3kiyunga TC - Matrls Report

Telephone: 256-41-285750 Ministry of Works and Transport
E-mail: urrrp@utlonline.co.ugn Central Materials Laboratory,

In any correspondence on this subject please P. O. Box 7188,
quote CML/SOMAT/20-21/030 KAMPALA, UGANDA.
THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA
MINISTRY OF WORKS AND TRANSPORT

CENTRAL MATERIALS LABORATORY, KIREKA
PERILIMINARY ENGINEERING DESIGN OF THE REHABILITATION AND UPGRADING

OF PRIORITY URBAN ROADS IN BUSOGA AND BUKEDI SUB- REGIONS
SOILS AND MATERIALS INVESTIGATION REPORT FOR( KIYUNGA- KITWEKYAMBOGO ROAD 2.1Km),
(TABINGWA – ADMINSTRATION CLOSE 0.500 Km) ,(MUGISHA –POLICE,-MUFUMOCLOSE-,KASIKO
CLOSE,AND GUSITE – MUKASA ROAD 1.1 Km) , (NGOBI – MUGANZA-KASOKOSO-NTUMBA(1.1 Km)
AND (KINYUNGA HC 1V CLOSE(0.5 Km) IN KIYUNGA TOWN COUNCIL
LUUKA DISTRICT
CHIEF MATERIALS ENGINEER
July 2021
[Soil and Materials Investigations for Selected roads in Kiyunga Town Council- Luuka District]
Table of Contents
Table of Contents................................................................................................................................................. ii
LIST OF SYMBOLS .......................................................................................................................................... iv
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Back Ground ........................................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Scope of Work ........................................................................................................................................ 1
1.3 Structure of the report ............................................................................................................................. 2
CHAPTER TWO: SITE DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................................ 3
2.1 General .................................................................................................................................................... 3
2.2 Topography ............................................................................................................................................. 3
2.3 Climate .................................................................................................................................................... 3
CHAPTER THREE: FIELD INVESTIGATIONS .................................................................................................. 4
3.1 General .................................................................................................................................................... 4
3.2 Visual Condition Assessment and Dominant Defects ............................................................................. 4
3.3 Subgrade Investigations .......................................................................................................................... 5
3.3.1 General ................................................................................................................................................ 5
3.3.2 Test Pit Excavations ............................................................................................................................ 5
3.3.3 Dynamic Cone Penetration Test (DCP) .............................................................................................. 7
3.4 Borrow Pit Surveys ............................................................................................................................... 10
3.5 Sand....................................................................................................................................................... 11
3.6 Aggregates ............................................................................................................................................ 11
3.7 Water ..................................................................................................................................................... 11
CHAPTER FOUR: LABORATORY INVESTIGATIONS .................................................................................. 12
4.1 General .................................................................................................................................................. 12
4.2 Subgrade Materials Investigations ........................................................................................................ 12
4.2.1 Classification of Subgrade Materials .................................................................................................. 12
4.2.2 Compaction Parameters of Alignment/Subgrade Soils ..................................................................... 14
4.2.3 CBR Test Result for Subgrade/Alignment Soils ............................................................................... 15
Ministry of Works and Transport Central Materials Laboratory Page ii

4.3 Borrow Materials Investigations ........................................................................................................... 16
4.3.1 Classification of Borrow Pit Materials .............................................................................................. 16
4.3.2 Compaction Parameters of the Borrow Pit Material ......................................................................... 17
4.3.3 CBR Test results of Borrow Pit Material .......................................................................................... 17
4.3.4 Lime Treatment and Stabilization Test ............................................................................................. 18
4.3.4.1 Atterberg Limits of Borrow pit Materials ..................................................................................... 18
4.3.4.2 Compaction and CBR Test Results of Lime Stabilized Material ...................................................... 18
4.4 Aggregates Materials Investigations ..................................................................................................... 19
4.5 Sand Materials Investigations ............................................................................................................... 20
4.6 Water Sample Investigations ................................................................................................................. 20
4.7 Traffic and Axle Load Investigations ............................................................................................... 21
4.8 Pavement Design................................................................................................................................... 22
4.8.1 Conventionally Sealed Roads................................................................................................................ 22
4.8.2 Low Volume Sealed Roads ................................................................................................................... 22
CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................. 23
5.1 General .................................................................................................................................................. 23
5.2 Subgrade................................................................................................................................................ 23
5.3 Borrow Pit Material............................................................................................................................... 23
5.4 Sand....................................................................................................................................................... 23
5.5 Aggregates ............................................................................................................................................ 23
5.6 Water ..................................................................................................................................................... 23
5.7 Stabilized Materials ............................................................................................................................... 24
5.8 Pavement Structure ............................................................................................................................... 24
BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................................................................................................................. 25
Ministry of Works and Transport Central Materials Laboratory Page iii

LIST OF SYMBOLS
AASHTO - American Association Society for Highway and Transportation Officials
AADT - Average Annual Daily Traffic
ADT : Average Daily Traffic
BS - British Standard
CBR - California Bearing Ration
D - Position of disturbed samples
DCP - Dynamic Cone Penetrometer
ESALs - Equivalent Standard Axle Loads
GW - Natural Gravel for Wearing Course and shoulders of minimum soaked CBR of 25%
G15 - Natural Gravel with minimum CBR of 15%
Km - Kilometer
Log - Logarithm
LL - Liquid Limit
LVSR - Low Volume Sealed Roads
M - Meter
MESA - Million Equivalent Standard Axle
MDD - Maximum Dry Density
MoWHC - Ministry of Works, Housing and Communication.
MoWT - Ministry of Works and Transport
Nm - Natural Moisture Content
NMC - Natural Moisture Content
OMC - Optimum Moisture Content
TLC - Traffic Load Count
PI - Plasticity Index
PL - Plastic Limit
TP - Test Pit
UKDCP - United Kingdom Dynamic Cone Penetrometer
VPD - Vehicles per Day
Ministry of Works and Transport Central Materials Laboratory Page iv

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

1.2 Back Ground
Ministry of Works and Transport was directed to Tarmac priority Urban roads (toalling 90Km) in
selected Urban Councils in Busoga and Bukedi Sub – Regions. The priority roads are located in
the Urban councils of Iganga, Namayemba, Busowa, Mayuge, Kiyunga, Namutumba ,Idudi,
Busembatia ,Kibuku, Tirinyi,Budaka,Nankoma,Muterere,Namungalwe, Kaliro, Nawaikoke,
Namayingo, Lumino, Majanji, Masafu Namugodi, Busowa, Mayuge, Kiyunga, Namutumba,
Idudi, Busembatia, Kibuku, Tirinyi, Budaka,Nankoma,Muterere,
The preliminary engineering designs were undertaken in-house by Ministry of Works and
Transport.
Central Materials Laboratory – Kireka conducted the soils and Materials Investigations in all the
selected Urban councils. The purpose of the investigation was to establish the geotechnical
conditions of the existing alignment sub grade soils and assess the availability and properties of
Borrow pit materials and other construction materials, for the preliminary engineering designs of
the civil works for rehabilitation and upgrading of the roads.
This report contains information, data and interpretations on soils and Materials for Kiyunga Town
Council for which the investigations were carried out the month of April 2021. Similar information
for other urban councils are given in separate reports
1.2 Scope of Work

The scope of work for the materials investigations included:
 Visual condition surveys of the road sections
 Excavating test pits along the road alignments, logging and sampling subgrade materials
from the test pits;
 Performing Dynamic Cone Penetration Tests (DCP) to establish the insitu CBR along the
road alignment;
 Identifying sources of construction Material such as gravel, aggregates ,sand and water, and
sampling of these materials for Laboratory testing
 Conducting laboratory tests on the samples on Borrow pit materials ,sand aggregates and
soil samples from the existing road alignment;
Ministry of Works and Transport Central Materials Laboratory Page 1

 Undertaking Structural Pavement Designs and

 Preparation of a technical/Materials report.
1.3 Structure of the report

This report documents the details of the exercise and the major findings and recommendations. It is
structured as follows;
Chapter 1- Introduction;
Chapter 2- Site description and Topography and Climate;
Chapter 3- Field Investigations;
Chapter 4- Laboratory Investigations
Chapter 5- Conclusions and recommendations
Bibliography
Appendices
1- Site map
2- Soil Index Properties, Compaction and CBR Test Results
3- Sand test Results
4- Aggregate Test Results
5- Water Test Results and
6- DCP Test results

