report on Geotechnical Investigation for the
MCM Nigeria Building Foundation at Olu- Obasanjo road, Port Harcourt, Rivers State Technical Reports
submitted to MCM Nigeria, Benjamin Okpara Street, Off Olu-Obasanjo Road, PHC. 66 pages.
Teks Geotechnical Consultancy (Nigeria) Limited, (2003g), Report on Geotechnical Investigation for the
MTN Cell Radio Tower Installation: RUKPOKWU, RIVERS STATE Technical Reports submitted to MTN
Nigeria,
Lagos, Nigeria. 66 pages.
Teks Geotechnical Consultancy (Nigeria) Limited, (2003h), Report on Geotechnical Investigation for the
MTN Cell Radio Tower Installation: PEOPLES CLUB, ONITSHA, ANAMBRA STATE Technical Reports
submitted
to MTN Nigeria, Lagos, Nigeria. 66 pages.
Teks Geotechnical Consultancy (Nigeria) Limited, (2003i), Report on Geotechnical Investigation for the
MTN Cell Radio Tower Installation: ALL SAINTS ANGLICAN CHURCH, AWKA, ANAMBRA STATE Technical
Reports submitted to MTN Nigeria, Lagos, Nigeria. 66 pages.
Teks Geotechnical Consultancy(Nig.) Limited, (2003j), Geotechnical Investigation for the MTN Cell Radio
Tower Installation: STADIUM ROAD JUNCTION, Port Harcourt, Rivers State. Technical Reports
submitted to MTN Nigeria, Lagos, Nigeria. 60 pages.
Teks Geotechnical Consultancy (Nig.) Limited, (2003k), Geotechnical Investigation for the MTN Cell
Radio Installation: BLESSED BAPTIST CHURCH, Port Harcourt, Rivers State Technical Reports
Teks Geotechnical Consultancy (Nig.) Limited, (2003l),Geotechnical Investigation for the CAT
CONSTRUCTION GROUP Building Foundation at Olu-Obasanjo Road, Port Harcourt, Rivers State.
Technical Reports Submitted to Cat Construction Group Limited, PHC, Rivera State. 60 pages.
Teks Geotechnical Consultancy (Nig.) Limited,(2003m), Geotechnical Investigation for the Design of
Bridge Abutment Foundation for the Okogbe-Oyakama-Ogbhologbholo-Ochigba Road Alignment
Ahoada-East Local Government Area, Rivers State. Technical Reports submitted to Aserima Associates, 2
Tombia Street/ Opobo Crescent, GRA Phase I, Port Harcourt, Rivers State. 60 pages.
Teks Geotechnical Consultancy (Nig.) Limited,(2003n), Geotechnical Investigation for the MTN Cell
Radio Tower Installation: JIDEOFOR NZEGWU, ONITSHA Technical Reports submitted to MTN Nigeria,
Teks Geotechnical Consultancy (Nig.) Limited, (2003,o), Geotechnical Investigation for the MCM Nigeria
Building Foundation at Olu-Obasanjo Road, Port Harcourt, Rivers State. Technical Reports Submitted to
MCM Nigeria, Benjamin Okpara Street, Off Olu-Obasanjo Road, PHC, River State.
63 pages
Teks Geotechnical Consultancy (Nig.) Limited,(2003p), Geotechnical Investigation for the MTN Cell
Radio Tower Installation: RUKPOKWU, RIVERS STATE. Technical Reports submitted to MTN Nigeria,
Teks Geotechnical Consultancy (Nig.) Limited,(2003q), Geotechnical Investigation for the MTN Cell
Radio Tower Installation: EMUOHA, RIVERS STATE. Technical Reports submitted to MTN Nigeria, Lagos,
Nigeria. 70 pages.
Teks Geotechnical Consultancy (Nig.) Limited,(2003r), Geotechnical Investigation for the MTN Cell Radio
Tower Installation:, ALUU TOWN, RIVERS STATE. Technical Reports submitted to MTN Nigeria, Lagos,
Nigeria. 69 pages.
Teks Geotechnical Consultancy (Nig.) Limited,(2003s), Geotechnical Investigation for the MTN Cell Radio
Tower Installation:, ALL SAINTS ANGLICAN CHURCH, AWKA, ANAMBRA STATE Technical Reports
