introduction and literature review (2) (autosaved)

KWAME NKRUMAH UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING

DEPARTMENT OF GEOLOGICAL ENGINEERING

PROJECT REPORT ON

THE EFFECTS OF POZZOLANA ON THE GEOTECHNICAL PROPERTIES OF A LATERITIC SOIL

A PROJECT SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF GEOLOGICAL ENGINEERING

IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE AWARD OF

BACHELOR OF SCIENCE DEGREE IN GEOLOGICAL ENGINEERING

BY

NEBOH ONYEBUCHI ISAAC

3711909

SUPERVISOR: DR. S. K. Y. GAWU

May, 2013

DECLARATION

I hereby declare that this project is my own work. It is being presented as a requirement for

the (BSC.) Geological Engineering degree to the Geological Engineering Department,

Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Kumasi-Ghana. To the best of my

knowlodge this work has not been submitted for any degree by anyone in any other

University .

…………………………………… …………………………..

NEBOH ONYEBUCHI ISAAC Dr. S. K. Y. GAWU

STUDENT SUPERVISOR

ii

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

I am thankful to Almighty God who is always in favor of me. Finally I would like to express

my deepest gratitude to my parents, Mr. Neboh and all who contributed to this research work

in one way or another.

I would like to express my sincere and deepest gratitude to my supervisor Dr. S.K.Y Gawu

(Head of Department) and Mr. Solomon Gidigasu of the Geological Engineering, Kwame

Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Kumasi, Ghana for all their limitless efforts

in guide and supervision throughout my research work and for providing me useful reference

materials.

I am very grateful to the geotechnical laboratory workers, Messrs Gilbert Fiadzoe, Augustine

Lawer and Michael Owusu for their restless efforts and guidance during some of the

laboratory tests.

iii

ABSTRACT

The study presents an investigation of the effect of pozzolana on the geotechnical properties

of a lateritic soil from Ayeduase. The soil was blended with 3%, 5%, 7% and 10% of

pozzolana by weight of dry soil. The composite materials were then subjected to grading,

Atterberg limits, compaction and California bearing ratio tests, based on procedures

stipulated in the British Standard 1377, (1990) specification. The results of the study show

that the pozzolana had some effect on the grading characteristics of the soils. The addition of

3%, 5%, 7% and 10% of pozzolana to the soil changed the textural classification from

gravelly clay for the natural soil to sandy clay. There was reduction in liquid limit and plastic

limit which resulted in a reduction in plasticity index of the soils with increasing pozzolana

content. The addition of pozzolana also increased the maximum dry density with the

maximum occurring at 7% pozzolana content while optimum moisture content increased with

increasing pozzolana content. California bearing ratio was found to reduce with increasing

pozzolana content. Based on the results, there were slight improvements in the geotechnical

properties of the pozzolana stabilized soils which seem to suggest that the pozzolana alone is

not a good stabilizer for the lateritic soil studied.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTSDECLARATION......................................................................................................................iiACKNOWLEDGMENT........................................................................................................iiiABSTRACT.............................................................................................................................ivTABLE OF CONTENTS.........................................................................................................vLIST OF TABLES.................................................................................................................viiLIST OF FIGURES..............................................................................................................viiiCHAPTER 1.............................................................................................................................1INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................11.1 General...........................................................................................................................1

1.2 Aims and objectives.......................................................................................................2

1.3 Location and Geology of project site.............................................................................2

1.3.1 Geology..........................................................................................................................3

1.3.2 Climate...........................................................................................................................3

1.3.3 Vegetation......................................................................................................................3

CHAPTER 2.............................................................................................................................4LITERATURE REVIEW........................................................................................................42.1 Laterites and lateritic soils..............................................................................................4

2.2 Engineering Uses of Laterites........................................................................................5

2.3 Stabilization of soils.......................................................................................................5

2.4 Types of soil stabilization...............................................................................................6

2.5 Pozzolana......................................................................................................................10

2.5.1 Types of pozzolanas and pozzolanic by-products........................................................10

2.6 Road Pavements – Structure and composition.............................................................12

2.7 Standard Specifications for road construction..............................................................13

CHAPTER 3...........................................................................................................................15MATERIALS AND METHODS..........................................................................................153.1 Materials.......................................................................................................................15

3.2 Methods........................................................................................................................15

v

3.2.1 Soil classification tests....................................................................................................16

3.2.2 Engineering tests..........................................................................................................19

CHAPTER 4...........................................................................................................................21RESULTS AND DISCUSSION............................................................................................214.1 Soil Profile....................................................................................................................21

4.2 Chemical composition of the materials........................................................................21

4.3 Geotechnical Properties of the stabilized soils.............................................................22

4.3.1 Index properties............................................................................................................23

4.3.2 Engineering properties.................................................................................................26

4.3.3 Assessment of suitability of stabilized soils for use as base material in road

construction................................................................................................................29

CHAPTER 5...........................................................................................................................30CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION...................................................................305. Conclusion.....................................................................................................................30

REFERENCES.......................................................................................................................31APPENDIX.............................................................................................................................34

vi

LIST OF TABLESTable 2.1 Requirement for natural gravel materials for base and subbase (MRT, 2006)........14

Table 4.1 Summary of Laboratory tests results.......................................................................23

Table 4.2 Summary of Index property tests.............................................................................24

Table 4.3 Variation of particle size and textural classification................................................26

vii

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1.1 Satellite photo of the Ayeduase showing the sample site........................................3

Figure 4.1 Soil profile of trial pit.............................................................................................21

Figure 4.2 Variation in chemical composition of materials.....................................................22

Figure 4.3 Variation of LL, PL and PI of soil sample with pozzolana stabilization................24

Figure 4.4 Plasticity classification of the soils.........................................................................25

Figure 4.5 Grading characteristics of the natural and stabilized soils......................................26

Figure 4.6 Typical grain size distribution curves for the different percentages.......................27

Figure 4.7 Variation of MDD with pozzolana content............................................................27

Figure 4.8 Variation of OMC against pozzolana content........................................................28

Figure 4.9 Variation of CBR per pozzolana content................................................................29

viii

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 GeneralLateritic soils are defined as the product of intensive weathering of rocks that occurs under

tropical and subtropical climatic condition resulting in the accumulation of hydrated iron and

aluminum oxides (Alexander and Cady, 1962; Gidigasu, 1972). These soils are products of

weathering of rocks under conditions of high temperatures and humidity with well-defined

alternating wet and dry seasons resulting in poor engineering properties such as high

plasticity, poor workability, low strength, high permeability, tendency to retain moisture and

high natural moisture content. Civil engineering projects such as major road construction

located in areas with unsuitable (laterite) soils is one of the most common problems in many

tropical countries. The old usual method is to remove the unsuitable/poor soil and replace it

with a competent material. The high cost of this method has driven researchers to look for

alternative methods and one of these methods is the process of soil stabilization. Soil

stabilization is a technique introduced many years ago with the aim of rendering the soils

capable of meeting the requirements of the specific engineering projects. In addition, when

the soils at a site are poor or when they have an undesirable property making them unsuitable

for use in a geotechnical projects, they may have to be stabilized. Stabilized soils are in

general a composite material that results from combination and optimization of properties of

individual constituent materials. The techniques of soil stabilization are often used to obtain

geotechnical materials improved through the addition into soil of such cementing agents as

cement, lime or industrial by-products as fly ash, slag, etc. Extensive studies have been

carried out on the stabilization of soils using various additives such as lime and cement. The

combination of compaction method and cement stabilization was also studied by some

researchers as well as the stabilization using natural fibres such as barley straw. Limited

1

researches have been conducted to investigate the suitability of using natural pozzolana (NP)

in soil stabilization. Hossain et al. (2007) utilized volcanic ash (VA) from natural resources of

Papua New Guinea. Several tests of compaction, unconfined compressive strength and

durability were conducted, but the shear strength behavior was not studied.

Much work has been done world-wide on the stabilization of lateritic soils by different

people. This study seeks to evaluate the effect of pozzolana stabilization on the geotechnical

properties (especially those concerned with highway design and construction) of lateritic soils

and proffering recommendations.

1.2 Aims and objectives

The specific objective is to determine whether or not pozzolana could be used to stabilize

lateritic soils. Other aims are;

Determine the geotechnical properties of the natural lateritic soil.

Improve the geotechnical and engineering properties using pozzolana.

Determine if the stabilized material could be used for road construction.

1.3 Location and Geology of project site

The soil samples used in this study were obtained from a borrow pit at Ayeduase. The area is near the

Kwame Nkurumah University of Science and Technology Animal Science Faculty.

2

Figure 1.1 Satellite photo of the Ayeduase showing the sample site

1.3.1 GeologyThe Ayeduase area is underlained by the Granitiods associated with the lower Birimian rocks

1.3.2 ClimateThe Ayeduase area falls within the wet sub-equatorial climatic zone of Ghana. The average

minimum temperature is about 21.5°C and a maximum average temperature of 30.7°C. The

average humidity is about 84.16 per cent at 0900 GMT and 60 per cent at 1500 GMT.

1.3.3 VegetationThe city falls within the moist semi-deciduous South-East Ecological Zone. Predominant

species of trees found are Ceiba, Triplochlon, Celtis with Exotic Species. The rich soil has

promoted agriculture in the periphery.

3

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Laterites and lateritic soils

The word laterite according to Earth Sciences / Geological Science is any of a group of

deposits consisting of residual insoluble deposits of ferric and aluminium oxides: formed by

weathering of rocks in tropical regions (Collins English Dictionary, 2012). Another

description is a red, porous, claylike soil formed by the leaching of silica-rich components

and enrichment of aluminum and iron hydroxides. They are especially common in humid

climates. Laterite is a group of highly weathered soils formed by the concentration of

hydrated oxides of iron and aluminium (Thagesen, 1996).

