UNIVERSITY OF MINES AND TECHNOLOGY(UMaT), TARKWA

FACULTY OF GEOSCIENCES AND EVIRONMENTAL STUDIES

DEPARTMENT OF GEOLOGICAL ENGINEERING

A REPORT
ON FIELD MAPPING TRIP

BY

ANYORMI PHILEMON

GEOLOGICAL ENGINEERING

THREE

BS412101720

LECTURER: PROFESSOR EMMANUEL DAANOBA SUNKARI

JANUARY 2023
 DECLARATION

I, ANYORMI PHILEMON, claim ownership of this report as the product of my hard work
under Prof. EMMANUEL DAANOBA SUKARI’S direction, and I am submitting it as a
consequence of my participation in the field exercise that took place in Essikado, Takoradi. I
further state that the information in this report represents the real discoveries made during the
field work. By no means should this work be used differently without the authors' permission;
it is only to be used for scholarly reasons.

………………………………………

(Signature)

(Date.)

i
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

First of all, I would like to give thanks to the almighty God for his travelling mercies that he
granted us throughout the entire journey from campus to Takoradi and back home to our
families.
I would go further to express my profound gratitude to Prof. Emmanuel Daanoba Sunkari and
Doc for their guidance and supervision throughout the course of this field trip exercise. I also
want to thank them for the fatherly advice that they constantly gave us which protected us
from harm during our stay in Takoradi.
Finally, to my colleagues, I thank each and everyone who made this field trip a memorable
one. I always thought of working for myself but this trip thought me that there’s joy and
productivity in working in groups. Words cannot express how happy I was with working
hand in hand with my group m

ii
 ABSTRACT

The properties and behaviour of soil and rock in engineering applications are the focus of the
branch of geological and civil engineering known as soil mechanics. To identify different soil
qualities, laboratory tests are conducted on collected soil samples. The identification and
description of the subsoil condition is the first step in any geotechnical engineering project
and when the ground is cleared as being safe to support the specified structure, engineers can
proceed with their project. For this reason, second-year Geological Engineering students from
UMaT under the supervision of Mr. Endswell Cudjoe. This lab's primary goal was to
investigate various soil types using various tests and compare the results to industry standards
(BS 1377). According to BS 1377 (American Standards for Testing Materials) procedures,
field soil identification tests and laboratory analyses such as the direct shear test, unconfined
compression test, consolidation test, and triaxial test may be carried out on collected
disturbed soil samples.

iii
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Contents
......................................................................................................................................................
DECLARATION........................................................................................................................i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT.........................................................................................................ii
ABSTRACT..............................................................................................................................iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS..........................................................................................................iv
LIST OF FIGURES..................................................................................................................vi
LIST OF TABLES...................................................................................................................vii
CHAPTER 1...............................................................................................................................1
INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................1
1.1 OBJECTIVES AND PURPOSE......................................................................................1
1.2 LOCATION AND ACCESSIBILITY...........................................................................1
1.3 SITE FOR THE TEST WORKS......................................................................................1
CHAPTER 2...............................................................................................................................2
DRY SIEVE ANALYSIS TEST................................................................................................2
2.1 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................2
2.2 OBJECTIVES..................................................................................................................2
2.3 APPARATUS USED.......................................................................................................2
2.4 PROCEDURE..................................................................................................................2
2.5 CALCULATIONS...........................................................................................................2
2.6 CONCLUSION................................................................................................................3
CHAPTER 3...............................................................................................................................4
SPECIFIC GRAVITY TEST.....................................................................................................4
3.1 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................4
3.2 OBJECTIVE....................................................................................................................4
3.3 APPARATUS USED.......................................................................................................4
3.4 PROCEDURE..................................................................................................................4
iv
 3.5 CALCULATIONS...........................................................................................................5
3.9 CONCLUSION................................................................................................................6
CHAPTER 4...............................................................................................................................7
ATTERBEG LIMIT TEST........................................................................................................7
INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................7
4.1 ATTERBEG LIMIT TEST..............................................................................................7
4.2 OBJECTIVES..................................................................................................................7
4.3 APPARATUS USED.......................................................................................................7
4.5 TEST PROCEDURE.......................................................................................................7
4.5.1 PLASTIC LIMIT (PL)..............................................................................................7
4.5.2 FOR THE LIQUID LIMIT (LL)...............................................................................8
4.6 CALCULATIONS.........................................................................................................12
4.7 PRECAUTIONS............................................................................................................13
4.9 CONCLUSION..............................................................................................................13
CHAPTER 5.............................................................................................................................14
COMPACTION TEST.............................................................................................................14
6.1 INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................14
5.1 COMPACTION TEST...................................................................................................14
5.2 OBJECTIVE..................................................................................................................14
5.3 REFERENCE STANDARD:.........................................................................................14
5.4 APPARATUS USED.....................................................................................................14
5.5 PROCEDURE................................................................................................................15
5.6 PRECAUTIONS............................................................................................................18
5.7 CONCLUSION..............................................................................................................19
CHAPTER 8.............................................................................................................................20
PERMEABILITY TEST......................................................................................................20
8.1 INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................................20
8.2 TEST OBJECTIVE........................................................................................................20
8.3 APPARATUS................................................................................................................20
8.4 PROCEDURE................................................................................................................20
8.4 CALCULATION AND TABLE OF RESULTS...........................................................21
8.5 PRECAUTIONS............................................................................................................23
8.6 FACTORS AFFECTING THE COEFFICIENT OF PERMEABILITY (K)................23

