Acknowledgements

First and foremost, we would like to express our gratitude to our lecturer, Mr Deejaysing Jogee, for his

invaluable support and guidance during the conduction of the Geotechnical Engineering module, which

helped us to better grasp the practical aspects of soil mechanics.

Furthermore, we would like to pay a special tribute to all the Technicians of the Soil Mechanics

Laboratory, who guided us throughout the experiments carried out and enabled us to improve our

practical skills.

Finally, we would like to thank all those who have, directly or indirectly, helped us in conducting the

required experiments and in the writing of this group report.

Table of Contents

Preface .................................................................................................................................................... 1

1.0 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 2

2.0 Aim and objectives ........................................................................................................................... 2

2.1 Aim ............................................................................................................................................... 2

2.2 Objectives ..................................................................................................................................... 2

3.0 Literature Review .............................................................................................................................. 3

3.1 Weathering and soil formation ...................................................................................................... 3

3.2 Soil classification .......................................................................................................................... 3

3.3 Soils of Mauritius .......................................................................................................................... 4

3.4 Geology of site .............................................................................................................................. 4

4.0 Methodology ..................................................................................................................................... 6

4.1 Description of soil cut ................................................................................................................... 6

4.2 Field tests and sampling ................................................................................................................ 7

4.2.1 Sampling .................................................................................................................................... 8

4.3 Laboratory tests ............................................................................................................................. 8

4.3.1 Determination of moisture content ........................................................................................ 8

4.3.1.1 Apparatus ........................................................................................................................ 8

4.3.1.2 Test Procedures ............................................................................................................... 8

4.3.1.3 Health and Safety .......................................................................................................... 10

4.3.1.4 Precautions .................................................................................................................... 10

4.3.2 Determination of liquid limit ............................................................................................... 10

4.3.2.1 Apparatus ...................................................................................................................... 10

4.3.2.2 Soil sample preparation ................................................................................................. 11

4.3.2.3 Test Procedures ............................................................................................................. 11

4.3.2.4 Health and Safety .......................................................................................................... 12

4.3.2.4 Precautions .................................................................................................................... 12

4.3.3 Determination of plastic limit .............................................................................................. 12

4.3.3.1 Apparatus ...................................................................................................................... 12

4.3.3.2 Test Procedures ............................................................................................................. 13

4.3.3.3 Health and Safety .......................................................................................................... 13

4.3.3.4 Precautions .................................................................................................................... 13

5.0 Test Results ..................................................................................................................................... 14

5.1 Field test results .......................................................................................................................... 14

5.2 Laboratory test results ................................................................................................................. 16

5.2.1 Colour of different soil layers .............................................................................................. 16

5.2.2 Determination of moisture contents ..................................................................................... 17

5.2.3 Determination of liquid limit ............................................................................................... 17

5.2.4 Determination of plastic limit .............................................................................................. 17

4.0 Contribution of team members (ECSA ELO 8) .............................................................................. 18

4.1 Diary of activities ........................................................................................................................ 18

4.2 Summary ..................................................................................................................................... 18

4.3 Contribution of team members ................................................................................................... 20

References ............................................................................................................................................. 21

Appendix ............................................................................................................................................... 22

List of figures

Figure 1- Location of road cut. ............................................................................................................... 5

Figure 2 - Part of road cut. ...................................................................................................................... 6

Figure 3 - Quartering process.................................................................................................................. 9

Figure 4 - Samples in pans before drying. ............................................................................................ 10

Figure 5 - Penetrometer apparatus. ....................................................................................................... 11

Figure 6 - Crumbled threads of soil. ..................................................................................................... 13

Figure 7 - Granular structure of peds. ................................................................................................... 15

Figure 8 - Bottom layer. ........................................................................................................................ 16

Figure 9 - Soil Map of Mauritius (MSIRI, 1965).................................................................................. 22

List of tables

Table 1- Colour of different soil layers. ................................................................................................ 16

Table 2 - Data collection for the determination of moisture contents. .................................................. 17

Table 3 - Penetration results for the determination of liquid limit of the main strata. .......................... 17

Table 4 - Data collected for the determination of plastic limit of the main strata. ............................... 17

Table 5 - Diary of activities. ................................................................................................................. 18

Table 6 - Contribution of team members. ............................................................................................. 20

1 | P a g e

Preface

This document is a group report pertaining to the mini-project assigned to students from Level 2 of the

BEng (Hons) Civil Engineering programme related to the Geotechnical Engineering module. This

report has been written as a group and is not a complete one and should be read in conjunction with the

individual reports, to be submitted apart.