Laterites and lateritic soils form a group comprising a wide variety of red, brown, and yellow,

fine-grained residual soils of light texture as well as nodular gravels and cemented soils

(Lambe and Whitman, 1979). They are characterized by the presence of iron and aluminum

oxides or hydroxides, particularly those of iron, which give the colors to the soils. However,

there is a pronounced tendency to call all red tropical soils laterite and this has caused a lot of

confusion.

Fookes (1997) named laterites based on hardening, such as "ferric" for iron-rich cemented

crusts, "alcrete" or bauxite for aluminium-rich cemented crusts, "calcrete" for calcium

carbonate-rich crusts, and "silcrete" for silica rich cemented crusts. Other definitions have

been based on the ratios of silica (SiO2) to sesquioxides (Fe2O3 + Al2O3). In laterites the ratios

are less than 1.33. Those between 1.33 and 2.0 are indicative of lateritic soils, and those

greater than 2.0 are indicative of non-lateritic soils (Bell, 1993).

4

In order to fully appreciate the usefulness of lateritic soil, its problems (in both field and

laboratory) would have to be identified and useful solutions applied. The mechanical

instability, which may manifest inform of remoulding and manipulation, results in the

breakdown of cementation and structure. The engineering properties affected by this

mechanical instability include particle size, Atterberg’s limits, and moisture-density

distribution.

2.2 Engineering Uses of Laterites

One of the main uses of laterites for construction purposes is the production of Compressed

Earth Blocks (CEB). The production technology for CEB provides a modern use of lateritic

soils for walls and meets the building requirements for structural performance. There is no

need to emphasize the importance of laterites for various building purposes. Laterite crusts

were originally widely used for the construction of monuments and dwellings. Certain

African megaliths like - TazunuII, located in the northwest of the Central African Republic,

are of lateritic origin, in addition to rock minerals (Maignien, 1966). The use of indurated

laterites as a building material has been, and is still very common in Africa. Civil engineering

studies of these materials are now in progress, with focus on their use in road and earth dam

construction (Maignien, 1966).

2.3 Stabilization of soils

Thagesen (1989) defined stabilization as any process by which a soil material is improved

and made more stable. Garber and Hoel (1998) described soil stabilization as the treatment of

natural soil to improve its engineering properties. In general, soil stabilization is the process

of creating or improving certain desired properties in a soil material so as to make it useful

for a specific purpose. Soil stabilization may be broadly defined as the alteration or

preservation of one or more soil properties to improve the engineering characteristics and

5

performance of the soil. When the mechanical stability of a soil cannot be obtained by

combining materials, it may be advisable to stabilize the soil by adding lime, cement,

bituminous materials or special additives. Cement stabilization is mostly applied in road

works, especially when the moisture content of the sub grade is high. Calcium hydroxide

(slaked lime) is the most widely used for stabilization. Calcium oxide (quick lime) may be

more effective in some cases; however, quick lime will corrosively attack equipment which

may cause severe skin damage or burns to personnel. Ingles and Metcalf (1992)

recommended the criteria of lime mixture. The effectiveness of stabilization depends on the

ability to obtain uniformity in blending the various materials. The method of soil stabilization

is determined by the amount of stabilization required and the conditions encountered on the

project. An accurate soil description and classification is essential for the selecting the correct

materials and procedures. Soil stabilization is the treatment of soils in order to rectify its

deficiencies in engineering properties and especially as a road construction material. Some of

the important aims of soil stabilization are the following;

i. Increase in strength and stiffness of the soilsii. Increase in durability

iii. Enhancement of workabilityiv. Reduction of compressibilityv. Reduction of permeability

vi. Reduction in volume instabilityvii. Control of dust and protection from erosion

2.4 Types of soil stabilization

Soil stabilization is classified into two main types, namely “shallow stabilization” and “deep

stabilization” (Lee et al 1983).

The best know techniques of deep stabilization are: preloading, surcharging, freezing,

grouting, thermal treatment (heating), dynamic consolidation, vibratory compaction, blasting

and the use of fabrics and meshes.

6

In convention shallow soil stabilization several methods have been used, such as granular or

mechanical soil stabilization, compaction and additive-use soil stabilization. Regarding the

additive, the materials used may be divided into relatively few types, being, bitumen,

Portland cement, lime, lime-pozzolan, chlorides of salt and chemical materials. In this

classification, chemical materials are not considered to involve cement and lime although

these are chemically effective agents.

Soil stabilization methods can be divided into two categories, namely mechanical and

chemical. Mechanical stabilization is the blending of different grades of soils to obtain a

required grade. Chemical stabilization is the blending of the natural soil with chemical

agents. Several blending agents have been used to obtain different effects. The most

commonly used agents are Portland cement; asphalt binders and lime.

i. Lime Stabilization

Lime stabilization is one of the oldest process of improving the engineering properties of

soils and can be used for stabilizing both base and sub base materials (Garber and Hoel,

2000). The addition of lime to reactive fine-grained soils has beneficial effects on their

engineering properties, including reduction in plasticity and swells potential, improved

workability, increased strength and stiffness, and enhanced durability. In addition, lime has

been used to improve the strength and stiffness properties of unbound base and sub base

materials.

Lime can be used to treat soils to varying degrees, depending upon the objective. The least

amount of treatment is used to dry and temporarily modify soils. Such treatment produces a

working platform for construction or temporary roads. A greater degree of treatment-

supported by testing, design, and proper construction techniques-produces permanent

structural stabilization of soils.

7

Generally, the oxides and hydroxides of calcium and magnesium are considered as ‘lime’, but

the materials commonly used for lime stabilization are calcium hydroxide (Ca(OH)2) and

dolomite (Ca(OH)2 + MgO) (Garber and Hoel, 2000). Calcium hydroxide (hydrated lime) is a

fine, dry powder formed by ‘slaking’ quicklime (calcium oxide, CaO) with water; quicklime

is produced by heating natural limestone (calcium carbonate, Ca(CO)3) in a kiln until carbon

dioxide is driven out (Thagesen, 1996). Quicklime is also an effective stabilizer used but not

usually used for stabilization because it is caustic hence dangerous to handle, susceptible to

moisture uptake in storage, and gives off much heat during hydration (McNally, 1998).

The percentage of lime used for any project depends on the type of soil being stabilized. The

determination of the quantity of lime is usually based on an analysis of the effect that

different lime percentages have on the reduction of plasticity and the increase in strength of

the soil. The addition of lime to a fine-grained soil in the presence of water initiates several

reactions. The two primary reactions, cation exchange and flocculation-agglomeration, take

place rapidly and produce immediate improvements in soil plasticity, workability, uncured

strength, and load-deformation properties.

ii. Cement stabilization

The main reaction in a soil/cement mixture comes from the hydration of the two anhydrous

calcium silicates (3CaO. SiO2(C3S) and 2CaO. SiO2 (C2S)), the major constituents of cement,

which form two new compounds: calcium hydroxide (hydrated lime called portlandite) and

calcium silicate hydrate (CSH), the main binder of concrete. The reaction is as follows

(Equation 1):

Cement + H20 → CSH + Ca (OH) 2…………………………………..…………..Equation 1

Unlike lime, the mineralogy and granulometry of cement treated soils have little influence on

the reaction since the cement powder contains in itself everything it needs to react and form

8

cementitious products. Cement will create physical links between particles, increasing the

soil strength; meanwhile lime needs silica and alumina from clay particles to develop

pozzolanic reactions. Generally, the hydration reactions of cements are faster than those of

lime, but in both cases, the final strength results from the formation of CSH.

iii. Rice husk stabilization

The use of rice husk ash as a single additive for the purpose of soil stabilization has received

very little attention in the relevant literature. However, Rahama (1986) “Effects of rice husk

ash on the geotechnical properties of lateritic soil” has made an attempt in the direction to

find the effects of rice husk on the various geotechnical properties of lateritic soils obtained

from the University of Ife, Ile-Ife, Nigeria. The researcher concluded that well burnt rice husk

ash has appreciable properties on the geotechnical properties of lateritic soils tested and that

the liquid limit and plastic limit increase with increasing rice husk ash but, plasticity index

decreases. The maximum dry density decreases with ash content, while optimum content

increases. The unconfined shear strength and CBR increase with increasing ash content. The

undrained shear strength parameters, cohesion as well as angle of internal friction, also

increase with increasing ash content.

iv. Sugarcane Straw Ash stabilisation

Several experiments and papers discuss the characterization of sugar industry solid waste as

pozzolanic materials (Cement and Concrete Research, 2005). It was already known that

sugarcane bagasse and sugarcane straw (sugarcane leaves) can be recycled in the manufacture

of commercial cements and other composites, either as raw material or as pozzolanic

material. For use as pozzolans, the agricultural wastes need prior calcination but pozzolanic

activation can vary substantially as a result of the calcining conditions and the source of the

materials. However, there are contradictory reports about the pozzolanic effectiveness of

sugarcane bagasse ash, possibly due to the use of different calcining temperatures (Paya´ et

9

al. 2002). It has been reported that sugarcane straw ash obtained from heaps of open-air burnt

straw in the vicinity of a sugar factory showed a high pozzolanic activity (Martirena et al.

1998). In recent years, the possibility of mixing this solid waste of sugarcane with clay has

been evaluated by getting an agglutinative material which permits an easy handling as well as

an improvement in the environmental aspects (Middendorf et al. 2003). The research of

Villar-Cocin˜a et al. (2003) studied the pozzolanic behaviour of a mixture of sugarcane straw

with 20 and 30% clay burned at 800 and 1000oC and calcium hydroxide and proposed a

kinetic–diffusive model for describing the pozzolanic reaction kinetics.