v
 8.7 CONCLUSION..............................................................................................................23
CHAPTER 6.............................................................................................................................24
6.1 OBSERVATION............................................................................................................24
9.2 RECOMMENDATION.................................................................................................24
6.3 CONCLUSION..............................................................................................................25
REFERENCE...........................................................................................................................26

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 showing a graph of average MC% against NO. of blows..........................................12

Figure 2 showing a graph of dry density against moisture contents.......................................18

vi
 LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 showing results obtained from sieve analysis test........................................................3

Table 2 showing the determination of LL and PL...................................................................10
Table 3 shows actual values of LL and PL..............................................................................11
Table 4 showing table of results for compaction test...............................................................17
Table 5 showing dry density and MC% for the graph.............................................................17
Table 6 showing results of hydraulic conductivity test............................................................17

vii
 CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 OBJECTIVES AND PURPOSE

The objectives of these laboratory experiments were to learn how to conduct various soil
test procedures, how to operate different testing equipment, how to record readings from
test procedures, and how to use the results to compute using mechanics and hydraulics
laws.

1.2 LOCATION AND ACCESSIBILITY

University of mines and technology, Geological Engineering

geotechnical lab Tarkwa.

1.3 SITE FOR THE TEST WORKS

All laboratory tests were performed in the geological engineering department's

geotechnical laboratory.

1
 CHAPTER 2

DRY SIEVE ANALYSIS TEST

2.1 INTRODUCTION

The coarse soil components are separated using this technique using sieves. On soils with
a coarse grain size, like sand and gravel, particle sieve analysis is frequently applied.

2.2 OBJECTIVES
To determine the various sizes of sand particles in a soil.

2.3 APPARATUS USED

i. Refill tank
ii. Set of sieves
iii. Electric Balance
iv. Sieve brush

v. vibrator

2.4 PROCEDURE

i. Obtain a reasonable amount of dry soil and weigh using the electric
balance.

ii. Weigh the sieves to be use and arrange them in descending order of
aperture size with the receiver(pan) at the base.
iii. Pour the dry sample into the top sieve and placed it on the vibrator for 10-
15 minutes with the lid covered.
iv. Material retained on each sieve was weighed on the scale.

2.5 CALCULATIONS

% Retained on any sieve =

2
 Where M s = Mass retained on the sieve

M d = Mass of sample use

TOTAL SAMPLE USED 1374.0g

Sieve Size(mm) Mass Retained % Retained % Passing

(g)

75.000 0.00 0.00 100.00

31.500 548.50 40.705 59.295

20.00 228.50 16.957 42.338

10.00 138.00 10.241 32.097

5.00 239.50 17.774 14.323

1.700 122.00 9.054 5.269

0.425 53.50 3.970 1.299

0.075 15.50 1.150 0.149

0.000 2.00 0.148 0.001

Table 1 showing results obtained from sieve analysis test

2.6 CONCLUSION

To determine soil gradation, use the uniform coefficient (Cu) and the coefficient of
graduation. The soil is categorized as having poor grading based on the calculated
results of the experiment because the uniform coefficient is greater than 4 and the
coefficient of curvature is not between 1 and 3.

