P.

O BOX 317

KABALE-UGANDA

Website: www.kab.ac.ug

FACULTY OF ENGINEERING, TECHNOLOGY, APPLIED DESIGN & FINE ART

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING.

(FETADFA)

A REPORT FOR FOUNDATION ENGINEERING ON SOIL INVESTIGATION

BY

GROUP A (YEAR 3, SEMSTER 1)

PERIOD: 19TH OCTOBER 2023 - 26TH OCTOBER 2023

COURSE CODE: BCE 3103

LECTURER: Mr. Dan Tukwatse.

GROUP A MEMBERS
Table 1: Group members and role played on the project

NAME REG NO. ROLE PLAYED

NUWAHA JASON 2021/A/KCE/1812/F Tabulation of results(DCP)

AINEMBABAZI SHIFRAH 2021/A/KCE/1855/F Liquid limit test

AHIMBISIBWE DEBRA 2022/A/KCE/0738/F Obtaining the coordinates from RL

AKAMPWERA PRIVA 2022/A/KCE/0719/F DCP at the 1.8m

ATUHAMYE GIRIBERT 2021/A/KCE/2302/F Drawing conclusions.

BYARUGABA PETER 2022/A/KCE/0615/F Setting out of the pit.

NUWAHUMUZA MARTHA 2021/A/KCE/1127/F Computation of liquid limit results.

RUGABANOMWE ANOLD 2022/A/KCE/0722/F DCP at the 1.2m.

TAMALE PETER 2021/A/KCE/1844/F FDT computations.

TURYASINGURA KENNETH 2021/A/KCE/1468/F Compiling and writing the report

NKWATSIBWE JONATHAN 2022/A/KCE/1248/F Preparation of liquid limit sample

Figure 1 : shows group member

i
DECLARATION
We as Group A members, hereby declare that the content of the presented report of
foundation engineering on soil investigation is original and true record of all the tests we
carried out during the practical in Kabale university civil laboratory and campus premises
basing on our knowledge and has never been submitted for any academic award.

Name: Group A

Group leader: NUWAHA JASON

Signature: ……………………… Date: …………………………………

ii
 APPROVAL
This is to certify that foundation engineering practical work contained in this report was done
with the combined effort of group A members under the supervision of the laboratory technician
and our lecturer.

Signature: …………………………………………………………………………………….

Date: ………………………………………………………………………………………….

Name: Mr. Jonan

Signature: ……………………………………………………………………………………

Date: ………………………………………………………………………………………….

Name: Mr. Dan Tukwatse.

iii
DEDICATION
This report is dedicated to all group members above, our lecturer for his endless effort towards
the motivation and completion of the practical, lab technicians that have been there for us, the
entire civil class and anyone that may find this writing an important resource. May the almighty
God bless you all.

iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Group A soil investigation practical was a success due to the contribution of several persons in
their official and individual capacities. The team work between ourselves as group A was a big
contribution upon finishing the practical very well. I would like to thank Mr. Bainomugisha
Jonan for offering us his time while doing the practical, we learnt a lot from him, we grateful to
him for the technical advice he gave us always.

Great appreciation goes to our lecturer Mr. Dan Tukwatse for giving us a chance of doing the
practical as it so much important to do the practical as an engineering student not forgetting the
consultations we have done on him. Finally, I thank our group A leader Mr. Nuwaha Jason for
motivating and leading us in doing every task.

v
ABSTRACT
This report is written to give a detailed account of the activities carried out between the 19th,
september,2023 to 26th, October, 2023. The sample that was studied was obtained from the
excavated pit of dimensions of 1500mm x 800mm at a depth of 1.2m and 1.8m. This report
contains information on the liquid limit and field density of the samples.
The test procedure and results obtained. These tests were carried out with reference to Tanzania
laboratory testing manual 2000. These tests helped us get exposure to the laboratory equipment
such as the set of dynamic cone penetrometer and the total station. The waste sample was put in
the oven at 1050C for 24 hours and the masses were recorded.

vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
GROUP A MEMBERS ................................................................................................................... i

DECLARATION ............................................................................................................................ ii

APPROVAL .................................................................................................................................. iii

DEDICATION ............................................................................................................................... iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT .............................................................................................................. v

ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................................. vi

LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................................................... ix

LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................................ x

LIST OF ACRONYMS ................................................................................................................. xi

CHAPTER ONE ............................................................................................................................. 1

1.1 FIELD DRY DENSITY TEST (CORE CUTTER METHOD) ............................................ 1

1.1.1 Objective ........................................................................................................................ 1

1.1.3 Test Procedure ............................................................................................................... 1

1.2 COORDINATES’ MEASUREMENT.................................................................................. 3

1.2.1 Objective ........................................................................................................................ 3

1.2.2 Equipment used .............................................................................................................. 3

1.2.3 Test procedure ................................................................................................................ 3

1.3 DYNAMIC CONE PENETRATION TEST ........................................................................ 3

1.3.1 Objective ........................................................................................................................ 3

1.3.2 Equipment required ........................................................................................................ 3

1.3.3 Test procedure ................................................................................................................ 3

1.4 LIQUID LIMIT TEST (CASAGRANDE METHOD) ........................................................... 8

1.4.1 Objective ........................................................................................................................ 8

1.4.2 Apparatus: ...................................................................................................................... 8

1.4.3 Specimen preparation: ................................................................................................... 8

vii
 1.4.4 Test Procedure: .............................................................................................................. 9

2.0 CHAPTER TWO .................................................................................................................... 13

2.1 CHALLENGES RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS. ................................. 13

2.1.1 CHALLENGES ........................................................................................................... 13

2.1.2 RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................. 13

2.1.3 CONCLUSIONS.......................................................................................................... 13

REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................. 14

APPENDIX .................................................................................................................................. 15

viii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Group members and role played on the project ................................................................. i
Table 2; shows field density results ................................................................................................ 2
Table 3: shows the coordinates of the center of the pit................................................................... 3
Table 4; shows computation of results of allowable bearing capacity. .......................................... 6
Table 5; shows the liquid limit results at 1.2m ............................................................................. 11
Table 6; shows liquid limit results at 1.8m ................................................................................... 12

ix
 LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 : shows group members ..................................................................................................... i
Figure 2; shows a core cutter driven in the soil .............................................................................. 1
Figure 3; shows how the coordinates of the center of the pit were obtained .................................. 4
Figure 4: shows DCP at 1.8m. ........................................................................................................ 7
Figure 5; shows a Casagrande apparatus ........................................................................................ 8
Figure 6: shows soaking of the sample that passed through 142µm sieve ..................................... 9
Figure 7: shows how liquid limit is obtained ................................................................................ 10
Figure 8; shows a liquid limit graph at 1.2m ................................................................................ 11
Figure 9; shows a liquid limit graph at 1.8m ................................................................................ 12
Figure 10: shows pounding of the sample using a rubber mullet ................................................. 15
Figure 11: shows the different layers of the pit ............................................................................ 15
Figure 12: shows how the undisturbed sample was obtained ....................................................... 15
Figure 13; shows team work in doing the practical ...................................................................... 15
Figure 14: shows the excavation of the 150mm top soil .............................................................. 16
Figure 15; shows weighing of the samples ................................................................................... 16

x
LIST OF ACRONYMS
mm – millimeters.

m – meters.

LL – liquid limit.

DCP – dynamic cone penetration.

rps – revolution per second.

FDT – field density test.

RL – reduced level.

BS – British standards.

ASTM - American society for testing and materials.

g – grams

kg – kilograms
0
C – degrees Celsius.

xi
CHAPTER ONE
1.1 FIELD DRY DENSITY TEST (CORE CUTTER METHOD)
1.1.1 Objective
To determine the in situ dry density of fine-grained soils.

