KWAME NKRUMAH UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

RESISTIVITY OF USED OIL CONTAMINATED CLAY-SAND MIXTURES WITH

HIGH CLAY CONTENT

A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for a Degree in B.Sc. Hons. Civil

Engineering

SUBMITTED BY: FLORENCE-JOY AYEH

SUPERVISORS: PROF. SIK AMPADU

DR. F OWUSU-NIMO

MAY 2015
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I am eternally grateful to God for the grace given me to undertake this study. I am thankful to my

supervisors, Prof S. I. K. Ampadu and Dr. F. Owusu-Nimo, for their guidance and support and

for giving me the zeal to carry out this work. I appreciate the immense support of Ing. Felix Jojo

Ayeh, and Mr. Daniel Manu in all aspects of this project. I would also like to express my

gratitude to Mr. Gilbert Fiadzoe, Mr. Augustine Lawer and Mr. Michael Owusu for making my

time in the Soil Laboratory a very memorable and enjoyable one. I am also thankful to all my

colleagues in the Geo-group for their friendship, help and for sharing in the joys and frustrations

of this project. My utmost thanks go to my family for encouraging me throughout my entire life.

To everybody who helped me in one way or the other during the period of this project, I say a

big thank you.

II
 ABSTRACT

The electrical resistivity of soil depends on various factors including the clay content, pore fluid

content, pore structure and chemical content. The presence of used oil in the soil alters the

moisture content and chemical content of the soil and hence its resistivity. Laboratory tests were

undertaken to determine the electrical resistivity of clay-sand mixtures with high clay contents.

The samples were prepared by mixing clay and sand to obtain mixtures with 14%, 16% and 20%

clay contents. Each of the clay contents was contaminated with used motor oil at various

percentages (0%, 1%, 2%, 4%, 6%, 8%, 10% 12% and 16%) and left to equilibrate for twenty-

four (24) hours. The electrical resistivity of the different mixtures was determined using a

resistivity soil box. The results indicated that the electrical resistivity was almost constant for oil

contents between 0% and 2%. After 2%, the resistivity reduces for oil contents up to 10% and

then increases till 16% oil content.

III
Table of Contents

DECLARATION ............................................................................................................................. I
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ..............................................................................................................II
ABSTRACT.................................................................................................................................. III
1 Introduction.......................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Background................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Objectives ..................................................................................................................... 2
1.3 Justification................................................................................................................... 2
1.4 Scope ............................................................................................................................ 3
2 Literature review .................................................................................................................. 4
2.1 Electrical Resistivity..................................................................................................... 4
2.2 Used Oil........................................................................................................................ 7
2.2.1 Composition of Used Motor Oil ........................................................................... 8
2.2.2 Used Motor Oil in Soil ........................................................................................ 10
2.3 Compaction and Used Oil........................................................................................... 12
3 Methodology ...................................................................................................................... 13
3.1 Sample preparation ..................................................................................................... 13
3.2 Laboratory tests .......................................................................................................... 16
3.2.1 Particle Size Distribution (Wet Sieving Method) ............................................... 16
3.2.2 Particle Size Distribution (Hydrometer Method) ................................................ 17
3.2.3 Particle Density (Sand)........................................................................................ 19
3.2.4 Particle Density (Clay) ........................................................................................ 20
3.2.5 Atterberg Limit Tests .......................................................................................... 21
3.2.6 Compaction ......................................................................................................... 24
3.2.7 Electrical Resistivity ........................................................................................... 26
4 Discussion of Results......................................................................................................... 28
4.1 Characterisation .......................................................................................................... 28
4.2 Compaction Test Results ............................................................................................ 31
4.3 Electrical resistivity .................................................................................................... 32
5 Conclusions and Recommendations .................................................................................. 39
5.1 Conclusions ................................................................................................................ 39
 5.2 Recommendation ........................................................................................................ 39
REFERENCES ........................................................................................................40
APPENDICES .........................................................................................................43
 LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Physical properties of used oil (courtesy ROSE Foundation) ......................................................... 9

Table 2 Composition of metals in used oil (courtesy ROSE Foundation) ..................................................10
Table 3 Proportions of sand and clay used for the compaction test ...........................................................14
Table 4 Proportions of sand, clay and used motor oil that were used for the resistivity tests....................14
Table 5 Summary of characteristics of sand and clay samples .................................................................. 30
Table 6 Summary of maximum dry densities and optimum moisture contents ........................................... 32
Table 7 Specific gravity ..............................................................................................................................43
Table 8 Particle size distribution................................................................................................................44
Table 9 Atterberg limits ..............................................................................................................................45
Table 10 Compaction.................................................................................................................................. 46
Table 11 Resistivity ..................................................................................................................................... 49

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Relationship between resistivity and water content (Golam 2011)................................................ 7

Figure 2 Compaction curves for samples with different oil contents (Al-Sanad et al (1995)......................12
Figure 3 Performing specific gravity test on clay using kerosene..............................................................20
Figure 4 Performing specific gravity test on clay using water................................................................... 21
Figure 5 Compacting the clay-sand mixtures using the vibrating machine ...............................................24
Figure 6 Performing the electrical resistivity test ......................................................................................27
Figure 7 Particle size distribution of sand sample .....................................................................................28
Figure 8 Particle size distribution of clay sample ........................................................................................29
Figure 9 Moisture content-dry density relationship for 14%, 16% and 20% clay contents.........................31
Figure 10 Graph of resistivity against oil content before water was added...............................................33
Figure 11 Graph of resistivity against oil content after water was added .................................................35
Figure 12 Resistivity against oil content for 14% clay content before and after water was added............ 36
Figure 13 Resistivity against oil content for 16% clay content before and after water was added............ 37
Figure 14 Resistivity against oil content for 20% clay content before and after water was added............ 37
Figure 15 compaction curves......................................................................................................................48
 CHAPTER 1

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

Used oil refers to any petroleum-based or synthetic oil that has been used, and as a result has

become unsuitable for its original use due to the presence of physical and chemical impurities

(US EPA, 2014). Products that can be referred to as used oil after they have been used

include hydraulic oil, transmission oil, brake fluid and motor oil.

Disposal of used oil is a major issue in the environment today. In developed countries,

companies are coerced to collect and treat their used oil systematically due to the presence of

laws that protect the environment and human health. However in Africa, 61% of used oil is

disposed into the environment, 25% is used as or incorporated into fuels and 2% is scattered

across tracks and swamps. These often infiltrate into the soil and pollute groundwater (CBC,

2005). In most developing countries, used oil is classified as hazardous waste and must be

disposed of as such; but management of hazardous materials is not awarded concern in these

countries. This is shown by the absence of collection systems and the lack of adequate

treatment plants and disposal sites for hazardous waste, especially waste in liquid form

(Speight and Exall, 2014).