2.5 Pozzolana

Pozzolana can be defined as a siliceous, or siliceous and aluminous material, which in itself

possesses little or no cementations value but will, in a finely divided form, such as a powder

or liquid and in the presence of moisture, chemically reach with calcium hydroxide at

ordinary temperatures to form permanent, insoluble compounds possessing cementious

properties (Moxie-intl., 2006).

A pozzolana is broadly defined as an amorphous or glassy silicon or aluminosilicate material

that react with calcium hydroxide formed during the hydration of Portland cement in concrete

to create additional cementitous material in the form of calcium silicate and calcium

silicoaluminate hydrates.

2.5.1 Types of pozzolanas and pozzolanic by-products

Traditionally pozzolanas have been divided into two groups, the natural pozzolana and the

artificial pozzolana.

Natural pozzolanas are present on earth’s surface such as diatomaceous earth, volcanic ash,

opaline shale, pumicite, and tuff. Natural pozzolanas have been used in dam controls and

alkali-silica reaction. Pozzolanic by-products or artificially burnt inorganic materials obtained

10

as industrial or agricultural by-products are similar to volcanic soils from the view point of

cementation with hydrative additives. Those by-products are increasingly playing a part in

road construction, hence minimizing the problem of resource depletion, environmental

degradation and energy consumption (Chmeisse, 1992).

Artificial pozzolanas include coal fly ash (pulverized fuel ash or PFA), ground granulated

blast furnace slag, silica fume, and metakaolin (calcined clay). Of the artificial pozzolanas

probably fly ash, which is the residue from the combustion pulverized coal in power stations,

is the most commonly used globally. In 1976, it was estimated it was estimated that some

300,000,000 tonnes were used annually and that annual increase was about 10%. With the

discovery by Havelin, and Khan, (1951) “Hydrated Lime- Fly ash-Fine aggregate”, that lime

and fly ash impart particular properties to the fine aggregates and soils, attention was drawn

to the use of fly ash in soil stabilization.

Much valuable work has since been carried out in this field by Minnick, et al, (1952) “Lime

Fly Ash Compositions in Highways” and Davidson and his associates at the engineering

experimental station at Iowa state college. In Great Britain, the Central Electricity Generating

Board was active in the field of possible uses for fly ash. In Australia valuable work was done

by Davidson and Mulling, Croft, Herzoc and Brock and others. This research has led to the

utilization of fly ash in soil stabilization in USA and Europe. In Australia the use of this

technique was further encouraged by the department of main roads, New South Wales.

Apart from fly ash and bottom ash, there are a number of other industrial wastes which have

pozzolanic properties. They include blast furnace slag which is more reactive with cement

than lime and kiln dust, collected during manufacture of cement. This material contains a lot

of alkalis and free lime. Shale, clay and bauxite soil can also be converted into pozzolana by

heat treatment. Also in recent years, attention has also been drawn to rice husks ash as a

11

pozzolana although agricultural residues such as bagasse, bamboo leaves and some timber

species are also of interests.

The common feature of all these pozzolanas is that they are silicates or aluminosilicates that

have been converted to amorphous or glass phases in a high temperature furnace or

combustion chamber, followed by rapid cooling or quenching under various conditions.

2.6 Road Pavements – Structure and compositionA typical road pavement is made up of subgrade, sub-base and base (Figure 2.1). The various

components are discussed in details as follows:

Figure 2.1 Typical structure of road pavement layers

a) Sub-grade: In transport engineering, subgrade is the native material underneath a

constructed road, pavement or railway (US: railroad) track. It is also called formation level.

The term can also refer to imported material that has been used to build an embankment.

Subgrades are commonly compacted before the construction of a road, pavement or railway

track, and are sometimes stabilized by the addition of asphalt, lime, portland cement or other

modifiers. The subgrade is the foundation of the pavement structure, on which the subbase is

12

laid. Preparation of the subgrade for construction usually involves digging, in order to

remove surface vegetation, topsoil and other unwanted material, and to create space for the

upper layer of the pavement. This process is known as "subgrade formation" or "reduction to

level". The load-bearing strength of subgrade is measured by California Bearing Ratio (CBR)

test, falling weight deflectometer back calculations and other methods.

b) Sub-base: In highway engineering, subbase is the layer of aggregate material laid on the

subgrade, on which the base course layer is located. It may be omitted when there will be

only foot traffic on the pavement, but it is necessary for surfaces used by vehicles. Subbase is

often the main load-bearing layer of the pavement. Its role is to spread the load evenly over

the subgrade. The materials used may be either unbound granular, or cement-bound. The

quality of subbase is very important for the useful life of the road. Unbound granular

materials are usually crushed stone, crushed slag or concrete, or slate.

c) Base: Base course in pavements refers to the sub-layer material of an asphalt roadway and

is placed directly on top of the undisturbed soil so as to provide a foundation to support the

top layer(s) of the pavement. Generally consisting of a specific type of construction

aggregate, it is placed by means of attentive spreading and compacting to a minimum of 95%

relative compaction, thus providing the stable foundation needed to support either additional

layers of aggregates or the placement of asphalt concrete which is applied directly on top of

an asphalt sealed base course, all resulting in a roadway pavement.

2.7 Standard Specifications for road construction

The basic requirements of road materials based on the Ghana Ministry of Roads and

Transport (MRT, 2006) are shown in Table 2.1

13

Table 2.1 Requirement for natural gravel materials for base and subbase (MRT, 2006)

Material properties Material ClassG80 G60 G40 G30

CBR (%)

CBR swell (%)

80

0.25

60

0.5

40

0.5

30

1.0Grading% passing sieve size(mm)75 100 10037.5 80-100 80-10020 60-85 75-10010 45-70 45-905.0 30-55 30-752.0 8-26 8-330.425 5-15 5-220.075 2.15 1.95Grading Modulus(min) 2.15 1.95 1.5 1.25Maximum size (min) 53.0 63.0 75.0 2/3rd layer thicknesAtterberg LimitLiquid limit (%) max 25 30 30 35Plasticity index (%) max 10 12 14 16

Linear Shrinkage (%) max 5 6 7 8Plasticity modulus (max) 200 250 250 250Other properties10% Fines (kN)(min) 80 50Ratio dry soaked 10% Fines (min)

0.6 0.6

G80- BASECOURSEG60- BASE COURSE FOR LOW TRAFFIC ROADSG40- BASE COURSE FOR SEAL RURAL ROADS/ SUB-BASEG30-SUBBASE

14

CHAPTER 3

MATERIALS AND METHODS

3.1 Materials

Pozzzolana

Pozzolana was obtained from Building and Road Research Institute (BRRI)–Kumasi. It was

brought to the laboratory and conveniently prepared to be used in modifying lateritic soil

samples. It was added to the soil samples in percentages of 3, 5, 7 and 10 with laboratory

tests performed on each composite soil-pozzolana material.

Lateritic Soil Lateritic soil samples were obtained from Ayeduase. A trial pit of 1m x 1.5m x 1.6m was

dug, from which disturbed samples were taken at a depth of 0.75m, with no in-situ tests

performed. Samples were air-dried before testing in the laboratory. The disturbed samples

were used for the classification tests and the engineering properties tests.

3.2 Methods

The following tests viz; classification test (natural moisture content, specific gravity, particle

size analysis and Atterberg’s limits) and engineering property test (compaction, California

bearing ratio (CBR), were performed on the unstabilized sample. Pozzolana ash was then

added to each of the samples in 3, 5, 7 and 10% by weight of samples. Atterberg’s limit and

the engineering property tests were repeated on the stabilized samples. The optimum

moisture content (OMC) obtained from the compaction test of each varied percentage of

pozzolana ash was used for the engineering property test (CBR,) to determine the effect of

pozzolana ash on the geotechnical properties of the samples. The procedures of these tests are

as follows:

15

3.2.1 Soil classification tests

Soil classification tests is carried out to evaluate key soil characteristics as an initial step to

determine either it is suitable for stabilization. The detailed explanation on each test is as

follows:

a. Particle size distribution

The mixture of different particle sizes and the distribution of these sizes give very useful

information about the engineering behaviors of the soil. The particle size distribution is

determined by separate the particles using two processes which is sieving analysis or

hydrometer analysis. Sieve analysis for particle sizes larger than 0.075mm in diameter; and

hydrometer analysis for particle sizes smaller than 0.075mm in diameter are the method

usually used to find size distribution of soil.

b. Sieve Analysis

The grain size distribution curve of soil samples is determined by passing them through a

stack of sieves of decreasing mesh-opening sizes and by measuring the weight retained on

each sieve. The analysis also can be performed either in wet or dry conditions. Soil with

negligible amount of plastic fines, such as gravel and clean sand will analyzed by dry sieving

while wet sieving is applied to soils with plastic fines. Representative sample of

approximately 500g was used for the test after washing and oven-dried. The sieving was done

by hand method using a set of sieves.

c. Hydrometer analysis

The classification of fine-grained soils, i.e., soils that are finer than sand, is determined

primarily by their Atterberg limits, not by their grain size. If it is important to determine the

grain size distribution of fine-grained soils, the hydrometer test may be performed. In the

hydrometer tests, the soil particles are mixed with water and shaken to produce a dilute

16

suspension in a glass cylinder. A hydrometer is used to measure the density of the suspension

as a function of time. Hydrometer analysis is based on the principles expressed by Stokes’

law which it is assumed that dispersed soil particles of various shapes and sizes fall in water

under their own weight as non-interacting spheres.

d. Natural moisture content

The determination of natural moisture content tests followed the standard as outlined in BS

1377 of 1990.

e. Specific Gravity

Based on BS1377:1990, the aim of this test is to define the average specific gravity (Gs) that

useful for determining the weight-volume relationship. It is the ratio between the unit masses

of soil particles and water. Determination of the volume of a mass of dry soil particles is

obtained by placing the soil particles in a glass bottle filled completely with desired distilled

water. The bottles and its contents are shaken (for coarse-grained soils) or placed under

vacuum (for finer-grained soils) in order to remove all of the air trapped between the soil

particles.

f. Atterberg Limit

It is important to carry out several simple tests to describe the plasticity of clay to avoid

shrinkage and cracking when fired. Atterberg limit described an amount of water contents at

certain limiting or critical stages in soil behavior. If we know where the water content of our

sample is relative to the Atterberg limit, that we already know a great deal about the

engineering response of our sample. This test was carried out in order to determine the

stiffness of clay and parameters measured are plastic limit (PL) and liquid limit (LL). The

behavior of soil in term of plasticity index (PI) is determined by using this formula:

PI = LL – PL

17

Liquid Limit Determination

Liquid limit is expressed in terms of water content as a percentage. It is essentially a measure

of a constant value of a lower strength limit of viscous shearing resistance as the soil

approaches the liquid state. Soil sample passing through 425μm sieve, weighing 200g was

mixed with water to form a thick homogeneous paste. The paste was collected inside the

Casangrade’s apparatus cup with a grove created and the number of blows to close it was

recorded. Also, moisture contents were determined.