The sections covered in this group report include the following:

1. Introduction

2. Literature Review

3. Aims and objectives

4. Methodology

5. Test results

6. ECSA ELO 4 (partly)

7. ECSA ELO 8

The complementary sections, listed below, are found in the individual reports. They are:

1. Abstract

2. Data Analysis

3. Recommendations

4. Conclusion

5. ECSA ELO 4 (partly).

6. ECSA ELO 6.

2 | P a g e

1.0 Introduction

Soil essentially consists of mineral constituents, organic matter, water and air which takes different

forms on the earth surface or beneath depending on its origins, distribution patterns as well as the

different interactions occurring with time and compositional changes. The study of soil is important to

any civil engineer and is mostly evident from geotechnical investigations performed, during which the

engineering properties of soils are assessed before the design phase or during feasibility studies. Part of

this investigation requires the ability to describe the surficial and subsoils but to also classify the soils

according to an adopted standard.

As part of our geology module, the study of soil formation and classification was undertaken. For this

mini-project, we were tasked as a group of 4 students to select a cut within 3 m to 4 m. Both qualitative

and quantitative description of the soil horizons was required based on the British Standards.

2.0 Aim and objectives

2.1 Aim

The aim of this mini project is to understand the process of weathering and classify different soil sample

using simple field tests and laboratory tests.

2.2 Objectives

The objectives established were:

1. Identifying a cut meeting the height requirements.

2. Performing field tests on soil horizons.

3. Sampling of the horizons (or strata) and performing simple tests.

4. Providing a description of the cut based on the tests and producing a soil log.

3 | P a g e

3.0 Literature Review

3.1 Weathering and soil formation

Soils may be formed in place from rocks or formed in weathered rocks and minerals that have been

transported from where the original rock has occurred. Thus being said, the weathering of rocks can be

perceived as the main factor leading to the formation of different types of rocks.

Weathering, in this case, can be defined as the breaking down of rocks through contact with the Earths

atmosphere, its biota and waters. It can be classified into 2 main categories, namely:

1. Mechanical weathering.

2. Chemical weathering.

Mechanical weathering refers to the breakdown of rocks through direct contact with atmospheric

conditions such as heat, water and pressure. On the other hand, chemical weathering involves the

influence of atmospheric chemicals, such as acid rain, in the breakdown of rocks.

The material left over after the breakdown of rocks, together with naturally occurring organic material,

is thus called soil. The properties of the latter can be directly linked to the properties of the parent rock.

3.2 Soil classification

Soil classification refers to the grouping of soils within a similar range of properties (chemical, physical

and biological) into units that can be geo-referenced and mapped (Food and Agriculture Organization

of the UN, 2014).

Soil classification is of fundamental use to civil engineers, especially those involved in geotechnical

engineering design and construction. They classify soils according to their engineering properties. The

latter are then related to use for foundation support or building materials.

The classification of soils is not random and is done through scientific tests, which can vary in

complexity. These tests include field tests and laboratory tests. The field tests take place during site

exploration. These tests are mainly based on visual inspection and feel (Whitlow.R, 1995). Laboratory

tests can be more complex and involves the use of specific equipment to determine the variability and

geotechnical parameters of the soils. The ideal testing scheme to classify soils is to carry out in-situ

field tests instantly followed by laboratory tests. However, owing to constraints over time and economy,

this may not always be feasible.

Different soil classification systems have been developped to allow engineers to classify soils according

to different properties. Some of them include AASHTO Soil Classification System and United Soil

Classification System (Butler.E, 1990). They have been developped in such a way that there is a smooth

4 | P a g e

transition from field observation to basic predictions for soil properties. The conventions used by the

different systems do vary, albeit by little.

