CHARACTERIZATION OF COHESIVE

PAVEMENT SUBGRADE SOILS

THESIS SUBMITTED FOR THE DEGREE OF M.SC.

IN

ROAD TECHNOLOGY

BY

MOSAB HASSAN MOHAMED

SUPERVISOR

DR. AWAD EL KARIM MUSTAFA

BUILDING AND ROAD RESEARCH INSTITUTE

UNIVERSITY OF KHARTOUM

AUGUST 2010

1

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background.

Geotechnical engineering has been critical to highway

construction since engineers realized that successful civil works

depended on the strength and integrity of the foundation material.

Road design and construction over different types of soil,

especially over highly expansive soil and soft marine deposits are

interesting engineering challenges to engineers especially at the

Roads. Many geotechnical options are available for engineers’

consideration.

Embankment design of road needs to satisfy two important

requirements among others; the stability and settlement. The short

term stability for embankment over soil is always more critical

than long term simply because the subsoil consolidates with time

under loading and the strength increases. In design, it is very

important to check the stability of the embankment with

consideration for different potential failure surfaces namely

circular and noncircular. It is also necessary to evaluate both the

magnitude and rate of settlement of the subsoil supporting the

embankment when designing the embankment so that the

settlement in the long term will not influence the serviceability and

safety of the embankment.

2

Very often, the non-circular failure is more critical than circular

slip failure for layered soil especially with very soft subsoil at top

few meters. Long term stability of embankment is usually not an

issue of embankment over soft marine deposits because the subsoil

would gain strength with time after the excess pore water pressure

in the subsoil dissipates during consolidation. When the analyses

based on subsoil and thickness of embankment indicate multistage

construction is required, the construction of the embankment

usually takes substantially longer time especially when the

cohesive subsoil does not have sand lenses. However, geometry

change requires wide road reserve due to flatter slope and

stabilizing berms. It has been shown that geotechnical design can

be innovative solutions for highway construction problems.

Nowadays in Sudan, there are so many constructions of highways.

Since highways also involve foundation, these mean geotechnical

aspects are also important in the highway construction. Shear

strength parameters are always associated with the bearing

capacity of the soil. However for highway engineers, they

always prefer to use CBR test to determine the suitable strength of

designing road pavement. This research is to find the correlation

between CBR, DCP and Vane Shear Strength (VSS) of subgrade

soils .It can provide better understanding between highway and

geotechnical engineer.

3

1-2 The Research Methodology

The methodology of this study is started with collection of

samples, Collection of Sample from different areas in Sudan, then

performing laboratory soil tests including Soil Preliminary tests

(Index and compaction tests) and main soil tests (CBR, DCP and

VSS) Then data analysis and finally the expected findings.

1.3 Objectives of the Research

* Global objective of the research is:

To close gap between California Bearing Ratio (CBR) test and

shear strength of soil in undrained shear strength aspect.

* Specific objectives of the research are:

(1) To Correlate California Bearing ratio (CBR) with

Vane Shear Stress (VSS) test.

(2) To Correlate Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP)

with Vane Shear Stress (VSS) tests.

1-4 Outline of thesis

The following is brief preview of the chapter considered in the

various chapters of thesis:-

Chapter one discussion the back ground of the study and

objective, metrology and outline of thesis.

Chapter two is concerned with the critical literature review of

expansive soil, Preliminary tests (Index and compaction tests) and

main soil tests (CBR, DCP and VSS).

4

Chapter Three including sample preparation, laboratory test

(Soil Preliminary tests, main soil tests) , result and analysis .

Chapter Four Conclusions and recommendations.

5

CHAPTER 2

2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Introduction

This chapter reviews and discusses the literature pertaining the

following subjects:

- Expansive soil.

- Index tests.

- Compaction definition.

- California Bearing Ratio (CBR).

- Dynamic Cone Penetration (DCP).

- Vane Shear Stress (VSS).

- The Initial State Factor.

2.2 Expansive Soil

Expansive or swelling soil is a kind of high plasticity clay

that contains mainly clay minerals of kaolinite, illite and

montmorillonite. This soil has clay content (i.e. soil fraction less

than 2µm) of more than 30 % and known to have high liquid and

low plastic limit. Therefore the plasticity index is high.

Expansive soil has considerable ability of swelling and shrinking

when losing its water. As the moisture content of this soil

increases, the volume will expand producing uplift force. On

other hand, decreasing in moisture content. The volume shrinks

and cracks appear. The dry mass of this soil is stiff, has high

6

strength resulting from wide cracks which appear in the vertical

and horizontal directions of the soil mass, all these changes will

reduce in wet state.

There are many tests carried for classification of different types

of soils some of the most important are as follow:

2.3 Index tests.

The index tests as proposed by Atterberg were adapted for use

in soil mechanics by Casagrande (1947) and are still used as a

convenient way of expressing the properties of soils containing

clay minerals. The test provides a measurement of the water

content of the soil at two arbitrary strengths. The definitions and

methods used for the determination of the index properties are

fully defined in the current specification (BS 1377 part)

The plastic limit (PL) is defined as, the minimum water content at

which the soil can be deformed plastically by rolling into a 3 mm

thick thread. The definition of the liquid limit (LL) is the water

content of the soil at which a standard 80 gm 30° cone will

penetrate a sample of soil for a displacement of 20 mm when

dropped under its own weight. Plasticity index (PI) is the

difference between the liquid limit (LL) and plastic limit (PL) and

is the range of moisture contents over which the soil remains in a

plastic state.

PI = LL –PL 2.1

7

The liquidity index (LI) of a soil is defined as the ratio of the water

content (w) minus the plastic limit (PL) all divided by the plastic

index (PI). The expression for liquidity index is:

w – PL LI = ---------- 2.2

PI

It is a way of expressing the natural water content of a soil or clay

in relation to its plastic and liquid limit.

The plasticity characteristics of a soil are related to the amount of

clay sized particles present. A relevant parameter that reflects the

amount of clay minerals present in the soil is known as Activity

(A) (Skempton "1953"). In general, a soil with a high activity

number has relatively high water holding capacity and a low

permeability; the converse is true for a soil with a low activity.

PI Activity (A) = --------------------------------- 2.3

% by weight of clay < 2µm

It is possible to interpret empirically the Atterberg limits in

terms of the interaction of water molecules with the clay particles.

At low moisture contents water molecules are adsorbed to the

surface of the clay particles and held in a tight, well-orientated

pattern. Insufficient water is are available and the molecules are

not sufficiently free to lubricate the soil particles. As the water

content of the soil increases the layers of water adsorbed to diffuse

8

double layer increase. The outermost layers are less attracted and

are able to move more freely and lubricate the movement of the

clay particles under the application of a small load. In this case the

plastic limit can be interpreted as the water content at which the

surface of the particles can adsorb just slightly more water than

can be held in a rigid condition. In a similar way the addition of

further water to obtain the liquid limit can be interpreted as the

water content at which the clay particles are still able to retain a

sufficiently strong attraction to the water molecules. This prevents

the soil from loosing rigidity and becoming dispersed within the

water.