Plastic limit determination

Plastic Limit represents the moisture content at which soil changes from plastic to brittle

state. It is the upper strength limit of consistency. Soil sample weighing 200g was taken from

the material passing the 425μm test sieve and then mixed with water till it became

homogenous and plastic to be shaped to ball, Casagrande (1932) suggested that the simple

method to do this test is by rolling a thread of soil on a glass plate until it crumbles at a

diameter of 3 mm. Sample will reflects as wet side of the plastic limit if the thread can be

rolled in diameter of below 3 mm, and the dry side if the thread breaks up and crumbles

before it reaches 3 mm diameter.

Plasticity Index

Plasticity index is defined as a range of water content where the soil is plastic. Therefore it is

a numerically equal to the differences between the liquid limit (LL) and the plastic limit (PL).

Many engineering properties have been found to empirically correlate with the PI, and it is

also useful engineering classification of fine-grained soils. In general terms, the higher the

plasticity index, the higher the potential to shrink as the soil undergoes moisture content

fluctuations.

18

3.2.2 Engineering tests

Compaction test

The purpose of compaction is to produce a soil mass with controlled engineering properties.

In compaction, energy is applied to bring about densification and densification results in the

expulsion of air from the soil-water-air system. The amount of densification obtained during

compaction depends on

The amount of energy used The manner in which the energy is applied (e.g. static or dynamic or vibratory) The type of soil The water content

The compaction characteristics of laterite are determined by their grading characteristics and

plasticity of fines (Makasa, 2004). Placement variables (moisture content, amount of

compaction and type of compaction effort) also influence the compaction characteristics.

Varying each of these placement variables has an effect on permeability, compressibility,

strength and stress-strain characteristics (Lambe, 1984).

The compaction test was used to determine the effect of stabilizers on maximum dry density

(MDD) and optimum moisture content (OMC).

b. California bearing ratio (CBR)

The CBR is a strength-based method of pavement design which uses the load deformation

characteristics of the roadbed soils, aggregate sub-base, and base materials, and an empirical

design chart to determine the thicknesses of the pavement, base, and other layers.

CBR-value is used as an index of soil strength and bearing capacity. This value is broadly

used and applied in design of the base and the sub-base material for pavement. Lime- and fly

ash–stabilized soils are often used for the construction of these pavement layers and also for

embankments. CBR-value is a familiar indicator test used to evaluate the strength of soils for

19

these applications (Nicholson et al., 1994). CBR-test was conducted to assess the strength and

the bearing capacity of the studied soil and the pozzolana mixtures.

20

CHAPTER 4

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1 Soil ProfileThe soil samples were taken from a trial pit. Three distinct horizons were identified and

lateritic soil samples were collected from between 0.5m and 1.60m (figure 4.1). The first

horizon is the top soil. The second horizon which is light brown in colour and compose of

fine to coarse grained sandy clay. The third is the lateritic horizon which is reddish brown in

color and composes of fine to coarse grained sandy clay.

Top soil

Light brown, fine to coarse grained sandy clay

Reddish brown, fine to coarse grain sandy clay

Figure 4.1 Soil profile of trial pit

4.2 Chemical composition of the materialsThe variation of major oxide composition determined from X–Ray Fractionation (XRF) tests

on both the lateritic soil and the pozzolana are shown in figure 4.2.

21

0.5m Figur

0.0m

0.2m Figur

1.6m Figur

SiO2

Al2O3Fe2

O3TiO

2CaO

Na2O K2OMgO

P2O5MnO SO

3L.O

.I0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

natural soilpozzolana

Major Oxides

Conc

entra

tions

(WT%

)

Figure 4.2 Variation in chemical composition of materials

From Figure 4.2 the lateritic soil is mainly composed of oxides of silicon, aluminium and

iron, forming almost 30% of the overall composing major oxides. Pozzolana on the other

hand had lime (SiO2), Al2O3, and FeO2 constituting over 60%.

4.3 Geotechnical Properties of the stabilized soils.

Geotechnical properties of both lateritic soil and soil–pozzolana material as obtained from

laboratory tests are shown in Table 4.1 and are discussed.

22

Table 4.1 Summary of Laboratory tests results

Laboratory testPozzolana content

0% 3% 5% 7% 10%

Specific gravity 2.60 2.60 2.60 2.60 2.60

Particle size distribution

Clay content (%)47.42 45 40.3 38 38

Silt content (%) 3.6 6.3 6.8 6.1 9

Sand content (%) 20.36 29.7 26.7 32.7 35.2

Gravel content (%) 28.16 19 26 23 16.7

Atterberg Limits

Liquid limit (%)59.66 58.41 58.52 54.50 50.02

Plastic limit (%) 23.73 25.91 24.72 23.92 21.68

Plasticity index (%) 35.2 32.50 24.72 30.58 28.09

Compaction

Maximum dry density (g/cm3)2.014 1.914 2.018 2.030 1.884

Optimum moisture content (%) 12.40 12.50 13.30 14.30 13.80

California Bearing Ratio3.02 11.77 14.51 37.55 43.65

CBR (%)

4.3.1 Index properties

Effect of pozzolana on the Atterberg limits of the soils

The results of the Atterberg’s limits test (Liquid Limits (LL), Plastic Limits (PL) and Plastic

Index (PI)) on the samples are shown in Table 4.2. The LL, PL and PI of the natural soil

sample are 58.50, 23.68 and 34.72 respectively. According to Whitlow (1995), liquid limit

less than 35% indicates low plasticity, between 35% and 50% indicates intermediate

plasticity, between 50% and 70% high plasticity and between 70% and 90% very high

plasticity and greater than 90% extremely high plasticity. This shows that the natural soil

sample has intermediate plasticity, the addition of pozzolana in 3%, 5%, 7% and 10% to the

samples caused changes in the liquid limits and plastic limits of all the samples, which are

23

shown in Table 4.2.The variation of Atterberg limits with pozzolana content is shown in

Figure 4.3. The plasticity indices of stabilized soil decreased from 34.72% for the natural

material to 28.07% for10% pozzolana stabilized soils. The addition of natural pozzolana

alone to the soil enhanced significantly the workability of the soil by reducing the plasticity

index. A similar trend was observed by Parsons et al. (2005) and Anisur (1986) where they

have used fly ash and Rice Husk Ash respectively.

Table 4.2 Summary of Index property tests

Percentage specific Liquid Plastic Plastic BSStabilization gravity Limit Limit index Classification(%) (%) (%)

0% 2.64 58.50 23.68 34.72 CH3% 2.64 58.00 25.91 32.09 CH5% 2.64 62.00 24.72 37.28 CH7% 2.64 54.00 23.92 30.08 CH10% 2.64 50.00 21.93 28.07 CI

0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12%0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Liquid limit

Linear (Liquid limit )

Plastic limit

Linear (Plastic limit)

Plasticity Index

Linear (Plasticity Index)

Pozzolana content (%)

Wat

er co

nten

t (%)

Figure 4.3 Variation of LL, PL and PI of soil sample with pozzolana stabilization.

24

The plasticity classification of the soils is shown in Figure 4.4. It is noted that the addition of

0%. 3%, 5% and 7% did not cause a change in the plasticity classification of the soils as they

classified as inorganic clay of high plasticity. Only the 10% pozzolana stabilized the soil

classified as inorganic clay of intermediate plasticity.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 900

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

A Line0% pozzolana ash3% pozzolana ash5% pozzolana ash7% pozzolana ash10% pozzolana ash

Liquid Limit (%)

Plasti

c ity

Inde

x (%)

CL

ML

MI

MH

MV

CI

CH

CV

Figure 4.4 Plasticity classification of the soils

Effect of pozzolana on the grading characteristics of the soils

The grading characteristics of the natural and stabilized soils are shown in figure 4.5. It is

noted that the addition of pozzolana caused a change in the particle size. The variation of

particle sizes with pozzolana is presented in Table 4.3. It is observed that clay size content

reduces with increasing pozzolana. Texturally the natural material classified as gravelly clay,

whereas 3%, 5%, 7% and 10% pozzolana improved soils classified as sandy clay.