Most emphasis on used oil contamination on the environment has been on surface and ground

water pollution, plants and animals; with little or no attention paid to the engineering

properties of the contaminated soil. However when used oil comes into contact with the soil it

modifies the engineering properties of the soil.

1
1.2 Objectives

The main objective of this study is to investigate how the resistivity of used oil contaminated

soil varies with high clay content and the effect of degree of contamination. The specific

objectives would be to:

 Characterize the sand and clay samples independently.

 Obtain the relationship between the resistivity, oil content and clay content of used oil

contaminated clay-sand mixtures.

1.3 Justification

The resistivity of a soil is a measure of its resistance to electrical current. The electrical

properties of soil depends on various factors including the clay content, pore fluid content,

pore structure and chemical content. The presence of used oil in the soil alters the moisture

content and chemical content of the soil and hence its resistivity.

Resistivity is used to determine the susceptibility of underground structures, such as buried

pipelines and other steel structures, to corrosion. Resistivity data is converted into corrosivity

factors, which are integrated into the design of effective cathodic protection measures

(Chauvin Arnoux Inc., 2002). The resistivity of a soil is inversely proportional to the

corrosion activity and thus determines the protective treatment to be used. High resistivity

soils are generally not as corrosive as low resistivity soils. The resistivity of the soil is one of

many factors that influence the service life of a buried structure. It may affect the material

selection and the location of a structure. Soil resistivity is of particular importance and

interest in the corrosion process because it is basic in the analysis of corrosion problems and

the design of corrective measure (ASTM, 2015).

2
Soil resistivity is a vital element in the design of grounding systems. It determines what the

resistance of a grounding electrode will be, and the depth to which it must be driven into the

soil to obtain low ground resistance. In the design of such systems it is advisable to locate the

area of lowest soil resistivity in order to achieve the most economical grounding installation

(Chauvin Arnoux Inc., 2002).

Since it has been established that the presence of used oil modifies the properties of the soil,

it is imperative to determine the effect it has on soil resistivity.

1.4 Scope

The geotechnical property of interest in this study is soil electrical resistivity. No field tests

were undertaken; all tests were carried out in the laboratory. Clay soil from Mfensi was used.

The clay was mixed with dry sand to obtain mixtures with 14%, 16% and 20% clay content.

For each of the clay contents the mixtures were contaminated with 0%, 1%, 2%, 4%, 6%,

8%, 10% 12% and 16% used oil content and prepared at the optimum moisture content.

3
 CHAPTER 2

2 LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Electrical Resistivity

Electrical resistivity is that property of a material which indicates how well the material

impedes electrical conduction. Resistivity relates electrical potential and current to the

geometrical dimension of the specified region. It is the reciprocal of conductivity. Electrical

conduction takes place due to the movement of charges. Charges are displaced from the

original equilibrium condition under the application of electric potential.

Resistivity can be defined by considering current flow through a cylindrical section with

cross sectional area A, and length, L. If current I, is passed through the section which has a

resistance R, and a potential drop V, then the resistivity of the cylindrical section, ρ, can be

expressed by the following equation:

Where, ρ is the electrical resistivity; R is the resistance of the material (which is = ); A is the

cross sectional area, and L is the length of the cylindrical section. V is the potential and I is

the current.

Lamotte et al. (1994) studied two sand samples with similar composition but very different

electrical resistivity values. One sand sample had a few clay micro aggregates juxtaposed to

the sand grains and showed the highest resistivity. In the other soil which had lower

resistivity, the sand grains were coated and bridged by clay, leading to a continuity of the clay

phase.
4
Fukue et al., (1999) stated that the electrical conductivity was related to the particle size by

the charge density on the surface of the solid particles. In clay soils these charges lead to a

greater electrical conductivity than in coarse textured soils because of the magnitude of the

specific surface. Since resistivity is the inverse of electrical conductivity, it can thus be

inferred that fine textured soils have a relatively lower electrical resistivity than coarse

textured soils. This affirms the work done by Lamotte et al. in 1994.

Electrical conduction in porous media like soil generally occurs by the movement of ions

through electrolytic pore water in the soil voids and the surface charge of the soil particles

(Bryson, 2005). Ions can be displaced under the application of electrical potential through the

pores in the presence of electrolytic water. However, electrical conductivity depends on pore

fluid conductivity as well as surface charge in clay soils (cited by Golam 2011).

Bryson & Bathe (2009) stated that the electrical conduction in clean sands occurs almost

exclusively in the pore fluid, which is called electrolytic conduction, while in clays it occurs

in the pores and at the interface between the soil particles and the pore water, and is called

surface conductivity. Surface conduction also occurs through the grain-to-grain contacts of

contiguous soil particles in soils containing sizable percentages of fines (cited by Yamasaki et

al. 2013).

Generally clay particles have a net negative charge; thus they are attracted by cations. In dry

clay, adsorbed cations are tightly held by the negative charge of the clay particles. After

neutralizing the net negative charges of the clay particles, excess cations remain as salt

precipitates. In the presence of water, these precipitated salts are released into the soil-water

solution and produce a high concentration of cations around the solid particles. When

5
moisture content increases from air dry to full saturation, adsorbed ions in the solid particles

are released. Thus, the mobility of electrical charges increases with an increase in moisture

content. Free electrical charges cause a decrease in electrical resistivity under the application

of an electric field. (Rinaldi and Cuestas, 2002).

Golam (2011) showed that the average rate of reduction in soil resistivity of clay soil was

13.8Ohm-m/percent moisture content for the increase of moisture from 10% to 20%; and that

soil resistivity was almost constant after 40% moisture content. He attributed this to the fact

that enhanced electrical conduction due to the presence of moisture might cause the reduction

in soil resistivity with the increase of moisture. The soil resistivity test was also conducted on

the clay in its dry state to identify the influence of the surface charge of clay in the absence of

moisture. He observed that there was no flow of current through the soil in the dry state and

thus, concluded that the soil samples behaved as a dielectric material in the absence of

moisture. Figure 1 below shows his results for the variation of the resistivity of clay soil with

moisture content.

6
Figure 1 Relationship between resistivity and water content (Golam 2011)

2.2 Used Oil

The massive crude-oil pollution of the sea has resulted in extensive research on hydrocarbon

biodegradation and its effects on the environment, which have been reviewed many times.

However, pollution due to used motor oil has not received the same attention. As a result, few

studies exist that address the geotechnical properties of used oil contaminated soils; because

less emphasis has been placed on the effect of used oil contamination on the soil structure of

the contaminated land.

Oil contamination on water is relatively easy to collect and remedy. When soils are

contaminated with oil, the process takes much longer to remediate and there may be

significant environmental and engineering effects. Thus, it is important to investigate the

properties of oil-contaminated soils (Jia, 2011).