Holtz and Gibbs (1956) used index tests for classifying

expansive soils as shown in table (2.1). Most expansive soils are

known by their high liquid limit, plasticity index, shrinkage ratio

and clay content.

Although the liquid and plastic limit values are based on empirical

tests they may be related to more fundamental properties such as

shear stress (Skempton and Northey "1953"), angle of internal

friction (Mitchell (1976)) and compressibility (Wroth and Wood

"1978"). For example, Figure (2.1) shows the relationship between

liquidity index and shear stress for several remoulded clays

(Skempton and Northey (1953)). As the water content of the soil

moves from the Plastic Limit to the Liquid Limit the strength and

stiffness of the soil decreases.

9

2.4 Compaction: Definitions and Influences.

A definition of compaction was introduced by the Road

Research laboratory in a widely used reference books on soil

mechanics for road engineers (Road Research Laboratory "1952")

"Soil compaction is the process whereby soil particles are

constrained to pack more closely together through a

reduction in air voids, generally by mechanical means."

The compaction of soil produces a material which has greater

shear stress and at the same time it reduces the propensity for

settlement and deformation as well as its permeability to water. To

use soil as an engineering material it is necessary to understand the

factors which can affect its integrity both in the short and long

term. The factors that are of the greatest influence in the

compaction of soil are:

• The soil characteristics -grading, plasticity etc.

• The moisture content of the soil.

• The volume of the soil compacted.

• The amount of energy used to compact the soil.

10

2.4.1 Definitions.

The measurements used to define quantitatively the

compaction of soil are bulk density ( ρ ), dry density ( dρ )

saturated density ( satρ ), void ratio (e) and degree of saturation (Sr).

The relationships define the proportions of solid, water and air

within the soil. Useful definitions are as follows:

2.4.2 Bulk density ( ρ ) - is the ratio of the mass of a given

volume of soil to the volume that the soil occupies. Units are

Mg/m3.

2.4.3 Dry density ( dρ ) - is the ratio of the mass of solid

particles in the given volume of soil to the volume that the soil

occupies. Units are Mg/m3.

2.4.4 Saturated density ( satρ ) - is the ratio of the mass of a given

volume of saturated soil to the volume that the soil occupies. Units

are Mg/m3.

2.4.5 Void ratio (e) -is the ratio of the volume of voids in the

sample (water and air) to the volume of solids. This term is

dimensionless.

2.4.6 Degree of Saturation (Sr) - is the percentage ofthe volume

of water in the soil to that occupied by the total voids.

11

2.5 California Bearing Ratio (CBR).

The CBR test is the most widespread method of determining the

bearing strength of the pavement materials and is fundamental to

pavement design practice in most countries. To use the CBR

method in pavement design, it is necessary to carry out The

standard CBR test and use an empirical design chart.

The CBR test is relatively simple and can be performed both in

the laboratory and field. It is essential that the standard test

procedure should be strictly followed (BS 1377 [110]). The CBR

test may be conducted on remoulded or undisturbed soil samples

or on the soil in place. The samples may be tested at their natural

or as moulded moisture content (unsoaked CBR), or they may be

soaked by immersing in water for four days in order to simulate

highly unfavorable moisture conditions of the soil type.

The CBR may be considered as the strength of the soil relative to

that of crushed stone. Thus, the CBR value of a soil tested is a

ratio between the load required to force a piston into the soil

sample 2.50 mm penetration depth, and that required to force the

piston the same depth into a standard sample of crushed stone

(13.24 KN/m2). Yoder (1975) reported that, the CBR value in

general corresponding to 2.50 mm penetration is greater than at

5.00 mm penetration, i.e. the CBR will decrease as the penetration

value increases. In some cases, however, the value at 5.00 mm

penetration may be higher than at 2.50 mm penetration if this

happens the value at 5.00 mm penetration is used. The

12

specifications and standards of pavement design recommend CBR

values of greater than 30% for subbase and greater than 80% for

road-base.

The main factors affecting the CBR value of a soil as reported by

Murphy (1966), Yoder (1975) and Glanville (1951) are the soil

composition and Atterberg limits, the soil initial state and the

soaking testing condition.

2.6 Dynamic Cone Penetration (DCP)

Scala (1956) developed the Scala penetrometer for assessing in

situ California bearing ratio (CBR) of cohesive soils. In the last

decade, the Scala penetrometer has evolved into the dynamic cone

penetrometer (DCP) test for determining in situ CBR and elastic

modulus. The DCP is now being used extensively in South Africa,

the United Kingdom, the United States, Australia, and other

countries because it is simple, rugged, economical, and able to

provide a rapid in situ of strength and more indirectly modulus of

subgrade as well as pavement structures. The DCP is used for

measuring the material resistance to penetration in terms of

millimeters per blow while the cone of the device is being driven

into the pavement structure or subgrade.

The typical DCP consists of an 8-kg hammer that drops over a

height of 575mm, which yields a theoretical driving energy of 45j

or 14.3j/cm2, and drives a 60 20mm base diameter cone tip

vertically into the pavement structure or subgrade (Fig. 2.3). The

steel rod to which the cone is attached has a smaller diameter than

13

the cone (16mm) to reduce skin friction. The number of blows

during operation is recorded with depth of penetration. The slope

of the relationship between number of blows and depth of

penetration (in millimeters per blow) at a given linear depth

segment is recorded as the DCP penetration index (DPI). In

addition to soil profiling (i.e. the thickness and nature of each layer

in a given pavement), DCP data are correlated with various

pavement design parameters, i.e. CBR , shear strength, elastic

modulus, and back-calculated elastic modulus from the FWD

(Kleyn et al, 1982, Chua 1988, Newcomb et al. 1996, Syed and

Scullion 1998, Saarenkento etal 1998), The DCP has been

available longer than the SSG and has been used as a convenient

field tool; however, it is not a direct property test but an index test

based on dynamic impact loading.

2.6.1 Method of Reading

1 meter steel rule is clipped to the DCP as shown in Fig. (2.2). The

first task is to record the zero reading of the device. The top clip

then serves as a reference point sliding down the ru1e while the

DCP is being driven. Readings should be taken at increments of a

penetration of about 10 mm. However, it is usually easier to take a

scale reading after a set number of blows. It is therefore necessary

to change the number of blows between readings according to the

strength of the layer being penetrated. For good, quality granular

bases readings every 5 or 10 blows are normally satisfactory but

for weaker sub-base layers and subgrade or the penetration of a

14

test mould readings can be taken after each blow. Plotting of the

readings obtained can be taken at the time of readings or later on.

The advantage of graphical, as opposed to numerical,

representation is that a visual indication of the condition of the

pavement is obtained. Note that the slope of the curve represents

the strength parameter of the material in mm/ blow over the area

concerned, i.e. the flatter the curve, the stronger the material.

