Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
THE USE OF TERMITE MOUND MATERIALAS ALTERNATIVE AGGREGATE IN CONCRETE
ODEWALE, Ayodele Olumuyiwa
(2003 0577)
A Project submitted to the Department of Civil Engineering,
College of Engineering, University of Agriculture, Abeokutain partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Bachelor of Engineering in Civil Engineering.
and in the vicinity of structures especially those constructed with wood. The study
investigated the physical and chemical properties of termite mound soils as related to
borrow pit soils, as well as the compressive strength of 1OOx 1OOx 100mm concrete
cubes prepared using termite mound soil as 00,10,50%, and 100% of fine aggregates.
The termite mound and borrow pit soils were air dried and then analyzed physically to
determine their moisture content, liquid limit, plastic limit and grain size distribution;
and chemically to determine the constituents of the soil solids. The termite mound soil
was sieved with a 300Jlm sieve to remove fine sand particles before application in the
preparation of concrete.
The termite mound soil had a higher liquid limit, plastic limit and plasticity index than
the borrow pit soil sample and was well graded compared to the poorly graded borrow
pit soil. Only the phosphorus, sodium and potassium contents were more than double
the quantities in the borrow pit soil. Other tested components showed no significant•
difference.
The unmodified concrete had a 28-day strength of 21.18 .N/mm2. The concrete
prepared with fme aggregates containing 500,10termite mound soil and 50% coarse
sand had a 28-day strength of8.51 N/mm2. Its compressive strength ranged between
34 and 45% of the compressive strength of the unmodified concrete. When termite
mound soil was used to completely replace the fine aggregates for preparation of
concrete, the compressive strength of the resulting concr~e ranged between 17 and
25% of the compressive strength of the unmodified concrete. The concrete had a
28-day strength of 5.03 N/mm2.
The test results showed that the compressive strength of concrete decreases with
increasing amounts of termite mound soil in the fine aggregates used in the
preparation. The termite mound concrete can be used as weak concrete where filling
is required.
2.8.1. Feeding '" , , , , : 16
2.8.2. Nests '" , , , 17
Table 2.1 Composition of termite mounds 18
Table 4.1 Moisture content of termite mound soil 27
Table 4.2 Moisture content of borrow pit soil 27
Table 4.3 Plastic limit for termite mound soil 32
Table 4.4 Plastic limit for borrow pit soil "l'")
-''''-
Table 4.5 Summary of results for physical analyses
of termite mound and borrow pit soil 38
Table 4.6 Chemical composition of soil from termite mound 40
Table 4.7 Chemical composition of termite mound
soil and water solution 42•
Figure 4.1 Liquid limit chart for termite mound soil 29
Figure 4.2 Liquid limit chart for borrow pit soil 30
Figure 4.3 Grain size distribution curve for termite mound soil 35
Figure 4.4 Grain size distribution curve for borrow pit soil 36
Figure 4.5 Concrete compressive strength for varying percentages
of termite mound soil as fine aggregate in concrete 45
1.1. Background
The activity of termites around wooden manmade structures is undesirable. As a
result, the activities of termites as well as the occurrence of their mounds around
manmade structures must be kept under control. Wooden components must be treated
and termite mounds in close proximity to wooden structures must be broken down. In
order to optimize the breaking of the mounds, a way of putting the broken pieces to
practical use is being sought by assessing the suitability of termite mound material as
an additive or alternative to fine aggregates in concrete. There are various admixtures,
additives and aggregate alternatives used in the manufacture of concrete in order to
either modify its properties and ease of handling or reduce cost in cases where the
quality of the concrete will not be jeopardized.
1.2. Statement of the Problem
The materials from broken termite mounds may contain chemicals not present in
undisturbed clay-soil and mere disposal of the materials may not amount to efficient
use of the by-product of termite mound destruction. The possibility of recycling the
termite mound material and introducing it into concrete mixing is thus being
experimented.
1.3. Aim of the Study
The aim of the study is to determine the effect of using termite mound materials as
alternative fine aggregates in concrete preparation. Silt and clay size particles will be
excluded from the material extracted from the termite mound.
1.4. Objectives of the Study
This study, when completed will make the following contributions to the knowledge
of termite mound properties and concrete technology.
• The determination of some of the chemical constituents of termite mound
material as they vary with those of undisturbed clay-soil deposits.
• The availability of data showing the difference in physical and mechanical
properties between clay-soil obtained from termite mound and that obtained
from construction borrow pits.
1.5. Research Questions
The answers to the following questions will be determined at the completion of the
study:
• What are the physical, mechanical and chemical properties of the soil that
forms a termite mound?
• How do the physical and chemical properties of soils in termite mounds vary
with those of undisturbed clay-soil deposits?
2
• What will be the strength of concrete produced by substituting fine aggregates
with termite mound material during preparation?
• Is it reasonable to use termite mound material as alternative aggregate 10
concrete by partial or full replacement of sand?
1.6. Scope of Work
Termite mounds from which soil was extracted were located within the University of
Agriculture Abeokuta campus. Analysis was conducted on the soil extracted from the
termite mounds to determine physical and chemical properties of the solid
constituents, and the chemical contents of the liquid constituents of the freshly built
termite mound that was yet to dry. The physical properties of the solid part that were
determined were the liquid limit, plastic limit, plasticity index, particle size
distribution, and moisture content. The chemical composition of the soil from the
termite mound was evaluated tQ establish if the clay soil had been modified
chemically by the termites to cement the particles and increase the resis*ce of the
mound to erosion by rainfall.
Granite, coarse sand and locally manufactured Ordinary Portland Cement were
sourced locally. Wooden forms for 100 x 100 x 100mm concrete cubes were made.
Concrete was prepared in the ratio 1:2:4 (one part of cement to two parts of fine
aggregates [sand] to four parts of coarse aggregates [granite]) with coarse sand and
termite mound soil varied as fine aggregate while the cement and granite remain the
same. The fine aggregates were composed of 100% coarse sand, 100% termite mound
material, and 50% each of coarse sand and termite mound material. The termite
mound material used in the preparation of concrete was passed through the 300llm
sieve to remove silt and clay sized particles. The water cement ratio was 0.7 by mass.
Concrete cubes were made from each mix of concrete and were crushed at different
stages of curing (7, 14,21, and 28 days) to determine the compressive strength of the
concrete cubes. Cubes composing of 50% cement and 50% termite mound material
were made and cured in water for 28 days before crushing. The results of the cube
strength test were analyzed to establish how the substitution of coarse sand with
termite mound soil has affected the strength characteristics of the concrete.
1.7. Limitations
The results of chemical analyses performed in the Chemistry Division of the Nigerian
Institute for Oil Palm Research (NIFOR), Benin City, were limited to the accuracy of
volumes and concentrations of chemicals used, absence of impurities in distilled
water, as well as the precision and proper calibration of measuring instruments such
as the pH meter, flame photometer, spectro photometer, digester, and electric balance.
Physical analyses conducted in the Civil Engineering Laboratory, University of
Agriculture, Abeokuta, were dependent on the accuracy of measuring scales and
balances, the liquid limit device and the absence of holes in the sieves used for grain
size analysis.
2.1. Brief History
Roman concrete (or Opus caementicium) was made from quicklime, pozzolanic ash or
pozzolana, and an aggregate of pumice during the Roman Empire. Its widespread use
in many Roman structures, a major event in the history of architecture termed the
Concrete Revolution, freed Roman construction from the restrictions of stone and
brick material and allowed for revolutionarily new designs both in terms of structural
complexity and dimension (Lancaster, 2005).