1.1.2 Apparatus used

 A cylindrical core cutter of internal diameter 52mm and height 20mm. Figure
 core cutter
 Weighing Balance
 A straight edge
 A steel rammer
 Moisture Containers
 Hoe
 pick axe
 Spade

1.1.3 Test Procedure

i. The internal diameter and height of the core cutter where measured and its internal
volume V was calculated.
ii. The weight of the Core Cutter W1g was measured
iii. A rectangular trial pit was excavated up to a depth of 1.2m.
iv. The area to be tested was levelled and all loose materials removed
v. The dolly was then placed over the cutter and the cylindrical core cutter driven into the
ground to obtain undisturbed sample.

Figure 2; shows a core cutter driven in the soil.

1
Table 2; shows field density results

FIELD DENSITY TEST (CORE CUTTER METHOD)

BS 1377: Part 9-1990

Source of Material: Trial Pit Existing Material Test Ref No.: 1 Date: 19th/10/2023
Location: Nyabikoni Campus, Kabale Technician: Mr. Bainomugisha Jonan
University Sample Description: Moist Dark, Group Name: Group A
greyish clay material with a smooth texture
Type: N/A

Depth of trial pit in m 1.2 1.8

Internal dia. Of core cutter in cm 5.0 5.0

Internal height of core cutter in cm 4.3 4.0

Volume (V) of cutter in cm3 84.43 78.54

Weight of core cutter + soil (W2) in g 166.7 170.5

Weight of core cutter (W1) in g 17.6 20.5

Weight of soil (W2-W1) in g 149.1 150.5

Bulk Density of soil W= (W1-W2)/V 1.77 1.91

2
 1.2 COORDINATES’ MEASUREMENT
1.2.1 Objective
The objective of this activity is to obtain the coordinates of the center of the pit to be constructed.

1.2.2 Equipment used

 Total station
 Nails
 Prism

1.2.3 Test procedure

i. For measuring the coordinates of an unknown point, the instrument was set on a point
(datum) whose points are known.
ii. After the instrument was set on a known station, the instrument was turned on and go to
coordinate measurement mode.
iii. The occupied station orientation was selected and the coordinates of the occupied point
were entered. The name of the datum is recorded and the height of the instrument from
the occupied point.
iv. The back sight was selected and we entered the coordinates of the known point (datum)
on which the back was to be taken from.
v. The known point was sighted through the telescope and the cross hairs were put
accurately. This means the total station was oriented.
vi. After the orientation process, the observation option was selected.
vii. The prism was placed on unknown point keeping the staff of the prism as vertically elect
as possible.
viii. The height of the prism was checked and the value of height in the total station.
ix. The prism was targeted and measurement took place.
x. The coordinates of the unknown point were recorded in northings, eastings and elevation

Table 3: shows the coordinates of the center of the pit

Northings(N) 9860687.121m

Eastings(E) 164279.684m

Elevation(Z) 1804.277m

3
Therefore, the initial elevation of the ground was ZB – ZU where ZB is the elevation of the datum
and ZU is the elevation of the unknown point which gave us

= ZB – ZU

= 1805 – 1804.277

= 0.723m

Therefore, our initial ground was at 0.702m, thus obtaining 1.2m we needed to excavate 0.498m
below the ground ad obtaining 1.8m, we required 1.098m and that’s what we excavated to and
done our test and obtained the samples.

Figure 3; shows how the coordinates of the center of the pit were obtained

4
1.3 DYNAMIC CONE PENETRATION TEST
The test provides a measure of a material’s in-situ resistance to penetration.

1.3.1 Objective
Dynamic cone penetration test is used to evaluate the strength of soils on site, that is to obtain the bearing
capacity of the soil.

