Daniel Admasu

Comparative Study on Shear Strength and Consolidation Characteristics
of Clay Soil in Arba Minch and Sodo Towns
COMPARATIVE STUDY ON SHEAR STRENGTH AND CONSOLIDATION

CHARACTERISTICS OF CLAY SOILS IN ARBAMINCH AND SODO TOWNS
MSc. THESIS
BY
DANIEL ADMASU
A THESIS SUBMITED TO THE FACULTY OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
ARBAMINCH INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY,
SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES
ARBAMINCH UNIVERSITY
ARBAMINCH, ETHIOPIA
IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE DEGREE OF

MASTERS OF SCIENCE IN CIVIL ENGINEERING
(GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING)
ARBA MINCH UNIVERSITY
ARBAMINCH, ETHIOPIA
OCTOBER, 2019
Comparative Study on Shear Strength and Consolidation Characteristics of
Clay Soil in Arba Minch and Sodo Towns
COMPARATIVE STUDY ON SHEAR STRENGTH AND CONSOLIDATION

CHARACTERISTICS OF CLAY SOILS IN ARBAMINCH AND SODO TOWNS
BY
DANIEL ADMASU
A THESIS SUBMITED TO THE FACULTY OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
ARBAMINCH INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY,
ARBAMINCH UNIVERSITY
ARBAMINCH, ETHIOPIA
IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE DEGREE OF

MASTERS OF SCIENCE IN CIVIL ENGINEERING
(GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING)
ARBAMINCH, ETHIOPIA
OCTOBER, 2019
Declaration
I, Daniel Admasu, declare that this thesis [Comparative Study on Shear Strength and Consolidation
Characteristics of Clay Soil in Arba Minch and Sodo Towns] is my own original work and that it has
not been presented and will not be presented by me to any other university for similar or any other
degree award.
Name: Daniel Admasu

Signature________________________________
Date: ___________________________________

ADVISORS’ APPROVAL SHEET
This is to certify that the thesis entitled “Comparative Study on Shear Strength and Consolidation
Characteristics of Clay Soils in Arbaminch and Sodo Towns”.Submitted in partial fulfilment of the
requirement for the degree of master's with specialized in Geotechnical engineering , the Graduate
program of the Faculty of Civil Engineering, Institute of Technology, Arba Minch University has
been carried out by, Daniel Admasu under my/our supervision.
Therefore, I/we recommend that the student has fulfilled the requirements and hence hereby can
submit the thesis to the faculty for defence.
Prof. Rk.Verma _____________ _____/_____/____

Name of principal advisor Signature Date
Defaru Katise (MSc) ____________ _____/_____/____

Name of co - advisor Signature Date

EXAMINERS’ THESIS APPROVAL SHEET
We, the undersigned, certify that we have read and hereby recommended for the acceptance by the
Arba Minch University School of graduate studies a thesis entitled ―A comparative Study on Shear
Strength and Consolidation Characteristics of Clay Soils in Arba Minch and Sodo Towns‖ and
examined the candidate. This is, therefore, to certify that the thesis has been accepted in partial
fulfilment of the requirement for Degree of Masters of Science in Civil Engineering (Geotechnical
Engineering)
Approved by:
Mr.__________________ _____________ _____/_____/____
Chair Person Signature Date
Dr.__________________ ____________ _____/_____/____
External Examiner Signature Date
Dr. _________________ _____________ _____/_____/____
Internal Examiner Signature Date
Mr._________________ _____________ _____/_____/____
PG Coordinator Signature Date
Mr.__________________ _____________ _____ /_____/____
Faculty Dean Signature Date

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my main advisor Prof. R.K.Verma and co-
advisor Mr.Defaru Katise for their close supervision, Limitless effort, and valuable,
constructive & timely guidance at all the stages of the study.
I would like to ―ERA – the Sponsor (full financial aid)‖ for allowing me to do this research work
which would be unforgettable throughout my awe-inspiring life times.
I would like to express my appreciation to Arba Minch University for the provision of the
sponsorship.
Lastly I would like to forward my admiration to the laboratory assistant of Arbaminch university
institute of technology specially Miss. Bereket sofonias for her support during conducting
different tests for this thesis.
ARBA MINCH UNIVERSITY Page I

Comparative Study on Shear Strength and Consolidation Characteristics of Clay
Soil in Arba Minch and Sodo Towns
TABLE OF CONTENT
ACKNOWLEDGMENT ........................................................................................................................... I
LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................................................V
LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................................... VII
ABSTRACT ...............................................................................................................................................X
1.INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................................................1
1.1.Statement of the Problem…………………………………………………………………………...1

1.2. Objective of the Study……………………………………………………………………………...2
1.2.1 General Objective ....................................................................................................................... 2
1.2.2 Specific Objective....................................................................................................................... 2
1.3. Description of the study area……………………………………………………………………….2

1.4. Scope of the Study………………………………………………………………………………….4
1.5. Organization of the Thesis………………………………………………………………………….5
2. LITERATURE REVIEW .....................................................................................................................6
2.1. General……………………………………………………………………………………………..6
2.2. Origin of Clay soil………………………………………………………………………………….7
2.3. Clay Structure………………………………………………………………………………………8
2.3.1. Clay Mineralogy ........................................................................................................................ 8
2.4. Clay Water Interaction……………………………………………………………………………12

2.5.1. Natural Moisture Content ........................................................................................................ 12
2.5.2. Soil Particle Size and Shape .................................................................................................... 13
2.5.3. Atterberg Limit Test ................................................................................................................ 13
2.5.4. Specific Gravity ....................................................................................................................... 16
2.5.5. Free Swell Test ........................................................................................................................ 17
2.5.6. Standard Proctor Compaction Test .......................................................................................... 17
2.6. Permeability Test…………………………………………………………………………………18

2.7. Unconfined compression test……………………………………………………………………..20
2.8. The One-Dimensional Consolidation Test………………………………………………………..23
2.8.1. Swelling Pressure and Swelling Potential ............................................................................... 24
ARBA MINCH UNIVERSITY Page II
2.9. Compression Index Predictive Models……………………………………………………………24

3. MATERIALS AND METHODOLOGY...........................................................................................26
3.1. Sample Description……………………………………………………………………………...26
3.2.1. Water Content Determination .................................................................................................. 29
3.2.2. Grain Size Analysis ................................................................................................................. 29
3.2.3. Atterberg Limits ...................................................................................................................... 29
3.2.4. Specific Gravity ....................................................................................................................... 29
3.2.5. Classification of soils based on Unified Soil Classification (USC) System............................ 29
3.2.6. Free Swell Test ........................................................................................................................ 30
3.2.7. Standard Compaction Test....................................................................................................... 30
3.3. Engineering Properties……………………………………………………………………………30

3.3.1. Permeability ............................................................................................................................. 30
3.3.2. Unconfined Compression (UC) Test ....................................................................................... 30
3.3.3. Consolidation Test ................................................................................................................... 31
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ..........................................................................................................32
4.1. General……………………………………………………………………………………………32
4.2. Index Properties…………………………………………………………………………………...32
4.2.1. Results for the Natural Moisture Content ................................................................................ 32
4.2.2. Results for the Grain size analysis test .................................................................................... 33
4.2.3. Linear Shrinkage Limit ............................................................................................................ 37
4.2.4. Results for the Atterberg Limit Tests ...................................................................................... 37
4.2.5. Results for the Specific Gravity Test ....................................................................................... 38
4.2.6. Classification ........................................................................................................................... 40
4.2.7. Free swell ................................................................................................................................. 41
4.2.7. Results for the Standard Compaction Test .............................................................................. 41
4.3. Engineering Property Tests……………………………………………………………………….43

4.3.1. Permeability Test ..................................................................................................................... 44
4.3.2. Shear Strength.......................................................................................................................... 45
ARBA MINCH UNIVERSITY Page III

4.3.3. Results for the Consolidation Test........................................................................................... 49
4.4. Comparison……………………………………………………………………………………….54
4.5. Development of New Predictive Model…………………………………………………………..54
4.6. Assessment of Currently Developed Compression Index Prediction Models…………………….58
4.7. Assessment of Currently Developed recompression Index Prediction Models…………………..62
5. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION .................................................................................66
5.1. Conclusion………………………………………………………………………………………...66
5.2. Recommendation………………………………………………………………………………….67
Appendix ...................................................................................................................................................71
Appendix-A...............................................................................................................................................72
Appendix-B ...............................................................................................................................................76
Appendix-C...............................................................................................................................................79
Appendix-D...............................................................................................................................................81
Appendix-E ...............................................................................................................................................84
Appendix-F ...............................................................................................................................................89
ARBA MINCH UNIVERSITY Page IV

LIST OF TABLES
Table 2- 1 Chemical formulas of clay minerals (Ali Akbar Firoozi1, 2016)..............................12
Table 2- 2 Soil classifications according to Plasticity Index (Murthy,2002)...............................16
Table 2- 3 Relation between swelling potential of clays and plasticity index can be established
as follows (F.H.Chen, 1975)........................................................................................................16
Table 2- 4 Specific gravity range for soil solids (K.R.Arora,2003).............................................17
Table 2- 5 Typical Values of the coefficient of Permeability (K.R.Arora,2003).........................20
Table 2- 6 Consistency of Clays, (Mr Utkarsh Mathur, 2017)....................................................22
Table 2- 7 Cc Value of Different Soils (Karl Terzaghi)...............................................................25
Table 3 - 1 Global coordinates of Arba Minch sampling areas....................................................26
Table 3 - 2 Global coordinates of Sodo sampling areas...............................................................26
Table 4 - 1 Test section locations and Natural Moisture Content results of Arba Minch and
Wolayta Sodo samples.................................................................................................................33
Table 4 - 2 Grain size distribution results of Arba Minch Samples.............................................34
Table 4 - 3 Grain size distribution results of Wolayta Sodo Samples..........................................35
Table 4-4 Linear Shrinkage Limit results of Arba Minch and Wolayta Sodo Samples...............37
Table 4 - 5 Atterberg Limits and Specific Gravity results of Arba Minch Sample.....................39
Table 4 - 6 Atterberg Limits and Specific Gravity results of Wolayta Sodo Samples.................39
Table 4 - 7 Free Swell results of Arba Minch and Wolayta Sodo Sample...................................41
Table 4 - 8 Test section locations and Standard Proctor Compaction test results of Arbaminch
and Sodo samples.........................................................................................................................42
Table 4 - 9 Test section locations, coefficient of permeability results of Arbaminch and Sodo
samples.........................................................................................................................................44
ARBA MINCH UNIVERSITY Page V

Table 4 - 10 Test section locations, unconfined compressive Strength and Undrained Shear
Strength results of Arbaminch and Sodo samples........................................................................46
Table 4-11 Average Shear Strength obtained in UCS Test..........................................................48
Table 4 - 12 Swelling potential and swelling pressure of Arbaminch Samples...........................49
Table 4 - 13 Compression Index and recompression index of Arbaminch samples....................50
Table 4 - 14 Compression Index and recompression index of Wolayta Sodo samples...............51
Table 4-15 Comparison of Shear Strength and Consolidation Value of Arba Minch and Wolayta
Sodo Clay Soil.............................................................................................................................54
Table 4 - 16 Values of measured and predicted Compression Index of Arbaminch Sample.......59
Table 4-17 of measured and predicted Compression Index of Wolayta Sodo Sample...............61
Table 4 - 18 Values of measured and predicted recompression Index of Arbaminch Sample....63
Table 4 - 19 Values of measured and predicted recompression Index of Wolayta Sodo
Sample........................................................................................................................................65
ARBA MINCH UNIVERSITY Page VI

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1- 1 The Land Use Map of Arba Minch town....................................................................3
Figure 1- 2 Wolayta Sod City kebeles administration map............................................................4
Figure 2-1 Schematic image of (a) Swelling clay, (b) Non–swelling clay (S. Diop, 2011)...........8
Figure 2- 2 Single unit of tetrahedral mineral (Ali Akbar Firoozi1, 2016)....................................9
Figure 2- 3 Single unit of octahedral mineral (Ali Akbar Firoozi1, 2016)....................................9
Figure 2-4 Structure of (a) kaolinite, (b) illite, and (c) montmorillonite (Muni Budhu, 2015).....11
Figure 2- 5 Shapes of coarser fractions of soils............................................................................13
Figure 2- 6 Liquid Limit apparatus..............................................................................................14
Figure 2-7 Linear Shrinkage Limit Apparatus.............................................................................15
Figure 2- 8 Compaction apparatus (Muni Budhu, 2010).............................................................18
Figure 2- 9 Principle of falling head test (Bardet, 1997)..............................................................20
Figure 2- 10 The unconfined compression test (Smith, 2014).....................................................22
Figure 2- 11 (a) A typical consolidation apparatus, (b) a fixed ring cell, and (c) a floating ring
cell (Muni Budh, 2015)................................................................................................................24
Figure 3- 1 Test pit locations of Arba Minch town......................................................................27
Figure 3- 2 Test pit locations of Sodo town................................................................................28
Figure 4- 1 Combined sieve-hydrometer analysis graph of Arba Minch Samples......................36
Figure 4- 2 Combined sieve-hydrometer analysis graph of Wolayta Sodo Sample....................36
Figure 4-3 Plasticity chart of Arba Minch town according to USCS..........................................40
Figure 4-4 Plasticity chart of Wolayta Sodo town according to USCS.......................................40
Figure 4-5 Combined standard compaction test graph of Arba Minch Town............................43
Figure 4- 6 Combined standard compaction test graph of Wolayta Sodo Town.........................43
Figure 4-7 Combined Unconfined Compression test graph of Arba Minch Town.....................47
Figure 4-8 Combined Unconfined Compression test graph of Wolayta Sodo Town..................47
ARBA MINCH UNIVERSITY Page VII

Figure 4-9 Combined One Dimensional Consolidation test graph of Arba Minch Town...........52
Figure 4-10 Combined One Dimensional Consolidation test graph of Wolayta Sodo Town......53
Figure 4- 11 The relationships between the measured and predicted Compression Index for
eqn.4.1 Arbaminch Sample..........................................................................................................60
eqn.4.5 Wolayta Sodo Sample.....................................................................................................62
eqn.4.6 Wolayta Sodo Sample....................................................................................................62
Figure 4- 15 The relationships between the measured and predicted recompression Index for
ARBA MINCH UNIVERSITY Page VIII