2.2. Concrete
According to the Concrete Wikipedia, (2009) Concrete is a construction material
composed of cement, aggregate (normally a coarse aggregate such as gravel, or
granite, and a fine aggregate such as sand), water, and sometimes chemical
admixtures. The word concrete comes from the Latin word "concretus" (meaning
compact or condensed).
Concrete solidifies and hardens after mixing with water and placement due to a
chemical process known as hydration. The water reacts with the cement, which bonds
the other components together, eventually creating a stone-like material. Concrete is
used to make foundations, architectural structures, brick and block walls, pavements,
roads, bridges, parking structures, and footings for gates, fences and poles.
2.2.1. Composition of Concrete
Many types of concrete can be created by varying the proportions of the mal n
components which are cement, fine aggregates, coarse aggregates and water, the
addition of admixtures, and the use of alternative aggregates. The mix design depends
on the type of structure being built, how the concrete will be mixed and delivered, and
how it will be placed to form this structure.
2.2.2. Cement
Portland cement is the most common type of cement in general usage. It consists of a
mixture of oxides of calcium, silicon and aluminum. Portland cement and similar
materials are made by heating limestone with clay, and grinding this product (called
clinker) with gypsum (Concrete Wikipedia, 2009).
Termite mound material and lime has been used as partial replacement of cement in
plastering and results showed that the compressive strength of the mortar cubes
increases with age and decreases with increasing percentage replacement of cement
with lime and termite hill (Olusola et aI., 2006).
2.2.3. Water
Combining water with a cementitious material forms a cement paste by the process of
hydration. The cement paste glues the aggregate together, fills voids within it, and
allows it to flow more easily. Less water in the cement paste will yield a stronger,
more durable concrete; more water will give an easier-flowing concrete with a higher
slump. Impure water used to make concrete can cause problems when setting or in
causing premature failure of the structure. Hydration involves many different
reactions, often occurring at the same time (Concrete Wikipedia, 2009).
Standard notation: Ca3SiOs + H20 --+ (CaO)·(Si~)·(H20)(gel) + Ca(OHh
Balanced: 2Ca3SiOs + 7H20 --+ 3(CaO)-2(Si~)·4(H20)(gel) + 3Ca(OHh
2.2.4. Aggregates
Fine and coarse aggregates, consisting of sand, natural gravel and crushed stone make
up the bulk of a concrete mixture. Recycled aggregates may be used as partial
replacements of natural aggregates, while a number of manufactured aggregates,
including air-cooled blast furnace slag and bottom ash are also permitted. Decorative
stones such as quartzite, small river stones or crushed glass are sometimes added to
the surface of concrete for a decorative finish (Concrete Wikipedia, 2009).
2.2.5. Reinforcement
Concrete is strong in compression, as the aggregates efficiently carry the compression
load. However, it is weak in tension as the cement holding the aggregate in place can
crack, allowing the structure to fail. Addition of either metal reinforcing bars, glass
fibre, or plastic fibre to concrete gives it the capacity to carry tensile loads (Concrete
Wikipedia, 2009).
2.2.6. Chemical Admixtures
Chemical admixtures are materials in the form of powder or fluids that are added to
concrete to give it certain characteristics not obtainable with plain concrete mixes. In
normal use, admixture dosages are less than 5% by mass of cement, and are added to
the concrete at the time of mixing (United States Federal Highway Administration.
2007). Concrete additives have been used since Roman and Egyptian times. when it
was discovered that adding volcanic ash to the mix allowed it to set under water.
Concrete was less liable to crack while it hardened if horse hair was added and was
more frost resistant when blood was added (Daily Journal of Commerce, 2009). Some
of the common admixtures are:
• Accelerators speed up the hydration (hardening) of the concrete. Typical materials
used are CaCh and NaCI.
• Retarders slow the hydration of concrete, and are used in large or difficult pours
where partial setting before the pour is complete is undesirable. A typical retarder
is table sugar, or sucrose (C12H22011).
• Air entrainments add and distribute tiny air bubbles in the concrete, which will
reduce damage during freeze-thaw cycles thereby increasing the concrete's
durability. However, entrained air is a trade-off with strength, as each 1% of air
may result in 5% decrease in compressive strength.
• Plasticizers (water-reducing admixtures) increase the workability of plastic or
"fresh" concrete, allowing it to be placed more easily, with less consolidating
effort. Superplasticizers (high-range water-reducing admixtures) are a class of
plasticizers which have fewer deleterious effects when used to significantly
increase workability. Alternatively, plasticizers can ~e used to reduce the water
content of a concrete (and have been called water reducers due to this application)
while maintaining workability. This improves its strength and durability
characteristics.
• Pigments can be used to change the color of concrete, for aesthetics.
concrete.
• Bonding agents are used to create a bond between old and new concrete.
• Pumping aids improve pumpability, thicken the paste, and reduce dewatering
which is the tendency for the water to separate out of the paste.
2.2.7. Mineral Admixtures and Blended Cements
There are inorganic materials that also have pozzolanic or latent hydraulic properties.
Mineral admixtures are very fine-grained materials and are added to the concrete mix
to improve the properties of concrete while blended cements are used as a
replacement for Portland cement (Kosmatka and Panarese, 1988).
2.2.7.1. Fly ash: A by product of coal fired electric generating plants, it is used to
partially replace Portland cement (by up to 60% by mass). The properties of fly ash
depend on the type of coal burnt. In general, silicious fly ash is pozzolanic, while
calcareous fly ash has latent hydraulic properties (United States Federal Highway
Administration, 2007).
2.2.7.2. Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slag (GGBFS or GGBS): A by product
of steel production, is used to partially replace Portland cement (by up to 80% by
mass). It has latent hydraulic properties (United States Federal Highway
Administration, 2007).
2.2.7.3. Silica fume: A by-product of the production of silicon and ferrosilicon alloys.
Silica fume is similar to fly ash, but has a particle size 100 times smaller. This results
in a higher surface to volume ratio and a much faster pozzolanic reaction. Silica fume
is used to increase strength and durability of concrete, but generally requires the use
of superplasticizers for workability (United States Federal Highway Administration,
2007).
2.2.7.4. High Reactivity Metakaolin (HRM): Metakaolin produces concrete with
strength and durability similar to concrete made with silica fume. While silica fume is
usually dark gray or black in color, high reactivity metakaolin is usually bright white
in color, making it the preferred choice for architectural concrete where appearance is
important.
2.3. Types of Concrete
The design of a concrete, or the way the weights of the components of a concrete is
determined, is specified by the requirements of the project and the various local
building codes and regulations. As a result of this, mix designs can be complex and
many factors need to be taken into account, from the cost of the various additives and
aggregates, to the tradeoffs between, the "slump" for easy mixing and placement and
ultimate performance. Various types of concrete have been developed for specialist
application and have become known.
2.3.1. Regular Concrete: This concrete can be produced to yield a varying strength
from about 10 MPa to about 40 MPa, depending on the purpose, ranging from
blinding to structural concrete respectively (Concrete Wikipedia, 2009).
2.3.2. High-Strength Concrete: High-strength concrete has a compressive strength
generally greater than 40 MPa. High-strength concrete is made by lowering the water-
cement (W/C) ratio to 0.35 or lower. Often silica fume is added to prevent the
formation of free calcium hydroxide crystals in the cement matrix, which might·
reduce the strength at the cement-aggregate bond (Concrete Wikipedia, 2009).