7
2.2.1 Composition of Used Motor Oil

The chemical composition of lubricating oils depends on the original crude oil, the processes

used during refining, the type and efficiency of engine the oil is lubricating, the fuel

combustion products, the additives added to the fuel and to the original oil, and the length of

time that the oil remains in the engine. During motor operation, the high temperatures and

mechanic strains that the oil is subjected to initiate chemical processes such as oxidation,

nitration, cracking of polymers and decomposition of organometallic compounds. These

bring about changes in the composition of the lubricating oils.

In addition to that, motor oil accumulates different contaminants, such as fuel (petrol or

diesel), water, antifreeze and insoluble particles which principally originate from atmospheric

dust, metals, metal oxides and combustion products.

Used motor oil is a complex mixture of paraffinic, naphthenic and aromatic petroleum

hydrocarbons that may contain one or more of the following: carbon deposits, sludge,

aromatic and non-aromatic solvents, water (as a water-in-oil emulsion), glycols, wear metals

and metallic salts, silicon-based antifoaming compounds, fuels, polycyclic aromatic

hydrocarbons (PCAH’s) and miscellaneous lubricating oil additive materials. The oil is

typically 73-80% weight/weight aliphatic hydrocarbons (primarily alkanes and cycloalkanes

with l-6 rings); 11-15% monoaromatic hydrocarbons; 2-5% diaromatic hydrocarbons; and 4-

8% polyaromatic hydrocarbons (Vasquez-Duhalt 1989). The lubrication additives, which are

approximately 20% of the oil, consist primarily of zinc diaryl, molybdenum disulfide, zinc

dithiophosphate, metal soaps, and other organometallic compounds. Detergents and

dispersants constitute 2-15% of the additives.

8
The concentration of metals in lubricating oils increases with motor operating time and the

amount depends on the type of fuel and the mechanical condition of the engine. The tables

below summarise the physical properties and elemental composition of used oil. It represents

an average taken from a range of typical values. (Vazquez-Duhalt, 1989, MSDS ROSE

Foundation).

Table 1 Physical properties of used oil (courtesy ROSE Foundation)

Colour Black

Physical state Liquid

Density at 20oC ASTM D 4052 kg/L Varies, usually around 0.9

Odour Oily/Oxidised

Flash Point (PMCC) ASTM D 93 °C >60.5 (lower if contaminated with fuel or solvent)

Solubility in Water Mass @ 20C Varies, usually <0.1%

Viscosity at 40°C ASTM D 445 +/-80

mm2/s

Water ASTM D95 % +/- 10

Ash ASTM D482 % 1.0

Fuel Solvents ASTM D322 % >3.5

9
Table 2 Composition of metals in used oil (courtesy ROSE Foundation)

Metal Ppm (mg/l)

Sulphur (S) 8000

Calcium (Ca) 1200

Zinc (Zn) 650

Lead (Pb) 40

Phosphorous (P) 600

Iron (Fe) 100

Magnesium (Mg) 65

Sodium (Na) 55

Silicon (Si) 40

Boron (B) 40

Manganese (Mn) 10

Copper (Cu) 40

Molybdenum (Mo) 15

Aluminium (Al) 15

Tin, Chromium, Barium, Nickel, Vanadium <5

2.2.2 Used Motor Oil in Soil

Used oil can be dispersed into the soil in four different ways: escape and loss of oil during

motor operation or motor oil change; during application on rural roads for dust control;

10
during asphalting with asphalt-containing waste crankcase oil; and, finally, when it is placed

directly in a landfill.

Generally, hydrocarbons are more viscous than water and so move relatively slower in

groundwater. They may then clog the pores of the soil, leading to a decrease in pore volume

and a subsequent reduction in hydraulic conductivity of contaminated soils (Khamehchiyan et

al. 2007), and hence, an increase in its resistivity.

Research has shown that oil contamination might affect the stability and permeability of

compacted clay in landfill sites; and oil leaks might cause expansion or contraction of the soil

on which pipelines are laid (Rahman et al., 2010b). It may also lead to changes in soil

properties, resulting in improvement or degradation of the engineering characteristics of soil

and sometimes leading to functional or structural failure of structures. Any change in

engineering properties or behaviour of soil strata may lead to loss of bearing capacity and an

increase in total or differential settlement of foundation systems of a structure (Rehman, et

al., 2007). Modification of soil properties can then cause or worsen various geotechnical

problems such as landslides, ground subsidence, settlement, erosion, progressive failure,

underground structural stability, foundation durability and corrosion (Shin et al., 1997; Sunil

et al., 2009 and Rahman et al., 2010b).

Hashim and Sabiu (2013) stated that motor oil contamination led to a close packing of clay

particles. According to them it conformed to studies undertaken by Rehman et al in 2007 and

Mohammed and Shahaboddin, (2008) who also resolved that the compression behaviour of

montmorillonite showed that the particles were predisposed to coagulate and behave like

granular materials in the presence of organic contaminants.

11
2.3 Compaction and Used Oil

Al-Sanad et. al (1995) undertook a study to determine the geotechnical properties of oil

contaminated Kuwaiti sand. They observed that the maximum dry density and optimum

moisture content increased with the presence of oil up to 4% by weight of their sample. The

maximum dry density of the sand was 1900 kg/m3 at an optimum moisture content of 12%;

whereas with 2% oil content the maximum dry density and optimum moisture content was

1950kg/m3 and 7.5% respectively and at 4% oil content a maximum density of 1940kg/m3

was obtained at a moisture content of 6.9%. Further increase in the percentage of oil resulted

in a sharp decrease in the maximum dry densities. This indicated that the oil facilitated

compaction by lubricating the soil and reducing the amount of water that was required to

obtain the maximum dry density. Figure 2 shows the compaction curves for the samples at

different oil contents.

Figure 2 Compaction curves for samples with different oil contents (Al-Sanad et al (1995)

12
 CHAPTER 3

3 METHODOLOGY

3.1 Sample preparation

The sand was washed to get rid of the fines; then it was air dried for three days and stored in

a sack. The clay was obtained in lumps so it was pounded and sieved through the 0.075mm

sieve. The two samples were then characterized individually.

The clay-sand mixtures were then made by mixing different clay contents with the sand and

contaminating them with varying proportions of used motor oil at the optimum moisture

content. The clay contents and the quantity of oil were calculated as a percent by weight of

the total mixtures required.

The following equation was used to determine the amount of water to be added to the

samples to bring them to the optimum moisture content:

OMC − EMC
Mass of water required = × mass of sample
100 + EMC

The table below shows the proportions of clay, sand and used motor oil that was used for the

compaction and resistivity tests.