The practical was done basing on ASTM D5778 – 12

1.3.2 Equipment required

 Dynamic cone penetrometer
 8kg hammer
 Hoes
 Spade
 Weighing balance
 Bottom rod
 1 m rule
 60degree cone

1.3.3 Test procedure

i. Using a total station, the coordinates and the elevation of the point where the pit was to be excavated
were obtained.
ii. After obtaining the elevation of the area, excavation of the top soil is done to an average depth of
150mm. dimensions of the pit are 1500mm x 800mm.
iii. The dynamic cone penetrometer apparatus was carried to the place where the test was to be
conducted and the initial penetration of the rod was recorded at the level of the excavated 150mm.
iv. The test was performed by driving a metal cone into the ground by repeated striking it with the 8kg
hammer dropped from a distance of 575mm.
v. The penetration of the cone was measured after each blow and was recorded to provide a continuous
measure of shearing resistance.
vi. The first penetration was up to 1.2m and another to 1.8m.
vii. The penetration was measured after each drop.

Page | 3
 Geotechnical Engineering Laboratory
Department of Civil Engineering
Kabale University
P.O.BOX 317
Kabale, Uganda

YEAR OF STUDY Year 3 Date 19/10/2023

GROUP/INIDIVIDUAL NAME: Group A DCP zero 94
reading (mm)
TEST NUMBER: Test started 0.883 from the
at(m) Datum

Depth Penetration rate Penetration

Corrected for (mm/blow) for rate
No. of Total Reading(m Zero Reading each no. of blows (mm/blow) CBR
Blows blows m) (mm) (DPI) total blows (%)
0 0 100 0
1 1 150 50 50 50.00
1 2 250 150 100 75.00
1 3 261 161 11 53.67
1 4 322 222 61 55.50
1 5 366 266 44 53.20
1 6 411 311 45 51.83
1 7 457 357 46 51.00
1 8 496 396 39 49.50
1 9 537 437 41 48.56
1 10 583 483 46 48.30
1 11 621 521 38 47.36
1 12 653 553 32 46.08
1 13 682 582 29 44.77
1 14 711 611 29 43.64
1 15 740 640 29 42.67
1 16 770 670 30 41.88
1 17 793 693 23 40.76
1 18 813 713 20 39.61
2 20 860 760 23.5 38.00
2 22 908 808 24 36.73
2 24 960 860 26 35.83
The table above shows the DCP results at 1.2m

Page | 4
 Geotechnical Engineering Laboratory
Department of Civil Engineering
Kabale University
P O BOX 317
Kabale, Uganda

YEAR OF STUDY Year 3 Date 19/10/2023

GROUP/INIDIVIDUAL NAME: Group DCP zero 100
A reading (mm)
TEST NUMBER: Test started 0.883 from datum
at(m)

Depth Penetration
Corrected rate Penetration
for Zero (mm/blow) for rate
No. of Total Reading each no. of (mm/blow) CBR
Blows blows Reading(mm) (mm) blows total blows (%)
0 0 98 0
1 1 117 19 19 19.00
1 2 139 41 22 20.50
1 3 158 60 19 20.00
1 4 176 78 18 19.50
1 5 192 94 16 18.80
1 6 207 109 15 18.17
1 7 222 124 15 17.71
1 8 236 138 14 17.25
2 10 265 167 14.5 16.70
2 12 300 202 17.5 16.83
2 14 340 242 20 17.29
2 16 385 287 22.5 17.94
2 18 419 321 17 17.83
62 20 450 352 15.5 17.60
2 22 479 381 14.5 17.32
2 24 505 407 13 16.96
2 26 530 432 12.5 16.62
2 28 557 459 13.5 16.39
2 30 597 499 20 16.63
2 32 653 555 28 17.34
1 33 808 710 155 21.52
1 34 856 758 48 22.29
1 35 884 786 28 22.46
1 36 912 814 28 22.61

Page | 5
Table 4; shows computation of results of allowable bearing capacity.