2.3.3. Stamped Concrete: Stamped concrete is an architectural concrete which has a
superior surface finish (Concrete Wikipedia, 2009).
2.3.4. High-Performance Concrete: High-perfonnance concrete (HPC) and Ultra-
high-performance concrete are relatively new tenns used to describe concrete that
confonns to a set of standards above those of the most common applications, but not
limited to strength. While all high-strength concrete is also high-performance, not all
high-performance concrete is high-strength. Some examples of such standards
currently used in relation to HPC are: Ease of placement, compaction without
segregation, early age strength, Permeability, density, heat of hydration, and volume
stability (Concrete Wikipedia, 2009).
2.3.5. Shotcrete: Compressed air is used to shoot concrete onto (or into) a frame or
structure. Shotcrete is frequently used against vertical soil or rock surfaces, as it
eliminates the need for formwork. It is sometimes used for rock support, especially in
tunneling. Shotcrete is also used for applications where seepage is an issue to limit the
amount of water entering a construction site due to a high water table or other
subterranean sources (Concrete Wikipedia, 2009).
2.3.6. Pervious Concrete: Pervious concrete contains a network of holes or voids, to
allow air or water to move through the concrete. This allows water to drain naturally
through it, and can both remove the normal surface-water .drainage infrastructure, and
allow replenishment of groundwater when conventional concrete does not. It is
formed by leaving out some or all of the fine aggregate (fines). The remaining large
aggregate then is bound by a relatively small amount of Portland Cement. When set,
typically between 15% and 25% of the concrete volume is voids, allowing water to
•Recent research findings have shown that concrete made with recycled glass
2.3.10. Polymer Concrete: Polymer concrete is concrete which uses polymers to bind
the aggregate. Polymer concrete can gain a lot of strength in a short amount of time.
Polymer concrete is generally more expensive than conventional concretes (Concrete
Wikipedia, 2009).
2.3.11 Mudcrete is a structural material (employed, for example, as a basecourse in
road construction) made of mixing mud (usually marine mud) with sand and concrete
or cement. It is used as a cheaper and more sustainable alternative to rock fill
(Association of Consulting Engineers New Zealand, 2007).
On-going research into alternative mixtures and constituents has identified potential
mixtures that promise radically different properties and characteristics.
One university has identified a mixture with much smaller crack propagation that does
not suffer the usual cracking and subsequent loss of strength at high levels of tensile
strain. Researchers have been able to take mixtures beyond 3 percent strain, past the
more typical 0.1% point at which failure occurs (physorg, 2009).
Other institutions have identified magnesium silicate (talc) as an alternative ingredient
to replace Portland cement in the mix. This avoids the usual high-temperature
production process that is very energy and greenhouse-gas intensive and actually
absorbs carbon dioxide while it cures (Jha, 2008).
2.5. Concrete Production
The processes used vary dramatically, from the use of hand tools to heavy industry,
but result in the concrete being placed where it cures into a final form. Thorough
mixing is essential for the production of uniform, high quality concrete. Separate
paste mixing has shown that the mixing of cement and water into a paste before
combining these materials with aggregates can increase the compressive strength of
the resulting concrete (Gary, 1989). The paste is generally mixed at a w/cm (water to
cement ratio) of 0.30 to 0.45 by mass.
Workability is the ability of a fresh (plastic) concrete mix to fill the form/mold
properly with the desired work (vibration) and without reducing the concrete's quality.
It depends on water content, aggregate (shape and size distribution), cementitious
content and age (level of hydration), and can be modified by adding chemical
admixtures (Concrete Wikipedia, 2009).
2.6. Properties of Concrete
Concrete has relatively high compressive strength, but significantly lower tensile
strength. It is fair to assume that a concrete samples tensile strength is about 10%-
15% of its compressive strength (American Concrete Institute Committee, 2008). The
modulus of elasticity of concrete is a function of the modulus of elasticity of the
aggregates and the cement matrix and their relative proportions. The modulus of
elasticity of concrete is relatively constant at low stress levels but starts decreasing at
higher stress levels as matrix cracking develop. Concrete has a very low coefficient of
thermal expansion. All concrete structures will crack to some extent which may be
due to shrinkage or tension.
2.7. Damage to Concrete
Concrete is susceptible to chemical damage and physical damage. Some of the types
of damage are outlined below:
-2.7.5. Physical damage: Damage can occur during the casting and de-shuttering
steel shuttering pinches the top surface of a concrete slab due to the weight of the next
slab being constructed (Concrete Wikipedia, 2009).
2.8. Termites
Termites are a group of eusocial insects usually classified at the taxonomic rank of
order Isoptera. Along with ants and some bees and wasps which are all placed in the
separate order Hymenoptera, termites divide labour among gender lines, produce
overlapping generations and take care of young collectively. Termites mostly feed on
dead plant material, generally in the form of wood, leaf litter, soil, or animal dung,
and about 10% of the estimated 4,000 species are economically significant as pests
that can cause serious structural damage to buildings, crops or plantation forests.
Termites are major detritivores, particularly in the subtropical and tropical regions,
and their recycling of wood and other plant matter is of considerable ecological
importance (Termite Wikipedia, 2(09).
As eusocial insects, termites live in colonies that, at maturity, number from several
hundred to several million individuals. Colonies use a decentralized, self-organized
system of activity guided by swarm intelligence to exploit food sources and
environments that could not be available to any single insect acting alone. A typical
colony contains nymphs (semi-mature young), workers, soldiers, and reproductive
individuals of both genders, sometimes containing several egg-laying queens.
2.8.1. Feeding: Termites are generally grouped according to their feeding behaviour.
Thus, the commonly used general groupings are subterranean, soil-feeding, drywood,
dampwood, and grass-eating. Of these, subterraneans and drywoods are primariIy
responsible for damage to human-made structures.
2.8.2. Nests: Termite workers build and maintain nests to house their colony. These
are elaborate structures made using a combination of soil, mud, chewed
wood/cellulose, saliva, and faeces. A nest has many functions such as to provide a
protected living space and to collect water through condensation. There are
reproductive chambers and some species even maintain fungal gardens which are fed
on collected plant matter, providing a nutritious mycelium on which the colony then
feeds. The nests are punctuated by a maze of tunnel-like galleries that effectively
provide air conditioning and control the CO~02 balance, as well as allow the termites
to move through the nest. Nests are commonly built underground, in large pieces of
timber, inside fallen trees or atop living trees. Some species build nests above-ground,
and they can develop into mounds which are above ground nests that have grown
beyond their concealing surface. Termite mounds compose several compounds, some
of which are listed in order of abundance in Table 2.1 below.
Composition Percentages (%)
Si01 58.06
Ah03 27.72
K20 2.59
Fe203 1.46
Ti03 0.87
CaO 0.20
MgO 0.36
Na20 0.30
Source: Ndaliman, (2006)
2.8.3. Damage to Timber: Due to their wood-eating habits, many termite species can
do great damage to unprotected buildings and other wooden structures. Their habit of
remaining concealed often results in their presence being undetected until the timbers
are severely damaged and exhibit surface changes. Once termites have entered a
building, they do not limit themselves to wood; they also damage paper, cloth,
carpets, and other cellulosic materials. Particles taken from soft plastics, plaster,
rubber, and sealants such as silicone rubber and acrylics are often employed IO
construction (Termite Wikipedia, 2009).