Teks Geotechnical Consultancy (Nig.) Limited,(2003t), Geotechnical Investigation for the MTN Cell Radio
Tower Installation:, PEOPLES CLUB, ONITSHA, ANAMBRA STATE Technical Reports submitted to MTN
Nigeria, Lagos, Nigeria. 70 pages.
Teks Geotechnical Consultancy (Nig.) Limited,(2003u), Geotechnical Investigation for the MTN Cell
Radio Tower Installation:, METHODIST CHURCH, ORON, AKWA IBOM STATE Technical Reports
Teks Geotechnical Consultancy (Nig.) Limited,(2003v), Geotechnical Investigation for the MTN Cell
Radio Tower Installation:, METHODIST CHURCH, IKOT EKPENE, AKWA IBOM STATE. Technical Reports
Teks Geotechnical Consultancy (Nig.) Limited, (2003,w), Geotechnical Investigation for the Building
Foundation for a 7-Storey Luxury Apartments at Old GRA, Port Harcourt, RIVERS STATE. Technical
Reports Submitted to Bekin Caterers and Supermarkets (Nig.) Ltd. 63 pages
Teks Geotechnical Consultancy (Nig.) Limited,(2003x), Geotechnical Investigation for the MTN Cell
Radio Tower Installation:, WATERLINES JUNCTION, PORT HARCOURT, RIVERS STATE. Technical Reports
submitted to MTN Nigeria, Lagos, Nigeria. 71 pages
.
Teks Geotechnical Consultancy (Nig.) Limited,(2003y), Geotechnical Investigation for the MTN Cell
Radio Tower Installation: OHAUKWU LGA HQR, EBONYI STATE. Technical Reports submitted to MTN
Nigeria, Lagos, Nigeria. 68 pages
Teks Geotechnical Consultancy (Nig.) Limited,(2003z), Geotechnical Investigation for the MTN Cell Radio
Tower Installation: ABAKALIKI HIGH COURT, EBONYI STATE. Technical Reports submitted to MTN
Nigeria, Lagos, Nigeria. 66 pages
Teks Geotechnical Consultancy (Nig.) Limited,(2003aa), Geotechnical Investigation for the MTN Cell
Radio Tower Installation: WILKINSON STREET, ONITSHA, ANAMBRA STATE. Technical Reports submitted
to MTN Nigeria, Lagos, Nigeria. 67 pages
Teks Geotechnical Consultancy (Nig.) Limited, (2003ab), Geotechnical Investigation for the 50,000
Gallon
Overhead Water Tank, Odiemerenyi, Ahoada-East LGA RIVERS STATE. Technical Reports Submitted to 1.
Osia (Nig.) Ltd 8 Ohonda Street, Of Ikwerre Road, Mile II, Diobu, Port Harcourt. 74 pages
Teks Geotechnical Consultancy (Nig.) Limited,(2003ac), Geotechnical Investigation for the MTN Cell
Radio Tower Installation: NTIGHA JUNCTION, ABIA STATE. Technical Reports submitted to MTN Nigeria,
Lagos, Nigeria. 67 pages
Teks Geotechnical Consultancy (Nig.) Limited,(2003ad), Geotechnical Investigation for the MTN Cell
Radio Tower Installation: SOALA’S PLOT SITE (T/X 2068), RIVERS STATE. Technical Reports submitted to
MTN Nigeria, Lagos, Nigeria. 67 pages
Teks Geotechnical Consultancy (Nig.) Limited,(2003ae), Geotechnical Investigation for the MTN Cell
Radio Tower Installation: WILKINSON ROAD SITE (T/X 4065), RIVERS STATE. Technical Reports
submitted to MTN Nigeria, Lagos, Nigeria. 66 pages
Teks Geotechnical Consultancy (Nig.) Limited, (2003af), Geotechnical Investigation for the building
Project at 172Ikwerre road, Mile II Diobu, Port Harcourt, RIVERS STATE. Technical Reports Submitted to
Dokitek Enterprise, 69 Abonnema Wharf Road, Port Harcourt, Rivers State.. 74 pages
Teks Geotechnical Consultancy (Nig.) Limited, (2003ag), Geotechnical Investigation for the Building
Foundation for a building Project: Luxury Apartment for Bekin Caterers & Supermarket (Nigeria)
Limited, Port Harcourt, RIVERS STATE. Technical Reports Submitted to Bekin Caterers and Supermarkets
(Nig.) Ltd 19 Hospital Road, P.O. Box 572, PORT HARCOURT, RIVERS STATE.. 63 pages