13
Table 3 Proportions of sand and clay used for the compaction test

COMPACTION (3000g)

Sand Clay Used Motor Oil

Percentage Weight (g) Percentage Weight (g) Percentage Weight (g)

86 2580 14 420 0 0

84 2520 16 480 0 0

80 2400 20 600 0 0

Table 4 Proportions of sand, clay and used motor oil that were used for the resistivity tests

RESISTIVITY (600g)

Sand Clay Used Motor Oil

Weight Weight Weight

Percentage (g) Percentage (g) Percentage (g)

86 516 14 84 0 0

86 516 14 84 1 6

86 516 14 84 2 12

86 516 14 84 4 24

86 516 14 84 6 36

86 516 14 84 8 48

86 516 14 84 10 60

86 516 14 84 12 72

14
86 516 14 84 16 96

84 504 16 96 0 0

84 504 16 96 1 6

84 504 16 96 2 12

84 504 16 96 4 24

84 504 16 96 6 36

84 504 16 96 8 48

84 504 16 96 10 60

84 504 16 96 12 72

84 504 16 96 16 96

80 480 20 120 0 0

80 480 20 120 1 6

80 480 20 120 2 12

80 480 20 120 4 24

80 480 20 120 6 36

80 480 20 120 8 48

80 480 20 120 10 60

80 480 20 120 12 72

80 480 20 120 16 96

15
3.2 Laboratory tests

As part of the characterization of the samples, particle size distribution (wet sieving method)

and particle density tests were conducted on the sand; and particle size distribution

(hydrometer method), particle density and Atterberg limit tests were performed on the clay

samples.

3.2.1 Particle Size Distribution (Wet Sieving Method)

Apparatus

 Balance

 BS test sieves (2mm, 1mm, 0.6mm, 0.425mm,0.3mm, 0.15mm and 0.075mm)

 Oven

 Metal trays

 Sieve brush

 Riffle box

Procedure

1. The sample sieved through the 2mm sieve, the amount passing was passed through

the riffle box, and 500g of what was in the box was taken for the sieving.

2. The sand was sieved through the sieves, arranged in descending order. The amount

retained in the sieves was weighed.

Calculations

16
 1. Percentage retained = × 100

2. Percentage passing = 100 – cumulative percentage retained.

A grading curve was plotted on a semi-logarithmic chart with the percentage passing as the

ordinate (linear scale) and the particle size as the abscissa (semi-log scale).

3.2.2 Particle Size Distribution (Hydrometer Method)

Apparatus

• Hydrometer

• Measuring cylinders (1000ml and 100ml)

• Thermometer

• Stirring apparatus

• Stop watch

• Wash bottle

• Dispersion agent (33g of sodium hexametaphosphate and 7g of sodium carbonate

dissolved in 1000ml of distilled water)

Procedure

1. 50g of the clay sample was weighed and poured into the cup of the stirring apparatus.

100ml of sodium hexametaphosphate and some distilled water was added and the

mixture was allowed to stir for 15 minutes.

2. The mixture was then poured into the 1000ml measuring cylinder and left for 24

hours.
17
 3. The contents of the measuring cylinder was shaken thoroughly and placed on a level

surface. More water was added into the measuring cylinder up to the 1000ml mark.

4. The hydrometer and thermometer readings were taken at selected time intervals.

Calculations

True hydrometer reading, Rh = Rh + Cm

where Rh’ is the observed hydrometer reading

Cm is the meniscus correction (Cm = 0.5)

Effective depth, Hr = 200.6 − 3.95Rh

Temperature correction, Mt = −1.4664 − 0.0342T + 0.00537T

( . )
viscosity, η = 0.289 + 0.7797e . where T is the recorded temperature in
o
C

×
Diameter, D = c ( )

where c = 0.005531, is the time elapsed in minutes, ρ is the particle density

Modified hydrometer reading, Rd = Rh − Ro + Mt Ro = 3.6

×
Percentage of particles passing, K% = ( )
Rd where m is the mass of the sample used

(g)

18
3.2.3 Particle Density (Sand)

Apparatus

 Balance

 Wide-mouthed glass bottle

 Glass lid

 Wash bottle

 Clean dry cloth

Procedure

1. The empty glass bottle was weighed with the lid (A).

2. A portion of the sand was put in the bottle and it was weighed together with the lid

(B). 500ml of water was poured into the sample in the bottle and left for 24 hours.

3. After 24 hours the bottle containing the sample was filled to overflowing with

distilled water. the glass plate was slid over the mouth of the bottle so that no air was

trapped inside it.

4. The exterior of the bottle was wiped dry and weighed (C). The bottle was emptied,

cleaned and filled with water to the brim, ensuring that no air was trapped inside it.

5. The weight of the bottle of water and the lid was taken (D).

Calculations

1. Weight of sample = B – A
19
 2. Weight of sample in water = C – D

3. Specific gravity =

This was done twice and the average of the densities obtained was taken.

3.2.4 Particle Density (Clay)

This was conducted in a similar way as the sand, but kerosene was used instead of water

because the clay only formed a colloidal suspension in the water. Figures 3 and 4 show the

specific gravity test performed with kerosene and with water.

Figure 3 Performing specific gravity test on clay using kerosene

20
Figure 4 Performing specific gravity test on clay using water

3.2.5 Atterberg Limit Tests

3.2.5.1 Liquid Limit Test (Cone Penetrometer method)

Apparatus

 Balance

 Container for moisture content

 Two spatulas

 Flat glass plate

 Oven

 Wash bottle

 Penetrometer

 Steel cone with an angle of 30o

21
  Metal cup

Procedure

1. The mass of the moisture content containers were determined.

2. About 400g of the clay was measured and transferred to the glass plate where it was

mixed with distilled water to form a uniform paste. It was allowed to stand for a while

for the water to permeate the soil.

3. The cup was filled with the mixture such that no air was trapped. The straight edge

was used to give a level surface in the cup.

4. The cone was lowered to just touch the surface of the mixture and the dial gauge was

set. The cone was then released, the dial gauge was lowered to touch the cone shaft

and the reading was taken.

5. The cone was lifted out and a portion of the sample was taken from the area

penetrated by the cone for moisture content determination.

6. The test was repeated with increasing amounts of water.

A graph of the moisture contents (abscissae) and their corresponding cone penetrations

(ordinates) were plotted on a linear scale. The line of best fit was drawn through the points

and the liquid limit was taken as the moisture content that corresponded to a cone penetration

of 20mm.

22
3.2.5.2 Plastic Limit Test

Apparatus

 Balance

 Container for moisture content

 Two spatulas

 Flat glass plate

 Oven

 Wash bottle

Procedure

1. The mass of the moisture content containers were first determined.

2. About 40g of the clay was measured and mixed with distilled water to form a uniform

paste with a consistency that was plastic enough for the sample to be molded with the

fingers.

3. A small piece of the sample was rolled between the palm and the flat board until it

became a thread that crumbled at a diameter of 3mm. The moisture contents of the

crumbled pieces were determined.

4. The plastic limit was taken as the average of the moisture content values expressed to

the nearest whole number.

23
3.2.6 Compaction

It was intended that Proctor compaction tests be performed on the clay-sand mixtures to

obtain their maximum dry densities and optimum moisture contents. However, due to the

high quantities of sand of the mixtures, it was impossible to obtain the maximum dry

densities; therefore, vibratory methods were used (Figure 5).