2.9. Definition of Terms
2.9.1. Termite: Termites are a group of social insects usually classified at the
taxonomic rank of Order Isoptera. Termites mostly feed on dead plant material,
generally in the form of wood, leaf litter, soil, or animal dung, and about 10% of the
estimated 4,000 species are economically significant as pests that can cause serious
structural damage to buildings, crops, or plantation forests (Termite Wikipedia, 2009).
2.9.2. Termite Mound: A termite mound (also termitaria) is an above-ground
termite nest which has grown beyond its initially concealing earth surface (Termite
Wikipedia, 2009).
2.9.3. Concrete: Concrete is a construction material composed of cement
(commonly Portland cement) as well as other cementitious materials such as fly ash
and slag cement, aggregate (generally a coarse aggregate such as gravel, limestone, or
granite, plus a fine aggregate such as sand), water, and chemical admixtures (Concrete
Wikipedia, 2009).
2.9.4. Concrete Admixtures: Admixtures are chemical materials in the form of
powder or fluids that are added to the concrete to give it certain characteristics not
obtainable with plain concrete mixes. In normal use, admixture dosages are less than
human interference chemically since the chemical properties of the termite mound are•
a. Hardened parts of the mound that were dry,
b. Hardened parts that form the inner walls of the mound, and
termite mound materials were stored away from dust and interference by addition of
other materials to it. The material from the outer parts of the mound were allowed to
air dry for four weeks after which they were broken down into finer, sand-sized
particles which were to be analyzed and used in the preparation of concrete. The
moist, freshly built material and the hardened parts from the inner walls of the termite
mound were temporarily stored in a sealed polythene bag in order to prevent it from
drying out before chemical analysis.
3.3. Analysis of Termite Mound Materials
Mechanical, physical and chemical analysis were conducted on the materials
extracted from the termite mound to ascertain the condition the properties relevant to
concrete technology as well as general soil properties relevant to civil engineering.
3.3.1. Physical Analysis: The physical analysis of the materials from the termite
mound was conducted to determine the moisture content (of the materials extracted
from the inside walls), liquid limit (LL), plastic limit (PL), and plasticity index (PI).
3.3.1.1. Moisture Content: Portions of the previously sealed soil from the inner
walls of the termite mound were placed in labeled crucibles of known and recorded
masses. The crucibles were weighed with the soil in them and then placed in an oven
set at 140°C for 24 hours. The crucibles with their contents were weighed after
removal from the oven. The mass of the dry soil in the crucible was determined and
hence the mass of water contained in the soil at the initial state. The moisture content
is the ratio of the mass of water in the soil to the mass of the dried 'soil expressed as a
percentage.
3.3.1.2. Liquid Limit: By definition, the liquid limit is the lowest water content at
which the soil behavior is still mainly liquid. Water was added to the soil and it was
thoroughly mixed. A portion of it was placed in the pan of an electronic liquid limit
device and a v-shaped groove was cut vertically across the soil in the pan using the
grooving tool. The liquid limit device was switched on and the pan was raised to a
height of 10mm and dropped continuously. The number of drops at which the v-
shaped groove was closed was recorded. More soil was added to the mixture when the
number of drops was far less than 25 and more water was added when the number of
drops was more than 50. For number of drops that were between 12 and 45, portions
of the soil from the pan were placed in labeled crucibles, weighed, and placed in the
oven to dry. The contents of the crucibles were not less than six grams (6g) each.
After drying, the crucibles were taken out of the oven and weighed to determine the
moisture content of the soil for each number of drops. The number of drops on log
scale was plotted against the moisture content. The liquid limit is the water content at
which 25 drops of the pan from a height of 10mm will close the v-shaped groove in
the soil for a length of at least 13mmat the base of the pan.
3.3.1.3. Plastic Limit: The plastic limit is the water content at which the soil can just
be rolled into threads of 3mm diameter. Water was added to the soil to form a thick
paste. Portions of the paste were then taken and continuously rolled into threads of
3mm diameter. The continuous roIling resulted in a loss of~ater from the threads and
the reduced water content caused the threads to break without their diameter being
able to be modified any further by roIling. The threads at the verge of breaking at
3mm diameter were placed in labeled crucibles, weighed (a minimum mass of 6g as
crucible contents was ensured) and placed in the oven to dry at a temperature of
120°C for 24 hours. After drying, the crucibles were taken out of the oven and
-laboratory for chemical analysis to determine the pH, carbon, Nitrogen, Phosphorus,
•were varied and there were three groups:
The cubes were removed from the forms the day after casting and were cured while
submerged in the bath containing water for 7, 14,21, and 28 days.
Three 100 x 100 x 100mm cubes composing of 50% termite mound material and 50%
cement by volume were prepared and cured for 28 days before crushing. The termite
mound soil was sieved with the 300J.1msieve to eliminate silt and clay sized particles.
Three 100 x 100 x 100mm cubes composing only of termite mound soil were also
prepared and crushed after 28 days without curing in water. The cubes were kept
under normal atmospheric conditions. The termite mound soil used in this case was
not sieved with the 300J.1msieve.
3.6. Crushing of Concrete Cubes
Five concrete cubes from each composition were crushed in the laboratory to
determine the compressive strengfh of the concrete cubes at seven, fourteen, twenty-
one, and twenty-eight days after casting. The crushing test results were recorded and
the average strength of the five cubes from each composition was determined. The
compressive strength of the concrete in N/mm2 was plotted against the age of the
concrete in days.
was found to be 16.05% and that of the borrow pit soil was 5.97%. The high moisture•
Table 4.1: Moisture Content of termite mound soil
Sample Number 1 2
Moisture Can Number D4 B8
Mc = Mass of Empty Can (g) 164.0 164.0
McMS= Mass of Can and Moist Soil (g) 824.8 724.2
MCDs= Mass of Can and Dry Soil (g) 732.3 560.2
Ms = Mass of Soil Solids (g) 568.3 483.7
Mw= Mass of Pore Water (g) 92.5 76.5
Moisture Content, w (%) 16.28 15.81
MwMoisture Content = M x 100%s
16.28 + 15.81Moisture Content, W = 2 = 16.05%
Mc = Mass of Empty Can (g) 17.9
MCMs= Mass of Can and Moist Soil (g) 32.1
MCDs= Mass of Can and Dry Soil (g) 31.3
Ms = Mass of Soil Solids (g) 13.4
Mw= Mass of Pore Water (g) 0.8
Moisture Content, w (%) 5.97
MwMoisture Content = M x 100%s
0.8Moisture Content, W = 13.4 x 100% = 5.97%
4.1.2. Liquid, Limit
The liquid limit of a soil is the minimum moisture content in percent at which the soil
still remains in a liquid state. Liquid limit is one of the parameters used in the
classification of soils by the American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials (AASHTO) and the Unified Soil Classification System
(USCS). The liquid limit of the termite mound soil as determined by experiment was
53.3% while that of the borrow pit soil was found to be 32.4%. Figure 4.1 shows the
liquid limit chart for the termite mound soil with 12 drops at 60.29% and 45 drops at
48.7% at the lower and upper limits. The liquid limit chart for the borrow pit soil is
shown in figure 4.2. The lower and upper limits are 11 drops at 34.98% and 37drops
at 30.81% respectively. The tables of results for the liquid limit analysis of the termite
mound soil and the borrow pit soil are shown in Appendix 1 and 2 respectively. The
termite mound soil has a liquid limit which is higher than the standard values used for
soil classification by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials (AASHTO). This implies that it requires more water to improve its
consistency as it has a higher percentage of fines than the borrow pit soil.
