Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and

Technology
College of Engineering
Department of Geological Engineering
ABSTRACT
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Table of Contents
ABSTRACT........................................................................................................................1
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.................................................................................................2
INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................4
LITERATURE REVIEW....................................................................................................6
laterite history...................................................................................................................6
laterite formation..............................................................................................................7
laterite occurrence..........................................................................................................10
physical characteristics of laterite..................................................................................11
chemical characteristics of laterite.................................................................................13
Engineering properties of laterites and lateritic soils.....................................................13
Hardening of laterite...................................................................................................14
STRENGTH OF LATERITIC SOILS...........................................................................15
laterite as construction material......................................................................................16
METHODOLOGY............................................................................................................17
geographycal location and sample site...........................................................................17
Method of Sampling, Shipping, Storage........................................................................18
test descriptions..............................................................................................................19
Bulk Measurements and Determination of Index Properties......................................19
Particle size analysis and Classification....................................................................19
Moisture content.........................................................................................................21
Atterberg limits...........................................................................................................22
Specific Gravity...........................................................................................................25
Triaxial Test................................................................................................................27
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS......................................................................................31
pArticle size distribution, analysis and classification....................................................31
Moisture content analysis...............................................................................................31
Specific gravity analysis.................................................................................................32
Atterberg limits/consistency analysis.............................................................................32
Atterberg limit, discussion and comparison...............................................................35
INTRODUCTION
Shear strength is the ability of a soil to resist sliding along inner surfaces within a mass.
The solidity of any structure built on soil will depend on the shearing resistance presented
by the soil along likely surfaces of slippage (Rajeev Jain, 2010). The understanding of
shear strength of a soil is important in the assessment of bearing capacities of foundations
(Too, 2012), slope stability (Liu R., 2004), retaining structures, embankment dams
(Ajdari, 2010), tunnel linings and pavement (M.A. Tekinsoy, 2004). The basic concept of
shearing resistance is represented by the relationship . The basic concept applies to soil
which are purely granular in character. Soils which are not purely granular exhibit an
additional strength which is due to the cohesion between the particles. It is, therefore, still
customary to separate the shearing strengths of such soils into two components, one due
to cohesion between the soil particles and the other due to friction between them. The
fundamental shear strength equation proposed by the French engineer Coulomb (1776)
is . This equation expresses the assumption that the cohesion is independent of the
normal pressure acting on the plane of failure. Therefore, at zero normal pressure, the
shear strength of the soil is expressed as (Murthy, 2008). The angle of internal friction
depends upon dry density, particle size distribution, shape of particles, surface texture,
and water content. Cohesion depends upon size of clayey particles, types of clay
minerals, valence bond between particles, water content, and proportion of clay. In
geotechnical design practice, two important considerations that need careful examination
are whether construction will cause deformation of the soil and/or instability due to shear
failure. The engineer has to ensure that the structure is safe against shear failure in the
soil that supports it and does not undergo excessive settlement. Therefore, knowledge
about the stress-strain behavior, deformation and shear strength of the soil is essential
(Rajeev Jain, 2010). The soil shear strength parameters can be determined either in the
field or in the laboratory, or both. The test employed in the laboratory are unconfined
compression test, triaxial test, laboratory vane, direct shear box and direct simple shear
(DSS). The in-situ tests available include field vane, standard penetration test, cone
penetration test, and piezocone and pressure meter. The triaxial compression and direct
shear tests are the most common tests for determining the cohesion and angle of friction
values in the laboratory (S.D Iyeke E. O., 2016), (Rajeev Jain, 2010). The shear strength
parameters (angle of friction and cohesion) of soil are important inputs in modelling
behavior. Measurements of shear strength properties both at field and laboratory
conditions are cumbersome, expensive, time-consuming and labor-intensive (M. Inanc
Onur, 2014), (Roy, 2014), (Hakan Ersoy, 2013), (S.D Iyeke E. O., 2016), . In order to
cope with the difficulty of experimental investigation engineering design models are
needed. The availability of inputs for modelling to establish correlations and empirical
relationships are principally useful in preliminary studies or when due time and/or
financial constraints that a thorough geotechnical examination cannot be conducted (S.D
Iyeke, 2016), (Addiscott, 1993). Empirical correlations are widely used in geotechnical
engineering practice as a tool to estimate the engineering properties of soils. Several
empirical procedures have been developed over the years to estimate the shear strength
parameters for soils. Among the various models developed are; for clay and silt
embankment (Madasa, 2010) and for peaty soils (Cola, 2005).These data are on
temperate zone soils which are not readily available in the tropics such as Ghana. There is
little or no documentation with regards to development of database of shear strength
parameters of laterite and lateritic soils for use as inputs in modelling tools to simulate
their shear strength behavior. Due to this, geotechnical engineers use predetermined shear
strength data of soils in the database for analysis although the soils whose shear
parameters have been provided in the database are not laterite and lateritic soils. Using
shear parameters of non-lateritic soils for laterite and lateritic soil problems is a risky
business. There is therefore the need to develop a database to assist local engineering
working on laterite and lateritic soils. This project seeks determine the shear strength
parameters of some laterite and lateritic soils in Kumasi, find the relationship between
these parameters and other geotechnical properties such as specific gravity, void ratio
among others, and develop a database to serve as numerical inputs for modelling to assist
local engineering works on laterite and lateritic soils.
LITERATURE REVIEW
LATERITE HISTORY
Laterite is a term derived from the Latin word ‘later’ which means ‘brick’. The
recognition of laterite as an earth material with unique properties dates back to the early
part of the nineteenth century (1807) when Buchanan first encountered a material in India
which he called laterite. Since Buchanan’s time, the word laterite has been used to
describe a wide range of tropical soils having various origins, compositions, and
properties (Lohnes, 1977). There are many definitions of laterite but that of Alexander
and Cady (Alexander, 1962) is widely accepted: “Laterite is highly weathered material
rich in secondary oxides of iron, aluminum, or both. It is nearly void of bases and
primary silicates, but it may contain large amounts of quartz and kaolinite. It is either
hard of capable of hardening on exposure to wetting and drying”. Among those
characteristics listed in the above definition, hardness is the only one which makes
laterite unique. Hardness means there is sufficient induration of the soil that it cannot be
readily excavated by a shovel or spade (Lohnes R. A., 1973). There are certain tropical
soils which have not weathered as severely as laterite, but still are high in sesquioxide
and kaolinite contents, and low in base and primary silicates, however, they are neither
hard nor capable of hardening. According to Lohnes and Demirel (Lohnes R. A., 1973),
Such soils can be called lateritic soils.

LATERITE FORMATION
Laterite soils are the consequently product of intense and long periods of weathering of
rocks that are usually associated with tropical climate conditions such as Ghana. The
weathering process involves leaching of silica, formation of colloidal sesquioxide (oxide
containing three atoms of oxygen with two atoms of another element), and precipitation
of the oxides with increasing crystallinity and dehydration as the soil becomes more
weathered. Primary minerals in the parent rock such as feldspars, quartz, and
ferromagnesian minerals are transformed to a porous clayey system containing kaolinite,
sesquioxide, and some residual quartz. The primary feldspars are converted to kaolinite
and subsequently to gibbsite. Primary ferromagnesian minerals are converted to diffuse
goethite, followed by well-crystallized goethite, and finally hematite. In advanced stages
of weathering crystallization leads to the formation of iron and/or aluminum oxide
concentrations, followed by coalescence of concretions and their cementation; ultimately
the entire system is a continuous cemented crust (Alexander, 1962), (Sherman, 1950),
(Lohnes, 1977), (Tuncer, 1976). The environmental conditions in which soils is occurring
influences its weathering process. There are five main factors influencing the formation
of soils and they are: parent material, climate, topography, vegetation, and time.