List of Symbols
ASTM American Society for Testing Materials
USCS Unified Soil Classification System
LL Liquid Limit
PL Plastic Limit
PI Plasticity Index
FS Free Swell
Gs Specific gravity
W Moisture content
Nb Number of blows
UCS Unconfined Compression Strength
e Void ratio
Cc Compression index
Cr recompression index
Cu Undrained Shear Strength
K Permeability
Nl Number of Layers
EComp Compaction energy of the standard Proctor test
LIR Load Increment Ratio
SPSS Statistical Package for the Social Sciences
OMC Optimum Moisture Content
MDD Maximum Dry Density
OCR Over Consolidation Ratio
ARBA MINCH UNIVERSITY Page IX

ABSTRACT
Analysis of different clays found in Arbaminch and Wolayta Sodo town by index, consolidation
and shear strength methods have shown that clays generally fine grained natural rock or soil
material.
To arrive at this objective, ten representative test pits were excavated over different parts of the
towns from which twenty samples were taken and laboratory tests done on the collected samples.
For all tests the apparatus and the procedures used for analysis were done according to American
Society for Testing Materials standard
The laboratory test results revealed in Arbaminch town that the swelling pressure ranges from
12.67 to 67.02 kPa, Unconfined Compressive Strength from 50.9 to 162 kPa, Grain Size
Analysis from the clay content samples ranged from 22.12– 64.13%; the silt content from 17.18–
50.57%; the sand fraction from 8 - 46.6%; and finally the gravel fraction ranged from 0.2-
14.1%, Natural Moisture Content from 19.44 to 22.80%, Free Swell from 10 to 70%, Specific
Gravity from 2.64 to 2.79, Plasticity Index from 3.25 to 23.17%, Standard proctor Compaction
Test (OMC 21 to 44.25 and MDD 1.29 to 1.72).
The laboratory test results revealed in Wolayta Sodo town there is no swelling pressure,
Unconfined Compressive Strength from 41.6 to 111.1kPa, Grain Size Analysis from the clay
content samples ranged from 39.24 – 77.27%; the silt content from 18.67 – 38.91%; the sand
fraction from 5.10 - 21.70 %; and finally the gravel fraction ranged from 0 - 0.3%, Natural
Moisture Content from 29.93% to 37.22%, Free Swell from 10 to 40 %, Specific Gravity from
2.73 to 2.80, Plasticity Index from 14.33 to 24.09%, Standard proctor Compaction Test (OMC
24.34 to 35 and MDD 1.36 to 1.54).
Keywords: Consolidation, Shear Strength, swelling pressure, unconfined compressive strength,
ARBA MINCH UNIVERSITY Page X

1. INTRODUCTION
Clay is very fine-grained material that consists of hydrated aluminium silicate, quartz, and
organic fragments and occurs as sedimentary rocks, soils, and other deposits. It becomes plastic
when moist but hardens on heating.
Clayey soil cause damage to the structure founded in them because of their potential to change in
moisture regime. The uplift pressure due to change in volume of clay leads to foundation failure,
resulting in damage to the upper floors of a building. On the other hand, clay also shrinks where
they dry out, causing settlement of building. The shrinkage and swelling of clay puts repeated
stresses on concrete foundation. The volume change experienced by clay can cause serious
damage to concrete foundation and floor slabs as well as the rooms above them.
Naturally occurring clay soils have been found in various parts of Arba Minch and Sodo towns,
where cause these soils have numerous costly damages to the roadways, buildings, bridges and
other civil engineering infrastructures.
1.1. Statement of the Problem
A Civil Engineering structures by far depends on the accurate estimation of Shear Strength and
Consolidation results of the soil which are the basis for giving their intended purpose for a design
period of the structures. Unless a detailed study is made on the Shear Strength and Consolidation
results of the soil under consideration, geotechnical failures may encounter which are inevitable
and their remedial measures are expensive and sometimes difficult.
The problems with clay soils are still manifested globally Ethiopia is among the countries. The
main problem in clay soils as observed during dry seasons is to shrink forming cracks and swell
during wet periods causing most damage to structures particularly light buildings such as houses,
apartments, warehouses, small industrial buildings and pavements.
Arba Minch and Sodo towns is among the developing towns in Ethiopia, whereby need the
number of multi-story buildings are being constructed (public and commercial buildings,
residences and condominiums), and infrastructures (like road, drainage structures etc.). Thus, this
research is developed to determine the Shear Strength and Consolidation results of soils in Arba
Minch and Sodo towns. This work gives a better understanding about the behaviour of the soil
with respect to shear strength and settlement characteristics of the soils in Arba Minch and Sodo
towns.
ARBA MINCH UNIVERSITY Page 1

1.2. Objective of the Study

1.2.1 General Objective
The main objective of this research is to determine and compare the shear strength and
consolidation values of clay soil Found in Arbaminch and Wolayta Sodo towns using laboratory
tests.
1.2.2 Specific Objective

 To determine index properties of the clay soils found in Arbaminch and Sodo towns by
conducting moisture content, grain size, Atterberg‘s limit tests, specific gravity and free
swell test to classify the soils; and
 To determine laboratory compaction characteristics to have maximum dry density and OMC
of the soils found in Arba Minch and Sodo towns.
 To determine coefficient of permeability of the soils in these towns.

 To determine shear strength and consolidation parameters of clay soils, in these towns.
 To conduct comparative study on Shear strength and Consolidation values of Clay Soils in
Arbaminch and Sodo Towns
 To establish relations between index properties such as LL, PL, with consolidation
parameters such as Cc, Cr for these soils.
1.3. Description of the study area
Arbaminch, with a population of 95,373 (2012), Wikipedia, and by now annual population
growth rate of 5% is assumed and 128,000 population is forecasted and is one of the fast growing
towns in Ethiopia. It was founded in 1960s and received its name from the abundant local
springs which produce a groundwater forest. The town is located in Gamo Gofa zone, the
Southern Nations, Nationalities and Peoples Region. To put this in a geographical positioning
way, Arba Minch is located at the floor of the southern part of the East African Rift Valley
between 6003‘N to 6008‘N latitude and 37033‘E to 37037‘E longitude at an elevation of 1285m
above sea level. Arba Minch town consists of the uptown administrative center of Shecha and
4km away the downtown commercial and residential areas of Nech Sar, Abaya & Sikela sub
which are connected by a paved road. Recently, it is divided into four sub-cities which are
restructured into eleven administrative kebeles. The area administered by the municipality
extends up to 20.8km2 and the expansion is fast particularly after 1980‘s due to the establishment
of different institutions and rapid flow of rural migrants. The climate of Arba Minch area is

categorized as semi-arid. The mean annual rainfall, temperature, humidity, sunshine hours are
about 750mm, 250C, 57%, 7.5 hours, respectively.
Figure 1-1 The Land Use Map of Arba Minch town
Wolayta Zone is located in south Ethiopia between geographical coordinates of 6.40.7.10 N

latitude and 37.40.38.20 E longitude. It has a total area of 3982 km2. Its altitude ranges from
1200 to 2950 meters above sea level and is subdivided into three ecological zones: Kola or
lowland (35%), Woina dega or intermediate highland (56%) and dega or highland (9%). Wolayta
has a bimodal rainfall pattern with major and minor rainy seasons mostly lasting from July to
October and March to May, respectively. Average total annual rainfall is 1014mm and the mean
daily temperature is 19.5° (Amistu K, 2017). The study areas in Arba Minch and Sodo are shown
in Fig.1-1 and 1-2.

Figure 1-2 Wolayta Sod City kebeles administration map
1.4. Scope of the Study

In order to address, ten test pits were dug in Arbaminch and Sodo town at different locations
where clay soils prevail as part of this work. The sites for the test pits were selected
systematically. Disturbed samples were extracted from each test pit for Swelling pressure, Shear
strength, Permeability test, Index property tests and Spss Software used to establish the
relationship between Cc, Cr with LL, PL.

The depth of the pits varied from 1.5m to 3m. The results from this research can be used in
identifying, estimating and Compare the Characteristics of the clay soil of the area so that
possible measures can be taken to reduce the problems arising to the structures during and after
construction. It can also serve as a resource for further study on clay soil.
1.5. Organization of the Thesis

The thesis is organized into five Chapters. The first Chapter is about introduction, statement of
problem, study area description, scope of the study and organization of the thesis are presented.
Chapter two deals with a brief literature review. In the third Chapter, the sample description and
the types of laboratory tests conducted. The result and discussion is given in Chapter four and the
last Chapter is devoted to conclusion and recommendations.

2. LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1. General
Soils in which the adsorbed water and particle attraction act such that it deforms plastically at
varying water contents are known as cohesive soils or clays. This cohesive property is due to
presence of clay minerals in soils. Therefore, the term cohesive soil is used synonymously for
clayey soils (K.R.Arora, 2003).
Clay is a fine grained natural rock or soil material that combines one or more clay minerals with
traces of metal oxides and organic matter. Clays are plastic due to their water content and
become hard, brittle and non-plastic upon drying. Clay minerals are formed through
hydrothermal activity which intended high swelling property which has to be stabilized for
strength enhancement (Vadivel, 2016).
Clay is a type of soil material which carries the fickle quantity of water entrapped in the mineral
structure. Due to ample void ratio, clay can be classified as the fine-grained natural rock as well.
Clays show plasticity because of their moisture content and convert into hard, brittle and non–
plastic materials when clays undergo drying or firing. Silts and clays can be separated by the
soils' Atterberg limits depending on the plasticity properties of the soil. Based on the gradation of
ISO 14688, particles smaller than two μm are classified as clay particles (Ankur Nandy, 2019).
Clay is a naturalistic material made generally of fine grained minerals representing plasticity
through the different extent of water content. Clay can be stiffed at the time of experiencing
drying and firing processes. Clay deposits mostly formed of clay minerals which impart
resilience and harden when burned or dried and the variable amount of water trapped in the
mineral structure by polar attraction. Clay deposits are also comprised of some organic materials
which do not have plastic properties. The formation of clay mineral is a long term process which
is generally occurred by the gradual chemical weathering of rocks usually silicate bearing by the
low concentration of carbonic acid and other diluted solvents. These solvents generally acidic
migrate through the weathering rock after leaching through weathered upper layers. Because of
hydrothermal activities, different clay minerals are also formed in that weathering action. Clay
deposits typically associated with deficient energy depositional environments such as large lake
and marine sediments. Primary clays also known as Kaolin's are located at the site of formation.
Secondary clay deposits have moved by erosion and water from their prime location (Ankur
Nandy, 2019).

In dry state, the soils exhibit a high bearing capacity which is gradually lost with increase in
moisture content. If prevented from swelling following exposure to moisture, the soils exert high
swelling pressure. The pressure build-up is usually responsible for cracking of buildings,
distortion of pavement surface and damage to other structures.
On drying the soils crack very badly. In some cases the cracks are seen to extend to as deep as
1.5m. Excavated vertical banks in these soils stand so long as the moisture content does not
change. Excessive drying makes the soils to crumble along crack lines and fall into excavated
area (Alemayehu Tefera, Mesfin Leikun, 1999).
Clay soil is essentially composed of several minerals that deposit together and, over time, form a
hardened clay deposit. Silicates, mica, iron and aluminium hydrous-oxide minerals are the most
common minerals found in clay deposits. However, other minerals, such as quartz and carbonate,
are also present in clay soils.
2.2. Origin of Clay soil

Soils are formed from the physical and chemical weathering of rocks. Physical weathering
involves reduction of size without any change in the original composition of the parent rock. The
main agents responsible for this process are exfoliation, unloading, erosion, freezing, and
thawing. Chemical weathering causes both reductions in size and chemical alteration of the
original parent rock. The main agents responsible for chemical weathering are hydration,
carbonation, and oxidation. Often, chemical and physical weathering takes place in concert
(Muni Budhu, 2010).
Most clay is derived from rock by mechanical or chemical disintegration, chemical

decomposition, or a combination of the two. Disintegration may result from the action of running
water, wind abrasion, thawing and freezing, etc. Decomposition is associated with oxidation or
hydration. The combined mechanical and chemical process is called weathering (Wise, 1971).
Erosion and weathering both result in the breaking down of rocks, and this can occur because of
natural elements, such as ice and wind, or because of chemical elements, such as acid. The
processes result in either primary or secondary clay deposits, with primary deposits originated in
the soil where they were formed and secondary deposits moving from where they originated.
More rarely, hydrothermal activity can cause clay to form.

2.3. Clay Structure

Clays are generally composed of micro-crystalline particles of a group of minerals. Since clay
science has been the interest of people from different backgrounds, a specific definition of this
material is not available. Generally, clays are naturally occurring material primarily composed of
fine-grained minerals, show plasticity when mixed with appropriate amount of moisture and
become hard when dried or fired (Ali Akbar Firoozi1, 2016).
Figure 2-1 Schematic image of (a) Swelling clay, (b) Non–swelling clay (S. Diop, 2011)
2.3.1. Clay Mineralogy

Clay minerals are crystalline sheet like structure, which consist of hydrous alumino-silicates and
metallic ions. There are two fundamental crystal units of clay minerals, i.e. tetrahedral and
octahedral. A tetrahedral unit belongs to four oxygen enclosing silicon, where as an octahedral
unit composes of six oxygen or hydroxyls at corners surrounding aluminium, magnesium, iron or
other ions. The schematic of basic tetrahedral and octahedral unit are presented in Figures 2-2
and 2-3, respectively (Ali Akbar Firoozi1, 2016).

