FACULTY OF ENGINEERING, TECHNOLOGY, APPLIED

DESIGN AND FINE ART

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

A GROUP PROJECT FOR THE DESIGN OF FOUNDATION OF THE CIVIL

ENGINEEERING LABORATORY STRUCTURE AT THE FETADFA, KABALE

UNIVERSITY

SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING IN PARTIAL

FULFILLMENT TO COMPLETE THIRD YEAR OF BACHELOR’S DEGREE IN

CIVIL ENGINEERING, NYABIKONI CAMPUS-KABALE UNIVERSITY

 DECLARATION
We hereby declare that the content written in this report is from our knowledge obtained from
the project proposal for the Design of Civil Engineering Laboratory at FETADFA, Kabale
University and it is an original copy made by all the group members not a copy that has already
been submitted elsewhere for academic or non-academic purposes.
We hereby warrant that this report that has been submitted by we group members does not have
in any way breach any of already existing copy rights.

S/N NAME REGISTRATION NUMBER SIGNATURE

1 MATSIKO Joseph 2022/A/KCE/0610/F
2 NWAGABA Doreen 2022/A/KCE/0711/F
3 NDAYAMBAJE David 2022/A/KCE/1677/F
4 TURYAMUREBA Talent 2022/A/KCE/0749/F

Department of civil engineering

KABALE UNIVERSITY

ii
APPROVAL
This is to certify that the group deign project work of foundation design for a proposed Civil
Engineering Laboratory at FETADFA Kabale University was planned, executed and documented
by we group members under the general supervision and guidance of the undersigned

Signature: …………………………

Name: Mr. Dan Byamukama

Date: ………………………………

And it is up to date and ready for submission to the department of Civil Engineering Kabale
University

iii
DEDICATION
We dedicate this group design project report to our beloved parents for their trendless love and
support in all aspects that they have provided to us, our fellow students from all the faculties of
the University, our beloved lecturers at our faculty, to friends and relatives and in a special way
to our beloved supervisor Mr. Dan Byamukama for his un-weighable support during the
execution of the project.

iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
We would like to first take this chance to thank Mighty Living God for his treeless Love, mercy
and care that have rained on us since the start of our journey in the pursue of our degree. And in
addition to those, we thank Him for his protection and life that He has accorded to us since day
one at university.
We would also like to thank our parents for their prayers, social support and the financial support
that they have provided us with during the time of carrying out all the project works. In addition
to this, a sincere appreciation to our fellow engineering students who stood in where necessary to
help us in some of the activities where we lacked enough knowledge.
In a special way, we would like to extend our sincere and lovely appreciations to our beloved
supervisor Mr. Dan Byamukama for his practical, technical and professional guidance
throughout the scheduled time of the project.
In a similar way we also thank the department of civil engineering for their arrangement
regarding the project works being involved in our curriculum.
Another vote of thanks goes to the Kab Civil lab for their guidance and assistance in carrying out
several lab and field tests.
And lastly, we are thankful to ourselves for having made it up to this stage through moral and
related support.

May God bless you all

v
PREFACE
This report is submitted to the department of Civil and building engineering of Kabale
University, Faculty of Engineering as a group design project report and as a partial fulfillment by
all the students undertaking a four-year program leading to the award of a degree in civil
engineering.
This group design project program was arranged by the Civil department and carried out by
students so as to equip them with the design skills involved in the world class of civil
engineering.
Finally, this report is compiled to demonstrate the students’ ability to use skills of report writing
to communicate technical procedures, ideas and results to a wider audience

vi
ABSTRACT
This report presents the Design Project that was done by a group of third year students of
Bachelor of Civil Engineering of Kabale University. The project is titled “Design of Foundation
of the Civil Engineering Laboratory structure at the FETADFA, Kabale university”. The report
consists of the activities carried out and includes an introductory chapter, the literature review,
the methodology, structural frame analysis, foundation design, conclusions and
recommendations. From the master plan of 2019, there are developments that the university
chose and are to be executed in the first 50 years of implementation, of which The Faculty of
Engineering is number one. On completion of this project, there will be a starting point for the
intended developments to take place. This report includes field tests; DCP test leading to the
bearing capacity of 72.00kPa. It includes laboratory tests that is; Particle size Distribution,
Atterberg limits that aided in the soil classification as fine graded soils or silty clay of low to
medium plasticity. It includes structural frame analysis using prota structure to identify the
critical column footing of 1400mm x 1400mm.
This eventually led to the calculation of the sizes of the footing and its reinforcements. The pad
footing is of dimensions 1.4m x 1.4m with reinforcement 8H20 spaced at 250mm c/c. This report
also portrays our application of the skills of geotechnical engineering, soil mechanics and
foundation engineering in design of the critical column footing for the proposed Civil
engineering laboratory.

vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DECLARATION............................................................................................................................ii
APPROVAL...................................................................................................................................iii
DEDICATION...............................................................................................................................iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT...............................................................................................................v
PREFACE......................................................................................................................................vi
ABSTRACT..................................................................................................................................vii
LIST OF FIGURES........................................................................................................................xi
LIST OF TABLES.........................................................................................................................xi
1.3 JUSTIFICATION..............................................................................................................1
1.4 SIGNIFICANCES................................................................................................................2
1.5 OBJECTIVES...................................................................................................................2
1.5.1 Main Objective................................................................................................................2
1.5.2 Other Objectives..............................................................................................................2
1.6 SCOPE..............................................................................................................................3
1.6.1 Content Scope.................................................................................................................3
1.6.2 Geographical Scope.........................................................................................................3
1.6.3 Time Scope......................................................................................................................4
1.7 REPORT STRUCTURE...................................................................................................4
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW.................................................................................5
2.1 Introduction......................................................................................................................5
2.2 History of foundations.....................................................................................................5
2.3 Design of structural elements............................................................................................5
2.4 Philosophy of design.........................................................................................................6
2.5 Basis of design..................................................................................................................6
2.5.1 Overall.................................................................................................................................6
2.5.2 Permissible stress design.................................................................................................6
2.5.3 Load Factor Design.........................................................................................................6

viii
 2.5.4 Limit State Design...........................................................................................................7
2.6 The design load.................................................................................................................7
2.7 Basic structural concepts and materials properties...........................................................8
2.8 Design loads acting on the structure.................................................................................8
2.8.1 Variable actions...............................................................................................................8
2.8.2 Permanent actions...........................................................................................................8
2.8 Behavior of Reinforced Concrete......................................................................................9
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLGY.........................................................................................10
3.1 Project proposal writing..................................................................................................10
3.2 Structural load analysis...................................................................................................10
3.3 Soil investigation.............................................................................................................10
3.4 Selection of the foundation type.....................................................................................10
3.5 Foundation design s.........................................................................................................10
3.6 Structural analysis...........................................................................................................10
3.7 Detailing and documentation..........................................................................................10
4.1 FIELD EXPLORATION................................................................................................12
4.1.1 DYNAMIC CONE PENETRATION TEST.................................................................12
4.1.2 FIELD DRY DENSITY TEST AND DETERMINATION OF NATURAL
MOISTURE CONTENT OF SOIL........................................................................................17
4.2 SOIL CLASSIFICATION TESTS..................................................................................20
4.2.1 PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION.............................................................................20
4.2.2 ATTERBERG LIMITS.................................................................................................26
CHAPTER FIVE:..........................................................................................................................29
5.1 Design Summary........................................................................................................29
Geometric Properties and Materials...........................................................................................29
Loading Info...............................................................................................................................29
Soil Stress Check........................................................................................................................29
Eccentricity Check.....................................................................................................................30
Punching Check.........................................................................................................................30
Shear Check...............................................................................................................................30
Bending Reinforcement Check..................................................................................................30

ix
Design Summary...........................................................................................................................32
Geometric Properties and Materials...........................................................................................32
Loading Info...............................................................................................................................32
Soil Stress Check........................................................................................................................32
Eccentricity Check.....................................................................................................................33
Punching Check.........................................................................................................................33
Shear Check...............................................................................................................................33
Bending Reinforcement Check..................................................................................................34
CHAPTER SIX: DISCUSSION OF RESULTS...........................................................................35
6.1 INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................35
6.1.1 Subsurface and laboratory analysis...............................................................................35
6.2 PAD FOUNDATION DESIGN......................................................................................35
6.2.1 DESIGN REQUIREMENTS OF A PAD FOUNDATION..........................................36
CHAPTER SEVEN:......................................................................................................................37
7.0 CHALLENGES, RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS..................................37
7.1 CHALLENGES...............................................................................................................37
7.2 CONCLUSIONS.............................................................................................................37
7.3 RECOMMENDATIONS................................................................................................37
REFERENCES..............................................................................................................................38
Geometric Properties and Materials......................................................................................40