3.3 Soils of Mauritius

Mauritius originates entirely from volcanic formation except for its coral reefs, dunes and beaches along

the coast. The alluvial deposits in northwest and west of the island are thin. The volcanic deposits have

been classified into 4 periods of activity; emergence, older volcanic series, intermediate volcanic series

and younger volcanic series. The recent lava flows has given rise to rocky soils formed from rocks with

very porous lava. This has allowed the soil to present with different properties as compared to the soils

formed from older series rocks. The soil groups has been classified into 2 groups mainly: intrazonal and

azonal (Mauritius Sugar Industry Research Institute, 1965)

The zonal soils of Mauritius has been classifies into 3 main groups:

Low humic latosols

Humic latosols

Humic ferruginous latosols

The low humic latosols formed from the intermediate lava are deep soils containing a high amount of

organic matter. They have silty clays textures with about 80% clay content. They have red to brown

colour in the A horizon and red to reddish brown on the B horizon. The humic latosols were formed

from the intermediate lava flows. The soil is clay and do not show any variation in texture over different

horizons. The humic ferruginous latosols occur on the younger and older volcanic series.

Intrazonal soils were formed from the late lava flows and consists of latosolic soils and dark magnesium

clays.

3.4 Geology of site

The road cut investigated was found along the Terre-Rouge Verdun Trianon Link road. The road is

situated on the Central Plateau region and is located in the humid zone. From the Mauritius Hydrology

Data Book (2010), the mean annual rainfall is approximately 2400mm per year. As there was no

prominent land mark, the approximate position is shown in Figure 1.

5 | P a g e

Figure 1- Location of road cut.

Source: Google Images

From the MSIRI soil map (refer to appendix item A), the cut is found to lie in the region abbreviated

H2 which is also the soil group of Humic Latosols and further categorised as the Riche Bois soil.

However, the zone is close to the Belle Rive Humic Ferruginous Latosols and thus the soil may exhibit

transitional behaviour. According to the MSIRI, the Riche Bois soils have formed mostly from the

Intermediate lavas in the humid zones or higher (i.e. 1750mm to 3750mm). These soils are moderately

weathered.

The main characteristics of the Riche Bois soil are the reddish-brown colour of the soils due to the

relatively high concentrations of iron and aluminium oxides. The soil typically behaves as silty clays

and boundaries of horizons are usually gradual. The Riche Bois soils are transitional to the Humic

Ferruginous Latosols.

6 | P a g e

4.0 Methodology

4.1 Description of soil cut

Figure 2.0 shows part of the cut considered.

Figure 2 - Part of road cut.

The cut was investigated on Monday, the 24th of November 2014. The weather was clouded but there

was no rain.

The road cut stretched continuously for nearly 100 m along the road. The cut had a height on average

3.6 m. The slope was about 30o and the surface was straight throughout. Faded vertical mechanical

marks were visible.

The cut was also stepped as seen from Figure 2.0. One of the horizons, namely the bottom horizon lied

below the stepped region and had a nearly vertical surface.

Vegetation was present, mostly shrubs and wild plants on the topsoil layer. Some small grasses and

plants were also present on the step region. At discrete sections along the length of the cut, small extents

of colluvium was observed.

7 | P a g e

4.2 Field tests and sampling

Field tests were carried out for all of the horizons. The equipments used were mainly a trowel and a

knife. The samples were removed at thicknesses where the horizons were judged to have changed.

The field tests performed relied mainly on the observers sense of touch and sight. They were carried

out as follows:

1. Dilatancy test

Most of the soil samples were dry. Some water was added to sufficiently moisten the soil being

held in one hand. The sample was then patted using the other hand. The presence of any water

on the surface was noted and the soil was again pressed. The water was observed again. This

field test determined whether silt is present.

2. Consistency test on in-situ soil

The soils were mostly dry or moist. A small ped from the horizon was broken using the thumb

and forefinger. The amount of force required was qualitatively recorded (ex: soft ped,

moderately hard ped, or very hard ped). This test allows a rough estimate of the clay content.

For dry peds, the harder the dry ped, there is a possibility of higher clay content. For moist peds,

the same outcome as for dry peds is expected but cohesion of the soil was noted if any, thus

indicating the presence of clay.

3. Observation of soil features

The soil cut was evaluated as a whole and some criteria were assessed namely:

The boundaries of horizons.

Secondary features such as precipitations, illuviation and other anomalies

The soil structure of the peds from the different horizons.

Estimation of moisture content roughly by touch and sight and categorising as wet,

moist or dry.

The types of roots and the approximate amount present.

Smelling for any odour indicating organic content.

