SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY

SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING AND ARCHITECTURE

A. Bonifacio Street. Baguio City, Philippines 2600

Soil
Investigation
Report

Prepared by: Jonathan S. Basilio

Date: April 26, 2019

Site Location : Windy Hill, Buyagan, La Trinidad, Benguet, Philippines 2600

Soil Investigation Report April 2019

Table of Contents

1.
INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................................3
1.1 General............................................................................................................3
1.2 Purpose and Scope.........................................................................................3

2. SITE CONDITION...................................................................................................3
2.1 Description......................................................................................................3
2.2 Subsurface Condition......................................................................................4
2.3 Ground Water and Cavities.............................................................................4

3. FIELD EXPLORATION AND TESTING..................................................................4

3.1 Drilling..............................................................................................................4
3.2 Sampling.........................................................................................................4

4. LABORATORY TESTING.......................................................................................4
4.1 Soil Moisture Content......................................................................................4
4.2 Specific gravity of Soil.....................................................................................4
4.3 Atterber's Limits...............................................................................................5
4.4 Sieve Analysis.................................................................................................5
4.5 Unconfined Comprssive Strenth.....................................................................5
4.6 Direct Shear Test.............................................................................................6
4.7 Summary of Laboratory Test Results..............................................................6

5. SOIL CLASSIFICATION..........................................................................................7
5.1 Unified Soil Classification System (USCS),....................................................7
5.2 U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)..........................................................7
5.3 American Association of the State Highway and Transportation Officials ....7

6. BEARING CAPACITY ANALYSIS...........................................................................7

6.1 Utillizing bearing capacity equation.................................................................7
6.2 Selection of foundation type............................................................................8

7. ENGINEERING RECOMMENATIONS...................................................................8
7.1 Drainage of the Site........................................................................................8
7.2 Seismic Considerations...................................................................................9

REFERENCES..........................................................................................................10

APPENDICES
Appendix A - Pit Location Plan............................................................................11
Appendix B - Laboratory Soil Test Report..........................................................13
Appendix C - Soil Classification..........................................................................19
Appendix D - Documentation..............................................................................23

School of Engineering and Architecture • Saint Louis University 2

Soil Investigation Report April 2019

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 GENERAL

This report presents the outcome of the soil investigation conducted for the
requirement of the subject CE 422L Geotechnical Engineering offered in the
course of Civil Engineering at Saint Louis University. This report could be used
as a basis in future planning of residential house within the site. Soil investigation
at the site started on 28th January 2019 and finished by 23th April 2019.

1.2 PURPOSE AND SCOPE

Investigation of the underground conditions at a site is prerequisite to the

economical design of the substructure elements. It is also necessary to obtain
sufficient information for feasibility and economic studies for any project.

The purpose of this site investigation was to provide the following:

• properties of the soil, moisture content and specific gravity;
• shear strength of the soil material;
• unconfined compressive strength of the soil material;
• sufficient data/ laboratory tests as guide to indicate soil settlement under
load;
• soil gradation/particle size distribution to classify the soil;
• Information to allow the geotechnical consultant to make a

recommendation on the allowable bearing capacity of the soil;

• Information to determine the type of foundation required (shallow or deep);
• Information so that the identification and solution of excavation problems
can be made;
• Information regarding permeability and compaction properties of the
encountered materials;
• Information regarding cavitations and other kinds of geological
weaknesses within the construction site.

2. SITE CONDITION

2.1 DESCRIPTION

The site is located in residential area of Windy Hill, Buyagan, La Trinidad,

Benguet. No high voltage, electrical or telephone poles, sewer or water pipes
were observed within the depth of the dug pit.

School of Engineering and Architecture • Saint Louis University 3

Soil Investigation Report April 2019

2.2 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

The formation within the depth of the dug pit was observed to have minimum
rocks present. The soil was also observed to be damp.

2.3 GROUNDWATER AND CAVITIES

Ground water was not encountered within the depth of the dug pit and no
ground water table was observed. No cavities or other kinds of weaknesses were
noticed within the dug depth of pit.

3. FIELD EXPLORATION AND TESTING

3.1 DRILLING

The site investigation included the exploration of site subsurface conditions

through digging of one pit, 3 meters depth below the existing ground level.

The digging has been carried out manually utilizing shovel and digging bar.

3.2 SAMPLING

Undisturbed soil sample were collected for strength test.

Representative samples were placed in sealed plastic bags (cling wrap) and
transported to the laboratory for testing.

In our opinion, the obtained samples were of good quality.

