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

ii
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

iii
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.

iv
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.

v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DECLARATION......................................................................................................................ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENT ........................................................................................................iii
ABSTRACT.............................................................................................................................iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................................v
LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................................vii
LIST OF FIGURES ..............................................................................................................viii
CHAPTER 1.............................................................................................................................1
INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................1
1.1 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.............................................................................................................................4
LITERATURE REVIEW .......................................................................................................4
2.1 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...........................................................................................................................15
MATERIALS AND METHODS ..........................................................................................15
3.1 Materials.......................................................................................................................15
3.2 Methods........................................................................................................................15
3.2.1 Soil classification tests....................................................................................................16

vi
3.2.2 Engineering tests ..........................................................................................................19
CHAPTER 4...........................................................................................................................21
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ............................................................................................21
4.1 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...........................................................................................................................30
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION ...................................................................30
5. Conclusion ....................................................................................................................30
REFERENCES.......................................................................................................................31
APPENDIX.............................................................................................................................34

vii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 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

viii
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

1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 General
Lateritic 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

2
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 Geologyof 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.

3
Figure 1.1 Satellite photo of the Ayeduase showing the sample site
1.3.1 Geology
The Ayeduase area is underlained by the Granitiods associated with the lower Birimian rocks
1.3.2 Climate
The 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 Vegetation
The 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.

4
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).

5
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

6
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 soils
ii. Increase in durability
iii. Enhancement of workability
iv. Reduction of compressibility
v. Reduction of permeability
vi. Reduction in volume instability
vii. 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.

7
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.

8
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

9
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

10
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

11
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

12
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 composition
A 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

13
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

14
Table 2.1 Requirement for natural gravel materials for base and subbase (MRT, 2006)
Material properties Material Class
G80 G60 G40 G30
CBR (%)
CBR swell (%)
80
0.25
60
0.5
40
0.5
30
1.0
Grading
% passing sieve size(mm)
75 100 100
37.5 80-100 80-100
20 60-85 75-100
10 45-70 45-90
5.0 30-55 30-75
2.0 8-26 8-33
0.425 5-15 5-22
0.075 2.15 1.95
Grading Modulus(min) 2.15 1.95 1.5 1.25
Maximum size (min) 53.0 63.0 75.0 2/3rd layer thicknes
Atterberg Limit
Liquid limit (%) max 25 30 30 35
Plasticity index (%) max 10 12 14 16
Linear Shrinkage (%) max 5 6 7 8
Plasticity modulus (max) 200 250 250 250
Other properties
10% Fines (kN)(min) 80 50
Ratio dry soaked 10% Fines
(min)
0.6 0.6
G80- BASECOURSE
G60- BASE COURSE FOR LOW TRAFFIC ROADS
G40- BASE COURSE FOR SEAL RURAL ROADS/ SUB-BASE
G30-SUBBASE

15
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:

16
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

17
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

18
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.

19
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

20
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.

21
CHAPTER 4
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1 Soil Profile
The 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 ofthe materials
The 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.
0.5m
Figu
reure
m
0.0m
0.2m
Figu
reure
m
1.6m
Figu
reure
m

22
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.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Concentrations(WT%)
Major Oxides
natural soil
pozzolana

23
Table 4.1 Summary of Laboratory tests results
Laboratory test
Pozzolana 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 Ratio
3.02 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

24
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 BS
Stabilization gravity Limit Limit index Classification
(%) (%) (%)
0% 2.64 58.50 23.68 34.72 CH
3% 2.64 58.00 25.91 32.09 CH
5% 2.64 62.00 24.72 37.28 CH
7% 2.64 54.00 23.92 30.08 CH
10% 2.64 50.00 21.93 28.07 CI
Figure 4.3 Variation of LL, PL and PI of soil sample with pozzolana stabilization.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12%
Watercontent(%)
Pozzolana content (%)
Liquid limit
Plastic limit
Plasticity Index
Linear (Liquid limit )
Linear (Plastic limit)

25
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.
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.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
PlasticityIndex(%)
LiquidLimit (%)
A Line
0% pozzolana ash
3% pozzolana ash
5% pozzolana ash
7% pozzolana ash
10% pozzolana ash
CL
ML
MI
MH
MV
CI
CH
CV

26
Table 4.3 Variation of particle size and textural classification
Particle size Group
Pozzolana Content
0% 3% 5% 7% 10%
Clay (%) 47.42 45 40.3 38 38
Silt (%) 3.6 6.3 6.8 6.1 9
Sand (%) 20.36 29.7 26.7 32.7 35.2
Gravel (%) 28.16 19 26 23 16.7
Textural
Classification
Gravelly
clay
Sandy clay Sandy clay Sandy clay Sandy clay
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
0.00
10.00
20.00
30.00
40.00
50.00
60.00
70.00
80.00
90.00
100.00
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Percentagepassing(%)
Sieve size (mm)
3% pozzolana
5% pozzolana
7% pozzolana
10% pozzolana
0% pozzolana