CHAPTER TWO: SITE DESCRIPTION

2.1 General
Kiyunga- Kitwekyambogo Road, ( 2.1Km), Tabingwa – Adminstration Close(0.500 Km),Mugisha
–Police,-MufumoClose-,Kasiko Close- Gusite – Mukasa road (1.1 Km) , Ngobi – Muganza-
Kasokoso-Ntumba(1.1 Km) and Kinyunga HC 1V Close(0.5 Km) are Urban roads located within
Kiyunga Town Counci in Luuka District , Busoga Sub- Region, Eastern Uganda., Kiyunga
Town Council is located at approximately 28km by road North West of Iganga the nearest
large town and 50 km North East of Jinja the largest city in the Sub region . The town is
relatively built up with shops, residential areas, various Administrative offices, schools, and
religious institutions among others. These are linked by a number of road networks
2.2 Topography
The relief of Kiyunga Town Council is characterized by hills of rounded elevations of limited
extent rising above the surrounding land with local relief of less than 300 m. It has an
Elevation of 1,200m above sea level.
2.3 Climate
Luuka District enjoys the monsoon climate, with an average annual temperature of 260C and
there is about 322 mm of rain in a year.

CHAPTER THREE: FIELD INVESTIGATIONS

3.1 General
The field activities were conducted in April 2021. This included: Excavation of test points,
alignment investigations using DCP test, sampling road alignment/subgrade materials and
construction materials prospecting and sampling. Soil investigations were conducted on
Kiyunga- Kitwekyambogo Road, (2.1Km), Tabingwa – Adminstration Close (0.500 Km),
Mugisha –Police,-MufumoClose-, Kasiko Close- Gusite – Mukasa road (1.1 Km), Ngobi –
Muganza-Kasokoso-Ntumba(1.1 Km) and Kinyunga HC 1V Close (0.5 Km). The total length
of the road network was 5.0 km. Additional information and findings are given in the
subsequent items of the report.
3.2 Visual Condition Assessment and Dominant Defects

The road network comprised of Gravel and Earth roads of width ranging from 6.0 m – 7.5 m
(drain to drain) with poor surfaces characterized by gullies, potholes and gravel loss, poor
drainage with no drainage structure and lack of chamber. The total length of 5.0 Km was
proposed for upgrading from Gravel to bitumen standard, Visual assessment helped in
planning for the subsequent field investigation program for the alignment.
The Pictures below show the existing road conditions

3.3 Subgrade Investigations
3.3.1 General
Sub grade field investigations were executed by excavating test pits along the road alignment to
expose the insitu soil profile, logging and sampling of the insitu materials for Laboratory tests.
Dynamic Cone Penetration (DCP) tests were conducted to establish the subgrade Strength (CBR)
3.3.2 Test Pit Excavations
The test pits were manually excavated for a each road way to a maximum depth of 0.70 m. Each
material and condition exposed by the test pit was logged as per standard practice. Notably the
surfacing/wearing and materials in the underlying layers were examined. Only sub grade samples
were taken for testing. The roads were gravel and earth surfaced.
The Pictures below show field staff excavating test pits and sampling subgrade materials
The Test pit logs were prepared indicating soil type and thicknesses as presented below.
Kiyunga Kitwekyambogo Road (2.1 Km)
CH 0+100 RHS CH 0+500 LHS

Gravel Wearing Course Gravel Wearing Course
0.100m
0.150 m
Brownish Clayey Sand Dark clayey Sand
0.600 m
0.700 m
0.500 m
CH 1+200 RHS CH 1+600 LHS 1

Gravel Wearing. Course
Gravel Wearing Course 0.100m 0
0.100 m m
Dark Sandy clay

Brown Clayey Sand
0.600 m
0.700 m
CH 1+800 CL CH 2+100 CL
Gravel Wearing Course
0.100m 0.100 m
0.070 m
Brown silty sand
Brownish Sandy Clay
0.530 m
0..700 m
Tabingwa – Administration Close (0.500 Km)
CH 0+300 LHS CH 0+500 CL

Brownish clayey Sand
Dark clayey Sand
0.700 m
0.700 m
Mugisha –Police, Mufumo Close, Kasiko Close, Gusite – Mukasa (1.1 Km)
CH 0+000 LHS CH 0+400 CL

Reddish Brown Clayey Dark Brown Clayey Gravel
Gravel 0.150 m
0.100 m
Yellowish brown
Dark sandy Clay
Brownish Sandy Clay
silty clay
0.6500 m 0.600 m
CH 0+800 RHS CH 1+100 RHS

Brownish Clayey Gravel Brownish Clayey Gravel
0.090 m 0.100 m
Dark Silty Sand Dark sandy Clay
0.550 m 0.500 m

Ngobi – Muganza-Kasokoso-Ntumba (1.1 Km)
CH 0+030 RHS CH 0+300 CL

Gravel Wearing Course Gravel Wearing
0.050 0.080 m
BrownmSandy Clay
Reddish Brown sandy Clay

Yellowish brown
0.600 m 0.700 silty
m clay
CH 0+400 RHS0.700 m 1.0m CH 0+700 CL

0.100 m Reddish Brown sandy Clay
Dark sandy Clay

Yellowish brown
0.500 m silty clay
0.600 m
Kinyunga HC 1V Close (0.500 Km)
CH 0+050 RHS CH 0+200 LHS 1.

0
Brown Clayey sand
m
Dark Sandy clay

0.200 m
Hardpan
0.600 m
The test pit logs indicate Dark –Reddish Brown sandy Clays/Clayey Sand A summary of Subgrade
materials test results is in Appendix 2
3.3.3 Dynamic Cone Penetration Test (DCP)
DCP tests were conducted on the road alignment to establish the subgrade strength using a standard
DCP test equipment. The tests were conducted at an interval of 500 m (or at least two points for
roads <500m) along the alignment of each road to ascertain the sub grade CBR values.
The results of blows against penetration were recorded on a prepared test form. The data obtained
above was then entered in the UKDCP V3.1 Software and the results of layer strength analysis
showing penetration per millimeter versus CBR were produced using:

The TRRL equation; Log10 (CBR) =2.48-1.057*Log10 (strength) was used to compute the
equivalent in-situ CBR values from the obtained penetration depths.
Details of the DCP test results and analyses are presented in Appendix 6
Pictures below show field staff conducting DCP Tests
A summary of evaluation of CBR based on DCP test is presented in Table 2 below.

Table 1: A summary of evaluation of CBR based on the DCP Tests for Layer Depth > 250 mm
Road Name Chainage Layer Cumulative From Average Average CBR

Thickness Commencement Penetration Consistency/Unit (%)for Layer
(Km) (mm) Level (mm) (mm/blow) >250 mm
Ch 0+000 453 453 12.94 Medium Dense III 15
LHS 472 925 9.25 Medium Dense III 26
Ch 0+400 320 320 26.67 Loose 11 7
Kiyunga
CL 600 920 42.86 Loose 11 5
Kitwekyambo
Ch 1+200 522 522 58.0 Loose 11 3
go
RHS 383 905 17.41 Medium Dense III 14
Ch 1+800 388 388 4.62 Dense IV 46
CL 497 885 10.35 Medium Dense III 23
LHS 375 940 31.25 Loose 1I 7
Tabingwa – Ch 0+100 830 830 11.53 Medium DenseI II 19
Adminstration CL 50 880 4.55 Very Dense V 58
Close Ch 0+400 628 628 34.89 Loose 1I 6
Mugisha – Ch 0+000 398 398 7.24 Medium Dense III 37
Police,Mufum LHS 432 830 5.02 Very Dense V 55
o Ch 0+400 510 510 30.00 Loose 1I 7
Close,Kasiko LHS 405 915 45.00 Loose 1I 5
Close,Gusite - Ch 0+800 210 210 30.00 Loose 1I 6
Mukasa RHS 733 943 61.08 Very Loose 1 3

Ngobi –
Muganza-
RHS 542 890 21.68 Medium Dense III 10
Kasokoso-
Ntumba
CL 465 815 29.06 Loose 1I 8
Ch CL
1+100 340 340 14.78 Medium Dense III 18
RHS 570 910 63.33 Loose 1I 3
KinyungaHC Ch 0+200 805 805 33.54 Loose 1I 6
1V Close CL 111 916 13.88 Medium Dense III 18