Sample: Termite mound material taken near the Student Union Building, Universityof Agriculture, Abeokuta
Qj' 25iiiuIIItill0:::!.z 10onQ.eQ-00z
Liquid Limit Chart-
-
-, 1._--_ .._--- ---+- _._--_._-1---- ~~\-- ---------
--------- ---------I
~
II III •I
I .- . --I
I
I
III
I
III
II
II
I
• II
V .1
4053.3
55
Liquid Limit Chart
-
• ~ ...•.
~------- -------
:K ------ ----
~: II
II ---II
IIII
I----
II ----- ---~-_._---.....--IIIIIIIjII
V
:i25
C'lIu
VItill0=..z 10'"Q.0•..Q.•.00Z
1
3032.4
32 33
4.1.3. Plastic Limit
The plastic limit of a soil is the minimum water content in percent at which the soil
remains in a plastic state. Table 4.3 shows the results of the plastic limit determination
for the termite mound soil with values ranging from 29.51 % to 30.61%. The result of
plastic limit determination for the borrow pit soil is shown in Table 4.4 with values
ranging between 22.86% and 23.73%. The plastic limit of the termite mound soil as
determined by experiment was 30.16% while that of the borrow pit soil was 23%.
In a similar pattern to the Liquid Limit results, the termite mound soil had a higher
plastic limit than the borrow pit soil. This is also as a result of a higher percentage of
fme soil particles in the termite mound soil than in the borrow pit soil sample. The
plastic limit for the termite mound and the borrow pit soils are within the range of
standard values used for classification according to the American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials.
Table 4.3.: Plastic Limit for termite mound soil
Sample Number 1 2 3
Moisture Can Number A3 As Az
Mc = Mass of Empty Can (g) 24.50 23.50 24.50
MCMs= Mass of Can and Moist 31.80 31.40 30.90Soil (g)
MCDs= Mass of Can and Dry 30.10 29.60 29.40Soil (g)
Ms = Mass of Soil Solids (g) 5.60 6.10 4.90
Mw= Mass of Pore Water (g) 1.70 1.80 1.50
Water Content (%) 30.36 29.51 30.61
Ms= MCDS - Mc, Mw = MCMS - MCDS,MwWater Content = M x 100
s
30.36 + 29.51 + 30.61Plastic Limit (PL) = 3 = 30.16% ~ 30
Table 4.4: Plastic Limit for borrow pit soil
Sample Number Bl B2 B3Moisture Can Number A4 AS B2
Mc = Mass of Empty Can (g) 13.2 28.7 23.5
MCMs= Mass of Can and MoistSoil (g) 21.8 35.0 30.8
MCDs= Mass of Can and DrySoil (g) 20.2 33.8 29.4
Ms = Mass of Soil Solids (g) 7.0 5.1 5.9
Mw= Mass of Pore Water (g) 1.6 1.2 1.4
Water Content (%) 22.86 23.53 23.73
MwWater Content = M x 100s
22.86 + 23.53 + 23.73Plastic Limit (PL) = 3 = 23.37% ~ 23
4.1.4. Plasticity Index
The plasticity index is the difference between the Liquid limit and the Plastic limit
expressed to the nearest whole number. The plasticity index ofthe termite mound soil
is 23 and that of the borrow pit soil is 9.
The plasticity index of the termite mound soil is more than twice the plasticity index
of the borrow pit soil but both values fall within the standard ranges for classification
according to the American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials.
Termite mound soil:
Plasticity Index (PI) = LL - PL = 53 - 30 = 23
4.1.5. Grain Size Analysis
This analysis establishes the proportions of the various particle sizes in a soil sample.
Six sieves and a base pan were used for the analysis and their sizes are: 4.75mm
(retains coarse sand), 2.36mm, 1.I8mm, 600Jlm (retains medium sized sand particles),
300Jlm (retains fine sand), 150Jlm (retains silt), and the base pan which retains fine
silt and clay particles. The 75Jlm sieve was not available which creates a limiting
factor for the general classification of the soils as granular materials or silt-clay
materials according to the American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials. The 150Jlm sieve was taken as a substitute in this case as the percentage of
soil retained on the 150Jlm sieve was greater than 75% for the termite mound and
burrow pit soils.
Figure 4.3 shows the grain size distribution curve for the termite mound soil while
figure 4.4 shows the distribution curve for the borrow pit soil. The tables of results for
the analyses are shown in Appendix 3 and 4. The percentage retained on each sieve is
the percentage of soil particles (by mass) in the sample that have their sizes smaller
than the preceding sieve but larger than the current sieve. The percentage passing is
the percentage of soil particles (by mass) in the soil sample that have their sizes
smaller than the aperture of the current sieve. The 1.18mm and 300Jlm sand particles
had the highest percentages while the coarse sand particles had the least percentage in
the termite mound soil. In the borrow pit soil sample, the particle size with the highest
percentage were the grains retained in the 300Jlm sieve while that with the least
percentage were the grains retained in the 2.36mm sieve.
From the grain size distribution curve, the Coefficient of curvature (Cc) and
Coefficient of uniformity (Cu) for the termite mound and borrow pit soils were
determined by tracing out the grail;lsizes that were 60, 30 and 10% rmer shown by the
dotted lines on the curve. The termite mound soil had a Coefficient of curvature (Cc)
of 8.97 and a Coefficient of uniformity (Cu) of 0.67 while the borrow pit soil had a
Coefficient of curvature (Cc) of 3.15 and a Coefficient of uniformity (Cu) of 1.02.
Sample: Termite mound soil taken near the Student Union Building in the Universityof Agriculture Abeokuta
Weight of Container = 164.00 g
Weight of Container + Dry Soil = 1020.20 g
Weight of Dry Soil sample = 856.20 g
1009080
~ 70CIIc 60a:fa
50J!lc~ 40CII0. 30
2010
00.01
Grain Size Distribution Curve
1
Grain Size (Log Scale)
1.39Cu = 0.155 = 8.97
(0.38)2Cc = 0.155 x 1.39 = 0.67
Weight of Container + Dry Soil = 970.40 g
Weight of Dry Soil sample = 806.20 g
1009080
.. 70CIIc 60u:CII1lO 50III
oWCCII 40~GIQ, 30
2010
00.01
Grain Size Distribution Curve
0.51Cu = 0.162 = 3.15
(0.29)2Cc = 0.162 x 0.51 = 1.02
4.2. Soil Classification
The termite mound soil and the borrow pit soil were classified based on the results of
the physical and mechanical analyses conducted on them. Two soil classification
systems were considered: The American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials (AASHTO) which classifies soils according to their
usefulness in roads and highways) and The Unified Soil Classification System
(USCS) which was originally developed for use in airfield construction but was later
modified for general purpose.
4.2.1. AASHTO Classification
The results of the soil analysis were compared with values in the AASHTO soil
classification table shown in Appendix 5. The general classification of the termite
mound and borrow pit soils is Granular materials. The usual types of significant
constituent materials are silty or clayey gravel and sand) and the general rating as a
subgrade is good.
4.2.2. Unified Soil Classification System
The Unified Soil Classification System classifies soils based on grain size distribution
curve pattern) liquid limit) plastic limit) and plasticity index and the classification
table is reproduced in Appendix 6. The termite mound and borrow pit soils were thus
classified based on experimental results.
