KYAMBOGO UNIVERSITY

P.O.BOX 1, KYAMBOGO-KAMPALA, UGANDA

FACULTY OF ENGINEERING
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING
BACHELOR OF ENGINEERING IN CIVIL AND BUILDING
ENGINEERING

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION FOR THE RE-DESIGN OF GETFUND

HOSTEL KOFORIDUA TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY IN GHANA INTO A MODERN
STUDENTS HOSTEL AT KYAMBOGO UNIVERSITY.

PREPARED BY
GROUP 11:

A GEOTECHNICAL REPORT SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL AND

BUILDING ENGINEERING IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS
FOR THE AWARD OF BACHELOR OF ENGINEERING IN CIVIL AND BUILDING
ENGINEERING DEGREE OF KYAMBOGO UNIVERSITY.
FEB 2022
TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................................ ii

LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................................................... iv
LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................................ v
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ...................................................................... vi
1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 1
1.1 BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................. 1
1.2 OBJECTIVES ...................................................................................................................... 1
1.2.1 MAIN OBJECTIVE ............................................................................................... 1
1.2.2 SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES...................................................................................... 2
1.3 TERMS OF APPOINTMENT. ............................................................................................ 2
1.4 SCOPE OF THE STUDY .................................................................................................... 2
2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION .......................................................................................................... 5
2.1 Site Topography ................................................................................................................... 5
2.2 Site Location ........................................................................................................................ 5
2.3 Site Climate.......................................................................................................................... 6
2.4 Site Geology......................................................................................................................... 7
2.5 Site Semiology. .................................................................................................................. 10
3.0 SITE INVESTIGATION/ METHODOLOGY .................................................................. 12
3.1 FIELD WORK ................................................................................................................... 12
3.1.1 SITE VISIT (RECONNAISSANCE)............................................................................. 12
3.1.2 TEST PIT EXCAVATION. ........................................................................................... 12
3.1.3 SAMPLING. .................................................................................................................. 13
3.1.4 TEST PIT LOGGING .................................................................................................... 13
3.1.5 INSITU/ FIELD TESTS................................................................................................. 14
3.1.6 GROUND WATER INVESTIGATION. ....................................................................... 14
3.2 LABORATORY TESTING............................................................................................... 14
3.2.1 CLASSIFICATION TESTS ........................................................................................... 16
3.2.1.1 MOISTURE CONTENT ............................................................................................ 16
3.2.1.2 ATTERBERG LIMIT TESTS .................................................................................... 16

ii
3.2.1.3 PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION ........................................................................... 18
3.2.2 COMPACTION ............................................................................................................. 19
3.2.3 STRENGTH TESTS ...................................................................................................... 20
4.0 FINDINGS. ........................................................................................................................ 22
4.1 FIELD WORK FINDINGS ............................................................................................... 22
4.1.1 SITE VISIT .................................................................................................................... 22
4.1.2 TRIAL PIT EXCAVATION. ......................................................................................... 22
4.1.3 SAMPLING. .................................................................................................................. 23
4.2 LABORATORY WORK FINDINGS. .............................................................................. 24
4.2.1 NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT ............................................................................ 24
4.2.2 ATTERBERG LIMIT TESTS ....................................................................................... 24
4.2.3 SOIL COMPACTION TEST RESULTS. ...................................................................... 24
4.2.4 SHEAR STRENGTH TEST. ......................................................................................... 24
4.2.5 PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION. ............................................................................. 25
5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS. ........................................................... 27
5.1 FOUNDATION DESIGN. ................................................................................................. 27
5.2 Climate .......................................................................................................................... 27
5.3 Surface conditions ........................................................................................................ 27
5.4 Seismicity....................................................................................................................... 27
5.5 Sub-surface conditions ................................................................................................. 28
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................. 30
APPENDIX 1 ................................................................................................................................ 31
APPENDIX 2 ................................................................................................................................ 34

iii
LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. The tests that were done.................................................................................................. 15

Table 2. Soil classification according USCS using the Atterberg Results ................................... 24
Table 3. Bearing Capacity Parameters .......................................................................................... 25
Table 4. Results of the Sieve Analysis.......................................................................................... 25

iv
LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Photo plate 1: The site ..................................................................................................... 5