x
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1-Inputs into the design process ........................................................................................................4
Figure 2-Cone driving by the free fall of the hammer ................................................................................9
Figure 3-Driving the core cutter into the soil by use of a mallet ................................................................ 13
Figure 4-Soil sample washing on a 63µm test sieve .................................................................................. 18
Figure 5-Thorough mixing of the soil sample with water .......................................................................... 22
Figure 6-Pounding of the soil to remove the large particles before sieving................................................ 27
Figure 7- Column stands….......................................................................................................................... 39
Figure 8-Slab, beams and column layout ................................................................................................... 40
Figure 9-Foundation layout………………………………………………………………………41
Figure 10-Pad footing details ..................................................................................................................... 42
Figure 11- Reinforcement layout in the footing.................................................................................... 43
Figure 12-3D view of the reinforcement in the pad footing .......................................................................43
Figure 13-Reinforcement layout in the footing .......................................................................................... 44
Figure 14- For cassagranda...................................................................................................................... 45
Figure 15-Sample preparation for Atterberg Limits tests by Sieving through a 425µm sieve ...................45
Figure 16-DCP Value reading on the metallic rule ....................................................................................45

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1- Content scope …………….......................................................................................................... 3
Table 2-Time scope ……………............................................................................................................... 4
Table 3-Soil tests that were conducted........................................................................................................11
Table 4-DCP results……………………………………………………………………………………….15
Table 5-Bearing capacity results at both depths ........................................................................................ 16
Table 6-FDT results for both depths of excavation .....................................................................................18
Table 7-Moisture content test results .......................................................................................................... 20
Table 8-PSD results for the soil sample obtained at 0.6m .......................................................................... 23
Table 9-PSD results for the soil sample obtained at 1.0m .......................................................................... 25
Table 10-Plastic and liquid limit test results of the soil sample obtained at 1.0m ..................................... 28
Table 11-Soil plasticity classification for different ranges ........................................................................ 35

xi
LIST OF ACRYOMNS
DCPT-Dynamic Cone Penetrometer Test

LL-Liquid Limit

PL-Plastic Limit

PI-Plasticity Index

BS-British standards

FDT-Field Density Test

PSD-Particle Size Distribution

EC-Eurocode

DCP-Dynamic Cone Penetrometer

CML-Central Materials Laboratory

AASHTO-American Association of State Highway and Transportation Official

FETADFA- FACULTY ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY APPLIED DESIGN AND FINEART

xii
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

BACKGROUND.
The Faculty of Engineering, Technology, and Applied Design (FETADFA), Kabale University is
the premier institution in the region offering undergraduate programs in civil engineering among
others. The civil engineering program plays a crucial role in producing skilled professionals to
promote infrastructure development needs of the country.
However, the current civil engineering laboratory is inadequate and do not meet the evolving
requirements of modern civil engineering education and research. Therefore, the design of the
foundation for the proposed civil engineering laboratory is of paramount importance in realizing
the university’s vision for modern and well equipped facility.
1.2 PROBLEM STATEMNET.
Kabale University receives a number of students every year to the faculty of engineering in
August intake on both bachelors and diploma programs, this enhance an increase in population.
During the times of study at the faculty of Engineering Students lack enough equipment and
working space during practical lectures due to large population compared to the small faculty
civil laboratory hence, overcrowding and collision in the laboratory which hinders the students`
performance in practical course units and less storage space for the equipment, tools and limited
utility rooms.
The project aims at developing comprehensive design for foundation of the civil engineering
laboratory structure.
1.3 JUSTIFICATION
The master plan reports of 2019 of the university provides that university is in a mission of
conducting some developments within the area of the university and these developments as per
the plan are to be put on ground within the first 50years of implementation. The university
targets the Faculty of Engineering as their first priority where the developments will be
implemented. According to the master plan, there should be a Civil engineering laboratory
structure at the FETADFA with a strong foundation that will be able to carry and withstand all
the loads from the overhead structure that accommodates all the practical and to the community
who would wish to use it at any time considering its lifespan and the future growing population
of students at Nyabikoni campus, Kable university.
Therefore, there is need for the design of a foundation for supporting the super-structure of the
overhead stored structure, so that when the time for the implementation of the developments
comes, there is at least one of the requirements in place.
When designing any structure, it is always a key step to design the foundation of the structure
that will be in position to transfer the axial load of the structure to the underlying soil. In case
there is failure in the design of the foundation, the structure is subject to a greater failure and the
effects may be fatal. One of the considerations in the design of a foundation is the size which is
supposed not be so small so as to avoid cases of excessive settlement of the soil.
1.4 SIGNIFICANCES
The design of the new civil engineering laboratory facility at FETADFA, Kabale university will
have a significant impact on the quality of civil engineering education and research in the region.

This would provide the soil classification report for the site highlighting the key properties for
consideration and concerning foundation design of civil engineering laboratory.

The designed structure will;

i. Provide a standard civil engineering laboratory and workshop

ii. Overcome the problem of limited space during practical lectures as students’ population
increases every year,

iii. Create enough storage space for the equipment, tools, utility facilities and office for the
Laboratory.

1.5 OBJECTIVES

1.5.1 Main Objective

To design a foundation of civil engineering laboratory at Kabale university.
1.5.2 Other Objectives
• To determine the soil classification of the soil at the proposed site
• To investigate the geotechnical properties of the soils
• To determine the allowable bearing capacity of the soil
• To perform structural frame analysis
• To select a suitable type foundation
• To develop a foundation design

2
1.6 SCOPE

1.6.1 Content Scope

Under the scope of the work, the group decided to use both protastructure to come up with the
frame of the structure, identified the critical column and manual calculations in the design of the
pad footing. Additionally, the study consisted some tests that helped in the design as listed in the
table below;

Table 1 – Content Scope

Test Type Examples Reference Outcomes

Field Test Dynamic Cone ASTM D6951 Bearing capacity

Penetrometer
value of the soil
Test (DCPT)

Field Density Test

(FDT)

Laboratory tests Classification tests Gradation curve

Moisture content BS 1377:Part 2:1990 Plasticity index
Particle size
distribution BS 1377:Part 2:1990

Plastic limit
BS 1377:Part 2:1990
Plastic limit
BS 1377:Part 2:1990

1.6.2 Geographical Scope

The foundation design project was done in Kabale municipality, at the of Faculty of Engineering,
Kabale University in cooperation with Civil Engineering department FETADFA, Kabale
university laboratory at Nyabikoni campus. No activity was conducted outside the Faculty.

3
Figure 1 Shows the site location of FETADFA

1.6.3 Time Scope

Table 2 - Time Scope
MARCH APRIL MAY JUNE
Preparation of proposal
Literature review
Proposal presentation
Soil tests
Computer Software manipulation
Draft report
Final report
Project Presentation

1.7 REPORT STRUCTURE

This report is basically divided into various sections as listed below;
• Introduction
• Overview of the related literature
• Methodology
• Discussion of results
• Conclusions and recommendations

4
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Introduction

This chapter contains a discussion of history of foundations and their importance or

relevance in their modern-day construction industry. It also highlights the steps taken
in the execution of foundation design.

2.2 History of foundations

Foundation designs have been in practice for quite a long time and have helped the
construction industry in several ways majorly determination of the appropriate
foundation for any proposed structure. Dating from as early as the 1st century BC, the
earliest references for geotechnical investigations are attributed to the Roman architect
and engineer, Vitruvius (Herle, 2004) who wrote a ten-volume account of known
technology. This is an essential element of all civil engineering works since it aims at
the overall ability of the soil to support the proposed works both during and after the
construction process (Cao, et al., 2016). Much of the activities done under the
investigation exercise have been pre-documented for use by any prospective individual
or company following certain guidelines as well as codes & standards.
According to the India standards, the investigation of the site for any proposed
structure requires the exploration and sampling of all strata likely to be significantly
affected by the structural loads (Standards, 1987). The changes that may occur in the
midst of the construction process (both before or after) usually due to the selected
materials or construction methods that may have an adverse effect on the safety of the
structure or its performance after it's fully constructed (Standards, 1987).