Table 4.5: Summary of results for physical analyses oftennite mound and borrow pitsoils
Termite Mound Soil Borrow Pit Soil
Moisture Content, MC 16.05 5.97
Liq uid Limit, LL 53 32
Plastic Limit, PL 30 23
Plasticity Index, PI 23 9
Coefficient ofB.97 3.15Uniformity, Cu
Coefficient of Curvature, Cc 0.67 1.02
AASHTO classification A-2-7 A-2-4
uses classification SW-SM SP
pit soil and at least triple the sodium and potassium contents of the borrow pit soil.•
Table 4.6: Chemical Composition of Soil from Termite Mound
Termite Mound Borrow pit [1] - [2]Soil Soil [2]
x 100%Property [1] [2]
pH 6.7 6.5 3%
Carbon, C (%) 0.061 0.048 27%
Nitrogen, N (%) 0.032 0.021 52%
Phosphorus, P (gIkg) 14.23 7.25 96%
Sodium, Na (mg/l) 21.0 7.0 200%
Potassium, K (mg/l) 22.0 6.0 267%
Calcium, Ca (mg/l) 560 600
Magnesium, Mg (mg/l) 48.0 40.0 20%
Exchangeable Acids (mg/l) 120.0 80.0 50%
Electrical Conductivity 7.71 7.335%(em-I)
4.4.2. Soil Liquid
The liquid content of the termite mound soil was analyzed by soaking 760g of freshly
built termite mound in 760g of distilled water. The mixture was well stirred and then
allowed to stand for 24 hours before filtering with a Whatman No.1 filter paper. The
filtrate and a portion of the distilled water that was used a solvent were analyzed to
establish chemical constituents and properties and the results are shown in Table. 4.7.
As shown by the results, there were small quantities of dissolved solids in the distilled
water. The pH of the distilled water was determined to be 4.2. This was unusual as the
pH of distilled water is expected to be 7.0 or very close to it. This implies that the
distilled water was not pure, or it had been contaminated, as it contained more sodium
than the solution of the termite mound soil and water. It also contained significant
amounts of calcium, magnesium and sulphate.
Soil Extract Distilled
Sample (solution) Water(solvent)
Total Dissolved Solids (mgll) 743 11.29
pH 3.70 4.20
Electrical Conductivity (em-I) 1285 18.61
Sodium, Na (mg/l) 12.20 12.90
Potassium, K (mg/l) 11.20 0.50
Calcium, Ca (mg/l) 105.81 57.72
Magnesium, Mg (mg/l) 72.92 24.31
Sulphate, S04 (mg/l) 26.36 3.42
Chlorine, CI (mg/l) 10366 284
4.5. Concrete Compressive Strength Tests
Concrete was prepared with varying contents of termite mound soil in the fine
The unmodified concrete had a compressive strength of 16.62 N/mm2 at 7 days and
21.18 N/mm2 at 28 days, the concrete which had 50% of termite mound soi I
composing its fine aggregates had its compressive strength range from 5.88 N/mm2 at•
7 days to 8.51 N/mm2 at 28 days, and the concrete composing of fine aggregates
4.11 N/mm2 at 7 days to 5.03 N/mm2 at 28 days.
termite mound soil used in concrete preparation was sieved with a 300~m sieve to
exclude fine sand, silt and clay particles from the soil used in the mix. The concrete
was always well compacted after placement in the forms and clean water was used in
all the preparations and concrete curing. All the cubes were deformed on the day after
casting.
The compressive strengths of the cubes with varied fine aggregates were also
evaluated as percentages of the compressive strengths of the concrete whose
components were not modified. The concrete cubes with fine aggregate containing
50% termite mound soil had compressive strengths which ranged between 34 and
45% of the unmodified concrete strength~ while the concrete cubes with fine
aggregates containing 100% termite mound soil had compressive strengths that
ranged between 17 and 25% of the strength of the unmodified concrete.
The cubes that had a composition of 50% sieved termite mound soil and 50% cement
by volume were crushed after curing in water for 28 days to determine their
compressiye strengths. The results are shown in Appendix 11. The compressive
strengths ranged between 9.39 and 16.27 N/mm2with an average of 12.97 N/mm2.
Cubes composing of termite mound soil mixed with water were prepared. The cubes
were kept under natural atmospheric conditions and crushed after 28 days to
determine their compressive strengths. The results are shown in Appendix 12. The
cubes had an average compressive strength of2.56 N/mm2.-
Concrete Strength Characteristics
20NEE-z- lS.s:.tocCIl•.. -+-0%•..IIICIl> 10 ~SO%'iijIIICIl -6-100%•..Q.
E0u
5
IL.._. .__.__.. .__. . . ._,, ._._._ .
Fig. 4.5: Concrete compressive strength for varying percentages oftermite mound soil•
5.1. Conclusion
Physical analysis was conducted on crushed termite mound soil and a borrow pit soil
sample. The results showed that the termite mound soil had a higher water content,
liquid limit, plastic limit and plasticity index than the borrow pit soil sample.
Mechanical analysis was also conducted on the samples. The results showed that the
termite mound soil was well graded and contained more of the finer sand particles
than the borrow pit soil sample. The borrow pit soil sample was poorly graded with
more coarse sand particles.
According to the Unified Soil Classification System, the termite mound soil is a well
graded sand with silt~ SW-SM and the borrow pit soil sample is a poorly graded sand.
The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials system of
classification places the termite mound soil in group A-2-7 and the borrow pit soil
sample in group A-2-4. Both samples are silty or clayey gravels and sand with good
rating as a subgrade material. However, according to this classification, the borrow pit
soil is a better subgrade material than the termite mound soil.
The chemical properties of termite mound soils which were analyzed were the pH;
carbon, nitrogen, phosphorus, sodium, potassium, calcium, and magnesium contents;
and the exchangeable acids. Similar properties were also analyzed for a borrow pit
soil sample and the results were not significantly different with the exception of the
phosphorus, sodium and potassium contents where the termite mound soil had more
than twice the quantities found in the borrow pit soil sample.
The compressive strength of the 1:2:4 concrete which had its fine aggregates fully
replaced with termite mound soil that had been sieved with a 300~m sieve, was less
than 25% of the compressive strength of the unmodified concrete. Termite mound soil
was sieved with a 300~m sieve and was mixed with coarse sand in the ratio 1:1 and
the mixture was used to prepare concrete in the ratio 1:2:4. The compressive strength
of the resulting concrete varied between 34 and 45% of the compressive strength of
concrete prepared in the ratio 1:2:4 using only coarse sand as fine aggregates.
The results have shown that the percentage loss of compressive strength in concrete
due to the use of termite mound soil as fine aggregate is not within reasonable limits.
With 50% of termite mound soil, there was a drop in compressive strength to 45% and
with termite mound soil completely replacing the fine aggregates, the compressive
strength was reduced to 25% of normal concrete strength.
The termite mound soil used in the concrete preparation was sieved so as to reduce
the content of fine sand particles which are normally excluded from concrete
preparation. The purpose of the project was to establish whether termite mound soil
could be used as fine aggregate in the preparation of concrete without tedious or
expensive processing: therefore washing the soil to completely expel fine particles
was not part of the procedure. Though washing might have improved the compressive
strength of the modified concrete, it would have removed the possibility of field
practice because of the long process.