27
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.
Figure 4.6 Typical grain size distribution curves for the different percentages.
Figure 4.7 Variation of MDD with pozzolana content
1.7
1.75
1.8
1.85
1.9
1.95
2
2.05
0 5 10 15 20 25
natural soil
natura soil + 3%
pozzolana
natural soil + 5%
pozzolana
natural soil + 7%
pozzolana
natural soil + 10%
pozzolana
1.86
1.88
1.9
1.92
1.94
1.96
1.98
2
2.02
2.04
0 3 6 9 12
MaximumDryDensity(g/cc)
Pozzolana Content (%)

28
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.
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.
12
12.5
13
13.5
14
14.5
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
OptimumWaterContent(%)
Pozzolana Content (%)

29
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.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
CBR(%)
pozzolana content(%)

30
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.

31
REFERENCES
Bell 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.
Herzog, A and Brock, R. (1964) “Some Factors Influencing the strength ……………………

32
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.
Minnick, L.J. And Miller, R.H. (1952). “Lime-Fly ash compositions in highways”, Proc. Highway
research Board, pp. 511-528.

33
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

34
APPENDIX
Appendix A
Summary of data for specific gravity
SAMPLE ID 1
Pycnometer Bottle No. F D
Mass ofempty pycnometer +
stopper (m1)
823 840
Mass ofempty pycnometer + soil
(m2)
1400 1730
Mass ofempty pycnometer + soil +
Liquid (m3)
2428 2692
Mass ofpycnometer Bottle +
Liquid (m4)
2077 2129
Specific Gravity, ρs = ((m2-
m1)/(m4-m1)-(m3-m2))× ρL
2.553 2.722
Average Specific Gravity 2.64

35
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 16
Mass 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
y = -8.978ln(x) + 88.558
R² = 0.9933
52.00
54.00
56.00
58.00
60.00
62.00
64.00
66.00
10 100
watercontent(%)
No. of blows
LIQUID LIMITS CHART

36
Appendix A2
Atterbergs limit test for the natural soil + 3% pozzolana
Container No. C7 X21 B7 B23
A30 A40
3.57 3.61
No. of blows 42 30 26 18
sample(gm) 22.35 20.62 25.37 20.43
16.12 15.99
sample(gm) 15.82 14.66 17.43 13.87
13.55 13.43
Mass of water(gm) 6.53 5.96 7.94 6.56
2.57 2.56
9.98 9.82
Water content(%) 53.70 54.33 57.45 63.39
25.75 26.07
Liquid limit 58.41
Plastic limit 25.91
y = -11.82ln(x) + 96.475
R² = 0.8782
0.00
10.00
20.00
30.00
40.00
50.00
60.00
70.00
10 100
watercontent(%)
No. of blows
LIQUID LIMITS CHART

37
Appendix A3
Container No. A17 C4 B18 C1
B34 B5X
3.63 3.73
No. of blows 49 36 22 13
sample(gm) 23.82 21.24 24.96 23.24
15.92 15.35
sample(gm) 17.00 15.04 16.95 15.52
13.46 13.07
Mass of water(gm) 6.82 6.20 8.01 7.72
2.46 2.28
9.93 9.34
Water content(%) 51.28 54.43 60.45 65.15
25.03 26.41
Liquid limit 58.52
Plastic limit 24.72
y = -10.62ln(x) + 92.708
R² = 0.9958
50.00
52.00
54.00
56.00
58.00
60.00
62.00
64.00
66.00
68.00
10 100
watercontent(%)
No. of blows
LIQUID LIMITS CHART

38
Appendix A4
Container No. B6 E21 K4 A14
B14 A13
3.68 3.77
No. of blows 49 31 22 14
sample(gm) 21.66 24.45 22.49 24.42
14 14.63
sample(gm) 15.68 17.21 16.05 16.58
12.04 12.5
Mass of water(gm) 5.98 7.24 6.44 7.84
1.96 2.13
8.36 8.73
Water content(%) 49.79 53.67 51.77 61.30
23.44 24.40
Liquid limit 54.50
Plastic limit 23.92
y = -8.148ln(x) + 80.727
R² = 0.737
49.00
51.00
53.00
55.00
57.00
59.00
61.00
63.00
10 100
watercontent(%)
No. of blows
LIQUID LIMITS CHART

39
Appendix A5
Container No. B172 A23 C5 A32
A33 C10
3.62 3.74
No. of blows 48 31 26 15
sample(gm) 28.51 22.99 29.09 25.8
11.87 11.95
sample(gm) 20.60 16.81 20.42 18.18
10.4 10.46
Mass of water(gm) 7.91 3.18 8.67 7.62
1.47 1.49
6.78 6.72
Water content(%) 49.80 47.25 51.24 52.62
21.68 22.17
Liquid limit 50.02
Plastic limit 21.68
y = -5.412ln(x) + 67.437
R² = 0.8104
46.00
47.00
48.00
49.00
50.00
51.00
52.00
53.00
54.00
10 100
watercontent(%)
No. of blows
LIQUID LIMITS CHART