25

Table 4.3 Variation of particle size and textural classification

Particle size GroupPozzolana Content

0% 3% 5% 7% 10%

Clay (%) 47.42 45 40.3 38 38Silt (%) 3.6 6.3 6.8 6.1 9Sand (%) 20.36 29.7 26.7 32.7 35.2Gravel (%) 28.16 19 26 23 16.7

Textural Classification

Gravelly clay Sandy clay Sandy clay Sandy clay Sandy clay

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 1000.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

80.00

90.00

100.00

3% pozzolana5% pozzolana 7% pozzolana10% pozzolana0% pozzolana

Sieve size (mm)

Perce

ntag

e pass

ing (%

)

Figure 4.5 Grading characteristics of the natural and stabilized soils

4.3.2 Engineering properties

Effects of pozzolana on the Compaction characteristics

The density-moisture content relationships of the pozzolana stabilized soil are shown in

Figure 4.6. The variation of the Maximum Dry Density (MDD) with the pozzolana content is

26

also shown in Figure 4.7. It is noted that the MDD reduces with increasing pozzolana content.

The maximum value of 2.014g/cc occurred at 7% pozzolana content.

0 5 10 15 20 251.5

1.6

1.7

1.8

1.9

2

2.1

natural soilnatura soil + 3% pozzolananatural soil + 5% pozzolananatural soil + 7% pozzolananatural soil + 10% pozzolana

Figure 4.6 Typical grain size distribution curves for the different percentages.

0 3 6 9 121.8

1.85

1.9

1.95

2

2.05

Pozzolana Content (%)

Max

imum

Dry

Den

sity (

g/cc)

Figure 4.7 Variation of MDD with pozzolana content

27

The effects of pozzolana on the optimum moisture content (OMC) of the soils are shown in

Figure 4.8. It is noted that the OMC of the soil increase with increasing pozzolana content.

The increase in OMC may probably be due to the additional water held within the flocculent

soil structure and also the excess water absorbed as a result of the porous property of

pozzolana.

0 2 4 6 8 10 1211

11.5

12

12.5

13

13.5

14

14.5

Pozzolana Content (%)

Optim

um W

ater

Con

tent

(%)

Figure 4.8 Variation of OMC against pozzolana content

Effects of pozzolana on California bearing ratio characteristics

The variation of CBR value with pozzolana content is shown in Figure 4.9. It is found that

CBR value decreases with increasing pozzolana content.

28

0 2 4 6 8 10 120

5

10

15

20

25

30

pozzolana content(%)

CBR(

%)

Figure 4.9 Variation of CBR per pozzolana content

4.3.3 Assessment of suitability of stabilized soils for use as base material in road construction

The comparison of the geotechnical properties of the natural lateritic soil and the pozzolana-

stabilized soil with the Ministry of Road and Transport’s (MRT, 2006) standard specification

for road and bridge works indicate that, the pozzolana did not adequately stabilize the soils

for sub–base construction.

29

CHAPTER 5

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

5. Conclusion

From the study the following conclusions were arrived at:

The pozzolana had some effect on the grading characteristics: the addition of 3%, 5%,

7%, and 10% of pozzolana to the soil changed the textural classification from gravelly

clay to sandy clay.

There was reduction in LL and PL resulting in a reduction in PI with increasing

pozzolana content.

The addition of pozzolana increased MDD with the maximum occurring at 7%

pozzolana content while OMC increases with pozzolana content.

CBR reduced with pozzolana content.

From the results the pozzolana appears not to be a good stabilizer for the soil studied for

the ranges used.

30

REFERENCESBell F. G., (1993) Engineering Geology. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford,

Chmeisse, C., (1992), Soil stabilization using some pozzolanic industrial and agricultural

products, university of Wollongong thesis collection.pp. 12

Clare K.E., O’Reilly M.P., (1951). Road construction over tropical red clays. Conf. on Civil

Eng. Bull., 44; p. 10-29.

Clare, K.E. and O’Reilly, M.P. (1960). Road construction over tropical red clays. Conf. Civ.

Eng. Problems Overseas, Inst. Civil Eng. 1960, p. 243-256.

Croft, J.B. (1964) “The Pozzolanic Reactivities Of Some New South Wales Fly ashes and their

application to soil stabilization”, Australian Research Board, ProcV2(2), pp.1147-1167.

Das, B.M (2000). Fundamental of Geotechnical Engineering. 4th ed. Thomson Learning, USA.

Davidson, W.H. and Mullin, E.F. (1962) “Use of fly ash in road construction in new wales” Proc.

Australian Road Research Board, 1: 2, pp. 1058-1100.

Fookes, G. (1997), Tropical residual soils, a geological society engineering group working party

revised report, The Geological Society, London,.

Frı´as, M. and Cement and Concrete Research (2005). Sugar cane straw ash.

Garber, N.J. and Hoel, L.A., (2000). Traffic and highway engineering, 2nd ed. Brooks/Cole Publishing

Company, London, 481- 492, 927- 930.

Gidigasu, M.D. (1976). Laterite Soil Engineering, Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company,

Amsterdam, 556pp.

Havelin, J.E. and Khan, F., (1951). Hydrated lime-fly ash-fine aggregate, US Patent No. 2:554, 690.

31

Herzog, A and Brock, R. (1964) “Some Factors Influencing the strength ……………………

Hossain, K.M.A., Lachemi, M. and Easa, S., (2007). Stabilized soils for construction applications

incorporating natural resources of Papua New Guinea, Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 51,

711-731

Kerali, G. (2001). Durability Of Compressed and Cement-stabilised Building Blocks; Ph.D. Thesis;

School of Engineering, University of Warwick: Warwich, UK,

Lambe, T.W. and Whitman, V.R. (1979). Soil mechanics, SI version, John Wiley and Sons Inc., New

York,

Lee, I.K, Ingles, O.G and White, W., (1983). Geotechnical Engineering, Pitman Publishing Inc,

marshfields, Massachusetts, USA.

Lee. I.K., Ingles, O.G., and White, W. (1983). Geotechnical Engineering, Pitman Publishing

Inc, Marshfield, Massachusettes, USA.

Maignien, R. (1966). Review of Research on Laterite, Natural Resource Research IV; UNESCO:

Paris, France, pp: 148.

Mallela, J. Quintus, P. E. and Smith, K. L., (2004). Consideration of lime-stabilized layers in

mechanistic- empirical pavement design. http://www.training.ce; website visited on 24/01/2006.

Martirena, J.F., Middendorf, B. and Budelman, H., (1998). Use of wastes of the sugar industry as

pozzolan in lime-pozzolan binders: Study of the reaction. Cement Concrete Research. 28: 1525–1536.

McNally, G.H, (1998). Soil and rock construction materials, Routledge, London, 276-282, 330-341.

Middendorf, B., Mickley, J., Martirena, J.F. and Day, R.L (2003). Masonry wall materials prepared

by using agriculture waste, lime and burnt clay. In: Masonry: Opportunities for the 21st Century.

Throop D. and R. Klingner. eds., ASTM STP 1432, West Conshohocken, PA, pp. 274-283.

32

Minnick, L.J. And Miller, R.H. (1952). “Lime-Fly ash compositions in highways”, Proc. Highway

research Board, pp. 511-528.

Moxie-intl (2006). Definition of pozzolan. <http://www.moxieintl.com/glossary.htm>

Ola, S.A. (1975). Stabilization of Nigerian lateritic soils with cement, bitumen, and lime, Proceedings

of the 6th Regional Conference for Africa on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering.

Paya,´ J., Monzo,´ J., Borrachero, M.V., Dıáz, P. and Ordon˜ez, L.M., (2002). Sugarcane bagasse ash

(SCBA): Studies on its properties for reusing in concrete production. Journal of Chemical Technology

and Biotechnology. 77: 321–325.

Rahman, M.A. (1986) “Effects of Rice Husk Ash on Geotechnical Properties of Lateritic”, West

Indian Journal of Engineering, volume 11 no. 2, pp. 18-22.

Thagesen, B. (1996). Tropical rocks and soils, In: Highway and traffic engineering in developing

countries: B, Thagesen, ed. Chapman and Hall, London,.

Villar-Cocinã, E., Valencia-Morales, E., Gonza´lez- Rodrı´guez, R. and Hernańdez-Ruı´z, J (2003).

Kinetics of the pozzolanic reaction between lime and sugar cane straw ash by electrical conductivity

measurement: A kinetic–diffusive model. Cement Concrete Research. 33:517–524.

Winterkorn H.F., Chandrasekharen E.C., (1986). .Laterite soils and stabilization, High. Res.

Board

33

APPENDIX

Appendix ASummary of data for specific gravity

SAMPLE ID 1

Pycnometer Bottle No. F D

Mass of empty pycnometer + stopper (m1) 823 840

Mass of empty pycnometer + soil (m2) 1400 1730

Mass of empty pycnometer + soil + Liquid (m3) 2428 2692

Mass of pycnometer Bottle + Liquid (m4) 2077 2129

Specific Gravity, ρs = ((m2-m1)/(m4-m1)-(m3-m2))× ρL

2.553 2.722

Average Specific Gravity 2.64

34

Atterbergs limit test for the natural soil

Liquid Limit Plastic Limit

Container No. X20 A6 A15 C23 K2 K9

Mass of container(gm) 3.66 3.57 3.7 3.73 3.71 3.67

No. of blows 47 30 25 16Mass of container + wet sample(gm) 21.14 20.27 19.02 20.78

16.12 15.15

Mass of container + dry sample(gm) 14.99 14.16 13.31 14.13

13.77 12.92

Mass of water(gm) 6.15 6.11 5.71 6.65 2.35 2.23

Mass of dry sample(gm) 11.33 10.59 9.61 10.40 10.06 9.25

Water content(%) 54.28 57.70 59.42 63.94 23.36 24.11

Liquid limit 59.66 Plastic limit 23.73

Plasticity index = 35.2

10 10048.00

50.00

52.00

54.00

56.00

58.00

60.00

62.00

64.00

66.00

f(x) = − 8.97818171313169 ln(x) + 88.5581355184403R² = 0.993294863825668

LIQUID LIMITS CHART

No. of blows

wat

er co

nten

t(%

)