Figure 2.Location map of our site. Source google Earth ................................................................ 6
Figure 3. Kampala Climate Graph. Source CLIMATE-DATA.ORG ............................................ 7
Figure 4. Geological map of Uganda. Source sec.gov .................................................................... 9
Figure 5. A seismic map of Uganda showing the zones and epicentres (1912-2020). Source.
www.mdpi.com ............................................................................................................................. 10
Figure 6. Open Trial pit excavation. ............................................................................................. 12
Figure 7. Obtaining a disturbed and undisturbed sample respectively. ........................................ 13
Figure 8. Test pit logging in a trial pit using a tape measure. ....................................................... 14
Figure 9. A group member carrying out liquid limit test .............................................................. 18
Figure 10. Carrying the Shear box strength test. .......................................................................... 21
Figure 11. The site showing the ongoing activities ...................................................................... 22
Figure 12. A Topographic map of the proposed site showing the location of trial pits................ 23
Figure 13. Soil classification based on the liquid limit and the Particle size distribution ............ 26
Figure 14. Carrying out the Soil compaction Test. ....................................................................... 31
Figure 15.Packing the undisturbed sample in a polythene to avoid moisture loss ....................... 31
Figure 16. A snake as one of the challenges faced during geotechnical Investigation. ................ 32
Figure 17. Operating the Shear box machine................................................................................ 32
Figure 18.Fine grain soil classification. Source: Principles of Geotechnical Engineering 8th
Edition by Braja M Das ................................................................................................................ 33
Figure 19. The plasticity chart for soil classification. Source: Principles of Geotechnical
Engineering 8th Edition by Braja M Das ....................................................................................... 33

v
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
BS - British Standard
C - Cohesion
LL - Liquid Limit
Nc, Nγ, Nq - Bearing capacity factors
PI - Plasticity Index
PL - Plastic Limit
qall - Allowable bearing capacity
qult - Ultimate bearing capacity
USCS - Unified Soil Classification System
Φ - Angle of shearing resistance
TP - Test pit
OMC - Optimum Moisture Content

MDD – Maximum Dry Density

vi
1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 BACKGROUND

A site located north of North Hall in Kyambogo University with coordinates 02111.4 N
323737.5E is proposed for a modern student hostel. Therefore, a team of 6 students engaged in
carrying out Geotech investigation for this site. It includes the results of the geotechnical site
investigation, laboratory tests, conclusions and recommendations.

The geotechnical investigation work commenced with a site visit on 11th January 2022, which
provided a view of proper location of trial pits. Two trial pits were excavated manually from the
locations as shown in the topographical map.

The soils investigations were therefore aimed at establishing the geotechnical characteristics of
the proposed site that would guide the design and construction of the foundations and the whole
structure. Pursuant to the above, the following tasks were performed:

i) Excavation of two trial pits to 3.0m depths from the existing ground level
ii) Conducting appropriate tests on both the disturbed and undisturbed soil samples recovered
from the trial pits in accordance with acceptable standards
iii) Compilation of the field data in narrative, tabular and graphic forms
iv) Inferring from the data
v) Compilation and thereafter submission of a geotechnical report with findings.

The investigation was carried out in accordance with BS 5930: 2015, and other relevant
standards as cited in the remaining parts of the report.

1.2 OBJECTIVES

1.2.1 MAIN OBJECTIVE

To carryout geotechnical studies at the identified site to determine the soil characteristics and
assess their suitability for the project.

1
1.2.2 SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES
1. Provide general descriptions of the subsurface soil conditions encountered at the locations
explored
2. Provide details and information relevant for economical foundation design.
3. To fore see possible setbacks that may arise during design or construction.
4. To assess the effect of the proposed project on the environment

1.3 TERMS OF APPOINTMENT.

Client: KYAMBOGO UNIVERSITY

Job Description: Geotechnical investigations on the site for proposed re-design of Getfund hostel
Koforidua technical university in Ghana into a modern students’ hostel at Kyambogo university

Date of Appointment: 7th January, 2022

The report is provided pursuant to a partial fulfilment of the requirements for the award of bachelor
of engineering in civil and building engineering degree of Kyambogo university.

The group therefore started working on this project at the commencement of second semester

1.4 SCOPE OF THE STUDY

The scope of investigation for this study is divided into the following; Content scope,
Geographical scope and Time scope.