CHAPTER 3

SPECIFIC GRAVITY TEST

3.1 INTRODUCTION

3
 The ratio of a substance's mass density to that of an equivalent volume of water is
known as its specific gravity. The void ratio and porosity of a soil are determined
using its specific gravity. This is particularly important for determining how well
the soil is compacted and consolidated.

3.2 OBJECTIVE
This experiment aims to determine how much soil there is in relation to the same
amount of water.

3.3 APPARATUS USED

i. Density bottle
ii. Mortar and pistil
iii. Pallet knife
iv. Balance
v. Spatula
vi. Wash bottle
vii. 2mm sieve

3.4 PROCEDURE

i. Thoroughly clean the density bottles free of chips and dry to remove
moisture
ii. Weigh the empty density bottle with stopper
iii. Obtain a representative specimen of the sample by quartering. Grind
larger particles to pass 2mm sieve.
iv. Fill density bottle with an adequate amount of soil sample and weigh
and record
v. Add water until soil sample is just covered and shake to release any
trapped air bubbles
vi. Add more water to bottle to remove the bubbles
vii. Weigh the bottle with the soil and water and record
viii. Clean out the density bottle and repeat the same procedure

4
3.5 CALCULATIONS

The specific gravity (S.G), of the soil in each bottle is calculated as follows;

( M 2−M 1 )
Gs = ( M ¿ ¿ 4−M
1 )−( M 3 −M 2 )¿

Where, M1 = Mass of density bottle,

M2 = Mass of bottle + soil,

M3 = Mass of bottle + soil + water

M4 = Mass of bottle when filled with water only.

BOTTLE NUMBER 1 2 3
Mass of soil +bottle (M2) g 41.5 42.7 41.8

Mass of soil +water+bottle (M3) g 84.2 85.0 84.2

Mass of bottle full of water (M4) g 76.8 78.0 77.3
Mass of bottle (M1) g 30.0 31.4 30.4
(M4-M1) g 46.8 46.6 46.9
(M2-M1) g 11.2 11.3 11.4

Mass of water (M3-M2) g 42.7 42.3 42.4

Specific gravity; sg 2.80 2.69 2.53

( M 2−M 1) 2.80+2.69+2.53
sg= Average Specific Gravity ( SG ) = =2.673
( M 4−M 1 ) −(M 3−M 2) 3

3.8 PRECAUTIONS TAKEN

 Distilled water at room temperature was used for the experiment.

5
  Lumps and other large particles in the soil sample were ground to avoid
air trapping.
 It was ensured that no moisture was present in the density bottles by
oven drying.

3.9 CONCLUSION

Soil gradation is measured by the uniform coefficient (Cu) and the coefficient of
graduation. According to the results of the experiment, the soil is classed as badly graded
since the uniform coefficient is more than the range of 4 to 6 and the coefficient of
curvature is not between 1 and 3.

6
 CHAPTER 4

ATTERBEG LIMIT TEST

INTRODUCTION

4.1 ATTERBEG LIMIT TEST

The Atterberg limit refers to the soil's physical state and its fine-grained soil
consistency. Water is regarded as a variable factor in this experiment and is
thus used as an indicator because physical changes result from variations in
moisture content.

4.2 OBJECTIVES

To determine the Liquid Limit and Plastic Limit of a given soil.

4.3 APPARATUS USED

i. Grooving tool
ii. Cassagrande device
iii. Distilled water
iv. Weighing balance
v. Oven capable of maintaining temperature up to 1100C
vi. Glass plate
vii. spatula
viii. moisture content container

4.5 TEST PROCEDURE

4.5.1 PLASTIC LIMIT (PL)

i. About 50g of soil sample was prepared for a plastic limit test.