40
Appendix B
Compaction test on natural soil
Weigth of sample(gm) 7000
Mass of Mould +wet sample(gm)
Mass of Mould(gm)
Mass of wet sample(gm)
Bulk density(gm/cc)
ContainerNo. S1 S16 KA41 S7 S19 S2 S10 S17
Mass of container+wet soil(gm) 72.95 69.96 65.44 70.15 62.56 62.04 79.88 83.88
Mass of container+dry soil(gm) 68.05 66.22 61.05 65.19 56.19 56.22 69.68 73.69
Mass of container(gm) 13.62 13.9 15.37 14.43 13.88 13.85 13.94 13.57
Mass of wet soil(gm) 59.33 56.06 50.07 55.72 48.68 48.19 65.94 70.31
Mass of dry soil(gm) 54.43 52.32 45.68 50.76 42.31 42.37 55.74 60.12
Mass of water(gm) 4.90 3.74 4.39 4.96 6.37 5.82 10.20 10.19
Watercontent(%) 9.00 7.15 9.61 9.77 15.06 13.74 18.30 16.95
Average watercontent(%)
Dry density(gm/cc)
Curve for0%
Curve for5%
Curve for10%
Height of mould( cm) 11.5
Diameterof mould(cm) 15.00
Volume of mould(cc) 2032.22
2.109 2.268
1.896
2.237 2.159 1.960 1.843
1.750 1.922
3844 4285 4610
9.69 14.40 17.62
4533
1.892
1.983
8.08
7560 7560 7560
12093
7560
2.013 1.943 1.764
2.125 2.051 1.862 1.751
1.659
2.231
11404 11845 12170
1.700
1.750
1.800
1.850
1.900
1.950
2.000
2.050
2.100
5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00
Drydensity(g/cc)
Water content(%)
COMPACTION TEST

41
Appendix B1
Compaction test for natural soil + 3% pozzolana
Compaction test on natural soil + 3% pozzolana
Mass of Mould(gm)
Bulk density(gm/cc)
ContainerNo. A34 N45 NE4 NE1 AB ZF N9 N15 B2 B9
Mass of container+wet soil(gm) 75.01 116.60 74.53 73.78 89.63 78.92 69.28 63.99 91.60 90.68
Mass of container+dry soil(gm) 73.62 114.3 70.32 69.76 82.28 71.71 61.63 56.12 77.99 77.03
Mass of container(gm) 14.81 20.82 14.71 14.85 20.37 14.11 11.80 11.03 11.11 11.05
Mass of wet soil(gm) 60.20 95.78 59.82 58.93 69.26 64.81 57.48 52.96 80.49 79.63
Mass of dry soil(gm) 58.81 93.48 55.61 54.91 61.91 57.6 49.83 45.09 66.88 65.98
Mass of water(gm) 1.39 2.30 4.21 4.02 7.35 7.21 7.65 7.87 13.61 13.65
Watercontent(%) 2.36 2.46 7.57 7.32 11.87 12.52 15.35 17.45 20.35 20.69
Dry density(gm/cc)
Curve for0%
Curve for5%
Curve for10%
11120 11458 11840
2.305 2.042 1.843
1.750
2.433 2.155 1.946 1.791 1.662
1.697 1.575
2.158
1.914
2.41
7477 7477 7477
11863 11738
7477 7477
1.740
42613643 3981 4363
7.45 12.19 16.40 20.52
2.097
4386
1.793
1.854
2.561 2.269 2.048 1.886
1.750 1.823
1.959 2.147
1.700
1.750
1.800
1.850
1.900
1.950
2.000
1.00 6.00 11.00 16.00 21.00 26.00
Drydensity(g/cc)
Water content(%)
COMPACTION TEST

42
Appendix B2
Compaction test for natural soil + 5% pozzolana
Mass of Mould(gm)
Bulk density(gm/cc)
Container No. N1 N13 N10 N12 B11 B14 B13 B16
Mass of container +wet soil(gm) 62.17 60.90 68.89 60.96 53.49 55.87 38.69 36.24
Mass of container +dry soil(gm) 60.72 59.5 64.69 57.65 49.38 51.41 34.79 32.52
Mass of container(gm) 11.15 11.14 11.94 12.27 12.21 11.20 10.97 11.10
Mass of wet soil(gm) 51.02 49.76 56.95 48.69 41.28 44.67 27.72 25.14
Mass of dry soil(gm) 49.57 48.36 52.75 45.38 37.17 40.21 23.82 21.42
Mass of water(gm) 1.45 1.40 4.20 3.31 4.11 4.46 3.90 3.72
Water content(%) 2.93 2.89 7.96 7.29 11.06 11.09 16.37 17.37
Average water content(%)
Dry density(gm/cc)
Curve for 0%
Curve for 5%
Curve for 10%
Diameter of mould(cm) 15.00
11149 11336 11804
2.276 2.034 1.887
2.403 2.147 1.991 1.776
1.682
2.138
1.973
2.91
7350 7350 7350
11695
7350
3799 3986 4454
7.63 11.07 16.87
4345
1.869
1.829
2.529 2.259 2.096 1.869
1.817 1.822
1.961 2.192
1.700
1.750
1.800
1.850
1.900
1.950
2.000
2.050
1.00 6.00 11.00 16.00 21.00
Drydensity(g/cc)
Water content(%)
COMPACTION TEST