Figure 5 Compacting the clay-sand mixtures using the vibrating machine

Apparatus

 Compaction mould with base plate and collar

24
 Vibration machine

 balance

 straight edge

 measuring cylinder

 moisture content containers

Procedure

1. The internal dimensions of the mould were measured, the mould was weighed

together with the base plate (m1) and the collar was attached to it. 3000g of the clay-

sand mixture was weighed and mixed with 4% water.

2. The moist soil was placed in the mould in three layers, with each layer receiving two

minutes of vibration from the vibration machine

3. The collar was removed and the straight edge was used to level the surface of the

compacted soil to the top of the mould. The soil in the mould was weighed with the

base plate attached to it (m2).

4. The compacted soil was removed from the mould and a representative sample was

taken for moisture content determination.

5. The rest of the soil was broken up and a 4% increment of water was added to it and

mixed thoroughly. The process was repeated from step two to obtain 5 values of

moisture contents

25
Calculations

1. Volume of mould (V) = ×ℎ where D is the diameter of the

mould (cm) and h is the

height of the mould (cm)

2. Bulk density (ρ) = × 100 (in g/cm3)

3. Dry density (ρd) = where w is the moisture content (in %)

A curve of the dry densities (ordinates) against their corresponding moisture contents

(abscissae) was plotted. The values at the peak of the curve corresponding to the density and

moisture content were recorded.

3.2.7 Electrical Resistivity

Apparatus

 Resistivity meter suitable for laboratory testing

 Soil box calibrated for use with resistivity meter

 Mixing pans

 Balance

 Oven

 Wash bottle

 Spoon or spatula

Procedure

26
 1. 600g of the clay-sand mixtures were contaminated with the various proportions

(0%, 1%, 2%, 4%, 6%, 8%, 10%, 12% and 16%) of used oil and the mixtures were

allowed to equilibrate.

2. The mixtures were mixed with water to bring the samples to the optimum moisture

contents that were obtained for the particular mixtures from the compaction tests.

3. The volume of the soil box was obtained from its dimensions; and it was connected

to the sides of the meter dials.

4. The box was then filled with a mass of soil to obtain a density equivalent to the

maximum dry density that was obtained from the compaction test and the surface

was leveled with the straight edge.

5. The resistance readings were then taken.

Figure 6 shows the set-up for the electrical resistivity test.

Figure 6 Performing the electrical resistivity test

27
 CHAPTER 4

4 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

4.1 Characterisation

The average specific gravity for the sand and clay was 2.56 and 2.96 respectively.

The sand was classified as A-1-b(0) according to the AASHTO classification system and as

poorly graded sand (SP) under the Unified Soil Classification System. The grading curve for

the sand sample is shown in Figure 7 below.

Figure 7 Particle size distribution of sand sample

28
The liquid limit, plastic limit and plasticity index of the clay was found to be 48%, 21% and

27% respectively. The clay was also classified as A-7-6(16) under the AASHTO

classification system and as a clay of low plasticity (CL) under the Unified Soil Classification

System. The grading curve for the clay sample is also shown in Figure 8 below.

Table 5 gives a summary of the characteristics of the sand and clay samples.

Figure 8 Particle size distribution of clay sample

29
Table 5 Summary of characteristics of sand and clay samples

Sample Sand Clay

AASHTO classification A-1-b(0) A-7-6(16)

Unified Soil classification SP CL

Specific gravity 2.56 2.96

Liquid limit - 48%

Plastic limit - 21%

Plasticity index - 27%

30
4.2 Compaction Test Results

The values of maximum dry density and optimum moisture content for each sample is

summarised in Table 6. The optimum moisture content increased with an increase in clay

content. However there was a drop in the maximum dry density from the 14% to 16% clay

content and from there it increased again at 20% clay content. This can be seen in Figure 9

below.

2.0
14% Clay
16% Clay
1.9
20% Clay
Dry density (Mg/m )
3

1.8

1.7

1.6

1.5
0 5 10 15 20 25
Moisture content (%)

Figure 9 Moisture content-dry density relationship for 14%, 16% and 20% clay contents

31
Table 6 Summary of maximum dry densities and optimum moisture contents

Clay content Optimum moisture content Maximum dry density

(%) (%) (Mg/m3)

14 10.11 1.936

16 10.91 1.918

20 11.67 1.970

4.3 Electrical resistivity

The resistivity of the used motor oil that was used for the contamination was 1598.6 Ohm-

cm, whilst that of the water was 1923.9 Ohm-cm. The low resistivity of the used oil can be

attributed to the metals and other minerals present in it as was discussed in section 2.2.1.

32
 RESISTIVITY AGAINST OIL CONTENT (WITHOUT WATER)
2000
14% clay
16% clay
1900
20% clay

1800
Resistivity (Ohm-cm)

1700

1600

1500

1400

1300
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Oil Content (%)

Figure 10 Graph of resistivity against oil content before water was added

The values of the graph in Figure 10 represent the resistivity that was obtained for the various

samples before a quantity of water amounting to the OMC of each clay-sand mixture was

added. Generally, it can be seen from Figure 10 that the resistivity is almost constant for all

three samples at oil contents between 0% and 2%. As the oil content increases, the resistivity

reduces from 2% to 10% oil content for all three samples; and it increases till 16% oil

content.

Figure 10 also shows that the used oil contaminated clay-sand mixtures can conduct

electricity effectively within a range of oil contents from 2% to 10% because the resistivity

begins to decrease within that range.

33
The values of resistivity from 0% to 2% oil content are almost constant for each of the three

samples because the quantity of oil in those samples is not so much as to bring about a

significant change in the resistivity.

The reduction in resistivity between 2% and 10% oil content can be attributed to the

increasing quantity of oil in the samples. Since the used oil has a lower resistivity, increasing

its quantity in the samples causes the overall resistivity of the mixtures to correspondingly

reduce.

It can also be inferred from Figure 10 that for oil contents between 2% and 16% the

resistivity increases appreciably with increasing clay content. This can be attributed to the

fact that the presence of the used motor oil caused the fine particles in the mixtures to

coagulate and behave like granular materials, which have been observed by Fukue et al

(1999) and Lamotte et al (1994) to have higher electrical resistivity than fine grained particles

because of their large surface areas.

34
 2000 RESISTIVITY AGAINST OIL CONTENT (WITH WATER)

1500
Resistivity (Ohm-cm)

14% clay
16% clay
1000 20% clay

500

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Oil Content (%)

Figure 11 Graph of resistivity against oil content after water was added

When a quantity of water amounting to the OMC was added to the samples, the graph in

Figure 11 was obtained. The mixtures with 14% and 16% clay contents have very close

resistivity values for all the oil contents; whereas the mixture with 20% clay content has

resistivity values that are close to those of the 14% and 16% clay contents for oil contents

between 0% and 6%.

