CHAPTER ONE

1.0 Introduction

1.1 Background of the Study

Soil stabilization is the process of elimination of swelling properties of soils to

enhance its shear strength and improve its load bearing capacity. The main purpose of

soil stabilization is to improve the soil strength, bearing capacity and durability under

adverse moisture and stress conditions. Soil stabilization has been extensively used in

the construction of roads, airfields, earthdams and embankments, in erosion control,

etc. The various types of stabilizers according to the properties imparted to the soil.

The types of admixtures include cementing agents, modifiers, water proofing, water

retaining, and miscellaneous chemicals. The behavior of each of these admixtures

differs vastly from the others; each has its particular use, and, conversely, each has its

own limitations (Joseph et al 200). Stabilization of natural soils the most important

cementing admixtures for natural soils include Portland cement, lime, a mixture of

lime and Waste Carbide, and sodium silicate.

The properties of these soils can be improved by addition of a stabilizing agent.

Among the various stabilizing agents available, lime, fly ash, and cement are most

widely and commonly used to accomplish this need. Many of these treatments can

significantly improve the strength, stiffness, durability, permeability and stability of

host materials to allow them to support the load from the structure above them

(Amadi, 2013).

1
 Calcium Carbide Residue (CCR) was obtained from gas welding shop, it was dried

and sieved through 225 micron IS sieve. CCR is a waste which normally goes to the

waste dump site and create nuisance to the environment (Krishi Sanskriti, 2015).

1.2 Component of Soil Stabilization

Soil stabilization involves the use of stabilizing agents (binder material) in weak soil

to improve its Highway and geotechnical properties such as compressibility, strength

permeability and durability. The component of stabilization technology includes soil

and or soil mineral and stability agent or binders’ cementations materials (Ingles et al,

2004).

1.3 Aim and Objectives

The main aim of this research was to investigate into stabilization of laterite soil using

Waste Carbide material for road construction.

The following are outlined as objective for this research

 The amount of Waste Carbide use is between 5%, 10% and 15%.

 To give theoretical exposition of the concept Soil Stabilization

 To provide a strong, durable mixture.

 By improving subgrade conditions, promotes lost cost savings through

reduction in the required pavement thickness.

1.4 Scope of the Research

The scope of this project is mainly to stabilize the natural soil by improving it

performance and identifying the physical properties of natural soil by the means of

mechanical stabilization.
2
1.5 Limitations

The research project is limited to stabilization of laterite soil for road construction and

laboratory experiments describe the physical strength properties of the soil in its

natural state.

3
 CHAPTER TWO

2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Soils

An understanding of the soil used in construction of pavement structures of highway

and other important facilities is particularly important. Basically, the engineering

definition of the word soil is very broad. Soil is defined as the earth material both

organic and inorganic that blankets the crust of earth. Practically, all soils are products

of the disintegration of the rock of the earth’s crust. The disintegration or weathering

has been brought by the action of chemical and mechanical means. This process has

been in progress since some geological period in the past. Some of the factors that

activate the process include winds, running water, freezing and thawing, chemical

decomposition, glacial action, and many others. Soils may be described in terms of

the principal agencies responsible for their formation and deposition (Bilba K it al

2003). A residual soil is one that presently lies directly above the parent material from

which it was derived. Residual soil deposits are characterized by varying degrees of

concentration of the soil mass with depth. Transported soils are those that have been

carried to their present position by action of some transporting agents. Transporting

agents of principal importance includes wind, glaciers and water. Soils deposited by

the action of wind are known as Aerolian soils, a typical example of a windblown soil

deposit is seen in the very considerable deposits of loss in the Mississippi valley,

Glacier soils occur in many parts of United States. An example of such a soil deposit

is a glacier fill, which are deposit of highly bounded material containing particles

ranging in size from boulder to very finely divided material matter (Wright et al,

2011). Soils formed through the action of running water are of extreme importance to

the engineer. Typically, sedimentary soils are formed by setting of groups of particles

4
from a suspension existing in a river, lake or ocean. Sedimentary soil may range in

type from beach or river sand to highly flocculants clays of marine origin. Soils may

also be described in terms of the amount of inorganic material contained in them.

Soils in which the mineral proportion (soils particle) predominates are called

inorganic soil. Those in which a large amount of organic matters is contained are

called organic soils. Organic soils are usually readily identified by their dark brown to

black colour and distinctive odour. One of the most important facts regarding soils

and deposits is their lack of homogeneity. Due to more or less random process of their

formation, soils vary greatly in their physical and chemical composition of different

location over the surface of the earth (Wright et al, 2011).

Although, generally speaking, soil derived from the same parent material under

similar factors of geological locations, climate and topography will be similar

wherever they are bound. Several soil types may and usually do, exist with a

comparatively small area. Soil deposits also characteristically vary with depth.

Deposits of sedimentary soils in which layers of varying particle sizes were created

during the process of their deposition are said to be stratified and some degree of

stratification must be expected in any sedimentary soil deposit. To have an

understanding of soil behaviour, an Engineer must be familiar with certain basic soil

properties. Unfortunately, many soil are quite complex in nature both physically and

chemically and that is why soil deposits are heterogeneous in nature. Soil is

essentially the only available construction materials. From the days of the Neolithic

man, earth has used for construction of monuments, tubes, dwellers, transportation

facilities, and water retention structures. Before an engineer can use a soil as a

construction material, he must select the proper type of soil and the method of

placement. Man placed soil is called fill and the process of placing it is termed filling.

5
 One of the most common problem of earth construction is the wide variability of

source soil termed borrow. An essential part of the Engineers task is to see that the

properties of the material meet those required in the design (Lambe et al, 2013).

Whatever is being built, it is only as strong as the soil or rock it sits upon. For

foundation engineers, knowledge of soil mechanics is more important than ever as we

venture into locations with low quality, and even unknown, soil conditions look

closely at the dirt underneath your feet. You are standing on mineral particles that

were formed from decomposed rock. Rock breaks down due to weathering (by air,

ice, wind, and water) and chemical processes. Soil also includes air, water, or

organic materials derived from the decay of vegetation. (And other living things, like

birds and bugs.) (Lambe et al, 2013).

2.1.1 Basic Soil Types

There are three basic soil types:

Sand

Sand particles are quite inactive chemically. They are generally bulky in shape, albeit

individual grains may be described as angular, subangular, rounded or sub-rounded,

depending upon the degree of abrasion received prior to their final deposition (Clark

K.E., (2007). Residual sands are usually angular whilst river and beach sands are

generally rounded. Wind-blown sands are usually very fine and well-rounded whereas

ice-worn sand particles can have flat faces. Clean sand particles do not exhibit any

cohesive properties and are therefore little influenced by changes in moisture content.

The pores between the particles are relatively large; hence, sandy soils are very

permeable and well-drained, and consolidation effects are small (Clark K.E., 2007).

6
Silt

Silt is primarily found near water – like rivers and lakes. That’s because this type of

soil is easily moved by currents. Silt is comprised of mineral particles that are larger

than sand, but tinier than clay. Because it is both fine and smooth, it holds water well

– particularly when compared to sand. Physically, silts are generally similar to sands

in that they derive much of their stability from the mechanical interaction between

particles. Coarse silt particles are essentially miniature sand particles and thus they

tend to have similar bulky shapes and the same dominant (quartz) mineral. Unlike

sands, silts also possess a limited amount of cohesion due to interparticle water films.

Whilst silts are classed as permeable, water can only move through the (small) pore

spaces relatively slowly. Where the smaller-sized particles predominate, silts exhibit

clay-like tendencies and may undergo shrinkage and expansion when exposed to

variations in moisture content (Clark K.E., (2007).