7
 ii. The sample was mixed with enough water to form a homogeneous dry paste just
plastic enough to be rolled into a ball of about 15mm diameter.
iii. A ball of soil was rolled between the hand and the glass plate until a thread 3mm
diameter is formed. The thread was reshaping into a ball and was rolled repeatedly
until the 3mm thread started to crumble.
iv. The thread was placed into a moisture content container, weighed, oven dried and
the moisture content was determined.
v. The procedure was repeated twice.

4.5.2 FOR THE LIQUID LIMIT (LL)

i. The liquid limit apparatus was checked to see it clean. The height of the
Cassagrande cup fall was checked to make sure it was 100mm. And empty
moisture content containers were numbered and weighed.

ii. A 425-m sieve was used to remove the larger particles from more than 100g of air-
dried soil before the finer particles were transferred to a glass plate. There was
some distil water added to the mixture.

iii. With the help of the palette knife, the soil and distil water were thoroughly
combined and spread out on the glass plate to create a thick paste. To reduce
drying caused by air exposure.

iv. The Cassagrande cup was placed on the base and filled with the remixed soil using
a spatula. The sample was levelled to a minimum depth of about 10mm and
pressed down with the spatula to release any trapped air.

v. The sample was divided by drawing the grooving tool along the diameter of the
cup that passes through the centre of the hinge.

vi. At a rate of two turns per second, the machine's handle was turned counter
clockwise. As the machine turned, the number of blows was counted until the

8
 groove was almost close to 13mm. The soil was mixed so that the groove could not
be closed with more than 50 blows.

vii. The procedure was repeated for various amounts of the mixed soil, and each time,
a sample of the material was placed into a container with a labelled moisture
content. The container was weighed while containing its contents, dried in the oven
for 24 hours, and then weighed again to determine the moisture content.

viii. The material that was still in the cup was transferred back onto the glass plate and
mixed with the remaining sample and a little more water to create a uniformly soft
consistency. To obtain a lower count of blows, the above procedures were
repeated.

ix. A minimum of four different moisture contents were used in the experiment to
ensure that the number of blows was roughly evenly distributed between 50 and
10. with ideally two on each side of.

x. Each tin's moisture content was determined from the number of blows it received.
On the semi-log graph paper, an average moisture content versus an average
number of blows was plotted. The water content corresponding to 25 blows was
read off the best straight line through these points to the nearest 0.1.

9
 MOISTURE CONTENT

TES CONTAINE CONTAINE LOS CONTAINER DRY MOISTUR

T R NO R S WEIGH E
NO. T CONTENT
WET DRY DR EMPT
Y Y

1 33 48.9 48.4 0.5 48. 46.5 1.9 26.3

4

2 23 48.4 48.0 0.4 48. 46.2 1.8 22.2

0

3 3 53.2 51.6 1.6 51. 46.3 5.3 30.2

6

4 40 20.1 18.8 1.3 18. 14.3 4.5 28.7

8

5 24 22.0 20.1 1.9 20. 13.7 6.4 30.6

1

6 44 19.6 18.0 1.6 18. 13.3 4.7 33.4

0

7 14 54.6 52.2 2.0 52. 46.2 6.0 33.3

2

8 12 19.9 17.9 2.0 17. 13.7 4.2 47.6

9

9 9 54.6 52.4 2.2 52. 46.8 5.6 39.3

4

10 51 20.3 18.2 2.1 18. 13.9 4.3 48.8

10
 2

11 43 27.5 25.6 1.9 25. 21.5 4.1 46.3

6

12 63 19.9 17.5 2.4 17. 12.8 4.7 51.1

5

Table 2 showing the determination of LL and PL

LIQUID LIMIT PLASTIC LIMIT

TEST NO. NO. OF AVERAGE TEST NO. MC %

BLOWS MC %
(average)

3&4 45 29.5 1 26.3

5&6 36 32 2 22.2

7&8 24 40.5

9&10 18 44.1

11&12 10 48.7

Total average 38.96 24.3

Table 3 shows actual values of LL and PL

11
LIQUID LIMIT: 39

PLASTIC LIMIT:24.3

PLASTICITY INDEX:14.7

12
 A GRAPH OF AVERAGE MC AGAINST NUMBER OF BLOWS
60

50

40
A VERA GE MC %

30

20

10

0
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

NO. OF BLOWS

Figure 1 showing a graph of average MC% against NO. of blows

Therefore, at blow 25 the average MC % was 39 which is equal to the liquid limit

4.6 CALCULATIONS

Loss= weight of wet sample (w) - weight of dry sample (d)