35

Appendix A2

Atterbergs limit test for the natural soil + 3% pozzolana


Container No. C7 X21 B7 B23 A30 A40



16.12 15.99


13.55 13.43

Mass of water(gm) 6.53 5.96 7.94 6.56 2.57 2.56


Water content(%) 53.70 54.33 57.45 63.39 25.75 26.07



10 10048.00

50.00

52.00

54.00

56.00

58.00

60.00

62.00

64.00

66.00

f(x) = − 11.8184122729918 ln(x) + 96.4751161354841R² = 0.878203702578035

LIQUID LIMITS CHART

No. of blows

wat

er co

nten

t(%)

36

Appendix A3



Container No. A17 C4 B18 C1 B34 B5X



15.92 15.35


13.46 13.07

Mass of water(gm) 6.82 6.20 8.01 7.72 2.46 2.28


Water content(%) 51.28 54.43 60.45 65.15 25.03 26.41



10 10050.00

52.00

54.00

56.00

58.00

60.00

62.00

64.00

66.00f(x) = − 10.6248916930508 ln(x) + 92.7078472375987R² = 0.995774282824927

LIQUID LIMITS CHART

No. of blows

wat

er co

nten

t(%)

37

Appendix A4



Container No. B6 E21 K4 A14 B14 A13



14 14.63


12.04 12.5

Mass of water(gm) 5.98 7.24 6.44 7.84 1.96 2.13


Water content(%) 49.79 53.67 51.77 61.30 23.44 24.40



10 10049.00

51.00

53.00

55.00

57.00

59.00

61.00

63.00

f(x) = − 8.14793788268675 ln(x) + 80.7265810373328R² = 0.73697283683616

LIQUID LIMITS CHART

No. of blows

wat

er co

nten

t(%)

38

Appendix A5



Container No. B172 A23 C5 A32 A33 C10



11.87 11.95


10.4 10.46

Mass of water(gm) 7.91 3.18 8.67 7.62 1.47 1.49


Water content(%) 49.80 47.25 51.24 52.62 21.68 22.17



10 10042.00

44.00

46.00

48.00

50.00

52.00

54.00

f(x) = − 5.41243672208144 ln(x) + 67.4370362381841R² = 0.810352982161897

LIQUID LIMITS CHART

No. of blows

wat

er co

nten

t(%)

39

Appendix B

Weigth of sample(gm) 7000Mass of Mould + wet sample(gm)Mass of Mould(gm)Mass of wet sample(gm)Bulk density(gm/cc)Container No. S1 S16 KA41 S7 S19 S2 S10 S17Mass of container + wet soil(gm) 72.95 69.96 65.44 70.15 62.56 62.04 79.88 83.88Mass of container + dry soil(gm) 68.05 66.22 61.05 65.19 56.19 56.22 69.68 73.69Mass of container(gm) 13.62 13.9 15.37 14.43 13.88 13.85 13.94 13.57Mass of wet soil(gm) 59.33 56.06 50.07 55.72 48.68 48.19 65.94 70.31Mass of dry soil(gm) 54.43 52.32 45.68 50.76 42.31 42.37 55.74 60.12Mass of water(gm) 4.90 3.74 4.39 4.96 6.37 5.82 10.20 10.19Water content(%) 9.00 7.15 9.61 9.77 15.06 13.74 18.30 16.95Average water content(%)Dry density(gm/cc)Curve for 0%Curve for 5%Curve for 10%Height of mould( cm) 11.5Diameter of mould(cm) 15.00Volume of mould(cc) 2032.22

2.109 2.268

1.8962.237 2.159 1.960 1.8431.750 1.922

3844 4285 4610

9.69 14.40 17.62

45331.892

1.9838.08

7560 7560 7560120937560

2.013 1.943 1.7642.125 2.051 1.862 1.751

1.659

2.231

11404 11845 12170

5.00 7.00 9.00 11.00 13.00 15.00 17.00 19.001.700

1.750

1.800

1.850

1.900

1.950

2.000

2.050

2.100

COMPACTION TEST

Water content(%)

Dry de

nsity(

g/cc)

Compaction test on natural soil

40

Appendix B1

Weigth of sample(gm) 6959Mass of Mould + wet sample(gm)Mass of Mould(gm)Mass of wet sample(gm)Bulk density(gm/cc)Container No. A34 N45 NE4 NE1 AB ZF N9 N15 B2 B9Mass of container + wet soil(gm) 75.01 116.60 74.53 73.78 89.63 78.92 69.28 63.99 91.60 90.68Mass of container + dry soil(gm) 73.62 114.3 70.32 69.76 82.28 71.71 61.63 56.12 77.99 77.03Mass of container(gm) 14.81 20.82 14.71 14.85 20.37 14.11 11.80 11.03 11.11 11.05Mass of wet soil(gm) 60.20 95.78 59.82 58.93 69.26 64.81 57.48 52.96 80.49 79.63Mass of dry soil(gm) 58.81 93.48 55.61 54.91 61.91 57.6 49.83 45.09 66.88 65.98Mass of water(gm) 1.39 2.30 4.21 4.02 7.35 7.21 7.65 7.87 13.61 13.65Water content(%) 2.36 2.46 7.57 7.32 11.87 12.52 15.35 17.45 20.35 20.69Average water content(%)Dry density(gm/cc)Curve for 0%Curve for 5%Curve for 10%Height of mould( cm) 11.5Diameter of mould(cm) 15.00Volume of mould(cc) 2032.22

11120 11458 11840

2.305 2.042 1.843

1.7502.433 2.155 1.946 1.791 1.662

1.697 1.575

2.158

1.9142.41

7477 7477 747711863 117387477 7477

1.740

42613643 3981 4363

7.45 12.19 16.40 20.52

2.0974386

1.793

1.8542.561 2.269 2.048 1.8861.750 1.823

1.959 2.147

Compaction test for natural soil + 3% pozzolana

1.00 6.00 11.00 16.00 21.00 26.001.700

1.750

1.800

1.850

1.900

1.950

2.000

COMPACTION TEST

Water content(%)

Dry de

nsity(g

/cc)

Compaction test on natural soil + 3% pozzolana

41

Appendix B2

Weigth of sample(gm) 6963Mass of Mould + wet sample(gm)Mass of Mould(gm)Mass of wet sample(gm)Bulk density(gm/cc)Container No. N1 N13 N10 N12 B11 B14 B13 B16Mass of container + wet soil(gm) 62.17 60.90 68.89 60.96 53.49 55.87 38.69 36.24Mass of container + dry soil(gm) 60.72 59.5 64.69 57.65 49.38 51.41 34.79 32.52Mass of container(gm) 11.15 11.14 11.94 12.27 12.21 11.20 10.97 11.10Mass of wet soil(gm) 51.02 49.76 56.95 48.69 41.28 44.67 27.72 25.14Mass of dry soil(gm) 49.57 48.36 52.75 45.38 37.17 40.21 23.82 21.42Mass of water(gm) 1.45 1.40 4.20 3.31 4.11 4.46 3.90 3.72Water content(%) 2.93 2.89 7.96 7.29 11.06 11.09 16.37 17.37Average water content(%)Dry density(gm/cc)Curve for 0%Curve for 5%Curve for 10%Height of mould( cm) 11.5Diameter of mould(cm) 15.00Volume of mould(cc) 2032.22

11149 11336 11804

2.276 2.034 1.8872.403 2.147 1.991 1.776

1.682

2.138

1.9732.91

7350 7350 7350116957350

3799 3986 4454

7.63 11.07 16.87

43451.869

1.8292.529 2.259 2.096 1.8691.817 1.822

1.961 2.192

Compaction test for natural soil + 5% pozzolana

1.00 3.00 5.00 7.00 9.00 11.00 13.00 15.00 17.00 19.00 21.001.700

1.750

1.800

1.850

1.900

1.950

2.000

COMPACTION TEST

Water content(%)

Dry d

ensit

y(g/cc

)


Appendix B3

42

Weigth of sample(gm) 7000Mass of Mould + wet sample(gm)Mass of Mould(gm)Mass of wet sample(gm)Bulk density(gm/cc)Container No. S6 S8 S9 S13 S3 S18 S12 NE1 KA4 KA5Mass of container + wet soil(gm) 71.67 73.65 77.20 79.59 75.74 73.42 78.65 76.23 98.33 90.31Mass of container + dry soil(gm) 69.06 71.28 72.89 75.12 69.55 67.74 71.11 68.43 86.08 78.39Mass of container(gm) 13.66 13.92 13.77 13.77 13.47 14.01 14.23 13.69 14.88 15.03Mass of wet soil(gm) 58.01 59.73 63.43 65.82 62.27 59.41 64.42 62.54 83.45 75.28Mass of dry soil(gm) 55.4 57.36 59.12 61.35 56.08 53.73 56.88 54.74 71.2 63.36Mass of water(gm) 2.61 2.37 4.31 4.47 6.19 5.68 7.54 7.80 12.25 11.92Water content(%) 4.71 4.13 7.29 7.29 11.04 10.57 13.26 14.25 17.21 18.81Average water content(%)Dry density(gm/cc)Curve for 0%Curve for 5%Curve for 10%Height of mould( cm) 11.5Diameter of mould(cm) 15.00Volume of mould(cc) 2032.22

2.006 2.173

2.0282.436 2.277 2.108 1.9851.921 1.870

4077 4077 4417

7.29 10.80 13.75 18.01

2.2174688

2.006

1.9624.42

7560 7560 756012248 120667560 7560

1.879

4506

2.192 2.049 1.897

1.8302.314 2.163 2.003 1.886 1.739

1.786 1.647

2.307

11637 11637 11977

3.00 5.00 7.00 9.00 11.00 13.00 15.00 17.00 19.001.700

1.750

1.800

1.850

1.900

1.950

2.000

2.050

2.100

COMPACTION TEST

Water content(%)