Geotechnical Engineering Laboratory

Department of Civil Engineering
Kabale University
P.O.BOX 317
Kabale, Uganda

DYNAMIC CONE PENETRATION TEST

YEAR OF Year 3 Date 19/10/2023

STUDY:
GROUP: Group A DCP zero
reading(mm)
TEST Test started 0.883 from the
NUMBER: at(m) Datum
Evaluation of Bearing Capacities Basing on Field DCP Values

Point no. Depth Penetration Approximate Unconfined Undrained Ultimate Allowable

(m) index N-value compressive Cohesion bearing bearing
value Strength qu Cu(kPa) capacity capacity(kPa)
(mm/blow) (kPa) (kPa)
For 883 1.2 46 5.4 70.74 35.37 182.8 60.6
below the
1.8 19 13 170.3 85.15 437.67 145.89
datum

AVERAGE

Page | 6
Figure 4: shows DCP at 1.8m. Figure 3: shows DCP at 1.2m

Page | 7
1.4 LIQUID LIMIT TEST (CASAGRANDE METHOD)
1.4.1 Objective
To establish the moisture content at which the soil passes from liquid to plastic state. The practical was done
basing on ASTM D 4318 - Standard Test Method for Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, and Plasticity Index of
Soils

1.4.2 Apparatus:
 Liquid limit device with Casagrande grooving tools.
 Sieve No. 40 (425 μm).
 Glass plate, spatula, plastic squeeze bottle.
 Balance readability of 0.01 g.
 Container for the determination of water content.
 Oven maintaining a uniform temperature of 110 ∓ 5 °C.

crank

cup

Figure 5; shows a Casagrande apparatus

1.4.3 Specimen preparation:

i. A representative sample portion is obtained from the total sample sufficient to provide 150 to 200 g
of material passing the 425-μm (No. 40) sieve.

Page | 8
 ii. It is mixed thoroughly with distilled water on the glass plate using the spatula. The prepared mixture
is placed in a storage dish, covered to prevent loss of moisture and allowed to cure for at least 16 h
(overnight).
iii. After this time, the soil is thoroughly remixed.

Figure 6: shows soaking of the sample that passed through 142µm sieve

1.4.4 Test Procedure:

i. Using a spatula, a portion of the previously prepared soil is placed in the cup of the Casagrande at the
point where the cup rests on the base.
ii. It is squeezed down to eliminate air bubbles and spread into the cup to a depth of about 1 cm at its
deepest point. The soil pat forms an approximately horizontal surface.
iii. A groove is formed in the soil pat using the grooving tool to cut a clean straight groove from back to
front through the sample at the center of the cup. The tool is made to remain perpendicular to the
surface of the cup as groove is being made.

Page | 9
 iv. The crank of the apparatus is turned steadily at a rate of 2 rps. The number of drops (blows)
required to close the groove along a distance of 13 mm are counted. If the number of drops exceeds
50, then go directly to step 6, otherwise, the number of drops (𝑵) is recorded on the data sheet.
v. Using the spatula, a sample is taken from edge to edge of the soil pat where the groove came into
contact for water content determination. The sample is placed into a container of known mass (𝒘𝒄),
the container with the wet soil is weighed, its mass (𝒘𝒄+𝒘𝒔) is recorded and it is placed into the
oven for a night. The weight of the container containing the dry soil (𝒘𝒄+𝒅𝒔) is recorded. The soil
remaining in the cup is returned to the dish and the cup and grooving tool are washed for the next
trial.
vi. The entire soil specimen in the mixing dish is remixed. A small amount of distilled water is added to
increase the water content and to decrease the number of drops required to close the groove.
vii. The previous steps are repeated for at least two additional trials producing successively lower
numbers of drops to close the groove. It is recommended that the three trials cover the drops range of
(25-35) (20-30) and (15-25), respectively

Figure 7: shows how liquid limit is obtained

Calculation:

The water content (𝒘) for each trial is determined

(Wc+ws)−(wc+ds)
𝒘= (Wc+ds)−(wc)
X 100

Page | 10
 A semi-logarithmic graph of the water content (𝒘) as ordinate (on linear scale) and the corresponding
number of drops (𝑵) on log scale is plotted

A line of the best fit is drawn through the plotted points. This is called the “flow line”.