2.6.2 Operation and Limitations

The reliability of the readings depends on the diligence to which

certain requirement is adhered. This requirement can be included

the following headings:

i) Human factor

ii) Mechanical factor

iii) Material factor

i) Human factor

The DCP needs three operators, firstly, one to hold the device

vertical, the tendency to hold the device out of the plumb can be

diminished by lining up the instrument with any vertical post or

tree which can be selected before the test begins. Secondly, there is

the person who rises and drop the weight, care must be taken to

ensure that the weight is touching the upper stop but not lifting the

cone before it is allowed to drop. The operator must also take care

that he allowed the weight to free fall onto the anvil and does not

in fact lower- it with his hands. Generally it is found that the

15

correct techniques is learned very quickly, there is a technician to

record the result and must also control the whole operation.

ii) Mechanical Factor

The following consideration must be ensured when using the DCP:

1. The cone must be replaced as soon as it s diameter reduced

by 10%.

2. The two rods must be completely screwed together for the

necessary rigidity and to ensure the cordrop length of the

hammer.

3. Care must be taken that the rods remain as straight as

possible.

4. The hammer must slides freely and easily over the upper

rod.

5. The zero reading on the steel rule must be set and

maintained correctly.

6. The steel rule must be kept parallel to the rod, in particular

if the rod should penetrate at an angle.

iii) Material Factor

The DCP Penetrates easily the fine grained subgrade, very little

difficulty is experienced with the penetration of the normal

pavement layers or lightly stabilized material. It however, more

difficult to penetrate layers stabilized with a high percentage of

agent or a crusher run, and the operator should preserve with the

16

test as penetration rates of the order of 0.3-1.0 mm /blow are

possible. If there is no penetration after, say, twenty consecutive

blows it can be assumed that the DCP cannot penetrate the

material at the test location. In such a case it is necessary to core

(or drill holes) through strong materials to obtain access to the

lower layers and the DCP Then used to test the material below.

The DCP will give acceptable readings when used in coarse

materials unless the cone bears directly on a stone. Therefore the

readings obtained depend not on1y on the size of the stones in the

material but also or1 their distribution. Acceptable readings have

been oLJtair1ed in gravels containing a random distribution of

single size stor1es up to diameter of 75 mm.

The instrument can normally be driven through penetration

macadam-in the last case a hole must be drilled through the layer.

2.7 Vane Shear Stress (VSS) Test

Vane Shear Test is one of the oldest and most widely used

methods developed and investigated extensively in Sweden from

late 1940s(Fig 2.3).The vane shear test is another type of test that

can be used to obtain the undrained shear strength Su of expansive

soil in accordance to BS 1377: Part 9: 1980. The vane shear test is

typically performed on undisturbed samples and samples prepared

by the standard.

The structural strength of soil is basically a problem of shear

strength. Vane shear test is a useful method of measuring the shear

strength of clay. It is cheaper and quicker. The laboratory vane

17

shear test for the measurement of shear strength of expansive soils

is useful for soils of low shear strength (less than 0.3 kg/cm2).

The vane consists of four thin rectangular blades or wings welded

to an extendable circular rod. Generally the height of the vane is

about twice of its width. The vane is pushed into the soil for at

least twice its height and is then rotated at a constant rate of 0.1 to

0.2 degrees per second until the soil is ruptured. The maximum

torque required to shear the cohesive soil is then converted to the

undrained shear resistance of the cylindrical surface.

18

For the maximum torque, T needs to rupture the soil along the

surface area of the cylinder, the shear strength at failure is

computed by the following relationship:

Where:

T = applied torque

D, H = diameter and height of vane, respectively

su = undrained shear strength of soil

The equation assumes uniform stress distribution at both

horizontal ends of the vane and the vertical cylindrical surface

with the diameter and height equal to that of the vane.

To compute the shear strength at the failure is by the following

relationship (Fig:2.3)

2.4

19

Where:

T = applied torque

D, H = diameter and height of vane, respectively

Su = undrained shear strength of soil

2.7.1 Apparatus:

Consists of the following parts:

1. Vane shear apparatus - four thin rectangular blades or wings

welded to an extendable circular rod.

2. 4 springs with different elastic coefficients.

20

2.7.2 Derivation of equation

Assumed that the soil’s resistance to shear is equivalent to a

uniform shear stress, equal to the undrained strength of soil, su,

and acting on both the perimeter and the ends of the cylinder.

21

22

2.8 The Initial State Factor (Fi).

The initial state factor of compacted soil was first developed by

Mohamed (1986) and then modified by Zumrawi (2000). This

factor is defined as a combination of the soil initial state

parameters such as dry density, water content and void ratio and

can be expressed thus:

5.21e

F di ⋅

⋅=ωρ

ρ

ω

Where:

iF Is the initial state factor.

dρ Is the initial dry density of soil.

ωρ Is the density of water.

ω Is the initial water content.

e Is the initial void ratio.

In fact, among these variables e is supernumerary since it

dependents on dry density according to the following relationship:

6.21−=d

sGeρ

Where: Gs is the soil specific gravity.

23

CHAPTER THREE

Laboratory Testing

3.1 Sample Preparation

Sample preparation is a very important part of the testing

procedure .It is critical that the method of soil preparation and

compaction method chosen would result in consistent. The soil

samples used in this research included four types of soil. Plastic

Index is different. All the samples are taken from different areas in

Sudan (Ummdrman & Elmanshya).

In practice soil backfill material is excavated from a borrow pit

and recomputed in location at a water content similar to its natural

in situ water. The study of the compaction of soil contained in

chapter (2) highlighted the large influence that the compaction

process has on the behaviour of the final mass of soil. For

experiments performed in this study the soil preparation and

compaction method was chosen to simulate similar techniques use

in the field. The process was a well-controlled standardized

procedure, which could produce consistent samples on a small

scale. The general method of preparation was to produce small

lumps of soil at known and controlled moisture content and to

remould these into a container by applying a load. For this project,

soil samples were prepared with different initial water content

ranging from (7- 37) %. To ensure the repeatability of the sample a

careful study of each process in the preparation was made. Soil

24

was initially air dried and the crushed using a jack hammer. This

was then sieved to get 5mm sieve was kept. Is possible to produce

sample with different water contents by controlling the ratio of

water to dry soil grains. To achieve desired moisture content, a

desired quantity of water was sprayed into a known amount of

dried soil and they were thoroughly mixed for about five minutes.

Then the wet soil was put in plastic bags and stored for two days to

allow a uniform moisture distribution throughout the sample.

After two days of the moist soil sample I remixed and compacted

in a U80 tube: 120mm in the length with ring 20 x 76 mm

diameter. The compactive effort for remoulding the soil sample in

the CBR mould was provided manually by a hammer of mass 4.5

kg (in heavy compaction). The hammer dropped free from a height

of 45 cm above the elevation of the soil. It was compacted in five

layers. By adding to the mould a known mass of soil and apply

(62) uniformly distributed blows from the hammer it was possible

to achieve a consistent layer thickness.