Teks Geotechnical Consultancy (Nig.) Limited, (2003ah),Geotechnical Investigation for the design of
slope
protection measures – Combined sheet-pile Cantilever Retaining Wall System: Shonekon Hill, Project
Site, Maitama, Abuja. Technical Reports Submitted to A.Group Properties Limited, A6 Plot 2378 Limpopo
Street, FHA Opposite NDIC Quarters, Maitama – Abuja, Nigeria.. 80 pages
Teks Geotechnical Consultancy (Nig.) Limited, (2004a),Geotechnical Investigation for the H.A.R.
Petroleum Services Limited Import / Export Terminal Calabar. Technical Reports Submitted to
H.A.R.Petroleum Services Loimited, Calabar Cross-River State. 78 pages
Teks Geotechnical Consultancy (Nig.) Limited, (2004b), Geotechnical Investigation for the Bridge
Abutment Foundation Design: Abua Central – Owerewere – Ochigba Road / Bridge.. Technical Reports
Submitted to Aserima Associates, 2 Tombia Street / Opobo Crescent, GRA Phase 1, P.O. Box 2665, Port
Harcourt. 72 pages
Teks Geotechnical Consultancy (Nig.) Limited, (2004c), Geotechnical Investigation for the Bridge
Abutment Foundation Design: Bridge Abutment Foundation Design: Okuni-Abijang-Nsofang-Okoroba-
Ekang Road-Bridge #1. Technical Reports Submitted to MotherCat JV, 5 Utang street, Uyo, Akwa Ibom
State, Nigeria.. 72 pages
Teks Geotechnical Consultancy (Nig.) Limited, (2004d), Geotechnical Investigation for the Bridge
Teks Geotechnical Consultancy (Nig.) Limited, (2004e), Geotechnical Investigation for the Bridge
Teks Geotechnical Consultancy (Nig.) Limited, (2004f), Geotechnical Investigation for the Sand search
along the Nun River at Opokuma, Bayelsa State, Nigeria. Technical Reports Submitted to Coastal
Dredging and Construction Limited, Port Harcourt. 78 pages
Teks Geotechnical Consultancy (Nig.) Limited, (2004g), Geotechnical Investigation for the designs for
Piling and Piling Caps for the for Transmission Towers at River Crossings: Polaku – Sabagreia –Opokuma
- Koroama . Technical Reports Submitted to HPI Africa Limited 42 Hospital Road, Ahoada Rivers State.
80 pages
Teks Geotechnical Consultancy (Nig.) Limited,(2004h), Geotechnical Investigation for the MTN Cell
Radio Tower Installation: JOR’S PLOT SITE, MAKURDI: T4908, BENUE STATE, NIGERIA . Technical
Reports submitted to MTN Nigeria, Lagos, Nigeria. 68 pages
Teks Geotechnical Consultancy (Nig.) Limited,(2004i), Geotechnical Investigation for the MTN Cell Radio
Tower Installation: POLICE STATION, OTURKPO SITE: T4908, OTURKPO, BENUE STATE NIGERIA .
Technical Reports submitted to MTN Nigeria, Lagos, Nigeria. 68 pages
Teks Geotechnical Consultancy (Nig.) Limited, (2004j), Geotechnical Investigation for the foundation
design: NPA CONTROL TOWER, ORON, AKWA IBOM STATE, NIGERIA. Technical Reports Submitted to
Roundo Nigeria Limited, Km 17 Port Harcourt – Aba Expressway, Port Harcourt. Rivers State, Nigeria.
74 pages
Teks Geotechnical Consultancy (Nig.) Limited, (2004k), Geotechnical Investigation for the foundation
design: NPA CONTROL TOWER, BONNY, RIVERS STATE, NIGERIA.. Technical Reports Submitted to Roundo
Nigeria Limited, Km 17 Port Harcourt – Aba Expressway, Port Harcourt. Rivers State, Nigeria.
74 pages
Teks Geotechnical Consultancy (Nig.) Limited, (2004l), Geotechnical Investigation for the foundation
design: ACCOUNTANT GENERAL’S OFFICE BUILDING, YENAGOA, BAYELSA STATE, NIGERIA. Technical