2.3 Design of structural elements

Basically the major aim of all structural design is to ensure that the designed structure will
perform to the expectations of the designer during its design life. Specifically, the designer is
tasked to ensure that the structure will be able to transfer the loads safely to the foundation and
that it will not be subjected to deformation when the loads are applied to it. Therefore, this needs
the designer to make an estimate close to reality of the materials that are going to constitute the
building and the loading to which the structure is going to be subjected during its design life.
More to that, the designer will have to be with a basic understanding of the structural behavior.
The work that follows has two main objectives;
 To describe the philosophy of structural design
 To introduce various aspects of structural and material behavior

5
2.4 Philosophy of design
The structural engineer’s task in the design process is to design a structure which conforms to the
needs of both the client and the intended user. The primary aim of design is seen as the need to
ensure that at no point in the structure do the design loads exceed the design strengths of the
materials. This can be achieved by using the permissible stress or load factor philosophies of
design. However, both suffer from drawbacks and it is more common to design according to
limit state principles which involve considering all the mechanisms by which a structure could
become unfit for its intended purpose during its design life.

2.5 Basis of design

2.5.1 Overall

The risk of death or injury due to structural failure is extremely low, but as we spend most of our
life in buildings this is perhaps just as well. As far as the design of structures for safety is
concerned, it is seen as the process of ensuring that stresses due to loading at all critical points in
a structure have a very low chance of exceeding the strength of materials used at these critical
points.

2.5.2 Permissible stress design

Permissible stress design is sometimes referred to as elastic design or modular ratio. And in this
design, the stresses in the structure at the working loads are not allowed to exceed a certain
proportion of the yield stress of the construction material that is, the stress levels are limited to
the elastic range. By assuming that the stress– strain relationship over this range is linear, it is
possible to calculate the actual stresses in the material concerned. Such an approach formed the
basis of the design methods used in CP 114 (the forerunner of BS 8110) and BS 449 (the
forerunner of BS 5950). However, although it modelled real building performance under actual
conditions, this philosophy had two major drawbacks. Firstly, permissible design methods
sometimes tended to overcomplicate the design process and also led to conservative solutions.
Secondly, as the quality of materials increased and the safety margins decreased, the assumption
that stress and strain are directly proportional became unjustifiable for materials such as
concrete, making it impossible to estimate the true factors of safety.
2.5.3 Load Factor Design
Load factor which is also known as plastic design was formulated to take account of the behavior
of the structure once the yield point of the construction material had been reached. This approach
involved calculating the collapse load of the structure. The working load was derived by dividing
the collapse load by a load factor.

6
2.5.4 Limit State Design
Limited state design was originally formulated in the former Soviet Union in the 1930s and
developed in Europe in the 1960s. It is basically a compromise between the permissible and load
factor methods. It is in fact a more comprehensive approach which takes into account both
methods in appropriate ways. This philosophy has finally led to new codes of practice such as
BS 8110 and EC2 (for concrete), BS 5950 (for steel), BS 5400 (for bridges) and BS 5628 (for
masonry). The limit state design puts into consideration the performance of a structure at two
different limits known as the Ultimate and Serviceability limit states (BS EN 1990:3:1)

2.5.4.1 Serviceability limit state

This models the behavior of the structure at working loads. These limit states may not
necessarily result into structural failure of a member but may impair aesthetical value
considerably.

2.5.4.2 Ultimate limit state

These are the limit state that can cause failure or total collapse of the structure. It therefore
dictates the design of the structural member in question and then checks would be done on the
serviceability limit states. Ultimate limit states include; Stability, Robustness (Clause 2.2-EC2).

2.6 The design load

To obtain a design load, a partial safety factor for loads is multiplied by the characteristic load.
After the initial assessment of the design loads has been carried out, it is therefore possible for
one to calculate the expected maximum bending moments, shear forces and the deflection in the
structure. And to ensure that no failure of the structure occurs, the construction material should
be capable of withstanding those forces.

7
2.7 Basic structural concepts and materials properties
This is concerned with general methods of sizing beams and columns in structures and it
describes how the characteristic and design loads acting on structures and on the individual
elements are determined.
Every structure has a number of interconnected elements that include beams, slabs, walls,
foundations and columns. These elements collaborate in transferring the internal and external
loads acting on the structure to the foundation. The actual way that this is achieved is difficult to
model and many simplifying, but conservative, assumptions have to be made. An example to this
is, the degree of fixity at the column and beam ends which is usually uncertain and it is always
assumed that it affects the internal forces on the element. It is also assumed that the reaction that
comes from an element is a load to another element and this is in the sequence of slab loads to
beams to columns to foundations to the underlying ground.
The design loads are used to calculate the shear forces, bending moments and the deflections at
the essential points on the member. The steps involved include the determination of;
 the design loads acting on the structure
 the design loads acting on individual elements
 the critical columns
 the axial load from the structure acting on the foundation
 And designing the pad footing

2.8 Design loads acting on the structure

The design loads are basically divided into three main forms that is, imposed, wind and dead
loads. Each type of loading has both the characteristic and design values and these must be
always estimated. The designer is always tasked to produce a specific combination of loading
which is likely to produce the most adverse effect on the structure regarding the bending
moments, shear forces and the deflections.

2.8.1 Variable actions

In structural design, variable loads refer to the loadss that vary in magnitude over time, rather
than being constant. These loads may be dynamic or fluctuating in nature and are an important
consideration in structural design as they can impact the strength and stability of the structure.
There are design codes and standards provide guidelines on how to calculate and account for
variable loads to ensure that structures are safe and structurally sound.

2.8.2 Permanent actions

Permanent loads are dead loads acting on the structure including self-weight, finishes, fixtures
and partitions. The characteristic dead loads can be estimated using the schedule of weights of
building materials given in BS 648.

8
2.8 Behavior of Reinforced Concrete
Reinforced concrete is a composite material of steel bars embedded in a hardened concrete
matrix; concrete, assisted by the steel, carries the compressive forces, while steel resists tensile
forces. Concrete itself is a composite material. The dry mix consists of cement and coarse and
fine aggregates. Water is added and reacts with the cement which hardens and binds the
aggregates into the concrete matrix; the concrete matrix sticks or bonds onto the reinforcing bars.
The properties of the constituents used in making concrete, mix design and the principal
properties of concrete are discussed briefly. Knowledge of the properties and an understanding of
the behavior of concrete are important factors in the design process. The types and characteristics
of reinforcing steels are noted. Deterioration of and failures in concrete structures are now of
widespread concern. This is reflected in the increased prominence given in the concrete codes to
the durability of concrete structures. The types of failure that occur in concrete structures are
listed and described. Finally, the provisions regarding the durability of concrete structures noted
in the code and the requirements for cover to prevent corrosion of the reinforcement and provide
fire resistance are set out.

Figure 2-Inputs into the design process

9
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLGY

3.1 Project proposal writing

A project proposal was formulated after having conducted a thorough research about the
problems that are faced by the Faculty of Engineering, Technology, Applied Design and Fine
Art. One of the problems that was found to be an issue to the faculty was lack of enough Civil
Engineering laboratory, and this was due to the increased population of engineering students.
The faculty therefore embarked on construction of civil engineering laboratory for practical
lectures. As a group, we further assisted in the design of a foundation for a stored civil
engineering laboratory.

3.2 Structural load analysis

The first step in designing a foundation is to determine the loads that will be applied to the
foundation. The loads include the dead loads (self-weight of the structure itself), live loads
(people, the water loads, furniture and others), the wind loads, seismic loads and any other loads.

3.3 Soil investigation

A soil investigation is basically conducted through field exploration and laboratory tests to
determine the bearing capacity of the soil and the characteristics of the soil at the site where the
foundation will be constructed.

3.4 Selection of the foundation type

Based on the bearing capacity obtained from the soil investigation, a foundation type is selected
with its suitable depth and size. The size of the foundation need to be enough to distribute the
applied loads evenly to the underlying soil.

3.5 Foundation design s

It is at this stage where the reinforcement design is conducted to determine the suitable
reinforcement for the foundation such as steel bars to provide additional strength and durability.