The tropical regions with high temperature and humid conditions provide a favorable
environment for intense weathering. Properties of soil, which is the product of
weathering, should be directly dependent on the properties and features of the parent
material from which the soil is derived (Mohr, 1954) (Maignien, 1966). Whatever the
material from which laterite and lateritic soils are derived it is essential to obtain an
adequate supply of sesquioxides. It has generally been observed that due to the ease of
alteration of basic rocks, laterization processes on them are more intense and widespread
than on acid rocks (Ayetey J.K, 1996). The process of laterization involves the chemical
breakdown of the parent rocks and the removal in solution of silica and bases and the
relative accumulation of hydroxides and oxides of aluminum, iron and titanium under
favorable conditions. Since the presence of these oxides in the parent rocks is a
prerequisite for laterization to take place the chemical composition of the parent rock is
an important factor. Chemical analyses show that the alumina and iron oxide contents are
generally high in igneous and metamorphic rocks, and though rather low in sedimentary
formations they are very high in shales, mudstones and sandstones. This means that,
given appropriate conditions, laterites can develop: on most Ghanaian rocks. (Gidigasu,
1970). Results of petrographic and mineralogical studies on the different soil types of the
various pedological groups have revealed that owing to the intensity of the chemical
weathering process under Ghanaian conditions all the unstable primary minerals are
 either partially or completely broken down and/or transformed into secondary minerals.
The commonest nonweathered primary minerals encountered in the laterite soils are
quartz, garnet, staurolite, illite (muscovite), feldspar (microcline), hornblende, rutile,
zircon: these minerals are stable under laterite conditions. The particular mineral
available depends upon the parent rock type. The chief clay mineral observed was
kaolinite, with mica (sericite and illite), in the latosols. Montmorillonite with some
vermiculite is the predominant clay mineral in the poorly drained tropical clays. The
secondary minerals resulting mainly from poorly drained tropical clays. The secondary
minerals resulting mainly from the laterization process are limonite and hematite.
Sometimes magnetite was noticed, but neither manganese nor titanium minerals were
observed in significant amount (Gidigasu, 1970).

In discussing the factors influencing soil weathering, Mohr and Van Baren (Mohr, 1954)
put emphasis on the rainfall distribution. Many authors reported certain relationships
between rainfall and mineral composition. Some author observed that in Hawaiian soils,
high kaolinite content occurs in regions receiving small amount of rainfall (65-90 cm
annually), and that the kaolinite content decreases with increasing rainfall. Some other
publications on Hawaiian soils, on the other hand, presents cases in which kaolinite does
not exist at all under a rainfall of 90 cm per year; instead, high amounts of sesquioxides
of secondary origin occur. This difference in occurrence is attributed to the age of the
soils (Tuncer, 1976). According to Sherman (Sherman G. D., 1949), the end product of
weathering is closely related to the distribution of rainfall. He stated that an alternating
wet and dry season climate results in the stabilization of the iron oxide and under
continuously wet conditions, however, the aluminum becomes the stabilized free oxide,
while iron oxide becomes unstable and leaches away.

From Table 1 Ghana experiences an average rainfall of 1184.1mm (118.41cm) per year
and the rainiest month is June with 210.4mm (21.04cm). From Table 2 Kumasi has an
average rainfall of 1465mm (146.5cm) per year and the rainiest month is June with
225mm (22.5cm). In the south rainfall reaches 140cm/150cm per year, and even in some
areas to the east Lake Volta and to the south-west of Kumasi.

Table 1Climate Data of For Ghana (Contributers, 2020)

Climate data for Ghana
Month Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Year

31.0
Average high 30.1 31.2 31.6 30.0 28.3 27.1 26.8 27.4 28.6 30.0 29.5 29.2
(87.8
°C (°F) (86.2) (88.2) (88.9) (86.0) (82.9) (80.8) (80.2) (81.3) (83.5) (86.0) (85.1) (84.6)
)

26.2
Average low 24.5 25.8 26.2 25.4 24.6 23.5 23.2 23.6 24.2 24.3 24.1 24.6
(79.2
°C (°F) (76.1) (78.4) (79.2) (77.7) (76.3) (74.3) (73.8) (74.5) (75.6) (75.7) (75.4) (76.3)
)
 Average 115.7
13.6 40.3 88.2 160.7 210.4 121.3 88.9 133.0 128.1 56.5 24.6 1,184.1
rainfall mm (4.56
(0.54) (1.59) (3.47) (6.33) (8.28) (4.78) (3.50) (5.24) (5.04) (2.22) (0.97) (46.62)
(inches) )

Average rainy
2 2 5 7 11 14 7 6 8 9 4 2 77
days

Average relati
ve 79 77 77 80 82 85 85 83 82 83 80 79 85
humidity (%)
Mean
monthly sunsh 214 204 223 213 211 144 142 155 171 220 240 235 2,372
ine hours

Source: weatherbase.com[5]

Table 2Average precipitation in Kumasi

Kumasi - Average precipitation
Month Millimeters Inches Days
January 25 1 2
February 65 2.6 5
March 135 5.3 10
April 140 5.5 10
May 190 7.5 12
June 225 8.9 15
July 115 4.5 11
August 75 3 10
September 170 6.7 14
October 200 7.9 17
November 95 3.7 11
December 30 1.2 3
Year 1465 57.7 120
Drainage is the most important factor in the formation of laterites and lateritic soils and is
also very closely related to topography. Topography has influence on ground and surface
water movement, it has direct influence on the development of soil profile. Mohr and Van
Baren (Mohr, 1954) point out that the same type of rock may yield a weathering product
of completely different composition if different topography and accordingly different
drainage process are involved (Tuncer, 1976), (Ayetey J.K, 1996).

The average rainfall, temperature and relative humidity for a period of one year are
summarized in Table 1. It is observed that the rainfall, temperature and relative humidity
are very high, as is typical of wet tropical climate. Considering rainfall intensity,
vegetation type and temperature, Ghana was roughly divided into three climatic-
vegetational zones namely: Coastal savannah zone (subdivided into Coastal thicket and
Coastal savannah), Woodland savannah zone (Guinea savannah and Sudan savannah),
Forest zone (Rainforest and Semideciduous forest) (Gidigasu, 1970). Vegetation is
another factor in the formation of laterites. As Sherman et al (Sherman G. D., 1953)
pointed out dehydration of colloidal hydrated oxide of the soil has a very important role
in the development of laterite; and vegetation is one of the factors which determine the
rate of dehydration. Vegetation also has a protective effect on runoff and erosion which
are important environmental factors influencing the genesis of soil (Tuncer, 1976).