Table 2: A Summary of Range of Average CBR Values
Road Name Layer Depth Range Range of Average

(M) CBR (%)
Kiyunga Kitwekyambogo Upper Layer 0.00 – 0.522 3 - 46
Lower Layer 0.522 – 0.940 5 - 26

Tabingwa – Adminstration Upper Layer 0.00 – 0.830 6 - 19
Close
Lower Layer 0.830 -0.880 58
Mugisha –Police,Mufumo Upper Layer 0.000 – 0.510 6 - 37
Close,Kasiko Close,Gusite -
Lower Layer 0.510 – 0.943 3 - 55
Mukasa
Ngobi – Muganza- Upper Layer 0.000 – 0.350 3 - 16
Kasokoso-Ntumba
Lower Layer 0.350 – 0.916 6 - 18
Kinyunga HC 1V Close Upper Layer 60.000 – 0.805 6
Lower Layer 0.805 – 0.916 18
The average CBR values obtained from the analysis using DCP software ranged from 3% to 58% as
summarized in the table 2 above. The subgrade soils were categorized in five strength units of very
loose, loose, medium dense, dense and very dense consistencies. This implies that the subgrade
soils with very loose and loose consistencies will not support the road layers unless improved. The
very loose soils should be removed while loose soils should be improved by compaction if they are
to be incorporated into the pavement layer.
3.4 Borrow Pit Surveys
A potential gravel source was identified at Kamerungu Borrow Pit about 4 km along Kiyunga –
Iganga road. The borrow pit is currently being used by Kiyunga Town council in their maintenance
activities and has potential for gravel materials. Gravel samples were collected and delivered for
testing at Central Materials Laboratory (CML) to establish the quality and suitability of the
materials for use in road construction. The Borrow pit has an estimated potential of 18,000m3 of
gravel materials.

The pictures below show the activities in the borrow pit.
3.5 Sand
Kiyunga Town council obtains sand for construction works from Namasagali in Kamuli District.
Sand sample was collected and delivered for testing at Central Materials Laboratory (CML) to
establish its quality and suitability for use in road construction.
3.6 Aggregates
Aggregates for concrete and Road works were identified at Namutere Quarry. The samples obtained
were delivered at Central Materials Laboratory for testing.
3.7 Water
Water sample was obtained from a stream along Kiyunga - Kitwekyambogo road at Ch 1+600 and
delivered for testing at Central Materials Laboratory (CML) to establish its quality and suitability
for use in road construction.

CHAPTER FOUR: LABORATORY INVESTIGATIONS

4.1 General
Laboratory investigations involved testing alignment soil samples, borrow pit materials, sand
aggregates and water. The tests were conducted according to the standard methods in Table 3.0
below.
Table 3.0: Standard Methods of Laboratory Testing
Name of Test Standard Test Method

Particle Size Distribution BS 1377: Part 2: 1990
Liquid Limit “BS 1377: Part 2: 1990
Plastic Limit BS 1377: Part 2: 1990
Plasticity Index BS 1377: Part 2: 1990
Natural Moisture Content BS 1377: Part 2: 1990
Compaction BS 1377: Part 4: 1990
Soaked CBR of Un-Stabilized Materials BS 1377: Part 4: 1990
Soaked CBR of Stabilized Materials BS 1924: Part 1&2: 1990
BS 812:1990, BS 882: 1992

Aggregates
(Road and Concrete Works)
Sand BS 882:1992
(Road and Concrete Works)
Water BS EN 1008: 2002
4.2 Subgrade Materials Investigations
4.2.1 Classification of Subgrade Materials
The subgrade materials were classified using the grading and Atterberg limits test results presented
in Appendix 2. The soils were classified into AASHTO soil group A-2-6 and A-7-6 as summarized
in Table 4.0 below.

Table 4.0: Soil Grain and Atterberg Limits of Subgrade/Alignment Soils
Percentage Passing (%) Atterber Rating as

Road Name Chainage g Limits AASHTO Group
subgrade
(Km) 37.5 - 5.0-0.075 0.075mm LL PI
Material
5.0mm mm(Sand) (Silt+ (%) (%)
Ch 0+100 (Gravel) clay) Clayey sand

2 49 49 53 25 A -7 -6 Poor
CL with gravel
1 53 44 46 21 A -7 -6 Clayey sand Poor
Ch0+50LHS
with gravel
Kiyunga 2 55 43 45 22 A -7 -6 Clayey sand Poor
Ch1+20RHS
Kitwekyambogo with gravel
2 71 27 33 13 A -2 -6 Clayey sand Good
Ch1+60RHS
with gravel
CH1+800 8 72 20 31 11 A -2 -6 Clayey sand Good
CL with gravel
Ch2+10RHS
with gravel
Tabingwa – 3 51 46 48 25 A -7 -6 Poor
Ch0+30LHS Clayey sand
Adminstration
CH0+500 1 55 44 47 26 A -2 -5 Clayey sand Good
Close CL with gravel
Mugisha – 2 41 57 48 22 A -7 -6 Sandy clay Poor
Ch0+00LHS
with gravel
Police,Mufumo
CH 1 44 55 47 24 A -7 -6 Sandy clay Poor
Close,Kasiko 0+400CL with gravel
Close,Gusite - 1 41 58 45 23 A -7 -6 Sandy clay Poor
CH0+800RS
with gravel
Mukasa
2 45 53 48 24 A -7 -6 Sandy clay Poor
Ch1+10LHS
with gravel
Ch0+03LHS
with gravel
Ngobi –
Ch 0+400 7 60 33 37 17 A -2 -6 Clayey sand Good
Muganza- CL with gravel
Kasokoso- Ch 0+700 1 63 36 40 20 A -2 -6 Clayey sand Good
CL with gravel
Ntumba
Ch1+10RHS 2 55 43 45 22 A -7 - Clayey sand Poor
with gravel
5
Kinyunga HC Ch0+300LH 1 58 41 42 19 A -7 -6 Sandy clay Poor
S with gravel
1V Close
CH 0+50 4 68 28 31 16 A -2 -5 Clayey sand Good
CL with gravel
The alignment materials had high plasticity. The Liquid Limit ranged between 31% and 53%, and
the Plasticity Index ranged between 13 % and 25 %. The alignment soils have poor to good rating
as subgrade materials, the poor material will have to be removed.

4.2.2 Compaction Parameters of Alignment/Subgrade Soils
Compaction tests were conducted on subgrade materials yielded the results in Table 5.0 below.
Generally, the Maximum Dry Density (MDD) ranged from 1.77Mg/m3 to 2.0Mg/m3, while the
Optimum Moisture Content (OMC) ranged from 10% to 19% as summarized in Table 5.0 below.
Table 5.0 Compaction Test Result of Subgrade Materials
Road Name BS Heavy Compaction

Chainage (Km)
MDD (Mg/M3) OMC (%)
Ch 0+100 CL 1.80 17
Ch 0+500 LHS 1.83 16

Kiyunga Kitwekyambogo Ch 1+200 RHS 1.84 16
Ch 1+600 RHS 1.84 12
CH 1+800 CL 1.90 10
Ch 2+100 RHS 1.83 12
Tabingwa – Administration Ch 0+300 LHS 1.84 17

Close
CH 0+500 CL 1.82 17
Mugisha –Police ,Mufumo Ch 0+000 LHS 1.78 19
Close,Kasiko Close,Gusite -
CH 0+400 CL 1.77 19
Mukasa
CH 0+800 RHS 1.78 19
Ch 1+100 LHS 1.80 18
Ch 0+030 LHS 1.86 15
Ngobi – Muganza- Ch 0+400 CL 1.83 16

Kasokoso-Ntumba Ch 0+700 CL 1.81 17
Ch 1+100 RHS 1.84 16
Ch 0+050LHS 2.00 13
Kinyunga HC 1V Close
CH 0+100 CL 2.00 11

4.2.3 CBR Test Result for Subgrade/Alignment Soils
CBR tests were conducted at 95% MDD of the subgrade soils. The subgrade average CBR values
ranged from 2% to 20% at 95%MDD (BS Heavy). The subgrade classifications were S1, S2, S3
and S4 as given in Table 6.0 below. Detailed results are attached in Appendix 2.
Table 6.0: Summary of CBR Values and Subgrade Class