Time scope

The Geotechnical investigation involved activities that was split into a various period of time that
is tabulated below.

The time we allocated to carry out our investigation started from 11th Jan 2022 to 18th Jan 2022.
After the investigations we analysed our results and produced the report.

2
 Activity January 2022
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Site reconnaissance
Trial pit excavation
In-situ moisture content
Bulk density
Shear box
Sieve analysis
Atterberg
MDD

Geographical scope.

According to the University masterplan 2013-2030, the student hostels are proposed to be
located in the north of the University above North Hall of residence or the new engineering
laboratory. We shall design our proposed modern student’s hostel onto this site. The site is
currently being used for agricultural or farm works with a few existing buildings.

Content Scope

The content scope comprised of the following activities:

i) Collecting information such as geological and geotechnical maps related to the project site,
public services and land use maps
ii) Carrying out site visits or reconnaissance in order to gather information about the site nature,
topography, geological features and other properties concerning the project site.
iii) Excavation of two trial pits and collecting of test samples of both disturbed and undisturbed
samples.
iv) Carrying out all the field and laboratory tests on the collected samples to obtain the various
properties of the site soil.
v) Applying engineering analysis and evaluation of field findings and laboratory results.

3
vi) Developing conclusions and recommendations concerning the design and construction of the
safest and economic foundations, site preparation, road, parking areas, and retaining
structures.

4
2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION

2.1 Site Topography

The site has gentle slope all covered by growing crops like Cassava, Maize and Potatoes. Trees
and cattle rearing at a small scale. The site has a few existing buildings thus some underground
service lines and a few electricity poles thus overhead service lines.

Figure 1. Photo plate 1: The site

2.2 Site Location

The site is located in Kyambogo University, Kampala, Uganda. The site is located at a
Geographical Co-ordinates 0˚21̍14̎ N 32˚37̍ 36̎ E as demarcated using black lines showing the
boundary and access.

The investigated site is located in Kyambogo University, Nakawa Division within Kampala
City. It is situated off Itek Road after the University Mosque, opposite North Hall and along a
road leading to the New Engineering Complex.

5
Figure 2.Location map of our site. Source google Earth

2.3 Site Climate

Kampala is 1224m above sea level. The climate here is tropical. Kampala is a city with a significant
rainfall. Even in the driest month there is a lot of rain. This climate is considered to be Af according
to the Köppen-Geiger climate classification. The average annual temperature in Kampala is 21.4
°C | 70.6 °F. About 1747 mm | 68.8 inch of precipitation falls annually. Kyambogo being found in
Kampala would also experience the same climate changes that occurs.

The driest month is July with 86mm | 3.4 inch of rain. Most of the precipitation here falls in April
averaging 225mm | 8.9 inch.

In regards to temperature, February is the warmest month of the year. The temperature is February
averages 22.7C | 72.8F. July is the coldest month, with temperatures averaging 20.7C | 69.3F.

With around 3071.35 hours of sunshine are counted in Kampala throughout the year. On average
there are 101.02 hours of sunshine per month.

6
Figure 3. Kampala Climate Graph. Source CLIMATE-DATA.ORG

-Rainfall -Sunshine

According to the statistics above, the best time implement the project would be July because of its
low rainfall and sunshine values

2.4 Site Geology.

In Kampala, the typical soil type is a layer of clay-like soil overlaying a deeper build-up of silts
that sit upon the hard bedrock. The silts that are vicarious in nature and were laid down during
the period when Lake Victoria’s shores extended further than they do today.

Kampala is located on the East African Plateau between the two arms of the East African Rift and
on the northern limits of Tanzania Craton. (Mujinga, n.d.) Kyambogo University being in Kampala
would have similar geological features as Kampala at large.

7
The geological map of Uganda below shows that Kampala is composed of Proterozoic rocks
where as we did not encounter such rocks at our proposed site. Our proposed site is found within
Kampala which is located in the circled region of the map below.

8
Figure 4. Geological map of Uganda. Source sec.gov

9
2.5 Site Semiology.