The role of time in the formation of laterite and lateritic soils, is a well-recognized point
introduced by many investigators like Sherman (Sherman G. D., 1949). Sherman stated
that “since the geological ages of the parent materials vary greatly, the time of exposure
of the parent material to soil forming processes will also have had a major effect on soil
development”. It can be concluded that because of the combined effects of several soil
forming factors, laterites and lateritic soils exhibit a very complex pattern of soil
development.

LATERITE OCCURRENCE
Laterite and lateritic soils are largely predominant to tropical areas with moist climate.
Coverage of laterite around the world mainly pertain to Africa, India, Australia, South-
east Asia, Central America and South American. Residual soil and especially recent
lateritic soils are present dominantly in major parts of south-east Asia, Laos, Vietnam and
Malaysia (Sujeeth, 2015). A collective laterite world occurrence and distribution is
shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1 World distribution of laterite

Kumasi is generally dominated by gravelly laterite (pisolitic) and earthy laterite, its
distribution is shown in Figure 2 Kumasi area soil map (Ayetey J.K, 1996).

Figure 2 Kumasi area soil map

PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF LATERITE
Laterite occur principally in a vesicular or a pisolitic form but may be found in various
intermediate types. Their physical characteristics may be categorized under four general
aspects namely: Induration, Structure, Color, and Specific Gravity.

Induration-the hardness of laterite varies from a scarcely cohesive state to hard blocks.
The degree of hardness can be attributed to the relative amount of sesquioxide and iron,
and to the degree of hydration. The extent of aging and the arrangement of the various
constituents have also an important effect on the induration of laterites.

Structure-minerals occurring the soil mass apparently have direct influence on the size,
shape and arrangement of soil aggregates. The predominant minerals occurring in lateritic
soils according to many investigators are kaolinite, gibbsite and iron compounds. The
occurrence of kaolinite in high amount comes first in the course of weathering. With
continued weathering the kaolinite content decreases, while the sesquioxides of iron and
aluminum become larger in amount(Hamilton, 1964). (Peterson, 1946) made an attempt
to measure the capacity of kaolinite to form water stable aggregates under the influence
of cyclic wetting and drying, and found out that kaolinite is very inert as building agent
which has very little effect on aggregation. Oxides of iron and aluminum on the other
hand, are reported as being very active as binding agents by many investigators. These
observations suggests that soils that contain high amount of kaolinite would show low
aggregation, and soils with large amount of sesquioxides would exhibit good soil
aggregation. Precipitation of iron and aluminum hydroxides is responsible for the
cementation (Lohnes R. A., 1973). According to (Sherman G. D., 1949) the end product
of weathering is closely related to the distribution of rainfall. He stated that an alternating
wet and dry season climate results in the stabilization of the iron oxide. Under
continuously wet conditions, however the aluminum becomes the stabilized free oxide,
while iron becomes unstable and leaches away. This explains the difference in formation
of so called ferruginous and aluminous or bauxite laterites.

Coloration of laterites is usually caused by the presence of iron oxides and sometimes
also by manganese. The iron oxides impart a characteristic red color. When combined
with other components of various colors, the red tint is changed in various degrees
producing shades that can be listed as pink, ochre, rose, brown, violet, yellow, green, and
black. Coloration is sometimes an indication of the level of evolution of the laterite. As
age progresses, ferruginous laterites change from red to brown to black, and aluminous
laterite tends to become lighter.

Specific gravities of laterites vary in the range of 2.5 to 3.6, and may vary with the size
fraction. It increases with iron content with age of formation and with cementation, and
may either increase or decrease with depth of the various levels in the deposit (Vallerga,
1969). Gidigasu (GIDIGASU M. , (1976) states that the range is between 2.55 and 3.0 or
4.6 depending on the state of laterization. Typical values of specific gravity of soil
particles are given in Table 3.

Table 3General Specific Gravity of soil particles (OMOTOSO, 2012)

Soil type Specific Gravity

Sand 2.65 – 2.68
Gravel 2.65 – 2.66
Clay (Inorganic) 2.52 – 2.66
Clay (organic) 2.68 – 2.72
Silt 2.65 – 2.66

CHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF LATERITE

Laterites are characterized by high content of sesquioxide of iron and aluminum in
relation to other components. Bases are generally absent in most cases and combined
silica in the form of kaolinite is very low, but neither can be considered an absolute
criterion. Alumina is sometimes the principal constituent, but more commonly the iron
oxide or the sesquioxide of iron and aluminum are the major constituents. Quartz can be a
major constituent depending on the characteristics of the parent rock. Other minerals,
such as titanium and manganese, may be present in sufficient quantities to justify
exploitation as a mineral. Vanadium and Chromium appear only in small or insignificant
quantities. In general, however, a relationship between the components is difficult to
establish owing to the fact that the composition tends to vary between the different size
fractions.

ENGINEERING PROPERTIES OF LATERITES AND LATERITIC SOILS

Information and data in the literature dealing with the engineering properties of laterites
is extremely limited. The situation is further complicated by the fact that various
investigators have used the term “laterite” to describe several materials of completely
different characteristics (Vallerga, 1969). Many studies have shown that plasticity and
grain size distribution data for lateritic soils are completely varied and erratic
(Winterkorn, 1951), (Vallerga, 1969), (Moh, 1969) (Lohnes R. A., 1971). The Atterberg
limits, so commonly used to classify soils for engineering purposes, also seem to be of
limited assistance in classifying laterites because of the extremely wide variations
obtained by many investigators. The Atterberg limit test does not yield reproducible
results among some laterite material since they are strongly influenced by the method of
pretreatment (e.g., drying) prior to testing and the amount of remolding or working of the
sample during the test (GIDIGASU, 1972). Because of difficulties from soil manipulation
and pre-testing drying it is extremely difficult to derive an acceptable generalization for
lateritic soils with regard to plasticity and gradation (Tuncer, 1976).

Lohnes and Demirel (Lohnes R. A., 1973) are the first investigator who have put
emphasis on using specific gravity as an indicator for engineering behavior of lateritic
soils. Specific gravity is the weighted average of the specific gravities of the minerals
which comprise the soil. Specific gravities of laterite are generally higher than most non-
lateritic materials and this attributed to the presence of iron. Lohnes and Demirel plotted
extractable iron content versus specific gravity for several selected Puerto Rican soils and
ended up with a good correlation between increasing specific gravity and increasing iron
content. Other engineering properties of laterite soils, such as wet and dry densities,
moisture content, and void ratio (or porosity), have not been taken into account in
majority of studies. There are very limited data on such properties of lateritic soil in
literature. These properties have an advantage over plasticity and gradation, in that, the
majority of them are determined by bulk measurements and as such are not influenced by
degree of manipulation. Bulk properties reflect the behavior of undisturbed soils so, from
the engineering point of view, provide better information on laterites and lateritic soils
(Tuncer, 1976). In their study of Puerto Rican soils, Lohnes and Demirel (Lohnes R. A.,
1973) observed a relationship between void ratio and specific gravity, indicating a
decrease in void ratio as specific gravity increases. They also observed increasing
cohesion with decreasing void ratio. By using these relationships, they suggested the
possibility of an engineering classification system for lateritic soils which relates void
ratio, strength and degree of weathering to each other.