Termite mound soil is thus not a suitable fine aggregate substitute for the preparation
of concrete as the loss in concrete compressive strength is up to the extent that the
concrete so prepared will not be useful in the forming of members that are to bear
tensile or compressive stresses.
5.2. Recommendations
Soils from termite mound can be mixed with borrow pit soils and used in subgrade
construction without adverse effects.
The concrete prepared using termite mound soil as fine aggregates can be used as
weak concrete in filling of walls to drains and other block works that need concrete
infilling.
Association of Consulting Engineers New Zealand. Upper Harbour Bridge
Duplication & Causeway Widening - Innovate NZ, Brochure of the '2007 ACENZ
Awards of Excellence', Page 19
ACI Committee 318 2008. ACI 318-08: Building Code Requirementsfor Structural
Concrete and Commentary, American Concrete Institute. ISBN 0870312642
Daily Journal of Commerce Newspaper, Seattle.
http://www.djc.com/special/concrete/l0003364.htm Retrieved on 08112/2009
Gary R. Mass. 1989. "Premixed Cement Paste". Concrete International, 11(11)
http://www.concreteinternational.com/pages/featured _article. asp
Jha Alok, Revealed: The cement that eats carbon dioxide The Guardian, 31 December
2008. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/dec/31 /cement -carbon-
•Kosmatka, S.H.~Panarese, W.C. 1988. Design and Control of Concrete Mixtures,
Skokie, IL, USA: Portland Cement Association. pp.17, 42, 70,184. ISBN 0-
89312-087-1
Lancaster, Lynne 2005. Concrete Vaulted Construction in Imperial Rome.
Innovations in Context, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-0-511-16068-4
Ndaliman, Mohammed B. 2006. Refractory Properties of Termite Hills under Varied
Proportions of Additives. Leonardo Electronic Journal of Practices and
Technologies. 9: 161-166
Olusola, E. A. Olanipekun, O. Ata and O. T. Olateju 2006. "Studies on termite hill
and lime as partial replacement for cement in plastering", Building and
Environment 41(3):302-306
Portland Cement Association (PCA). Roller-Compacted Concrete (RCe) Pavements
http://www.cement.orgipavements/pvJcc.asp Retreived on 08/12/2008.
Poutos K. n,Alani A. M., P. J. Walden, C. M. Sangha. 2008. "Relative temperature
changes within concrete made with recycled glass aggregate". Construction and
Building Materials, Volume 22, Issue 4, Pages 557-565.
Physorg.com Self-healing concrete for safer, more durable infrastructure April 22nd,
2009. http://www.physorg.com/news 159641694 .html
Shetty, M. S. 2005. Concrete Technology Theory and Practice. S. Chand & Company
Ltd. New Delhi. p124.
United States Federal Highway Administration "Admixtures".
http://www. fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/materialsgrp/admixture.html. Retrieved on
2007-01-24.
United States Federal Highway Administration "Fly Ash".
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/materialsgrp/flyash.htm. Retrieved on
2007-01-24.
United States Federal Highway Administration "Ground Granulated Blast-Furnace
Slag". http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/materialsgrp/ggbfs.htm. Retrieved
on 2007-01-24.
United States Federal Highway Administration "Silica Fume".
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/materialsgrp/silica.htm. Retrieved on
2007-01-24.
-United States Federal Highway Administration Accelerating Concrete Set Time".
1999-06-0 1. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/materialsgrp/acclerat.htm.
Retrieved on 2007-01-16.
Wanga Kejin, Daniel E. Nelsena and Wilfrid A. Nixon, "Damaging effects of deicing
chemicals on concrete materials", Cement and Concrete Composites Vol. 28(2),
pp 173-188. doi:lO.1016/j.cemconcomp.2005.07.006
Sample: Termite mound material taken near the Student Union Building in theUniversity of Agriculture Abeokuta
Sample Number 1 2 3 4
Moisture Can Number ~ B2 G} A7
Mc= Mass of Empty Can (g) 15.40 22.10 34.30 14.50
MCMs= Mass of Can and Moist 37.20 51.20 88.20 43.20Soil (g)
Mcns = Mass of Can and Dry 29.00 41.10 69.80 33.80Soil (g)
Ms = Mass of Soil Solids (g) 13.60 19.00 35.50 19.30
Mw = Mass of Pore Water (g) • 8.20 10.10 18.40 9.40
Number of Drops 12 21 33 45
Water Content (%) 60.29 53.16 51.83 48.70
MwWater Content = M x 100s
Sample No. 1 2 3 4
Moisture can and lid number A2 B6 Al B5
Mc = Mass of empty, clean can +
lid (g) 24.5 43.6 28.8 45.8
Mcms = Mass of can, lid, and
moist soil (g) 54.6 92.4 57.2 90.8
Mcds = Mass of can, lid and dry
soil (g) 46.8 80.3 50.3 80.2
Ms = Mass of soil solids (g) 22.3 36.7 21.5 34.4
Mw = Mass of pore water (g) 7.8 12.1 6.9 10.6
w = water content, % 34.98 32.97 32.09 30.81
No. of Drops (N) 11 23 29 37
MwWater Content = Ms
x 100
Sample: Termite mound material taken near the Student Union Building in theUniversity of Agriculture Abeokuta
Weight of Container = 164.00 g
Weight of Container + Dry Soil = 1020.20 g
Weight of Dry Soil sample = 856.20 g
Mass of Mass ofMass of Sieve + Soil Soil Percent Percent
Sieve Empty Retained retained Retained PassingDiameter Sieve (g) (g) (g) (%) (%)
4.75mm 403.10 474.00 70.90 8.30 91.70
2.36mm 330.90 403.90 73.00 8.50 83.20
1.18mm 312.80 562.50 249.70 29.20 54.00
600llm 282.30 380.40 98.10 11.50 42.50
300llm 266.90 426.30 159.40 18.60 23.80
150llm 301.90 423.00 121.10 14.20 9.70
Base pan 248.00 330.70 82.70 9.70 0.00
Total 854.9 100.0
Sample Description: Reddish Brown
Weight of Container = 164.20 g
Weight of Container + Dry Soil = 970.40 g
Weight of Dry Soil sample = 806.20 g
Mass of Mass ofEmpty Sieve + Soil Mass of Percent Percent
Sieve Sieve Retained Soil Retained PassingDiameter (g) (g) retained (g) (0/0) (%)
4.75 mm 403.1 448.2 45.1 5.6 94.4
2.36 mm 331.1 361.6 30.5 3.8 90.6