Figure 2-2 Single unit of tetrahedral mineral (Ali Akbar Firoozi1, 2016)
Figure 2-3 Single unit of octahedral mineral (Ali Akbar Firoozi1, 2016)

Based on the arrangement of stacks, bonding, isomorphous substitution, and presence of metallic
ions, different clay minerals can be constituted. Some of the common clay minerals are kaolinite,
montmorillonite, illite, nontronite, muscovite, etc. However, for engineering purpose kaolinite,
montmorillonite and illite have particular importance in geotechnical engineering (Ali Akbar
Firoozi1, 2016).
The clay materials are basically composed of tiny crystalline substances of one or more members
of a small group of minerals commonly known as clay minerals. Chemically, these minerals are
hydrous alumina-silicate with other metallic ions. Their particles are very small in size, very
flaky in shape and thus have considerable surface area. They can only be viewed with an
electronic microscope. Clay minerals are formed from two basic structural units: tetrahedral and
octahedral. On the basis of their crystalline arrangements, clay minerals are divided into three
types namely, Kaolinites, Montmorillonite and Illite the properties of all three minerals are
presented in Table 2-1 (K.Murali, 2018).
2.3.1.1. Kaolinite
This mineral is the most dominant part of residual clay deposits and is made up from large stacks
of alternating single tetrahedral sheets of silicate and octahedral sheets of aluminium. Kaolinites
are very stable with a strong structure and absorb little water. They have low swelling and
shrinkage responses to water content variation (Smith, 2014).
Kaolinite is known as 1:1 mineral because the inherent crystal structure consists of one
tetrahedral and one octahedral sheet. Successive basic layers are bonded together by hydrogen
bond between hydroxyls of the octahedral sheet and oxygen of the tetrahedral sheet. Due to this
hydrogen bond, a large crystal of kaolinite is developed. The thickness of the basic crystal layer
is 0.72 nm (Ali Akbar Firoozi1, 2016).
2.3.1.2. Illite
Consists of a series of single octahedral sheets of aluminium sandwiched between two
tetrahedral sheets of silicon. In the octahedral sheets some of the aluminium is replaced by iron
and magnesium and in the tetrahedral sheets there is a partial replacement of silicon by
aluminium. Illites tend to absorb more water than kaolinites and have higher swelling and
shrinkage characteristics (Smith, 2014).

2.3.1.3 .Montmorillonite
This mineral has a similar structure to the illite group but, in the tetrahedral sheets, some of the
silicon is replaced by iron, magnesium and aluminium. Montmorillonites exhibit extremely high
water absorption, swelling and shrinkage characteristics. Bentonite is a member of this mineral
group and is usually formed from weathered volcanic ash. Because of its large expansive
properties when it is mixed with water it is much in demand as a general grout in the plugging of
leaks in reservoirs and tunnels. It is also used as a drilling mud for soil borings (Smith, 2014).
Montmorillonite is the most common of all clay minerals, especially in clays derived from
weathering of volcanic ash. It has a lattice structure and the band between individual
montmorillonite units is relatively weak and is dependent on the type of exchangeable cations.
Montmorillonite clay has a high potential for swelling; when soaked some of it expands eight to
ten times the original volume (Wise, 1971).
Figure 2-4 Structure of (a) kaolinite, (b) illite, and (c) montmorillonite (Muni Budhu, 2015).

Table 2-1 Chemical formulas of clay minerals (Ali Akbar Firoozi1, 2016)
Clay Mineral Layer type Typical Chemical Formula
Kaolinite 1:1 Al2Si2O5(OH)4
Montmorillonite 2:1 (NaCa)0.3(Al,Mg)2Si4O10(OH)2×nH2O
Illite 2:1 (K,H3O)(Al,Mg,Fe)2(Si,Al)4O10[(OH)2,(H2O)]
2.4. Clay Water Interaction

It is evident that the engineering and physico-chemical behaviour of clay are largely influenced
by the moisture. Therefore, it is important to know the mechanism of clay water interaction. The
clay particles contain adsorbed counterions and excess ions in the form of precipitated salts at
dry condition. The addition of water hydrates the counterions adsorbed in the particle surface.
During the hydration process, some of the counterions lose their primary hydration shell (all or
partly) and develop inner sphere complex. The ions with primary hydration shells also exist in
the form of outer sphere complex. The hydrated counterions are attached to the particles due to
the presence of surface charge. The rest of the counterions are separated from the surface of the
particles by water. Uday et al. Summarized the possible causes of clay water interaction, which
included hydrogen bonding, attraction by osmosis, hydration of exchangeable cations, charged
surface dipole attraction, and presence of dispersion force as illustrated in Figure 2-6 (Ali Akbar
Firoozi1, 2016)
2.5. Index Properties
2.5.1. Natural Moisture Content

The water content of a soil is an important parameter that controls its behaviour. It is quantitative
measure of the wetness of a soil mass. The water content of a soil can be determined to a high
degree of precision, as it involves only mass which can be determined more accurately than
volumes (K.R.Arora, 2003). For many soils, the water content may be an extremely important
index used for establishing the relationship between the way a soil behaves and its properties.
The consistency of a fine grained soil largely depends on its water content. The water content is

also used in expressing the phase relationships of air, water, and solids in a given volume of soil
(ASTM, 2004).
2.5.2. Soil Particle Size and Shape

The size of particles may range from gravel to the finest size possible. Their characteristics vary
with the size. Soil particles coarser than 0.075 mm are visible to the naked eye or may be
examined by means of a hand lens. They constitute the coarser fractions of the soils. Grains finer
than 0.075mm constitute the finer fractions of soils. It is possible to distinguish the grains lying
between 0.075mm and 2µ (1µ = 1 micron = 0.001 mm) under a microscope. Grains having a size
between 2µ and 0.1µ can be observed under a microscope but their shapes cannot be made out.
The shape of grains smaller than 1µ can be determined by means of an electron microscope. The
molecular structure of particles can be investigated by means of X-ray analysis.
The coarser fractions of soils consist of gravel and sand. The individual particles of gravel,
which are nothing but fragments of rock, are composed of one or more minerals, whereas sand
grains contain mostly one mineral which is quartz. The individual grains of gravel and sand may
be angular, subangular, sub-rounded, rounded or well-rounded as shown in Figure 2-7. Gravel
may contain grains which may be flat. Some sands contain a fairly high percentage of mica
flakes that give them the property of elasticity. Silt and clay constitute the finer fractions of the
soil. Any one grain of this fraction generally consists of only one mineral (Murthy, 2002).
Figure 2-5 Shapes of coarser fractions of soils
2.5.3. Atterberg Limit Test

This is performed to determine the plastic limit (PL) and liquid limit (LL) of the clay soils. The
Atterberg limits are a basic measure of the critical water contents of a fine-grained soil, such as

its shrinkage limit, plastic limit, and liquid limit. As a dry, clayey soil takes on increasing
amounts of water, it undergoes dramatic and distinct changes in behaviour and consistency
(Olubayode, S.A. et al, 2015).
2.5.3.1. Liquid Limit

The sample is processed to remove any material retained on a 425-μm sieve. The liquid limit is
determined by performing trials in which a portion of the sample is spread in a brass cup, divided
in two by a grooving tool, and then allowed to flow together from the shocks caused by
repeatedly dropping the cup in a standard mechanical device. There are two methods to
determine the liquid limit of the soil. The first one is which is known as multipoint liquid limit,
Method A, requires three or more trials over a range of water contents to be performed and the
data from the trials plotted or calculated to make a relationship from which the liquid limit is
determined. The second one is the one-point liquid limit, Method B, which uses the data from
two trials at one-water content multiplied by a correction factor to determine the liquid limit. For
this thesis the multipoint point liquid limit method was adopted for better accuracy.
Figure 2-6 Liquid Limit apparatus
2.5.3.2. Plastic Limit

This is the moisture content limit after which the soil transforms into a malleable, plastic mass.
From the same soil sample, threads of about 3mm diameter were obtained by kneading and
rolling and the moisture content determined (Olubayode, S.A. et al, 2015).

2.5.3.3. LINEAR SHRINKAGE

Linear shrinkage (LS) is defined as the change in length divided by the initial length when the
water is reduced to the shrinkage limit. it is expressed as percentage, and reported to the nearest
whole number. Thus
A soil about 150 gm in mass and passing through a 425mm sieve is taken in a dish. It is mixed
with distilled water to form a smooth paste at water content greater than the liquid limit. The
sample is placed in a brass mould, 140 mm long and with a semi-circular section of 25 mm
diameter. The sample is allowed to dry slowly first and then in an oven. The sample is cooled
and its final length measured. The linear shrinkage is calculated using the following equation
(Olubayode, S.A. et al, 2015)
Figure 2-7 Linear Shrinkage Limit Apparatus
2.5.3.4. Plasticity Index

Plasticity index IP indicates the degree of plasticity of a soil. The greater the difference between
liquid and plastic limits, the greater is the plasticity of the soil. A cohesionless soil has zero
plasticity index. Such soils are termed non-plastic. Fat clays are highly plastic and possess a high
plasticity index. Soils possessing large values of Wl and IP are said to be highly plastic or fat.
Those with low values are described as slightly plastic or lean. Atterberg classifies the soils
according to their plasticity indices as in Table 2-2 (Murthy, 2002).

Table 2-2 Soil classifications according to Plasticity Index (Murthy, 2002)
Plasticity index Plasticity
0 Non-plastic
<7 Low Plastic
7-17 Medium Plastic
> 17 Highly Plastic
The plasticity index is calculated as the difference between the liquid limit and the plastic limit.
PI = LL – PL
Table 2-3 Relation between swelling potential of clays and plasticity index can be established as
follows (F.H.Chen, 1975)
Swelling potential Plasticity index
Low 0 – 15
Medium 10 – 35
High 20 – 55
Very high 35 and Above
2.5.4. Specific Gravity

Specific gravity is defined as the ratio of the unit weight of a given material to the unit weight of
water. The specific gravity of soil solids is often needed for various calculations in soil
mechanics. It can be determined accurately in the laboratory. Most of the values fall within a
range of 2.6 to 2.9.The specific gravity of solids of light-colored sand, which is mostly made of
quartz, may be estimated to be about 2.65; for clayey and silty soils, it may vary from 2.6 to 2.9
(Das, 2006).

Table 2-4 Specific gravity range for soil solids (K.R.Arora, 2003)
Soil type Specific gravity Soil type Specific gravity
Gravel 2.65 - 2.68 Silt 2.66 - 2.70
sand 2.65 - 2.68 Inorganic Clay 2.68 - 2.80
Silty Sands 2.66 - 2.70 Organic soil Variable, may fall below 2.00
2.5.5. Free Swell Test

The test is performed by slowly pouring 10cm3 of dry soil, which has passed, the 425mm sieve
in to 100cm3 graduated cylinders filled with water, and observing the equilibrium swelled
volume ( Robert D.Holtz and William D.Kovacs, 1981). Free swell is defined as
Where, FS = Free swell (%)

V = Final volume of the soil in water (ml)
VO= Volume of soil in kerosene (ml)
For Comparison, highly swelling bentonites (mostly Na - montmorillonite) will have free-swell
values of greater than 1200%. Even soils with free swells of 100% may cause damage to light
structures when they become wet; soils with free swells less than 50% have been found to exhibit
only small volume change ( Robert D.Holtz and William D.Kovacs, 1981).
2.5.6. Standard Proctor Compaction Test

The standard Proctor test was developed to deliver a standard amount of mechanical energy
(compactive effort) to determine the maximum dry unit weight of a soil. In the standard Proctor
test, a dry soil specimen is mixed with water and compacted in a cylindrical mold of
volume 9.44 ×10-4 m3 (standard Proctor mold) by repeated blows from the mass of a hammer,

2.5 kg, falling freely from a height of 305 mm (Figure 2-8). The soil is compacted in three layers,
each of which is subjected to 25 blows. The energy imparted by the hammer is (Muni Budhu,
2010)
Where mh is the mass of the hammer, g is the acceleration due to gravity, hd is the height of fall
of the hammer, V is the volume of compacted soil, Nb is the number of blows, and Nl is the
number of layers. Thus, the compaction energy of the standard Proctor test is (Muni Budhu,
2010)
Figure 2-8 Compaction apparatus (Muni Budhu, 2010).
2.6. Permeability Test

Permeability of a soil is the rate at which water flows through it under action of hydraulic
gradient. The passage of moisture through the inter-spaces or pores of the soil is called
‗percolation‘.
Soils having porous enough for percolation to occur are termed ‗pervious‘ or ‗permeable‘, while
those which do not permit the passage of water are termed ‗impervious‘ or ‗impermeable‘. The
rate of flow is directly proportional to the head of water. Permeability is a property of soil mass
and not of individual particles.
The permeability of cohesive soil is, in general, very small. Knowledge of permeability is
required not only for seepage, drainage and ground water problems but also for the rate of
settlement of structures on saturated soils.

Soils are permeable to water because the voids between soils particles are inter connected. The
degree of permeability is characterized by the permeability coefficient k, also referred to as
hydraulic conductivity. In the laboratory, k is measured by using either the constant head test for
soils of high permeability (e.g., sands), or the falling head test for soils of intermediate and low
permeability (e.g., silts and clays). Before describing the test procedures, the basic concepts of
seepage are reviewed (Balasubramanian, 2017).
Coefficient of permeability of the samples was determined indirectly from one dimensional
consolidation tests. The coefficient of permeability, k were computed using the following
expression (Abu Siddique, 2009):
Falling Head Test

The falling head permeability test is used for determining the permeability of soil samples that
have a permeability less than about 10-3 cm/s.
As illustrated in Figure 2-9, the falling head test does not fix the total head. It lets it fall in the
standpipe connected to the upper part of the specimen (Bardet, 1997).

Figure 2-9 Principle of constant head test (Bardet, 1997)
Table 2-5 Typical Values of the coefficient of Permeability (K.R.Arora, 2003)
Coefficient of Drainage
S.No. Soil Type permeability Properties
(cm/sec)
1. Clean gravel 10+1 to 10+2 Very good
2. Coarse and medium sands 10-2 to 10+1 Good
3. Fine sands, loose silt 10-4 to 10-2 Fair
4. Dense silt, clayey silts 10-5 to 10-4 Poor
5. Silty clay, clay 10-8 to 10-5 Very poor
2.7. Unconfined compression test

The unconfined compression test was carried out on samples with a diameter of 38 mm and
a height of 76 mm. The samples were compressed with axial rate of displacement of 2.4 mm/h.
From researching the maximum value of the vertical stress at which the sample has been failed
was read, this stress is considered to be the compressive strength in uniaxial stress
state (qu). The undrained shear strength was calculated from the formula (J. Stróżyk, 2013).

