SOIL INVESTIGATION REPORT

PROJECT

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION FOR PROPOSED TWO STOREY

BUILDING

AT

RIVERS STATE UNIVERSITY

CLIENT

ENGR LONG JOHN

PREPARED

BY

SEPTEMBER 2024

S/N CONTENT

1 Introduction 1

2 Sub Surface Exploration 2-3

 3 Laboratory 4-10

4 Safe Bearing Capacity 11-12

5 Conclusion And Recommendations 13

Appendix

Table

Graphs

1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report presents a thorough summary of the geotechnical investigation

conducted for the proposed one-story student hostel at Rivers State University,

Port Harcourt. The purpose of the investigation was to evaluate the subsurface

conditions at the site to determine whether the soil can adequately support the

structural loads of the building. The primary objectives of this investigation were

to assess soil strength, bearing capacity, and groundwater levels, as well as to

identify any potential geotechnical challenges that may impact the design and

construction of the foundation. Based on the data gathered, the report provides

detailed recommendations for a suitable foundation system that will ensure the

stability, safety, and durability of the structure. These recommendations are

designed to assist the structural design team in addressing site-specific

geotechnical factors, thereby supporting the successful execution of the

construction project.

2.0 SCOPE OF WORK

i. To conduct a site reconnaissance to assess general surface conditions.

ii. To perform borehole drilling to explore subsurface conditions.

iii. Collect soil samples from various depths for laboratory analysis.

iv. Determine the stratigraphy of the superficial deposits underlying the site to

the required depth.

 v. To carry out laboratory testing on the collected soil samples to assess

geotechnical properties.

vi. Analyze the data collected and provide geotechnical recommendations for

foundation design and construction.

3.0 SITE DESCRIPTION AND GEOLOGY

The project site is situated at Rivers State University, Port Harcourt, Rivers State.

From a geological perspective, the site is underlain by coastal plain sands, which in

this region are overlain by soft clay deposits from the Pleistocene Formation. The

surface sediments consist of a top layer of brown to reddish-brown sandy clays,

beneath which lies a continuous deposit of medium to coarse-grained sands. These

geological features are characteristic of the region and are crucial in assessing the

site's suitability for foundation construction.

4.0 FIELD INVESTIGATION

 Borehole Locations: Rivers State University, Port Harcourt of Rivers State

 Depth of Boreholes: 3 meters

 Sampling Method: Hand Auger, and Shell & Auger Method

4.1 SHALLOW BORING

Shallow boring was performed to collect data for bearing capacity analysis. The

investigation employed both the Hand Auger and Shell & Auger boring

techniques, which utilize lightweight, hand-operated equipment. These methods

allowed for the calculation of ultimate bearing pressure at different depths. To

ensure the foundation design was safe and reliable, a safety factor of 3.0 was

applied to the ultimate bearing pressure, resulting in the determination of the soil's

maximum safe bearing capacity. This approach ensured that the foundation

recommendations would provide stability and durability for the structure.

5.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

 Soil Stratification: The soil profile revealed a dark brown loamy topsoil

layer (0.00-0.50m), underlain by a reddish-brown stiff clay layer (0.50-

1.0m). Further layers of medium to coarse-grained sands were encountered

beneath the clay layer, typical of the coastal plain sands in the region.

 Groundwater Table: No groundwater table was encountered during the

investigation.
 Depth (m) Soil Type Description

0.00-0.50 Loamy Soil Firm, dark brown, slightly moist

0.50-1 Clay Soil Soft, reddish brown and slightly

moist

6.0 LABORATORY TEST RESULTS

A thorough series of classification, strength, and compressibility tests were

conducted on soil samples obtained from the boreholes to evaluate the geotechnical

properties of the subsurface materials. These tests provided critical data necessary

for designing the foundation system. The testing procedures involved analyzing

soil composition, grain size distribution, Atterberg limits, and moisture content, all

essential factors in classifying the soil and assessing its capacity to bear structural

loads.

In addition to classification, strength tests such as unconfined compression and

triaxial shear tests were conducted to determine the soil's bearing capacity and

shear strength. These assessments are crucial for understanding the soil's ability to

support the proposed structure without excessive settlement or failure.