Dry de

nsity(

g/cc)


Appendix B4

43

Weigth of sample(gm) 6787Mass of Mould + wet sample(gm)Mass of Mould(gm)Mass of wet sample(gm)Bulk density(gm/cc)Container No. NE1 S13 C9 G6 S6 S15 S9 S1 S4 S12Mass of container + wet soil(gm) 95.29 94.66 96.97 97.01 68.80 74.70 90.56 82.57 118.10 127.69Mass of container + dry soil(gm) 93.74 93.15 92.35 92.54 63.30 68.82 80.14 73.11 99.74 108.48Mass of container(gm) 13.71 13.77 17.87 17.86 13.66 13.66 13.77 13.64 13.80 14.04Mass of wet soil(gm) 81.58 80.89 79.10 79.15 55.14 61.04 76.79 68.93 104.30 113.65Mass of dry soil(gm) 80.03 79.38 74.48 74.68 49.64 55.16 66.37 59.47 85.94 94.44Mass of water(gm) 1.55 1.51 4.62 4.47 5.50 5.88 10.42 9.46 18.36 19.21Water content(%) 1.94 1.90 6.20 5.99 11.08 10.66 15.70 15.91 21.36 20.34Average water content(%)Dry density(gm/cc)Curve for 0%Curve for 5%Curve for 10%Height of mould( cm) 11.5Diameter of mould(cm) 15.00Volume of mould(cc) 2032.22

10959 11111 11530

2.335 2.107 1.895

1.7402.464 2.224 2.000 1.812 1.653

1.716 1.566

2.164

1.8551.92

7350 7350 735011747 116157350 7350

1.737

42653609 3761 4180

6.09 10.87 15.80 20.85

2.0994397

1.776

1.8682.594 2.341 2.105 1.9071.742 1.744

1.851 2.057

1.00 6.00 11.00 16.00 21.00 26.001.700

1.720

1.740

1.760

1.780

1.800

1.820

1.840

1.860

1.880

COMPACTION TEST

Water content(%)

Dry de

nsity(

g/cc)


Appendix C

44

Table

Date Sample No. Clay Shell Weight of Sample(g) 50Percentage Additional 50.8000Passing(%) Information 38.1

100 25.40.00 100.00 19.05000.00 100.00 12.7000

0 0.00 100.00 9.53000 0.00 100.00 6.3500 100.000 0.00 100.00 4.7600 98.920 0.00 100.00 2.4000 81.260 0.00 100.00 1.2000 71.84

0.54 1.08 98.92 0.6000 65.268.83 17.66 81.26 0.4200 60.764.71 9.42 71.84 58.38 0.3000 56.823.29 6.58 65.26 53.03 0.1500 52.282.25 4.50 60.76 49.37 0.0750 51.821.97 3.94 56.82 46.17 0.0609 51.592.27 4.54 52.28 42.48 0.0433 50.80.23 0.46 51.82 42.11 0.0306 50.8

0.00 51.82 0.0217 50.3 0.0154 49.5 0.0113 49.5 0.0080 49.5

0.0057 48.20.0040 48.20.0028 48.2

Meniscus correction Cm 0.5 0.0012 46.8Specific Gravity 2.60 43.935156Dispersion Correction 3.8

Temp. Time(min) R'h Rh Hr Mt Rd Viscosity n,(mPa.s) D (mm) W% LogD(mm) 27.0 0.5 21.3 21.8 114.5 1.53 19.5 0.061 63.48 51.59 27.0 1 21.0 21.5 115.7 1.53 19.2 0.043 62.51 50.7927.0 2 21.0 21.5 115.7 1.53 19.2 0.031 62.51 50.7927.0 4 20.8 21.3 116.5 1.53 19.0 0.022 61.86 50.2727.0 8 20.5 21.0 117.7 1.53 18.7 0.015 60.88 49.4727.0 15 20.5 21.0 117.7 1.53 18.7 0.011 60.88 49.4727.0 30 20.5 21.0 117.7 1.53 18.7 0.008 60.88 49.4727.0 60 20.0 20.5 119.6 1.53 18.2 0.006 59.26 48.1527.0 120 20.0 20.5 119.6 1.53 18.2 0.004 59.26 48.1527.0 240 20.0 20.5 119.6 1.53 18.2 0.003 59.26 48.1527.0 1440 19.5 20.0 121.6 1.53 17.7 0.001 57.63 46.83

0.84720.84720.8472

0.84720.84720.84720.84720.84720.8472

Weight of Sample (g) 50Date

0.84720.8472

Passing 200

0.8

Origin of Soil 0.5Sample No.

0.30/ 52 500.15/ 100 35

0.075/ 200 20

1.20/ 14 1000.60/ 25 700.42/ 36 60

6.35/ 1/4 5004.76/ 3/16 4002.40/ 7 150

25.419.05/0.75in12.70/0.5in 20009.53/ 3/8 600

Size(mm/in) Retained (g) Retained (%) Load (grams)

50.838.1

SIEVE ANALYSIS RESULTS

Aperture Weight Percentage

Particle size distribution for the natural soil

45

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 1000

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

PARTICLE SIZES

PECE

NTAG

E PAS

SING

Gravel 28.16%Sand 20.36%Silt 3.6%Clay 47.42%

Grading test on natural soil + percentages of proportions

46

Appendix C1

Table

Date Sample No. Clay Shell Weight of Sample(g) 50Percentage Additional 50.8000 100.00Passing(%) Information 38.1 100.00

100 25.4 100.000.00 100.00 19.0500 100.000.00 100.00 12.7000 100.00

0 0.00 100.00 9.5300 100.000 0.00 100.00 6.3500 100.000 0.00 100.00 4.7600 98.580 0.00 100.00 2.4000 84.260 0.00 100.00 1.2000 74.38

0.71 1.42 98.58 0.6000 67.307.16 14.32 84.26 0.4200 62.244.94 9.88 74.38 62.67 0.3000 58.203.54 7.08 67.30 56.71 0.1500 52.822.53 5.06 62.24 52.44 0.0750 52.022.02 4.04 58.20 49.04 0.0598 52.532.69 5.38 52.82 44.51 0.0427 51.20.4 0.80 52.02 43.83 0.0302 51.2

0.00 52.02 0.0214 50.9 0.0151 50.6 0.0111 50.3 0.0079 49.4

0.0057 47.60.0040 47.00.0029 46.0

Meniscus correction Cm 0.5 0.0012 44.5Specific Gravity 2.60Dispersion Correction 3.8

Temp. Time(min) R'h Rh Hr Mt Rd Viscosity n,(mPa.s) D (mm) W% LogD(mm) 30.5 0.5 20.0 20.5 119.6 2.48 19.2 0.060 62.35 52.53 30.5 1 19.5 20.0 121.6 2.48 18.7 0.043 60.72 51.1630.5 2 19.5 20.0 121.6 2.48 18.7 0.030 60.72 51.1630.5 4 19.4 19.9 122 2.48 18.6 0.021 60.40 50.8930.5 8 19.3 19.8 122.4 2.48 18.5 0.015 60.07 50.6230.5 15 19.2 19.7 122.8 2.48 18.4 0.011 59.75 50.3430.0 30 19.0 19.5 123.6 2.34 18.0 0.008 58.63 49.4029.5 60 18.5 19.0 125.6 2.20 17.4 0.006 56.55 47.6529.0 120 18.4 18.9 125.9 2.06 17.2 0.004 55.77 46.9928.0 240 18.3 18.8 126.3 1.79 16.8 0.003 54.57 45.9827.0 1440 18.0 18.5 127.5 1.53 16.2 0.001 52.76 44.45

38.1


Aperture Weight PercentageSize(mm/in) Retained (g) Retained (%) Load (grams)

50.8

25.419.05/0.75in12.70/0.5in 20009.53/ 3/8 6006.35/ 1/4 5004.76/ 3/16 4002.40/ 7 1501.20/ 14 1000.60/ 25 700.42/ 36 600.30/ 52 500.15/ 100 35

0.075/ 200 20

0.7826

Passing 200

0.8



0.7826

0.78260.78260.78260.78260.79130.80020.80930.82790.8472

Particle size distribution for the natural soil + 3% pozzolana

47

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 1000

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

PARTICLE SIZES

PECE

NTAG

E PAS

SING

Grading test on natural soil + percentages of proportions + 3% pozzolana

48

Gravel 19%Sand 29.7%Silt 6.3%Clay 45%

Appendix C2

Table


100 25.40.00 100.00 19.05000.00 100.00 12.7000

0 0.00 100.00 9.53000 0.00 100.00 6.3500 100.000 0.00 100.00 4.7600 96.680 0.00 100.00 2.4000 78.000 0.00 100.00 1.2000 67.16

1.66 3.32 96.68 0.6000 60.009.34 18.68 78.00 0.4200 55.665.42 10.84 67.16 52.38 0.3000 52.863.58 7.16 60.00 46.80 0.1500 49.802.17 4.34 55.66 43.41 0.0750 48.961.4 2.80 52.86 41.23 0.0598 47.36

1.53 3.06 49.80 38.84 0.0427 46.60.42 0.84 48.96 38.19 0.0302 46.1

0.00 48.96 0.0214 45.1 0.0151 43.7 0.0111 43.4 0.0079 43.2

0.0057 43.20.0040 42.20.0029 41.0



38.1



50.8

25.419.05/0.75in12.70/0.5in 20009.53/ 3/8 6006.35/ 1/4 5004.76/ 3/16 4002.40/ 7 1501.20/ 14 1000.60/ 25 700.42/ 36 600.30/ 52 500.15/ 100 35