Dry weight = weight of container – (weight of container + dry sample)

Plastic limit (P.L) =

13
PLASTICITY INDEX (PI) = Liquid Limit (LL) - Plastic
Limit (PL) = 39 – 24.3 =14.7

[W – PL] [38.96−24.3]
LIQUID INDEX (LI) = = =
PI 14.7
0.997

4.7 PRECAUTIONS

 The sample was kept in the middle of the glass plate to

prevent it from drying due to exposure of air.

 The height through which the cup falls was kept at 100mm.

4.9 CONCLUSION

 Based on our calculations, LL was found to be equal to 39 and PI was found to be

equal to 14.7. With a PI of 14.7 and an LL of 39, fine-grained soil can be classified
as either CL or OL on the Cassagrande chart, where CL stands for lean clay, O for
organic matter, and L for low plasticity. The sieve analysis reveals that the sample
is well graded, which is what we can infer.

14
 CHAPTER 5

COMPACTION TEST

6.1 INTRODUCTION
5.1 COMPACTION TEST

Compaction is the process of compacting soil by ramming or using other

mechanical methods to increase the dry density of the soil.

Loose soils need to be compacted to increase their unit weight when building earth
dams, highway embankments, and many other types of engineering projects.

5.2 OBJECTIVE

To determine the relation between the dry density and moisture content of the soil
and use the results to derive the Optimum Moisture Content (O.M.C.) and
Maximum Dry Density (M.D.D).

5.3 REFERENCE STANDARD:

BS 1377: Part 4

5.4 APPARATUS USED

2.5Kg rammer
i. Refill box
ii. 20 mm sieve
iii. Scoop
iv. Trimmer
v. Moisture content tins
vi. Cylindrical metal mould with detachable base plate and extension
collar
vii. Sample pan

viii. Measuring cylinder

ix. Palette knife

15
5.5 PROCEDURE
i. The amount of soil that was air-dried was put through a 20mm sieve (but the
content of the soil was already known). The soil was then divided into five
equal cones or piles.
ii. The base plate, base plate with the collar removed, and the empty, clean
mould were all weighed to the nearest 1kg. Additionally, the internal
diameter and overall mould length from the base were measured.
iii. Loose soil from the first batch of soil was placed in the mould to about half
fill. The soil was compacted by applying 25 blows of the rammer. This was
effectively distributed over the soil surface to ensure that the rammer does
not hit the edge of the rammer.
iv. Excess soil was trimmed to the top of the mould after the extension collar
was removed. Weighing was done with the mould and its contents. The
mould was then removed from the compacted soils, and three soils were
chosen to determine their moisture content.
v. The above procedure was repeated for the remaining batches in turn.

DRY DENSITY-MOISTURE CONTENT RELATION

BORROW SOURCE: GEOTECH DATE

LAB TESTED:19/08/202
2

SAMPLE NO. GROUP 2 TYPE OF MATERIAL: phyllite

TEST NO 2 3 4 5

16
1

Volume of water added to soil [ 310 510 710 910

cm3] g

Wt. of mould +compacted soil 5765 5820 5976 5995.5 5992.0

[ M 1] g

Wt. of mould [ M 2] g 4272. 4272.5 4272.5 4272.5 4272.5

5

Wt. of sample [ M 1−M 2] g 1492. 1547.5 1703 1723 1719.5

5

VOLUME OF MOULD [V] cm3 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000

Bulk density g/cm3 1.492 1.5475 1.703 1.723 1.7195

5
( M −M 2)
Pw = 1
V

MOISTURE CONTENT

Tin no. 4 2 27 94 10

Wt. of moist sample + tin [G1] g 34.5 56.0 53.8 56.2 80.2

Wt. of dry sample + tin [G2] g 32.9 52.3 49.8 50.4 69.7

Wt. of tin [G3] g 20.1 27.0 26.7 19.9 20.1

17
 Wt. of water Gw =(G1−G2 ) 1.6 3.7 4 5.8 10.5
g

Wt. of dry sample 12.8 25.3 23.1 30.5 49.6

Gs =(G 2−G3 ) (g)