Cu = 0.5 · qu
Unconfined compression (UC) test is a quick method of determining the value of undrained
cohesion for clay soil. The test involves a clay specimen with no confining pressure and an
axial load being applied to observe the axial strains corresponding to various stress levels.
The unconfined compression test is a special case of the unconsolidated undrained triaxial
test. Since no confining pressure to the specimen is applied. The UC test is one of the
easiest and simplest tests for determining a quick estimate of the shear strength of cohesive
soils (ASTM D 2166).
In this test (Fig 2-10) no all-round pressure is applied to the soil specimen and the results
obtained give a measure of the unconfined compressive strength of the soil. The test is only
applicable to cohesive soils and, although not as popular as the triaxial test, it is used where a
rapid result is required. An electric motor within the base unit drives the platen supporting the
specimen upwards and the load carried by the soil is recorded by the load transducer. The
vertical strain is recorded by a displacement transducer and the load–displacement curve is
plotted on a PC connected to the system. The load and strain readings at failure are used to give a
direct measure of the unconfined compressive strength of the soil (Smith, 2014).
The stress at failure is referred to as the unconfined compression strength .the undrained
cohesion is taken as one - half the unconfined compressive strength. The test conducted
only on intact clay soil or on clay that can stand without confinement (K.R.Arora, 2003).

Figure 2-10 The unconfined compression test (Smith, 2014)
Table 2-6 Consistency of Clays, (Mr Utkarsh Mathur, 2017)
S.No Consistency(quantitative terms) Unconfined compressive strength (qu)

in KN/m2
1 Very soft < 25
2 Soft 25-50
3 Medium 50-100
4 Stiff 100-200
5 Very stiff 200-400
6 Hard > 400

2.8. The One-Dimensional Consolidation Test

The details of the test apparatus and the testing procedures for the one-dimensional consolidation
test are described in ASTM D 2435. This test is generally performed on fine-grained soils. As a
summary, a disk of soil is enclosed in a stiff metal ring and placed between two porous stones in
a cylindrical container filled with water, as shown in Figure 2.11a. A metal load platen mounted
on top of the upper porous stone transmits the applied vertical stress (vertical total stress) to the
soil sample. Both the metal plates and the upper porous stone can move vertically inside the ring
as the soil settles under the applied vertical stress. The ring containing the soil sample can be
fixed to the container by a collar (fixed ring cell, Figure 2.11b) or is unrestrained (floating ring
cell, Figure 2.11c). Incremental loads, including unloading sequences, are applied to the platen,
and the settlement of the soil at various fixed times under each load increment is measured by a
displacement gauge. Each load increment is allowed to remain on the soil until the change in
settlement is negligible, and the excess pore water pressure developed under the current load
increment has dissipated. For many soils, this usually occurs within 24 hours, but longer
monitoring times may be required for exceptional soil types, for example, montmorillonite. Each
load increment is doubled. The ratio of the load increment to the previous load is called the load
increment ratio (LIR); conventionally, LIR = 1. To determine soil rebound (uplift), the soil
sample is unloaded using a load decrement ratio—load decrement divided by current load—of 2
(Muni Budhu, 2015).
Over consolidation ratio (OCR) is a very important parameter in geotechnical engineering for
evaluation of consolidation and strength characteristics of a soil. Traditionally, OCR has been
defined as the ratio of pre-consolidation pressure (Pc) and present in-situ effective overburden
pressure (σ՛vo):i.e., pc/ σ՛vo. It was believed that the Pc value is the maximum pressure to which a
soil was subjected in the past, and can be measured as a bending point of the e-log p curve from
the Oedometer test. Indeed, laboratory consolidation tests on reconstituted samples show that the
yield point on the e-log p curve coincides well with the maximum past consolidation pressure.
However, in the case of an intact sample, the Pc value measured in this manner may not indicate
its maximum consolidation pressure (Tanaka etal, 2001).

Figure 2-11 (a) A typical consolidation apparatus, (b) a fixed ring cell, and (c) a floating ring
cell (Muni Budhu, 2015).
2.8.1. Swelling Pressure and Swelling Potential

Swelling pressure is a very useful index of the trouble potential of an expansive soil. This
pressure is the maximum force per unit area that needs to be applied over a swelling soil to
prevent volume increase. A swelling pressure of less than 20 kPa may not be regarded as of
much consequence. The swell potential of a soil in comparison is the magnitude of heave of a
soil for a given final water content and loading condition. Specially designed Oedometer tests
have been found quite useful to determine the magnitudes of these parameters for expansive soils
(ASTM D 4546–90 Standard Test Method for One Dimensional Swell or Settlement Potential of
Cohesive Soils) (F.A.Goosen, 2006).
2.9. Compression Index Predictive Models

Regression analysis is a statistical technique for modeling and investigation the relationship
between two or more variable. A variable whose value is predicted is called dependent variable.
A variable used to predict the value of dependent variable is termed as independent variable.
It should be noted that regression equation between soil parameter and the Atterberg limits had
been developed more than 50 years ago. The capacity of soil to take loadings is different, as it
depending on the type of soil. Generally, soils with smaller size (not completely consolidated)
have a relatively smaller capacity than the coarser grained soils. Hence soils with small size
therefore have greater settlement in comparison with coarser grained soil. The compression

index value Cc varies for different type of soils. Table 2-7 below show the value of compression
index Cc of several kinds of soils (Karl Terzaghi).
Table 2-7 Cc Value of Different Soils (Karl Terzaghi)
Kind of soil compression index Cc
Dense sand 0.0005- 0.01
Loose sand 0.025- 0.05
Firm clay 0.03- 0.06
Stiff clay 0.06- 0.15
Medium soft clay 0.15- 1.0
Organic soil 1.0-4.5
Skempton (1944) performed consolidation test on several number of clay soils collected from
different locations and gave the following regression equation for the compression index for a
remolded soil sample:
Cc = 0.007 (wL- 10%)............................................................................................................ (1)
Terzaghi and Peck (1967) have derive equation for ordinary clay of medium to low sensitivity,
the value of compression index corresponding to in-situ conditions is roughly equal to 1.3 times
values of Skempton model ,which is :Terzaghi and Peck model
Cc = 0.009 (LL- 10%)…………………………………….................................................... (2)

3. MATERIALS AND METHODOLOGY

3.1. Sample Description
Before selecting sampling areas, visual site investigation and information from resident, and
construction firms were collected in order to consider the different soil types and to take sample
evenly. Accordingly, ten sampling areas (Fig. 3.1&Fig. 3.2) were selected at Arbaminch and
Sodo town from different locations. Pits were excavated to a maximum depth of three meters.
Disturbed soil samples were collected. In the field visual soil description was made and samples
were collected for laboratory testing. The soil was initially oven dried in prior to the testing. The
various Geotechnical properties i.e. grain size distribution, atterberg limits, specific gravity, free
swell, strength parameters and consolidation test performed for Arba Minch Soil and Wolayta
Sodo Soil in this research. In addition, Compare Laboratory analysis results from both towns and
a computer program (SPSS 20) was used to establish relationship index properties such as LL,
PL, with consolidation parameters such as Cc, Cr.
Table 3.1 Global coordinates of Arba Minch sampling areas
Test pit Location Latitude Longitude
TP-1 Morahights Hotel 0339234 0663287
TP-2 Fish corporation 0338741 0664018
TP-3 Romi Hotel 0339181 0665373
TP-4 Bubu Meda 0340784 0666523
TP-5 TTC 0341223 0667100
Table 3.2 Global coordinates of Sodo sampling areas
Test pit Location Latitude Longitude

361272.4 754590.57
TP-1 University
360874.9 754517.3
TP-2 Block M4
365249.2 758694.3
TP-3 Otona
361747 759596.4
TP-4 Geneme
363698.5 759035.5
TP-5 Gola

Figure 3-1 Test pit locations of Arba Minch town

Figure 3-2 Test pit locations of Sodo town

3.2.1. Water Content Determination

This test is performed to determine the water (moisture) content of soils. The water content is the
ratio, expressed as a percentage, of the mass of ―pore‖ or ―free‖ water in a given mass of soil to
the mass of the dry soil solids (ASTM D 2216).
3.2.2. Grain Size Analysis

This test is performed to determine the percentage of different grain sizes contained within a soil.
The mechanical or sieve analysis is performed to determine the distribution of the coarser,
larger-sized particles, and the hydrometer method is used to determine the distribution of the
finer particles (ASTM D 422).
3.2.3. Atterberg Limits

This lab is performed to determine the plastic and liquid limits of a fine grained soil. The liquid
limit (LL) is arbitrarily defined as the water content, in percent, at which a part of soil in a
standard cup and cut by a groove of standard dimensions will flow together at the base of the
groove for a distance of 13 mm (1/2 in.) when subjected to 25 shocks from the cup being
dropped 10 mm in a standard liquid limit apparatus operated at a rate of two shocks per second.
The plastic limit (PL) is the water content, in percent, at which a soil can no longer be deformed
by rolling into 3.2 mm (1/8 in.) diameter threads without crumbling (ASTM D 4318).
3.2.4. Specific Gravity

Specific gravity is performed to determine the specific gravity of soil by using a pycnometer.
Specific gravity is the ratio of the mass of unit volume of soil at a stated temperature to the mass
of the same volume of gas-free distilled water at a stated temperature (ASTM D 854-00).
3.2.5. Classification of soils based on Unified Soil Classification (USC)

System
The USCS uses symbols for particular size groups. These symbols and their representations are:
G – gravel, S – Sand, M – Silt, C – Clay. These are combined with other symbols expressing
gradation characteristics – W for well-graded and P for poorly graded – and plasticity
characteristics – H for high and L for low, and a symbol O for the presence of Organic material.
A soil classification system is an arrangement of different soils into groups having similar
properties. The purpose of soil classification is to make possible the estimation of soil properties

by association with soils of the same class whose properties are known and to provide the
engineer with accurate method of soils description. The soils under study have been classified
according to USCS.
3.2.6. Free Swell Test

A 10 cm3 (Vi) dry soil passing thorough a (425micron) sieve is poured into a 100 cm3
graduated cylinder filled with water. The volume of settled soil is measured after 24 hours which
gives the value of Vf. The ratio of the increase in volume to its initial, (Vf - Vi)/ Vi expressed in
%, is taken as the free swell.
3.2.7. Standard Compaction Test

This laboratory test is performed to determine the relationship between the moisture content and
the dry density of a soil for a specified compactive effort. Standard Proctor Test, the soil is
compacted by a 5.5 lb hammer falling a distance of one foot into a soil filled mold. The mold is
filled with three equal layers of soil, and each layer is subjected to 25 drops of the hammer
(ASTM D 698).
3.3. Engineering Properties

The main engineering properties of soils are permeability, compressibility and shear strength.
Permeability indicates the facility with which water can flow through soils. It is required for
estimation of seepage. Compressibility is related with the deformations produced in soils when
they are subjected to compressive loads. Compression characteristics are required for
computation of the settlements of structures founded on soils. Shear strength of a soil is its
ability to resist shear stress. The shear strength determines the stability of slopes, bearing
capacity of soils and the earth pressure on retaining structures.
3.3.1. Permeability
The permeability of a soil is a measure of a how easily fluids (usually water) pass through the
soil and is related to degree of to which the pores spaces of the soil connected to each other.
The permeability of a particular soil is defined by coefficient of permeability, K.
3.3.2. Unconfined Compression (UC) Test

This test is to determine the unconfined compressive strength, which is then used to calculate the
unconsolidated undrained shear strength of the clay under unconfined conditions. According to
the ASTM standard, the unconfined compressive strength (qu) is defined as the compressive
stress at which an unconfined cylindrical specimen of soil will fail in a simple compression test.

In addition, in this test method, the unconfined compressive strength is taken as the maximum
load attained per unit area, or the load per unit area at 15% axial strain, whichever occurs first
during the performance of a test (ASTM D 2166).
3.3.3. Consolidation Test

This test is performed to determine the magnitude and rate of volume decrease that a laterally
confined soil specimen undergoes when subjected to different vertical pressures. From the
measured data, the consolidation curve (pressure-void ratio relationship) can be plotted. This
data is useful in determining the compression index, the recompression index and the
pre consolidation pressure (or maximum past pressure) of the soil. In addition, the data obtained
can also be used to determine the coefficient of consolidation and the coefficient of secondary
compression of the soil (ASTM D 2435).

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1. General
In the present study, an attempt is made to compare the consolidation and shear strength
characteristics of clay soil sample in Arba Minch and Sodo town. For this, consolidation test,
shear strength and index properties tests had been conducted on eighteen and twenty soil samples
respectively. The obtained values of index properties and engineering properties of Arba Minch
are used to compare Sodo town. Analysis and discussion of the test results have been done in this
chapter and they are in the following order. Compare Laboratory analysis, Simple linear
regressions between consolidation parameters such as Cc, Cr and index properties such as LL, PL
of eighteen clay soil samples.
Analysis and discussion of the test results have been done in this chapter and they are in the
following order.
 Compare Laboratory test analaysis

 Simple linear regressions between consolidation parameters such as Cc, Cr and index
properties such as LL, PL of eighteen soil samples.

Index properties of soil are properties, which are used to characterize soils and determine their
basic properties such as moisture content, specific gravity, particle size distribution, and
consistency and moisture-density relationships.
4.2.1. Results for the Natural Moisture Content

Result values of natural moisture contents for twenty specimens are presented in Table 4-1.
Whereas, the laboratory test results on clay soil of Sodo samples have shown that the soil
subjected to larger Moisture variation was observed significant change from Arbaminch samples.
The determined natural moisture content at Arba Minch and Sodo results from laboratory test
ranges from 19.44% to 22.80% and 28.92% to 37.22% respectively. Comparatively Wolayta
Sodo Samples show high moisture content.