According to the Seismic code of practice for structural designs, 2003 (US 319: 2003) from the
Uganda National Bureau of Standards (UNBS), the site lies in zone 3 on the seismic zoning map.
This is one of the least seismically active areas in Uganda with a zoning factor of Zmax=0.7. The
project area is considered to be less prone to earthquake risk and slope failure.

In Uganda, history of big earthquakes felt is associated with magnitudes in the range between 5.0
and 6.8. For construction and safety purposes, one should design earthquakes resistant structures
for magnitude 7.0 and above and peak ground acceleration of 0.352g for the return period of 950
years (Joseph, 2012-2013)

KYAMBOGO

Figure 5. A seismic map of Uganda showing the zones and epicentres (1912-2020). Source.
www.mdpi.com

10
The most recent earthquakes recorded in and near Uganda include;

Saturday, March 20, 2021 6:07 Pm Magnitude: 4.

Tuesday, January 28, 2020 11:32 pm Magnitude: 4.7

Friday, September 6, 2019 8:15am Magnitude: 4.6

And our site is located far from these areas

11
3.0 SITE INVESTIGATION/ METHODOLOGY

3.1 FIELD WORK

3.1.1 SITE VISIT (RECONNAISSANCE)

Site reconnaissance was done by physical site visits to the proposed plot and making all the
necessary observations and inquiries with the intention of gathering more information about the
site, the current land use, physical features and present services among other features.

3.1.2 TEST PIT EXCAVATION.

Test pit excavations were generally carried out in accordance with the procedure described in

BS5930:2015.

Two trial pits were excavated manually by means of a pick axe, spade and a hoe. The trial pits
were to enable us study the properties of the strata in the proposed site. The locations of these trial
pits were chosen as per Euro Code 7 after considering the critical points and assessing the existing
features within the site.

The trial pits were excavated at approximately 15m apart at an utmost depth of 3.0m in to the
ground with a length and width of 1.5x0.5m.

Figure 6. Open Trial pit excavation.

12
3.1.3 SAMPLING.

For each trial pit, two samples were collected that is both the disturbed and undisturbed soil
samples. Both disturbed and undisturbed samples were collected at depths of 3.0m

The disturbed soil samples were collected in polyethene bags and labelled accordingly whereas
the undisturbed soil samples were collected by using a thin circular metallic core cutter that we
drove into the soil layer using the flat edge of an axe. The ends of the core cutters were immediately
smeared with grease to prevent moisture loss from the sample. The samples were then taken to the
laboratory for testing.

During sampling, no in-situ test was carried out.

Figure 7. Obtaining a disturbed and undisturbed sample respectively.

3.1.4 TEST PIT LOGGING

This was done manually on site with the aid of a measuring tape, reading and recording the value
as observed.

13
Figure 8. Test pit logging in a trial pit using a tape measure.

3.1.5 INSITU/ FIELD TESTS.

There were no field tests done on proposed site but rather picking samples to take to the lab.

3.1.6 GROUND WATER INVESTIGATION.

At the site, ground water was not encountered in the excavated trial pits, thus the ground water
table of the area is below 3.0m implying that it shall not have any influence on the bearing capacity
of the sub-soils.

3.2 LABORATORY TESTING

GENERAL OVERVIEW

Laboratory testing was carried from the Kyambogo University’s Laboratory on both the disturbed
and undisturbed soil samples recovered from the trial pits to establish the physical properties of
the soils, and other parameters for predicting their strength characteristics.

14
The relevant standard tests conducted are outlined in the table below:

Name of Test Method Standard Test purpose

Method
Undisturbed
sample
Natural Moisture Oven drying BS 1377: Part To determine the amount of water in the soil
which has a profound effect on soil behaviour
Content 2: 1990

Bulk density BS 1377: Part To determine the bulk unit weight

2: 1990
Shear Strength Direct Shear BS 1377: Part To determine the failure strength of the soil
box 7: 1990 sample and its friction angle. This is used to
determine the soil’s bearing capacity.

Disturbed
sample
Liquid Limit Cone BS 1377: Part To determine the moisture content at which a
penetrometer 2: 1990 soil passes from liquid to plastic state
Plastic Limit Oven Drying BS 1377: Part To determine the moisture content at which
2: 1990 becomes too dry to be plastic. It is used with
the LL to determine the Plasticity Index to
classify cohesive soils
Shrinkage limit Oven Drying BS 1377: Part To determine the moisture content at which
2: 1990 further loss of moisture will not cause a
decrease in volume
Compaction test BS 1377: Part To determine the maximum dry density of a
(MDD) 4: 1990 given soil sample and its corresponding
optimum moisture content
Particle size Wet sieving BS 1377: Part To determine the size and range of particles for
distribution 2: 1990 a particular soil sample. The results are used to
classify soils.
Table 1. The tests that were done.