Clay Soil

Clay is sand’s polar opposite. There is little or no air inside of it causing the particles

to closely pack together. It will readily hold water, which makes it sticky. But, dry it

out and it’s very smooth obviously. The perfect choice for making a vase, but lousy

for drainage clay differs from sand and silt in respect of both physical properties and

chemical make-up. It is very important for the road engineer to understand what

constitute clay particles. Physically, clay particles are lamellar, i.e. flat and elongated,

and thus have a much larger surface area per unit mass than the bulky-shaped silts and

sands. A measure of the differences in surface area of various soil fractions can be

gained by assuming that the particles are spherical in shape. As the intensity of the

7
 physico-chemical phenomena associated with a soil fraction is a function of its

exposed surface area, this table suggests why the clay fraction has an influence on a

soil’s behavior which can appear to be out of proportion to its mass or volume in the

soil. Any analysis of the clay fraction is to a large extent a study of its colloidal

component (Clark K.E., (2007).

2.1.2 Classification of Soils

Unified Soil Classification System (USCS)

The Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) is a standardized way for

geotechnical engineers to describe soil. The classification is used in the design of

structural-related projects, such as bridges, retaining walls, and buildings. This more

precise classification is based on grain size analysis and Atterberg Limits testing of

soil samples from the proposed site (Sign k et al 2006).

Modified Unified System (MUD)

The Modified Unified System (MUD) procedure involves visually and manually

examining soil samples with respect to texture, plasticity and colour. Soil descriptions

are based upon the judgment of the person making the description. Classification tests

are not intended to be used to verify the description, but to provide further

information for analysis of soil design problems or for possible use of the soil as a

construction material, this system is intended to provide the best description of the

soil sample to those involved in the planning, design, construction, and maintenance

processes. (Sign k et al 2006).

8
2.1.3 Soil Characteristics

There are many different ways to determine how a soil will perform, here we define

some of these characteristics (Frances et al 2004).

1. Shear strength

Shear strength is a measure of how much force a soil can withstand before it collapses

against itself (Frances et al 2004).

2. Permeability

Permeability describes how readily water flows through the soil.

3. Compressibility

Compressibility describes how easily the soil’s volume is reduced when subjected to

mechanical loads. The rate of consolidation is also important so that settlement of the

structure is within a limit that extends its use and durability (Frances et al 2004).

4. Consolidation

Soil voids are pockets of air and water within the soil. Consolidation is the

compression that occurs when steady pressure is applied to the soil and the water

within the voids is expelled. This characteristic usually applies to silts and clays.

Clays that are saturated with water consolidate at a slow rate because their

permeability is low Consolidation is different from compaction.

9
5. Compaction

Compaction happens when unsaturated soil increases in density because air is pushed

out of the voids consolidation of soil occurs when its density increases

because water is drained from its voids (Frances et al 2004). Other Information for

Describing Soils. You may see a bunch of brown dirt, but the foundation engineer

sees (and tests for) much more

Color

Color description is restricted to two colors. Examples of soil color include brown,

black, gray, and red. If soil is comprised of three or more colors, it should be

described as multi-colored or mottled. The two predominant colors are then noted.

Moisture

The in-situ moisture content of a soil is described as dry, moist, or wet.

Plasticity

Soil is described as very plastic, plastic, low-plastic, or non-plastic. The soil sample

must be in moist or wet condition for plasticity determination. Testing plasticity is

fairly simple: You’ll take a small sample of wet soil and roll it into a wire-like strip

about 3mm thick. If you can’t form the strip at all, it’s non-plastic. If you can form the

strip, but it breaks easily, it’s low-plastic. It is plastic if you can form the strip, but if

you break it, you cannot form it again. Finally, if the strip you form is not easy to

break, and the same sample can be formed into a strip many times, it is considered

very plastic (Nagakumar et al 2014).

10
 Structure

Soil structure is described as fissured, blocky, or layered Fissured Can be broken

along visual fractures with little resistance. Blocky You can easily break the soil down

into angular lumps. These lumps cannot be further broken down (without inordinate

pressure). Stratified Different soils are layered on top of each other. These can be

differing colors or soil types. Layers less than a quarter of an inch thick are described

as laminated. Fine-grained layers are identified as varved. Particle shape, Coarse-

grained soils are described as angular, sub-angular, sub-rounded, or rounded.

Descriptions of fine-grained soils will not include a particle angularity or shape any

additional descriptive terms considered helpful in identifying the soil should be

included, such as calcareous and cemented. Calcareous, this type of soil has high

levels of calcium and magnesium carbonate – perfect for growing grapes for wine.

Cemented: A chemical agent like calcium carbonate holds the particles of cemented

soil together. You cannot manually crush small samples of cemented soil into a

powder with your fingers. (Nagakumar et al 2014).

2.1.4 Special Soil Engineering Problems

1. Vibrations:

Certain granular soils can be readily densified by Vibrations A building may undergo

a considerable settlement due to vibrations (Clark et al 2007).

(a) Compressors

(b) Turbines.

11
 1. Explosions and Earthquakes:

Effects on building of earth waves caused by quarry blasting and other blasting for

construction purposes. Similar problems arise as a result of earthquakes.

2. Frost:

Frost heave problems – When in contact with moisture and subjected to freezing

temperature, they can imbibe water and undergo a large expansion. Such heave exerts

forces large enough to move and crack adjacent structures and can cause serious

problems on thawing because of the excess moisture. The civil engineer designing

highways and airfield pavements in frost areas must either select a combination of

base soil and drainage that precludes frost heave or design the pavement to withstand

the weak soil that occurs in the spring when the frost melts (Clark et al 2007).

3. Regional Subsidence:

Large scale pumping of oil and water from the ground can cause major settlements

over a large area. The first step in minimizing such regional subsidence is to locate the

earth material that are compressing as the fluid is removed, and then consider method

of replacing the lost fluid.

2.1.5 Fundamentals of Soil Engineering

The word ‘soil’ derives from the Latin word solium, which means, the upper layer of

the earth that may be dug or powdered, specifically, the loose surface material of the

earth in which plants grow. the term ‘soil’ in soil engineering is defined as an

unconsolidated material composed of solid particles, produced by the disintegration of

rocks. The void space between the particles may contain air, water or both. The solid

12
 particles may contain organic matter. The soil particles can be separated by such

mechanical means as agitation in water a natural aggregate of mineral particles

bonded by strong and permanent cohesive forces is called a ‘rock’ (Clark et al 2007).

Application of laws and principles of mechanics and hydraulics to engineering

problems in dealing with soil is usually referred to as Soil Mechanics. The term soil

engineering is used to cover a much wider scope implying that it is a practical science

rather than a purely fundamental or mathematical one. Hence, Soil Engineering is an

applied science dealing with the application of the principles of soil mechanics to

practical problems It includes site investigation, design and construction of the

foundation, earth retaining structures and earth structures (Clark et al 2007).

2.1.6 Importance of Soil Engineering

Once it is accepted that soil is a structural material, its importance in Civil

Engineering becomes paramount. A Geotechnical Engineer should have thorough

knowledge of this material of structure as in the case of any other structural material,

Study of Soil Engineering is particularly important in respect of infrastructure

development and constructions, viz., highway and airport pavements, foundations and

underground structures, retaining walls and embankments and multi-storey buildings,

Foundation is considered the most critical part of any structure and it is on its

soundness that the stability of the entire structure depends. Since the load bearing

capacity of the foundation has a direct relationship with the soil characteristics, the

importance of soil investigation should not be underestimated (Chapman et al 2001).