Gw 12.5 14.6 17.3 19 21.2

Water content w=[ ]*100 (%)
Gs

Dry density g/cm3 1.33 1.35 1.45 1.45 1.42

100∗Pw
Pd =
100+ w

Average dry density g/cm3 1.4

Table 4 showing table of results for compaction test

1.35+1.35+1.45+1.45+1.42
Average Pd = =1.4 g/cm3
5

Dry density Mg/m3 Moisture content (%)

1.33 12.5

1.35 14.6

1.45 17.3

1.45 19

1.42 21.2

Table 5 showing dry density and MC% for the graph

18
 COMPACTION CURVE
1.46

1.44

1.42

1.4
Dry density Mg/m3

1.38

1.36

1.34

1.32

1.3

1.28

1.26
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

Moisture content (%)

Figure 2 showing a graph of dry density against moisture contents

From the graph

Maximum dry density (MDD) =1.456Mg/m3
Optimum Moisture content = 18%

Pd
Relative compaction ( Rc ¿=¿ ∗100
MDD
1.4
Rc = ∗100=96.15 %
1.456

5.6 PRECAUTIONS
i. Trimming with the trimmer was done in such a way that the compacted
soil in the mould was no further compressed.

19
 ii. The blows of the rammer were applied uniformly on the surface of the
soil.
iii. Water added to the soil sample was read at the meniscus level in the
measuring cylinder

5.7 CONCLUSION

We calculate the compaction to be 96.15% using the Maximum Dry Density

(MDD) and Optimum Moisture Content (OMC), indicating that the in-situ soil will
be compacted to 96.15% of the maximum dry density using a roller of various
types (depending on the soil characteristics).

20
 CHAPTER 8
PERMEABILITY TEST

8.1 INTRODUCTION

The ability of the soil to transmit air and water is referred to as soil permeability, also
known as soil conductivity.  A challenging characteristic of soils is hydraulic conductivity,
which varies depending on the area, soil type, depth, soil moisture content, and flow
direction.

8.2 TEST OBJECTIVE

The constant head permeability test is used to determine the hydraulic conductivity or
coefficient of permeability of a specific soil.

8.3 APPARATUS
 Permeameter
 Tamping rod
 Perforator
 Distilled water
 Ruler

8.4 PROCEDURE

 Sample should be poured into permeameter and compacted with tamping rod.
 Three layers are being poured into the permeameter and 25 blows on each layer by
the tamping rod.
 Once no appreciable drift in the water manometer levels is observed, measure and
record the head (h), defined as the difference in manometer levels, time (t), amount
of flow (Q), and water temperature (T).

21
  After the permeability test is complete, drain the sample using the outlet valve and
examine it to see if it is essentially homogeneous and isotropic in nature.
 During the test, the amount of amount of water flowing through the soil column is
measured for a given time interval.
 The height of the soil sample column L, sample cross section A, constant pressure
difference H, water volume passing through Q, and time interval change in T can
all be used to calculate the permeability of the soil sample.

8.4 CALCULATION AND TABLE OF RESULTS

From DARCYS law q=KiA

Where; q is the flow rate, K is the hydraulic conductivity and A is the area of the cylinder

q
But, K =
i∗A

H 2−H 1 ΔH
Also, i = =
L L

π d2
And, A =
4

V
q= t

4 VL
by substitution K = 2
π d Δh t

where V = volume of water displayed L = length of the tube and t= time

d= diameter of the cylinder Δh = change in heights of the he

GROUP V L d2 Δh T

cm3 cm cm cm s

GROUP 0 38 10.20 56.25 24-15.9 40

22
 =8.1

4 VL 0.02708
K 0= cm/s
π d 2 Δh t

GROUP 1 35.5 10.20 56.25 44.3- 25.5

43.4=0.9

4 VL 0.35714
K1 = 2 cm/s
π d Δht

GROUP 2 27 10.20 56.25 44-42=2 28.3

4 VL 0.11014
K2 = 2 cm/s
π d Δh t

GROUP 3 69 10.20 56.25 43.1- 20

42=1.1

4 VL 0.72413
K3 = 2 cm/s
π d Δht

AVERAGE 0.3046

K 0 + K 1+ K 2 + K 3
K ave . =
4

cm/s

Table 6 showing results for hydraulic conductivity test

π = 22/7

K 0+ K 1 + K 2 + K 3 0.02708+0.35714+ 0.11014+0.72413
Average K ave . = = = 0.3046 cm/s
4 4