4. LABORATORY TESTING
4.1 TEST CARRIES OUT

4.1.1 SOIL MOISTURE CONTENT

The moisture content were tested in accordance with ASTM D2216 - 19,
Standard Test Methods for Laboratory Determination of Water
(Moisture) Content of Soil and Rock by Mass.

Initial weight of original sample was measured and dried in the oven
under 105 to 110 C until constant weight was achieved. The dry
weight of the sample was measured and the moisture content was
calculated.

4.1.2 SPECIFIC GRAVITY

School of Engineering and Architecture • Saint Louis University 4

Soil Investigation Report April 2019

The specific gravity of the soil were determined in accordance with

ASTM D854 - 14 Standard Test Methods for Specific Gravity of Soil Solids
by Water Pycnometer.
The soil solids was passed to the 4.75-mm (No.4) sieve. The passing
solids were tested in the water pycnometer with water and de-aired
in vacuum. The specific gravity was calculated.

4.1.3 ATTERBERG’S LIMITS

The Atterberg’s limits of the soil were determined in accordance with

ASTM D4318 - 17e1, Standard Test Methods for Liquid Limit,
Plastic Limit, and Plasticity Index of Soils.

The liquid limit was determined by three (3) soil specimen varying in
moisture content. The soil paste is placed in the cup of the liquid
limit test device. A groove was cut at the center of the soil pat with the
standard grooving tool. Using the crank-operated cam, the cup was
lifted and dropped. The number of blows to close the groove was
recorded and soil moisture content was determined. The number of
blows and the moisture content was plot. The moisture content with 25
blows in the graph was determined as the liquid limit.

The plastic limit was performed by repeatedly rolling an ellipsoidal-sized

soil mass by hand on a ground glass plate. The rolling was stopped
when the thread was approximately 4.2mm and crumbling was observed.
The soil moisture content was determined and labeled as plastic limit.
These test methods cover the determination of the liquid limit, plastic limit,
and the plasticity index of soils.

4.1.5 SIEVE ANALYSIS

The gradation of the soil was determined in accordance with ASTM C136 /
C136M - 14, Standard Test Method for Sieve Analysis of Fine and Coarse
Aggregates.

The test was performed by sieving known mass of soil specimen and
determining the particle size distribution of fine and coarse
aggregates.

4.1.6 UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH

The unconfined compressive strength of the soil were determined in

accordance with ASTM D2166 / D2166M - 16, Standard Test
Method for Unconfined Compressive Strength of Cohesive Soil.

School of Engineering and Architecture • Saint Louis University 5

Soil Investigation Report April 2019

Three cylindrical soil specimen, six (6) inches in height and three (3)
inches in diameter, was tested in compression test apparatus.

This test method provides an approximate value of the strength of

cohesive soils in terms of total stresses.

4.1.7 SHEAR STRENGTH

The unconsolidated-undrained shear strength of soil was tested in

accordance with ASTM D3080 / D3080M - 11, Standard Test
Method for Direct Shear Test of Soils under Consolidated Drained
Conditions.

Three cubic soil specimen, two (2) inches sides, were sheared under three
vertical load conditions and the maximum shear stress in each case was
measured. The strength parameters, cohesion and angle of friction
were determined from the maximum shear -vs- normal stress plot.

4.1.8 SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS

Moisture Liquid Plastic Plasticity

Depth Shrinkage
Pit No. Content Limit Limit Index, PI
(m) Limit
(%) (%) (%) (%)
1 3.00 37.54 47.7 43.41 3.42 12

Note : tests were carried out by digging utilizing shovel and digging bar

Table (1) Summary of Test Results

Coefficient Uniformity Sorting

Pit No. Depth (m) of curvature coefficient Coefficient
(Cc) (Cu) (So)
1 3.00 10.51 0.93 2.63

Table (2) Summary of Sieve Analysis

Specific Shear Strength Compressive

Pit No. Depth (m)
Gravity (Kpa) Strength (Kpa)

School of Engineering and Architecture • Saint Louis University 6

Soil Investigation Report April 2019

1 3.00 2.162 61.22 30.70

Table (3) – Summary of soil properties

Angle of Shear
Cohesion
Pit No. Depth (m) Internal Strength
(Kpa)
friction φ (°) (Kpa)
1 3.00 19.04 26.57° 61.22

*Samples were collected from the cutting resulted from digging.

Table (4) Summary of Shear Test Result

5. SOIL CLASSIFICATION

5.1 UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (USCS)

The soil was classified as SW-SC, well graded sand with clay.

5.2 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE (USDA)

The soil was classified as sand.

5.2 AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF STATE HIGHWAY AND

TRANSPORTATION OFFICIALS (AASHTO)

The soil was classified under Group A-2-5.