2.2 Borrow Fit

13
 Borrow pit also known as sand box, is an area where materials (usually soil, gravel, or

sand) is been dug for use at another location. Borrow pits can be found close to many

major construction projects, for example, soil may be excavated to fill an

embankment for a highway, clay might be excavated for use in brick-making, gravel

to use for making concrete. Borrow pit may be used for landfill waste and disposal

(Joan it al 2002). The term Borrow pit is generally utilized by the contractor when a

project requires a larger amount of fill materials versus amount of usable material

obtained from cut section. Borrow pit are typical location next to the construction site,

and in the ideal situation are soon backfilled with waste material such as soft clay, that

often have to be removed from the construction area (Naoum, 2007).

2.3 Origin and Definition of Laterite Soil

Origin: The soil named “laterites” was coined by Buchanan (1807) in India from a

Latin word “later” meaning brick, He describes the material as “diffused in great

masses without any appearance of stratification, and is placed over the granite that

forms the basis of red and yellow ochre’s. In the mass while excluded from the air,

it’s so soft that any iron instrument readily cuts it and its cut into square masses with a

pick axe and immediately cut into the shape wanted with a trowel or large knife. It

easily becomes as hard as brick and resist the air and water much better than any

bricks seen in India” (Chapman, 2000).

Laterite Soil: Laterite is the general term for highly weathered rock material from

which nearly all compounds except hydroxides of iron and/or aluminium has been

leached (Ola et al 2005). Laterite have three different textural variables each of which

may occur alone or in whole in a given deposit;

1. Pisolitic

14
 2. Massive

3. Spongy.

Pisolites are spheroidal nodules that resemble pebbles but actually are concretionary.

They may be widely spaced or closely parked within typically massive laterite

material. Most pisolites are less than 2 centimeters in diameter in a given deposit they

may range greater or be fairly uniform size, They tend to be of the same colour or

slightly darker that their surrounding matrix Internally, pisolites may appear

concentric, radiating fibrous or massive, The massive pisolites resemble their fine

grained and compact matrix material, The spongy type of laterite has been

alternatively described as cellular Obviously porous (Richard et al, 2010).

2.4 Engineering Properties of Lateritic Soil

Geotechnical characteristics and field performance of lateritic soils, as well as their

reaction to different stabilizing agents may be interpreted in the light of all or some of

the following parameters (Gidigasu, 2001).

2.5 Soil Stabilization

Define soil stabilization as process of chemical, mechanical, and biological means of

improving soil properties therefore made the properties of soil more suitable for

engineering purposes. Soil stabilization also connote the alteration of the soil

properties, this means that the three phases present in the soil are modified i.e. the

solid phase which is the mineral particles, the liquid phase which denotes the moisture

content of the soil and the gaseous phases, which is the void or air present in the soil

are all modified in the process of soil stabilization to obtain desirable lasting

properties, which are compatible with a particular application. Stabilization method

15
 could either be by water through bonding the soil particles together, water proofing

the particles or combine the two (Ola et al 2005). Soil Stabilization is the biological,

chemical or mechanical modification of soil engineering properties. In civil

engineering, soil stabilization is a technique to refine and improve the engineering

properties of soils. These properties include mechanical strength, permeability,

compressibility, durability and plasticity. Physical or mechanical improvement is

common but some schools of thought prefer to use the term ‘stabilization’ in

reference to chemical improvements in the soil properties by adding chemical

admixtures for any construction project, whether it’s a building, a road or an airfield,

the base soil acts as the foundation. Additionally, soil is one of the crucial

construction raw materials. As such, the soil should possess properties that create a

strong foundation (Ola et al 2005).

2.5.1 Stages of Soil Stabilization

Evaluating the properties of given soil

Deciding the lacking property of soil and choose effective and economical method of

soil stabilization.

Designing the Stabilized soil mix for intended stability and durability values

2.5.2 Method of Soil Stabilization

a. Biological

b. Physical

c. Chemical

d. Mechanical Stabilization

16
 b. Biological Stabilization: It is achieved through afforestation or planting, and its

main purpose is erosion control. Root traits such as architectural, morphological,

physiological and biotic play an important role in both the physical and chemical

development of soils enabling structural stability of the soil. This method is

suitable for terrain exposed to water and wind influences, which are not meant for

building. However, initially, planting has to be supported by other types of soil

stabilization from the moment seeds or seedlings are planted till the moment the

plants become strong. Otherwise, along with the surface layer, seeds or young

plants would be carried away by water flow or wind(Ola et al 2005).

c. Physical Soil Stabilization: It is the modification of soil particle size distribution

and plasticity by the addition or subtraction of different soil fractions in order to

modify its physical properties. Mechanical stabilization is the modification of soil

porosity and interparticle friction or interlock (Ola et al 2005).

d. Chemical Soil Stabilization: It can be achieved through the use of traditional and

non-traditional agents. The distinction between the two classes exists as a result of

the pre-existing and well-established additives as compared to the most recently

developed agents (Mazhork et al 2014).

e. Mechanical Soil Stabilization: Its objective is to achieve dense, well graded

material by mixing and compacting two or more soils and/or aggregates (Mazhork

et al 2014).

2.5.3 Material Used in Soil Stabilization

The materials used in soil stabilization depend on what technique is being employed.

The following list includes everything from biological, chemical and mechanical soil

stabilization techniques:

17
 i. Different grades of soil.

ii. Different grades of aggregates.

iii. Seedlings

iv. Seeds

v. Hydromulch mixtures

vi. Hydroseeding mixtures

vii. Geomaterials – geogrids, geoblankets

viii. Polymers -synthetic and natural

ix. Synthetic resins

x. Waste Carbide

xi. Fly ash

2.5.4 Calcium Carbide Residue Soil Stabilization

This is another popular chemical stabilizer. It is a by-product of the acetylene

production process that contains mainly calcium hydroxide Ca (OH)2. Compared to

hydrated lime, CCR has similar chemical and mineralogical compositions. It is among

types of soil stabilization suitable for coarse grained particles with little or no fines.

Soil to be stabilized should have low moisture content. After proper amount of

carbide added, an activator is usually used to intensify pozzolanic reaction in the

mixture because carbide produced from the combustion of harder, older bituminous,

anthracite coal is pozzolanic but not self-cementing. (Andavan. et al 2019).

2.6 Purpose of Soil Stabilization

There are several reasons for it and these reasons include:

18
 1. Substituting poor grade soils with aggregates possessing more favorable

engineering properties.

2. Enhancement of the strength and therefore bearing capacity of the soil.

3. Dust control for a good working environment.

4. Waterproofing for conservation of natural or manmade structures.

5. To promote the use of waste geomaterials in constructions.

6. Finally, enhancing the properties of soil on site.

Not all sites offer favorable construction conditions. At such sites, a contractor usually

has six main reasons why soil stabilization is needed as described above. Reasons 1,

2, 3 and 4 are more chemical and mechanical soil stabilization, whereas reason 5 is

biological and mechanical stabilization. Today, with better research and more

effective equipment and materials, soil stabilization for reason 6 involves choosing

the best suitable technique which achieves the deliverables of the soil stabilization

project according to prior cost-benefit analysis. Some definitions of soil

stabilization also refer to the process as soil modification of steady or weak soil

(Bahnood et al 2018).

2.7 Types of Soil Stabilization

1. In Situ Stabilization: The method involves on site soil improvement by applying

stabilizing agents without removing the soil (Wikipidia, 2020). This can be used for

deep foundation, shallow foundation, and contaminated sites (Wikipidia, 2020).

2. Ex Situ Stabilization: It involves removing of the soil or sediments from the

original position and moved to other places. These can be encountered during

19
 dredging of river channel and ports. It is normally not done for common structures

(Wikipidia, 2020).