43
Appendix B3
Weigthof sample(gm) 7000
Massof Mould+wetsample(gm)
Massof Mould(gm)
Massof wetsample(gm)
Bulkdensity(gm/cc)
ContainerNo. S6 S8 S9 S13 S3 S18 S12 NE1 KA4 KA5
Massof container+wetsoil(gm) 71.67 73.65 77.20 79.59 75.74 73.42 78.65 76.23 98.33 90.31
Massof container+drysoil(gm) 69.06 71.28 72.89 75.12 69.55 67.74 71.11 68.43 86.08 78.39
Massof container(gm) 13.66 13.92 13.77 13.77 13.47 14.01 14.23 13.69 14.88 15.03
Massof wetsoil(gm) 58.01 59.73 63.43 65.82 62.27 59.41 64.42 62.54 83.45 75.28
Massof drysoil(gm) 55.4 57.36 59.12 61.35 56.08 53.73 56.88 54.74 71.2 63.36
Massof water(gm) 2.61 2.37 4.31 4.47 6.19 5.68 7.54 7.80 12.25 11.92
Watercontent(%) 4.71 4.13 7.29 7.29 11.04 10.57 13.26 14.25 17.21 18.81
Drydensity(gm/cc)
Curve for0%
Curve for5%
Curve for10%
Heightof mould( cm) 11.5
2.006 2.173
2.028
2.436 2.277 2.108 1.985
1.921 1.870
4077 4077 4417
7.29 10.80 13.75 18.01
2.217
4688
2.006
1.962
4.42
7560 7560 7560
12248 12066
7560 7560
1.879
4506
2.192 2.049 1.897
1.830
2.314 2.163 2.003 1.886 1.739
1.786 1.647
2.307
11637 11637 11977
1.700
1.750
1.800
1.850
1.900
1.950
2.000
2.050
2.100
3.00 5.00 7.00 9.00 11.00 13.00 15.00 17.00 19.00
Drydensity(g/cc)
Water content(%)
COMPACTION TEST

44
Appendix B4
Mass of Mould +wetsample(gm)
Mass of Mould(gm)
Mass of wetsample(gm)
Bulk density(gm/cc)
ContainerNo. NE1 S13 C9 G6 S6 S15 S9 S1 S4 S12
Mass of container+wetsoil(gm) 95.29 94.66 96.97 97.01 68.80 74.70 90.56 82.57 118.10 127.69
Mass of container+dry soil(gm) 93.74 93.15 92.35 92.54 63.30 68.82 80.14 73.11 99.74 108.48
Mass of container(gm) 13.71 13.77 17.87 17.86 13.66 13.66 13.77 13.64 13.80 14.04
Mass of wetsoil(gm) 81.58 80.89 79.10 79.15 55.14 61.04 76.79 68.93 104.30 113.65
Mass of dry soil(gm) 80.03 79.38 74.48 74.68 49.64 55.16 66.37 59.47 85.94 94.44
Mass of water(gm) 1.55 1.51 4.62 4.47 5.50 5.88 10.42 9.46 18.36 19.21
Watercontent(%) 1.94 1.90 6.20 5.99 11.08 10.66 15.70 15.91 21.36 20.34
Dry density(gm/cc)
Curve for0%
Curve for5%
Curve for10%
Heightof mould( cm) 11.5
10959 11111 11530
2.335 2.107 1.895
1.740
2.464 2.224 2.000 1.812 1.653
1.716 1.566
2.164
1.855
1.92
7350 7350 7350
11747 11615
7350 7350
1.737
42653609 3761 4180
6.09 10.87 15.80 20.85
2.099
4397
1.776
1.868
2.594 2.341 2.105 1.907
1.742 1.744
1.851 2.057
1.700
1.720
1.740
1.760
1.780
1.800
1.820
1.840
1.860
1.880
1.900
1.00 6.00 11.00 16.00 21.00 26.00
Drydensity(g/cc)
Water content(%)
COMPACTION TEST