Colour changes could not be mapped on-site due to the unavailability of a Munsell chart. This was

however done by using the dry sample in the laboratory.

8 | P a g e

4.2.1 Sampling

For the sampling process, about 1.5 kg from all horizons other than the main horizon were taken using

a trowel. However, peds from the surface were not taken as these appeared coated in clay. The samples

were loosened using the trowel and placed quickly in polyethene bag which was also quickly closed.

Care was taken to remove any air and the top was carefully folded on itself to avoid moisture loss. They

were labelled using permanent markers.

The same sampling was performed for the main strata but about 5 kg was collected since more tests

would be performed. The sample was placed in a larger and stiffer bag so as not to rupture.

4.3 Laboratory tests

Other than simple field tests, simple laboratory tests were performed to provide a more definitive

description based on subsequent data acquired and the tests were used to determine:

1. The moisture content for all the horizons or strata.

2. The Atterberg limits for the thickest strata (also the middle strata) including the determination

of the liquid limit by the cone penetrometer and the plastic limit.

4.3.1 Determination of moisture content

The moisture content of the soil was determined by the oven-drying method using the experimental

procedures and guidelines given by BS 1377: Part 2: 1990.

4.3.1.1 Apparatus

Drying Oven capable of maintaining a temperature of 105C to 110C.

Metal container

Electronic balance (readable to 0.01g)

Scoop

Trowel

Flat glass plate.

4.3.1.2 Test Procedures

1. The soil sample from one of the plastic bag corresponding to a particular stratum was placed

on a flat horizontal glass plate.

In order to obtain a representative sample of the soil in the required quantity, the process of

quartering was carried out.

9 | P a g e

2. The soil sample was mixed and piled on the flat glass plate using the scoop. Each scoopful of

soil was placed on top of the pile until the soil was uniformly distributed.

3. The soil was then flatten with a trowel giving it a circular shape.

4. Using a trowel the soil sample was first divided into two equal portion. Then the soil sample

was divided into 4 equal portions by separating the soil perpendicular to the line of the first

division.

5. Two diagonally opposite portion was discarded.

6. The soil sample was mixed again and the quartering process was repeated until about 30g of

soil sample is obtained.

7. Three clean dry metal containers were weighed on the electronic balance. The reference number

of the metal containers were noted.

8. The metal containers were filled with the soil sample and their respective weights were found.

9. The metal containers with the soil sample were then placed in a drying oven at a temperature

of 105C to 110C for 24 hours.

10. The whole procedure was repeated for the other soil samples.

11. After 24 hours the weight of each metal container was obtained and noted.

Figure 3 - Quartering process.

10 | P a g e

Figure 4 - Samples in pans before drying.

4.3.1.3 Health and Safety

Use of heat proof gloves when placing and removing the metal container from the hot drying

oven.

Use of face mask to avoid inhaling the fine soil particles.

4.3.1.4 Precautions

The metal containers were filled completely with the soil sample to avoid loss of mass during

transportation.

The metal containers were allowed to cool before weighing.

4.3.2 Determination of liquid limit

For the determination of the liquid limit, a soil sample from the thickest stratum was taken. The liquid

limit was then determined by the cone penetrometer method.

4.3.2.1 Apparatus

Cone penetrometer

Palette knives

Glass plate

425m sieve

Metal cup

Watch

Dryer

11 | P a g e

Drying oven.

4.3.2.2 Soil sample preparation

1. The soil sample was placed on the flat glass plate and the quartering process was carried out in

order to obtain a representative sample of about 500g. Since the soil did not have high moisture

content, it did not require any air drying.

2. Any coarse particle present, which was expected to be retained on a 425 test sieve, was

removed by hand. The soil sample contained particles that had been stuck together forming

large masses and hence, they were ground using the mortar and pestle to form finer particles.

3. The clean dry retaining pan of a test sieve was weighed. The soil sample was then placed on a

425 test sieve and the sample was shaked until the amount of soil passing was about 300g.

The weighted of the sieved specimen was obtained.

4. The sieved sample of soil was placed on the glass plate and was thoroughly mixed with distilled

water until a homogenous paste was obtained.

5. The paste was allowed to stand in an air tight container for 24 hours.

4.3.2.3 Test Procedures

1. The soil sample was remixed for 10 minutes and then it was placed in the metal cup using the

palette knives taking care to avoid any entrapped air.