15
3.2.1 CLASSIFICATION TESTS

3.2.1.1 MOISTURE CONTENT

Moisture content is the ratio of mass of water to the mass of solids in the soil. The moisture
content is assumed to be the amount of water in the pore spaces of the soil grains.
Objectives
To determine the amount of water present in a soil expressed as the percentage of the mass
of dry soil.
Procedure
A representative soil sample was crumbled and loosely placed in the moisture tin which
was clean and dry,
The moisture tin with the sample was weighed and its mass recorded.
The sample in the moisture tin was immediately placed in an oven at 105˚C for 24 hours,
After drying, the moisture tin and the soil was weighed and recorded.
The mass of the moisture tin was weighed and recorded.

3.2.1.2 ATTERBERG LIMIT TESTS

LIQUID LIMIT
This is the moisture content at which a given sample of soil can flow under its own weight
or is the moisture content of a soil at the point of transition from plastic to liquid state. This
provides a means of classifying fine-grained cohesive soils.
Determination of Liquid Limit
The method that was used for this test was cone-penetrometer method.
SAMPLE PREPARATION
The soil sample for this test was dried and sieved on 425 μm sieve to obtain about 400g.
The sample was transferred to the glass plate and water was added and then mixed
thoroughly with two palette knives until the mass became a thick homogeneous paste.
The paste was placed in an air tight polythene and allowed to stand for about 16 hours to
enable the water permeate through the soil.

16
TEST PROCEDURE.
The sample (paste) was placed a glass plate and mixed for at least 10 minutes using a
palette knife.
Clean water was added to the paste so as to achieve the first penetration of about 15mm.
A portion of the paste was then pushed into the cup using the palette ensuring no air is
trapped and the cup placed below the cone.
The cone was then lowered to just touch the surface of the soil. The dial gauge was then
lowered to contact the cone shaft and its reading recorded to 0.1mm
The cone was then released for a period of 5 seconds and the dial gauge was lowered to
contact the cone shaft.
The reading of the dial gauge was then recorded to the nearest 0.1mm.
The difference between these readings was the cone penetration.
A representative soil sample was taken for moisture content.
The same procedure was repeated four times on the same sample while increasingly adding
water to the sample at each stage.
A graphical relationship between the penetration and moisture content was then plotted.
The line of best fit was drawn between the points plotted.
The liquid limit of the sample is the moisture content corresponding to the penetration of
20 mm expressed to the nearest whole number.

PLASTIC LIMIT
This is the moisture content of a soil at which it can be rolled to a small thread without
breaking or is the moisture content of a soil at the point of transition from semi-solid to
plastic state.
Objective
To establish the moisture content at which the soil becomes too dry to be plastic
Determination of Plastic Limit of the Soil Sample
The sample was prepared as in liquid limit, a representative soil sample about 20g was
obtained and rolled to form a ball and then rolled between the fingers until a thread like
shape was formed of approximately 3mm. The thread was rolled until it started to crumble.

17
The crumbled samples obtained were taken for moisture content determination, the
moisture content determined is the plastic limit.

Figure 9. A group member carrying out liquid limit test

3.2.1.3 PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION

Objectives
To classify the soils, especially coarse soils in that it presents the relative portions of
different sizes of particles. From this it is possible to determine whether the soil consists
of predominantly gravel, sand, silt or clay sizes and which of these size ranges is likely to
control the engineering properties of soil.
Procedure

18
The soil sample was air dried, the soil was quartered to obtain a representative sample,
weighed and then washed on a sieve of size 0.075mm allowing all those particles passing
through to go to waste.
The remains were then oven dried 24 hours 16 hours at 105˚C on a tray.
The required set of sieves were arranged in ascending order of sizes from bottom to top.
The sample was poured on the top sieve then the set of sieves were shaken and the mass of
the sample retained on each sieve was recorded.
The percentage passing was obtained and a curve of percentage passing against sieve size
on the logarithmic graph plotted.

