Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING
A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for a Degree in B.Sc. Hons. Civil
Engineering
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
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
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
LIST OF FIGURES
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
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
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
Obtain the relationship between the resistivity, oil content and clay content of used oil
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.
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
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
Since it has been established that the presence of used oil modifies the properties of the soil,
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
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
conduction takes place due to the movement of charges. Charges are displaced from the
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
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
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)
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
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
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,
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
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
hydrocarbons (PCAH’s) and miscellaneous lubricating oil additive materials. The oil is
with l-6 rings); 11-15% monoaromatic hydrocarbons; 2-5% diaromatic hydrocarbons; and 4-
approximately 20% of the oil, consist primarily of zinc diaryl, molybdenum disulfide, zinc
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).
Colour Black
Odour Oily/Oxidised
Flash Point (PMCC) ASTM D 93 °C >60.5 (lower if contaminated with fuel or solvent)
mm2/s
9
Table 2 Composition of metals in used oil (courtesy ROSE Foundation)
Lead (Pb) 40
Magnesium (Mg) 65
Sodium (Na) 55
Silicon (Si) 40
Boron (B) 40
Manganese (Mn) 10
Copper (Cu) 40
Molybdenum (Mo) 15
Aluminium (Al) 15
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
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
engineering properties or behaviour of soil strata may lead to loss of bearing capacity and an
al., 2007). Modification of soil properties can then cause or worsen various geotechnical
underground structural stability, foundation durability and corrosion (Shin et al., 1997; Sunil
Hashim and Sabiu (2013) stated that motor oil contamination led to a close packing of clay
Mohammed and Shahaboddin, (2008) who also resolved that the compression behaviour of
montmorillonite showed that the particles were predisposed to coagulate and behave like
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
Figure 2 Compaction curves for samples with different oil contents (Al-Sanad et al (1995)
12
CHAPTER 3
3 METHODOLOGY
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
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 following equation was used to determine the amount of water to be added to the
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
13
Table 3 Proportions of sand and clay used for the compaction test
COMPACTION (3000g)
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)
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.
Apparatus
Balance
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
Calculations
16
1. Percentage retained = × 100
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).
Apparatus
• Hydrometer
• Thermometer
• Stirring apparatus
• Stop watch
• Wash bottle
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
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
( . )
viscosity, η = 0.289 + 0.7797e . where T is the recorded temperature in
o
C
×
Diameter, D = c ( )
×
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
Glass lid
Wash bottle
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
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.
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
20
Figure 4 Performing specific gravity test on clay using water
Apparatus
Balance
Two spatulas
Oven
Wash bottle
Penetrometer
21
Metal cup
Procedure
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
3. The cup was filled with the mixture such that no air was trapped. The straight edge
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
5. The cone was lifted out and a portion of the sample was taken from the area
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
Two spatulas
Oven
Wash bottle
Procedure
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
4. The plastic limit was taken as the average of the moisture content values expressed to
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
Apparatus
24
Vibration machine
balance
straight edge
measuring cylinder
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-
2. The moist soil was placed in the mould in three layers, with each layer receiving two
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
4. The compacted soil was removed from the mould and a representative sample was
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
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
Apparatus
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
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
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
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.
29
Table 5 Summary of characteristics of sand and clay samples
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
14 10.11 1.936
16 10.91 1.918
20 11.67 1.970
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
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
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
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
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
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
5.1 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-
measurements." Proc., Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics, GSP 133, Geo-Frontiers
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.
http://www.aemc.com/techinfo/appnotes/Ground_Resistance_Testers/App-Ground-
SoilResistivity.pdf (16/02/15)
Fukue, M., Minatoa, T., Horibe, H., Taya, N., (1999). The microstructure of clay given by
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,
Khamehchiyan, M., Charkhabi, H. A., and Tajik, M., (2007). Effects of crude oil
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
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
Rehman, H., Abduljauwad, S and Akram, T., (2007). Geotechnical behavior of oil-
41
ROSE Foundation, Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) Used lubricating oil, ROSE
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,
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,
Sunil, B.M., Nayak, S. and Shrihari, S., (2006). Effect of pH on the geotechnical properties of
US EPA (2014), Used oil management program, Common wastes and materials,
http://www.epa.gov/osw/conserve/materials/usedoil/
42
APPENDICES
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
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 (%)
48
Table 11 Resistivity
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
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