1.18 mm 313.3 415.1 101.8 12.6 78.0
600 Jim 282.7 366.7 84.0 10.4 67.6
300 Jim 267.0 563.5 296.5 36.8 30.8
150 Jim 301.7 488.4 186.7 23.2 7.6
Base pan 248.0 309.6 61.6 7.6 0.0
806.2 lOO.O
General Classification Granular l\!1aterials (35% or less passing the 0.075 mm sieve) Silt - Clay Materials(>35% passing the 0.075 mm sieve)
Group Classification A-1 A-3 A-2 A-4 A-5 A-6 A-7
A-1-a A-1-b A-2-4 A-2-5 A-2-6 A-2-7 A-7-5 A-7-6
Sieve Analysis, % passing
2.00 mm(No. 10) 50max ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...0.425 (No. 40) 30 max 50 max 51 max ... ." ... ... ... ... ." ...0.075 (No. 200) 15 max 25 max 10 max 35 max 35 max 35 max 35 max 36min 36min 36min 36min-Characteristics offraction passing 0.425mm (No. 40)
Liquid Limit ... ... 40max 41 max 40 max 41 max 40 max 41max 40 max 41 max
Plasticity Index 6max N.P. 10 max 10 max llmin llmin lOmax lOmax llmin 11 minI
Usual types of significant Stone fragments, Fine Silty or clayey gravel and sand Silty soils Clayey soilsconstituent materials gravel and sand sand
General rating as a Excellent to good Fair to poorsubgrade
Soil Classification
Criteria for Assigning Group Symbols and Group Names Using Laboratory Tests A GroupGroup Name 8
Symbol
COARSE-GRAINED SOILSGravels Clean Gravels Cu ~ 4 and 1 S Cc S 3 E GW Well-graded gravel F
More than 50% retainedMore than 50% of coarse less than 5% fines C Cu < 4 and lor 1 > Cc > 3 E GP Poorly graded gravel F
on No. 200 sievefraction retained on No.4 Gravels with Fines Fines classify as ML of MH GM Silty gravel F,G,H
sieve More than 12% fines C Fine classify as CL or CH GC Clayey gravel F,G,H
Clean Sands Cu ~ 6 and 1S Cc S 3 E SW Well-graded sand I
Sands less than 5% fines 0 Cu < 6 and/or 1> Cc > 3 E SP Poorly graded sand I50% or more of coarse
Silty sand G,H,Ifraction passes NO.4 sieve Sands with Fines Fines classify as ML or MH SM
More than 12% fines 0 Fines classify as CLor CH SC Clayey sand G,H,I
FINE - GRAINED SOILS PI> 7 and plots above 'A' line J Cl lean clay K,l,M
50% or more passes the InorganicPI < 4 or plots below 'A' line J ML Silt K,l,M
No. 200 sieveSilts and Claysliquid limit less than 50 liquid limit - oven dried Organic clay K,l,M,N
Organic <0.75 OLOrganic silt K,l,M,Oliquid limit - not dried
PI plots on or above 'A' line CH Fat clay K,l,M
InorganicPI plots below 'A' line MH Elastic silt K,l,MSilts and Clays
liquid limit 50 or more liquid limit - oven dried Organic clay K,l,M,P
Organic < 0.75 OHOrganic silt K,l,M,Oliquid limit - not dried
HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS Primarily organic matter, dark in color, and organic odor PT Peat
If field sample contained cobbles or boulders, or both, add 'with
cobbles or boulders, or both' to group name.
If soil contains 15 to 29% plus No. 200. Add 'with sand' or 'with
gravel', whichever is predominant.
If soil contains ~ 30% plus No. 200, predominantly sand, add 'sandy'
to group name.
If soil contains ~ 30% plus No. 200, predominantly gravel, add
'gravely' to group name.
Cube size: 100 x 100 x 100mm
Casting date: 14th December 2009
Crushing date: 21st December, 2009
Curing Period: 7 days
% CUBE CUBE CRUSHING COMPRESSIVE MeanTERMITE LABEL WEIGHT FORa STRENGTH CompressiveMOUND (kg) (kN) (N/mm) Strength
A46 2.95 168.2 16.82A47 2.8 168 16.8
0% A48 2.75 161.5 16.15 16.62A49 2.8 156.8 15.68A50 2.6 176.6 17.66A56 2.75 61.6 6.16A57 2.6 58.3 5.83
50% A58 2.6 59.9 5.99 5.88A59 2.75 67.9 6.79A60 2.6 46.2 4.62
A51 2.5 42.7 4.27A52 2.65 43.5 4.35
100% A53 2.5 41.8 4.18 4.11A54 2.55 42.1 4.21ASS 2.55 35.4 3.54
Cube size: 100 x 100 x 100mm
Casting date: 10th December 2009
Crushing date: 24th December, 2009
Curing Period: 14 days
% CUBE CUBE CRUSHING COMPRESSIVE MEANTERMITE LABEL WEIGHT FORCE STRENGTH COMPRESSIVEMOUND (kg) (kN) (N/mm) STRENGTH
A31 2.95 195.3 19.53
A32 2.75 187.4 18.7400-' A33 2.65 203.2 20.32 19.12
A34 2.85 181.4 18.14
A35 2.8 188.7 18.87
A36 2.55 84.4 8.44
A37 2.7 95.3 9.53
50% A38 2.75 68.2 6.82 8.62A39 2.75 89.1 8.91
A40 2.7 93.8 9.38
A41 2.7 35.9 3.59A42 2.6 52.7 5.27
100% A43 2.65 31.3 3.13 4.57A44 2.55 55.2 5.52A45 2.45 53.6 5.36
Cube size: 100 x 100 x 100mm
Casting date: 3rd December 2009
Crushing date: 24th December, 2009
Curing Period: 21 days
% CUBE CUBE CRUSHING COMPRESSIVE MEANTERMITE LABEL WEIGHT FORCE STRENGTH COMPRESSIVEMOUND (kg) (kN) (N/mm) STRENGTH
A1 2.75 201.1 20.11A2 2.85 197.8 19.78
00-' A3 2.9 213.4 21.34 20.35A4 2.95 204.5 20.45AS 2.9 200.6 20.06All 2.8 74.4 7.44A12 2.7 70.9 7.09
500-' A13 2.65 63.4 6.34 7.01A14 2.75 73.5 7.35A15 2.7 68.1 6.81
A6 2.45 36 3.6A7 2.45 34.7 3.47
1000-' A8 2.5 34.4 3.44 3.52A9 2.5 32.4 3.24A10 2.6 38.6 3.86
Cube size: 100 x 100 x 100mm
Casting date: 8th December 2009
Crushing date: sst January, 2010
Curing Period: 28 days
% CUBE CUBE CRUSHING COMPRESSIVE MEANTERMITE LABEL WEIGHT FORCE STRENGTH COMPRESSIVEMOUND (kg) (kN) (N/mm) STRENGTH
A16 2.8 217.7 21.77A17 2.7 215.2 21.52
0% A18 2.75 213.3 21.33 21.48
A19 2.7 207.5 20.75A20 2.95 220.1 22.01
A26 2.55 82.1 8.21A27 2.65 78.2 7.82
50% A28 2.75 84.8 8.48 8.51A29 2.6 92.9 9.29A30 2.65 87.3 8.73
A21 2.6 51.8 5.18A22 2.5 54.3 5.43
100% A23 2.5 52.9 5.29 5.03A24 2.5 51.2 5.12A25 2.25 41.3 4.13
Cube size: 100 x 100 x 100mm
Casting date: 9th December 2009
Crushing date: 7th January, 2010
Curing Period: 28 days
% CUBE CUBE CRUSHING COMPRESSIVETERMITE LABEL WEIGHT FORCE STRENGTHMOUND (kg) (kN) (N/mm)
C1 2.2 132.6 13.26500"" C2 2.25 93.9 9.39
C3 2.25 162.7 16.27
MEANCOMPRESSIVESTRENGTH
Cube size: 100 x 100 x 100mm
Casting date: 9th December 2009
Crushing date: 7th January, 2010
% CUBE CUBE CRUSHING COMPRESSIVETERMITE LABEL WEIGHT FORCE STRENGTHMOUND (kg) (kN) (N/mm)
B1 1.5 24.9 2.491000"" B2 1.5 25.2 2.52
B3 1.5 26.6 2.66
MEANCOMPRESSIVESTRENGTH