3.2.2 COMPACTION
Compaction is the process of increasing the density of soils by packing the soil particles
close together with a reduction in air voids. Soils can be compacted by means of a vibrator,
rammer, and rollers. The higher the degree of compaction, the higher the strength and lower
will be the permeability and compressibility of the soil.
Objectives
To reduce the air voids in the soil that may lead to loosening of the soil during harsh
conditions
To increase on the density of the soil hence increasing on its strength.
To obtain the relationship between the compacted dry density and the moisture content of
the soil.
To determine the amount of moisture content required during the compaction process

3.2.2.1 MDD TEST

Determination of Maximum Dry Density and Optimum Moisture Content (Using BS heavy
hammer of 4.5Kg)
PROCEDURE
The soil sample was air dried and sieved through a 20 mm sieve. The sample passing 20
mm sieve was divided in to 5 portions each weighing about 6 kg.
Water was added in the range of 100 ml, 150 ml, 200 ml, 250 ml, and 300 ml while mixing
the soil sample to obtain approximate optimum moisture content.

19
The sample was then placed in to the mould and compacted in 3 layers each 27 blows using
a 4.5kg rammer, weighed and the moisture content of the representative sample
determined.
The procedure was repeated while varying water.
The dry density was obtained from the weights recorded.
A graph of dry density in Mg/m3 against the moisture content was then plotted. This helped
us to obtain maximum dry density and the optimum moisture content.

3.2.2.2 BULK DENSITY.

Objective

To determine the unit weight of the soil.

TEST PROCEDURE.

The grease smeared on either sides of the core cutter was removed first.

The core cutter with the sample inside was then weighed and mass recorded.

The length of the core cutter was measured and recorded.

The depth from both ends of the cylinder. The average depths to the sample was then recorded.

The sample was then excluded and cutter cleaned and weighed.

A small sample was then crumbed off for moisture content determination.

The internal dimensions of the core cutter were also determined using a measuring tape.

The area and volume of the same were then calculated.

3.2.3 STRENGTH TESTS

3.2.3.1 SHEAR BOX TEST.

The strength test carried out was the direct shear test. This test relates the shear stress at failure to
the applied normal stress.

20
In this test, a square prism of the soil is laterally restrained and sheared along a mechanically
induced horizontal plane while subjected to a pressure-applied normal to the plane. (Ministry of
Works, 2000)
The test was carried out to determine the effective shear strength parameter of the soil sample
either in terms of effective stresses that is the angle of shear resistance and the cohesion. These
values shall then be used to calculate the bearing capacity of the soil and the stability of slopes.

A plot was made between the normal stress as the abscissa and the shear stress as the ordinate.
The angle between the graph and the horizontal was taken to be the angle of internal friction ϕ
and the y-intercept was the cohesion C.

Figure 10. Carrying the Shear box strength test.

21
4.0 FINDINGS.

4.1 FIELD WORK FINDINGS

4.1.1 SITE VISIT

The site generally has a gentle slope with a little on-going agriculture both plants and animals
with very few young growing anthills, shrubs and bushes.

The soil was generally moist. The ground was firm and therefore no earthwork support was
necessary. The site didn’t have any existing structures and similar we didn’t encounter any
underground services but rather countable overhead electricity service lines around the site
boundaries.

Figure 11. The site showing the ongoing activities

4.1.2 TRIAL PIT EXCAVATION.

The trial pits were to enable us study the properties of the strata in the proposed site. The locations
of these trial pits were chosen as per Euro Code 7 after considering the critical points and assessing
the existing features within the site.

The excavation was done with ease though we encountered snakes that fell into one of our test
pit during excavation. Work hard to stop for awhile as we looked for ways of killing this snake.

22
4.1.3 SAMPLING.
We successful recovered two undisturbed and disturbed samples at a depth of 3m in each trial
pit and within the excavated test pits, logging was done to show the various subsoil strata as
observed on site. Test pits were backfilled after obtaining disturbed & undisturbed samples.

The disturbed soil samples were collected in polyethene bags and labelled whereas the undisturbed
soil samples were collected by using a thin circular metallic core cutter that we drove into the soil
layer using the flat edge of an axe. The ends of the core cutters were immediately smeared with
grease to prevent moisture loss from the sample. The samples were then taken to the laboratory
for testing.