3.2 Preliminary Tests

The engineering properties of soils are controlled by a number of

factors such as soil mineral composition, organic material, particle

size distribution and geological history. The preliminary tests

aimed to classify and describe the soil within the existing standard

methods and quantify their properties.

The preliminary tests or the routine soil tests perform in this

project are including the index tests, clay content, specific gravity

25

determination and compaction tests. These tests are very carefully

and precisely specified in a number of national standards and

codes of practice.

The tests provided standard data for the soil which could be used

in subsequent analysis. The tests also provided an opportunity to

ensure that methods of mixing and drying employed in the sample

preparation did not affect the properties of the soil.

3.2.1 Index tests

The properties of fine grained clay soils depend largely on the

type of clay. The basic behaviour of plastic clay soils can be

accessed from the index tests (i.e. liquid limit and plastic

limit).The liquid and plastic limits are the water contents at which

the soil changes its mechanical behaviour. The definitions and

methods of testing used are fully defined in the standard

specifications.

In this research the liquid limit was determined using a cone

penetrometer apparatus. The penetration of standard cone into a

soil sample was measured at a variety of moisture contents and the

moisture content corresponding to penetration of 20 mm was taken

as the liquid limit of the soil tested. The plastic limit test was

performed on the soil used in accordance with BS 1377 part 4. The

plastic limit was measured as the water content at which the

sample deformed plastically when rolled into a 3 mm thick thread.

26

3.2.2 Compaction tests.

The soil used was subjected to both standard and heavy

compaction tests. These tests aimed to achieve the optimum

moisture content and maximum dry density (i.e the compaction

characteristics )of the study soil. The compaction tests were

carried out in accordance with the standard specification.

In the standard compaction test the sample was compacted in three

layers, each layer was subjected to 27 uniformly distributed blows

from astandard rammer of2.5kg mass,dropped from aheight

30cm.The mould was then trimmed and determined.Asmall soil

sample was taken from the mould to determine the moisture

content of the compacted soil sample .Seven soil samples with

different moisture contents were tested.

The procedure followed in the heavy compaction test was the same

as that used for the standard compaction test except in that the soil

was plced in five layers, each of which was subjected to 56blow

from a4.5 kg rammer having a free fall of 45cm.The moisture

content and density were determined in the rammer described

above .Seven soil samples with different moisture contents were

also tested.

27

3.3 Main Tests Results

3.3.1 California Bearing Ratio Test

CBR test is to determine the relationship between force and

penetration when cylindrical plunger of a standard cross-sectional area

is made to penetrate the soil at a given rate. At certain values of

penetration ratio of the applied force to a standard force, expressed as

percentage, is defined as the California Bearing Ratio (CBR).

The penetration test procedures are:

1. Place the mould with base plate containing the sample, with the

top face of the sample exposed, centrally on the lower platen of the

testing machine.

2. Place the appropriate annular surcharge discs on top of the

sample.

3. Fit it into place the cylindrical plunger and force-measuring device

assembly with the face of the plunger resting on the surface of the

sample.

4. Apply a seating force to the plunger, depending on the expected

CBR value, as follows,

a. For CBR value up to 5% apply 10 N

b. For CBR value from 5% to 30%, apply 50 N

c. For CBR value above 30% apply 250 N

5. Record the reading of the force-measuring device as the initial

zero reading.

28

6. Secure the penetration dial gauge in position. Record its initial

zero reading.

7. Start the test so that the plunger penetrates the sample at a

uniform rate of 1 +- 0.2mm/min, and at the same instant start

timer.

8. Record the readings of the force gauge at the intervals of

penetration of 0.25 mm, to a total penetration not exceeding 7.5

mm

3.3.2 Vane Shear Test (VSS).

This method covers the measurement of the shear strength of a

sample of expansive soil to firm cohesive soil without having to

remove it from its container or sampling tube. The sample

therefore does not suffer disturbance due to preparation of a test

specimen. The method may be used for soils that are too soft or

too sensitive to enable a satisfactory compression test specimen to

be prepared. The shear strength of the remoulded soil, and hence

the sensitivity, can also be determined. In this research, inspection

vane tester, H-60 was used with the size of four bladed vane of 16

x 32mm and multiply readings with 2. this size of blade can

measure shear strength of 0 to 200 kPa. (Fig: 3.1)The procedures

are:

1. Connect required vane and extension rods to the inspection

vane instrument. While screwing the vane or rods to

instrument hold onto the lower part.

29

2. Push the vane into the compacted soil sample. Do not twist

the inspection vane during penetration.

3. Make sure the graduated scale is set to 0positions.

4. Turn handle clockwise. Turn as slow as possible with

constant speed.

5. When the lower part follows the upper part around or even falls

back, failure and maximum shear strength is obtained in the

clay at the vane.

6. Holding handles firmly; allow it to return to 0 position.

7. Note the reading on the graduated scale. Do not disturb the

position of the graduated ring till the reading is taken.

8. To measure the friction between clay and the extension rods:

extension rods and vane shaft “without vane” are pushed into

the soil sample to the depth required for shear force

measurements. The friction value thus obtained is used to

evaluate the actual shear strength from the measured shear

strength.

3.3.3 Dynamic Cone penetration (DCP) test.

The DCP used in this study is based essentially on Dr. D.J.

Van Vuuren design which has been modified by K1eyn, Maree

and Savage (1982). It consists of a 16 mm diameter steel rod with

steel cone at one end of 20 mm base diameter and a 60 degree

point.

30

The DCP is driven into the soil by a 8 kg drop hammer sliding on a

16 mm diameter steel rod with a fall height of 575 mm as

illustrated in Figure (3.2) Continuous measurements can be made

down to a depth of 800 mm, or when an extension is fitted to a

depth of 1200 mm. This measuring the resistance to penetration on

the cone in says mm/ blow. The diameter of the cone is 4 mm

larger than that of the rod to ensure that the resistance to

penetration is only excreted on the cone.

31

32

3.4 Results and Analysis

3.4.1 Introduction

Presented in this research are the results and analysis of the

experimental work. The result of the tests carried out during this

research project related to the objective of the research will also be

analyzed. Are analyzed. Some data reported by previous

investigators which.

In the first section, the results of the preliminary tests such as

index testing and compaction tests are distributed. The main

results are then presented as follows: for each type of testing, the

results and their analysis are shown. Summaries of the

experimental results are given in the tables (3.1 to 3.4).

3.4.2 Preliminary Tests Results

The preliminary tests performed in this project were index

tests, clay content, specific gravity determination and compaction.

These tests provided standard data for the soil which could be used

in subsequent analysis. The preliminary tests were aimed to

classify the soils within the existing standard methods and quantify

their properties. The clay content and specific gravity were

determined as presented in table (3.1 To 3.4)

3.4.2.1 Index Test

These tests provide a measurement of the liquid limit and

plastic limit. The methods used for testing are British standard

specifications for the determination of the liquid limit and plastic

33

limit. Which was correlated with more fundamental properties

such as shear stress (Skempton and Northey (1953))

compressibility (Wroth and wood (1978)).Previous research in to

use of index tests (Sherwood (1970)) has shown that these tests are

subjected to variability. Sherwood (1970) sent samples of the same

soil to different laboratories for the determination of the liquid

limit. The imprecision in the result were attributed to defects in the

apparatus such as damaged cones as well as operator induced

errors.