Road Name CBRat95% Average
Chainage (Km) Subgrade Class
MDD (%) CBR
Ch 0+100 CL 4
Kiyunga - Ch 0+500 LHS 8
K8itwekyambogo Ch 1+200 RHS 8
10 S4
Ch 1+600 RHS 10
CH 1+800 CL 20
Ch 2+100 RHS 13
Tabingwa – Ch 0+300 LHS 5
4 S2
Adminstration Close CH 0+500 CL 4
Mugisha -Police, Ch 0+000 LHS 2
Mufumo -Close, CH 0+400 CL 2
Kasiko - Close, S1
CH 0+800 RHS 3 2
Gusite - Mukasa
Ch 1+100 LHS 4
Ch 0+030 LHS 8
Ngobi Muganza- Ch 0+400 CL 8 S4
KasokosoNtumba Ch 0+700 CL 9 8
Ch 1+100 RHS 8
Kinyunga HC 1V Ch 0+050LHS 6
Close CH 0+100 CL 10 6 S3
Overall Average 6 S3
The classification obtained above was based on the Ministry of Works and Transport Pavement
Design Manual.

Table 7.0: Subgrade Classification
Subgrade Classification
Subgrade CBR S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6
ranges (%) 2 3–4 5–7 8 – 14 15 – 29 30+
The CBR values ranged from 2% to 10%. The subgrade classes for the roads range from S1 –
S4(i.e. S1, S2, S3,S4 and S4 for Mugisha –Police, Mufumo Close-Kasiko Close-Gusite – Mukasa,,
Tabingwa – Administration Close, Kinyunga HC 1V Close, Ngobi – Muganza-Kasokoso-Ntumba and
Kiyunga Kitwekyambogo) respectively.
For design purposes, average CBR of 6% and the subgrade class S3 were used for all the
roads
Note: A minimum of 350mm is taken as the recommended minimum subgrade Depth meeting the
design subgrade strength unless hard weathered rocky soils are encountered (Vol III: Pavement
Design Manual, Part 1: Flexible Pavement Design Guide, Table 3.3)
Table 8.0: A summary of Minimum subgrade thickness
Subgrade Class Designation
S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6
Minimum Depth
250 250 350 450 550 650
(mm)
4.3 Borrow Materials Investigations
4.3.1 Classification of Borrow Pit Materials
The borrow pit materials were identified and classified as presented in Appendix 2. The soils were
classified into AASHTO soil group A-2-7 as summarized in Table 9.0 below.

Table 9: Soil Grain and Atterberg Limits of Borrow pit Materials
Atterberg
Percentage Passing (%)
Limits
Borrowpit General
AASHTO Group
Name 37.5 – 5.0mm 5.0 – 0.075
,0.075 mm LL PI Rating
mm
(Gravel) (Silt + Clay) (%) (%)
(Sand)
Borrow pit at Clayey

68 20 12 41 22 A – 2 -7 Good
Kamerungu gravel
4.3.2 Compaction Parameters of the Borrow Pit Material
Compaction tests for borrow pit materials yielded the results in Table 8.0 below. The Maximum
Dry Density (MDD) was 2.15 Mg/m3 with Optimum Moisture Content being 8% for the neat
material as presented in Table 10.0 below. \
Table 10.0: Compaction Test Results for Borrow Pit Materials
BS heavy Compaction
Borrow pit Name Maximum Dry Density Optimum Moisture Content
(Mg/M3) (%)
Borrow pit at Kamerungu 2.15 8
4.3.3 CBR Test results of Borrow Pit Material
CBR tests were conducted on the borrow pit materials. The borrow pit materials average
CBR value was 43% at 98% as presented in Table 11.0 below. Detailed results are attached
in Appendix 2

. Table 11.0: Summary of CBR Values for Borrow Pit Materials
Average CBR 98% MDD

Borrowpit Name Class of Material
(%)
MoWHC)
Borrow pit at Kamerungu 43 G30
G30 can be used as improved subgrade and Subbase material. For base purposes, it will have to be
improved and stabilized under conventional pavement design .For volume sealed technology the
material is suitable for subbase.
4.3.4 Lime Treatment and Stabilization Test
Due to the high plasticity and low CBR of the borrow material, lime was introduced into the
material at 3%, 4% and 5% to lower its plasticity and increase strength. The plasticity Index
consistently decreased with increase in lime percentage. The results obtained are as given in Table
12.0 below.
4.3.4.1 Atterberg Limits of Borrow pit Materials
Stabilization with 3% 4% and 5% decreased the plasticity Index to 20%, 18% and 10%
respectively, as summarized in the Table 12.0 below
Table 12: Summary of the Test results for Atterberg’ Limits of Borrow pit Materials
Atterberg Limits
Quantity of Lime (%)
Liquid Limit LL (%) Plasticity Index PI (%)
Neat with 0% Lime 41 22

4.3.4.2 Compaction and CBR Test Results of Lime Stabilized Material
The compaction and CBR test results of lime stabilized material were as given in Table 13.0
below.

Table 13.0: Compaction and CBR Test Results for Lime Stabilized Materials
BS Heavy Compaction
Percentage of Lime Maximum Dry Density Optimum Moisture Average CBR % at
(Mg/m3) Content (%) 98%MDD;OMC
Neat with 3% Lime 2.13 9 52

The trend exhibited by the results in Table 11.0 above shows a consistent increase in the strength of
the materials with increase in the percentage of the stabilizing agent. The material will be suitable
as subbase with minimum CBR of 45% on addition of 3%, and suitable for base with minimum
CBR 60% and 80% on addition of 4% and 5% lime respectively
4.4 Aggregates Materials Investigations

The aggregates to be used for road works in Kiyunga Town Council are obtained from
Namutere stone quarry in Mayuge District Laboratory tests were conducted on the aggregates in
accordance with the relevant specifications and the findings were as presented in Table 14. Below.
Table 14.0: Summary of Tests conducted on aggregates from Namutere Stone quarry.
Specifications
Test BS 812:1990 BS882:1992
Results (Road Works) (Concrete Works)
Aggregates Impact Value (AIV) 13% 25 Maximum 30 Maximum
Aggregates Crushing Value (ACV) 17% 21 Maximum 30 Maximum
Los Angeles Abrasion Value 23% 28 Maximum 50 Maximum
10% FACT 205kN 160 Minimum 100 Minimum
Sodium Sulphate Soundness (SSS) 0.02% 12 Maximum 12 Maximum
Water absorption 0.6% 2 Maximum 2 Maximum
Specific Gravity 2.62 - -
Bitumen Affinity >95% +95 +95
The tested aggregates from Namutere stone quarry met the minimum requirements for use in
construction for both road works and concrete works.

4.5 Sand Materials Investigations

The sand used for construction in Kiyunga Town Council is obtained Namasagali. A sample was
obtained and taken for laboratory testing. Laboratory testing was conducted on the sand sample in
accordance with the specifications as summarized in Table 15.0 below.
Table 15.0: Summary of test results for sand from Namasagali
Source Test Result Specification

Silt Content 4.6 4 Maximum
BS
Namasagali sand Lighter than Standard Lighter than Standard
Organic Content 882:1992(Concrete
Reference Colour Reference Colour*
Works)
The grading of the sand lies under the fine grading. It had a silt content of 4.6% and the organic
content was lighter than the standard reference colour. The silt content falls above the permissible
limits, the sand is not suitable for use during construction works of the road structures.
4.6 Water Sample Investigations

Water sample for construction was obtained from a stream at km 1+600 along Kiwtekyambogo
road. The water sample was tested and the results are summarized in Table 16 below.
Table 16. A summary of test results on water from Km 1+600 along Kitwekyambogo road
S/N Specifications
Test Unit Results
BS EN 1008: 2002
1 pH Value PH 6.64 >4.0
2 Chloride content as Cl (Mg/l)
units 55 1000 maximum
3 Sulphate content as SO3 (Mg/l) 40 2000 maximum
4 (Alkalinity as CaCo3 (Mg/l) 100 -
5 Visible Suspended Matter - Brown Suspensions -
6 Colour - Colourless Colourless
7 Odour - Odourless Odourless
Tests conducted on the water sample indicate that all the parameters fall within the permissible
Limits. This implies that the water will not have any effect on the construction materials and is
therefore suitable for use in the civil works.