45
Appendix C
Particle size distribution for the natural soil
Table
Date Sample No. Clay Shell Weight of Sample(g) 50
Percentage Additional 50.8000
Passing(%) Information 38.1
100 25.4
0.00 100.00 19.0500
0.00 100.00 12.7000
0 0.00 100.00 9.5300
0 0.00 100.00 6.3500 100.00
0 0.00 100.00 4.7600 98.92
0 0.00 100.00 2.4000 81.26
0 0.00 100.00 1.2000 71.84
0.54 1.08 98.92 0.6000 65.26
8.83 17.66 81.26 0.4200 60.76
4.71 9.42 71.84 58.38 0.3000 56.82
3.29 6.58 65.26 53.03 0.1500 52.28
2.25 4.50 60.76 49.37 0.0750 51.82
1.97 3.94 56.82 46.17 0.0609 51.59
2.27 4.54 52.28 42.48 0.0433 50.8
0.23 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 48.2
0.0040 48.2
0.0028 48.2
Meniscus correction Cm 0.5 0.0012 46.8
Specific Gravity 2.60 43.935156
Dispersion 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 50.79
27.0 2 21.0 21.5 115.7 1.53 19.2 0.031 62.51 50.79
27.0 4 20.8 21.3 116.5 1.53 19.0 0.022 61.86 50.27
27.0 8 20.5 21.0 117.7 1.53 18.7 0.015 60.88 49.47
27.0 15 20.5 21.0 117.7 1.53 18.7 0.011 60.88 49.47
27.0 30 20.5 21.0 117.7 1.53 18.7 0.008 60.88 49.47
27.0 60 20.0 20.5 119.6 1.53 18.2 0.006 59.26 48.15
27.0 120 20.0 20.5 119.6 1.53 18.2 0.004 59.26 48.15
27.0 240 20.0 20.5 119.6 1.53 18.2 0.003 59.26 48.15
27.0 1440 19.5 20.0 121.6 1.53 17.7 0.001 57.63 46.83
0.8472
0.8472
0.8472
0.8472
0.8472
0.8472
0.8472
0.8472
0.8472
Weight of Sample (g) 50
Date
0.8472
0.8472
Passing 200
0.8
Origin of Soil 0.5
Sample No.
0.30/ 52 50
0.15/ 100 35
0.075/ 200 20
1.20/ 14 100
0.60/ 25 70
0.42/ 36 60
6.35/ 1/4 500
4.76/ 3/16 400
2.40/ 7 150
25.4
19.05/0.75in
12.70/0.5in 2000
9.53/ 3/8 600
Size(mm/in) Retained (g) Retained (%) Load (grams)
50.8
38.1
SIEVE ANALYSIS RESULTS
Aperture Weight Percentage

46
Gravel 28.16%
Sand 20.36%
Silt 3.6%
Clay 47.42%
Grading test on natural soil + percentages of proportions
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
PECENTAGEPASSING
PARTICLE SIZES

47
Appendix C1
Particle size distribution for the natural soil + 3% pozzolana
Table
Percentage Additional 50.8000 100.00
Passing(%) Information 38.1 100.00
100 25.4 100.00
0.00 100.00 19.0500 100.00
0.00 100.00 12.7000 100.00
0 0.00 100.00 9.5300 100.00
0 0.00 100.00 6.3500 100.00
0 0.00 100.00 4.7600 98.58
0 0.00 100.00 2.4000 84.26
0 0.00 100.00 1.2000 74.38
0.71 1.42 98.58 0.6000 67.30
7.16 14.32 84.26 0.4200 62.24
4.94 9.88 74.38 62.67 0.3000 58.20
3.54 7.08 67.30 56.71 0.1500 52.82
2.53 5.06 62.24 52.44 0.0750 52.02
2.02 4.04 58.20 49.04 0.0598 52.53
2.69 5.38 52.82 44.51 0.0427 51.2
0.4 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 47.6
0.0040 47.0
0.0029 46.0
Specific Gravity 2.60
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 51.16
30.5 2 19.5 20.0 121.6 2.48 18.7 0.030 60.72 51.16
30.5 4 19.4 19.9 122 2.48 18.6 0.021 60.40 50.89
30.5 8 19.3 19.8 122.4 2.48 18.5 0.015 60.07 50.62
30.5 15 19.2 19.7 122.8 2.48 18.4 0.011 59.75 50.34
30.0 30 19.0 19.5 123.6 2.34 18.0 0.008 58.63 49.40
29.5 60 18.5 19.0 125.6 2.20 17.4 0.006 56.55 47.65
29.0 120 18.4 18.9 125.9 2.06 17.2 0.004 55.77 46.99
28.0 240 18.3 18.8 126.3 1.79 16.8 0.003 54.57 45.98
27.0 1440 18.0 18.5 127.5 1.53 16.2 0.001 52.76 44.45
38.1
50.8
25.4
19.05/0.75in
12.70/0.5in 2000
9.53/ 3/8 600
6.35/ 1/4 500
4.76/ 3/16 400
2.40/ 7 150
1.20/ 14 100
0.60/ 25 70
0.42/ 36 60
0.30/ 52 50
0.15/ 100 35
0.075/ 200 20
0.7826
Passing 200
0.8
Origin of Soil 0.5
Sample No.
Date
0.7826
0.7826
0.7826
0.7826
0.7826
0.7913
0.8002
0.8093
0.8279
0.8472