Hardening Of Laterite
On exposure to air, laterite and lateritic soils harden due to the hydration levels of iron
and aluminum oxides being changed. This characteristic of laterite deserves separate
review I detail as sample soils removed from its natural origin and being tested in the
laboratory is susceptible to changes in moisture and nature of the soil. Hardening is not as
common for granular soils as much as for clay soils. The sensitivity of laterite soils to the
test procedure may be influenced by the factors which govern the hardening process.
They can be sensitive to the laboratory test preparation and actual testing methods as
well. Sensitivity of laterite is its vulnerability to undergo changes. The hardening process
can be attributed to the following factors.

 Aggregation of clay- size particles: water absorption reduction layer of clay

formed which in turn makes way for aggregation of coarse particles. Plasticity
may be reduced when tested in lab from what is actual on site.
 Irreversible changes in plasticity on drying: at times, drying of soils leads it to
become less plastic and stronger bonds between particles. This creates water a
resistant material. The process here cannot be reversed by re-wetting.
  Loss of water of hydration on drying: standard moisture content determination
test of soil involves oven drying it whereby all water content is removed.
(Sujeeth, 2015)

Strength Of Lateritic Soils

A review on the strength characteristics of undisturbed samples of laterites and lateritic
soils revealed that the investigation of these soils from engineering point of view has
been greatly overlooked, although such soils have been used as a primary engineering
construction material in tropical and equatorial countries for many years. Some studies
performed recently on the strength behavior of laterites and lateritic soils have added
little because either they are incomplete or they deal with localized problems and in
restricted areas (Tuncer, 1976).

Laterite soil has been reported to have relatively high to very high cohesion and internal
friction angle (Fish, 1971). This behavior generally is attributed to the cementation which
is taking place among the individual soil grains by the binding action of sesquioxide
(Tuncer, 1976), (Lohnes R. A., 1973), (Fish, 1971), (Paulson, 1975). Moisture content of
the sample of lateritic soils tested was observed to have an effect on the strength behavior
(Paulson, 1975). It was observed that decreasing moisture content usually causes an
increase both in cohesion and angle of internal friction (Baldovin, 1969), (Paulson, 1975).
This behavior is attributed to the variation in soil structure with varying moisture content,
such that, as the soil dries out part of the hydrated colloidal iron and aluminum oxides
dehydrates and forms strong bonds among certain soil grains which, in turn, causes an
increase in strength. Lohnes and Demirel (Lohnes R. A., 1973) in their study on Puerto
Rican soils, made an attempt to relate cohesion to degree of weathering and they
observed that cohesion increases with increasing weathering. Table 4 show the cohesion
and internal friction angles for the soil studied by Tuncer and Lohnes (LOHNES, 1977).
In general, the soils which weathered under higher rainfall have lower strengths.

Table 4Strength parameters of undisturbed soils

Soil Series Cohesion (psi) Angle of internal friction

(degrees)
Molokai 40 34
Lahaina 50 52
Wahiawa 25 27
Manana 30 57
Paaloa 22 38
Lihue 17 41
Puhi 12 52
Kapaa 10 44
Halii 7 35

LATERITE AS CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL

A very obvious use of laterite soils is brick making. Laterite soils have been cut in brick
shape, dried and used extensively in parts of the world such as India and Cambodia for
building construction (Sujeeth, 2015). Laterite have been used in embankments and
extensively as roads pavement materials as subbase and base in concretion form. Laterite
with significant granular sizes is used for this purpose rather than clayey material. For
embankments, the quality, thickness and depth are all important variables to be examined
prior to application along and down the slope. Laterite in its natural state is generally not
suitable for construction purposes due to high clay contents in them. (UGBE, 2011).

Omotoso (OMOTOSO, 2012) stated that several authors have worked on determining the
geotechnical engineering properties of laterite soils in order to determine its feasibility of
use in construction such as base and subbase material in road construction, highway and
airfields. Some soil properties can even be tweaked by addition of enhancing materials.

It has been observed that laterite show property changes even during construction. Proper
selection of the type of laterite soils is crucial at times depending on the type of
engineering application as most laterite is found in clay form. Coarse material is always
rather useful compared to soft clays when it comes to being used as a construction
material (ZELALEM, (2005).

Laboratory test are frequent and at times, the only method of determining the suitability
of laterites. On the basis of the geotechnical properties, one could come to a conclusion
whether the soil is a good engineering construction material or not. These tests need to be
conducted prior to planning and application. There is need to evaluate the results, analyze
and determine if the particular laterite is fit for use or needs to be modified to strengthen
it as in the case of addition of stabilization material being added to highway pavement
application. However, due to the sensitivity of the soils to test procedure, site conditions
need to be simulated for proper testing and consequent data collection.
METHODOLOGY
The methodology of choice was to conduct the following tests on collected laterite soils
samples form Kumasi is order to determine their engineering properties. The tests were
carried out in the Geotechnical lab of Kwame Nkrumah University of science and
technology.

 Particle size analysis and classification

 Moisture content
 Specific gravity
 Atterberg limit
 Triaxial compression test

GEOGRAPHYCAL LOCATION AND SAMPLE SITE

The soils investigated in this study were collected from Bomso, Ahensan Estate, and
KNUST Campus which are all located in the city of Kumasi in the Ashanti Region of
Ghana.

In selecting the specific sampling location, the main consideration was the method of
sample collection, shipping, and storage. Another major consideration was obtained
samples covering two different parent materials which formed under the influence of
various environmental conditions. The soils were obtained from Bomso, Ahensan Estate,
and KNUST Campus. According the geological map of Kumasi acquired from Dr.
Solomon Gidigasu of the Geological engineering department of KNUST it may assumed
that the soils were derived from two different parent rocks namely the Granitic Gneisses
and migmatites; and the Metasediments Phyllites and Phyllitic schists. These sites were
chosen due to the proximity to the laboratory and ease of sample transportation. The sites
were also chosen due to the proximity to construction sites and ease of sample
availability, lending to the ease of soil sampling collection. Prior to collection, site visits
were made in order to inspect for potential places for collection of lateritic soil and
choices were made. Less vegetative areas were selected since it is a good indication of
lateritic soil.

METHOD OF SAMPLING, SHIPPING, STORAGE

The samplers used for sampling the laterite soils were open tube samplers. The outer and
inside of the tubes were lubricated with Vaseline to ease penetration and sample retrieval.
The tubes were pushed into the soil by placing a wooden plank on top of it and then
hammering it into the ground with a sledge hammer. After the tube was pushed fully into
the ground the soil around it was dug out to ease the removal of the tube with the sample.
Two samples were collected at each location and all the samples were collected from the
B-horizon of the profile, since it is the most influenced by the weathering process more
than the other horizons. Disturbed samples were collected for the classification tests and
undisturbed samples were collected for the triaxial compression test. In all three locations
were visited for samples. When the soils arrived at the laboratory, the soil was transferred
into a rubber bag and stored in 100 percent humidity, in order to prevent any moisture
loss during storage.