2.8 Advantages of Soil Stabilization

Soil stabilization improves the strength of the soil, thus, increasing the soil bearing

capacity (Wikipidia, 2020). It is more economical both in terms of cost and energy to

increase the bearing capacity of the soil rather than going for deep foundation or raft

foundation(Wikipidia, 2020).

It is also used to provide more stability to the soil in slopes or other such places.

Sometimes soil stabilization is also used to prevent soil Erosion or formation of dust,

which is very useful especially in dry and arid weather (Wikipidia, 2020).

2.9 Evaluation of Soil Stabilization

For soils to be suitable in civil engineering projects, they must meet existing local

requirements for index properties in addition to certain strength criteria. Typically,

specifications limit these properties to some threshold values which in most cases are

project specific. Some lateritic soils in their natural state need some

treatment/modification to meet these specification requirements. The objective of this

study was to evaluate changes in the index properties (i.e., particle size distribution,

Atterberg limits and compaction characteristics) of a residually derived lateritic soil.

Soil evaluation can be performed directly or indirectly (Bahnood et al 2018).

20
 CHAPTER THREE

3.0 LITERATURE REVIEW

3.1 Materials and Methods

This chapter was developed to describe the experimental laboratory work, including

material use in the experiment and method use, different tests were carryout in this

chapter like, Particle size distribution test, California Bearing Ratio test (CBR),

Atterberg limit test, Compaction test.

3.2 MATERIALS

1. Lateritic Materials

2. Water

3. Sample (Waste Carbide)

(a) Samples

The samples were sourced from highway along Sabon Gari Kaura Namoda, Zamfara

State. The samples were collected from the gas welding mechanics at Kaura Namoda,

Zamfara State.

3.3 Method

The lateritic soil sample was dried to allow for rapid elimination of its natural water

which could affect the experimental procedure, the sample was then sieved using

sieve size 4.75 mm to obtain the final soil sample for the tests. Preliminary tests like

Atterberg’s limits were carried out on the soil for easy identification and classification

purposes.

21
 The following tests were carried out on the samples:

1. Sieve analysis test

2. Atterbergs limit (Consistency)test

3. Compaction test

4. Califonia Bearing Ratio (CBR) test

3.3.1 Sieve Analysis Test

Sieve analysis is the process of dividing a sample of aggregate into fractions of same

particle size, its purpose is to determine the grading or size distribution of the

aggregate. A sample of air-dried aggregate is graded by shaking or vibrating a nest of

stacked sieves, with the largest sieve at the top, for a specified time so that the

material retained on each sieve represents the fraction coarser than the sieve in

question but finer than the sieve above. All sizes above 5mm are coarse aggregate,

sizes smaller than 5mm are fine aggregate. The grading curve is obtained by plotting

the cumulative percentage passing on the ordinate and sieve sizes on the abscissa.

Apparatus;

i. B.S sieves ranging from 5mm to 75micro-meter for fine aggregate.

ii. Scoop

iii. Electric weighing balance

iv. Weighing pan

v. Set of brush

22
 Sieve Analysis Apparatus

Test Procedure;

The soil sample to be analysed was thoroughly dried with the lumps being pulverized

by means of wooden mallet. 1000g of the samples were weighed. After this the oven

dried samples were reweighed. These was poured on the sets of sieves and placed on

an electric sieve shaker. Each sieve was cleaned and the weight of the sample retained

on each sieve was recorded. Percentage passing sieves were plotted against sieve sizes

on a logarithmic graph to obtain the particle size distribution curve. The result is as

showed in chapter four

3.3.2 Atterbergs Limit Test (Consistency Limit)

As moisture is removed from a fine-grained soil it passes through series of states, i.e.

liquid, plastic, semi-solid and solid. The moisture contents of a soil at the points

23
 where it passes from one stage to the next are known as consistency limits. These

limits are defined as:

i. Liquid Limit (LL): The minimum moisture content at which the soil will flow

under its own weight.

ii. Plastic Limit (PL): The minimum moisture content at which the soil can be rolled

into a thread 3mm diameter without breaking.

iii. Shrinkage Limit (SL): The maximum moisture content at which further loss of

moisture does not cause a decrease in the volume of the soil.

3.3.3 Determination of Liquid Limit

Apparatus

1. Oven

2. Sample

3. Moisture content can

4. Weighing balance

5. 0.425mm sieve

6. Brushes

7. Cone penetrometer apparatus

8. Spatula

9. Mixing platform

24
 Test Procedure;

The soil sample was pulverized and oven dried. This was sieved through 0.425mm

sieve. 200g of the sample was measured and mixed with distilled water to a stiff

consistency; a portion of it was placed in the penetrometer cup, the soil being struck

off with the top of the cup. The penetrometer cone was then clamped with its tip just

touching the soil. The clamp was then released and cone allowed to penetrate the soil

for 5 seconds, when the cone was reapplied. The amount of penetration was read on

the dial gauge this was repeated until two consecutive tests give the same penetration

and these readings were recorded. At each stage the moisture content of the soil in the

cup was determined. The whole procedure was repeated with successive additions of

distilledwater to the sample, and the relationship between moisture content and

penetration plotted on a graph.

3.3.4 Determination of Plastic Limit

200g of the dried soil sample passing the 0.425mm sieve was mixed with distilled

water and moulded into a ball. The ball was rolled by hand on a glass plate with

sufficient pressure to form a thread. When the diameter of the resulting thread

25
 becomes 3mm the soil is kneaded together and then rolled out again. The process was

continued until the thread crumbles when it is 3mm diameter, and at this stage the

moisture content of the soil was determined. The whole procedure was repeated twice

and the average value of moisture content taken as the plastic limit of the soil.

3.3.5 Compaction

Compaction is the process in which rapid reduction in volume takes place due to

sudden application of loads as caused by ramming, tamping, rolling and vibration.

During compaction the reduction in volume is mainly due to expulsion of pore air and

rearrangement of particles resulting in their closer packing. Compaction of a soil mass

results in increase in dry density. The dry density attained depends on water content,

amount and type of compaction. The amount and type of compaction determine the

compactive effort. For a specific amount of compactive energy applied on soil, the

mass attains maximum dry density at particular water content. This water content is

referred to as optimum water content.

Apparatus

i. Cylindrical metal mould

ii. Collar of 2 inches

iii. Rammer of mass 2.5kg

iv. Spatula

v. Mixing platform

vi. Trowel

vii. Moisture can

viii. Straight edge

26
Figure Error! No text of specified style in document..1 Compaction Apparatus

Test Procedure

6000g of the dried soil sample with all lumps pulverized and passing through 4.75mm

sieve was taken in a tray. The quantity of water to be added for the first trial was

computed. The computed quantity of water was added to the soil in the tray and

mixed thoroughly with hand to ensure uniform distribution of water. The mass of

mould with base plate (M1) is found. The mould is filled with some quantity of the

wet soil taken from the tray and compacted with 25 uniformly distributed blows on

the surface, using the standard rammer. The surface of the compacted soil was

scratched with knife to ensure bond with the next layer. The collar was fitted on the

mould and the soil for the second layer was put inside the mould and compacted as

explained before. In similar manner the third layer of compacted soil was obtained

with care being taken to see that it does not protrude more than 6mm into the

collar.The collar was removed and the excess soil projection above the top of the

mould was trimmed off. The mass of mould plus base plate plus compacted soil (M 2)

27
 was found. The soil was removed and put back in the tray. While removing the soil

from the mould, representative samples were taken for water content determination.

Knowing the mass of compacted soil (M 2-M1), the bulk density γ was calculated. After

determining the water contentω , dry density γ d , was computed. The soil in the tray

was again pulverized and the water content was increased by suitable amount 4% for

second trial. The steps were repeated to get 5 sets of water content and the dry density

values with 2 trials after the drop in mass of compacted soil occurs during the test.