2. The emerging excess soil at top of the cup was removed by swiping it off to give a smooth flat

horizontal surface.

3. The cup was placed on the base of the stand.

4. The steel cone was wiped and lowered until it just touched the surface of the soil.

Figure 5 - Penetrometer apparatus.

12 | P a g e

5. The cone was locked in position and the dial gauge was lowered to the locked position of the

cone shaft. The dial reading was set to zero.

6. The cone was released for 5 seconds and then it was locked again in its new position. The dial

reading was taken after lowering the gauge to the displaced position of the cone shaft.

7. The difference between the two dial readings gave the penetration of the cone in mm.

8. The whole procedure is repeated using same sample of soil and an average value was found.

9. The moisture content of the sample was found using the oven-drying method.

10. The moisture content of the soil sample was altered by adding a little water and the whole

experiment is repeated for soil samples with 7 different moisture content.

4.3.2.4 Health and Safety

Heat proof gloves were used when placing and removing the metal container from the hot

drying oven.

Care was taken while handling the metal cup due to its sharp edges.

The steel cone was avoided from being touched while cleaning due to its pointed apex.

4.3.2.4 Precautions

The steel cone was cleaned before each experiment since it would not penetrate the soil if it

was dirty due to friction and it would slip further into the soil if it is wet.

The spreading of the soil sample was avoided over the glass plate while conducting the

penetrometer test since this would cause evaporation of water hence change in moisture content.

After the addition of water the soil sample was done carefully and properly to ensure uniform

distribution of the water.

4.3.3 Determination of plastic limit

The plastic limit was determined using the soil sample prepared to find the liquid limit as discussed in

the previous section.

4.3.3.1 Apparatus

1. Glass plate

2. Palette knife

3. Drying oven

4. Weighing pan

5. No 36 BS test sieve

13 | P a g e

4.3.3.2 Test Procedures

1. About 25 g of the prepared soil sample was placed on a flat glass plate and the paste was

thoroughly mixed with distilled water.

2. Using about 8 g of the prepared soil sample, the paste was rolled into a ball within the palm of

the hand.

3. The spherical paste was then rolled on the glass plate into long thread of about 3.125 (one eighth

of an inch) mm by applying a light pressure.

4. The paste was rolled again until the 3.125 mm thread began to crumble.

5. The thread was placed in a moisture content tin and the tin was placed in a drying oven for 24

hours to find the moisture content of the soil.

6. The whole procedure was repeated the remaining portion of soil.

7. After 24 hours an average value for the moisture content was found and was reported as the

plastic limit.

Figure 6 - Crumbled threads of soil.

4.3.3.3 Health and Safety

Gloves had to be used to roll the soil paste.

Heat proof gloves were used when placing and removing the metal container from the hot

drying oven.

4.3.3.4 Precautions

The rolling of the prepared soil sample was done on a clean glass plate to avoid any external

impurity causing the soil crumbling which would have led to biased results.

It was ensured that the hands of the experimenter carrying out the thread rolling process were

moderately humid to ensure that the crumbling did not occur due to friction only.

14 | P a g e

5.0 Test Results

5.1 Field test results

Four horizons were identified from top to bottom as follows:

(i) Topsoil layer

This horizon had the lowest depth compared to the other horizons of about 0.3 m on average. The soil

was mostly fine but contained many randomly scattered stones, the latter being mostly gravels and some

cobbles in a slightly weathered state. The soil was in disturbed condition as some region parts showed

soil accumulation and uprooted plants.

The soil structure consisted mostly of concretions which were dry to the touch. The horizon contained

many roots of varying sizes possibly from the wild shrubs and grass growing on the soil. The soil also

gave a moderate odour indicating the presence of organic matter. The boundary of this horizon was a

clear horizontal plane and was accentuated by the colour change with respect to the next horizon.

Furthermore, the dilatancy test showed that water no apparent quick reaction indicating low silt content.

It required ample force to crush a dry sample. A moist sample could be penetrated with relative ease

when using the thumb.

(ii) Main strata

The horizon was found to be the thickest out of the four with a thickness on average 1.8 m. The boundary

to the adjacent lower horizon was gradual and not as distinct as with the topsoil. In some places, the

boundary appeared inclined sloping downwards.