3.6 Structural analysis

Perform structural analysis of the foundation system to verify its stability, bearing capacity, and
ability to withstand applied loads and environmental forces. Use appropriate structural analysis
software (such as, Protastructure, ETABS) to model and analyze the foundation system under
various loading conditions.

3.7 Detailing and documentation

After the foundation design has been completed, details and documents of the design are
prepared ready for submission.

10
CHAPTER FOUR:
4.0 SOIL INVESTIGATION
For one to be able to conduct a successful design of a foundation, there is need to conduct an
efficient soil investigation. Soil investigation involves basically two activities which are field
exploration (compaction and geotechnical tests) and laboratory tests (classification tests) as
shown in the table below;

Table 3 - Soil tests that were conducted

Test classification Test name reference objective

Classification tests Plastic limit (PL) BS 1377 Part 2:1990 To determine the
moisture content at
which soil stops being
plastic

Liquid limit (LL) BS 1377 Part 2:1990 To determine the

moisture content at
which soil starts to flow

Particle Size BS 1377 Part 2:1990 To determine the sizes of

Distribution (PSD) the soil particles

Field exploration tests

Compaction test Field Density Test BS1377:Part4:19 90 To determine the in-

(FDT) situ density of the soil

Geotechnical test Dynamic Cone ASTM D6951 To determine the

Penetrometer test shearing resistance, In-
situ CBR and the
bearing capacity of
the soil

11
4.1 FIELD EXPLORATION

4.1.1 DYNAMIC CONE PENETRATION TEST

The Dynamic Cone Penetration test is carried out to find the resistance value of the cone against
the soil that helps us to determine the different mechanical properties of soil such as shearing
strength, bearing capacity. It is done using a Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (a simple portable
instrument that can be taken anywhere and it consists of a standard diameter steel rod, a
hardened conical tip, and a hammer).

Objectives of DCP test

To determine the shearing strength, bearing capacity, location and thickness of sub-layers of the
soil.

To monitor the condition of granular layers and subgrade soils in the pavement section over time.

Principle of the test

The basic principle of this test is to measure the resistance offered by the soil layers to the cone
used for conducting the test. This gives an estimation of the load bearing capacity offered by the
soil

Test Reference
ASTM D6951

Apparatus required
 A cone (50mm without bentonite slurry)
 Driving rods
 Driving head
 Hoisting equipment
 A hammer

12
Procedure
 The required depth at which the test is to be done is first excavated using tools such hoes
and spades
 The Penetrometer is assembled correctly following the correct procedures
 The initial reading on the dynamic cone penetrometer is recorded
 The dynamic cone penetrometer is kept with the cone resting vertically on the ground
where the test is to be carried out
 Now, the cone is driven into the soil by the free fall of the hammer of 750mm each time
 The reading is then taken off from the rule in mm for each blow
 This process is repeated until when the cone does not reach the required depth

Figure 3 - Cone driving by the free fall of the hammer

13
Table
2-Results of DCPT at 0.0m
DYNAMIC CONE PENETRATION TEST AT 0.0m
YEAR OF
STUDY Third year DATE 10/04/2024
TEST NUMBER: 1 Test Started at (m) 0.0

Number Total Reading Depth Penetration Penetration CBR (%)

of Blows (mm) Corrected rate rate
Blows for zero (mm/blow) (mm/blow)
reading for each for total
(mm) number of blows
blows
0 0 210 0 0 0 0
1 1 330 120 120 120 120
1 2 490 180 60 30 30
1 3 430 220 40 13.3 13.3
1 4 465 255 35 8.8 8.8
1 5 500 290 35 7.0 7.0
1 6 540 330 40 6.7 6.7
1 7 600 390 60 8.6 8.6
1 8 670 460 70 8.8 8.8
1 9 730 520 60 6.7 6.7
1 10 800 590 70 7.0 7.0
1 11 870 660 70 6.4 6.4
1 12 920 710 50 4.2 4.2
1 13 960 750 40 3.1 3.1
1 14 990 780 30 2.1 2.1

3-Results of DCPT at 1.0m

14
 Table
DYNAMIC CONE PENETRATION TEST AT 1.0m
Year Of Study Year Three Date 10/04/2024
Test Number: 1 Test Started at (m) 1.0

No. of Total Reading Depth Penetration rate Penetration rate CBR (%)
Blows Blows (mm) Corrected for (mm/blow) for (mm/blow) for
zero reading each total blows
(mm) number of
blows
0 0 135 0 0 0 0.00
1 1 165 30 30 30 15.12
1 2 190 55 25 12.5 18.56
1 3 220 85 30 10 16.12
1 4 255 120 35 8.75 21.84
1 5 300 165 45 9 17.25
1 6 340 205 85 14.17 14.23
1 7 370 235 30 4.29 12.73
1 8 390 255 20 2.5 10.50
1 9 410 275 20 2.22 10.50
1 10 425 290 15 1.5 10.98
1 11 445 310 20 1.08 9.27
1 12 470 355 25 2.92 9.65
1 13 495 360 25 1.92 12.09
1 14 520 385 25 1.79 13.44
1 15 550 415 30 2.0 12.73
1 16 580 445 30 1.88 13.44
1 17 600 465 20 1.18 9.65
1 18 630 495 30 1.67 10.98
Table 4 – DCP results

15
Table
Bearing capacity results at both depths
DYNAMIC CONE PENETRATION TEST
YEAR OF STUDY:
YEAR THREE Date: 10/4/2024
Test started at(m) 0.0 and 1.0

Evaluation of Bearing Capacities Basing on Field DCP results

Penetration Un
Un confined Ultimate Allowable
index drained
Point Approximate Compressive Bearing Bearing
Depth (mm) Value Cohesion
No.(m) N-Value Strength qu Capacity Capacity
(mm/blow) Cu
(kPa) (kPa) (kPa)
(kPa)

135 0 0 0 0 0 0
0.0 165 30 8.0 104.8 52.40 269.34 89.78
300 45 5.5 72.05 36.03 185.17 61.72
470 25 10.5 137.55 68.78 353.50 117.83
630 30 8.0 104.8 52.40 269.34 89.78
AVERAGE 26 6.4 83.84 41.92 215.47 71.82

210 0 0 0 0 0 0
430 40 6.4 83.84 41.92 215.47 71.82
1.0
600 60 5.9 77.29 38.65 198.64 66.21
800 70 3.4 44.54 22.27 114.47 38.16
990 30 2.5 32.72 16.38 84.17 28.06
AVERAGE 40 3.6 47.68 23.84 122.55 40.85
For cohesive soils, the relationship qu = (13.1Xn), Design N-value is used for evaluation of
unconfined compressive strength
Cu=qu/2 and Ultimate Bearing Capacity =5.14xCu. Allowable bearing capacity is evaluated
using a factor of safety 3
Allowable Bearing capacity with settlement limited to approximately 25mm for cohesionless
soils read off directly from the chart
Checked by: Sign:
Table 5 – Bearing Capacity Results

16
4.1.2 FIELD DRY DENSITY TEST AND DETERMINATION OF NATURAL MOISTURE
CONTENT OF SOIL

4.1.2.1 FIELD DRY DENSITY TEST OF SOIL

Method used:
Core cutter method. AASHTO T217-87(1996), BS 1377: Part 9-1990.

Objective.
To determine the field dry density of the soil

Apparatus
 Cylindrical core cutter
 Balance with accuracy to 1g
 Mallet
 Straight edge
 Piece of wood
 Spade
 Drying oven

Procedure
 The volume of the core cutter is first determined by measuring its internal diameter, D and the
height, h.
 Volume =
 The empty core cutter is placed on a balance and its mass recorded.
 The cutter is then placed on a levelled ground surface and driven into the soil with the help of a
piece of wood and a mallet.
 The cutter with the soil is then taken out, excess soil trimmed from its edges and its mass with the
soil determined and recorded.
 The soil is then removed from the cutter and a representative sample taken for moisture content
determination.
 The test is then repeated for other locations.

Recommendations
This method is suitable for soft, fine-grained soils where the cutter can be easily driven.

Tabulations.