Table 4-1 Test section locations and Natural Moisture Content results of Arba Minch and
Wolayta Sodo samples
Arba Minch Town Sodo Town
Natural Moisture
Natural Moisture
Location Depth (m) Location Content (%)
Content (%)
1.5 22.80 32.26

Morahights Hotel University
3 20.36 29.93
1.5 19.46 33.24

Fish Corporation Block m4
3 22.39 37.22
1.5 20.65 30.47

Romi Hotel Otona
3 21.08 32.08
1.5 20.72 32.57

Bubu Meda Geneme
3 19.83 34.43
TTC 1.5 24.21 Gola 30.41

3 19.44 28.92
4.2.2. Results for the Grain size analysis test

ASTM Designation D422-63 was followed to carry out wet sieve and hydrometer analysis on
disturbed sample and percent finer against size of soil particle in millimetre on a semi-log scale
is plotted. From this curve the proportion and type of soil grains are determined at Arbaminch
and Sodo town. Grain size distribution curve was plotted considering Arba Minch soil in figure
4- 1 and from figure 4- 1, it is easily displayed that the clay content samples ranged from 22.12–
64.13%; the silt content from 17.18– 50.57%; the sand fraction from 8 - 46.6%; and finally the
gravel fraction ranged from 0.2- 14.1% And the curve was plotted considering Wolayta Sodo soil
in figure 4-2 and from figure 4-2, it is easily displayed that the clay content samples ranged from
39.24 – 77.27%; the silt content from 18.67 – 38.91%; the sand fraction from 5.10 - 21.70 %;
and finally the gravel fraction ranged from 0 - 0.3% .so most of the study area is clay soil except

Mora 3m and Bubu Meda 3m at Arba Minch town. The result of the test is given in Table 4-2
and Table 4-3 respectively.
Table 4-2 Grain size distribution results of Arba Minch Samples (According to ASTM D 422)
Location Depth (m) % Gravel % Sand % Silt % Clay

(Size > 4.75mm) (4.75 -0.075mm ) (0.075 -0.005mm) (Size < 0.005mm)
Morahights 1.5 0.9 9.5 39.18 50.42

Hotel
3 8 33.4 21.67 36.93
Fish 1.5 1.4 4.9 40.97 52.73

Corporation
3 0.2 3.2 32.47 64.13
Romi Hotel 1.5 0.5 8 33.84 57.66
3 0.2 11.4 50.57 37.83
Bubu Meda 1.5 0.3 11.0 38.78 49.92
3 14.1 46.6 17.18 22.12
TTC 1.5 4.7 18.1 36.36 40.84
3 1.2 13.3 48.91 36.59

Table 4-3 Grain size distribution results of Wolayta Sodo Sample (According to ASTM D 422)
Location Depth (m) % Gravel % Sand % Silt % Clay

(Size > 4.75mm) (4.75 -0.075mm ) (0.075 -0.005mm) (Size < 0.005mm)
University 1.5 0 19.90 31.78 48.32
3 0 11.20 23.27 65.53
Block M4 1.5 0 4.05 18.67 77.27
3 0 5.10 21.67 73.23
Otona 1.5 0 13.95 25.44 60.60
3 0 6.30 24.55 69.15
Geneme 1.5 0 14.90 25.16 59.93
3 0.3 14.75 30.84 54.10
Gola 1.5 0.15 21.70 38.91 39.24
3 0 21.10 28.65 50.25

Figure 4-1 combined sieve-hydrometer analysis graph of Arba Minch Samples
Figure 4-2 combined sieve-hydrometer analysis graph of Wolayta Sodo Sample

4.2.3. Linear Shrinkage Limit

Linear shrinkage is the decrease in length of a soil sample when oven-dried, starting with a
moisture content of the sample at the liquid limit. Twenty samples were tested from each
location, and the required Shrinkage limit was recorded concerning Shrinkage limit and showed
in table 4-4. The value of shrinkage limit is used for understanding the swelling and shrinkage
properties of cohesive soils.
Table 4-4 Linear Shrinkage Limit results of Arba Minch and Wolayta Sodo Samples
Linear Shrinkage
Linear Shrinkage
Location Depth (m) Location Limit (%)
Limit (%)
1.5 7.25 7.97

3 12.14 9.29
1.5 15.22 9.29

Fish Corporation Block m4
3 20 11.43
1.5 12.14 7.14

Romi Hotel Otona
3 14.49 10.14
1.5 23.91 5.80

Bubu Meda Geneme
3 12.59 12.14
1.5 17.39 3.62

TTC Gola
3 19.29 9.42
4.2.4. Results for the Atterberg Limit Tests

The liquid limit and plastic limit in total considered as the atterberg limit test. Here, these are
evaluated following the ASTM code of practice. On the other hand, Plasticity Index was also
assessed to characterise the soil consistency were displayed here.

4.2.4.1. Liquid Limit (LL)

The moisture content, in percent, at which the soil changes from a liquid to a plastic state, is
defined as the liquid limit (LL). It is determined considering water content (w) by Casagrande
Method in the laboratory at the exact 25 blows in the semi-log graph. In this research, ASTM D-
4318 was adopted to evaluate the liquid limit. The results of Liquid Limit tests on different soil
samples selected for this study are given in Table 4-5 and Table 4-6.
4.2.4.2. Plastic Limit (PL)

The required water percentage at which the soils act like a plastic. It begins to crumble when
rolled into threads at 3 mm diameter. ASTM D-4318 was also considered in the determination of
plastic limit. Twenty samples were tested from each location, and the required moisture content
was recorded concerning plastic limit and showed in table 4-5 and Table 4-6.
4.2.4.3. Plasticity Index (PI)

Plasticity Index is an easy tool to characterise the soil profile which is depending on the LL and
PL values. The observed values were given in table 4-5 and Table 4-6. Considering plasticity
index chart indicate the soil strata for More Arbaminch Soil and all Sodo Soil lie in the medium
plastic zone of inorganic in nature but considering Arbaminch samples from Mora 3m and Bubu
meda 3m low plasticity zone of having inorganic clays for the position of below 10% of PI.
4.2.5. Results for the Specific Gravity Test

This test method covers the determination of the specific gravity of soils that pass the 4.75-mm
sieve, by means of a pycnometer. Specific gravity of soil is the ratio of the unit weight of solids
in the soil to the unit weight of water. It is determined using ASTM D 854-83 and The results of
Specific Gravity tests on different soil samples selected for this study are given in Table 4-5 and
Table 4-6.Comparatively The Arbaminch and Wolayta Sodo Samples the value of Specific
gravity insignificant change.
Whereas Specific gravity in mora 3m and bubu meda 3m it is 2.67 and 2.64 respectively this can
be implies according to Table 2-4 the soil is sandy.

Table 4-5 Atterberg Limits and Specific Gravity results of Arba Minch Sample
Liquid Limit Plastic Limit Plastic Index

Location Depth (m) Specific Gravity
(%) (%) (%)
Morahights
Hotel 1.5 51.65 33.76 17.89 2.75
3 45.28 42.04 3.25 2.67
Fish
Corporation 1.5 58.33 36.94 21.39 2.72
3 57.5 37.71 19.79 2.75

Romi Hotel 1.5 59.11 38.73 20.38 2.79
3 65.99 42.82 23.17 2.78
Bubu Meda 1.5 55.51 33.04 22.47 2.7
3 44.39 38.61 5.78 2.64
TTC 1.5 55.72 40.27 15.45 2.7

3 53.06 39.81 13.24 2.76
Table4-6 Atterberg Limits and Specific Gravity results of Wolayta Sodo Samples
Liquid Limit Plastic LimitPlastic Index

Location Depth (m) Specific Gravity
(%) (%) (%)
University 1.5 54.07 35.40 18.68 2.80

3 59.26 37.74 21.53 2.76
Block M4 1.5 61.48 40.98 21.50 2.80
3 60.55 36.94 23.61 2.80
Otona 1.5 63.43 39.34 24.09 2.80
3 62.32 40.3 22.03 2.73
Geneme 1.5 58.42 37.36 21.06 2.73
3 52.22 37.90 14.33 2.80
Gola 1.5 57.08 36.56 20.52 2.80
3 56.71 38.91 17.81 2.77

4.2.6. Classification
According to USCS from plasticity chart places all sample below A-line and all samples fall in
this range this show that the soil is MH (Inorganic clay with medium Strength) and contained
kaolinite.
Figure 4-3 Plasticity chart of Arba Minch town according to USCS
Figure 4-4 Plasticity chart of Wolayta Sodo town according to USCS

4.2.7. Free swell

Free swell test results for oven 105℃ dried samples are summarized in Table 4-7. From the test
result it can than seen that the free swell of the Wolayta Sodo soil Samples under ranged from
10% to 40% and Arbaminch soil samples under ranged 10% to 70%. Those soils having a free
swell less than 50% are considered as low in degree of expansion. Hence all soil samples from
Wolayta Sodo samples under investigation are non-expansive soils but some Arbaminch samples
such as Bubu meda at 1.5m, Romi at 1.5m and 3m are expansive clay soils.
Table4-7 Free Swell results of Arba Minch and Wolayta Sodo Sample
Location Depth (m) Free Swell (%) Location Free Swell (%)

1.5 10 20
3 40 10
Fish Corporation Block M4
1.5 50 30
3 50 40
Romi Hotel Otona
1.5 60 30
3 60 15
Bubu Meda 1.5 70 Geneme 10
3 35 40
TTC 1.5 30 Gola 10
3 20 10
4.2.7. Results for the Standard Compaction Test

Compaction is defined as the process of packing the soil grains by reducing the air voids by
means of mechanical methods. It places soil in a dense state and hence decreases further
settlement; increases shear strength and decreases permeability. The Standard Proctor Test was
used for the compaction. The oven dried soil specimens, passed the (4.75mm) sieve were used.

The soils were compacted in three layers, each layer being subjected to 25 blows. To observe the
effects on dry densities of soils, two conditions were used. These conditions were separately
compacted (compacting the fresh soil throughout the test by adding and exceeding 4% water)
and combined or re-compacted (re-using the soils which were compacted before, by adding
and exceeding 4% water throughout the test).the results are given in table 4-8. Comparatively the
Arbaminch Samples values of OMC and MDD increased and decreased from Wolayta Sodo
Samples.
Table 4-8 Test section locations and Standard Proctor Compaction test results of Arbaminch and
Sodo samples
Optimum Maximum Optimum

Maximum Dry
Location Depth (m) Moisture Dry Density Location Moisture
Density (g/cc)
Content (%) (g/cc) Content (%)
1.5 33 1.40 University 30.83 1.44

Morahights Hotel
3 20 1.57 35 1.39
1.5 44.25 1.32 Block m4 30.52 1.39

Fish Corporation
3 42.15 1.29 32.2 1.36
1.5 37.5 1.34 Otona 40 1.36

Romi Hotel
3 34.9 1.41 30.25 1.47
1.5 27 1.5 31.88 1.46

Bubu Meda Geneme
3 22.86 1.73 34.84 1.42
1.5 34 1.38 29.32 1.48

TTC Gola
3 32 1.53 24.34 1.54

Figure 4-5 Combined standard compaction test graph of Arba Minch Town
Figure 4-6 Combined standard compaction test graph of Wolayta Sodo Town
4.3. Engineering Property Tests
Engineering Properties of soil such as Swelling and shrinkage behaviour of clay soils are
directly related to plastic properties of clay. The observed actual amount of swell or

shrinkage as a result of wetting and drying depends not only on the mineralogy but also
particle arrangement, initial water content and confining pressure.
The consequence of volume change such as settlement due to compression and heave due to
expansion makes this property very useful in engineering problems. Moreover, changes in
volume have a tendency to lead to change in strength and deformation behaviour which in turn
can affect stability of the soil.
The laboratory test result analysis of the engineering properties of a number of clay soil samples
from the study area is compiled. These include evaluating the Shear strength and one
dimensional consolidation test result of the clay soil in Arbaminch and Sodo samples are
discussed here.
4.3.1. Permeability Test

The permeability tests were conducted on eighteen soil samples as per ASTM D 5084. The
results of permeability tests are given in table 4-9. According to table 2-6 most soil samples are
poor drainage properties.
Table 4-9 Test section locations, coefficient of permeability results of Arbaminch and Sodo
samples
Coefficient of Coefficient of permeability (×

Location Depth (m) Location
permeability (× 10-8 10-7cm/sec)
cm/sec)
Morahights Hotel 1.5 76 University 8.00
3 7.80
Fish Corporation 1.5 1.6 Block M4 0.10
3 91 0.11
Romi Hotel 1.5 2.1 Otona 0.12
3 59 0.20
Bubu Meda 1.5 1.3 Geneme 5.00
3 0.11
TTC 1.5 3.6 Gola 0.13
3 1.0 0.24

4.3.2. Shear Strength

The shear strength of a soil is a function of the stresses applied to it as well as the manner in
which these stresses are applied. Knowledge of shear strength of soils is necessary to determine
the bearing capacity of foundations, the lateral pressure exerted on retaining walls, and the
stability of slopes.
The shear strength is the internal resistance per unit area that the soil can handle before failure
and is expressed as a stress. There are two components of shear strength; the cohesive element
(expressed as the cohesion, c, in units of force/unit area) and the frictional element (expressed as
the angle of internal friction, φ).
4.3.2.1. Results for the Unconfined Compressive Strength

The unconfined compression test (UCS) is by far the most popular method of soil shear testing
because it is one of the fastest and cheapest methods of measuring shear strength. The
method is used primarily for saturated, cohesive soils recovered from thin-walled sampling
tubes. The unconfined compression test is inappropriate for dry sands or crumbly clays
because the materials would fall apart without some land of lateral confinement.
In the unconfined compression test, we assume that no pore water is lost from the
sample during set-up or during the shearing process. A saturated sample will thus remain
saturated during the test with no change in the sample volume, water content, or void ratio.
More significantly, the sample is held together by an effective confining stress that results
from negative pore water pressures (generated by menisci forming between particles on the
sample surface). Pore pressures are not measured in an unconfined compression test;
consequently, the effective stress is unknown. Hence, the undrained shear strength measured
in an unconfined test is expressed in terms of the total stress. The results are given in table 4-10.
According to Table 2-6 most Arbaminch Sample is Stiff consistency without TTC 1.5m and
Mora 1.5m the Samples medium consistency and most Wolayta Sodo sample is medium
consistency without university 1.5m ,gola 1.5m and university 3m consistency are Soft and Stiff
respectively. So Arbaminch soil is comparatively high Shear Strength.