35
 2000
RESISTIVITY AGAINST OIL CONTENT (14% CLAY CONTENT)

14 % clay dry
1900 14% clay wet

1800
Resistivity (Ohm-cm)

1700

1600

1500

1400

1300
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Oil Content (%)

Figure 12 Resistivity against oil content for 14% clay content before and after water was added

In Figure 12 it can be seen that the resistivity after water was added is initially lower than

before water was added; then it increases. The decrease is significant at 0% oil content

because the water releases or dissolves the ions adsorbed in the mixture. But as oil content

increases, the surfaces of the particles are coated with oil and the water is not able to cause a

release of the ions. The mobile ions contribute to a decrease in the resistivity so if the

particles are coated with oil these ions cannot be released and hence, the resistivity increases.

A similar trend is observed in Figure 13 below for the sample with 16% clay content. It can

be explained using the same reasons given above for the 14% clay content.

36
 2000
RESISTIVITY AGAINST OIL CONTENT (16% CLAY CONTENT)
16% clay dry
16% clay wet
1900

1800
Resistivity (Ohm-cm)

1700

1600

1500

1400
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Oil Content (%)

Figure 13 Resistivity against oil content for 16% clay content before and after water was added

RESISTIVITY AGAINST OIL CONTENT (20% CLAY CONTENT)

2000

1800

1600
Resistivity (Ohm-cm)

1400
20% clay dry
1200 20% clay wet

1000

800

600

400

200

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Oil Content (%)

Figure 14 Resistivity against oil content for 20% clay content before and after water was added
37
In Figure 14, the resistivity of the wet sample is lower at 0% oil content. Between 1% and

10% oil content the resistivity of the mixture after water was added remains almost constant;

then it reduces after 10% to 16% oil content. Also, from 1% to 8% oil content the resistivity

of both the wet and dry samples are almost the same.

The initial reduction can be attributed to the same reasons given above for the 14% and16%

clay contents.

38
 CHAPTER 5

5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Conclusions

This study was conducted to determine how the resistivity of used oil contaminated clay-sand

mixtures varies with high clay contents (14%, 16% and 20%) and the effect of degree of

contamination. The following conclusions were drawn from the test results that were

obtained.

Resistivity is almost constant for oil contents between 0% and 2% for samples with 14%,

16% and 20% clay content. It then reduces with the presence of oil up to 10%, beyond which

it increases again.

Resistivity increases with increasing clay content for oil contents between 2% and 16%.

When water is added to the mixtures the resistivity is constant for oil contents between 1%

and 6%. For 14% and 16% clay contents, the resistivity is almost the same when water is

added. This implies the resistivity is independent of oil content or clay content when water is

added.

5.2 Recommendation

Tests should be conducted to determine the chemical composition of the used oil.

Compaction should be performed on the used oil contaminated clay-sand mixtures to obtain a

true value of their optimum moisture contents and maximum dry densities.

39
 REFERENCES

Al-Sanad, H. A., Eid, W. K. and Ismael, N.F. (1995). Geotechnical properties of oil-

contaminated Kuwaiti sand. Journal of geotechnical engineering 121 (5): pp 407-412.

ASTM International (2015) http://www.astm.org/Standards/G187.htm#fn00008

Bryson, L. S. (2005). "Evaluation of geotechnical parameters using electrical resistivity

measurements." Proc., Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics, GSP 133, Geo-Frontiers

2005, ASCE, Reston, VA.

Bryson, L. S., and Bathe, A., (2009) Determination of Selected Geotechnical Properties of

Soil Using Electrical Conductivity Testing. Geotechnical Testing Journal, Vol. 32, No. 3, pp.

1-10.

Chauvin Arnoux Inc. (2002) d.b.a AEMC Instruments

http://www.aemc.com/techinfo/appnotes/Ground_Resistance_Testers/App-Ground-

SoilResistivity.pdf (16/02/15)

Commonwealth Business Council (2005) Corporate Citizenship in Action Volume 2:

Learning from CBC Members' Experience pp78

Fukue, M., Minatoa, T., Horibe, H., Taya, N., (1999). The microstructure of clay given by

resistivity measurements. Eng. Geol.54, pp43–53.

Hashim, M A and Sabiu A F (2013) Effects of Crude Oil, Low Point Pour Fuel Oil and

Vacuum Gas Oil Contamination on the Geotechnical Properties Sand, Clay and Laterite

40
Soils. International Journal of Engineering Research and Applications (IJERA) Vol. 3, Issue

1, pp1947-1954

Jia, Y. G., Wu, Q., Shang. H. Yang, N. Zh., Shan, H. X. (2011). The influence of oil

contamination on the geotechnical properties of coastal sediments in the Yellow River Delta,

China. Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the Environment 70: Pp 517–525.

Khamehchiyan, M., Charkhabi, H. A., and Tajik, M., (2007). Effects of crude oil

contamination on geotechnical properties of clayey and sandy soils. Engineering geology

89(3-4) pp220-229.

Lamotte, M., Bruand, A., Dabas, M., Donfack, P., Gabalda, G., Hesse, A., Humbel, F.-X.,

Robain, H., (1994). Distribution d’un horizon à forte cohésion au sein d’une couverture de sol

aride du Nord-Cameroun : apport d’une prospection électrique. Comptes Rendus à

l’Académie des Sciences. Earth Planet. Sci. 318, pp961–968.

Mohammad, H.M. and Shahaboddin, S.Y., (2008). Volume change behaviour of compacted

clay due to organic liquids as permeant. Applied Clay Science 39 (1–2), pp60–71

Rahman, Z. A., Hamzah, U., Taha, M. R., Ithaian N. S. and N. Ahmad, N., (2010). Influence

of Oil Contamination on Geotechnical Properties of Basaltic Residual Soil. American Journal

of Applied Sciences 7(7) pp941-94

Rehman, H., Abduljauwad, S and Akram, T., (2007). Geotechnical behavior of oil-

contaminated fine-grained soils. Electronic Journal of Geotechnical Engineering,

<http://www. ejge. com/2007/Ppr0720/Ppr0720.

41
ROSE Foundation, Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) Used lubricating oil, ROSE

Foundation, South Africa

Samouëlian, A., Cousin, I., Tabbagh, A., Bruand, A., and Richard, G. (2005). "Electrical

resistivity survey in soil science: a review. Soil and Tillage Research, Elsevier, 2005, 83,

pp.2, 173-193. <10.1016/j.still.2004.10.004>. <hal-00023493>

Speight G. J., Exall D. I., (2014) Refining Used Lubricating Oils, CRC Press, New York

pp73-89

Shin, E., Lee, J. and Das, B. M., (1997). Geotechnical properties of crude oil-contaminated

sand. Proceedings of the International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference ISOPE,

GOLDEN, CO(USA). pp 946-949.

Sunil, B.M., Nayak, S. and Shrihari, S., (2006). Effect of pH on the geotechnical properties of

laterite. Engineering geology 85(1-2) pp197-203.