In-situ density,

Field dry density,

17
 Figure 4 - Driving the core cutter into the soil by use of a mallet

FIELD DESNSITY TEST AT 0.6m

Core Number Unit 1
Mass of core + sample g 227.1
Mass of core g 20
Mass of sample g 207.1
Volume of the core cm3 99.0
Field density g/cm3 2.1
Moisture content (w) % 16.1
Field Dry density g/cm3 0.12
Unit weight N/m3 20601

FIELD DESNSITY TEST AT 1.0m

Core Number 1 2 3
Mass of core + sample g 1119.5
Mass of core g 81.0
Mass of sample g 1038.5
Volume of the core cm3 283.9
Field density g/cm3 4.3
Moisture content (w) % 26.2
Field dry density g/cm3 0.16
Unit weight N/m3 42183
Table 6 - FDT results for both depths of excavation.

18
4.1.2.2 MOISTURE CONTENT DETERMINATION TEST
The natural moisture content of the soil is defined as the amount of water present in the soil when the soil
is found in the field undisturbed.
In the engineering field more especially the construction part of it, it is necessary to determine the
natural moisture content of the soil before commencing the construction of the project. This is
because it is an important factor in determining its suitability for construction as it affects the soils
engineering properties such as strength, bearing capacity and compaction. Therefore, knowing the
moisture content of the soil is of a great importance in ensuring the stability and durability of the
structures to be built on it.

Equipment used
 Drying oven at 105±0.5℃
 Moisture tins
 Balance readable to 0.1g
 Air tight container (polythene bag)

Procedure
 A representative sample of the soil is collected from the site to be studied while taking care so as
not to damage the soil structure as it affects the results of the tests
 An empty container is weighed before adding the soil sample and its mass recorded
 A soil sample is placed in the container and the total mass of the container and the soil measured
and recorded
 The soil sample in the container is placed in a drying oven at 105℃ until a constant mass is
obtained. This is done to ensure that all the moisture in the soil is expelled out
 The natural moisture content is calculated using the formula;

19
 MOISTURE CONTENT AT 0.6m

TEST METHOD
specimen reference
container no 1 2 3 4
mass of wet soil + container m2 g 67.90 119.90 81.10 104.50
mass of dry soil + container m3 g 57.10 100.00 67.70 86.50
mass of container m1 g 1.30 2.10 2.40 2.60
mass of moisture m2-m3 g 10.80 19.90 13.40 18.00
mass of dry soil m3-m1 g 55.80 97.90 65.30 83.90
moisture content % 19.35 20.33 20.52 21.45
average moisture content % 20.41

moisture content at 1.0m

container no 1 2 3 4
mass of wet soil + container m2 g 77.30 88.10 72.90 58.10
mass of dry soil + container m3 g 62.80 74.50 61.80 49.80
mass of container m1 g 1.90 1.80 2.00 1.60
mass of moisture m2-m3 g 14.50 13.60 11.10 8.30
mass of dry soil m3-m1 g 60.90 72.70 59.80 48.20
moisture content % 23.81 18.71 18.56 17.22
average moisture content % 19.57
Table 7 - Moisture content test results

4.2 SOIL CLASSIFICATION TESTS

4.2.1 PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION

Introduction

Particle size distribution is also known as gradation and it is defined as the proportions by dry mass of
a soil distributed over specified particle-size ranges. It helps to classify most of the soils employed in
different engineering fields. This test was majorly carried out to determine the grading of the soil that
we excavated at a depth of 600mm in relation to the relative portions of different sizes of particles,
this would eventually help us to determine whether our soil was predominantly sand, clay, silt. This
would in practice help us to design or make recommendations regarding a project site, particularly
regarding a water project.

20
Material description and source of the material.

Source of the material.

The soil material was obtained behind the administration block as follows;
We first measured and marked the size of the excavation pit that we wanted to excavate using a steel
measuring tape for measuring and 4 pegs and a string for marking.
We then dug off a 200mm top layer of the soil which is believed to be composed of only the plant life.
The excavation process was continued up to a depth of 600mm and 1000mm at which our soil samples
were collected and packed in a polythene papers and taken to the laboratory.

Material description.

Before washing; the material was medium grained heavy soil with a dark -grey color which indicated a
large content of clay.
After washing, the soil became a little bit more fine compared to the original one though it maintained its
dark- grey color.

Sampling procedure

We weighed a 2.3kgs soil sample out of the whole soil that was dried under the sun and soaked it in
water for 19hrs so as the large particles could dissolve before washing
After, the soil was washed using a 63µm sieve and a pan under the tap until it was fully clean. The
washed sample was then put in the oven and dried for 24.5hrs. The oven dried soil was then
measured and used as the material during sieve analysis.

Main principle

The procedure listed below involves the preparation of the soil sample through wet sieving so as all
the silt can be removed and all the clay sized particles which was followed by dry sieving of the
coarse material that remained.
This method covers the quantitative determination of particle size distribution in a cohesion less soil,
down to fine sand size.

Tools and equipment.

 A balance readable and accurate to 0.5g

 A drying oven with a temperature of 105oC-110oC
 Test Sieves of 14mm, 10mm, 5mm, 3.35mm, 2mm, 1.18mm, 600µm, 425µm, 300µm, 212µm,
150µm, 63µm
 Sieve brushes
 Scoop  A metal tray  A trowel.
21
Test procedure.
 A 2.5kgs mass of the soil was weighed from the total mass of the air-dried sample and recorded as
m1
 The weighed soil sample was then placed in a bucket, water was added and the whole mixture
stirred and left to stand so as the other large particles could dissolve
 The soaked soil sample was then washed using a 63µm sieve until the soil was fully clean.
All the material that could pass the sieve was taken to be waste.
 It was taken serious to prevent over loading on the sieve either by soil or water.
 All the material on the sieve was the transferred onto a clean and dry tray.
 The procedure was repeated until the whole soil sample was completely washed.
 The material on the tray was then taken to the oven and dried at a temperature of about 105 0C-
110oC to ensure that no moisture remains in the pores of the soil particles.
 The dried sample of soil was then sieved through sieves of different sizes up to the 63µm sieve.
 The masses retained on every sieve was weighed and the one that passed the last sieve to the pan
was also weighed and recorded.
 The results obtained were tabulated as shown below.

Figure 5-Soil sample washing on a 63µm test sieve

22
Table 8 - PSD results for the soil sample obtained at 0.6m
WORKING
SHEET
Sieve analysis

Grading Modulus and Grading Coefficient

Location Depth 1.0m

Pit Number Date 17/09/2023
TEST METHOD CML Test, reference BS 1377: Part 2: 1990

Mass Of The Sample 2500g

Before Washing

Mass Of the Sample 312.9g

After Oven Drying
Cumulative
Percentage percentage
BS Test Sieve Mass mass retained mass retained Percentage
size(mm) retained(g) (%) (%) passing (%)
14 0 0.00 0.0 100.00
10 0 0.00 0.0 100.00
6.3 0 0.00 0.0 100.00
5 1.5 0.48 0.5 99.52
3.35 2.9 0.93 1.4 98.59
2 6.9 2.21 3.6 96.39
1.18 16.6 5.31 8.9 91.08
0.6 64.8 20.71 29.6 70.37
0.425 59.4 18.98 48.6 51.39
0.3 51 16.30 64.9 35.09
0.15 78.6 25.12 90.0 9.97
0.063 26.8 8.57 98.6 1.41
PAN 4.4 1.41 100.0 0.00
TOTAL 312.9

23
D10 = 0.15
D30 = 0.25
D60 = 0.50

Fine Medium Coarse Fine Medium Coarse Fine Medium Coarse

CLAY
SILT SAND GRAVEL

24
Table 9-PSD results for the soil sample obtained at 1.0m
WORKING SHEET
Sieve Analysis

Grading Modulus and Grading Coefficient

Location Depth 1.50m

Pit Number Date 17/09/2023
TEST METHOD
Mass of the sample
before washing 2500g
Mass of the sample
after oven drying 570.2g
Cumulative
Percentage percentage
BS Test Sieve Mass mass retained mass retained Percentage
size(mm) retained(g) (%) (%) passing (%)
14 0 0.00 0.0 100.00
10 2.4 0.42 0.4 99.58
6.3 6.6 1.16 1.6 98.42
5 13.7 2.40 4.0 96.02
3.35 26.1 4.58 8.6 91.44
2 30.7 5.38 13.9 86.06
1.18 24.3 4.26 18.2 81.80
0.6 82 14.38 32.6 67.41
0.425 65.4 11.47 44.1 55.95
0.3 95.8 16.80 60.9 39.14
0.15 147.7 25.90 86.8 13.24
0.063 68.7 12.05 98.8 1.19
PAN 6.8 1.19 100.0 0.00
TOTAL 570.2

25
 D10 = 0.12 mm

D30 = 0.24mm

D60 = 0.48mm

CLAY Fine Medium Coarse Fine Medium Coarse Fine Medium Coarse

SILT SAND GRAVEL

4.2.2 ATTERBERG LIMITS

As the soil losses its moisture content, it undergoes a series of state-transformation that is plastic,
liquid, semi-solid and the solid states. The obtained moisture contents at those states where the
transformation occurs are known as Atterberg limits.