4.7 Traffic and Axle Load Investigations
Traffic counts were carried out for vehicles plying Kiyunga - Kitwekyambogo road by manually
counting vehicles using these roads for a period of 3 days. 12-hour vehicle counts were made for 3
days and 24-hour vehicle counts were made for 1-day. The results are summarized in Table 17.0
below:
Table 17.0: 3-Day Traffic counts for Kitwekyambogo Road
Day Traffic Counts Average

Incoming Outgoing
1 26 25
2 41 39
3 67 175 69
4 33 84
5 37 157
Total 204 480
Average 41 96
The purpose of this traffic count was to determine the baseline Annual Average Daily Traffic
(AADT). The traffic counts for Kiyunga - Kitwekyambogo road indicate that the road carries 69
vehicles per day which approximately 0.075 MESAs. The traffic class for this road was T1 which
has less than 0.3 million ESAL’s as shown in Table 18.0 below.
Table 18.0: Summary of Traffic Classes
Traffic Class Designation
Traffic ranges T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8
(million ESAs) <0.3 0.3-0.7 0.7-1.5 1.5-3.0 3-6 6-10 10-17 17-30
This implies that the road can be designed using low volume sealed manual and also the
convectional flexible pavement design manual.

4.8 Pavement Design

For structural pavement design the cumulative traffic loading of each of the motorized vehicle class
over the design life of the road in one direction is required. For design subgrade class S3, traffic
(0.075MESALs) < 0.3MESALs and the available gravel material as G30
4.8.1 Conventionally Sealed Roads with Double Surface Treatment in accordance with
Ministry of Works and Transport , Flexible Pavement Design Manual Volume 3 (2010)
 In-situ subgrade class S3: minimum thickness or depth of 350mm;

 Improved subgrade: 125 mm thick gravel of minimum CBR 15%
 Sub-base: 150mm thick lime stabilized gravel of minimum CBR 30% or 7-day UCS 0.7-
1.5MPa or 150mm thick gravel blended with CRR with minimum CBR of 30%;
 Base: 150mm thick lime stabilized gravel of minimum CBR 80% of 7-day UCS 1.5-3.0MPa
of 150mm thick gravel blended with CRR with minimum CBR of 80%; and
 Double surface dressing. 20/14mm and 14/10mm aggregates layers respectively
4.8.2 Low Volume Sealed Roads with Double Surface Treatment in accordance with
Ministry of Works and Transport, Road Design and Construction Manual for Low Volume
Sealed Roads (2018)
For low volume roads, the design life can be 15 years from the year of opening to traffic.
 In-situ subgrade class TLC2: minimum thickness or depth of 250mm;

 Subgrade: 100mm thick gravel of minimum CBR G15%
 Sub-base: 100mm thick lime stabilized gravel of minimum CBR 30% or 150mm thick
gravel blended with CRR with minimum CBR of 30%;
 Base: 150mm thick lime stabilized gravel of minimum CBR 60% or 150mm thick gravel
blended with CRR with minimum CBR of 60%; and
Option 2 is preferred as it is the least cost option

CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 General
Conclusions and recommendations are drawn on traffic, subgrade materials; borrow pit materials,
aggregates, sand and water for the pavement design of the road.
5.2 Subgrade
The trial pit logs revealed a layer of brown to reddish brown gravel of thickness ranging from
0.050 m to 0.160m underlain by dark to brown clayey Sand / sandy Clays for graveled road
surfaces. The earth roads had Dark/ Brown sandy Clays and Clayey Sands. The subgrade materials
were classified into AASHTO soil groups of A-3, A-2-6 and A-7-6. The average CBR values
ranged from 2% to 10% which lie in Subgrade classes S1- S4. The subgrade soils loose
consistencies will not support the road layers and should therefore be compacted to improve its
strength.
5.3 Borrow Pit Material

Borrow pit material was classified as A-2-7 clayey Gravel with sand according to AASHTO soil
classification system such material is rated as good for subgrade. The MDD and OMC were
2.15Mg/m3 and 8% respectively. The CBR at 95% MDD was 43%, corresponding to G30 class
material which is suitable as improved subgrade and subbase material.
5.4 Sand
The sand had a silt content of 4.6% and will NOT be suitable for use during execution of the
construction works. An alternative source should be identified,
5.5 Aggregates
The aggregates from Namutere quarry are suitable for use in construction of road and concrete
works.
5.6 Water
Water sample from the stream at Km 1+600 along Kiyunga - Kitwekyambogo road is suitable for
use in the construction works

5.7 Stabilized Materials

Chemical stabilization using lime was used to reduce the plasticity index of the borrow material.
Lime stabilization reduced PI values from 20% to 10% for percentages of lime of 3% to 5% lime.
The MDD values reduced from 2.13Mg/m3 to 2.08Mg/m3, while the OMC ranged from 9% to 11%.
The CBR increased from 52% to 92% for percentages of 3% to 5% lime, The material is suitable as
sub base of G45on addition of 3% lime and base of G60 or G80 quality on addition of 5% lime.
5.8 Pavement Structure

The proposed design of the pavement structure is as follows:
Option 1:
 In-situ subgrade class S3: minimum thickness or depth of 350mm;
 Improved subgrade: 125 mm thick gravel of minimum CBR 15%
 Sub-base: 150mm thick lime stabilized gravel of minimum CBR 30% or 7-day UCS 0.7-
1.5MPa or 150mm thick gravel blended with CRR with minimum CBR of 30%;
 Base: 150mm thick lime stabilized gravel of minimum CBR 80% of 7-day UCS 1.5-3.0MPa
of 150mm thick gravel blended with CRR with minimum CBR of 80%; and
. Option 2
 In-situ subgrade class TLC2: minimum thickness or depth of 350mm;

 Subgrade: 100mm thick gravel of minimum CBR G15%
 Sub-base: 100mm thick lime stabilized gravel of minimum CBR 30% or 150mm thick
gravel blended with CRR with minimum CBR of 30%;
 Base: 150mm thick lime stabilized gravel of minimum CBR 60% or 150mm thick gravel
blended with CRR with minimum CBR of 60%; and
Option 2 is preferred as it is the least cost option

BIBLIOGRAPHY
i. Ministry of Works and Transport Pavement (January 2010): Road Design Manual
Volume 3: Pavement Design: Part I Flexible Pavements
ii. Ministry of Works and Transport: General Specifications (January 2005)

iii. BritishStandardInstitution(1995);MethodsTestforSoilsforCivilEngineering Purposes, Lon
iv. Vickers, Brain (1978); Laboratory work in Civil Engineering Soil mechanics, Granada
Publishers, London.
v. Road Design Manual (1987) Part III Materials and Pavement Design for new Roads
vi. TRL, Overseas Road Note 31. A guide to the structural design of bitumen-surfaced
roads in Tropical and Sub-Tropical countries, 1993
vii. Ministry of Works and Transport: Road design and Construction manual (July 2018)
Volume V: Low Volume Sealed Roads

APPENDICES
Appendix 1
(Site Map)
+
Google maps for Busoga tc
Appendix 2
(Soil Index Properties, Compaction and CBR Test Results)
CENTRAL MATERIALS LABORATORY
CLIENT : MINISTRY OF WORKS AND TRANSPORT
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING DESIGN ON THE REHABILITATION AND UPGRADING OF PRIORITY URBAN ROADS IN
PROJECT :
BUSOGA AND BUKEDI SUB-REGIONS
KIYUNGA TOWNL COUNCIL - LUUKA DISTRICT
DATE : APRIL 2021
SUMMARY OF SOIL CLASSIFICATION RESULTS TESTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH BS 1377 PARTS 2 AND 4: 1990
BS Heavy
% Passing in BS sieves Atterberg limits Other Parameters Soaked Soaked
Lime Compaction
SAMPLE AASHTO General CBR (%) CBR (%)
added Sieve Sieve Sieve Sieve Sieve Sieve Sieve Soil Goup Cast at 95% Cast at 98%
LABEL Sieve Sieve Sieve Sieve Sieve Sieve LS Rating MDD OMC
(%) 37.5m 0.600m 0.425m 0.300m 0.212m 0.15m 0.075m LL % PL % PI % SP GM 3 MDD;OMC MDD;OMC
28mm 20mm 10mm 6.3mm 5mm 2mm % (Mg/m ) (%)
m m m m m m m
0% 100 76 69 49 36 32 24 20 19 17 15 15 12 41 19 22 12 228 2.45 A-2-7 Good 2.15 8 43 -