Figure 3KNUST site sample collection

TEST DESCRIPTIONS

Bulk Measurements and Determination of Index Properties

Although as stated earlier in the literature review that engineering index tests are not
adequate to accurately predict the field behavior of lateritic soils, they will be performed
for the completeness, and for any possible correlation that may show up in the analysis.
The test was carried out in the Soil Mechanics lab of KNUST.

Particle Size Analysis and Classification

Particle size of laterite is extremely varied and erratic. The relatively weak structure of
concretionary material that is its vulnerability to degradation yields variable results. The
distribution covers all size fractions, from clay to large gravels, it is impossible to derive
an acceptable generalization. (Vallerga, 1969)

The significance of particle size distribution is that distribution of different grain size
affects soil engineering properties. Grain-size analysis provides the grain-size distribution
curve, which is required in soil classification. The grain-size analysis is, widely, used in
different specification of soils, for instance, USCS and AASHTO. The data obtained
from grain-size distribution curves are used in the design of filters for earth dams, as
well, to determine the suitability of a soil for road construction, air field, etc. information
obtained from grain-size analysis can be used to predict soil water movement, although,
permeability tests are more generally used.

This test is performed to determine the percentage of different grain size contained within
soil. The mechanical or sieve analysis is performed to determine the distribution of the
course, larger-sized particles, and the hydrometer method is used to determine the
distribution of the finer particles. ASTM D 422 defines the standard test method for
Particle-Size analysis of soils. The distribution of different grain sizes affects the
engineering properties of soils. Grain size analysis provides the grain size distribution,
and it is required in classifying the soil.

The equipment required are Balance with an accuracy to 0.01 gram, set of sieves
including a pan at the bottom and cover (cap), Rubber pestle and mortar (for crushing the
soil if lumped or conglomerated), Clearing brush, Mechanical Sieve shaker and Drying
oven.

In performing the test, the weight of each sieve as well as the bottom pan to be used in
analysis is written down and the weight of dry laterite soil sample is recorded. The sieves
are cleaned and assembled in the ascending order of sieve numbers and the soil sample is
carefully poured into the top sieve and the cap is placed over it. The sieve stack is placed
in the mechanical shaker and shake for 10 minutes as shown in Figure 4. The stack is
removed from the shaker and weight of each sieve with its retained soil is recorded. The
weight of the bottom pan with its retained fine is also recorded.

Figure 4 Mechanical shaker equipment

In the analysis, the mass of soil retained on each sieve is achieved by subtracting the
weight of the empty sieve from the mass of the sieve + retained soil. It is recorded as the
weight retained on the data sheet. The sum of all retained masses should be
approximately equal to the initial mass of soil sample. A loss of more than two percent is
unsatisfactory. The percent retained on each sieve is calculated by dividing the wight
retained on each sieve by the original mass. The percentage passing or percent finer is
calculated by starting with 100 percent and subtracting the percent retained on each sieve
as a cumulative procedure. Finally, a semilogarithmic plot of grain size vs. percent finer
is made as shown in Figure 5.

Figure 5 Particle size distribution curve

The results of this test and discussion are combined with those of the hydrometer analysis
and, hence, developing a complete particle-size distribution curve.

Moisture Content by The Gravimetric Method

Moisture content is also known as water content and is the ratio of weight of water in a
known volume sample of soil to is weight. The determination of this variable helps in
finding solutions for various parameters surrounding engineering applications dealing
with soil such as road construction.

To determine the moisture content, laterite soil samples which were taken from the
collection sites, with minimum time in between collection and testing, were weighed and
placed in dry oven. Samples are kept overnight for proper content removal. After drying
the moisture content was determined by the equation expressed to the nearest 1% or
0.1%. The natural water content for most soil is well under 100%.

Atterberg Limits
These test methods cover the determination of the consistency limits (e.g., liquid, plastic
and shrinkage limits) and the plasticity index of soils. A Swedish scientist named
Atterberg developed a method to describe the consistency of fine-grained soils with
varying moisture. The Atterberg limits are a basic measure of the critical water contents
of fine-grained soil that passes No. 40 (0.425-mm) sieve. When clay minerals are present
in fine-grained soil, soil can be remolded in the presence of some moisture without
crumbling. This cohesive nature is caused by the adsorbed water surrounding the clay
particles.

Liquid and plastic limit are water contents at which the mechanical properties of soil
changes. The difference between the plastic and the liquid limit is defined as the
plasticity index. The volume of fine-grained soil increases with increasing water content.
This indicates that plasticity index is an indicator of the swell potential of a cohesive soil.
Certain clay minerals, including bentonite, montmorillonite and smectite, have a high
cation exchange capacity, so their ability to hold water molecules and electrically bind
them to their surface is greater. Therefore, they can exist in a plastic state over a
relatively wide range of water content and soil volume and have a high swell potential.
Shrinkage limit is the water content at which the volume of soil begins to change as a
result of a change in water content. The three parameters are collectively referred to as
the Atterberg limits.

The following are typical values of PI of several clay minerals.

 Kaolinite = 20-40
 Illite = 35-50
 Montmorillonite = 50-100

Laterite soil liquid limit does not generally exceed 60% at or near the surface. Plasticity
index has been found to be less than 30% average. For this reason, laterite soils are of
low to medium plasticity. Low plasticity translates to absence of expandable clay. This is
due to the kaolinite formed by weathering of aluminosilicates minerals. Rocks rich in
Feldspar commonly weather to kaolinite. Kaolinite, because it does not absorb water,
does not expand when it comes in contact with water. Plasticity index can also
inadvertently lead to soil swelling determination (Sujeeth, 2015).

Two main types of tests are specified namely the Casagrande apparatus method, which
has been used for many years at a basis for soil classification and the Cone penetrometer
method, which is more satisfactory, this method is based on the measurement of
penetration into the soil of standardized cone of specified mass. At the liquid limit the
cone penetration is 20m.

Liquid limit as per BS is the moisture content at which a standard cone with angle 30°
and weight of 0.78 N (79.5 gm) will penetrate a distance d = 20 mm in 5 seconds when
allowed to drop from a position of point contact from a single test.

Air dried sample sieved through 0.425 mm sieve of which 300 grams was weight was
mixed with water, made to a past and placed in the testing cup. The cone was made to fall
and the penetration was recorded. Several repetitions are done at each at different
moisture content levels. The results are plotted in a semi-logarithmic graph with moisture
content against cone of penetration as shown in Figure 6.

Figure 6 Liquid Limit graph

Plastic limit is the moisture content in percent at the point of transition from semisolid
state to plastic state. Plastic limit according ASTM is the moisture content in percent, at
which the soil crumbles when rolled into thread of 3.175 mm (1/8 in) in diameter.

Plasticity index is the difference between the liquid limit and the plastic limit of a soil.

PI = LL – PL
Soil sample from the liquid limit test are rolled to 3.175mm diameter strips around which
it starts to break. the broken pieces are collected in a container for moisture content
determination at (100±5°) for at least 16 hours.

Figure 7 Soil sample rolling to determine Plastic Limit

The significance of the liquid limit and plasticity index is that they are required
parameters for classification of soils. Different soils have varying liquid limits. Also, one
must use the plastic limit to determine its plasticity index. Liquid limit, plastic limit, and
shrinkage limit test of fine-grained soil are indicators of the nature of its plasticity.