US EPA (2014), Used oil management program, Common wastes and materials,

http://www.epa.gov/osw/conserve/materials/usedoil/

Vazquez-Duhalt R, (1989). Environmental impact of used motor oil

Yamasaki, M T, Peixoto, A S P, Lodi P S, (2013) Evaluation of Electrical Resistivity in a

Tropical Sandy Soil Compacted. Electronic Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 19

42
 APPENDICES

Table 7 Specific gravity

SAND
Sample No. A B
Mass of bottle empty(g) M1 917 935
Mass of bottle and dry soil (g) M2 1317 1335
Mass of dry soil (g) 400 400
Mass of bottle + sample + water (g) M3 2410 2466
Mass of bottle + water (g) M4 2168 2221
M3 - M4 242 245
(M2 - M1)- (M3 - M4) 158 155
Specific Gravity 2.53 2.58
Average specific gravity 2.56

CLAY
Sample No. A B
Mass of bottle empty(g) M1 35.12 34.74
Mass of bottle and dry soil (g) M2 39.9 39.47
Mass of dry soil (g) 4.78 4.73
Mass of bottle + sample + kerosene (g) M3 78.85 77.95
Mass of bottle + kerosene (g) M4 75.52 74.61
Mass of bottle + water (g) 85.48 84.47
Specific gravity of kerosene 0.883 0.883
M3 - M4 3.33 3.34
(M2 - M1)- (M3 - M4) 1.45 1.39
Specific Gravity 2.91 3.01
Average specific gravity 2.96

43
Table 8 Particle size distribution

Sample No Clay
Weight (g) 50
Di rect
El a ps ed ti me
Temp (⁰c) hydrometer
(mi n)
rea di ngs Rh
SIEVE ANALYSIS
0.50 30 1.0280 SAMPLE ID SAND
1.00 30 1.0268 WEIGHT (g) 500
2.00 30 1.0240 Sieve sizes Weight Percentage Percentage
4.00 30 1.0210 (mm) retained (g) retained (%) passing (%)
8.00 30 1.0198 2.00 0.00 0.00 100.0
15.00 30 1.0180 1.00 111.59 22.32 77.7
30.00 29.5 1.0165 0.600 119.17 23.83 53.8
60.00 29 1.0155 0.425 76.51 15.30 38.5
120.00 28 1.0148 0.300 68.09 13.62 24.9
240.00 29 1.0135 0.150 90.55 18.11 6.8
1440.00 28.5 1.0118 0.075 33.14 6.63 0.2

Hydrometer readings
Direct
Elapsed hydrometer Rh=Rh' + Temp Rd= Rh'-
Temp (º c) Reading Rh' Hr (mm) Viscosity D (mm) K (%)
tme,(min) readings Cm Corr,Mt Ro'+Mt
Rh'
0.50 30 1.0280 28.00 28.50 88.0250 0.7913 0.0508 2.3406 26.7406 85.89
1.00 30 1.0268 26.80 27.30 92.7650 0.7913 0.0369 2.3406 25.5406 82.04
2.00 30 1.0240 24.00 24.50 103.8250 0.7913 0.0276 2.3406 22.7406 73.05
4.00 30 1.0210 21.00 21.50 115.6750 0.7913 0.0206 2.3406 19.7406 63.41
8.00 30 1.0198 19.80 20.30 120.4150 0.7913 0.0149 2.3406 18.5406 59.55
15.00 30 1.0180 18.00 18.50 127.5250 0.7913 0.0112 2.3406 16.7406 53.77
30.00 29.5 1.0165 16.50 17.00 133.4500 0.8002 0.0081 2.1979 15.0979 48.50
60.00 29 1.0155 15.50 16.00 137.4000 0.8093 0.0059 2.0580 13.9580 44.83
120.00 28 1.0148 14.80 15.30 140.1650 0.8279 0.0042 1.7861 12.9861 41.71
240.00 29 1.0135 13.50 14.00 145.3000 0.8093 0.0030 2.0580 11.9580 38.41
1440.00 28.5 1.0118 11.80 12.30 152.0150 0.8185 0.0013 1.9207 10.1207 32.51

44
Table 9 Atterberg limits

Liquid Limit
Sample ID Mfensi clay
Container No A39 K3 K4 A10 X12
Mass of Container (g) 3.68 3.7 3.59 3.76 3.69
Penetration (mm) 14.6 17.2 20.7 22.1 23.5
Mass of Container & Wet Sample (g) 31.29 34.98 39.29 35.55 31.9
Mass of Container & Dry Sample (g) 22.75 25.26 27.65 24.93 22.29
Mass of Water (g) 8.54 9.72 11.64 10.62 9.61
Mass of Dry Sample (g) 19.07 21.56 24.06 21.17 18.6
Water content (%) 44.78 45.08 48.38 50.17 51.67

Plastic Limit
Container No B12 C39
Mass of Container (g) 3.61 3.7
Mass of Container & Wet Sample (g) 14.08 15.58
Mass of Container & Dry Sample (g) 12.24 13.52
Mass of Water (g) 1.84 2.06
Mass of Dry Sample (g) 8.63 9.82
Water content (%) 21.32 20.98
Average water content (%) 21.15

45
 LIQUID LIMIT
28
26
24
Penetration (mm)

22
20
18
16
14
12
10
44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55
Moisture content (%)

Table 10 Compaction

SAMPLE ID 14% clay content

Mass of cylinder + wet sample (g) 5902 6357 6321 6315
Mass of cylinder (g) 4295 4295 4295 4295
Mass of wet sample (g) 1607 2062 2026 2020
Bulk density (g/cm³) 1.653 2.121 2.084 2.077

Container No. N10 N11 B3 B16 E2 K1 40 A20

Mass of container + wet soil (g) 39.6 44.77 42.52 48.19 69.05 70.19 73.47 85.9
Mass of container + dry soil (g) 38.31 43.26 39.8 44.89 62.79 63.94 64.35 74.89
Mass of container (g) 11.95 12.28 11.36 11.03 14.82 16.43 14.9 14.53
Mass of wet soil (g) 27.65 32.49 31.16 37.16 54.23 53.76 58.57 71.37
Mass of dry soil (g) 26.36 30.98 28.44 33.86 47.97 47.51 49.45 60.36
Mass of water (g) 1.29 1.51 2.72 3.3 6.26 6.25 9.12 11.01
Water content (%) 4.89 4.87 9.56 9.75 13.05 13.16 18.44 18.24
Average water content (%) 4.88 9.66 13.10 18.34
Dry density (g/cm³) 1.576 1.934 1.842 1.755
Height of mould (cm) 11.9
Diameter of mould (cm) 10.2
Volume of mould(cm³) 972.383
46
SAMPLE ID 16% clay content
Mass of cylinder + wet sample (g) 5789 6080 6306 6268 6319
Mass of cylinder (g) 4291 4291 4291 4291 4291
Mass of wet sample (g) 1498 1789 2015 1977 2028
Bulk density (g/cm³) 1.580 1.887 2.126 2.086 2.140