In this research later analysis would use index tests to develop

empirical equations. The liquid limit and plastic limit were

performed using carefully checked apparatus and different but

experienced operators.

The liquid limit determined the water content at which the soil had

weakened so much that it started to flow like a liquid. On the other

hand, the plastic limit determined the water content at which the

soil had became so brittle that it crumbled. The index tests results

are given In Tables (3.1 TO 3.4)

3.4.2.2 Compaction Tests

These tests were performed to study the moisture

content/dry density behaviour of samples compacted at tow

different compactive efforts. The experimental results of

compaction tests are listed in Tables (3.5 To 3.8) and indicated in

Figure (3.4 To 3.7). The curves produced give a measure of the

variation of the achievable dry density for the light heavy

34

compactive efforts as the moisture content of the soil changes.

Studies into the compaction of the soils using different compactive

efforts (Parsons (1992) indicate that the maximum achievable dry

density as determined is the heavy (modified) compaction test is

higher than that determined be the standard compaction test, this is

demonstrated by the compaction curves of the soil used in the

experiments.

3.5 Main Tests Results

The main laboratory tests of this research project include the

CBR, VSS, and DCP tests, these tests were carried out using in a

variety of apparatus. The results of different types of tests are fully

described in the following sections.

3.5.1 California Bearing Ratio (CBR) tests.

These tests were aimed to give a useful indication of the soil

strength at different testing conditions. The tests in this project

were perform on remoulded as well as soaked samples in

accordance with BS 1377 Part 110. In the first series of tests

samples which prepared at different water contents and dry

densities were directly subjected to CBR penetration test. The soil

was compressed by axial load which applied at a constant rate to

penetrate the plunger into the soil. The measured penetration force

found to be influenced by the soil initial state (water content and

dry density). For all samples tested the highest penetration forces

were measured in prepared at high dry densities and low water

35

contents. As the dry density was decreased and water increased the

resulting amount of force was reduced. This demonstrate that

samples with lower water contents and compacted to higher

densities have high CBR values. The results from these tests are

listed in Table (3.9 TO 3.19) the second series of experiments

were performed on samples which prepared at different water

contents and dry densities but subjected to soaked prior to

penetration testing. The measured soaked CBR values of the

sample were clearly seen to be much less, than those measured

unsoaked CBR. The reduction in the CBR value can be attributed

to the softening of the soil in the in soaking process. That is, as the

soil became wetter a general softening of the sample occurred and

the ability of the sample to rather penetration of the plunger tended

to be very low.

3.5.2 Vane Shear Stress (VSS) & (DCP)tests

The results of the soaked CBR and Unsoaked CBR value

against the undrained shear strength is presented in Figures ( 3.6

To 3.9) based on the my research data. Straight lines were

obtained from the plotted data . The lines can be represented by

linear equations as shown below Table (3.20)

36

Table (3.20): Relationship Between (CBR, DCP, VSS) tests.

Soil PLASTIC

Relationship

No Sample INDEX

CBR&DCP CBR & VSS DCP & VSS

1 West

Ommdrman 14.5 y = -0.0472x +3.1567 y = 0.010x +0.263 y = -4.3644x +269.4

2 Elsalha 17.5 y = -0.837x +24.21 y = 0.113x - 4.826 y = -6.836x +248.9

3 Elshafa 26 y = -0.236x +6.602 y = 0.0557x - 1.1304 y = -0.233x +32.57

4 Elmanshia 51 y = -1.375x +27.29 y = 0.188x - 8.108 y = -0.143x +26.96

X = VSS & LN DCP (mm/blow).

Y = CBR value.

Based on the equation, CBR value can be predicted by knowing

the value of DCP and VSS .It is observed that the average CBR

value will be increase with the increasing of undrained shear

strength. As the CBR value can be correlated with the DCP and

undrained shear strength, it is a good indication that undrained

shear strength can be used to predict a CBR value for the soil in

Table (3.21 To 3.32) Shown Figures (3.10 To 3.33).

37

3.6 Compaction control in the field

This method is used for the material quality control of

compacted embankment and sub grade. A new method is briefly

described below: -

1) Three soil samples are taken from the field to the laboratory

to determine the compaction characteristics such as optimum

moisture content and maximum dry density and to measure

the strength of the soil samples.

2) A chart of the dry density versus moisture content showing

the characterization lines of strength is formed as described

in Section 4.3.

3) After field compaction of pavement granular layers, the field

density and moisture content of the material are measured.

4) A point is drawn in the chart developed in step (2) to indicate

the measured field density and moisture content.

5) The point indicated in the developed chart in the above step

(4), if it is located within the range of design strength then

the compaction is to be accepted otherwise will be rejected.

38

CHAPTER FOUR

Conclusions and Recommendations

4.1 Conclusions

Soil data had been obtained and analysed according to the

scope of my study. All soil informations were obtained from

laboratory tests accordance to British Standard. Data acquired for

analyses is from CBR values for end of soil samples, plastic index,

moisture content, vane shear test and Dynamic Cone penetration

DCP tests.

Based on the analyses carried out, the conclusion of the study

can be summarized as follow:

1. The experimental work has been carried out to study the

strength characteristics of granular soils. Several tests to

measure the CBR, DCP and shear stress were performed on

samples having different initial water contents and dry

densities.

2. A study of the strength of granular soil as indicated by the

CBR, DCP and shear stress measurements was studied. The

samples were prepared over a full range of water contents

and compacted to different dry densities.

3. CBR and VSS test are proportional with The experimental

work has been carried out to study the strength

characteristics of granular soils. Several tests to measure the

39

CBR, DCP and shear stress were performed on samples

having different initial water contents and dry densities.

4. A study of the strength of granular soil as indicated by the

CBR, DCP and shear stress measurements was studied. The

samples were prepared over a full range of water contents

and compacted to different dry densities.

5. VSS will increase with the increasing of Plastic index over

moisture content.

6. CBR value and Vane shear strength test of soil samples are

inversely proportional with the moisture content. This mean,

CBR value and undrained shear strength will decrease with

the increasing of the moisture content.

7 . The Fi FACTOR concept was extended to include DCP& VSS

4.2 RECOMMENDATIONS:

Due to time constraints and limited soil data obtained for the

soil samples, there are some aspects, which have not been covered

in the study. Following are some recommendations that can be

carried out for future study or research in the subject of correlation

between CBR value and Vane Shear Stress (VSS) test:

1. The samples of soil used in this study are only limited to four

types of soil. It will be interesting to obtain more different

types of soil such as Redish brown clay, Light yellowish

clay, etc for further study.

40

2. Establish the correlations using soil samples from other

states in Sudan.