The moisture content at 25 blows is read and recorded from the graph. This is rounded off to the nearest
whole number and is taken as the liquid limit of the soil sample.

Table 5; shows the liquid limit results at 1.2m

liquid limit table of results at 1.2m

Number of Blows 41 39 31 26 23 19

CONTAINER NUMBER(g) A7 A8 A9 A10 A11 A12

WT OF WET SOIL + TIN (g) 11.37 12.86 14.93 12.8 12.49 10.3

WT OF DRY SOIL + TIN (g) 7.7 8.9 9.9 8.65 8.25 6.8
WT OF TIN (g) 0.2 1.1 0.2 0.8 0.3 0.2

WT OF MOISTURE (g) 3.67 3.96 5.03 4.15 4.24 3.5

WT OF DRY SOIL 7.5 7.8 9.7 7.85 7.95 6.6

MOISTURE CONTENT(g) 48.9333 50.77 51.856 52.8662 53.3333 53.0303

Liquid limit graph at 1.2m

50
45
40
number of blows

35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55
moisture content(%)

Figure 8; shows a liquid limit graph at 1.2m

Liquid limit at 1.2m = 53.2%

Page | 11
Table 6; shows liquid limit results at 1.8m

liquid limit table of results at 1.8m

Number of Blows 43 37 33 28 25 19

CONTAINER NUMBER(g) A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6

WT OF WET SOIL + TIN (g) 14.6 15.93 16.31 16.72 20 11.31

WT OF DRY SOIL + TIN (g) 10.6 11.4 11.5 11.6 13.8 7.8

WT OF TIN (g) 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.2

WT OF MOISTURE (g) 4 4.53 4.81 5.12 6.2 3.51

WT OF DRY SOIL 10.2 11.2 11.3 11.3 13.5 7.6

MOISTURE CONTENT(g) 39.2157 40.45 42.566 45.3097 45.9259 46.1842

Liquid limit graph at 1.8m

50
45
40
number of blows

35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47
moisture content(%)

Figure 9; shows a liquid limit graph at 1.8m

Liquid limit at 1.8m = 45.2%

Page | 12
2.0 CHAPTER TWO
2.1 CHALLENGES RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS.
2.1.1 CHALLENGES
 The oven delayed us on getting the results because it was malfunctioning.
 We were disrupted by the rain the day we conducted the practical and also there was delay in the
drying of the samples (air drying)
 Delays due to the use of one equipment at ago as a whole class.

2.1.2 RECOMMENDATIONS
 The faculty of engineering needs to consider getting more equipment’s and calibrating the ones
available
 As students, we need more of practical sessions so as we can practice what we study in class, this
will produce quality of engineers.

2.1.3 CONCLUSIONS
 Since the allowable bearing capacity at 1.8m is greater than the bearing capacity at 1.2m, that means
if a structure is to be constructed, it’s better to have a foundation at a depth of 1.8m than at 1.2m.
Even the water table was at a greater depth since we didn’t encounter the water table while
excavating.
 Since the liquid limit at 1.8m is less than the liquid limit at 1.2m, that means that soil at 1.8m can
easily be compacted than the one at 1.2m.

As group A, we were able to do the practical to the maximum and it was a great experience.

Page | 13
REFERENCES
American society for testing and materials.

Tanzania laboratory testing manual 2000.

Page | 14
APPENDIX

Figure 10: shows pounding of the sample using a Figure 11: shows the different layers of the pit
rubber mullet

Figure 12: shows how the undisturbed sample was

obtained Figure 13; shows team work in doing the
practical

Page | 15
Figure 14: shows the excavation of the 150mm top
soil Figure 15; shows weighing of the samples

Page | 16