During sampling, no in-situ test was carried out.

TP 2

TP 1

Figure 12. A Topographic map of the proposed site showing the location of trial pits

23
4.2 LABORATORY WORK FINDINGS.

4.2.1 NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT

The moisture content of the sample as calculated was found to be 24.0%. This could be due to
availability of clay particles in the soil.

4.2.2 ATTERBERG LIMIT TESTS

We carried out soil classification according to the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS)
basing on the Atterberg limit results obtained. The Unified Soil Classification System used to
classify the soil is found in Appendix. A plastic limit (PL) of 24.0 and liquid limit (LL) of 59.05
plotted on graph. Results as in table 3 below.

Location Depth (m) LL (%) PL (%) PI (%) NMC (%) Soil Classification
(USCS)
Pit 1 3.0 59.0 24.0 35 24.0 CH (flat clay)
Pit 2 3.0 49.5 23.9 25.6 23.9 CL (lean clay)
Table 2. Soil classification according USCS using the Atterberg Results

4.2.3 SOIL COMPACTION TEST RESULTS.

The different values of dry densities at various moisture contents were plotted to obtain the
Proctor’s curve. From the curve, the maximum dry density (MDD) and its corresponding optimum
moisture content (OMC) were found to be 1530kg/m3 and 13% respectively. These values are
majorly of sandy clay soils according to Smith’s Elements of soil mechanics. (Smith, 1998)

4.2.4 SHEAR STRENGTH TEST.

The ultimate and safe bearing capacities were calculated from the established soil parameters using
Meyerhof’s formula of bearing capacity equation, calculation of result shown in Appendix

The safe bearing capacity is the value of bearing capacity used in the design of foundations
which is the maximum pressure the soil can resist without any failure.

24
 normal stress shear stress c ø Ultimate bearing Safe bearing
(KPa) (KPa) capacity (KPa) capacity (KPa)

TP 01 64.23 58.50

(3.0m) 91.48 64.50 30.2 22.4 1366.52 455.51

118.73 81.00
Table 3. Bearing Capacity Parameters

normal stress shear stress c ø Ultimate bearing Safe bearing

(KPa) (KPa) capacity (KPa) capacity (KPa)

TP 02 64.23 57.00

(3.0m) 91.48 61.50 28.2 22.4 1325.05 441.68

118.73 79.50

4.2.5 PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION.

After wet sieving, oven drying and then dry sieving, the test revealed the following soil properties
for the two trial pits.

PARAMETER TRIAL PIT 01 TRIAL PIT 02

Percentage Gravel 0.0 0.0

Percentage Sand 98.7 98.7
Percentage fines 1.3 1.5
Silt content 77.5 77.2
D60 0.378 0.386
D30 0.208 0.216
D10 0.104 0.107
Cu 3.632 3.621
Cc 1.100 1.128
G.M 1.306 1.319
Table 4. Results of the Sieve Analysis

25
Since Cu < 4, the soil is poorly graded and having a 1<Cc>3 means it is gap graded.

Since > 50% pass sieve No.200, the soil is fine grained.

Figure 13. Soil classification based on the liquid limit and the Particle size distribution

26
5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.

5.1 FOUNDATION DESIGN.

The geotechnical design parameters for this soil are presented above. The site is underlain by
SILTY CLAYS of HIGH PLASTICITY, CH. This is considered to be a poor founding soil
and based on literature, it’s not advisable to place footings in plastic soils. Therefore, no
matter what the design would be, a layer of granular material is recommended below the
footing placed minimum 1.5m deep

5.2 Climate
According to the site climatic information shown in the graph in figure 3, it can be
recommended that the project contractor takes note of the months with high rainfall (above
1500mm), that is, between March and May and also between October and November and
subsequently incorporate it in the project planning for works such as earthworks.

The temperatures experienced on the site vary between 20 ˚C and 21 ˚C, an average of 21.4˚C /
70.6˚F. This temperature is condusive for any construction activities throughout the year.

5.3 Surface conditions

The site will require minimal levelling to the gentle slope of the terrain with the highest elevation
at 1232m and the lowest at 1221m. A lot of site clearance of the mature trees, shrubs and banana
plantations as shown in topographic map in figure 12.