Ultimately, the plasticity index is an important property in classifying fine grained soils
such laterite soils. This is done by using the Casagrande plasticity chart where co-relation
of plastic index versus liquid limit is plotted on a graph. Plots above the A-line represent
clay (plastic) and those below represent classified as silt (non-plastic).

Atterberg limits describe the consistency of fine-grained soil. Consistency limits help
classify the soils which in turn can be used to predict the performance of those soils when
used as construction material. The consistency limits are an effective and inexpensive
method to classify clays and silts.

ASTM D4318 – Standard test methods for Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit and Plasticity
index of soils.

The equipment and materials needed for the Liquid Limit test are the Penetrometer
apparatus (a cone of apex angle 30 and mass of 0.78N = 79.5 gm) Figure 8, Metal cups
(of 55-mm width and 40-mm depth), Moisture content apparatus (oven dry, sensitive
balance and cans), Metal straight edge, Two palette knives.

The equipment and materials needed for the Plastic Limit test are A flat grass plate on
which soil is to be mixed and rolled, Two palette knives and Apparatus for moisture
content determination (oven dry, sensitive balance and cans).

Figure 8 Cone Penetrometer

Specific Gravity
Specific gravity is defined as the weight of soil in a given volume to the weight of
equivalent volume of water. The Specific gravity of a soil solids is used in calculating the
phase relationships of soils, such as void ratio and degree of saturation. The specific
gravity of soil is used to calculate the density of the soil solids. This done by multiplying
its specific gravity by the density of water at proper temperature. Soil solids is typically
assumed to mean naturally occurring mineral particles or soil like particles that are not
readily soluble in water. The test method covers the determination of the specific gravity
of soil solids that pass the 4.75-mm (No. 4) sieve, by means of a water pycnometer. There
two methods for performing the specific gravity test.

Method A-of ASTM D 854 – 02 is the preferred method for organic soils, highly plastic,
fine grained soils, tropical soils, and soils containing halloysite. Method B-of ASTM D
854 – 02 is the procedure for Oven-Dry Specimens.

Method A-the preferred method for laterite soil has been proven to provide more
consistent, repeatable results than determining the dry mass prior to testing. This is most
probably due to the loss of soil solids during the deairing phase of testing.

The significance of specific gravity test include: Laterite soil liquid limit does not
generally exceed 60% at or near the surface. Plasticity index has been found to be less
than 30% average. For this reason, laterite soils are of low to medium plasticity. Low
plasticity translates to absence of expandable clay. This is due to the kaolinite formed by
weathering of aluminosilicates minerals. Rocks rich in Feldspar commonly weather to
kaolinite. Kaolinite, because it does not absorb water, does not expand when it comes in
contact with water. Plasticity index can also inadvertently lead to soil swelling
determination (Sujeeth, 2015).

The specific gravity of soil solids is used in calculating the properties of soils, such as
void ratio (e) and degree of saturation (s).

The specific gravity of soil solids is used to calculate the density of the soil solids. This is
done by multiplying its specific gravity by the density of water at proper temperature.

The term ‘soil solids’ is typically assumed to mean naturally occurring mineral particles
or soil like particles that are not readily soluble in water. Therefore, the specific gravity
of soil solids containing extraneous matter, such as cement, lime and the like, water-
soluble matter, such as sodium chloride and soils containing matter with a specific
gravity less than one, typically require special treatment or a qualified definition of their
specific gravity.

The equipment and materials needed are Pycnometer, Sieve of 4.75-mm opening (No. 4
sieve), Vacuum pump, which is used to employ suction in pycnometer, Balance sensitive
to an accuracy of 0.01 gm, equipped with holder for weighing samples in water, Funnel
and Spoon.
The equipment and materials needed are; Balance sensitive to an accuracy of 0.01gm,
Glass jar, Dry cloth, Shallow tray, Glass lid, Rubber Stopper and Wash bottle containing
distilled water.

The procedure involves determining the mass of a dry, empty clean bottle plus glass lid
and then pouring soil sample (lateritic) in the bottle about halfway. The mass of soil in
glass vessel plus the glass lid is determined and water is added to the sample to a little
above the height of the soil sample. A rubber stopper is fixed in the glass vessel and
agitated by rapid clockwise and anticlockwise rotation to remove entrapped air. After
shaking the glass vessel is placed on a level surface without any disturbances for 16
hours. After 16 hours the glass vessel is placed in a shallow bowl or tray and it is topped
up with water to the brim and the lid is carefully slide without trapping air. The bottle is
cleaned leaving no evidence of water, it is weighed and the mass of the bottle and content
plus lid is determined. The sample is poured out of the bottle then the bottle cleaned and
the mass of the bottle with water only plus glass lid is weighed.

Mass of empty glass jar + lid = W1

Mass of empty glass jar + aggregate + lid = W2

Mass of empty glass jar + aggregate + water + lid = W3

Mass of empty glass jar + water + lid =W4

Triaxial Test
The triaxial compression test is a more sophisticated test procedure for determining the
shear strength of soils. Three or more identical samples are subjected to uniformly
distributed fluid pressure around the cylindrical surface. The soil specimen is enclosed
inside a thin rubber membrane and placed inside a cylindrical plastic chamber. For
conducting the test, the chamber is usually filled with water glycerin. The specimen is
subjected to a confining pressure (σ3) by application of pressure to the fluid in the
chamber. Connections to measure drainage into or out of the specimen or pressure in the
por water are provided. To cause shear failure in the soil, an axial (∆σ) is applied through
a vertical loading ram. This is referred to as deviator stress. In general, with triaxial
equipment, three types of common tests can be conducted, and they are listed below.
Only the consolidated undrained is discussed and used for this project.

 Unconsolidated-undrained (U-U), parameters determined are Cu (Φ = 0)

 Consolidated-drained (C-D), parameters determined are C, Φ
 Consolidated-undrained (C-U), C, Φ
Cu = undrained cohesion, C = cohesion, Φ = drained angle of friction, Ā = pore water
pressure parameter. The figure below (Figure 9) shows a schematic diagram of the
triaxial test equipment.

Figure 9 Schematic diagram of triaxial cell

The advantages of the triaxial test over the direct shear test are:

 Stress distribution across the soil sample is more uniform in a triaxial test as
compared to a direct shear test.
 Measurement of volume change is more accurate in triaxial test.
 The complete state of stress is known at all stages during the triaxial test, whereas
only the stresses at failure are known in the direct shear test.
 In the case of the triaxial shear the sample fails along a plane on which the
combination of normal stress and the shear stress gives the maximum angle of
obliquity of the resultant with the normal, whereas in the case of direct shear, the
sample is sheared only on one plane which is horizontal plane which need not be
plane of actual failure.
 Pore water pressure can be measured in the case of triaxial shear tests whereas it
is not possible in direct shear tests.
 The triaxial machine is more adaptable.

In consolidated undrained test, the soil specimen is first consolidated by a chamber-

confining pressure σ3, fully drainage from the specimen is allowed. After complete
dissipation of excess pore water pressure ∆uf, generated by the confining pressure, the
deviator stress ∆σ is increased to cause failure of the specimen.