Reports Submitted to Bayelsa State Government, Governor’s Office, Yenagoa, Bayelsa State.
69 Pages
Teks Geotechnical Consultancy (Nig.) Limited, (2004m), Geotechnical Investigation for the Site Visit to
the Esit Uruah Elevated Water Tank Site, Eket, Akwa Ibom State. Technical Reports Submitted to AIM
Consultants / MotherCat Group, 5 Utang Street, Uyo, Akwa Ibom State Nigeria. 65 Pages
Teks Geotechnical Consultancy (Nig.) Limited, (2004n), Geotechnical Investigation for the Bridge
Abutment Foundation Design: Okuni-Abijang-Nsofang-Okoroba-Ekang Road-Bridge #4. Technical
Reports Submitted to MotherCat JV, 5 Utang street, Uyo, Akwa Ibom State, Nigeria.. 70 Pages
Teks Geotechnical Consultancy (Nig.) Limited, (2004,o), Geotechnical Investigation for the : Port
Harcourt East/West – Airport Link Road Flyover Bridge, Port Harcourt.. Technical Reports Submitted to
Bullletine Construction Company Limited, Plot 230 Trans-Amadi Industrial Layout, Port Harcourt, Rivers
State, Nigeria. 70 Pages
Teks Geotechnical Consultancy (Nig.) Limited, (2004p), Geotechnical Investigation for the Bridge
Abutments foundations design,Creek Haven Bridge, Yenagoa, Bayelsa State.. Technical Reports
Submitted to A.Group Properties Ltd.,A6 Plot 2378 Limpopo Str.,FHA Opposite NDIC QuartersMaitama-
Abuja, Nigeria 72 Pages
Teks Geotechnical Consultancy (Nig.) Limited, (2004q), Geotechnical Investigation for the : Port
Harcourt East/West Road (up to Mbiama) Bridge, Rivers State. Technical Reports Submitted to AIM
Consultants Limited, 267A Etim Inyang Crescent,Victoria Island Annex, Lagos, Nigeria. 69 Pages
Teks Geotechnical Consultancy (Nig.) Limited, (2004r), Geotechnical Investigation for the: Prodos
Petroleum Product Depot, Nigerian Ports Authority, Onne Rivers State. Technical Reports Submitted to
Prodos Limited,11 Azikiwe Road, Port Harcourt, R/State. 67 Pages
Teks Geotechnical Consultancy (Nig.) Limited, (2004s), Geotechnical Investigation for theProposed
Fabrication, Shop Onne Oil & Gas Free Zone, Eleme LGA, Rivers State. Technical Reports Submitted to
Vibro Flotation & Geotechnical (Nig.) Limited,6/8 Michael Adekola Street,Ilupeju Lagos Street, Lagos. 69
Pages
Teks Geotechnical Consultancy (Nig.) Limited, (2004t), Geotechnical Investigation for the Shore
Protection, Dredging and Reclamation of the Port Harcourt NPA Port Complex. Technical Reports
Submitted to AIM Consultants Limited, 267A Etim Inyang Crescent,Victoria Island Annex, Lagos, Nigeria.
69 Pages
Teks Geotechnical Consultancy (Nig.) Limited, (2004u), Geotechnical Investigation for the Ogoja – Ikom
–
Mfum – Cameroun Border Road / Bridge site Investigation. Technical Reports Submitted to AIM
Consultants Limited, 267A Etim Inyang Crescent,Victoria Island Annex, Lagos, Nigeria. 72 Pages
Teks Geotechnical Consultancy (Nig.) Limited, (2004v), Geotechnical Investigation for the Sub-Soil and
Geophysical Investigations for Dape District, FCT, Abuja. Technical Reports Submitted to Federal Capital
Development Authority (FCDA), Engineering Services Department, Abuja, Nigeria 150 Pages
Teks Geotechnical Consultancy (Nig.) Limited, (2004w), Geotechnical Investigation for the Auto Disable
Syringe Factory, East-West Road, Port Harcourt. Technical Reports Submitted to AIM
Consultants Limited, 267A Etim Inyang Crescent,Victoria Island Annex, Lagos, Nigeria.
150 Pages
Teks Geotechnical Consultancy (Nig.) Limited, (2004y), Geotechnical Investigation for the Port Harcourt