23
8.5 PRECAUTIONS

i. We ensured that the perforator was in place to prevent humus from blocking the
holes.
ii. The water entering the permeameter was allowed to fall freely under its own
pressure
iii. The reading of the heads was done with the help of a ruler to prevent parallax.

8.6 FACTORS AFFECTING THE COEFFICIENT OF

PERMEABILITY (K)
i. Void ratio
ii. Degree of saturation
iii. Roughness of the mineral
iv. Pore viscosity

Table 6 Shows the standard hydraulic gradients and the type of material the soil is likely
to be made of

K MATERIAL MAKEUP
cm /s
1 - 100 Clay gravel
0.01 - 0.99 Coarse sand
0.001 - 0.009 Fine grain
0.00001 – 0.0009 Silty clay
Below 0.000001 Clay

8.7 CONCLUSION

Because coarse sand's coefficient of permeability (K), which ranges from 0.01-0.99, falls
within this range, it was chosen as the test material. As a result, the material has a low
hydraulic conductivity. When the soil is used for engineering or construction, this reduces
its shear strength and raises the possibility of instability or failure.

24
 CHAPTER 6

6.1 OBSERVATION

I observed that,

i. The lab experts have intensive information on all the exercises

relating to their work.
ii. The lab was conveniently organized with all the hardware's in
their particular position. This aided in simple distinguishing
proof of the segments of the different frameworks and their
activity.
iii. The lab was likewise separated into sub-areas with the goal that
understudies performing different tests wouldn't be blocked in
there

9.2 RECOMMENDATION

I recommend that;

i. The lab technicians should take their time when explaining

stuffs to students
ii. Enough time should be given to students in the submission of
the report
iii. The field observation should be made in such a way that every
students can see what is being done by the lab technician

25
6.3 CONCLUSION

The sieve analysis test was carried out to analyse materials because particle size
distribution can affect a wide range of properties such as the strength of concrete.
Following the completion of our experiment, we found that the soil's coefficients
of gradation and uniformity varied between the manual values for well-graded soil
and that the coefficient of gradation was not up to the range of 1 to 3, leading us to
conclude that the soil was poorly graded.

i. The specific gravity test was used to determine the phase relationships of
soils, including the void ratio and the saturation level. By dividing the
water density by the specific gravity, we can be able to determine the soil's
density using the phases of the soil. The specific gravity of the soil was
measured to be 2.79.
ii. The plasticity index can be determined using the shrinkage limit, plastic
limit, and liquid limit. Using the Cassagrande chart from ASTM D2487-06,
we came to a conclusion to our experiment. We establish our PI and LL.
Our calculations revealed that our PI was equal to 14.7 and our LL was
equal to 39. Based on that we concluded that the soil is well graded.
iii. The void ratio and saturation level of soils, as well as their phase
relationships, were determined using the specific gravity test. We
calculated the density of the soil using the phases of the soil by dividing the
water density by the specific gravity. T he soil's specific gravity came
out to be 2.79.

26
 REFERENCE

Affam, M. (2020). Soil Mechanics handout, University of mines and Technology, Tarkwa,
Unpublished Lecture note.

Arora K.R. (1997).’ Soil mechanics and foundation engineering ‘4th Ed., Pp 1-851.

Sutton B.H.C. (1992). ‘Solving problems in soil mechanics,2nd Ed., London, pp 1-266.

Whitlow R. (1995). ‘Basic Soil mechanics ‘3rd Ed., Longman group limited, Edinburg
gate, England. pp 16-549.

Mitchell J.K. (2005). ‘Fundamentals of soil behaviour’ 3rd., John Wiley and Sons Inc,
Johannesburg. pp 25-195.

27