Compressibility tests, including consolidation tests, were also performed to

evaluate the soil's potential for settlement under load over time. The results offer
valuable insights into the long-term behavior of the soil under the weight of the

building.

All tests adhered strictly to British Standards (BS1377:1995), ensuring that the

data met international quality and reliability benchmarks. This rigorous compliance

guarantees that the findings are precise and can be confidently applied to the

foundation design, ensuring the structural integrity and long-term stability of the

building.

6.1 Moisture Content

Soil moisture content is defined as the ratio of the weight of water present in the soil to the

weight of the dry soil within a given volume. This parameter is essential for assessing the soil's

ability to retain water and its behavior when subjected to loading. Expressed as a percentage (%),

moisture content is calculated by measuring the weight of a soil sample before and after it is

dried in an oven. The difference in weight represents the water content, which is then divided by

the weight of the dry soil to determine the moisture percentage.

Moisture content significantly influences various geotechnical properties, such as the soil's

strength, compressibility, and permeability. High moisture levels reduce the soil's shear strength,

making it more prone to deformation when loaded, while lower moisture content makes the soil

more rigid and less compressible. Accurate knowledge of the soil's moisture content is crucial for

foundation design and other civil engineering projects, as it directly affects the soil's capacity to

bear loads and its potential for settlement.

Furthermore, moisture content plays a key role in soil classification, as it impacts the Atterberg

limits, which distinguish between the liquid, plastic, and solid states of soil consistency. During

construction, monitoring and controlling soil moisture is vital to prevent swelling or shrinkage,

which could jeopardize the stability and integrity of the structure. Proper moisture management

ensures that the soil performs as expected, maintaining the foundation’s reliability and longevity.

mass of water
water content (%)= ×100
mass of dry soil

Water content = 24.1%

The moisture content of 24.1% is relatively high and it indicate the

soil is quite wet.

6.2 Atterberg Limits Test

This test is conducted to determine the Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, and Plasticity

Index of soil, all of which are vital for assessing the soil’s consistency, workability,

and response to changes in moisture. The Liquid Limit represents the moisture

content at which the soil transitions from a plastic to a liquid state, indicating when

it loses its structural integrity and begins to flow. The Plastic Limit defines the

moisture content at which the soil starts to exhibit plastic behavior, meaning it can

be molded without breaking.

The Plasticity Index, which is the difference between the Liquid Limit and the

Plastic Limit, quantifies the soil’s plasticity—its ability to deform without

cracking. A higher Plasticity Index indicates more flexibility and greater

deformation capacity under stress. These parameters are critical for soil

classification and for predicting its performance in engineering and construction

projects, as they determine how the soil will behave under load and varying

environmental conditions.

Results

 Liquid Limit = 52.2%

 Plastic Limit = 34.78%

 Plasticity Index = LL – PL = 17.42%

This indicates moderate plasticity. This means it will have a moderate range of

plasticity and will deform moderately under stress.

6.3 Particle Size Distribution

The distribution of particle sizes in the soil, including the proportions of gravel,

sand, silt, and clay, is determined through mechanical analysis. This process

provides a detailed breakdown of the soil's composition by identifying the

percentage of each particle size category present in the sample. Understanding this
distribution is essential for classifying the soil and assessing its suitability for

construction and other geotechnical applications, as different particle sizes affect

the soil’s strength, permeability, and compaction characteristics.

6.4 Triaxal Test

The Triaxial Test is a key laboratory procedure used to assess the shear strength of

soil samples. It measures the soil's response to applied stress under controlled

conditions to determine its behavior under different loading scenarios. By

simulating the pressure conditions that soil would experience in the field, this test

provides valuable data on how soil will perform under various stress states. The

results are crucial for understanding soil stability and are essential for designing

and analyzing foundations, slopes, and retaining structures.