3. The DCP&VSS is rapid and economical.

4. The DCP&VSS evaluations may be conducted and the

results analyzed by personnel with limited training.

41

REFERENCES

1. Allersma, H. G. B. (1988). .Optical Analysis of Stress and

Strain around the Trip of a Penetrating Probe, Proc. First

International Symposium on Penetration Testing. Orlando,

FL, pp. 615-620.

2. American Society of Testing Materials (2003). .Standard

Test Method for Use of the Dynamic Cone Penetrometer in

Shallow Pavement Applications. ASTM D 6951-03, ASTM

International, West Conshohocken, PA.

3. Awad E. M. Mohamed and Magdi M. E. Zumrawi paper

2010 Khartoum.

4. Ayers, M. E. (1990). .Rapid Shear Strength Evaluation of In

Situ Granular Materials Utilizing the Dynamic Cone

Penetrometer, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Illinois.

5. Ayers, M. E., Thompson, M. R., and Uzarski, D. R. (1989).

.Rapid Shear Strength Evaluation of In Situ Granular

Materials,Transp. Res. Rec. 1227, Transp. Res. Board, pp.

134-146.

6. Baldi, G., Bellotti, R., Ghionna, V., Jamiolkowski, M., and

Pasqualini, E. (1986). .Interpretation of CPT.s and CPTU.s.

2nd Part: Drained Penetration on Sands,. Proc. 4th Int.

Geotech. Seminar: Field Instrumentation and In Situ

Measurements, Nanyang Technol. Univ., Singapore, pp.

143-162.

42

7. Bukoski, R. F., and Selig, E. T. (1981). .Cone Penetration

Testing and Experience, Geotechnical Eng. Division at the

ASCE National Convention, St. Louis, MO, pp. 228-236.

8. Burnham, T. R. (1997). .Application of Dynamic Cone

Penetrometer to Minnesota Department of Transportation

Pavement Assessment Procedures. Report No. MN/RC.

97/19, Minnesota Department of Transportation, St. Paul,

MN.

9. Burnham, T. R. and Johnson, D. (1993). .In Situ Foundation

Characterization Using the Dynamic Cone Penetrometer,.

Final Report, Minnesota Department of Transportation,

Maplewood, MN.

10. Weight Defelectometer in Pavement Construction,. Proc. 3rd

Int. Conf. on Road & Airfield Pavement Technology.

11. Chan, F. W. K., and Armitage, R. J. (1997). .Evaluation of

Flexible Pavements in the Middle East,. Proc. the 8th Inter.

Conf. on Asphalt Pavements, August, pp. 459-469.

12. Chen, D. H., Wang, J-N., and Bilyeu, J. (2001). .Application

of Dynamic Cone Penetrometer in Evaluation of Base and

Subgrade Layers. Transp. Res. Rec. 1764.

13. Chen, J., Hossain, M., and LaTorella, T. M. (1999). .Use of

Falling Weight Deflectometer and Dynamic Cone

Penetrometer in Pavement Evaluation. Transp. Res. Rec.

1655, Trans. Res. Board, pp. 145-151.

43

14. Chua, K. M. (1988). .Determination of CBR and Elastic

Modulus of Soils Using a Portable Pavement Dynamic Cone

Penetrometer, Penetration Testing 1988, ISOPT-1, De Ruiter

(ed), Balkema, Rotterdam.

15. Day, R. (1996). Discussion of .Cone Penetration in Very

Weakly Cemented Sand,. by Puppala, A. J., Acar, Y. B., and

Tumay, M. T., J. of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Vol.

122, No. 11, pp. 947-949.

16. De Beer, M., and van der Merwe, C. J. (1991). .Use of the

Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) in the Design of Road

Structures,. Minnesota Department of Transportation, St.

Paul, MN.

17. DeMello, V. (1971). .The Standard Penetration Test -- A

State-of-the-Art Report. Fourth Pan-American Conference

on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Vol. 1, pp.

1-86.

18. Douglas, B. J., and Olsen, R. S. (1981). .Soil Classification

Using Electric Cone Penetrometer,. Symp. on Cone

Penetration Testing and Experience, Geotechnical

Engineering Division, ASCE, St. Louis, MO, pp. 209-227.

19. Ese, Dug, Myre, Jostein, Noss, Per Magne, and Vaernea,

Einar. (1994). The Use of Dynamic Cone Penetrometer

(DCP) for Road Strengthening Design in Norway, Proc. Int.

Conf. on Bearing Capacity of Rd. and Airfield, pp. 3-22.

44

20. Gabr, M. A., Hopkins, K., Coonse, J., and Hearne, T.

(2000). .DCP Criteria for Performance Evaluation of

Pavement Layer, J. of Performance of Constructed Facilities,

ASCE, Vol. 14, No. 4, pp. 141-148.

21. Hassan, A. (1996).The Effect of Material Parameters on

Dynamic Cone Penetrometer Results for Fine-Grained Soils

and Granular Materials, Ph.D. Dissertation, Oklahoma State

University, Stillwater, Oklahoma.

22. Jianzhou, C., Mustaque, H., and LaTorella, T. M.

(1999).Use of Falling Weight Deflectometer and Dynamic

Cone Penetrometer in Pavement Evaluation,. Paper

Presented in the Transportation Research Board,

Washington, D.C.

23. Juang, C. H., Huang, X. H., Holtz, R. D., and Chen, J. W.

(1996). .Determining Relative Density of Sands From CPT

Using Fuzzy Sets,J. of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE,

Vol. 122, No. 1, pp. 1-6.

24. Performance of the Road Pavements, International

Symposium on Bearing Capacity of Roads and Airfields,

Trodheim, Norway.

25. Livneh, M. (2000). .Friction Correction Equation for the

Dynamic Cone Penetrometer in Subsoil Strength Testing,.

Paper Presented at the 79th Transportation Research Board

Annual Meeting, Washington, D.C.

45

26. McGrath, P. G. et al. (1989). .Development of Dynamic

Cone Penetration Testing in Ireland,. Proc. Twelfth Int.

Conf. on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering. Rio

De Janeiro, pp. 271-276.

27. Newcomb, D. E., Chabourn, B. A., Van-Deusen, D. A., and

Burnham, T. R. (1995). .Initial Characterization of Subgrade

Soils and Granular Base Materials at the Minnesota Road

Research Project,. Report No. MN/RC-96/19, Minnesota

Department of Transportation, St. Paul, MN.

28. Newcomb, D. E., Van-Deusen, D. A., and Burnham, T. R.

(1994)..Characterization of Subgrade Soils at the Minnesota

Road Research Project, Report No. MN/RD-94/19,

Minnesota Department of Transportation, St. Paul, MN.

29. Olsen, R. S., and Farr, J. V. (1986). .Site Characterization

Using the Cone Penetration Test,. Proc. In-situ .86, ASCE

Specialty Conf., Blacksburg, VA.