3% - - - - - - - - - - - - - 40 20 20 11 - - - - 2.13 9 - 52
KAMERUNGU
4% - - - - - - - - - - - - - 38 22 16 8 - - - - 2.11 9 - 74
5% - - - - - - - - - - - - - 34 24 10 6 - - - - 2.08 11 - 92
KEY
LL : Liquid Limit OMC : Optimum Moisture comtent SP : Shrinkage Product CBR : Carlifornia Bearing Ratio
PL : Plastic Limit MDD : Maximum Dry Density GM : Grading Modulus AASHTO : American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
PI : Plasticity Index LS : Linear Shrinkage
BS : British Standards
STED IN ACCORDANCE WITH BS 1377 PARTS 2 AND 4: 1990
Carlifornia Bearing Ratio

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials

PROJECT : PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING DESIGN ON THE REHABILITATION AND UPGRADING OF PRIORITY URBAN ROADS IN BUSOGA AND BUKEDI SUB-REGIONS
DATE : APRIL 2021
BS Heavy Soaked CBR
Chainage % Passing in BS sieves Atterberg limits Other Parameters
AASHTO GeneralL Compaction (%) Cast at
Road Name Classification
Sieve Sieve Sieve Sieve Sieve Sieve Sieve Sieve Sieve Sieve Sieve Sieve Sieve LL PL PI LS SP Rating MDD OMC 95% MDD
Km GM (%)
37.5mm 28mm 20mm 10mm 6.3mm 5mm 2mm 0.600mm 0.425mm 0.300mm 0.212mm 0.15mm 0.075mm ( %) ( %) % (%) (%) (Mg/m3) (%)
Ch 0+100 CL 100 99 98 98 97 83 77 62 56 49 52 27 25 12 996 0.7 A-7-6 Poor 1.80 17 4
GUSITE-MUKASA Ch 0+500 LHS 100 99 98 96 85 72 64 55 44 46 25 21 12 1020 0.73 A-7-6 Poor 1.83 16 8
Ch1+200 RHS 100 98 97 89 77 63 56 47 43 45 23 22 12 924 0.83 A-7-6 Poor 1.84 16 8
Ch 0+300 RHS 100 98 97 95 88 83 74 66 59 46 48 23 25 13 1079 0.76 A-7-6 Poor 1.84 17 5

KASOKOSO
NTUMBA
Ch 0+700 CL 100 99 98 93 89 75 68 55 44 47 21 26 13 1157 0.69 A-7-6 Poor 1.82 17 4
Ch 0+050 LHS 100 999 98 93 81 64 56 48 41 42 23 19 9 729 0.8 A-7-6 Poor 2 13 6

KIYUNGA HCIV
CLOSE
Ch 0+100 CL 100 99 96 88 79 67 58 42 33 28 31 15 16 8 536 1.17 A-2-6 Good 2 11 10
Ch1+200 RHS 100 99 98 97 90 86 73 60 49 27 33 20 13 6 516 0.9 A-2-6 Good 1.84 12 10

KIYUNGA -
KITWEKYAMBOG Ch1+800 CL 100 93 92 90 80 74 60 43 33 20 31 20 11 5 370 1.16 A-2-6 Good 1.90 10 20
O
Ch 2+100 RHS 100 99 97 93 88 72 62 48 31 25 33 18 15 7 504 1.1 A-2-6 Good 1.83 12 13
Ch 0+100 LHS 100 99 98 95 85 82 70 67 65 57 48 26 22 12 984 0.66 A-7-6 Poor 1.78 19 2
MUGISHA Ch0+400 CL 100 99 99 97 93 89 79 70 60 55 47 23 24 12 1068 0.59 A-7-6 Poor 1.77 19 2

POLICE MAFUMO
CLOSE Ch0+800 RHS 100 99 99 98 96 89 81 69 62 58 45 22 23 12 1068 0.55 A-7-6 Poor 1.78 19 3
Ch1+100 LHS 100 98 98 97 94 81 73 65 60 53 48 24 24 12 972 0.69 A-7-6 Poor 1.80 18 4
KEY
LL : Liquid Limit OMC : Optimum Moisture comtent GM : Grading Modulus
PL : Plastic Limit MDD : Maximum Dry Density CBR: Califonia Bearing Ratio
PI : Plasticity Index LS : Linear Shrinkage AASTHO : American Association Of State Highway and Transportation Oficials
BS : British Standards SP : Shrinkage Product

PROJECT : PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING DESIGN ON THE REHABILITATION AND UPGRADING OF PRIORITY URBAN ROADS IN BUSOGA AND BUKEDI SUB-REGIONS
DATE : APRIL 2021
Chainage % Passing in BS sieves Atterberg limits Other Parameters BS Heavy Soaked CBR
AASHTO GeneralL (%) Cast at
Road Name Sieve Sieve Sieve Sieve Sieve Sieve Sieve Sieve Sieve Sieve Sieve Sieve Sieve LL PL PI LS SP Classification MDD OMC
Km GM Rating 95% MDD
37.5mm 28mm 20mm 10mm 6.3mm 5mm 2mm 0.600mm 0.425mm 0.300mm 0.212mm 0.15mm 0.075mm ( %) ( %) % (%) (%) (Mg/m3) (%)
(%)
Ch 0+030 LHS 100 96 92 78 66 58 41 39 32 29 34 19 15 8 464 1.35 A-2-6 Good 1.86 15 12
NGOBI-
MUGANZA ROAD
Ch 0+400 CL 100 96 93 92 83 73 63 55 39 33 37 20 17 8 584 1.02 A-2-6 Good 1.83 16 5
Ch 0+700 RHS 100 99 99 96 89 71 65 57 43 36 40 20 20 9 639 0.97 A-2-6 Good 1.81 17 4
Ch 0+100 LHS 100 99 95 93 88 83 73 64 56 49 48 23 25 12 996 0.75 A-7-6 Poor 1.80 17 4
NGOBI- Ch 0+500 CL 100 99 99 98 93 89 78 66 55 47 49 22 27 12 1068 0.66 A-7-6 Poor 1.81 17 4

MUGANZA-
KASOKOSO Ch 0+800 RHS 100 99 99 98 96 85 78 67 58 53 48 24 24 12 1020 0.64 A-7-6 Poor 1.78 18 3
Ch 1+100 CL 100 99 99 97 95 87 76 69 60 55 49 23 26 13 1131 0.61 A-7-6 Poor 1.76 19 2
TABINGWA Ch 0+100 CL 100 99 98 93 78 69 56 39 33 28 32 13 19 9 621 1.1 A-2-6 Good 1.95 14 16

ADMINISTRATIO
N CLOSE Ch 0+400 CL 100 99 99 96 87 77 61 55 39 31 35 18 17 8 616 0.96 A-2-6 Good 1.89 15 7
KEY
LL : Liquid Limit OMC : Optimum Moisture comtent GM : Grading Modulus
PL : Plastic Limit MDD : Maximum Dry Density CBR: Califonia Bearing Ratio
PI : Plasticity Index LS : Linear Shrinkage AASTHO : American Association Of State Highway and Transportation Oficials
BS : British Standards SP : Shrinkage Product
Appendix 3
(Sand Test results)

PROJECT :- PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING DESIGN ON THE REHABILITATION AND
UPGRADING OF PRIORITY URBAN ROADS IN BUSOGA AND BUKEDI SUB-
REGIONS
KIYUNGA TOWN COUNCIL – LUUKA DISTRICT
DATE: APRIL 2021
TEST RESULT FOR AGGRGATE SAMPLE FOR CONCRETE AND ROAD WORKS
(TESTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS IN BS EN 1008-2002)
A . AGGREGATES FROM MAGADA QUARY
Specifications
Sieve Size Results(Percentage
BS 882:1992
(mm) Passing the Sieves
(Concrete Works)
37.50 100 100
20.00 82 85 - 100
14.00 46 0 - 70
10.00 23 0 - 25
5.00 0 0–5
Flakiness Index 21 35 Max
Bitumen Affinity >95+