Sample preparation
A soil sample on which these tests are to be carried out is pounded to remove the large particles and
sieved through a 425µm sieve. The sample is then mixed thoroughly with distilled water till a uniform
mixture is obtained. It is then kept in an air-tight container for about 24hrs for the sample to obtain
enough moisture.

Apparatus
 Test sieves of size 425 μ m
 An airtight container (polythene bag)
 Flat glass plate
 Two palette knives or spatulas
 Moisture tins
 A wash bottle containing clean water
 Liquid limit device with Casagranda grooving tools
 Balance readable to 0.01 g.
 Oven maintaining a uniform temperature of 110 ± 5 °C
26
4.2.2.1 Liquid limit (LL)
The liquid limit is defined as the empirically established moisture content at which the soil tends to
the plastic state from the liquid state. Having the plastic limit of a soil sample known, the liquid limit
helps to classify the soil especially for fine cohesive soils

Test procedure
 A dry sample of soil is first sieved through a 0.425mm BS sieve and the material passing is mixed
with distilled water on a glass plate to make a uniform paste.
 A portion of the mixed paste is placed in the cup which is resting on a hard rubber base and
levelled horizontal.
 The levelled soil is then divided into two halves by a standard grooving tool.
 The cup is tapped twice a second, the number of taps required to bring the halves together over a
length of 13mm (≈0.5”) is recorded and moisture content of soil is found.
 The procedure is repeated for different water contents and values of moisture content plotted
against corresponding number of taps (on log10 scale).
 From the graph the soil water content corresponding to 25 taps (when the soil is believed to have
significantly lost its shear strength) is taken as the liquid limit.

Figure 6 Liquid limit test

4.2.2.2 Plastic limit (PL)

The wetted soil sample is evenly spread on a clean glass plated and left exposed to air to lose some of
its moisture and become a little bit plastic
A piece of the sample is removed and rolled between the palm on the glass under a thread of about
3mm is formed in a time period of not greater than 2minutes.

The rolling is done till the thread crumbles

The procedure is repeated to make more threads. The threads are then placed in a moisture tin and
taken to the oven for oven-drying

After 24hours, they are removed and weighed to determine the soil’s moisture content.
In case the diameter of the thread gets to less than 3mm before any crumbling occurs, this indicates that
the moisture content in the soil is more than the plastic and this calls for more kneading.

Table 10-Plastic and liquid limit test results of the soil sample obtained at 1.0m
27
 Liquid limit at 1.00m

Test method

Container no 1 2 3 4 5 6
Number of blows 32 21 14 24 29 18
Mass of wet soil + tin (g) 51.8 58.0 27.1 37.2 51.0 53
Mass of dry soil + tin (g) 33.7 36.7 16.7 25.2 31.8 31.5
Mass of tin (g) 1.5 1.4 1.4 1.7 1.5 1.5
Mass of moisture (g) 18.1 21.3 10.4 12.0 19.2 21.5
Mass of dry soil (g) 32.2 35.3 15.3 23.5 30.3 30.0
Moisture content % 56.2 60.3 68.0 51.1 63.4 71.7
Plastic limit at 1.0m

Test method
Container number 1 2
Mass of wet soil + tin g 9.2 9.6
Mass of dry soil + tin g 8.3 8.9
Mass of tin g 1.2 1.1
Mass of moisture g 1.2 0.7
Mass of dry soil g 7.1 7.8
Moisture content % 16.9 9.0
Average moisture content % 12.95
Plastic limit % 13.0
Liquid limit % 36.2
Plasticity index % 23.2

Liquid limit at 1.0m

80
70
60
Moisture content %

50
40
30
20
10
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Number of blows

LL = 60%

CHAPTER FIVE:

5.0 GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN

28
 5.1 Design Summary

Geometric Properties and Materials

Footing Materials
Concrete Material C20/25
Rebar Material Grade 410 (Type 2)

Geometric Properties
LX 1100.00 mm
LY 1100.00 mm
Height 300.00 mm
Taper Height 0.00 mm

Corner Stresses
Lower-Left Corner 67.7 kN/m2
Lower-Right Corner 64.0 kN/m2
Upper-Right Corner 96.3 kN/m2
Upper-Left Corner 100.0 kN/m2

Loading Info
Combinations N Vx Vy Mx My
Comb #1 - 1C38 75.8 kN 0.3 kN -1.1 kN -0.4 kN.m 1.3 kN.m
Comb #2 - 1C38 64.0 kN 0.3 kN -0.9 kN -0.4 kN.m 1.0 kN.m
Comb #3 - 1C38 68.1 kN 0.2 kN -1.1 kN -0.3 kN.m 1.2 kN.m
Comb #4 - 1C38 63.3 kN -0.9 kN -1.1 kN 1.6 kN.m 1.3 kN.m
Comb #5 - 1C38 66.6 kN 1.5 kN -0.8 kN -2.3 kN.m 0.9 kN.m
Comb #6 - 1C38 66.6 kN 0.3 kN -2.1 kN -0.3 kN.m 3.0 kN.m
Comb #7 - 1C38 63.3 kN 0.3 kN 0.2 kN -0.3 kN.m -0.8 kN.m

Soil Stress Check

Total footing, soil and pedestal weight is calculated.

Unit Weight
Member Volume (m3) Weight (kN)
(kN/m3)
Pad Footing : 0.363 24 8.712
Soil : 1.331 18 23.958
Total : 32.67

In order to calculate total axial load, weights are added to axial loads,

ΣN = N + TW

ΣMx ΣMy σ1 σ2 σ3 σ4
Comb ΣN (kN)
(kN.m) (kN.m) (kN/m2) (kN/m2) (kN/m2) (kN/m2)
Comb #1 - 1C38 108.4 -0.5 1.6 84.5 80.3 94.7 98.9
Comb #2 - 1C38 96.7 -0.4 1.3 76.1 72.1 83.7 87.7
Comb #3 - 1C38 100.8 -0.3 1.6 77.8 74.7 88.8 91.9
Comb #4 - 1C38 96.0 1.9 1.6 63.4 80.8 95.2 77.8
Comb #5 - 1C38 99.3 -2.7 1.1 89.3 64.7 74.8 99.4
Comb #6 - 1C38 99.3 -0.4 3.6 67.7 64.0 96.3 100.0
Comb #7 - 1C38 96.0 -0.4 -0.9 84.9 81.4 73.7 77.2

Demand Capacity Status

Allowable Maximum Soil Stress: 100.8
Maximum Soil Stress: 100.0 kN/m2 √
kN/m2

29
Eccentricity Check
Comb Direction Moment (kN.m) Axial Load (kN) Eccentricity (M/N) Limit (L/6) Status
Comb #5 - 1C38 X -2.7 99.3 27.49 mm 183.33 mm ✓
Y 1.1 99.3 16.74 mm 183.33 mm ✓
Comb #6 - 1C38 X -0.4 99.3 27.49 mm 183.33 mm ✓
Y 3.6 99.3 36.12 mm 183.33 mm ✓

Punching Check
Comb ΣN (kN) Vpd (kN) Vpc (kN) ac (m) D/C
Comb #1 - 1C38 108.4 87.6 595.8 0.195 0.15
Comb #2 - 1C38 96.7 77.8 595.8 0.195 0.13
Comb #3 - 1C38 100.8 81.6 595.8 0.195 0.14
Comb #4 - 1C38 96.0 80.0 595.8 0.195 0.13
Comb #5 - 1C38 99.3 83.6 595.8 0.195 0.14
Comb #6 - 1C38 99.3 85.1 595.8 0.195 0.14
Comb #7 - 1C38 96.0 76.3 595.8 0.195 0.13