30. of an Automated Dynamic Cone Penetrometer for

Evaluating Soils and Pavement Materials,. Final Report,

Project No. FLDOT-ADCP-WPI #0510751, Florida

Department of Transportation, Gainesville, Florida.

31. Robertson, P. K. (1990). .Soil Classification Using the Cone

Penetration Test,.Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 27,

No. 1, pp. 151-158. 60. Robertson, P. K., and Campanella,

R. G. (1983). .Interpretation of Cone Penetration Tests. Part

46

I: Sand,. Can. Geotech. J., Ottawa, Canada, Vol. 20, pp. 718-

733.

32. Robertson, P. K., and Campanella, R. G., and Wightman, A.

(1982). .SPT-CPT Correlations,. University of British

Columbia, Soil Mechanics Series No. 62,Canada.

33. Salgado,R., Mitchell, J. K., and Jamiolkowski, M. (1997).

.Cavity Expansion and Penetration Resistance in Sand,. J. of

Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE,

Vol. 123, No. 4, pp. 344-354.

34. Siekmeier, J. A., Young, D., and Beberg, D. (1999).

.Comparison of the Dynamic Cone Penetrometer with Other

Tests During Subgrade and Granular Base Characterization

in Minnesota,. Nondestructive Testing of Pavements and

Back calculation of Moduli: Third Volume. ASTM 1375, S.

D. Tayabji and E. O. Lukanen, Eds., American Society for

Testing Materials, West Conshohocken, PA.

35. Tumay, M. T. (1994). .Implementation of Louisiana Electric

Cone Penetrometer System (LECOPS) For Design of

Transportation Facilities Executive Summary,. Louisiana

Transportation Research Center, Baton Rouge, LA.

36. Van Vuuren, D. J. (1969). .Rapid Determination of CBR

with the Portable Dynamic Cone Penetrometer,.The

Rhodesign Engineer, Paper No. 105.

47

37. Villet, W. C., and Mitchell, J. K. (1981). .Cone Resistance,

Relative density, and Friction Angle,. Proc. Session on Cone

Penetration Testing and Experience, ASCE National

Convention, G. N. Norris and R. D. Holtz, eds., ASCE, New

York, N.Y., pp. 178-208.

38. Zumrawi, M. M. E. (2000). Performance and design of

expansive soils as road subgrade. Ph.D. thesis, Chang’an

Univ., China.

48

Table 2.1 classification of expansive soils using index tests ( after Holtz and Gibbs , 1956).

colloid content Plasticity Index

Shrinkage Limit Probable Volume Degree of Expansion

(%) (%) (%) change (%) (expansiveness)

>28 >35 <10 >30 Very high

20 - 13 25 - 40 7 -- 10 20 -- 30 High

13 - 23 15 - 30 10 -- 15 10 -- 30 Medium

<15 <18 >15 <10 Low

49

Table 3.1 Index tests, Specific gravity,results of west Ommdrman soil tested.

Test Liguid Plastic Specific Item Limit Limit Gravity

(%) (%) (g/cm³) 38.9 19.7 2.48

Test 42.9 18.8 2.6 Value 39.5 2o.2 2.56

Average Value 34 19.5 2.52

Table 3.2 Index tests, Specific gravity and clay content results of Elsalha soil tested.

Test Liguid Plastic Specific Item Limit Limit Gravity

(%) (%) (g/cm³) 38.9 22.5 2.58

Test 42.9 23.5 2.62 Value 39.5 22.6 2.63

Average Value 40.5 23 2.61

50

Table 3.3 Index tests, Specific gravity results of Elshafa soil tested.

Test Liquid Plastic Specific Item Limit Limit Gravity

(%) (%) (g/cm³) 50 24 2.37

Test 53 26.1 2.31 Value 49 25.2 2.36

Average Value 51 25 2.35

Table 3.4 Index tests, Specific gravity results of Elmanshia soil tested.

Test Liquid Plastic Specific Item Limit Limit Gravity

(%) (%) (g/cm³) 79 27 2.67

Test 81 26.4 2.73

Value 80 27.6 2.71

Average

Value 80 27 2.71

51

Table 3.5 Compaction tests of west Ommdrman soil tested. Test PLASTIC Dry Bulk MOISTURE No INDEX Density Density CONTENT (Mg/m³) (Mg/m³) (%)

1 14.5 1.312 1.75 14 2 14.5 1.418 1.76 17 3 14.5 1.489 1.78 21 4 14.5 1.475 1.78 25 5 14.5 1.4 1.93 30 6 14.5 1.31 1.79 35

Table 3.6 Compaction tests of Elsalha soil tested. Test PLASTIC Dry Bulk MOISTURE No INDEX Density Density CONTENT (Mg/m³) (Mg/m³) (%)

1 17.5 1.389 1.669 14 2 17.5 1.412 1.709 14.5 3 17.5 1.482 1.712 15.2 4 17.5 1.578 1.907 20 5 17.5 1.565 1.953 23 6 17.5 1.512 1.944 27 7 17.5 1.404 1.919 30

Table 3.7 Compaction tests of Elshafa soil tested. Test PLASTIC Dry Bulk MOISTURE No INDEX Density Density CONTENT (Mg/m³) (Mg/m³) (%) 1 26 1.344 1.474 17 2 26 1.456 1.703 21 3 26 1.509 1.815 25 4 26 1.555 1.929 29 5 26 1.508 1.939 30 6 26 1.439 1.936 33 7 26 1.355 1.861 37 8 26 1.348 1.857 40

52

Table 3.8 Compaction tests of Elmanshia soil tested. Test PLASTIC Dry Bulk MOISTURE No INDEX Density Density CONTENT (Mg/m³) (Mg/m³) (%)

1 51 1.41 1.64 16.7

2 51 1.47 1.77 20.5

3 51 1.51 1.87 23.7

4 51 1.46 1.86 27.6

5 51 1.43 1.85 29.1

6 51 1.39 1.84 32.6

7 51 1.3 1.78 40

Table 3.9 Soil initial state and CBR west Ommdrman soil tested. Test MOISTURE Dry Initial No CONTENT Density void CBR(%) (%) (Mg/m³) ratio 1 17 1.512 0.667 1.654

2 19 1.498 0.682 1.492

3 21 1.489 0.692 1.39

4 25 1.452 0.735 1.191

5 30 1.4 0.8 0.67

6 35 1.31 0.923 0.55

Table 3.10 Soil initial state and CBR Elsalha soil tested. Test MOISTURE Dry Initial No CONTENT Density void CBR(%) (%) (Mg/m³) ratio 1 14 0.01389 0.879 17.05 2 16 0.01412 0.848 15.32 3 18 0.01482 0.761 14.91 4 20 0.01578 0.753 10.74 6 27 0.01432 0.822 2.41 7 30 0.01374 0.899 1.09

53

Table 3.11 Soil initial state and CBR Elshafa soil tested. Test MOISTURE Dry Initial No CONTENT Density void CBR(%) (%) (Mg/m³) ratio 1 17 1.344 0.748 5.242 2 21 1.456 0.614 4.31 3 25 1.509 0.557 3.378 4 33 1.439 0.633 0.93 5 37 1.355 0.734 0.46 6 40 1.348 0.743 0.21