48
Grading test on natural soil + percentages of proportions + 3% pozzolana
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
PECENTAGEPASSING
PARTICLE SIZES
Gravel 19%
Sand 29.7%
Silt 6.3%
Clay 45%

49
Appendix C2
Table
100 25.4
0.00 100.00 19.0500
0.00 100.00 12.7000
0 0.00 100.00 9.5300
0 0.00 100.00 6.3500 100.00
0 0.00 100.00 4.7600 96.68
0 0.00 100.00 2.4000 78.00
0 0.00 100.00 1.2000 67.16
1.66 3.32 96.68 0.6000 60.00
9.34 18.68 78.00 0.4200 55.66
5.42 10.84 67.16 52.38 0.3000 52.86
3.58 7.16 60.00 46.80 0.1500 49.80
2.17 4.34 55.66 43.41 0.0750 48.96
1.4 2.80 52.86 41.23 0.0598 47.36
1.53 3.06 49.80 38.84 0.0427 46.6
0.42 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 43.2
0.0040 42.2
0.0029 41.0
30.5 0.5 19.5 20.0 121.6 2.48 18.7 0.060 60.72 47.36
30.5 1 19.2 19.7 122.8 2.48 18.4 0.043 59.75 46.60
30.5 2 19.0 19.5 123.6 2.48 18.2 0.030 59.10 46.09
30.5 4 18.6 19.1 125.2 2.48 17.8 0.022 57.80 45.08
30.0 8 18.2 18.7 126.7 2.34 17.2 0.015 56.03 43.70
30.0 15 18.1 18.6 127.1 2.34 17.1 0.011 55.71 43.45
30.0 30 18.0 18.5 127.5 2.34 17.0 0.008 55.38 43.20
30.0 60 18.0 18.5 127.5 2.34 17.0 0.006 55.38 43.20
29.0 120 17.9 18.4 127.9 2.06 16.7 0.004 54.15 42.24
28.0 240 17.7 18.2 128.7 1.79 16.2 0.003 52.62 41.05
27.0 1440 17.5 18.0 129.5 1.53 15.7 0.001 51.13 39.88
38.1
50.8
25.4
19.05/0.75in
12.70/0.5in 2000
9.53/ 3/8 600
6.35/ 1/4 500
4.76/ 3/16 400
2.40/ 7 150
1.20/ 14 100
0.60/ 25 70
0.42/ 36 60
0.30/ 52 50
0.15/ 100 35
0.075/ 200 20
0.7826
Passing 200
0.8
Origin of Soil 0.5
Sample No.
Date
0.7826
0.7826
0.7826
0.7913
0.7913
0.7913
0.7913
0.8093
0.8279
0.8472

50
Gravel 26%
Sand 26.7%
Silt 6.8%
Clay 40.3%
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
PECENTAGEPASSING
PARTICLE SIZES
particle size distribution curve for 5% pozzolana

51
Appendix C3
Table
100 25.4
0.00 100.00 19.0500
0.00 100.00 12.7000
0 0.00 100.00 9.5300
0 0.00 100.00 6.3500 100.00
0 0.00 100.00 4.7600 99.28
0 0.00 100.00 2.4000 86.12
0 0.00 100.00 1.2000 66.62
0.36 0.72 99.28 0.6000 60.82
6.58 13.16 86.12 0.4200 56.74
4.38 8.76 77.36 66.62 0.3000 53.43
3.37 6.74 70.62 60.82 0.1500 48.09
2.37 4.74 65.88 56.74 0.0750 46.81
1.92 3.84 62.04 53.43 0.0625 44.89
3.1 6.20 55.84 48.09 0.0443 44.9
0.74 1.48 54.36 46.81 0.0313 44.6
0.00 54.36 0.0221 43.5
0.0157 42.9
0.0115 42.1
0.0082 42.5
0.0058 42.2
0.0042 39.5
0.0029 39.2
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 44.89
30.0 2 16.9 17.4 131.9 2.34 15.9 0.032 51.81 44.61
30.0 4 16.5 17.0 133.5 2.34 15.5 0.022 50.51 43.49
30.0 8 16.3 16.8 134.2 2.34 15.3 0.016 49.86 42.94
30.0 15 16.0 16.5 135.4 2.34 15.0 0.012 48.88 42.10
29.8 30 16.2 16.7 134.6 2.28 15.2 0.008 49.35 42.50
29.0 60 16.3 16.8 134.2 2.06 15.1 0.006 48.95 42.15
28.5 120 15.5 16.0 137.4 1.93 14.1 0.004 45.91 39.54
28.0 240 15.5 16.0 137.4 1.79 14.0 0.003 45.47 39.16
27.0 1440 15.1 15.6 139 1.53 13.3 0.001 43.33 37.32
38.1
50.8
25.4
19.05/0.75in
12.70/0.5in 2000
9.53/ 3/8 600
6.35/ 1/4 500
4.76/ 3/16 400
2.40/ 7 150
1.20/ 14 100
0.60/ 25 70
0.42/ 36 60
0.30/ 52 50
0.15/ 100 35
0.075/ 200 20
0.7913
Passing 200
0.8
Origin of Soil 0.5
Sample No.
Date
0.7913
0.7913
0.7913
0.7913
0.7913
0.7949
0.8093
0.8185
0.8279
0.8472