Shear Check
At Column Face,
X-Direction Y-Direction
Demand Capacity Demand Capacity
Comb Status (kN) Status (kN)
(kN) (kN) (kN) (kN)
Comb #1 - 1C38 35.2 283.6 ✓ 34.1 270.0 ✓
Comb #2 - 1C38 29.6 283.6 ✓ 28.9 270.0 ✓
Comb #3 - 1C38 31.8 283.6 ✓ 30.7 270.0 ✓
Comb #4 - 1C38 32.0 283.6 ✓ 32.3 270.0 ✓
Comb #5 - 1C38 33.3 283.6 ✓ 34.8 270.0 ✓
Comb #6 - 1C38 35.8 283.6 ✓ 32.9 270.0 ✓
Comb #7 - 1C38 28.3 283.6 ✓ 27.9 270.0 ✓

At "d" Distance
Away From
Column Face,
X-Direction Y-Direction
Demand Capacity Demand Capacity
Comb Status (kN) Status (kN)
(kN) (kN) (kN) (kN)
Comb #1 - 1C38 15.6 283.6 ✓ 16.6 270.0 ✓
Comb #2 - 1C38 13.1 283.6 ✓ 14.0 270.0 ✓
Comb #3 - 1C38 14.1 283.6 ✓ 14.9 270.0 ✓
Comb #4 - 1C38 14.5 283.6 ✓ 15.7 270.0 ✓
Comb #5 - 1C38 15.3 283.6 ✓ 16.8 270.0 ✓
Comb #6 - 1C38 15.8 283.6 ✓ 16.5 270.0 ✓
Comb #7 - 1C38 12.5 283.6 ✓ 13.5 270.0 ✓

Bending Reinforcement Check

Comb Mdx (kN.m) Required Asx (mm2) Mdy (kN.m) Required Asy (mm2)
Comb #1 - 1C38 7.9 487.08 7.8 487.08
Comb #2 - 1C38 6.7 487.08 6.6 487.08
Comb #3 - 1C38 7.2 487.08 7.0 487.08
Comb #4 - 1C38 7.3 487.08 7.4 487.08
Comb #5 - 1C38 7.7 487.08 7.9 487.08
Comb #6 - 1C38 8.1 487.08 7.6 487.08
Comb #7 - 1C38 6.4 487.08 6.3 487.08

30
Comparison of Design Moment Selected Rebar Required / Provided Status
487.08 / 1005.31
Reinforcement Area in X-Direction 8.1 kN.m 5ɸ16 / 250.0 mm √
mm2
487.08 / 1005.31
Reinforcement Area in Y-Direction 7.9 kN.m 5ɸ16 / 250.0 mm √
mm2

31
Design Summary

Geometric Properties and Materials

Footing Materials
Concrete Material C20/25
Rebar Material Grade 410 (Type 2)

Geometric Properties
LX 1400.00 mm
LY 1400.00 mm
Height 300.00 mm
Taper Height 0.00 mm

Corner Stresses
Lower-Left Corner 91.3 kN/m2
Lower-Right Corner 89.0 kN/m2
Upper-Right Corner 98.1 kN/m2
Upper-Left Corner 100.4 kN/m2

Loading Info
Combinations N Vx Vy Mx My
Comb #1 - 1C46 132.7 kN 0.4 kN -1.5 kN -0.4 kN.m 1.6 kN.m
Comb #2 - 1C46 107.1 kN 0.2 kN -1.2 kN -0.3 kN.m 1.4 kN.m
Comb #3 - 1C46 125.7 kN 0.4 kN -1.4 kN -0.5 kN.m 1.6 kN.m
Comb #4 - 1C46 114.8 kN -0.9 kN -1.3 kN 1.6 kN.m 1.6 kN.m
Comb #5 - 1C46 112.6 kN 1.6 kN -1.1 kN -2.4 kN.m 1.2 kN.m
Comb #6 - 1C46 114.3 kN 0.3 kN -2.4 kN -0.4 kN.m 3.3 kN.m
Comb #7 - 1C46 113.1 kN 0.3 kN -0.1 kN -0.3 kN.m -0.5 kN.m

Soil Stress Check

Total footing, soil and pedestal weight is calculated.

Unit Weight
Member Volume (m3) Weight (kN)
(kN/m3)
Pad Footing : 0.588 24 14.112
Soil : 2.156 18 38.808
Total : 52.92
In order to calculate total axial load, weights are added to axial loads,

ΣN = N + TW

ΣMx ΣMy σ1 σ2 σ3 σ4
Comb ΣN (kN)
(kN.m) (kN.m) (kN/m2) (kN/m2) (kN/m2) (kN/m2)
Comb #1 - 1C46 185.6 -0.5 2.1 91.3 89.0 98.1 100.4
Comb #2 - 1C46 160.0 -0.3 1.8 78.5 77.1 84.8 86.2
Comb #3 - 1C46 178.7 -0.6 2.1 88.0 85.3 94.3 97.0
Comb #4 - 1C46 167.7 1.9 2.0 77.0 85.5 94.1 85.7
Comb #5 - 1C46 165.6 -2.8 1.6 87.2 74.8 81.7 94.1
Comb #6 - 1C46 167.2 -0.5 4.0 77.6 75.5 93.0 95.1
Comb #7 - 1C46 166.0 -0.4 -0.4 86.6 84.7 82.8 84.7

Demand Capacity Status

Allowable Maximum Soil Stress: 100.8
Maximum Soil Stress: 100.4 kN/m2 √
kN/m2

Eccentricity Check
Comb Direction Moment (kN.m) Axial Load (kN) Eccentricity (M/N) Limit (L/6) Status
Comb #5 - 1C46 X -2.8 165.6 17.13 mm 233.33 mm ✓
Y 1.6 165.6 11.79 mm 233.33 mm ✓
Comb #6 - 1C46 X -0.5 167.2 17.13 mm 233.33 mm ✓
Y 4.0 167.2 23.90 mm 233.33 mm ✓

Punching Check
Comb ΣN (kN) Vpd (kN) Vpc (kN) ac (m) D/C
Comb #1 - 1C46 185.6 153.9 538.1 0.244 0.29
Comb #2 - 1C46 160.0 132.6 538.1 0.244 0.25
Comb #3 - 1C46 178.7 148.3 538.1 0.244 0.28
Comb #4 - 1C46 167.7 140.8 538.1 0.244 0.26
Comb #5 - 1C46 165.6 140.1 538.1 0.244 0.26
Comb #6 - 1C46 167.2 143.1 538.1 0.244 0.27
Comb #7 - 1C46 166.0 134.9 538.1 0.244 0.25

Shear Check
At Column Face,
X-Direction Y-Direction
Demand Capacity Demand Capacity
Comb Status (kN) Status (kN)
(kN) (kN) (kN) (kN)
Comb #1 - 1C46 61.2 361.0 ✓ 60.0 343.6 ✓
Comb #2 - 1C46 49.5 361.0 ✓ 48.3 343.6 ✓
Comb #3 - 1C46 58.3 361.0 ✓ 57.2 343.6 ✓
Comb #4 - 1C46 54.9 361.0 ✓ 54.8 343.6 ✓
Comb #5 - 1C46 54.2 361.0 ✓ 55.1 343.6 ✓
Comb #6 - 1C46 56.8 361.0 ✓ 54.1 343.6 ✓
Comb #7 - 1C46 49.7 361.0 ✓ 49.7 343.6 ✓

At "d" Distance
33
Away From
Column Face,
X-Direction Y-Direction
Demand Capacity Demand Capacity
Comb Status (kN) Status (kN)
(kN) (kN) (kN) (kN)
Comb #1 - 1C46 35.6 361.0 ✓ 36.8 343.6 ✓
Comb #2 - 1C46 28.8 361.0 ✓ 29.7 343.6 ✓
Comb #3 - 1C46 33.9 361.0 ✓ 35.1 343.6 ✓
Comb #4 - 1C46 32.2 361.0 ✓ 33.6 343.6 ✓
Comb #5 - 1C46 32.0 361.0 ✓ 33.8 343.6 ✓
Comb #6 - 1C46 33.1 361.0 ✓ 33.5 343.6 ✓
Comb #7 - 1C46 28.9 361.0 ✓ 30.2 343.6 ✓