The peds from this horizon appeared weakly developed and broke on removal with the trowel. The

surface of the horizon contained illuvial deposits possibly by rain as the surface peds were covered with

clay. Some cracks were visible on the surface of this horizon. There was some black deposit or mottling

on the surface (see Figure 2.0). Roots were absent.

The dilatancy test showed a moderately quick reaction indicating the presence of silt. A dry ped from

the horizon could be broken with relative ease into powder indicating lower clay proportion.

(iii) Third horizon (Red soil)

The third horizon was nearly as thick as the main strata but of a thickness varying from 0.9 m to 1 m.

The boundary of this horizon with respect to the main strata was gradual and sometimes even

discontinuous. The horizon was coated in clayey illuvium and the soil just beneath was considerably

red in colour.

15 | P a g e

This horizon also contained several rocks outcrops which were in a state of weathering; partially

weathered rocks with some only slightly weathered. The surface of the horizon contained about 30% of

rocks by visual inspection. The structure of the peds was mostly granular as indicated by figure 3.0 and

roots were not present.

The soil itself was fine grained by observation and felt only slightly moist. The peds were removed

fairly easily using the trowel. The test for dilatancy showed a slow reaction. A dry ped was slightly hard

to break.

Figure 7 - Granular structure of peds.

(iv) Bottom horizon

The bottom-most horizon was separated from the third horizon by a step region. It was adjacent to a

side ditch. The horizon was about 0.5m thick on average. The horizon appeared to have parent rocks

which were in a state of weathering. About 10 cm from the top contained some soil peds. These peds

had a blocky structure as is evident from figure 4.0 and were moist. Very little to no roots were observed.

The peds were densely packed and requiring much effort for removal using the trowel.

Dilatancy test could not be performed as the soil peds were hard, even when moistened. The dry peds

were very hard and could not be broken using finger pressure.

16 | P a g e

Figure 8 - Bottom layer.

5.2 Laboratory test results

5.2.1 Colour of different soil layers

Table 1- Colour of different soil layers.

Soil origin Reference no. on pan Munsell colour: Reference

Red soil (Third Horizon) 129,132,140 Yellowish red: 5YR 4/6

Bottom horizon 26,71,32 Dark yellowish brown: 10YR

4/6

Main strata (second layer) 130,141,186 Strong Brown: 7.5YR 4/6

Topsoil 192,183,11 Yellowish brown: 10YR 5/6

17 | P a g e

5.2.2 Determination of moisture contents

Table 2 - Data collection for the determination of moisture contents.

Soil layer

Pan reference

number

Mass of pan

/ g

Mass of wet soil +

pan / g

Mass of dry soil +

pan / g

Top soil 192 18.47 61.25 55.85

183 18.78 76.55 69.19

11 15.45 41.82 38.52

Red soil 132 17.98 66.84 60.07

140 18.9 68.57 61.57

129 17.69 54.14 48.9

Bottom

layer 71 15.58 56.83 43.33

32 15.93 48.75 37.75

26 15.38 57.33 43.88

Main

strata 186 9.67 68.31 58.64

141 18.36 72.34 63.2

130 19.17 68.26 60.4

5.2.3 Determination of liquid limit

Table 3 - Penetration results for the determination of liquid limit of the main strata.

Moisture content reference number

Mass of pan / g

Mass of pan + wet soil / g

Mass of pan + dry soil / g

Penetration 1 /mm

Penetration 2 / mm

1 18.28 29.63 25.88 13.5 13.5

2 15.19 17.85 16.96 14 14.1

3 18.46 26.02 23.48 15.4 15.6

4 18.94 36.21 30.40 16.6 16.9

5 15.83 18.81 17.80 19.6 19.7

6 18.03 35.58 29.36 22.4 22.8

7 15.52 22.37 19.91 25.2 25.5

5.2.4 Determination of plastic limit

Table 4 - Data collected for the determination of plastic limit of the main strata.

Pan reference number

weight of empty tin/g

weight of tin + wet crumbled soil threads/g

weight of tin + dry crumbled soil threads/g

94 15.04 15.79 15.58

14 15.12 15.91 15.68

52 15.38 16.4 16.09

18 | P a g e

4.0 Contribution of team members (ECSA ELO 8)

4.1 Diary of activities

The following table illustrates the activities of the group conducted for this mini-project.

Table 5 - Diary of activities.