5.4 Seismicity
The site is situated in zone 3 of the seismic zoning of Uganda, implying that there is a slightly
low frequency (and magnitude) of earthquake occurrence which is the lowest in the country so
the designers of the project may ignore seismic loads design for the structure. However, earth
movements may also be induced by construction machinery and plant and therefore the structure
should be able to resist them.

27
5.5 Sub-surface conditions
The soils on the site are predominantly silty clay with sand with angle of internal friction 22.4
degrees. The soil has an average moisture content of 24% and dry density ranging between 1530
Kg/m3 which correspond to a natural degree of compaction above 95%. These conditions are not
fully suitable conditions for establishment of shallow foundations without need to import any fill
material or extra compaction.

Excavated material, due to its abundant composition of silty clay of high low plasticity, may not
be suitable for reuse.

No groundwater was encountered up to 3m depth and therefore, the contractor may not need to
cater for pumping water from trenches that are not deeper than 3m and the designer may not
need to cater for effect of groundwater while designing for foundations not deeper than 3m.

condition.

Based on the above results of the investigation, the following recommendations have
been made;

1) According to the project levels, there will be need to carry out fillings. The current
material on site is not suitable to be used as a fill material due to its plastic nature. A
granular material which is inert in nature should therefore be imported from the nearby
borrow area and used for construction of the formation level. It is important to mention
that a quality control engineer be consulted on the quality of the same before it is used.
2) The fill material will be compacted up to 95% of its maximum dry density in layers of
150mm.
3) The compacted fill below the footing should have a minimum thickness of 300mm. The
back filling of the soil should be carried out using sufficient water to eliminate voids and
loose pockets,
4) As regards the square footings, a minimum foundation depth (Df) of 1.5m below the
basement level is recommended.

28
 5) Once excavations to accommodate the foundations have been completed, the bottom of
the excavation shall be protected in all cases with a thin layer of lean concrete C15, with
a thickness of at least 50mm before proceeding to place concrete for foundation
construction.
6) The foundation should be cured for 14 days (minimum) and thereafter left undisturbed
for a period not less than 30 days,

This soil mechanics report provides geotechnical recommendations for the explored area
and the information provided should never be employed to provide geotechnical
solutions to a different location

29
REFERENCES

Ministry of works Laboratory testing Manual

Uganda National Bureau of Standards (UNBS), June 2003; Seismic code of practice for
structural designs, First Edition.

BRITISH STANDARDS INSTITUTION. British Standard 1377: 1990, Methods of Test for
Soils for Civil Engineering Purposes, London.
Craig’s Soil mechanics, 7th Edition

Uganda National Bureau of Standards (UNBS), 2003 (US 319: 2003),

30
APPENDIX 1

Figure 14. Carrying out the Soil compaction Test.

Figure 15.Packing the undisturbed sample in a polythene to avoid moisture loss

31
Figure 16. A snake as one of the challenges faced during geotechnical Investigation.

Figure 17. Operating the Shear box machine

32
Figure 18.Fine grain soil classification. Source:
Principles of Geotechnical Engineering 8th Edition by
Braja M Das

Figure 19. The plasticity chart for soil classification. Source: Principles of Geotechnical
Engineering 8th Edition by Braja M Das

TP2

33
APPENDIX 2

OBSERVATION SHEET
Client: Kyambogo University
Technician: Group 11 Students Trial Pit: 1
Project: Proposed Students Hostel
Date: 11/01/2022
Scale Depth Log Description Sample no. Types of samples Water table
0 0
Dark brown Disturbed Not found
organic soil Fine
0.3 texture

0.5 Reddish brown

clay soil Fine
texture
1 Disturbed and Not found
Undisturbed

1.5

2.5

3 2.7
.

34
 OBSERVATION SHEET
Client: Kyambogo University
Technician: Group 11 Students Trial Pit: 2
Project: Proposed Students Hostel
Date: 11/01/2022
Scale Depth Log Description Sample no. Types of samples Water table
0 0
Dark brown organic Disturbed. Not found
0.3 soil Fine texture
0.5 Reddish brown clay
soil Fine texture

1 Disturbed and Not found

Undisturbed.

1.5

2.5

3 2.7

35