τ =c +σ n tan ∅

Cohesion (c) = 34Kpa

Angle of Internal Friction (φ) = 8.09°

Normal stress (σ n)

6.5 Bulk Density

Bulk density is a fundamental parameter used to determine the unit weight of soil. It is calculated

by measuring the mass of a soil sample and dividing it by its volume, including both the soil
particles and the pore spaces. This measurement provides insight into the soil's compaction,

porosity, and overall density, which are critical factors in understanding soil structure and its

capacity to support load. Bulk density is essential for various applications in geotechnical

engineering, including foundation design, soil management, and construction planning, as it

influences soil strength, permeability, and stability.

Mass ofsoil
Bulk density=
Volume of mould

Bulk density of the soil = 1995.37 kg/m3

Unit weight of the soil (γ ) = 19.5746 kN/m3

6.6 Consolidation Test

The Consolidation Test is an important laboratory procedure designed to evaluate the extent and

magnitude of soil consolidation under specific conditions. During the test, soil samples are

subjected to axial loading while being laterally restrained, simulating the conditions they would

experience in the field. This allows for the measurement of how much the soil compresses and

consolidates over time as a result of the applied load. The test provides crucial data on soil

settlement characteristics and is essential for predicting the behavior of soil under load, which is

vital for the design and analysis of foundations and other engineering structures. The specific

gravity of the soil used in this test is 2.4, which is a key parameter in understanding the soil's

density and consolidation properties.

e−e 1
Coefficient of volume compressibility (Mv) ¿
(P 2−P 1)( 1+ e)
 Hence,

Mv = 0.003m2/KN

Therefore, consolidation settlement, Sc ¿ Mv ∆ PH =0.00034 m

Compressibility index (Cc)

e−e 1
Cc= =0.21
P2
log
P1

6.7 Engineering Properties of The Soil

Test Sample name Result

Moisture content BH1 1m 24.1%

Liquid limit BH1 2m 52.2%

Plastic limit BH1 2m 34.78%

Plasticity index BH1 2m 17.42%

Cohesion BH1 2m 34 kPa

Angle of internal friction BH1 2m 8.09⁰

For design purposes, undrained cohesion of 34 kPa, angle of internal friction of

8.09⁰ and unit weight of 19.5746 kN/m3 are suggested

7. GENERAL DISCUSSIONS AND FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATION

The ground investigation was carried out with the primary objective of assessing

the sub-soil conditions at the site and providing essential geotechnical data for the

design of a suitable foundation for the proposed building. Within the depths

explored, the investigation revealed the presence of laterized sandy clay overlying

medium dense sands. No groundwater level was encountered within the explored

depths during the fieldwork.

In foundation design, the conventional approach relies on the concept of bearing

capacity or safe bearing pressure of the soil. Bearing capacity is defined as the load

or pressure that can be developed under a foundation without causing damaging

movements, either in the foundation itself or in the superstructure it supports.

Damaging movements may occur due to foundation failure or excessive settlement,

both of which can lead to structural issues.

The design of foundations is guided by two main criteria:

1. Determining the bearing capacity of the soil and selecting an adequate factor

of safety, typically not less than 3.

2. Estimating the potential settlement under the expected load and comparing it

with permissible settlement limits.

To determine the soil's bearing capacity, the general bearing capacity equation is

used, incorporating factors proposed by Meyerhof, which account for soil strength

and depth conditions. This ensures that the foundation design is robust, accounting

for both the load-bearing capabilities of the soil and any potential settlement that

may occur under the applied loads.