The dry density γ d , was plotted against water content ω , to obtain the compaction

curve. The results are as shown in chapter four

3.3.6 California Bearing Ratio (CBR)

The California bearing ratio (CBR) is a penetration test for evaluation of the

mechanical strength of road sub grades and base courses. It was developed by the

California Department of Transportation before World War II. The test is performed

by measuring the pressure required to penetrate a soil sample with a plunger of

standard area. The measured pressure is then divided by the pressure required to

achieve an equal penetration on a standard crushed rock material. The CBR test is

described in ASTM standards D 1883-05 (for laboratory prepared samples) and

D44.29 (for soils in place in field), and AASHTO T193. The CBR rating was

developed for measuring the load-bearing Capacity of soils used for building roads.

Apparatus;

i. Mould

ii. Steel cutting collar

28
iii. Spacer Disc

iv. Surcharge weight

v. Dial gauges

vi. Penetration plunger

vii. Loading machine

Test Procedure:

Normally 3 specimens each of about 7kg must be compacted so that their compacted

densities range from 95% - 100% generally with 10, 30 and 65 blows. Weigh the

empty mould, and then add water to the first specimen (compact in five layers by

giving 10 blows per layer).After compaction, remove the collar and level the surface,

then take the samples for determination of moisture content. Weigh the mould and the

compacted specimen and then place the mould in the soaking tank for four days.Take

other samples and apply different blows, repeat the same procedures. After the four

days, measure the swell reading and find the percentage swell. Remove the mould

from the tank and allow water to drain. Then place the specimen under the penetration

piston and place surcharge load of 10lb. apply the load and note the penetration load

values. Draw the graphs between penetration (in) and penetration load (in) and find

the value of the CBR and also draw the graph between the percentage CBR and dry

Density, and find the CBR at required degree of compaction.

29
 CHAPTER FOUR

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

This chapter explains all the results obtained for the determination of geotechnical
properties of soil such as particle-size distribution, consistency limit of soils,
California bearing ratio, and compaction.

4.1 Sieve Analysis of Samples

Weight of sample retained, (g) = (weight of sieves + sample) – (weight of empty

sieves)

% weight retained = weight of sample retained x 100

Total weight of sample

% weight passing = 100- cumulative percentage weight retained

Table 4.1. presents the results of the sieve analysis for sample A, this test provides the
grain sizes of the sample using B.S sieve sizes. The Table 4.1 shows the relationship
between B.S sieves and percentage passing. For instance, on sieve size 10.00mm there
was 94.1% of the sample passing the sieve while on sieve size 0.0630mm 1.0% of the
sample passes.

Table 4.1: Particle Size Distribution of Sample

Sieve sizes (mm) Weight of Percentage weight Cumulative Percentage

sample retained retained (g) percentage passing
(g) retained

10.00 0.059 5.9 5.9 94.1

6.3 0.149 14.9 20.8 79.2
5.00 0.003 0.3 21.1 78.9
4.00 0.167 16.7 37.8 62.2
2.50 0.139 13.9 51.7 48.3
2.00 0.043 4.3 55.0 45.0
1.00 0.071 7.1 62.1 37.9
0.0630 0.086 8.6 70.7 29.3
Pan 0.283 28.3 99.0 1.0
TOTAL 1000 100

30
 Table 4.1 is a detailed analysis of the particle size distributions of sample. which has
the value of 1000g it depicts the various fractions of the same particle size contained
in the sample.

Table 4.2 presents the results of the sieve analysis for sample B, this test provides the
grain sizes of the sample using B.S sieve sizes. The Table shows the relationship
between B.S sieves and percentage passing. For instance, on sieve size 10.00mm there
was 97.00% of the sample passing the sieve while on sieve size 0.0630mm 0.09% of
the sample passes.

Table 4.2: Particle Size Distribution of Sample

Sieve sizes (mm) Weight of Percentage weight Cumulative Percentage

sample retained retained (g) percentage passing
(g) retained

10.00 0.029 2.95 2.95 97.00

6.3 0.079 8.04 10.99 88.99
5.00 0.040 4.07 15.06 84.89
4.00 0.003 0.30 16.36 84.59
2.50 0.019 1.93 17.29 82.66
2.00 0.125 12.72 30.01 69.94
1.00 0.481 48.98 78.99 20.96
0.0630 0.190 19.34 98.24 1.71
Pan 0.016 1.62 99.86 0.09
TOTAL 982 99.95

Total percentage lost = 1000 – 982 = 18(g)

The Curve for Particle Size Distribution of

samples
120

100

80
Percentage pass

60

40

20

0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Laterite Sieve Sizes
Waste Carbide

31
 Figure 4.1 Particle- Size Distribution Curve for the both Samples

4.2 ATTERBERG LIMITS (CONSISTENCY) OF SAMPLES

Table 4.3 present the results of Liquid and Plastic limit tests for sample 1, for
instance, for number of blows equal to 62; the moisture content was12.5%, while for
number of blows equal to12; the moisture content was 16.66%. Thus the results
indicated that the lesser the number of blows the more the moisture content.
Therefore, this means that the soils strength reduces as water increases. The Table
also reveals the plastic limit of the soil as 20.33%.

Table 4.3: Atterberg Limits of Sample A

Liquid Limit
No of blows 12 20 30
Can number C1 A1 3B
Weight of empty can, W1 (g) 6 6 7
Weight of can + wet sample, W2 (g) 60 41 47
Weight of can + dry sample, W3 (g) 54 36 42
Weight of dried sample (W3-W1), (g) 48 30 35
Moisture 6 5 5
Moisture content 12.5 16.66 14.28

Relationship between number of blows and

moisture content for sample
25

20
Moisture Content

15

10

0
10 15 20 25 30 35
Number of Blows

32
 Figure 4.3 Graph showing Relationship between number of blows and moisture

content for sample

Table 4.4: Atterberg Limits of Sample A

Plastic Limit
Can number C3 B1 4B
Weight of empty can, W1 (g) 6 6 7
Weight of can + wet sample, W2 (g) 10 10 11
Weight of can + dry sample, W3 (g) 9 9 10
Weight of dried sample (W3-W1), (g) 3 4 3
Moisture 1 1 1
Moisture content 33.33 25 33.33
Average moisture content 30.55

Table 4.3 shows the relationship between the number of blows and the moisture
content of sample A. The moisture content at 25 blows is referred to as the liquid limit (LL);
that is 17%. The plastic index (PI) of the soil sample was computed as difference between LL
and PL which was found to be 30.55%. The soil is said to be non-plastic if the PI is zero (0).
When the plastic limit is equal or greater than the liquid limit then the PI should be reported
as zero (0).

The results indicated that after 20 numbers of blows the moisture content was 16.66%
and after 30 numbers of blows the moisture content was 14.28%. From the results obtained it
could be seen that the soil has an average plastic limit of 30.55%.

Shrinkage limit test

Size of mould = 140cm

Measured/shrink sample = 137cm

L [change in linear]
original L

Linear = 1- [Δ/L] x 100

33
 = 1- [137/140] x 100 = 2.2mm
4.3 COMPACTION OF SAMPLE

Where:
ρd = dry density of soil grams per cm3
Gs = specific gravity of the soil being tested (assume 2.70 if not given)
ρw = density of water in grams per cm3 (approximately1 g/cm3)
wsat = moisture content in percent for complete saturation.