Date Description of activity / activities

24/11/2014 Reconnaissance of site at Verdun and selection of soil cut.

25/11/2014 Collection of soil samples from selected soil cut.

25/11/2014 Field tests on selected soil samples.

26/11/2014

Laboratory tests - Determination of moisture content and preparation of soil

sample for further tests.

1/12/2014 Laboratory tests - Determination of liquid and plastic limit.

2/12/2014 Laboratory tests - Collection of data for dried soil samples.

06 - 11/ 12/ 2014 Effective writing of Group Report

It is to be noted that all effective writings and other written works pertaining to the report was done as

a group and there were regular group meetings to evaluate the progress of the report.

4.2 Summary

To complete this report within the given time frame, a strategic plan needed to be adopted by all team

members to ensure that the work progressed as smoothly as possible and to ensure that everybody are

on the same page whenever an activity has been carried out. A flow diagram of the adopted strategic

plan is shown on the following page.

19 | P a g e

Reconnaissance of site at Verdun

Literature Review

and Methodology

Discussion of report

outline

Field test conducted and

collection of soil sample by one

team member for each strata

Laboratory test conducted by

different team member for each

experiment

Reporting of results for Field

tests

Reporting of results for

Laboratory test

Division of tasks for effective

writing of group report

Effective writing of the different

part of report as assigned

Is previous writing for each

team member satisfactory?

Carry out further

research on the

geology of the site

Compilation of the group

report as required for the

final report structure

Yes

No

20 | P a g e

4.3 Contribution of team members

Each and every section of this report has been discussed with each team member. However, the

structured writing of each discussed section has been carried out by different members and evaluated

later on. The following table shows the contribution of each member.

Table 6 - Contribution of team members.

Section Sub-Section Contributing members

Abstract Busawon Heetendr

Introduction Veeramah Avinaash

Aims &

Objectives Aims Lubrun Veeresh

Objectives Tirouvalen Appasamy

Literature

Review Weathering Veeramah Avinaash

Soil Classification Lubrun Veeresh

Soils of Mauritius Busawon Heetendr

Geology of site

Busawon Heetendr & Lubrun

Veeresh

Methodology

Description of cut

soil strata Veeramah Avinaash

Field tests and

Sampling

Busawon Heetendr &

Tirouvalen Appasamy

Laboratory tests

Determination of

moisture contents Veeramah Avinaash

Determination of liquid

limit Lubrun Veeresh

Determination of plastic

limit Busawon Heetendr

Test Results Field test results Tirouvalen Appasamy

Laboratory test

results

Colour of different soil

layers Tirouvalen Appasamy

Determination of

moisture contents Lubrun Veeresh

Determination of liquid

limit Veeramah Avinaash

Determination of plastic

limit Busawon Heetendr

Conclusion All team members

21 | P a g e

References

1. Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (2010), Soil Classification, [Online],

Available at: http://www.fao.org/soils-portal/soil-survey/soil-classification/en/, Accessed on

09.12.2014.

2. Whitlow.R (1995), Basics Soil Mechanics, 3rd Edition, Ch. 1, p. 16-18.,Longman Publishers,

London, United Kingdom.

3. Lutgens.T (2009), Essential of Geology, 11th Edition, Ch. 5, p. 125-131, Pearson Education,

United States of America.

4. Mauritius Sugar Industry Research Institute (1965), Soil Map of Mauritius Provisional

Classification.

5. Butler. E (1990), Soil Classification for Soil Survey, Oxford Science Publications, Oxford,

United Kingdom.

6. Terzarghi. K (1964), Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice, 3rd Edition, Wiley-Interscience

Publications, United States of America.

7. Cline.M.G (1963), Logic of the new system of soil classification, p. 17-32.

8. Waugh, David (2000), Geography: an integrated approach, 3rd Edition, p. 272. Gloucester,

U.K.

9. British Standard 1377 Part 2: 1990 (1996), Methods of tests for soil for Civil Engineering,

British Standard Institution, London, United Kingdom.

10. University of Mauritius (1988), Soil Mechanics Laboratory Sheets, Department of

Civil Engineering, School of Industrial Technology.

22 | P a g e

Appendix

Item 1 - Soil Map of Mauritius (MSIRI, 1965)

Figure 9 - Soil Map of Mauritius (MSIRI, 1965).