52
Gravel 23%
Sand 32.7%
Silt 6.1%
Clay 38%
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
PECENTAGEPASSING
PARTICLE SIZES

53
Appendix C4
Table
Date Sample No. Weight of Sample(g) 50
100 25.4
0.00 100.00 19.0500
0.00 100.00 12.7000
0 0.00 100.00 9.5300
0 0.00 100.00 6.3500 100.00
0 0.00 100.00 4.7600 99.28
0 0.00 100.00 2.4000 86.12
0 0.00 100.00 1.2000 77.36
0.36 0.72 99.28 0.6000 70.62
6.58 13.16 86.12 0.4200 65.88
4.38 8.76 77.36 66.62 0.3000 62.04
3.37 6.74 70.62 60.82 0.1500 56.56
2.37 4.74 65.88 56.74 0.0750 52.64
1.92 3.84 62.04 53.43 0.0625 48.64
2.74 5.48 56.56 48.71 0.0443 46.3
0.46 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 45.0
0.0042 42.0
0.0030 40.6
30.0 0.5 17.6 18.1 129.1 2.34 16.6 0.063 54.08 48.64
30.0 1 17.5 18.0 129.5 2.34 16.5 0.044 53.76 46.29
30.0 2 17.5 18.0 129.5 2.34 16.5 0.031 53.76 46.29
30.0 4 17.5 18.0 129.5 2.34 16.5 0.022 53.76 46.29
30.0 8 17.4 17.9 129.9 2.34 16.4 0.016 53.43 46.01
29.5 15 17.3 17.8 130.3 2.20 16.2 0.012 52.65 45.34
29.5 30 17.3 17.8 130.3 2.20 16.2 0.008 52.65 45.34
29.0 60 17.3 17.8 130.3 2.06 16.1 0.006 52.20 44.95
28.0 120 17.2 17.7 130.7 1.79 15.7 0.004 51.00 41.96
28.0 240 17.2 17.7 130.7 1.79 15.7 0.003 51.00 40.56
27.0 1440 17.2 17.7 130.7 1.53 15.4 0.001 50.16 37.60
0.7913
0.7913
0.7913
0.8002
0.8002
0.8093
0.8279
0.8279
0.8472
0.7913
Passing 200
0.8
Origin of Soil 0.5
Sample No.
Date
0.7913
0.30/ 52 50
0.15/ 100 35
0.075/ 200 20
1.20/ 14 100
0.60/ 25 70
0.42/ 36 60
6.35/ 1/4 500
4.76/ 3/16 400
2.40/ 7 150
25.4
19.05/0.75in
12.70/0.5in 2000
9.53/ 3/8 600
38.1
50.8

54
Gravel 16.7%
Sand 35.2%
Silt 9%
Clay 38%
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
PECENTAGEPASSING
PARTICLE SIZES

55
Appendix D CALIFORNIA BEARING RATIO FOR NATURAL SOIL
Penetration
(mm)
55-Blows/Layer
Load
(div) (kN) CBR
0.00 0.0 0.00
0.25 33.0 0.86
0.50 53.0 1.38
0.75 70.0 1.82
1.00 84.0 2.18
1.25 96.0 2.50
1.50 105.0 2.73
1.75 115.0 2.99
2.00 123.0 3.20
2.25 131.0 3.41
2.50 132.0 3.43 25.71
2.75 144.0 3.74
3.00 150.0 3.90
3.50 160.0 4.16
4.00 171.0 4.45
4.50 180.0 4.68
5.00 187.0 4.86 24.40
5.50 195.0 5.07
6.00 202.0 5.25
6.50 209.0 5.43
7.00 215.0 5.59