Table 4.5: Compaction Result for Sample A adding 0% of waste Carbide

1 2 3
Weight of Empty Mould W1 (g) 5262 5262 5262
Weight of Mould + Sample W2 (g) 11474 11502 11419
Weight of sample M3 (g) 6212 6240 6157
Bulk density γb 2.28 2.29 2.26

Moisture content Top Top Top

Bottom Bottom Bottom
Can number 7B O H 1B V P
Weight of empty can, W1 (g) 7 6 7 7 7 6
Weight of can + wet sample, W2 (g) 39 42 55 61 71 74
Weight of can + dry sample, W3 (g) 37 40 53 57 66 69
Weight of dried sample (W3-W1), (g) 30 34 46 50 59 63
Moisture 2 2 2 4 5 5
Moisture content 6.7 5.9 4.3 8.00 8.5 7.9
Average moisture content 12.6 12.3 16.4
Dry density 2.02 2.03 1.94

34
 Compaction Curve for Sample 0%
2.04
2.02
2
Dry Density (kg/m3)

1.98
1.96
1.94
1.92
1.9
1.88
12 12.5 13 13.5 14 14.5 15 15.5 16 16.5 17
Moisture Content (%)

MDD = 2.03kg/m3 OMC = 12.04%

Figure 4.2: Compaction Curve for Sample adding 0% of the sample. From the graph
above, it is observed that the optimum moisture content is 12.04% while the maximum dry
density is 2.03kg/m3

Table 4.6: Compaction Result for Sample A adding 5% of waste Carbide

1 2 3 4 5
Weight of Empty Mould W1 (g) 5262 5262 5262 5262 5262
Weight of Mould + Sample W2 (g) 11365 11482 11483 11344 11199
Weight of sample M3 (g) 6103 6220 6221 6082 5937
Bulk density γb 2.24 2.28 2.28 2.23 2.18

Moisture content Top Bottom Top Bottom Top Bottom Top Bottom Top Bottom

Can number 4B CI G B2 A2 B3 RR R2 M M2
Weight of empty can, W1 (g) 7 7 6 7 6 6 6 5 6 6
Weight of can + wet sample, W2 (g) 41 53 40 48 50 47 60 60 72 62
Weight of can + dry sample, W3 (g) 37 46 38 45 47 44 55 55 67 58
Weight of dried sample (W3-W1), 30 39 32 38 41 38 49 50 61 52
(g)
Moisture 4 7 2 3 3 3 5 5 5 4
Moisture content 13.33 17.9 6.25 7.8 7.3 7.8 10.2 10 8.1 7.6
Average moisture content 31.23 14.05 15.1 20.2 15.7

35
Dry density 1.70 1.99 1.98 1.85 1.88

Compaction Curve for Sample 5%

2.05
2
1.95
Dry Density (kg/m3)

1.9
1.85
1.8
1.75
1.7
1.65
1.6
1.55
10 15 20 25 30 35
Moisture Content (%)

MDD = 1.98kg/m3 OMC = 14.00%

Figure 4.6: Compaction Curve for Sample adding 5% of the sample. From the graph
above, it is observed that the optimum moisture content is 14.00% while the maximum dry
density is 1.98kg/m3

Table 4.7: Compaction Graph for Sample A adding 10% of waste Carbide

1 2 3 4
Weight of Empty Mould W1 (g) 5262 5262 5262 5262
Weight of Mould + Sample W2 (g) 10117 11355 11268 11136
Weight of sample M3 (g) 4855 6093 6006 5874
Bulk density γb 1.78 2.23 2.21 2,16

Moisture content Top Top Top Top

Bottom Bottom Bottom Bottom
Can number C3 A2 C2 PB B 1m B1 B2
Weight of empty can, W1 (g) 17 17 16 17 18 16 16 17
Weight of can + wet sample, W2 (g) 68 71 70 79 85 84 90 99
Weight of can + dry sample, W3 (g) 65 68 66 75 80 79 83 92
Weight of dried sample (W3-W1), (g) 51 51 50 58 62 63 67 75
Moisture 3 3 4 4 5 5 7 7

36
Moisture content 5.88 5.88 8.00 6.90 8.06 7.94 10.45 9.33
Average moisture content 5.88 7.45 8.00 9.89
Dry density 1.68 2.08 2.05 1.97

Compaction Curve for Sample 10%

2.5

2
Dry Density (kg/m3)

1.5

0.5

0
5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.5 10 10.5
Moisture Content (%)

MDD = 2.09kg/m3 OMC = 7.06%

Figure 4.7: Compaction Curve for Sample adding 10% of the sample. From the graph
above, it is observed that the optimum moisture content is 7.06% while the maximum dry
density is 2.09kg/m3

1 2 3
Weight of Empty Mould W1 (g) 5262 5262 5262

37
 Weight of Mould + Sample W2 (g) 10415 10606 9382
Weight of sample M3 (g) 5153 5344 4120
Bulk density γb 1.89 1.96 1.51

Moisture content Top Top Top

Bottom Bottom Bottom
Can number 7A CP2 1A 1B C2 3A
Weight of empty can, W1 (g) 8 6 6 8 7 17
Weight of can + wet sample, W2 (g) 53 50 49 62 59 79
Weight of can + dry sample, W3 (g) 51 48 47 59 56 75
Weight of dried sample (W3-W1), (g) 45 44 43 54 49 58
Moisture 2 2 2 3 3 4
Moisture content 4.4 4.5 4.7 5.5 6.1 6.9
Average moisture content 8.9 10.2 13
Dry density 1.75 1.77 1.37
Table 4.8 Compaction Result of Sample adding 15% of waste Carbide

Compaction Curve for Sample adding 15%

2
1.8
1.6
Dry Density ()kg/m3

1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
8.5 9 9.5 10 10.5 11 11.5 12 12.5 13 13.5
Moisture Content (%)

MDD = 1.7kg/m3 OMC = 10.01%

Figure 4.8: Compaction Curve for Sample adding 15% of the sample. From the graph
above, it is observed that the optimum moisture content is 10.01% while the maximum dry
density is 1.6kg/m3

38
4.4 CARLIFONIA BEARING RATIO

Table 4.9: CBR Result adding 0% of the sample

DIAL READING LOADING

PENETRATION (mm) (KN)
(mm) TOP BOTTOM TOP BOTTOM
0 0 0.1 0 0.1
0.25 0 0.1 0 0.1
0.50 0 0.5 0 0.9
0.75 0 0.6 0 1.1
1.00 0.1 0.8 0.1 1.5
1.25 0.1 0.9 0.1 1.6
1.50 0.1 1.1 0.1 2.0
1.75 0.2 1.1 0.3 2.0
2.00 0.2 1.1 0.3 2.0
2.25 0.3 1.2 0.5 2.2
2.50 0.5 1.4 0.9 2.6
2.75 0.7 1.8 1.3 3.3
3.00 1.0 2.0 1.8 3.7
3.25 1.2 2.0 2.2 3.7
3.50 1.2 2.0 2.2 3.7
3.75 1.4 2.3 2.6 4.3
4.00 1.8 2.4 3.3 4.5
4.25 1.9 2.7 3.5 5.0
4.50 2.0 2.9 3.7 5.4
4.75 2.5 3.0 4.7 5.6
5.00 2.8 3.0 5.2 5.6
5.25 3.5 3.2 6.6 6.0
5.50 4.0 3.5 7.5 6.6
5.75 4.1 3.6 7.7 6.7
6.00 4.1 3.8 7.7 7.1

39
 CBR VALUE
TOP (%) BOTTOM (%)
26.5% 28.5%

27.5%

CBR Grapg for 0% of the sample

9

6
Loading (kN)

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Top
Bottom Penetration (mm)

Figure 4.9: CBR GRAPH ADDING 0% OF SAMPLE

Average of CBR @ 2.5=12.2%

Average of CBR @ 5.0=27.5%

The California bearing ratio of the sample range for second observation at 2.50mm
CBR value is 12.2% and at 5.00mm CBR value is 27.5%.