B. MECHANICAL PROPERTIES
Specifications
Test Results
BS812:1990 BS 882
(RoadWorks) (Concrete Works)

(LAAV)
10% FACT 205 kN 160 Minimum 100 Minimum
Sodium Sulphate Soundness 0.02% 12 Maximum 12 Maximum
(SSS)

Appendix 4
(Aggregates Test Results)

PROJECT :- PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING DESIGN ON THE REHABILITATION AND
UPGRADING OF PRIORITY URBAN ROADS IN BUSOGA AND BUKEDI SUB-
REGIONS
KIYUNGA TOWN COUNCIL – LUUKA DISTRICT
DATE: APRIL 2021
TEST RESULT FOR AGGRGATE SAMPLE FOR CONCRETE AND ROAD WORKS
A . AGGREGATES FROM MAGADA QUARY
Specifications
Sieve Size Results(Percentage
BS 882:1992
(mm) Passing the Sieves
(Concrete Works)
37.50 100 100
20.00 82 85 - 100
14.00 46 0 - 70
10.00 23 0 - 25
5.00 0 0–5
Flakiness Index 21 35 Max
Bitumen Affinity >95+

B. MECHANICAL PROPERTIES
Specifications
Test Results
BS812:1990 BS 882
(RoadWorks) (Concrete Works)

(LAAV)
10% FACT 205 kN 160 Minimum 100 Minimum
Sodium Sulphate Soundness 0.02% 12 Maximum 12 Maximum
(SSS)

Appendix 5
(Water Test Results)
CLIENT: MINISTRY OF WORKS AND TRANSPORT
PROJECT : PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING DESIGN ON THE REHABILITATION AND UPGRADING
OF PRIORITY URBAN ROADS IN BUSOGA AND BUKEDI SUB-REGIONS
URBAN COUNCIL: KIYUNGA TOWN COUNCIL - LUUKA DISTRICT
DATE: APRIL 2021
TEST RESULT FOR A WATER SAMPLE FOR CONCRETE MIX AND ROAD WORKS
SOURCE: KIYUNGA – KIWEKYAMBOGO ROAD AT CH 1+600
Chloride Sulphate Content Visible Alkalinity as

Sample pH Value Content as Cl - as SO4= Suspended CaCO3 Colour Odour
()mg/l) ()mg/l) Matter ()mg/l)
Ch 1+600
Brown
Kiyunga - 6.64 55 40 100 Colourless Odourless
Suspension
Kitwekyambogo Road
Specifications: Pale yellow to

.> 4.0 1000 Max 2000 Max - - Odourless
BS EN 1008;2002 Colourless
General Remarks;
 Preliminary assessment of the water sample on delivery indicated no evidence of oils, fats and detergents in the water.
 The water had Brown suspension.
 The water colour was qualitatively assessed as clear
 There was no evidence of Hydrogen Sulphide
 Sugars and Silts were not determined.
Appendix 6
(DCP Test Results)
UK DCP V3.1
DCP Layer Strength Analysis Report
Project Name: KIYUNGA TOWN COUNCIL KIYUNGA - KITWEKYAMBOGO ROAD
Chainage (km): 0.000 Surface Type: Unpaved

Direction: LHS Thickness (mm): 0
Location/Offset: Carriageway Base Type:
Cone Angle: 60 degrees Thickness (mm):
Zero Error (mm): 7 Surface Moisture: Moderate
Test Date: 13/04/2021 Moisture adjustment factor: 0.71
Layer Boundaries Chart CBR Chart
Layer Properties
No. Penetration CBR Thickness Depth to Position Strength SN SNC SNP
Rate (%) (mm) layer bottom Coefficient
(mm/blow) (mm)
1 12.94 16 453 453 Sub-Base 0.08 1.45 1.45 1.32
2 9.25 26 472 925 Subgrade -- -- -- --
Pavement Strength
Layer Contribution
Layer SN SNC SNP
Surface -- -- --
Base -- -- --
Sub-Base 1.45 1.45 1.32
Subgrade -- 1.84 1.14
Pavement Strength 1.45 3.29 2.46
CBR Relationship:
TRL equation: log10(CBR) = 2.48 - 1.057 x log10(Strength)
Report produced by ...................................................................
Report Date: 24-Jul-2021 Page 1 of 4

This document was created by an application that isn’t licensed to use novaPDF.
Purchase a license to generate PDF files without this notice.
UK DCP V3.1

Direction: RHS Thickness (mm): 0
Layer Properties
(mm/blow) (mm)
1 58.00 3 522 522 Sub-Base 0.01 0.15 0.15 0.13
2 17.41 14 383 905 Subgrade -- -- -- --
Pavement Strength
Layer Contribution
Layer SN SNC SNP
Surface -- -- --
Base -- -- --
Sub-Base 0.15 0.15 0.13
Subgrade -- 1.45 0.78
CBR Relationship:

UK DCP V3.1

Direction: CL Thickness (mm): 0
Layer Properties
(mm/blow) (mm)
1 4.62 46 388 388 Sub-Base 0.11 1.65 1.65 1.57
2 10.35 23 497 885 Subgrade -- -- -- --
Pavement Strength
Layer Contribution
Layer SN SNC SNP
Surface -- -- --
Base -- -- --
Sub-Base 1.65 1.65 1.57
Subgrade -- 1.77 1.25
CBR Relationship:

UK DCP V3.1

Layer Properties
(mm/blow) (mm)
1 16.62 12 565 565 Sub-Base 0.07 1.62 1.62 1.36
2 31.25 7 375 940 Subgrade -- -- -- --
Pavement Strength
Layer Contribution
Layer SN SNC SNP
Surface -- -- --
Base -- -- --
Sub-Base 1.62 1.62 1.36
Subgrade -- 0.98 0.48
CBR Relationship:

UK DCP V3.1
Project Name: kKIYUNGA TOWN COUNCIL ( KIYUNGA - KITWEKYAMBOGO ROAD)

Location/Offset: Lane 1 Base Type:
Test Date: 13/04/2021 Moisture adjustment factor: Not adjusted
Layer Properties
(mm/blow) (mm)
1 24.62 10 320 320 Subgrade -- -- -- --
2 42.86 6 600 920 Subgrade -- -- -- --
Pavement Strength
Layer Contribution
Layer SN SNC SNP
Surface -- -- --
Base -- -- --
Sub-Base -- -- --
Subgrade -- 0.74 0.74
Pavement Strength -- 0.74 0.74
CBR Relationship:

UK DCP V3.1
Project Name: kKIYUNGA TOWN COUNCIL ( KIYUNGA - KITWEKYAMBOGO ROAD)

Layer Properties
(mm/blow) (mm)
1 34.58 7 415 415 Sub-Base 0.05 0.81 0.81 0.76
2 65.38 4 523 938 Subgrade -- -- -- --
Pavement Strength
Layer Contribution
Layer SN SNC SNP
Surface -- -- --
Base -- -- --
Sub-Base 0.81 0.81 0.76
Subgrade -- 0.27 0.18
CBR Relationship:

UK DCP V3.1
Project Name: KIYUNGA TOWN COUNCIL KIYUNGA HCIV CLOSE ROAD

Layer Properties
(mm/blow) (mm)
1 33.54 6 805 805 Sub-Base 0.04 1.33 1.33 0.94
2 13.88 18 111 916 Subgrade -- -- -- --
Pavement Strength
Layer Contribution
Layer SN SNC SNP
Surface -- -- --
Base -- -- --
Sub-Base 1.33 1.33 0.94
Subgrade -- 1.64 0.49
CBR Relationship:

UK DCP V3.1
oject Name: KIYUNGA TOWN COUNCIL ( MUGISH POLICE - MUFUMO CLOSE KASIKO GUSITE -MUKASA RO

Layer Properties
(mm/blow) (mm)
1 7.24 37 398 398 Subgrade -- -- -- --
2 5.02 55 432 830 Subgrade -- -- -- --
Pavement Strength
Layer Contribution
Layer SN SNC SNP
Surface -- -- --
Base -- -- --
Sub-Base -- -- --
Subgrade -- 1.99 1.99
CBR Relationship:

UK DCP V3.1

Layer Properties
(mm/blow) (mm)
1 34.00 7 510 510 Subgrade -- -- -- --
2 45.00 5 405 915 Subgrade -- -- -- --
Pavement Strength
Layer Contribution
Layer SN SNC SNP
Surface -- -- --
Base -- -- --
Sub-Base -- -- --
Subgrade -- 0.69 0.69
CBR Relationship:

UK DCP V3.1

Layer Properties
(mm/blow) (mm)
1 42.00 6 210 210 Subgrade -- -- -- --
2 91.63 3 733 943 Subgrade -- -- -- --
Pavement Strength
Layer Contribution
Layer SN SNC SNP
Surface -- -- --
Base -- -- --
Sub-Base -- -- --
Subgrade -- 0.00 0.00
CBR Relationship:

UK DCP V3.1
Project Name: KIYUNGA TOWN COUNCIL KASOKOSO ROAD

Layer Properties
(mm/blow) (mm)
1 13.92 14 348 348 Sub-Base 0.08 1.07 1.07 1.04
2 21.68 10 542 890 Subgrade -- -- -- --
Pavement Strength
Layer Contribution
Layer SN SNC SNP
Surface -- -- --
Base -- -- --
Sub-Base 1.07 1.07 1.04
Subgrade -- 1.26 0.96
CBR Relationship:

UK DCP V3.1
Project Name: KIYUNGA TOWN COUNCIL KASOKOSO ROAD

Layer Properties
(mm/blow) (mm)
1 13.81 16 884 884 Subgrade -- -- -- --
Pavement Strength
Layer Contribution
Layer SN SNC SNP
Surface -- -- --
Base -- -- --
Sub-Base -- -- --
Subgrade -- 1.56 1.56
CBR Relationship:

UK DCP V3.1
Project Name: KIYUNGA TOWN COUNCIL NGOBI - MUGANZA - KASOKOSO - NTUMBA ROAD

Layer Properties
(mm/blow) (mm)
1 12.08 16 290 290 Sub-Base 0.08 0.95 0.95 0.95
2 6.99 34 615 905 Subgrade -- -- -- --
Pavement Strength
Layer Contribution
Layer SN SNC SNP
Surface -- -- --
Base -- -- --
Sub-Base 0.95 0.95 0.95
Subgrade -- 1.95 1.65
CBR Relationship:

UK DCP V3.1
Project Name: KIYUNGA TOWN COUNCIL NGOBI - MUGANZA - KASOKOSO - NTUMBA ROAD

Layer Properties
(mm/blow) (mm)
1 12.96 15 350 350 Sub-Base 0.08 1.11 1.11 1.08
2 29.06 8 465 815 Subgrade -- -- -- --
Pavement Strength
Layer Contribution
Layer SN SNC SNP
Surface -- -- --
Base -- -- --
Sub-Base 1.11 1.11 1.08
Subgrade -- 0.99 0.75
CBR Relationship:

UK DCP V3.1
Project Name: KIYUNGA TOWN COUNCIL NGOBI - KASOKOSO - MTUMBA GUSITE - MUKASA ROAD

Layer Properties
(mm/blow) (mm)
1 14.78 18 340 340 Base 0.05 0.61 0.61 0.61
2 63.33 4 570 910 Subgrade -- -- -- --
Pavement Strength
Layer Contribution
Layer SN SNC SNP
Surface -- -- --
Base 0.61 0.61 0.61
Sub-Base -- -- --
Subgrade -- 0.31 0.31
CBR Relationship:

UK DCP V3.1
Project Name: KIYUNGA TOWN COUNCIL TABINGWA - ADMINISTRATION CLOSE ROAD

Layer Properties
(mm/blow) (mm)
1 11.53 23 830 830 Subgrade -- -- -- --
2 4.55 61 50 880 Subgrade -- -- -- --
Pavement Strength
Layer Contribution
Layer SN SNC SNP
Surface -- -- --
Base -- -- --
Sub-Base -- -- --
Subgrade -- 1.77 1.77
CBR Relationship:

UK DCP V3.1
Project Name: KIYUNGA TOWN COUNCIL TABINGWA - ADMINISTRATION CLOSE ROAD

Layer Properties
(mm/blow) (mm)
1 34.44 7 628 628 Subgrade -- -- -- --
2 15.13 17 227 855 Subgrade -- -- -- --
Pavement Strength
Layer Contribution
Layer SN SNC SNP
Surface -- -- --
Base -- -- --
Sub-Base -- -- --
Subgrade -- 0.95 0.95
CBR Relationship:


3kiyunga TC - Matrls Report

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

3kiyunga TC - Matrls Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Telephone: 256-41-285750 Ministry of Works and Transport

E-mail: urrrp@utlonline.co.ugn Central Materials Laboratory,

THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA

MINISTRY OF WORKS AND TRANSPORT

PERILIMINARY ENGINEERING DESIGN OF THE REHABILITATION AND UPGRADING

CHIEF MATERIALS ENGINEER

LIST OF SYMBOLS .......................................................................................................................................... iv

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Back Ground ........................................................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Scope of Work ........................................................................................................................................ 1

1.3 Structure of the report ............................................................................................................................. 2

CHAPTER TWO: SITE DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................................ 3

2.1 General .................................................................................................................................................... 3

2.2 Topography ............................................................................................................................................. 3

2.3 Climate .................................................................................................................................................... 3

CHAPTER THREE: FIELD INVESTIGATIONS .................................................................................................. 4

3.1 General .................................................................................................................................................... 4

3.2 Visual Condition Assessment and Dominant Defects ............................................................................. 4

3.3 Subgrade Investigations .......................................................................................................................... 5

3.3.1 General ................................................................................................................................................ 5

3.3.2 Test Pit Excavations ............................................................................................................................ 5

3.3.3 Dynamic Cone Penetration Test (DCP) .............................................................................................. 7

3.4 Borrow Pit Surveys ............................................................................................................................... 10

3.6 Aggregates ............................................................................................................................................ 11

3.7 Water ..................................................................................................................................................... 11

CHAPTER FOUR: LABORATORY INVESTIGATIONS .................................................................................. 12

4.1 General .................................................................................................................................................. 12

4.2 Subgrade Materials Investigations ........................................................................................................ 12

4.2.1 Classification of Subgrade Materials .................................................................................................. 12

4.2.2 Compaction Parameters of Alignment/Subgrade Soils ..................................................................... 14

4.2.3 CBR Test Result for Subgrade/Alignment Soils ............................................................................... 15

Ministry of Works and Transport Central Materials Laboratory Page ii

4.3 Borrow Materials Investigations ........................................................................................................... 16

4.3.1 Classification of Borrow Pit Materials .............................................................................................. 16

4.3.2 Compaction Parameters of the Borrow Pit Material ......................................................................... 17

4.3.3 CBR Test results of Borrow Pit Material .......................................................................................... 17

4.3.4 Lime Treatment and Stabilization Test ............................................................................................. 18

4.3.4.1 Atterberg Limits of Borrow pit Materials ..................................................................................... 18

4.4 Aggregates Materials Investigations ..................................................................................................... 19

4.5 Sand Materials Investigations ............................................................................................................... 20

4.6 Water Sample Investigations ................................................................................................................. 20

4.7 Traffic and Axle Load Investigations ............................................................................................... 21

4.8 Pavement Design................................................................................................................................... 22

4.8.1 Conventionally Sealed Roads................................................................................................................ 22

4.8.2 Low Volume Sealed Roads ................................................................................................................... 22

CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................. 23

5.1 General .................................................................................................................................................. 23

5.3 Borrow Pit Material............................................................................................................................... 23

5.5 Aggregates ............................................................................................................................................ 23

5.6 Water ..................................................................................................................................................... 23

5.7 Stabilized Materials ............................................................................................................................... 24

5.8 Pavement Structure ............................................................................................................................... 24

Ministry of Works and Transport Central Materials Laboratory Page iii

Ministry of Works and Transport Central Materials Laboratory Page iv

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

1.2 Scope of Work

Ministry of Works and Transport Central Materials Laboratory Page 1

 Undertaking Structural Pavement Designs and

1.3 Structure of the report

Chapter 2- Site description and Topography and Climate;

Chapter 3- Field Investigations;

Chapter 4- Laboratory Investigations

Chapter 5- Conclusions and recommendations