During this phase of loading, the drainage line from the specimen is closed. Since
drainage is not permitted, the pore water pressure due to deviator stress

in the specimen increases. Consolidated undrained tests on a number of specimens can

be conducted to determine the shear strength parameters of a soil. During the test
simultaneous of pore water pressure and deviator stress are made.

The test results will be analyzed to determine the Mohr-Coulomb failure envelope, failure
angle, shearing resistance, and Young’s Modulus of Elasticity. This information can be
used to predict how a soil would respond in field conditions.

Unlike the consolidated-drained test, the total and effective principal stresses are not the
same in the consolidated-undrained test. This is because the pore water pressure at failure
is measures in this test.

For the test,

  Major principal stress at failure (total) σ1 = Minor principal stress at failure (total)
+ Deviator stress at failure. (σ3 + ∆σf)
 Major principal stress at failure (effective) = (Minor principal stress at failure
(total) + Deviator stress at failure) – Pore water pressure at failure. (σ3 + ∆σf) - ∆uf
 Minor principal stress at failure (total) = σ3
 Minor principal stress at failure (effective) = σ3 - ∆uf

Test on several similar specimen with varying confining pressures may be conducted to
determine the shear strength parameters. The figure below Figure 10 shows the total and
effective stress Mohr’s circles at failure obtained from consolidation-undrained triaxial
test. A and B from the figure below are two total stress Mohr’s circles obtained from two
test. C and D are the effective stress Mohr’s circles corresponding to total stress circles A
and B, respectively. The total stress failure envelope can be obtained by drawing a line
that touches all the total stress Mohr’s circles.

Figure 10Total and effective stress Mohr's circle at failure

The soil sample used for this test is lateritic soil from Kumasi.

The materials and equipment needed are: right-circular cylindrical specimen of lateritic
soil; load frame; pressure system and water source; triaxial cell; 2 0-rings; latex
membrane; membrane stretcher; vacuum grease; deformation indicator graduated to
0.001 in.; load cell or proving ring; scale with precision of0.01 g; calipers; oven-safe
moisture content container; and soil drying oven set at 110° ± 5° C.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
The tests were conducted on laterite soils found in Kumasi as described in the
Methodology. The table below Table 5 shows the summary of results obtained from test
results analysis.

Table 5 Tests result of laterite/lateritic soil property summary

Tests Site A Site B Site C

Unconsolidated
undrained
Moisture content
Particle size
analysis
Gravel
Sand
Fines
Plastic limit (%)
Liquid limit (%)
Plasticity index PI
(%)
Specific Gravity

PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION, ANALYSIS AND CLASSIFICATION

Particle size analysis helps in determining and correlating relative soil particles of
different soil samples. The samples were collected and allowed to oven dry in open tray
in the laboratory for 24 hours prior to sieving. Concretions were eliminated prior to
sieving by light crushing of larger cohesive particles. Test procedure is described in the
methodology section of the report. The particle size distribution graph of all sites has
been compiled in one graph in Error: Reference source not found.
Table 6 Site A Particle size data analysis

Site A sieve analysis data

Sieve Sieve Soil Cumulative % Mass %Passing
No opening Retained Retained (g) Retained
(mm) (g)
#1 9.5 13.13 13.13 4.337484721 95.66251528
#2 6.7 14.14 27.27 9.008622114 90.99137789
#3 4.75 31.59 58.86 19.44435268 80.55564732
#4 2 178.49 237.35 78.40837766 21.59162234
#5 1 28.46 265.81 87.81011529 12.18988471
#6 0.6 13.31 279.12 92.20706287 7.792937135
#10 0.425 8.12 287.24 94.8894982 5.1105018
#11 0.3 6.85 294.09 97.15239008 2.847609924
#12 0.25 1.92 296.01 97.7866605 2.2133395
#13 0.15 4.6 300.61 99.30626672 0.693733276
#14 0.1 1.9 302.51 99.93393016 0.066069836
#15 pan 0.2 302.71

Table 7 Site A Results

Results (Site A)
%Grave 19.44435268 D 3.791313239 Cu=D60/D10 4.734517302
l (60)
%Sand 80.55564732 D 2.392155023 Cc=D30^2/D10*D60 27.09282857
(30)
%Fine  0 D 0.800781367
(10)

Table 8 Site B Particle size data analysis

Site B Bomso sieve analysis data

Sieve Sieve Soil Cumulative % Mass %Passing
No opening Retained Retained (g) Retained
(mm) (g)
#1 6.7 1.49 1.49 1.661648266 98.3383517
3
#2 4.75 3.95 5.44 6.066688971 93.9333110
3
#3 3.15 7.09 12.53 13.97345824 86.0265417
6
#4 2 23.4 35.93 40.06914241 59.9308575
9
#5 1.18 13.25 49.18 54.84554478 45.1544552
2
#6 0.8 13.36 62.54 69.74461916 30.2553808
4
#10 0.6 9.67 72.21 80.52860488 19.4713951
2
#11 0.425 6.81 79.02 88.1231181 11.8768819
#12 0.3 4.4 83.42 93.02999888 6.97000111
5
#13 0.25 1.24 84.66 94.41284711 5.58715289
4
#14 0.1 4.26 88.92 99.16359987 0.83640013
4
#15 pan 0.75 89.67

Table 9Site B Results

Results Site B
%Gravel 6.066688971 D 2.003047009 Cu=D60/D10 5.310480884
(60)
%Sand 93.93331103 D 0.793486527 Cc=D30^/D10*D60 3.343589586
(30)
%Fine 0 D 0.3771875
(10)
Table 10Site C particle size analysis

Site C KBS sieve analysis data

Sieve Sieve Soil Cumulative % Mass %Passing
No opening Retained Retained (g) Retained
(mm) (g)
#1 6.7 0.78 0.78 0.855732309 99.14426769
#2 4.75 3.31 4.09 4.487109161 95.51289084
#3 3.15 5.31 9.4 10.31267142 89.68732858
#4 2 27.78 37.18 40.78990675 59.21009325
#5 1.18 18.53 55.71 61.11903456 38.88096544
#6 0.8 10.83 66.54 73.00054855 26.99945145
#10 0.6 5.95 72.49 79.52825014 20.47174986
#11 0.425 6.05 78.54 86.165661 13.834339
#12 0.3 3.77 82.31 90.30170049 9.698299506
#13 0.25 1.18 83.49 91.59626988 8.403730115
#14 0.1 5.3 88.79 97.41086122 2.589138782
#15 Pan 2.36 91.15

Table 11Site C Results

Results (Site C) KBS

%Grave 4.487109161 D 2.029805616 Cu=D60/D10
l (60)
%Sand 95.51289084 D 0.895964912 Cc=D30^2/D10*D60
(30)
%Fine 0 D 0.309118037
(10)

Figure 11Particle size curve of all sites

MOISTURE CONTENT ANALYSIS
Natural moisture contents were recorded once the samples were taken directly to the
laboratory. The moisture content for individual sites is shown in Table 12 and detailed
data presented in