40
 Table 4.9.1: CBR Result adding 5% of the sample

DIAL READING LOADING

PENETRATION (mm) (KN)
(mm) TOP BOTTOM TOP BOTTOM
0 0 0 0 0
0.25 0.3 0.1 0.5 0.1
0.50 0.4 0.1 0.7 0.1
0.75 0.5 0.1 0.9 0.1
1.00 0.6 0.2 1.1 0.3
1.25 0.7 0.2 1.3 0.3
1.50 0.8 0.3 1.5 0.5
1.75 1.0 0.4 1.8 0.7
2.00 1.1 0.5 2.0 0.9
2.25 1.2 0.7 2.2 1.3
2.50 1.3 0.8 2.4 1.5
2.75 1.4 0.9 2.6 1.6
3.00 1.5 1.0 2.8 1.8
3.25 1.7 1.1 3.2 2.0
3.50 2.0 1.1 3.7 2.0
3.75 2.4 1.2 4.5 2.2
4.00 2.7 1.3 5.0 2.4
4.25 2.8 1.4 5.2 2.6
4.50 3.0 1.4 5.6 2.6
4.75 3.1 1.5 5.8 2.8
5.00 3.2 1.7 6.0 3.2
5.25 3.3 1.8 6.2 3.3
5.50 3.4 1.9 6.4 3.5
5.75 3.5 2.0 6.6 3.7
6.00 3.6 2.1 6.7 3.9

41
 CBR VALUE
TOP (%) BOTTOM (%)
30.1% 16%

23.5%

CBR Graph for 5% of the sample

8

5
Loading (kN)

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Penetration (mm)
Top
Bottom

Figure 4.9.1: CBR GRAPH ADDING 5% OF SAMPLE

Average of CBR @ 2.5=21.5%

Average of CBR @ 5.0=23.5%

The California bearing ratio of the sample range for second observation at 2.50mm
CBR value is 21.5% and at 5.00mm CBR value is 23.5%.

42
 Table 4.9.2: CBR Result adding 10% of the sample

DIAL READING LOADING

PENETRATION (mm) (KN)
(mm) TOP BOTTOM TOP BOTTOM
0 0 0 0 0
0.25 0.1 0 0.1 0
0.50 0.3 0.2 0.5 0.3
0.75 0.4 0.2 0.7 0.3
1.00 0.6 1.0 1.1 1.8
1.25 0.8 1.4 1.5 2.6
1.50 0.9 1.4 1.6 2.6
1.75 1.1 1.6 2.0 3.0
2.00 1.3 1.7 2.4 3.1
2.25 1.6 1.8 3.0 3.3
2.50 1.8 1.9 3.3 3.5
2.75 1.9 2.0 3.5 3.7
3.00 2.1 2.2 3.9 4.1
3.25 2.4 2.6 4.5 4.9
3.50 2.6 2.9 4.9 5.4
3.75 2.8 3.5 5.2 6.6
4.00 2.9 3.6 5.4 6.7
4.25 2.9 3.7 5.4 6.9
4.50 3.1 4.0 5.8 7.5
4.75 3.2 4.2 6.0 7.9
5.00 3.7 4.3 6.9 8.1
5.25 3.9 4.3 7.3 8.1
5.50 4.1 4.4 7.7 8.3
5.75 4.3 4.5 8.1 8.4
6.00 4.6 4.5 8.6 8.4

CBR VALUE

43
 TOP (%) BOTTOM (%)
34.5% 40.5%

37.5%

CBR Graph for 10% of the Sample

10

6
Loading (kN)

0
0 Top 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Penetration (mm)
Bottom

Figure 4.9.2: CBR GRAPH ADDING 10% OF SAMPLE

Average of CBR @ 2.5=25.6%

Average of CBR @ 5.0=37.5%

The California bearing ratio of the sample range for second observation at 2.50mm
CBR value is 25.6% and at 5.00mm CBR value is 37.5%.

44
 Table 4.9.3: CBR Result adding 15% of the sample

DIAL READING LOADING

PENETRATION (mm) (KN)
(mm) TOP BOTTOM TOP BOTTOM
0 0 0 0 0
0.25 0.3 0 0.5 0
0.50 0.7 0 1.3 0
0.75 1.1 0.1 2.0 0.1
1.00 1.6 0.1 3.0 0.1
1.25 2.2 0.2 4.1 0.3
1.50 2.2 0.2 4.1 0.3
1.75 2.6 0.2 4.9 0.3
2.00 3.0 0.2 5.6 0.3
2.25 3.0 0.3 5.6 0.5
2.50 3.5 0.3 6.6 0.5
2.75 3.5 1.1 6.6 2.0
3.00 4.0 1.8 7.5 3.3
3.25 4.5 2.0 8.4 3.7
3.50 4.5 2.2 8.4 4.1
3.75 4.9 2.3 9.2 4.3
4.00 5.0 2.4 9.6 4.5
4.25 5.3 2.8 10.0 5.2
4.50 5.4 3.0 10.1 5.6
4.75 5.6 3.0 10.5 5.6
5.00 5.7 3.2 10.7 6.0
5.25 5.9 3.3 11.1 6.2
5.50 5.9 3.5 11.1 6.6
5.75 6.1 3.7 11.5 6.9
6.00 6.2 3.8 11.6 7.1

CBR VALUE

45
 TOP (%) BOTTOM (%)
53.6% 30.1%

41.8%

CBR Graph for 15% of the sample

14

12

10

8
Loading (kN)

0
0 Top 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Bottom Penetration (mm)

Figure 4.9.3: CBR GRAPH ADDING 15% OF SAMPLE

Average of CBR @ 2.5=26.8%

Average of CBR @ 5.0=41.8%

The California bearing ratio of the sample range for second observation at 2.50mm
CBR value is 25.6% and at 5.00mm CBR value is 41.8%.

4.5 General Discussion of Results

46
From the Sieve analysis result obtained in this study, the particle size distribution

indicates that the soil is granular material with none plasticity based on the unified-

soil classification system. The soil is classified as A-2-4 or A-2-6 AASHTO

classification with liquid limit ranged from 16% to 40% while the plasticity index is

negative -14.33% The group index of the soil shows that the soil contains granular

materials.

In Atterberg limits considering soil classification, in this study conducted all the result

of the plastic index shows that, the soil classification with respect to all the percentage

of liquid limit 16.0% and plastic limit of -14.33% the highest values recorded as the

one with none plasticity index.

The California bearing ratio of the sample range for second observation at 5.00mm
CBR value is 27.5% and at 5.0mm CBR value is 23.5%, at 5.0mm CBR value is
37.5% and at 5.0mm CBR value is 41.8% for the samples adding the percentage of
the sample.

As the soil is compacted the voids are reduced and this causes the dry unit weight (or
dry density) to increase. Initially as the moisture content increases so does the dry unit
weight. However, the increase cannot occur indefinitely because the soil state
approaches the zero air voids line which gives the maximum dry unit weight for given
moisture content. Thus, as the state approaches the no air voids line further moisture
content increase would result in a reduction in dry unit weight. As the state
approaches the no air voids line a maximum dry unit weight is reached and the
moisture content at this maximum is called the optimum moisture content.

47
 CHAPTER FIVE

5.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

All the various results obtained from the laboratory were used to identify and classify
the soil. The general discussion of result is based on AASHTO classification.