Bending Reinforcement Check

Comb Mdx (kN.m) Required Asx (mm2) Mdy (kN.m) Required Asy (mm2)
Comb #1 - 1C46 18.4 619.92 18.2 619.92
Comb #2 - 1C46 14.9 619.92 14.6 619.92
Comb #3 - 1C46 17.5 619.92 17.3 619.92
Comb #4 - 1C46 16.6 619.92 16.6 619.92
Comb #5 - 1C46 16.5 619.92 16.7 619.92
Comb #6 - 1C46 17.1 619.92 16.5 619.92
Comb #7 - 1C46 15.0 619.92 14.9 619.92

Comparison of Design Moment Selected Rebar Required / Provided Status

619.92 / 1206.37
Reinforcement Area in X-Direction 18.4 kN.m 6ɸ16 / 250.0 mm √
mm2
619.92 / 1206.37
Reinforcement Area in Y-Direction 18.2 kN.m 6ɸ16 / 250.0 mm √
mm2

34
CHAPTER SIX: DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
6.1 INTRODUCTION
In this chapter, the results obtained from the previous activities were discussed, analyzed
and conclusions arrived at and proper procedures and parameters selected for the design
of the pad foundation
6.1.1 Subsurface and laboratory analysis
The results from the soil sample tests showed that the soil was fine graded soil of medium
plasticity and it was generally silty-clay soil with an average plasticity index of 15.8. This
showed that any more increase in the moisture content of the soil would lead to loss of
soil’s cohesiveness which would result in the decrease in the bearing capacity of the soil.

Table 11-Soil Plasticity classification for different ranges.

Plasticity Index Plasticity Classification
0 Non plastic
<7 Low plastic
7-17 Medium plastic
>17 Highly plastic

6.2 PAD FOUNDATION DESIGN

A pad foundation is a type of foundation used to support a single column or a pointed load
and it has a square or rectangular pad spread out below the column to distribute the applied
load evenly over a large area of the underlying soil. A pad foundation may be square when
under an axial load or nearly equal biaxial moment and it may be more economical to make
it rectangular when under large un-axial load Pad foundations are mostly used when the
applied loads from the structure are relatively low and can be safely transferred to the soil
without the need for deeper foundations.
Usually the size of the pad foundation is calculated based on the loads it needs to carry,
the bearing capacity of the soil and the size of the column it is supporting. The depth at
which the soil bearing strata is located and the soil conditions determine the thickness of
the pad foundation.

35
6.2.1 DESIGN REQUIREMENTS OF A PAD FOUNDATION
For an effective design of a pad foundation, there are some requirements that must be met and
some of those include the following;
1. Load-bearing capacity: The pad foundation should be capable of supporting the
calculated loads from the structure including the dead, live, wind and other related
loads.
2. Soil-bearing capacity: The pad foundation should be designed based on the soil
properties of the site with the soil bearing capacity included to account for adequate
support
3. Settlement analysis: The foundation should consider the settlement that is most
likely to occur so as to prevent excessive settlement or differential settlement that
could lead to failure of the structure.
4. Water table considerations: If the proposed site has a high water table, the
foundation design should consider potential water infiltration and its effects on the
stability of the foundation.
5. Dimensions and depth: These should be determined based on the structural loads and
the soil properties or any other specific requirements of the project.

36
CHAPTER SEVEN:
7.0 CHALLENGES, RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS
7.1 CHALLENGES
The access to the laboratory equipment was never easy as they would always be in use by some
other members

The on and off electricity delayed some of the activities such as oven drying of the soil samples
There was a restricted access to the Faculty documents such as drawings, population count
documents and others

7.2 CONCLUSIONS
We managed to obtain an average soil bearing capacity 72Kpa from the DCP test that was carried
out and it’s the one that we used in the design of the pad foundation since it was the worst case
A critical column of dimensions 1100mm * 1100mm was analyzed using protastructure software
and a pad footing of 1400mm * 1400mm with a depth of 300mm was designed.

7.3 RECOMMENDATIONS
We recommend further studies to establish the relationship between DCP and the allowable bearing
capacity of the soil
We recommend a further study to establish a model that can formulate or give the cohesion
coefficient and the angle of friction
More research should be made on the use of raft foundation instead of pad foundation in silty-clay
soils
We recommend the Faculty administration to equip the Civil Lab with enough equipment so as
students are able to conduct their practical in their schedules time
A working alternative means of power supply should be installed at the faculty such a standby
generator or solar system that can run the Civil lab equipment that use power
It is not feasible to recommend construction methods as this would require completion of the
comprehensive design for the building. With this and the time constraint, we did not do the cost
estimate of the designed part of the structure.

REFERENCES
American Water Works Association (AWWA) Manual M42. (2013).
37
 Arya, C. (2009). DESIGN OF STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS (Third Edition ed.). London and New
York, 2 Park Square: Taylor & Francis.

Das, B. (2008). Advanced Soil Mechanics (Third Edition ed.). New York: Taylor & Francis.

EN 1992-1-1DESIGN OF CONCRETE STRUCTURES, in Eurocode 2. (2004).

EN 1992-1-4. In Eurocode 1: Actions on structures-part 1-1:General rules amd rules for buildings.
(2004).

NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR HIGHER EDUCATION, checklist for academic programmes. (n.d.).
Prab Bhatt, Thomas J. MacGinlye, Ban Seng Choo. (2014). REINFORCED CONCRETE
DESIGN TO EUROCODES (Fourth Edition ed.). New York, 6000 Broken Sound
Parkway NW, suite 300, Boca Raton: CRC Press, Taylor and Francis Group.
(ASCE), A. S. o. C. E., 1997. Standard Guidelines for the Design and Installation of Pille
Foundations, s.I.:Bukupedia.
Arora, K., 2004. Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, 6th ed. Delhi: Standard Publishers
Distributors.
Atoria Civil Lab LTD, 2020. Geotechnical Investigation Report for Proposed Eye Care Center at St.
Francis Hospital, Nsambya, Kampala: Atoria Civil Lab Lid.
Bond, A. J. et al., 2006. How to Design Concrete Structures using Eurocode 2. 1 st ed. Surrey:
Michael Burbridge Ltd.
Budhu, M., 2011. Soil mechanics and Foundations, 3rd Edition ed. Hoboken(New Jersey): John
Wiley \& Sons, Inc.
Cao, Z, Wang, Y. \& Li, D., 2016. Probabilistic Approaches for Geotechnical Site Characterization
ans Slope Stability Analysis. Hong Kong: Springer.
Chen, F. H., 2000. Soil Engineering: Testing. Design and Remediation. Florida: CRC Press LLC.
Clayton, C., Matthews, M. \& Simons, N., 1995. Site Investigation. Cambridge: Blackwell Science.
Eco-Shelter \& Environmental Consultants, 2019. Kabale University Master Plan Report 2019-2069,
Geotechnical Investigation Report, Kampala: ESEC.
Engineers, U. A. C. 0., 2001. Geotechnical Investigations, Engineering \& Design Mannual.
Washington, DC: US Army Corps of Engineers.
Herle, L., 2004. History of Geotechnical Engineering. TU Dresden: Institute of Geotechnical
Engineering.
Mayne, P., Christopher, B. \& DeJong , J., 2002. Subsurface Investigations-Geotechnical site
characterization. Washington, D.C.: Federal Highway Administration, US Department of
Transportation.
PBS, 2017. Geotechnical Engineering Report, Arlington: PBS Engineering and Environmental Inc.
Standards, B., 2004. Eurocode 7: Geotechnical design. 1 ed. UK: BSI.

38
Figure 7- column stands

39
Figure 8-Slab, beams and column layout

40
Figure 9-Foundation layout

41
Geometric Properties and Materials

Footing Materials
Concrete Material C20/25
Rebar Material Grade 410 (Type 2)

Geometric Properties
LX 1400.00 mm
LY 1400.00 mm
Height 300.00 mm
Taper Height 0.00 mm

Corner Stresses
Lower-Left Corner 91.3 kN/m2
Lower-Right Corner 89.0 kN/m2
Upper-Right Corner 98.1 kN/m2
Upper-Left Corner 100.4 kN/m2

Figure 10-Pad footing details

42
Figure 11-Reinforcement layout in the footing

Figure 12 -3D view of the reinforcement in the pad footing

43
Figure 13-Drawings and details of the footing

44
Figure 14 - for cassagranda Figure 15-Sample preparation for Atterberg
Limits tests by Sieving through a 425µm sieve

Figure 16 - DCP Value reading on the metallic

45