Table 4-10 Test section locations, unconfined compressive Strength and Undrained Shear
Strength results of Arbaminch and Sodo samples
Unconfined Unconfined
Unconfined Shear Unconfined Shear
compressive compressive
Strength, Cu Strength, Cu
Location Depth (m) strength, qu Location
strength, qu
(KN/m2) (KN/m2)
(KN/m2) (KN/m ) 2
Morahights Hotel 1.5 80.1 40.05 University 49.8 24.89
3 _____ _____ 111.1 55.53
Fish Corporation 1.5 154.5 77.25 Block m4 91.2 45.56
3 138.8 69.4 92.8 46.4
Romi Hotel 1.5 115.3 57.64 Otona 76.5 38.25

3 111.3 55.65 62 31
Bubu Meda 1.5 162 81 Geneme 52.2 26.1
3 _____ _____ 78.2 39.1
TTC 1.5 50.9 25.45 Gola 48.2 24.1
3 112.3 56.15 54.7 27.35

Figure 4-7 Combined unconfined compression test graph of Arba Minch Town
Figure 4-8 Combined unconfined compression test graph of Wolayta Sodo Town

Table 4-11 Average Shear Strength obtained in UCS Test.
Town Location Depth (m) Shear Strength(Kpa) Average Shear Strength (Kpa)
Morahights Hotel 1.5 40.05
Fish Corporation 1.5 77.25
Arba Minch 3 69.4
Romi Hotel 1.5 57.64 57.82
3 55.65
Bubu Meda 1.5 81
TTC 1.5 25.45
3 56.15
University 1.5 24.89
3 55.53
Block M4 1.5 45.56
3 46.4
Wolayta Sodo 35.82
Otona 1.5 38.25
3 31
Geneme 1.5 26.1
3 39.1
Gola 1.5 24.1
3 27.35

Eight samples were taken for the Unconfined Compression Strength tests for Arba Minch town
and ten samples for Wolayta Sodo town. The result of sample of Arba Minch soil and Wolayta
Sodo soil is displayed in Figure 4-7 and Figure 4-8 respectively.
4.3.3. Results for the Consolidation Test

Consolidation of a saturated soil occurs due to expulsion of water under static, sustained
load. The consolidation characteristics of soils are required to predict the magnitude and the
rate of settlement. The one dimensional consolidation test is carried out to study the stress strain
and compressibility of the soil under different conditions using the apparatus called Oedometer.
The consolidation parameters of a soil are compression index (Cc) and recompression index (Cr).
The compression index relates to how much consolidation or settlement will takes places while
the coefficient of consolidation relates to the time of consolidation to take place.
The reading taken from the dial gage micrometer of one dimensional consolidation apparatus and
plotted against the respective loading also illustrates that the compression index, Cc, varies on
the early stages of loadings but more or less comes to comparable state for the later stages of
higher loadings, in which the ability of soil for compression decreases or takes longer time and
void ratio decreases to minimum values. The results are given in table 4.12, table 4-13 and Table
4-14. According to Table 2-3 my study area revealed Low Swelling potential soils.
Table 4.12 Swelling potential and swelling pressure of Arbaminch Samples
Location Depth (m) Swelling Potential Swelling Pressure
Bubu meda 1.5 1.28 43.21
Romi 1.5 0.29 12.66
3 1.72 67.02

Table 4-13 Compression Index and recompression index of Arbaminch samples
Location Depth (m) Compression index (Cc) recompression index (Cr)
0.003
Morahights Hotel 0.06
1.5
0.04
Fish Corporation 0.09
1.5
0.03
0.07
3
0.01
Romi Hotel 0.11
1.5
0.03
0.07
3
0.04
0.08
Bubu Meda 1.5
0.04
0.06
TTC 1.5
0.03
0.07
3

Table 4-14 Compression Index and recompression index of Wolayta Sodo samples
Location Depth (m) Compression index (Cc) recompression index (Cr)
University
1.5 0.06 0.01
3 0.06 0.01
Block M4
1.5 0.06 0.03
3 0.05 0.04
Otona 1.5 0.05 0.02
3 0.06 0.02
Geneme 1.5 0.06 0.01
3 0.06 0.02
Gola 1.5 0.06 0.02
3 0.05 0.02

Figure 4-9 Combined One Dimensional Consolidation test graph of Arba Minch Town

Figure 4-10 Combined One Dimensional Consolidation test graph of Wolayta Sodo Town

4.4. Comparison
4.4.1. Comparison of Shear strength Characteristics
Unconfined Compressive Strength and Undrained Shear strength Values of Arba Minch and
Wolayta Sodo Soil have significant different is are shown in Table 4-15.
4.4.2. Comparison of Consolidation Characteristics

Compressible index and recompression index values of Arba Minch and Wolayta Sodo Soil have
not Significant different is are shown Table 4-15
Table 4-15 Comparison of Shear Strength and Consolidation Value of Arba Minch and
Wolayta Sodo Clay Soil
Arba Minch Town Wolayta Sodo Town
Unconfined Compressive Strength(qu) 50.9 – 162 41.6-111.1
Undrained Shear Strength(Cu) 25.45-81 20.8-55.55
Swelling Pressure (Kpa) 12.67-67.02 No
Compression Index 0.06-0.11 0.05-0.06
recompression Index 0.003-0.04 0.01-0.04
4.5. Development of New Predictive Model

In order to take into account the combined effects of the index soil properties such as LL, PL on
Consolidation parameters such as Cc, Cr and to obtain predictive equations with higher
coefficients of correlation than those obtained from simple regression analyses were carried out
using SPSS 20.0 computer software. Out of these, equations with higher correlation coefficient
were selected and using these equations the compression and recompression index of the soil of
the Arbaminch and Wolayta Sodo samples were calculated. Then a graph is plotted which shows
the measured value against the predicted or calculated value. Finally 8 equations, listed below,
are selected which predicted the measured value better than the others. A typical regression
output file of the software has also been presented.

Arbaminch sample regression equations
(4.1)
(4.2)
(4.3)
(4.4)
Regression analysis for equation 4.1

a
Variables Entered/Removed
Model Variables EnteredVariables Method
Removed
b
1 LL Enter
.
a. Dependent Variable: Cc
b. All requested variables entered.
b
Model Summary
Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate
a
1 .250 .062 -.094 .017165406
a. Predictors: (Constant), LL
b. Dependent Variable: Cc
a
ANOVA
Model Sum of Squares Df Mean Square F Sig.
b
Regression .000 1 .000 .399 .551
1 Residual .002 6 .000
Total .002 7
b. Predictors: (Constant), LL
a
Coefficients
Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized T Sig.
Coefficients
B Std. Error Beta
(Constant) .120 .064 1.867 .111
1
LL -.001 .001 -.250 -.632 .551


a
Model Variables Entered Variables Method
Removed
b
1 LL Enter
.
a. Dependent Variable: Cr
Model Summary
Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the
Estimate
a
1 .434 .189 .053 .013922598
a. Predictors: (Constant), LL
a
ANOVA
Model Sum of Squares Df Mean Square F Sig.
b
Regression .000 1 .000 1.394 .282
1 Residual .001 6 .000
Total .001 7
b. Predictors: (Constant), LL
a
Coefficients
Coefficients
B Std. Error Beta
(Constant) -.033 .052 -.636 .548
1
LL .001 .001 .434 1.181 .282
Wolayta Sodo sample regression equations
(4.5)
(4.6)
(4.7)
(4.8)

a
Removed
b
1 PL Enter
.
Model Summary
Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the
Estimate
a
1 .199 .040 -.080 .006176645
a. Predictors: (Constant), PL
a
ANOVA
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
b
Regression .000 1 .000 .331 .581
1 Residual .000 8 .000
Total .000 9
b. Predictors: (Constant), PL
a
Coefficients
Coefficients
B Std. Error Beta
(Constant) .085 .045 1.879 .097
1
PL -.001 .001 -.199 -.575 .581

a
Removed
b
1 PL Enter
.

Model Summary
Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate
a
1 .275 .076 -.040 .009962371
a. Predictors: (Constant), PL
a
ANOVA
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
b
Regression .000 1 .000 .656 .441
1
Residual .001 8 .000
Total .001 9
b. Predictors: (Constant), PL
a
Coefficients

Coefficients
B Std. Error Beta
(Constant) -.039 .073 -.531 .610

1
PL .002 .002 .275 .810 .441
4.6. Assessment of Currently Developed Compression Index Prediction

Models
The above newly developed models (eqn. 4.1, 4.2, 4.5 & 4.6) are used to calculate the
Compression Index of the study area. Then, the results from the current relations are tested to see
how well the developed equations have predicted the Compression Index.

Table 4-16 Values of measured and predicted Compression Index of Arbaminch Sample
Predicted by the new models
LL PL CcA Eqn.4.1 Eqn.4.2
51.65 33.76 0.06 0.07 0.08

58.33 36.94 0.09 0.06
0.08
57.5 37.71 0.07 0.06
0.08
49.1 38.73 0.11 0.07
0.08
65.99 42.82 0.07 0.05 0.08
55.51 33.04 0.08 0.06 0.08
55.72 40.27 0.06 0.06 0.08
48.83 39.81 0.07 0.07 0.08
CcA – is measured compression index in the laboratory
The following graphs are plotted to investigate the approximation accuracy of the newly
developed formulas. The measured and calculated values are plotted (Figure 4.11 and Figure
4.12) and trend lines are drawn to observe the gap between the measured and the calculated
values of Arbaminch Samples.
Figure 4-11 The relationships between the measured and predicted Compression Index for
eqn.4.1 Arbaminch Sample.

Table 4-17 Values of measured and predicted Compression Index of Wolayta Sodo Sample
LL PL CcW Eqn.4.5 Eqn.4.6

0.05 0.08
54.07 35.40 0.07
0.05 0.08
59.26 37.74 0.06
0.04 0.08
61.48 40.98 0.06
0.05 0.08
60.55 36.94 0.05
0.04 0.08
63.43 39.34 0.05
0.04 0.08
62.32 40.3 0.06
0.05 0.08
58.42 37.36 0.06
0.05 0.08
52.22 37.90 0.06
0.05 0.08
57.08 36.56 0.06
0.05 0.08
56.71 38.91 0.05
CcW – is measured compression index in the laboratory

values of Wolayta Sodo Samples.
eqn.4.5 Wolayta Sodo Sample.

4.7. Assessment of Currently Developed recompression Index Prediction

Models
The above newly developed models (eqn. 4.3, 4.4, 4.7 & 4.8) are used to calculate the
recompression Index of the study area. Then, the results from the current relations are tested to
see how well the developed equations have predicted the recompression Index.
Table 4-18 Values of measured and predicted recompression Index of Arbaminch Sample
LL PL CrA Eqn.4.3 Eqn.4.4

0.003
51.65 33.76 0.02 0.03
0.04
58.33 36.94 0.02 0.03
0.03
57.5 37.71 0.02 0.03
0.01
49.1 38.73 0.01 0.03
0.03
65.99 42.82 0.03 0.03
0.04
55.51 33.04 0.02 0.03
0.03
55.72 40.27 0.02 0.03
0.03
48.83 39.81 0.01 0.03
CrA – is measured recompression index in the laboratory
values of Arbaminch Samples.

Figure 4-15 The relationships between the measured and predicted recompression Index for

Table 4-19 Values of measured and predicted recompression Index of Wolayta Sodo Sample
LL PL CrW Eqn.4.7 Eqn.4.8

0.002 0.03
54.07 35.40 0.06
0.007 0.03
59.26 37.74 0.06
0.009 0.04
61.48 40.98 0.06
0.008 0.03
60.55 36.94 0.05
0.011 0.04
63.43 39.34 0.05
0.010 0.04
62.32 40.3 0.06
0.006 0.03
58.42 37.36 0.06
0.0002 0.04
52.22 37.90 0.06
0.005 0.03
57.08 36.56 0.06
0.005 0.04
56.71 38.91 0.05
W
Cr – is measured recompression index in the laboratory
values of Wolayta Sodo Samples.


5. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

5.1. Conclusion
The Shear strength and Consolidation Characteristics of clay soil in Arbaminch and Sodo town
were studied using laboratory test collected from different representative site in Arbaminch and
Sodo towns. The following conclusions can be drawn from the study:
 In unconfined compression test, compared with the ―Arbaminch‖ Sample, the values of
undrained shear strength (Cu) of the ―Wolayta Sodo‖ Samples decreased considerably
due to Moisture content.
 Values of undrained shear strength (Cu) decreased by 1.35% to 25.47% in unconfined
compression test.
 The values of compression index (Cc) of the ―Arbaminch‖ Samples either increased or
decreased compared with the ―Wolayta Sodo‖ samples. However, there is an insignificant
change in the values of Cc between the ―Arbaminch‖ and ―Wolayta Sodo‖ samples.
 Little change in the values of recompression index (Cr) between ―Wolayta Sodo‖ and
―Arbaminch‖Samples.
 The assessment on the existing compression index and recompression index predictive
equations suggested by various authors reflected the need for developing specific
equation for specific area. All the formulated models in this study predict the
compression index and recompression index with various degrees of accuracy.

5.2. Recommendation
 In this research samples of Soil were collected only from ten test pits and 1.5m and 3m
depths from both towns, by increasing the number sampling area and depth of pits further
detailed studies will be carried out on disturbed and undisturbed soil samples of both
towns.
 In this research work mineralogical analysis of the area was not done in detail so
further detail mineralogical analysis has to be carried out to know the mineralogical
composition of the area and classify soil according to mineralogical composition.
 Although it is not expected to have an accurate Compression index and recompression

index result from empirical equation, an improved model can be fitted by increasing the
database from tests done on a number of undisturbed samples.