Table 12 Natural Moisture contents of all sites

Site Depth Natural Moisture

(m) content (%)
A
B 26.88398542
C  16.37378564
D 19.38986108

Table 13 Natural Moisture content for site B

Moisture Content Site B Bomso

Container No KY3 G9 SD3
weight of Container (g) 26.06 26.02 25.56
weight of container plus wet sample 98.29 104.55 99.08
(g)
weight of container plus dry sample 82.72 88.12 83.58
(g)
weight of wet sample (g) 72.23 78.53 73.52
weight of dry sample (g) 56.66 62.1 58.02
weight of water (g) 15.57 16.43 15.5
Moisture Content (%) 27.479703 26.457326 26.714926
5 9
Average Moisture content (%) 26.88398542
Table 14 Natural Moisture content for site C

Moisture Content (Site C) KBS

Container No W17 Q2 EA
weight of Container (g) 25.87 25.91 25.72
weight of container plus wet sample (g) 109.54 112.26 118.16
weight of container plus dry sample (g) 97.96 99.75 105.33
weight of wet sample (g) 83.67 86.35 92.44
weight of dry sample (g) 72.09 73.84 79.61
weight of water (g) 11.58 12.51 12.83
Moisture Content (%) 16.0632543 16.94203684 16.116066
Average Moisture content (%) 16.37378564

Table 15 Natural Moisture content for site D

Moisture Content (Site D) Ayeduase

Container No G5 J23 JA4
weight of Container (g) 25.01 27.31 26.88
weight of container plus wet sample (g) 84.82 93.66 87.48
weight of container plus dry sample (g) 75.12 83.01 77.51
weight of wet sample (g) 59.81 66.35 60.6
weight of dry sample (g) 50.11 55.7 50.63
weight of water (g) 9.7 10.65 9.97
Moisture Content (%) 19.3574137 19.12028725 19.691882
Average Moisture content (%) 19.38986108
SPECIFIC GRAVITY ANALYSIS
The specific gravity of air-dried samples collected were determined as described in the
methodology section. Specific gravity is intensively used in soil engineering applications
in determining other parameters such as void ratio and degree of saturation.

The results of specific Gravity of various site have been compiled in Table 16 and
individual test results are shown in Table 17

Table 16 Specific Gravity results

Site Specific Gravity

A
B  2.098214286
C  2.41017056
D 2.550576888
Average

Table 17 Site B specific Gravity results

Specific Gravity Site B

Mass of empty glass jar +lid W1 412
Mass of glass jar + aggregate + lid W2 882
Mass of glass jar + aggregate + water + lid W3 1626
Mass of glass jar + water + lid W4 1380
Mass of Aggregate 470
Mass of water 744
Mass of water used 968
Specific Gravity 2.098214286

Table 18 Site C specific Gravity results

Specific Gravity Site C

Mass of empty glass jar +lid W1 82.13
Mass of glass jar + aggregate + lid W2 694
Mass of glass jar + aggregate + water + lid W3 1526
Mass of glass jar + water + lid W4 1168
Mass of Aggregate 611.87
Mass of water 832
Mass of water used 1085.87
Specific Gravity 2.41017056

Table 19 Site D specific Gravity results

Specific Gravity Site D Ayeduase

Mass of empty glass jar +lid W1 366.19
Mass of glass jar + aggregate + lid W2 784
Mass of glass jar + aggregate + water + lid W3 1458
Mass of glass jar + water + lid W4 1204
Mass of Aggregate 417.81
Mass of water 674
Mass of water used 837.81
Specific Gravity 2.550576888

Specific Gravity, Discussion and Comparison

ATTERBERG LIMITS/CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS

Plastic limits and liquid limits of the air-dried samples collected from all site were
determined using the ascribed method in the methodology above.

Table 20 Site A Liquid Limit Results

Site A
Contain Mass of Penetrati Mass of Mass of Mas Mass Water
er No Contain on container container s of of content
 er and wet and dry wat Dry (%)
sample sample er Sampl
e
ISA2 14.77 11.5 47.31 38.03 9.28 23.26 39.89681
857
4D 14.95 14.8 51 40.08 10.9 25.13 43.45403
2 9
A31 14.37 20 50 38.73 11.2 24.36 46.26436
7 782
B4 15.55 20.75 43 34.75 8.25 19.2 42.96875
A73 12.88 28.6 60.75 44.96 15.7 32.08 49.22069
9 825

Table 21 Site B Liquid Limit Results

Site B
Contain Mass of Penetrati Mass of Mass of Mas Mass Water
er No Contain on container container s of of dry content
er and wet and dry wat sampl (%)
sample sample er e
GEK 14.48 9 29.44 23.83 5.61 9.35 60
AF3 13.03 18.5 23.62 19.68 3.94 6.65 59.24812
03
E2 14.82 21.7 29.66 23.77 5.89 8.95 65.81005
587
KJ 15.55 25.2 35.4 27.64 7.76 12.09 64.18527
709
S19 13.73 26.1 31.22 24 7.22 10.27 70.30185
005

Table 22 Site C Liquid Limit Results

Site C
Contain Mass of Penetrati Mass of Mass of Mas Mass Water
er No Contain on container container s of of dry content
er and wet and dry wat sampl (%)
sample sample er e
A16 3.73 12.2 16.01 12.06 3.95 8.33 47.41896
759
E4 3.59 18.84 13.21 9.99 3.22 6.4 50.3125
X13 3.84 20.6 24.11 16.83 7.28 12.99 56.04311
008
C2 3.76 26.8 15.36 10.99 4.37 7.23 60.44260
028
V13 3.62 30.1 17.62 12.23 5.39 8.61 62.60162
602

Liquid Limit Chart

80
Site A
70 Linear
(Site A)
Moisture Content (%)

60 Site B
Linear
50 (Site B)
40 Site C
Linear
30 (Site C)

20
10
0
5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Penetration (mm)

Figure 12 Liquid Limit Chart of all Sites

Table 23Plastic Limit Results

Site A
Contain Mass of Mass of Mass of Mas Mass Water Average
er No contain container container s of of dry content water
er and wet and dry wate sampl (%) content
 sample sample r e (%)
BE 3.52 8.51 7.56 0.95 4.04 23.514851 24.0161
49 13
H4 7.18 13.63 12.36 1.27 5.18 24.517374
52

Table 24Site B Plastic Limit Results

Site B
Contain Mass of Mass of Mass of Mas Mass Water Average
er No contain container container s of of content water
er and wet and dry wate dry (%) content
sample sample r sampl (%)
e
K4 3.63 12.63 9.99 2.64 6.36 41.509433 41.036407
96 12
C3 3.71 8.7 7.26 1.44 3.55 40.563380
28

Site C
Con Mass Mass of Mass of Mass Mass Water Average
tain of container container of of dry conten water
er contai and wet and dry wate sample t (%) content
No ner sample sample r (%)
A4 3.81 11.65 9.59 2.06 5.78 35.640 34.941281
13841 33
A23 3.72 8.15 7.02 1.13 3.3 34.242
42424
Table 25Atterberg Limit Results

Site Plastic Limit Liquid Limit Plasticity Index (PI) (%)

(PL) (%) (LL) (%)
A 24.016113 46.26436782 22.24825481
B 41.03640712 62.3240276 21.28762047
C 34.94128133  50.81799663  15.8767153
Average

Atterberg limit, discussion and comparison