56
Appendix D1 CALIFORNIA BEARING RATIO FOR 3% POZZOLANA
Penetration
(mm)
55-Blows/Layer
Load
(div) (kN) CBR
0.00 0.0 0.00
0.25 14.0 0.364
0.50 27.0 0.702
0.75 39.0 1.014
1.00 50.0 1.3
1.25 58.0 1.508
1.50 65.0 1.69
1.75 71.0 1.846
2.00 75.0 1.95
2.25 79.0 2.054
2.50 83.0 2.158 16.1648
2.75 86.0 2.236
3.00 89.0 2.314
3.50 90.0 2.34
4.00 100.0 2.6
4.50 104.0 2.704
5.00 109.0 2.834 14.2198
5.50 114.0 2.964
6.00 119.0 3.094
6.50 122.0 3.172
7.00 126.0 3.276

57
Penetration
(mm)
55-Blows/Layer
Load
(div) (kN) CBR
0.00 0.0 0
0.25 17.0 0.442
0.50 33.0 0.858
0.75 50.0 1.3
1.00 65.0 1.69
1.25 77.0 2.002
1.50 89.0 2.314
1.75 98.0 2.548
2.00 107.0 2.782
2.25 114.0 2.964
2.50 121.0 3.146 23.56554
2.75 126.0 3.276
3.00 136.0 3.536
3.50 139.0 3.614
4.00 146.0 3.796
4.50 153.0 3.978
5.00 158.0 4.108 20.61214
5.50 163.0 4.238
6.00 169.0 4.394
6.50 174.0 4.524
7.00 180.0 4.68

58
Penetration
(mm)
55-Blows/Layer
Load
(div) (kN) CBR
0.00 0.0 0
0.25 20.0 0.52
0.50 34.0 0.884
0.75 45.0 1.17
1.00 55.0 1.43
1.25 64.0 1.664
1.50 72.0 1.872
1.75 79.0 2.054
2.00 84.0 2.184
2.25 90.0 2.34
2.50 96.0 2.496 18.69663
2.75 101.0 2.626
3.00 106.0 2.756
3.50 115.0 2.99
4.00 123.0 3.198
4.50 131.0 3.406
5.00 138.0 3.588 18.00301
5.50 145.0 3.77
6.00 151.0 3.926
6.50 156.0 4.056
7.00 163.0 4.238

59
Penetration
(mm)
55-Blows/Layer
Load
(div) (kN) CBR
0.00 0.0 0.364
0.25 14.0 0.702
0.50 27.0 1.066
0.75 41.0 1.326
1.00 51.0 1.586
1.25 61.0 1.768
1.50 68.0 1.898
1.75 73.0 1.924
2.00 74.0 1.95
2.25 75.0 1.9552 14.64569
2.50 75.2.0 1.963
2.75 75.5.0 1.976
3.00 76.0 2.028
3.50 78.0 2.106
4.00 81.0 2.236
4.50 86.0 2.34 11.74109
5.00 90.0 2.522
5.50 97.0 2.652
6.00 102.0 2.808
6.50 108.0 2.964
7.00 114.0 0.364

60
APPENDIX B
STANDARD SPECIFICATION
Requirementsfornatural gravel materialsforbase andsub-base (MRT,2006)
Material properties
Material Class
G80 G60 G40 G30
CBR (%)
CBR Swell
80
0.25
60
0.5
40
0.5
30
1.0
Grading
% Passing Sieve Size (mm)
75
37.5
20
10
5.0
2.0
0.425
0.075
Grading Modulus (min)
Maximum size
100
80 – 100
60 – 85
45 – 70
30 – 55
20 – 45
8 – 26
5 – 15
2.15
53.0
100
80 – 100
75 – 100
45 – 100
30 – 75
20 – 50
8 – 33
5 – 22
1.95
63.0
1.5
75
1.25
2/3rd layer thickness
Atterberg Limits
Liquid limit (%) (max)
Plasticity Index (%) (max)
Linear Shrinkage (%) (max)
Plasticity modulus (max)
25
10
5
200
30
12
6
250
30
14
7
250
35
16
8
250
Other properties
10%Fines (kN) (min)
Ratio dry/soaked 10%Fines (min)
80
0.6
50
0.6
- -
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 100
Plasticity modulus = Plasticity Index x percentage passing 0.425mm sieve

61
Chemical composition of Natural soil and pozzolana additive
Major oxides Soil conc. (wt%) Pozzolana conc.
(wt%)
SiO2 35.23 61.77
Al2O3 25.65 16.91
Fe2O3 5.44 3.79
TiO2 0.73 0.93
CaO 0.09 0.24
Na2O 0.81 0.76
K2O 0.83 1.48
MgO 0.86 1.12
P2O5 0.10 0.17
MnO 0.02 0.09
SO3 0.07 0.09
L.O.I 30.15 12.00
total 99.98 99.35

INTRODUCTION AND LITERATURE REVIEW (2) (Autosaved)

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to INTRODUCTION AND LITERATURE REVIEW (2) (Autosaved)

Similar to INTRODUCTION AND LITERATURE REVIEW (2) (Autosaved) (20)

INTRODUCTION AND LITERATURE REVIEW (2) (Autosaved)