 TABLES

MOISTURE CONTENT

M1 M2 M3 mass of mass of moisture content No.of

moisture dry soil (%) blows

5. 19. 15 4.1 9.6 42.7083333 33

4 1 3

4. 17. 13. 4.1 9.2 44.5652173 33

6 9 8 9

4. 16. 12. 4 8.1 49.3827160 28

3 4 4 5

4. 17. 13. 4 8.7 45.9770114 28

8 5 5 9

5. 16. 12. 3.9 7.2 54.1666666 26

2 3 4 7

4. 15 11. 3.4 6.7 50.7462686 26

9 6 6

4. 20 14. 5.4 10. 53.4653465 19

5 6 1 3

5 18. 13. 4.6 8.7 52.8735632 19

3 7 2
 4. 13. 11. 2.2 6.5 33.8461538

6 3 1 5

4 9.7 8.2 1.5 4.2 35.7142857

PARTICLE SIZE

Seive size mass retained Cum.Mass %mass retained % passing

retained

4.75 0 0 0 100

2.36 0 0 0 100

1.18 0.9 0.9 0.688073394 99.31192661

0.6 5.4 6.3 4.816513761 95.18348624

0.3 51.1 57.4 43.88379205 56.11620795

0.15 54.4 111.8 85.47400612 14.52599388

0.075 15.9 127.7 97.62996942 2.370030581

pan 3.1 130.8 100 0

total 130.8

CONSOLIDATION TABLE
load (kg) Pressure Log P Gauge H Void Ratio

(kN/m2) Reading (e)

0 0 0 0 20 0.860465116

2.55 5.685340909 0.40654 0.44 19.56 0.819534884

5.1 11.37068182 0.70757 0.79 19.21 0.786976744

7.65 17.05602273 0.88366 2.1 17.9 0.665116279

10.2 22.74136364 1.0086 3.32 16.68 0.551627907

7.65 17.05602273 0.88366 3.29 16.71 0.554418605

5.1 11.37068182 0.70757 3.27 16.73 0.55627907

2.55 5.685340909 0.40654 3.25 16.75 0.558139535

TRIAXIAL TEST

Sample: borehole 1

Location: Rivers State University

Volume of Sample: 0.0851mm

Height of Sample: 75mm

Weight of sample: 168.3g

Bulk density: 1977.673kg/m3

Diameter of sample: 38mm

Area of sample: 1.124mm

Machine load factor: 0.048

Deflection Load Guage Corrected Strain (E) Stress (σ )

Reading 100kpa Load (P)(KN)

20 20 0.096 0.015 83.38624339

40 21 0.1008 0.03 86.22222222

60 22 0.1056 0.045 88.93121693

80 25 0.12 0.06 99.47089947

100 26 0.1248 0.075 101.7989418

120 27 0.1296 0.09 104

140 28 0.1344 0.105 106.0740741

160 29 0.1392 0.12 108.021164

180 30 0.144 0.135 109.8412698

Deflection Load Guage Reading Corrected Load (P) Strain (E) Stress (σ )

200kpa (KN)

20 25 0.12 0.0088 104.8888889

40 26 0.1248 0.0176 108.1159788

60 27 0.1296 0.0264 111.2685714

80 28 0.1344 0.0352 114.3466667

100 29 0.1392 0.044 117.3502646

120 30 0.144 0.0528 120.2793651

140 31 0.1488 0.0616 123.1339683

160 32 0.1536 0.0704 125.9140741

180 33 0.1584 0.0792 128.6196825

Deflection Load Guage Corrected Strain (E) Stress (σ )

Reading 300kpa Load (P)(KN)

20 30 0.144 0.0088 125.8666667

40 31 0.1488 0.0176 128.9075132

60 33 0.1584 0.0264 135.9949206

80 35 0.168 0.0352 142.9333333

100 37 0.1776 0.044 149.7227513

120 40 0.192 0.0528 160.3724868

140 42 0.2016 0.0616 166.8266667

160 43 0.2064 0.0704 169.197037

180 45 0.216 0.0792 175.3904762

ATTERBERG LIMIT TEST

60

50

40
moisture content (%)

30
moisture content (%)
20

10

0
18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34
No. of Blows

PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION

 Particle Size Distribution curve
120

100

80
% passing

60 psd

40

20

0
0.01 0.1 1 10
Sieve Size

CONSOLIDATON GRAPHS

0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
void Ratio (e)

0.5
0.4
Preconsolidation Pressure of
0.3 void ratio (e) Vs Log P
0.2
0.1
0
0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1
Log P
 0.9
0.8
0.7
Void Ratio(e) 0.6
0.5
0.4
Compression Index
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Pressure (P)

TRIAXIAL TEST

100
90
80
70
60
shear stress

100kPa
50
200kPa
40 300kPa
30 failure envelop
Linear (failure envelop)
20
10
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
normal stress