– Mbiama Highway Dualisation Project. Technical Reports to beSubmitted to AIM Consultants Limited,
267A Etim Inyang Crescent, Victoria Island Annex, Lagos, Nigeria. In-progress
Teks Geotechnical Consultancy (Nig.) Limited, (2005a), Geotechnical Investigation for the Earth Dam at
Ngor –Okpala, Anambra- Imo River Basin Development Authority, Imo State. Technical Reports to be
Submitted to AIM Consultants Limited, 267A Etim Inyang Crescent, Victoria Island Annex, Lagos, Nigeria.
In-progress
Teks Geotechnical Consultancy (Nig.) Limited, (2005b), Geotechnical Investigation for Gbaran –Ubie
Flood and
Erosion Control Study, Bayelsa State. Technical Reports to be Submitted to Shell Petroleum Development
Company (SPDC),Rumuomasi, Port Harcourt Rivers State. In-progress
Teks Geotechnical Consultancy (Nig.) Limited, (2005c), Geotechnical Investigation for Pavement
Foundation Design:Oguta, IMO STATE, NIGERIA.. Technical Reports Submitted to Abibbet Consult, 9A
Station Road,Port Harcourt. 69 Pages.
Teks Geotechnical Consultancy (Nig.) Limited, (2005d), Geotechnical Investigation for the Integrity
survey of the Kolo Creek Bridge Abutments piles., Bayelsa State. Technical Reports Submitted to
Pentagon Consultants,Ibadan, Oyo State. 74 Pages
Teks Geotechnical Consultancy (Nig.) Limited, (2005e), Geotechnical Investigation for the Earth Dam at
Awgu, Enugu State. Technical Reports Submitted to Anbeez Services Limited, Enugu, Enugu State.74
Pages
Teks Geotechnical Consultancy (Nig.) Limited, (2005f), Geotechnical Investigation for the Compaction
Monitoring Along the Earth axis at Awgu, Enugu State. Technical Reports Submitted to Anbeez Services
Limited, Enugu, Enugu State. 64 Pages
Teks Geotechnical Consultancy (Nig.) Limited, (2005g), Geotechnical Investigation for the AIM East
Regional
Office Headquarters Auto Disable Syringe Factory, East-West Road, Port Harcourt. Technical Report
Submitted to AIM Consultants Limited, 267A Etim Inyang Crescent, Victoria Island Annex, Lagos, Nigeria.
66 Pages
Teks Geotechnical Consultancy (Nig.) Limited, (2005h), Geotechnical Investigation for the CSCCL
Shopping
Complex Building Site along NTA Road, Mgbuoba, Port Harcourt . Technical Reports Submitted to Comag
Steel & Construction Co. Ltd, Km 16, PH/ABA RD, P.O.Box 3151, Port Harcourt, Rivers State.
62 Pages
Teks Geotechnical Consultancy (Nig.) Limited, (2005i), Geotechnical Investigation for the Building of
Prof. Nimi Briggs at Trans-Amadi Flats Old GRA, Port Harcourt . Technical Reports Submitted to Prof.
Nimi BriggsAmadi Flats, Port Harcourt. 67 Pages
Teks Geotechnical Consultancy (Nig.) Limited, (2005j), Geotechnical Investigation for the 2-storey
building at Native Compensation Plot, Oromeruzingbu Community, GRA Phase IV, Port Harcourt .
Technical Reports Submitted to Mr. Oba OnyebuchiObalink Int.11 Trans-Amadi Industrial Estate, PHC. 65
Pages
Teme, S.C. and Edet, A.E. (1994) Settlement Problems at the Utility Plant, The National Fertilizer
Company of Nigeria, (NAFCON LTD), Technical Report to NAFCON LTD
Terzaghi, K and Peck, R.B. (1967), Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice.
2nd Ed. John Wiley, New York. Pp 271 – 276.
Tomlinson, M.J. (1980), Foundation Design and Construction, Pitman Advanced Publishing Programme,
London 4th edition 793 pages.
Vander Velpen, (1988), RESIST version 1.0.ITC, M.Sc Research Project