6. BEARING CAPACITY ANALYSIS

6.1 UTILIZING THE BEARING CAPACITY EQUATION

The bearing capacity was calculated using the shear test parameters of
cohesion and angle of internal friction and the soil density of the
specimens extracted from the pits. The following well known Terzaghi
equation with correction terms suggested by Schultze can be used to
calculate the bearing capacity of rectangular foundation of any sides ratio
B:L

qult = (1+ 0.3 B/L) C Nc + γo D Nq + (1- 0.2 B/L) (γ1 B/2) Nγ

where:

γo - Unit weight of soil above foundation level in KN/m3.

School of Engineering and Architecture • Saint Louis University 7

Soil Investigation Report April 2019

γ1 - Unit weight of soil below foundation level in KN/m3.

C, Ø - Strength parameters of the soil below foundation level in KN/m2

and degrees respectively.

B - Width of foundation in (m).

L - Length of foundation in (m).

Nc, Nq, Nγ - Bearing capacity coefficients dependent on the angle of

internal friction of the soil below foundation level (dimensionless).

D - Depth of foundation (m).

Calculations for an assumed isolated footing :

Considering:
B = 1.5m
L = 3m
D = 3.0m
γo= 21.5 KN/m3
γ1 = 21.5 KN/m3
C = 19.04 KN/m2
Ø = 26.57

Based on the calculations, a bearing capacity of 100.909 KPa is given at a

depth of not less than 2.0m from the original ground assuming isolated
footings will be utilized.

6.2 SELECTION OF FOUNDATION TYPE

According to the nature and characteristics of the materials encountered in

the dug pit, we recommend to consider isolated footings with tie
beams at any depth after cleaning all debris and loose fill materials.

7. ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1 DRAINAGE OF THE SITE

It is recommended to design an effective rainwater drainage system

to get rid of the consequences of the rainwater percolation into the
layers. The site should be graded to direct rainwater and
water away from all planned structures.

7.2 SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS

School of Engineering and Architecture • Saint Louis University 8

Soil Investigation Report April 2019

The seismic activity in the region has not witnessed any serious
earthquakes in the last 29 years. The largest estimated moment
magnitude in the region was recorded 7.7, happened in July
16, 1990.
It’s serious consequences made necessary to consider a seismic
precautive factor in the design of the project structures.

Finally, it should be noted that the results and recommendations of this

report are solely based on the collected samples from the dug
pit on January 28th, 2019 and assuming that the subsurface
conditions do not significantly deviate from those
encountered.

School of Engineering and Architecture • Saint Louis University 9

Soil Investigation Report April 2019

REFERENCES

 Das. B. M., & Sobhan, K. (2014). Principles of Geotechnical Engneering.

Stamford : Cengage Learning

 Das, B. (2015). Soil Mechanics. [place of publication not identified] : Oxford

University Press

 Das, B. (2002). Soil Mechanics Laboratory Manual. Oxford : Oxford University

Press

School of Engineering and Architecture • Saint Louis University 10

Soil Investigation Report April 2019

APPENDIX A
Pit Location Plan

School of Engineering and Architecture • Saint Louis University 11

Soil Investigation Report April 2019

PIT LOCATION

Windy Hill, Buyagan, La Trinidad, Benguet, Philippines 2600

Source: Google Maps

School of Engineering and Architecture • Saint Louis University 12

Soil Investigation Report April 2019

Lot Area :
79 sq. meters

School of Engineering and Architecture • Saint Louis University 13

Soil Investigation Report April 2019

APPENDIX B
Soil Laboratory Test Reports

School of Engineering and Architecture • Saint Louis University 14

Soil Investigation Report April 2019

4.1.1 MOISTURE CONTENT

Table 6 : moisture content data

Can No. Mass of dry Mass of water Moisture

soil (g) (g) Content (%)
A40 25.01 9.38 37.505
65 35.95 13.92 38.720
73 22.69 8.26 36.404
Average = 37.543%

mass of moist soil – mass of dry soil

Moisture content =
mass of dry soil

4.1.2 SPECIFIC GRAVITY

Table 7 : specific gravity data

Mass (g)
Mass of flask + water filled to mark (g) 657.50
Mass of flask + soil + water filled to mark 711.33
Mass of dry soil 100
Mass of equal volume of water as the soil 37.94
solids
Gs (T °C), T= 25°C 2.165
Gs (20°C) 2.162

Gs(20°C)= 2.162

mass of pycnometer with dry soil – mass of empty pycnometer

Specific gravity=
(mass of pycnometer with dry soil – mass of empty pycnometer) -
(mass of pycnometer with soil and water – mass of pycnometer filled
with water only)