6. REFERENCE
1. Robert D.Holtz and William D.Kovacs. (1981). An Introduction to Geotechnical
Engineering.
2. Abu Siddique, S. F. (2009). A comparative study on engineering properties of

―Block‖ and ―Tube‖ samples of a soft clay. Journal of Civil Engineering , 11-30.
3. Alemayehu Tefera, Mesfin Leikun. (1999). Soil Mechanics. Addis Ababa: Addis
Ababa university.
4. Ali Akbar Firoozi1, A. A. (2016). A Review of Clayey Soils. Asian Journal of

Applied Sciences (ISSN: 2321 – 0893) , 04 (06), 1319.
5. Ali, D. H. (13, 2014). Shear strength and consolidation characteristics of obhor

sabkha, Saudi Arabia. Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology .
6. Amistu K, E. B. (2017). Consumer Preference of Raw Beef (―Kurt‖) in Wolaita Sodo

Town, Southern Ethiopia. Journal of Food and Dairy Technology , 5 (4).
7. Ankur Nandy, N. R. (2019). Comparative Study of Consistency Behavior and Shear.

Journal of Civil, Construction and Environmental Engineering , 4, 28.
8. ASTM D 2166. Standard Test Method for Unconfined Compressive Strength of

Cohesive Soil.
9. ASTM. (2004). Special Procedures for Testing Soil and Rock for Civil Engineering
Purpose. U.S.America.
10. Balasubramanian. ( 2017). Engineering Properties of Soils.
11. Bardet, J.-P. (1997). Experimental Soil Mechanics. United States Of America.
12. DAS, B. M. (2011). Principles of foundation engineering (7th ed.). USA: Global
Engineering.
13. Das, B. M. (2006). Principles Of Geotechnical Engineering (5th ed.). USA: Chris
Carson.
14. F.A.Goosen, A. A.-R. (2006). Expansive Soils Recent Advances in Characterizition

and Treatment. USA: Taylor & Francis e-Library.

15. F.H.Chen. (1975). Foundations on Expansive Soils. Amsterdam-Oxford-New York:

American Elsevier Publishing Company.
16. J. Stróżyk, M. T. (2013). Undrained shear strength of the heavily consolidated clay.
207–216.
17. K.Murali, K. a. (2018). A Review on Clay and its Engineering Significance.

International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications , 8 (2).
18. K.R.Arora. (2003). Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering (6th ed.). Nai
Sarak,Delhi: A.K.Jain.
19. Karl Terzaghi, R. B. Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice (3rd ed.). New York: A
Wiley-Interscience Publication John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
20. Mr Utkarsh Mathur, e. (2017). Study of Index Properties of the Soil. Ijariie-Issn , 3
(3).
21. Muni Budhu. (2010). Soil mechanics and Foundation (3rd ed.). United States of
America: John Wiley & Sons, INC.
22. Muni Budhu. (2015). Soil Mechanics Fundamentals (1st ed.). United Kingdom: John
Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
23. Murthy, V. (2002). Principles and Practices of Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering. New York: Marcel Dekker, Inc.
24. Olubayode, S.A. et al. (2015). Engineering Properties of Sawdust Modified Clay Soil.
Int. J. Pure App. Biosci. , 35-41.
25. S. Diop, F. S. (2011). A review on Problem Soils in South Africa. Cape Town:
Council for Geoscience.
26. Smith, I. (2014). Elements of Soil Mechanics (9th ed.). USA: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
27. Tanaka etal. (2001). Comparison of Mechanical Behavior of Overconsolidated Clays:

Yamashite and Louisill Clays. Soils and Foundations Japanese Geotechnical Society ,
73 - 87.
28. Vadivel, E. R. (2016). Enhancing the Clay Soil Characteristics using Copper Slag
Stabilization. Journal of Advances in Chemistry , 12 (2321 - 807X).

29. Wise, J. R. (1971). An Examination of Expansive Clay Problems in Texas. Texas:

Center For Highway Research The University of Texas at Austin.

Appendix

Appendix-A
(Grain size Distribution)

Table A-1 Data sheet for wet sieve analysis test for Bubu Meda 1.5m Arba Minch Sample
Wet Sieve Analysis (Test Method ASTM D 422)

Total weight 1000
Sieve opening sieve weight sieve weight weight of %Retained Cum .Retained %Passing
(mm) (gm) + retained retained soil
soil(gm)
9.5 415 418 3.00 0.30 0.30 99.70

4.75 451 456 5.00 0.50 0.80 99.20
2.36 394 402 8.00 0.80 1.60 98.40
2 393 397 4.00 0.40 2.00 98.00
1.18 358 366 8.00 0.80 2.80 97.20
0.6 319 328 9.00 0.90 3.70 96.30
0.425 298 300 2.00 0.20 3.90 96.10
0.3 285 293 8.00 0.80 4.70 95.30
0.15 271 299 28.00 2.80 7.50 92.50
0.075 382 420 38.00 3.80 11.30 88.70
pan 246 1133 887.00 88.70 100.00 0.00
1000.00
Table A-2 Data sheet for Hydrometer analysis test for Bubu Meda 1.5m Arba Minch Sample
Elapsed Actual Composite Corrected Effective Coefficient Temperature Grain Perc. Perc. Finer
Time Hydrometer Correction Hydrometer Depth K deg.c Size Finer Combined
(min) Reading Reading (cm) (mm) (%) (%)
0.5 1.027 0.0013 1.0257 9.2 0.01255 28 0.054 86.61 76.82
1 1.026 0.0013 1.0247 9.4 0.01255 28 0.038 83.24 73.83
2 1.025 0.0013 1.0237 9.7 0.01255 28 0.028 79.87 70.84
5 1.023 0.0013 1.0217 10.2 0.01255 28 0.018 73.13 64.86
15 1.022 0.0013 1.0207 10.5 0.01255 28 0.011 69.76 61.87
30 1.021 0.0013 1.0197 10.7 0.01255 28 0.007 66.39 58.88
60 1.02 0.0013 1.0187 11 0.01255 28 0.005 63.02 55.90
360 1.018 0.0013 1.0167 11.5 0.01255 28 0.002 56.28 49.92
1440 1.016 0.0013 1.0147 12.1 0.01255 28 0.001 49.54 43.94

Figure A-1 Grain size curve for Bubu Meda 1.5m Arba Minch Sample
Table A-3 Data sheet for wet sieve analysis test for Block M4 1.5m Wolayta Sodo Sample
Wet Sieve Analysis (Test Method ASTM D 422)

Total weight 1000
Cum
sieve opening sieve weight sieve weight weight of %Retained .Retained %Passing
+ retained retained
(mm) (gm) soil(gm) soil
9.5 416.5 416.5 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00
4.75 449 449 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00
2.36 409.5 410.5 1.00 0.10 0.10 99.90
2 394 394.5 0.50 0.05 0.15 99.85
1.18 358.5 360.5 2.00 0.20 0.35 99.65
0.6 319 322 3.00 0.30 0.65 99.35
0.425 298.5 300.5 2.00 0.20 0.85 99.15
0.3 284 287.5 3.50 0.35 1.20 98.80
0.15 272 284.5 12.50 1.25 2.45 97.55
0.075 381.5 397.5 16.00 1.60 4.05 95.95
pan 256 1215.5 959.50 95.95 100.00 0.00

1000.00

Table A-4 Data sheet for Hydrometer analysis test for Block M4 1.5m Wolayta Sodo Sample
Elapsed Actual Composite Corrected Effective Coefficient Temperature Grain Perc. Perc. Finer
Hydromete
Time r Correction Hydrometer Depth K deg.c Size Finer Combined
(min) Reading Reading (cm) (mm) (%) (%)
0.5 1.029 0.0001 1.0289 8.6 0.01218 26 0.051 97.39 93.44
1 1.028 0.0001 1.0279 8.9 0.01218 26 0.036 94.02 90.21
2 1.028 0.0001 1.0279 8.9 0.01218 26 0.026 94.02 90.21
5 1.028 0.0001 1.0279 8.9 0.01218 26 0.016 94.02 90.21
15 1.027 0.0001 1.0269 9.2 0.01218 26 0.010 90.65 86.98
30 1.026 0.0001 1.0259 9.4 0.01218 26 0.007 87.28 83.74
60 1.025 0.0001 1.0249 9.7 0.01218 26 0.005 83.91 80.51
360 1.024 0.0001 1.0239 10 0.01218 26 0.002 80.54 77.28
1440 1.023 0.0001 1.0229 10.2 0.01218 26 0.001 77.17 74.04
Figure A-2 Grain size curve for Block M4 1.5m Wolayta Sodo Sample

Appendix-B
(Atterberg Limit)

Table B-1 Data sheet for wet sieve analysis test for Fish Corporation 1.5m Arba Minch Sample
SOIL CONSISTENCY TEST RESULT (TEST METHOD : ASTM D 4318)
Test Type Liquid limit Plastic Limit
Container Number 1 10 14 15 5T 11
Wt. of Container + Wet Soil (g) = (W1) 28 37 25.5 22 22.5 16
Wt. of Container + Dry Soil (g) = (W2) 24 30 21 20 21 14.5
Wt. of Container (g) = (W3) 18 18 12 15 17 10
Weight of Moisture (g) = (W1 - W2) = A 4 7 4.5 2 1.5 1.5
Weight of Dry Soil (g) = (W2 - W3) = B 6 12 9 5 4 4.5
Moisture Content (%) = (A / B )x 100 66.67 58.33 50.00 40.00 37.50 33.33
No. of Blows 19 28 34 ……. ……..
58.33 36.94
Plastic index = 21.39
Figure B-1 Flow curve f Fish Corporation 1.5m Arba Minch Sample

Table B-1 Data sheet for Liquid and Plastic Limit Test for Geneme 1.5m Wolayta Sodo Sample
SOIL CONSISTENCY TEST RESULT (TEST METHOD : ASTM D 4318)

Test Type Liquid limit Plastic Limit
Container Number L3 3 4 K4 A G4
Wt. of Container + Wet Soil (g) = (W1) 68 63 66.5 26.5 27 29
Wt. of Container + Dry Soil (g) = (W2) 52.5 47 53 24.5 25 26.5
Wt. of Container (g) = (W3) 27.5 20 28 19.5 19.5 19.5
Weight of Moisture (g) = (W1 - W2) =
A 15.5 16 13.5 2 2 2.5
Weight of Dry Soil (g) = (W2 - W3) =
B 25 27 25 5 5.5 7
Moisture Content (%) = (A / B )x 100 62.00 59.26 54.00 40.00 36.36 35.71
No. of Blows 19 22 34 ……. ……..
58.42 37.36
Plastic index = 21.06
Figure B-2 Flow curve for Geneme 1.5m Wolayta Sodo Sample

Appendix-C
(Specific Gravity)

Table C-1 Data sheet for Specific Gravity test for Morahights Hotel 1.5m Arba Minch Sample
Observation Number 1 2 2
Mass of pycnometer,(W1)gm 36 54 22
Mass of pycnometer +Oven dried soil,(W2)gm 47 65 33
Mass of oven dried soil,Ws=(W2-W1)gm 11 11 11
Mass ofpycnometer +soil+water=W3,gm 144 160 130
Mass of pycnometer +water filling to the mark=W4,gm 137 153 123
Mass of water filling pycnometer up to the mark =(W4-W1),gm 101 99 101
Mass of water in the pycnometer over and above dry soil=(W3-
W2),gm 97 95 97
Mass of water having the same volume of dry soil=(W4-W1)-
(W3-W2),gm 4 4 4
Temperature in degree centeigrade 26 26 26
Temperature Correction,K 0.9986 0.9986 0.9986
Specific gravity GS=Ws/(W4-W1)-(W3-W2) 2.7500 2.7500 2.7500
Specfic gravity with correction ,Gs 2.7462 2.7462 2.7462
Average specfic gravity ,Gs 2.75
Table C-2 Data sheet for Specific Gravity test for University 1.5m Wolayta Sodo Sample
Observation Number 1 2 2
Mass of pycnometer,(W1)gm 24 24 35.5
Mass of pycnometer +Oven dried soil,(W2)gm 34 39 52.5
Mass of oven dried soil,Ws=(W2-W1)gm 10 15 17
Mass ofpycnometer +soil+water=W3,gm 127.5 130.5 145.5
Mass of pycnometer +water filling to the mark=W4,gm 121 121 134.5
Mass of water filling pycnometer up to the mark =(W4-W1),gm 97 97 99
Mass of water in the pycnometer over and above dry soil=(W3-
W2),gm 93.5 91.5 93
Mass of water having the same volume of dry soil=(W4-W1)-
(W3-W2),gm 3.5 5.5 6
Temperature in degree centeigrade 26 26 26
Temperature Correction,K 0.9986 0.9986 0.9986
Specific gravity GS=Ws/(W4-W1)-(W3-W2) 2.8571 2.7273 2.8333
Specfic gravity with correction ,Gs 2.8531 2.7235 2.8294
Average specfic gravity ,Gs 2.80

Appendix-D
(Standard Compaction Test)
Table D-1 Data sheet for Standard Compaction test for Bubu Meda 1.5m Arba Minch Sample

TEST NO 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
WEIGHT OF SOIL + MOLD (g)
W1 5645 5710.5 5800 5910 6000 6060 6035
WEIGHT OF MOLD (g)
W2 4322 4322 4322 4322 4322 4322 4322
DENSITY
VOLUME OF MOLD (Cm3 )
V 911.06 911.06 911.06 911.06 911.06 911.06 911.06
WEIGHT OF WET SOIL (g)
W3 = W1-W2 1323 1388.5 1478 1588 1678 1738 1713
WET DENSITY OF SOIL ( g/Cm3 )
Wd = W3/V 1.45 1.52 1.62 1.74 1.84 1.91 1.88
CONTAINER NUMBER A B C d e f G
WET SOIL + CONTAINER (g)
a 102 99.5 110 91 100.5 112.5 115.5
DRY SOIL + CONTAINER (g)
b 96.5 92 99.5 79.5 86.5 92.5 90
WEIGHT OF CONTAINER (g)
MOISTURE c 19.5 19.5 27 20 27 19.5 19.5
WEIGHT OF WATER (g)
e = a-b 5.5 7.5 10.5 11.5 14 20 25.5
WEIGHT OF DRY SOIL (g)
d =b-c 77 72.5 72.5 59.5 59.5 73 70.5
MOISTURE CONTENT (%)
m= (e/d)*100 7.14 10.34 14.48 19.33 23.53 27.40 36.17
DRY DENSITY OF SOIL ( g/Cm3 ) Dd =
Wd/(100+m)*100 1.36 1.38 1.42 1.46 1.49 1.50 1.38
MDD : 1.5g/cc
OMC : 26%
Figure D-1 Moisture Density Relations for Bubu Meda 1.5m Arbaminch Sample
Table D-2 Data sheet for Standard Compaction test for Otona 3m Wolayta Sodo Sample