Container No. B16 F1 A3 RT4 D16 N7 G3 D7 Z10 C19

Mass of container + wet soil (g) 36.83 41.02 31.75 64.99 82.42 60.31 85.48 96.15 85.73 82.07
Mass of container + dry soil (g) 35.91 39.82 30.1 61.48 74.93 55.7 76.1 85.1 74.4 70.84
Mass of container (g) 11.02 7.64 7.41 13.12 6.39 12.98 13.11 9.56 13.15 6.56
Mass of wet soil (g) 25.81 33.38 24.34 51.87 76.03 47.33 72.37 86.59 72.58 75.51
Mass of dry soil (g) 24.89 32.18 22.69 48.36 68.54 42.72 62.99 75.54 61.25 64.28
Mass of water (g) 0.92 1.2 1.65 3.51 7.49 4.61 9.38 11.05 11.33 11.23
Water content (%) 3.70 3.73 7.27 7.26 10.93 10.79 14.89 14.63 18.50 17.47
Average water content (%) 3.71 7.26 10.86 14.76 17.98
Dry density (g/cm³) 1.524 1.760 1.918 1.817 1.813
Height of mould (cm) 11.6
Diameter of mould (cm) 10.2
Volume of mould(cm³) 947.869

SAMPLE ID 20% clay content

Mass of cylinder + wet sample (g) 5817 6054 6384 6283 6269
Mass of cylinder (g) 4310 4310 4310 4310 4310
Mass of wet sample (g) 1507 1744 2074 1973 1959
Bulk density (g/cm³) 1.590 1.840 2.188 2.082 2.067
Container No. B3 71 A9 A0 B2 A6 N12 N10 N9 N5
Mass of container + wet soil (g) 41.21 29.76 27.37 28.96 43.28 33.46 48.2 53.42 44.77 43.92
Mass of container + dry soil (g) 40.06 28.92 25.93 27.45 39.99 30.87 43.54 48.01 39.55 38.94
Mass of container (g) 11.39 7.32 7.34 7.6 11.09 7.32 12.3 11.92 11.78 11.2
Mass of wet soil (g) 29.82 22.44 20.03 21.36 32.19 26.14 35.9 41.5 32.99 32.72
Mass of dry soil (g) 28.67 21.6 18.59 19.85 28.9 23.55 31.24 36.09 27.77 27.74
Mass of water (g) 1.15 0.84 1.44 1.51 3.29 2.59 4.66 5.41 5.22 4.98
Water content (%) 4.01 3.89 7.75 7.61 11.38 11.00 14.92 14.99 18.80 17.95
Average water content (%) 3.95 7.68 11.19 14.95 18.37
Dry density (g/cm³) 1.529 1.709 1.968 1.811 1.746
Height of mould (cm) 11.6
Diameter of mould (cm) 10.2
Volume of mould(cm³) 947.869

47
 2.0
MOISTURE CONTENT-DRY DENSITY RELATIONSHIP
14% Clay
16% Clay
1.9
20% Clay
Dry density (Mg/m )
3

1.8

1.7

1.6

1.5
0 5 10 15 20 25
Moisture content (%)

Figure 15 compaction curves

48
Table 11 Resistivity

14% clay content without water

oil content (%) Resistivity (Ohm-cm)
15s 30s Average
0 1934.9 1934.8 1934.85
1 1937.7 1929.1 1933.4
2 1927.2 1927.9 1927.55
4 1703.5 1695.4 1699.45
6 1624.1 1606.6 1615.35
8 1505.9 1502.8 1504.35
10 1392.7 1396.7 1394.7
12 1457.6 1474.2 1465.9
16 1724.6 1736.8 1730.7
14% clay content with water
oil content (%) Resistivity (Ohm-cm)
15s 30s Average
0 1812 1811 1811.5
1 1929.1 1928.8 1928.95
2 1927.7 1928 1927.85
4 1923.2 1923 1923.1
6 1929.3 1929 1929.15
8 1788.5 1787.2 1787.85
10 1821.1 1820.9 1821
12 1844.3 1841.8 1843.05
16 1744.8 1761.7 1753.25

2000
RESISTIVITY AGAINST OIL CONTENT (14% CLAY CONTENT)

14 % clay dry
1900 14% clay wet

1800
Resistivity (Ohm-cm)

1700

1600

1500

1400

1300
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Oil Content (%)

49
 16% clay content without water
oil content (%) Resistivity (Ohm-cm)
15s 30s Average
0 1929.1 1928.5 1928.8
1 1933.6 1933.5 1933.55
2 1937 1937.2 1937.1
4 1886.2 1887.9 1887.05
6 1877.4 1859.8 1868.6
8 1840.9 1841.1 1841
10 1469.9 1450.9 1460.4
12 1490.5 1506.8 1498.65
16 1924 1926.3 1925.15
16% clay content with water
oil content (%) Resistivity (Ohm-cm)
15s 30s Average
0 1812.6 1811.5 1812.05
1 1930.1 1929.9 1930
2 1927.9 1927.9 1927.9
4 1926.6 1926.5 1926.55
6 1928.7 1928.8 1928.75
8 1790.4 1789 1789.7
10 1796.5 1764.4 1780.45
12 1842.5 1842 1842.25
16 1819.4 1818.9 1819.15

2000
RESISTIVITY AGAINST OIL CONTENT (16% CLAY CONTENT)
16% clay dry
16% clay wet
1900

1800
Resistivity (Ohm-cm)

1700

1600

1500

1400
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Oil Content (%)

50
 20% clay content without water
oil content (%) Resistivity (Ohm-cm)
15s 30s Average
0 1935.6 1935.6 1935.6
1 1939.7 1939.4 1939.55
2 1937 1937.3 1937.15
4 1937.6 1937.5 1937.55
6 1916.9 1916.8 1916.85
8 1930.3 1930.5 1930.4
10 1612.5 1608.1 1610.3
12 1638.3 1649.9 1644.1
16 1732.1 1747.3 1739.7
20% clay content with water
oil content (%) Resistivity (Ohm-cm)
15s 30s Average
0 1816 1814.9 1815.45
1 1927.9 1927.9 1927.9
2 1925.5 1925.6 1925.55
4 1926.6 1926.4 1926.5
6 1923.5 1923.6 1923.55
8 1926.9 1927 1926.95
10 1930 1929.8 1929.9
12 851.9 695 773.45
16 223.9 227.4 225.65

RESISTIVITY AGAINST OIL CONTENT (20% CLAY CONTENT)

2000

1800

1600
Resistivity (Ohm-cm)

1400
20% clay dry
1200 20% clay wet

1000

800

600

400

200

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Oil Content (%)

51
52