1. From the results obtained in this study, the particle size distribution indicates that

the soil is granular material with none plasticity based on the unified-soil

classification system. The soil is classified as A-2-4 or A-2-6 AASHTO

classification with liquid limit ranged from 16% to 40% while the plasticity index

is negative -14.33% The group index of the soil shows that the soil contains

granular materials.

2. The calfornia bearing ratio of the sample range for first observation at 5.00mm

CBR value is 27.5% and at 5.0mm CBR value is 23.5%, at 5.0mm CBR value is

37.5% and at 5.0mm CBR value is 41.8% for the samples.

From the result it shows that some of the soils were None plastic than the others.

3. In Atterberg limits considering soil classification, in this study conducted all the

result of the plastic index shows that, the soil classification with respect to all the

percentage of liquid limit 16.0% and plastic limit of -14.33% the highest values

recorded as the one with none plasticity index.

5.1 RECOMMENDATION

Practical investigation on the stabilization of lateritic soil using waste carbide material
for road construction, the various test carried out both on laboratory test, I recommend
the Waste Carbide can be recommended for use in soil stabilization for road
construction purposes, 5% and 10% are recommended for the soil stabilization.

48
REFERENCES

AASHTO 91980) Standard Specification for Transportation Material

And Methods of Sampling and Testing.14th edition.

Alexander L.T, Cady J. G. Genesis and hardening of laterite in soil, U. S. Department of

Agric, Technical Bulletin No. 1282 Washington DC USA, 2000.
BS1377 (1990): Method of Testing Soil for Civil Engineering Purpose.
Bahnood (2018): Principle of Pavement,Design. John Wiley & Sons Inc, New York, Page
405-442.
Bilba, K, Arsene, M.A. and Ouencanga, O.(2003). Sugarcane Bagasse fibre reinforced
cement composites part 1.
Chavan, P. &Nagakumar, M.S. Studies on Soil Stabilization by Using Bagasse Ash,
International Journal of Scientific Research Engineering & Technology, ICRTIET-
2014 Conference Proceeding, 89-94, 2014.
Clark K.E., (2007) “soil and road making materials in Nigeria” pg 32-48
Chapman (2001) “ Engineering properties of soil and their measurement 2 nd edition Me
Craw – Itul New York, pg, 188
Francis Buchana (2004) Formation of laterite soil in Nigeria pg 12-14
Gordon A. F. and Vernon A. S. (2015): Construction Guide for Soil
And Foundation; John wiley& Sons Inc New York. Page 67-74

Gandhi,K.S. (2012) “Expansive Soil Stabilization using Bagasse Ash,” International Journal
of Engineering Research and Technology
Gidigasu, (2006). Laterite Soil Engineering. Elsevier, Amsterdam.
Gidigasu m.d. (2006) “ laterite soil Engineering E / servier scientific publisher by coy
Amsterdam oxford, New York.
Googgle. Com. Ng / books “ Defination of terms by oxford New York
Holmen J.P. (2001): Experimental Methods for Engineers, Seventh
Edition, McGraw-Hill Series. Page 70-107

Ingles, O.G. and Metcalf, J.B. (2007). Soil stabilization principles and practice. Butterworth,
Sydney.
Indraratna And Nutalaya (2008), a pavement and sufferings for highways and airport”
Applied science publishes it London pg 40-47.
Joseph E. B. (2010): Engineering Properties of Soils and their

49
 Measurement.McGraw Hill Book Company New York. Page 35-42,

80-86 and 190-194.

Jack son n. 1983 “civil Engineering Materials” 3rd edition macmillian publisher pg 152-160
Jachim And Kadah (2003) “soil meachanics” 3rd edition macmillian published by van
vostrand Reinhold (U.K) co.ltd pg. 7-11
Kadiyah and lal,(2006) “The use of laterite as building material 3rd edition Mac Donald and
Evans pg 7-11
Kharade, A. S., Suryavanshi, V. V., Gujar, B. S. &Deshmukh, R. R. Waste Product ‘Bagasse
Ash’ from Sugar Industry can be used as Stabilizing Material for Expansive Soils,
International Journal of Research in Engineering and Technology, 3 (3): 506512,
2014.
Lambe T. W. and Whitman R.V. (2013): Soil Mechanics series in
Soil Engineering S.I Version. John Wiley & Sons Inc New York. Page 1-7.

Manikandan,A.T. and Moganraj, M. (2014) “Consolidation and Rebound Characteristics of

Expansive Soil by Using Lime and Bagasse Ash,” International Journal of Research
in Engineering and Technology.
Mazhor k., (20014) a properties of soil and Reinhold (U.K) co.ltd pag 52-59
Ola (2005) “Road transportation”, 2nd edition metehr (U.K) pg 12-37

Olatunji K.O; (2011), “suitability of available lateritic material for road construction”
university of Ilorin.
Ogbonyomi T. D. Possible uses of Bagasse Ash as an Alternative cement, a seminar paper
presented at the Department of Civil Engineering ABU Zaria, 2000.
Osinubi, K. J. & Stephen, T. A. Influence of compactive efforts on bagasse ash treated black
cotton soil. Niger J Soil Environ Res, 7: 92–101, 2007.
Osinubi, K.J. (2003). “Lateritic soils and other problem soils of Africa”. Unpublished MSc
lecture Note, Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria.
Osinubi, K.J., Ijimdiya, T.S. and Nmadu, I.(2009.) “Lime Stabilization of Black Cotton Soil
using Bagasse Ash as Admixture,” Advanced Materials Research
Osula D. O. A. soil stabilization using hydrated lime as an admixture, Unpublished Msc.
Thesis Civil Engineering Department Ahmadu Bello University Zaria, 2001
.Ola S. A. Geotechnical properties and behaviour of some stabilized Nigerian laterite soil
2001.

50
Osinubi K. J. Lime Modification of Black Cotton soil, Spectrum Journal, Vol. 2, No. 1 and 2,
2005.
Richard V. D. and Brian J. S (2010): Rocks and Rock Minerals. John Wiley &
Sons Inc New York. Page 280-281

Sigh And Sigh, (2006) a methods of testing for soil for engineering purposes” British
standard 1377 pg 11-51
Sabat, A.K.(2012) “Utilization of Bagasse ash and Lime Sludge for Construction of Flexible
Pavements in Expansive Soil Areas,”Electronic Journal of Geotechnical Engineering.
Sadeeq, J. A., Ochepo, J., Salahudeen, A. B. &Tijjani, S. T. Effect of Bagasse Ash On Lime
Stabilized Lateritic Soil, Jordan Journal of Civil Engineering, 2015.
Salahudeen, A. B., and Akiije, I. (2014). “Stabilization of highway expansive soils with high
loss on ignition content kiln dust”.
Sariosseiri, F. &Muhunthan, B. (2009) Effect of cement treatment on geotechnical properties
of some Washington State soils. Engineering Geology.
Suhail, A.A.A., Khawla, A.K.A &Ibrahaim, M.A.A Strength Durability And Hydraulic
Properties of clayey Soil Stabilized with Lime and Industrial Waste Lime. Al-
Rafidain
Owolabi N.O; (2011), suitability of available lateritic material in Ilorin west local
government for road construction HND civil project, Kwara state polytechnic ILorin.
Werner Schellmann (2002), The classifications and description of soils for Engineering
purpose” Road research laboratory, U.K.
Wright P. H and Paquette R. J. (2011): highway Engineering. John
Wiley & Sons Inc New York: Page 439, 456-459.

and Testing. 14 th Edition. American Association of State Highway and Transport

Officials (AASHTO), Washington, D.C.

51
52
APPENDIX

Plate 1: Sieve Analysis

53
Plate 2: Atterberg Limit test

54
Plate 3: Compaction test

55
Plate 4: Carlifonia Bearing Ratio

56