TEST NO 11 2 3 4 5
WEIGHT OF SOIL + MOLD (g) W1 5611.5 5940.5 6083 6090 5920.5
WEIGHT OF MOLD (g) W2 4323 4323 4323 4323 4323

DENSITY
VOLUME OF MOLD (Cm3 ) V 918.45 918.45 918.45 918.45 918.45
WEIGHT OF WET SOIL (g) W3 =
W1-W2 1288.5 1617.5 1760 1767 1597.5
WET DENSITY OF SOIL ( g/Cm3 ) Wd =
W3/V 1.40 1.76 1.92 1.92 1.74
CONTAINER NUMBER A B c D E
WET SOIL + CONTAINER (g) a 90.5 89.5 104.5 90 101.5
DRY SOIL + CONTAINER (g) b 80 75 86.5 75 80

MOISTURE WEIGHT OF CONTAINER (g) c 20 19.5 27 27.5 27.5
WEIGHT OF WATER (g) e = a-b 10.5 14.5 18 15 21.5
WEIGHT OF DRY SOIL (g) d =b-c 60 55.5 59.5 47.5 52.5

MOISTURE CONTENT (%) m=
(e/d)*100 17.50 26.13 30.25 31.58 40.95
DRY DENSITY OF SOIL ( g/Cm3 ) Dd =
Wd/(100+m)*100 1.19 1.40 1.47 1.46 1.23
MDD : 1.47g/cc
OMC : 30.25%
Figure D-2 Moisture Density Relations for Otona 3m Wolayta Sodo Sample

Appendix-E
(Unconfined Compression Test)

Table E-1 Data sheet for Unconfined Compression test for Bubu Meda 1.5m Arba Minch
Sample
Type of test = unconfined compressive test Area of mold, A=962.11mm2

Sample Diameter D=35mm water content(%)=27 Ring factor N/div=2.06
Height of sample ,H =70mm Dry density(g/cm3)=1.5

Proving
Deformation Axial Axial Axial Ring Axial Corrected Axial
Dial Deformation Strain Strain Reading Load Area Stress
Reading [mm] [mm] [%] [div] [N] [mm2] [kPa]
0 0 0.00000 0.000 0 0 962.11 0.0
30 0.3 0.00429 0.429 13 26.78 966.25 27.7
60 0.6 0.00857 0.857 19 39.14 970.43 40.3
90 0.9 0.01286 1.286 26 53.56 974.64 55.0
120 1.2 0.01714 1.714 31 63.86 978.89 65.2
150 1.5 0.02143 2.143 37 76.22 983.18 77.5
180 1.8 0.02571 2.571 43 88.58 987.50 89.7
210 2.1 0.03000 3.000 51 105.06 991.87 105.9
240 2.4 0.03429 3.429 58 119.48 996.27 119.9
270 2.7 0.03857 3.857 62 127.72 1000.71 127.6
300 3 0.04286 4.286 66 135.96 1005.19 135.3

330 3.3 0.04714 4.714 69 142.14 1009.71 140.8
360 3.6 0.05143 5.143 72 148.32 1014.27 146.2
390 3.9 0.05571 5.571 75 154.5 1018.88 151.6
420 4.2 0.06000 6.000 77 158.62 1023.52 155.0
450 4.5 0.06429 6.429 79 162.74 1028.21 158.3
480 4.8 0.06857 6.857 80.5 165.83 1032.94 160.5
510 5.1 0.07286 7.286 81.5 167.89 1037.71 161.8
540 5.4 0.07714 7.714 82 168.92 1042.53 162.0
570 5.7 0.08143 8.143 82 168.92 1047.40 161.3
600 6 0.08571 8.571 82 168.92 1052.31 160.5
630 6.3 0.09000 9.000 82 168.92 1057.26 159.8
660 6.6 0.09429 9.429 81 166.86 1062.27 157.1
690 6.9 0.09857 9.857 79 162.74 1067.32 152.5
162.0
Unconfined Compressive
Strength(qu),kPa 162.0
Undrained Shear
Strength (cu), kPa 81.0

Figure E-1 Axial Stress Vs Axial Deformation for Bubu meda 1.5m Arbaminch Sample

Table E-2 Data sheet for Unconfined Compression test for Block M4 3m Wolayta Sodo Sample
Type of test = unconfined compressive test Area of mold, A=962.11mm2
Sample Diameter D=35mmwater content(%)=36 Ring factor N/div=2.06
Height of sample ,H =62mm Dry density(g/cm3)=13
Proving
Deformation Axial Axial Axial Ring Axial Corrected Axial
Dial Deformation Strain Strain Reading Load Area Stress
Reading [mm] [mm] [%] [div] [N] [mm2] [kPa]
0 0 0.00000 0.00 0 0 962.11 0.0
30 0.3 0.00484 0.48 4 8.24 966.79 8.5
60 0.6 0.00968 0.96 5 10.3 971.51 10.6
90 0.9 0.01452 1.45 6.5 13.39 976.28 13.7
120 1.2 0.01935 1.93 8 16.48 981.10 16.8
150 1.5 0.02419 2.41 12 24.72 985.96 25.1
180 1.8 0.02903 2.90 17.5 36.05 990.88 36.4
210 2.1 0.03387 3.38 23 47.38 995.84 47.6
240 2.4 0.03871 3.87 28 57.68 1000.85 57.6
270 2.7 0.04355 4.35 33 67.98 1005.92 67.6
300 3 0.04839 4.83 36 74.16 1011.03 73.4
300 3.3 0.05323 5.32 37.5 77.25 1016.20 76.0

360 3.6 0.05806 5.80 40.5 83.43 1021.42 81.7
390 3.9 0.06290 6.290 43 88.58 1026.69 86.3
420 4.2 0.06774 6.774 45 92.7 1032.02 89.8
450 4.5 0.07258 7.258 46 94.76 1037.41 91.3
480 4.8 0.07742 7.742 47 96.82 1042.85 92.8
510 5.1 0.08226 8.226 48 98.88 1048.34 94.3
540 5.4 0.08710 8.710 48.5 99.91 1053.90 94.8
570 5.7 0.09194 9.194 48.5 99.91 1059.52 94.3
600 6 0.09677 9.677 48 98.88 1065.19 92.8
630 6.3 0.10161 10.161 47.5 97.85 1070.93 91.4
660 6.6 0.10645 10.645 46.5 95.79 1076.73 89.0
690 6.9 0.11129 11.129 45 92.7 1082.59 85.6
92.8
Unconfined
Compressive
Strength(qu),kPa 92.8
Undrained Shear
Strength (cu), kPa 46.42

Figure E-2 Axial Stress Vs Axial Deformation for Block M4 3m Wolayta Sodo Sample

Appendix-F
(One Dimensional Consolidation Test)

One Dimensional Consolidation Test data analysis and result for Romi 1.5m Arbaminch
Sample
[A] In the beginning of the test
[B] In the end of the test
Sample type : Disturbed Final Moisture Content,% 49.25

Ring Area,mm2: 3117
Dry specimen wt (ms), gm: 54.5
Height of sample,mm: 20
Dry density,g/cm3 1.13
Seating Load,Kpa 7
Height of Solids(Hs), mm 6.27
Initial Void Ratio, eo: 2.20
Initial moisture content,% 37.61 Final Void Ratio, ef: 1.57
Specific Gravity: 2.79
Wet density,g/cm3 1.20
Table F-1 One Dimensional Consolidation Test data analysis for Romi 1.5m Arbaminch Sample
Change in
Applied final Dial specimen final specimen Void
pressure(kpa) Reading(mm) height(mm) height(mm) height(mm),Hv void Ratio,E
Loading
7 2.628 0.000 20.000 13.733 2.191
7 2.570 -0.058 20.058 13.791 2.201
50 3.010 0.382 19.618 13.351 2.130
100 3.542 0.914 19.086 12.819 2.046
200 4.378 1.75 18.250 11.983 1.912
400 5.024 2.396 17.604 11.337 1.809
800 6.070 3.442 16.558 10.291 1.642
1600 7.166 4.538 15.462 9.195 1.467
Unloading
1600 7.166 4.538 15.462 9.195 1.467
400 6.926 4.298 15.702 9.435 1.506
100 6.740 4.112 15.888 9.621 1.535
7 6.532 3.904 16.096 9.829 1.568

Figure F-1 Void Ratio Vs Pressure (log scale) for Romi 1.5m Arbaminch Sample

One Dimensional Consolidation Test data analysis and result for Otona 3m Wolayta Sodo
Sample
[A] In the beginning of the test

[B] In the end of the test
Sample type : Disturbed
Final Moisture Content,% 38.69
Ring Area,mm2: 3117
Dry specimen wt (ms), gm: 85.84
Height of sample,mm: 20
Dry density,g/cm3 1.76
Seating Load,Kpa 7
Height of Solids(Hs), mm 9.73
Initial Void Ratio, eo: 1.05
Final Void Ratio, ef: 0.70
Initial moisture content,% 30.25
Specific Gravity: 2.83
Wet density,g/cm3 1.77
Table F-2 One Dimensional Consolidation Test data analysis for Otona 3m Wolayta Sodo
Sample
Change in
Applied final Dial specimen final specimen
pressure(kpa) Reading(mm) height(mm) height(mm) void height(mm),Hv void Ratio,E
Loading
7 1.256 0.000 20.000 10.269 1.055
7 1.284 0.028 19.972 10.241 1.052
50 1.756 0.5 19.500 9.769 1.004
100 2.200 0.944 19.056 9.325 0.958
200 3.090 1.834 18.166 8.435 0.867
400 3.964 2.708 17.292 7.561 0.777
800 4.756 3.5 16.500 6.769 0.696
1600 5.778 4.522 15.478 5.747 0.591
Unloading
1600 5.778 4.522 15.478 5.747 0.591
400 5.478 4.222 15.778 6.047 0.621
100 5.148 3.892 16.108 6.377 0.655
7 4.758 3.502 16.498 6.767 0.695

Figure F-2 Void Ratio Vs Pressure (log scale) for Otona 3m Wolayta Sodo Sample
From Loading Graph Settlement
, From Unloading Curve

σ

Daniel Admasu

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Daniel Admasu

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Comparative Study on Shear Strength and Consolidation Characteristics

of Clay Soil in Arba Minch and Sodo Towns

COMPARATIVE STUDY ON SHEAR STRENGTH AND CONSOLIDATION

A THESIS SUBMITED TO THE FACULTY OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

ARBAMINCH INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY,

SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES

IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE DEGREE OF

ARBA MINCH UNIVERSITY

COMPARATIVE STUDY ON SHEAR STRENGTH AND CONSOLIDATION

A THESIS SUBMITED TO THE FACULTY OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

ARBAMINCH INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY,

SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES

IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE DEGREE OF

ARBA MINCH UNIVERSITY

Name: Daniel Admasu

ARBA MINCH UNIVERSITY

Prof. Rk.Verma _____________ _____/_____/____

Defaru Katise (MSc) ____________ _____/_____/____

ARBA MINCH UNIVERSITY

Mr.__________________ _____________ _____/_____/____

Chair Person Signature Date

Dr.__________________ ____________ _____/_____/____

External Examiner Signature Date

Dr. _________________ _____________ _____/_____/____

Internal Examiner Signature Date

Mr._________________ _____________ _____/_____/____

PG Coordinator Signature Date

Mr.__________________ _____________ _____ /_____/____

Faculty Dean Signature Date

ARBA MINCH UNIVERSITY Page I

LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................................................V

LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................................... VII

1.1.Statement of the Problem…………………………………………………………………………...1

1.2.2 Specific Objective....................................................................................................................... 2

1.3. Description of the study area……………………………………………………………………….2

2.4. Clay Water Interaction……………………………………………………………………………12

2.5.2. Soil Particle Size and Shape .................................................................................................... 13

2.5.3. Atterberg Limit Test ................................................................................................................ 13

2.5.4. Specific Gravity ....................................................................................................................... 16

2.5.5. Free Swell Test ........................................................................................................................ 17

2.5.6. Standard Proctor Compaction Test .......................................................................................... 17

2.6. Permeability Test…………………………………………………………………………………18

2.9. Compression Index Predictive Models……………………………………………………………24

3.2.2. Grain Size Analysis ................................................................................................................. 29

3.2.3. Atterberg Limits ...................................................................................................................... 29

3.2.4. Specific Gravity ....................................................................................................................... 29

3.2.5. Classification of soils based on Unified Soil Classification (USC) System............................ 29

3.2.6. Free Swell Test ........................................................................................................................ 30

3.2.7. Standard Compaction Test....................................................................................................... 30

3.3. Engineering Properties……………………………………………………………………………30

3.3.2. Unconfined Compression (UC) Test ....................................................................................... 30

3.3.3. Consolidation Test ................................................................................................................... 31

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ..........................................................................................................32

4.2.2. Results for the Grain size analysis test .................................................................................... 33

4.2.3. Linear Shrinkage Limit ............................................................................................................ 37

4.2.4. Results for the Atterberg Limit Tests ...................................................................................... 37

4.2.5. Results for the Specific Gravity Test ....................................................................................... 38

4.2.6. Classification ........................................................................................................................... 40

4.2.7. Free swell ................................................................................................................................. 41

4.2.7. Results for the Standard Compaction Test .............................................................................. 41

4.3. Engineering Property Tests……………………………………………………………………….43

4.3.2. Shear Strength.......................................................................................................................... 45

ARBA MINCH UNIVERSITY Page III

4.3.3. Results for the Consolidation Test........................................................................................... 49

Prof. Rk.Verma ___________ _/_/__

Defaru Katise (MSc) __________ _/_/__

Mr.________ _ _/_/__

Dr.________ _/_/__

Dr. _______ _ _/_/__

Mr._______ _ _/_/__

Mr.________ _ _ /_/__