0.075/ 200 20

0.7826

Passing 200

0.8



0.7826

0.78260.78260.79130.79130.79130.79130.80930.82790.8472


49

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 1000

102030405060708090

100

particle size distribution curve for 5% pozzolana

PARTICLE SIZES

PECE

NTAG

E PAS

SING

Gravel 26%Sand 26.7%Silt 6.8%Clay 40.3%


50

Appendix C3

Table


100 25.40.00 100.00 19.05000.00 100.00 12.7000

0 0.00 100.00 9.53000 0.00 100.00 6.3500 100.000 0.00 100.00 4.7600 99.280 0.00 100.00 2.4000 86.120 0.00 100.00 1.2000 66.62

0.36 0.72 99.28 0.6000 60.826.58 13.16 86.12 0.4200 56.744.38 8.76 77.36 66.62 0.3000 53.433.37 6.74 70.62 60.82 0.1500 48.092.37 4.74 65.88 56.74 0.0750 46.811.92 3.84 62.04 53.43 0.0625 44.893.1 6.20 55.84 48.09 0.0443 44.9

0.74 1.48 54.36 46.81 0.0313 44.60.00 54.36 0.0221 43.5

0.0157 42.9 0.0115 42.1 0.0082 42.5

0.0058 42.20.0042 39.50.0029 39.2


Temp. Time(min) R'h Rh Hr Mt Rd Viscosity n,(mPa.s) D (mm) W% LogD(mm) 30.0 0.5 17.0 17.5 131.5 2.34 16.0 0.063 52.13 44.89 30.0 1 17.0 17.5 131.5 2.34 16.0 0.045 52.13 44.8930.0 2 16.9 17.4 131.9 2.34 15.9 0.032 51.81 44.6130.0 4 16.5 17.0 133.5 2.34 15.5 0.022 50.51 43.4930.0 8 16.3 16.8 134.2 2.34 15.3 0.016 49.86 42.9430.0 15 16.0 16.5 135.4 2.34 15.0 0.012 48.88 42.1029.8 30 16.2 16.7 134.6 2.28 15.2 0.008 49.35 42.5029.0 60 16.3 16.8 134.2 2.06 15.1 0.006 48.95 42.1528.5 120 15.5 16.0 137.4 1.93 14.1 0.004 45.91 39.5428.0 240 15.5 16.0 137.4 1.79 14.0 0.003 45.47 39.1627.0 1440 15.1 15.6 139 1.53 13.3 0.001 43.33 37.32

38.1



50.8

25.419.05/0.75in12.70/0.5in 20009.53/ 3/8 6006.35/ 1/4 5004.76/ 3/16 4002.40/ 7 1501.20/ 14 1000.60/ 25 700.42/ 36 600.30/ 52 500.15/ 100 35

0.075/ 200 20

0.7913

Passing 200

0.8



0.7913

0.79130.79130.79130.79130.79490.80930.81850.82790.8472


51

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 1000

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

PARTICLE SIZES

PECE

NTAG

E PAS

SING

Gravel 23%Sand 32.7%Silt 6.1%Clay 38%


52

Appendix C4

Table

Date Sample No. Weight of Sample(g) 50Percentage Additional 50.8000Passing(%) Information 38.1

100 25.40.00 100.00 19.05000.00 100.00 12.7000

0 0.00 100.00 9.53000 0.00 100.00 6.3500 100.000 0.00 100.00 4.7600 99.280 0.00 100.00 2.4000 86.120 0.00 100.00 1.2000 77.36

0.36 0.72 99.28 0.6000 70.626.58 13.16 86.12 0.4200 65.884.38 8.76 77.36 66.62 0.3000 62.043.37 6.74 70.62 60.82 0.1500 56.562.37 4.74 65.88 56.74 0.0750 52.641.92 3.84 62.04 53.43 0.0625 48.642.74 5.48 56.56 48.71 0.0443 46.30.46 0.92 52.64 45.33 0.0313 46.3

0.00 52.64 0.0221 46.3 0.0157 46.0 0.0115 45.3 0.0082 45.3

0.0058 45.00.0042 42.00.0030 40.6



0.79130.79130.79130.80020.80020.80930.82790.82790.8472

0.7913

Passing 200

0.8



0.7913

0.30/ 52 500.15/ 100 35

0.075/ 200 20

1.20/ 14 1000.60/ 25 700.42/ 36 60

6.35/ 1/4 5004.76/ 3/16 4002.40/ 7 150

25.419.05/0.75in12.70/0.5in 20009.53/ 3/8 600

38.1



50.8


53

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 1000

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

PARTICLE SIZES

PECE

NTAG

E PAS

SING

Gravel 16.7%Sand 35.2%Silt 9%Clay 38%


54

Appendix D CALIFORNIA BEARING RATIO FOR NATURAL SOIL

Penetration (mm)

55-Blows/LayerLoad(div) (kN) CBR

0.00 0.0 0.000.25 33.0 0.860.50 53.0 1.380.75 70.0 1.821.00 84.0 2.181.25 96.0 2.501.50 105.0 2.731.75 115.0 2.992.00 123.0 3.202.25 131.0 3.412.50 132.0 3.43 25.712.75 144.0 3.743.00 150.0 3.903.50 160.0 4.164.00 171.0 4.454.50 180.0 4.685.00 187.0 4.86 24.405.50 195.0 5.076.00 202.0 5.256.50 209.0 5.437.00 215.0 5.59

55

Appendix D1 CALIFORNIA BEARING RATIO FOR 3% POZZOLANA

Penetration (mm)


0.00 0.0 0.000.25 14.0 0.3640.50 27.0 0.7020.75 39.0 1.0141.00 50.0 1.31.25 58.0 1.5081.50 65.0 1.691.75 71.0 1.8462.00 75.0 1.952.25 79.0 2.0542.50 83.0 2.158 16.16482.75 86.0 2.2363.00 89.0 2.3143.50 90.0 2.344.00 100.0 2.64.50 104.0 2.7045.00 109.0 2.834 14.21985.50 114.0 2.9646.00 119.0 3.0946.50 122.0 3.1727.00 126.0 3.276

56


Penetration (mm)


0.00 0.0 00.25 17.0 0.4420.50 33.0 0.8580.75 50.0 1.31.00 65.0 1.691.25 77.0 2.0021.50 89.0 2.3141.75 98.0 2.5482.00 107.0 2.7822.25 114.0 2.9642.50 121.0 3.146 23.565542.75 126.0 3.2763.00 136.0 3.5363.50 139.0 3.6144.00 146.0 3.7964.50 153.0 3.9785.00 158.0 4.108 20.612145.50 163.0 4.2386.00 169.0 4.3946.50 174.0 4.5247.00 180.0 4.68

57


Penetration (mm)


0.00 0.0 00.25 20.0 0.520.50 34.0 0.8840.75 45.0 1.171.00 55.0 1.431.25 64.0 1.6641.50 72.0 1.8721.75 79.0 2.0542.00 84.0 2.1842.25 90.0 2.342.50 96.0 2.496 18.696632.75 101.0 2.6263.00 106.0 2.7563.50 115.0 2.994.00 123.0 3.1984.50 131.0 3.4065.00 138.0 3.588 18.003015.50 145.0 3.776.00 151.0 3.9266.50 156.0 4.0567.00 163.0 4.238

58


Penetration (mm)

55-Blows/LayerLoad

(div) (kN) CBR0.00 0.0 0.3640.25 14.0 0.7020.50 27.0 1.0660.75 41.0 1.3261.00 51.0 1.5861.25 61.0 1.7681.50 68.0 1.8981.75 73.0 1.9242.00 74.0 1.952.25 75.0 1.9552 14.645692.50 75.2.0 1.9632.75 75.5.0 1.9763.00 76.0 2.0283.50 78.0 2.1064.00 81.0 2.2364.50 86.0 2.34 11.741095.00 90.0 2.5225.50 97.0 2.6526.00 102.0 2.8086.50 108.0 2.9647.00 114.0 0.364

59

APPENDIX B

STANDARD SPECIFICATIONRequirements for natural gravel materials for base and sub-base (MRT, 2006)

Material properties

Material Class

G80 G60 G40 G30

CBR (%)CBR Swell

800.25

600.5

400.5

301.0

Grading% Passing Sieve Size (mm)7537.520105.02.00.4250.075Grading Modulus (min)Maximum size

10080 – 10060 – 8545 – 7030 – 5520 – 458 – 265 – 152.1553.0

10080 – 10075 – 10045 – 10030 – 7520 – 508 – 335 – 221.9563.0

1.575

1.252/3rd layer thickness

Atterberg LimitsLiquid limit (%) (max)Plasticity Index (%) (max)Linear Shrinkage (%) (max)Plasticity modulus (max)

25105

200

30126

250

30147

250

35168

250

Other properties10%Fines (kN) (min)Ratio dry/soaked 10%Fines (min) 80

0.6500.6

- -

Notes:All CBR’s will be determined at the field density specified for the layer in which the material is used.All Atterberg limits will be determined using GHA S6) (Section 2)All grading specifications are applicable after placing and compaction. Grading curves shall be smooth curves within the specified envelopes and approximately parallel to the envelopes.Grading Modulus (GM) = 300 – (percentage passing 2.0 + 0.425 + 0.075 mm sieves) x 100Plasticity modulus = Plasticity Index x percentage passing 0.425mm sieve

60

Chemical composition of Natural soil and pozzolana additive

62

Major oxides Soil conc. (wt%) Pozzolana conc. (wt%)

SiO2 35.23 61.77 Al2O3 25.65 16.91Fe2O3 5.44 3.79TiO2 0.73 0.93CaO 0.09 0.24Na2O 0.81 0.76K2O 0.83 1.48MgO 0.86 1.12P2O5 0.10 0.17MnO 0.02 0.09SO3 0.07 0.09L.O.I 30.15 12.00total 99.98 99.35

introduction and literature review (2) (autosaved)

Documents