Appendix 4.4 - FUO Geotechnical Survey

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Appendix 4.4 - FUO Geotechnical Survey

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Federal University Otuoke

Geotechnical Survey of Campus Site

TEKS Geotechnical Consulting (Nigeria) Ltd | HAALP Consult Ltd

S/No. Borings GPS Locations Range of Bearing

Sir (Professor) S.C. Teme Ms. Oghoin-olem C. Oruene

Project Coordinator: Ms. Oghoin-Olem Cletus Oruene, MNMGS.;

Data Processing / Interpretation

Monitoring Mr. Olise Oppiah.B.Sc. (Geol); UPH

Auto-Cad Consultants Ms. O.Cletus Oruene.B.Sc. (Geology); M.Sc.(Geol)

Logistics: Mr. Jacob Oritemem

TEKS/HAALP Steering Group Sir(Prof.)S.C. Teme Ph.D; FNMGS; COMEG

2.0 Description Of Project Site… … … … … … … 17

3.0 Subsurface Condition… … … … … … … … … 21

4.0 Geophysical Investigation… … … … … … … … 34

5.0 Discussion of Geophysical Results… … … … … … 60

6.0 Conclusion and Recommendation Based on Geophysical Investigation… 67

7.0 Chemical Tests Of Subsurface Materials … … … … … … 69

8.0 Laboratory and Field Investigations, Results and Analyses… … … 70

10.0 Summary and Concluding Remarks… … … … … … … 151

Figures 4a: Setting up of a Percussion Rig used at the project site… … … … … 22

Figure 7a: The Geological Map of Bayelsa State… … …. … … … … 37

Figure 7b: The Geological Map of the Area Surveyed. … … … … 38

Figure 8a The Photograph of the Geophysical Survey Group during Investigation… … … 39

Figure 10a: The Geo-electric Section beneath Profile AA’... … … … … … 65

Figure 10b: The Geo-electric Section beneath Profile BB’… … … … … … 66

Figure 11: Schematic of dimensions of an Isolated Footing … … … … … 98

Figure 12: Schematic of dimensions of a Continuous Strip Footing… … … … … 102

Figure 13: Schematic representation the Raft Foundation… … .. … … … 104

Table 3: Rough Indications of Soil Corrosivity vs. Resistivity… … … … … 63

Table 9: Values of Terzaghi Bearing Capacity Factors… … … … … … 99

Table 15: Summary of Computed Settlements at the Project Site… … … … … 116

1.1 Objectives of The Consultancy Services

1.2.1 Visual Site Inspection

Table 1a: Visual Inspection for Site Assessment

1.2.2 Use of Andrew-Satcom-Africa Site Assessment Chart {Asasac}

Figure 1a: A Site Assessment Chart (Modified after Andrew-SatCom-Africa)

2. Description of Project Site

2.1 Project Location

3.1 Local Geology

3.2 Water Table

3.3.2.1 Standard Penetration Tests (SPT)

Figures 4a: Setting up of a Percussion Rig used at the Project Site.

3.4 Subsurface Profiles and Descriptions at the Project Site

3.4.1 Federal University Oyuoke, Bayelsa State (Borings No. 1 - 18)

3.4.1.1 Zone A Soil Types

 Greyish Organic Silty Clays Layer (OL)

 Greyish Clayey Sands Layer (SC)

 Well-graded Sands and Gravels Layer (SW)

3.4.1.2 Zone B Soil Types

(i) Brownish Clay Layer (CL) – Top Soil

 Greyish Organic Silty Clays Layer (OL)

 Greyish Clayey Silty Sands Layer (SC-SM)

 Whitish Silty Sands Layer (SM)

 Well-graded Sands and Gravels Layer (SW)

3.4.1.3 Zone C Soil Types

 Brownish Clay Layer (CL) – Top Soil

 Greyish Yellow Organic Silty Clays Sands Layer (SC-SM)

 Greyish Silty Sands Layer (SM)

 Well-graded Sands and Gravels Layer (SW)

3.5 Summary Of Soil Profiles

Organic Clays Poorly-graded Sands

 They allow non-destructive investigation below the surface of the ground

 They provide information between and below standard geotechnical borings