School of Engineering and Architecture • Saint Louis University 15

Soil Investigation Report April 2019

4.1.3 ATTERBERG’S LIMIT

LIQUID LIMIT TEST Table 8 : liquid limit data

Soil Table 7 : liquid limit data

1 2 3
specimen no.
can no. A-50 40 110
mass of can (g) 24.67 24.09 24.86
mass of can + moist soil (g) 51.78 46.91 50.38
moisture content (%) 43.05 47.13 49.15
number of blows, N 21 18 14

25

LL = 47.7 %
Flow Index = 9.184 %

PLASTIC LIMIT
Table 9 : plastic limit data

Soil specimen no. 1 2 3

can no. A-19 A-79 130
mass of can (g) 24.57 24.20 24.34
mass of can + moist soil (g) 39.81 30.72 26.19
Mass of can + dry soil (g) 35.36 28.75 25.63
Plastic Limit 42.56 43.30 43.41

PL = 43.09%
Plastic Index = LL - PL= 3.42%

School of Engineering and Architecture • Saint Louis University 16

Soil Investigation Report April 2019

4.1.4 SIEVE ANALYSIS

Sieve opening Mass of Cummulative Percent Finer

Sieve No.
(mm) retained soil (g) mass of soil (g) (%)
4 4.75 118.73 118.73 76.281
10 2.00 124.35 243.08 51.439
20 0.850 103.6 346.24 30.831
50 0.355 94.17 440.41 12.018
100 0.150 35.72 476.13 4.882
200 0.075 20.35 496.48 0.817
pan 4.09 500.57 0
Table 10 : sieve analysis data

D60= 2.809 D25= 0.62 D10= 0.267

D75= 4.3 D30= 0.835

*well graded soil

School of Engineering and Architecture • Saint Louis University 17

Soil Investigation Report April 2019

Cu= 10.51
Cc= 0.93
So= 2.63

School of Engineering and Architecture • Saint Louis University 18

Soil Investigation Report April 2019

4.1.5 UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TEST

Table 11 : unconfined compressive strength test data

Soil sample 1 2 3
Height (mm) 144.78 152.4 152.40
68.58 68.58 63.50
Diameter (mm2) 81.28 76.20 71.12
73.66 76.20 76.20
Weight (g) 1080.02 1109.42 1056.26
volume (mm3) 16944.374 17633.42 591087.58
load dial (in/div) 1.92 1.92 1.92
deformation dial (in/div) 0.001 0.001 0.001
x 0.0254 0.0254 0.0254
z 100 100 100

Cu= 61.404/2 = 30.70 Kpa

School of Engineering and Architecture • Saint Louis University 19

Soil Investigation Report April 2019

4.1.6 SHEAR STRENGTH TEST

Table 12 : shear strength test data

Specimen Dial Horizontal Normal Horizontal Shear

Normal
No. reading displacemen Stress shear stress
load (kg)
(0.002mm) t (mm) (Kpa) force (N) (Kpa)
1 12.036 103 2.06 45.747 142.14 55.072
2 16.573 99.5 0.199 62.988 137.31 53.200
3 21.108 141 0.282 80.228 194.58 75.389

φ (°)

Angle of friction, φ= 26.57°

School of Engineering and Architecture • Saint Louis University 20
Soil Investigation Report April 2019

APPENDIX C
Soil Classification

School of Engineering and Architecture • Saint Louis University 21

Soil Investigation Report April 2019

5.1 USCS SOIL CLASSIFICATION

Prevent passing no. 200 seive = 17,1%

% gravel = 0.41%
% sand = 82.49%

PI = 3.42%
Cu = 0.93 ; Cc = 10.51 SW-SC, well graded sand with clay

School of Engineering and Architecture • Saint Louis University 22

Soil Investigation Report April 2019

5.2 USDA SOIL CLASSIFICATION

% sand
% sand = = 97.84 %
100 - % gravel

% silt
% silt = = 1.08 %
100 - % gravel

% clay
% clay = = 1.08 % sand
100 - % gravel

School of Engineering and Architecture • Saint Louis University 23

Soil Investigation Report April 2019

5.3 AASHTO

Percent passing no. 200 sieve = 17.1 %

Liquid Limit = 47.7 %
Plasticity index = 3.42 %

GI= 0

GROUP A-2-5

School of Engineering and Architecture • Saint Louis University 24

Soil Investigation Report April 2019

APPENDIX D
Documentation

School of Engineering and Architecture • Saint Louis University 25

Soil Investigation Report April 2019

4.1.7 DIRECT SHEAR TEST

Direct shear apparatus

4.1.5 UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TEST

Compressive test apparatus

School of Engineering and Architecture • Saint Louis University 26