Table 3.12 Soil initial state and CBR Elmanshia soil tested. Test Dry MOISTURE Initial No Density CONTENT void CBR(%) (Mg/m³) (%) ratio 1 1.41 16.7 0.922 30.021 2 1.47 20.5 0.843 21.562 3 1.51 23.7 0.794 11.742 4 1.46 27.6 0.856 6.921 5 1.43 29.1 0.895 2.958 6 1.39 32.6 0.949 1.559 7 1.391 40 0.948 0.954

Table 3.13 Soil initial state and DCP west Ommdrman soil tested. Test MOISTURE Dry Initial DCP No CONTENT Density void Index (%) (Mg/m³) ratio (mm/blow) 1 17 1.512 0.667 30.061 2 19 1.498 0.682 34.9 3 21 1.489 0.692 39.87 4 25 1.452 0.735 42.94 5 30 1.4 0.8 50.8 6 35 1.31 0.923 57.21 7 40 1.308 0.926 61.8

54

Table 3.14 Soil initial state and DCP Elsalha soil tested. Test MOISTURE Dry Initial DCP No CONTENT Density void Index (%) (Mg/m³) ratio (mm/blow) 1 14 0.01389 0.879 7.8 2 16 0.01412 0.848 9.6 3 18 0.01482 0.761 11.9 4 20 0.01578 0.753 19.5 6 27 0.01432 0.822 24.09 7 30 0.01374 0.899 27.094

Table 3.15 Soil initial state and DCP Elshafa soil tested. Test MOISTURE Dry Initial DCP No CONTENT Density void Index (%) (Mg/m³) ratio (mm/blow) 1 17 1.344 0.748 6.5 2 21 1.456 0.614 9.6 3 25 1.509 0.557 13.9 4 33 1.439 0.633 21.5 5 37 1.355 0.734 26.09 6 40 1.348 0.743 28.649

Table 3.16 Soil initial state and VSS west Ommdrman soil Test MOISTURE Dry Initial VANE SHEAR No CONTENT Density void STRENGTH (%) (Mg/m³) ratio (Kpa) 1 17 1.512 0.667 131.88 2 19 1.498 0.682 115.96 3 21 1.489 0.692 100.04 4 25 1.452 0.735 98.097 5 30 1.4 0.8 34.981 6 35 1.31 0.923 12.017 7 40 1.308 0.926 6.756

55

Table 3.17 Soil initial state and VSS Elsalha soil tested. Test MOISTURE Dry Initial VANE SHEAR No CONTENT Density void STRENGTH (%) (Mg/m³) ratio (Kpa) 1 14 0.01389 0.879 199.052 2 16 0.01412 0.848 185.088 3 18 0.01482 0.761 163.524 4 27 0.01432 0.822 109 5 30 0.01374 0.899 89.914

Table 3.18 Soil initial state and VSS Elshafa soil tested. Test Dry MOISTURE Initial VANE SHEAR No Density CONTENT void STRENGTH (Mg/m³) (%) ratio (Kpa) 1 1.344 17 0.748 121.252 2 1.456 21 0.614 92.846 3 1.509 25 0.557 69.2 4 1.355 37 0.734 46 5 1.348 40 0.743 30 6 1.349 42 0.753 23.5

Table 3.19 Soil initial state and VSS Elmanshia soil tested.

Test Dry MOISTURE Initial VANE SHEAR No Density CONTENT void STRENGTH (Mg/m³) (%) ratio (Kpa) 1 1.41 16.7 0.922 184.9 2 1.47 20.5 0.843 156.4 3 1.51 23.7 0.794 124 4 1.46 27.6 0.856 94.4 5 1.43 29.1 0.895 67.9 6 1.39 32.6 0.949 46.1 7 1.391 40 0.948 30.5

56

Table ( 3.21 ) Relationship between CBR & DCP tests W.Ommdrman (PI=14.5)

Test Specific PLASTIC Dry MOISTURE Initial DCP No Gravity INDEX Density CONTENT void Index CBR(%) (g/cm³) (Mg/m³) (%) ratio (mm/blow)

1 2.52 14.5 1.512 17 0.667 30.061 1.654

2 2.52 14.5 1.498 19 0.682 34.9 1.492

3 2.52 14.5 1.489 21 0.692 39.87 1.39

4 2.52 14.5 1.452 25 0.735 42.94 1.191

5 2.52 14.5 1.4 30 0.8 50.8 0.67

6 2.52 14.5 1.31 35 0.923 57.21 0.55

7 2.52 14.5 1.308 40 0.926 61.8 0.16

y = -0.0472x + 3.1567R2 = 0.9747

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2

25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65

CB

R (%

)

LNDCP(mm/blow)Fig ( 3.10 ) Relationship between CBR & DCP tests W.Ommdrman (PI=14.5)

57

Table ( 3.22 ) Relationship Between CBR&VSS (W.Ommdrman PI=14.5)

Test Specific PLASTIC Dry MOISTURE Initial VANE SHEAR No Gravity INDEX Density CONTENT void STRENGTH CBR(%) (g/cm³) (Mg/m³) (%) ratio (Kpa)

1 2.52 14.5 1.512 17 0.667 131.88 1.654

2 2.52 14.5 1.498 19 0.682 115.96 1.492

3 2.52 14.5 1.489 21 0.692 100.04 1.39

4 2.52 14.5 1.452 25 0.735 98.097 1.191

5 2.52 14.5 1.4 30 0.8 34.981 0.67

6 2.52 14.5 1.31 35 0.923 12.017 0.55

7 2.52 14.5 1.308 40 0.926 6.756 0.16

y = 0.010x + 0.263R² = 0.960

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140

CB

R (%

)

VSS (Kpa)Fig ( 3.11 ) Relatioship Between CBR&VSS (W.Ommdrman PI=14.5)

58

Table ( 3.23 ) RelationShipe Between VSS&LN DCP (mm/blow) w.Ommdrman PI=14.5

Test Specific PLASTIC Dry MOISTURE Initial DCP VANE SHEAR

No Gravity INDEX Density CONTENT void Index STRENGTH

(g/cm³) (Mg/m³) (%) ratio (mm/blow) (Kpa)

1 2.52 14.5 1.512 17 0.667 30.061 131.88

2 2.52 14.5 1.498 19 0.682 34.9 115.96

3 2.52 14.5 1.489 21 0.692 39.87 100.04

4 2.52 14.5 1.452 25 0.735 42.94 98.097

5 2.52 14.5 1.4 30 0.8 50.8 34.981

6 2.52 14.5 1.31 35 0.923 57.21 12.017

7 2.52 14.5 1.308 40 0.926 61.8 6.756

y = -4.3644x + 269.4R2 = 0.9634

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65

VS

S (%

)

LN DCP (mm/blow)Fig ( 3.12 ) RelationShipe Between VSS&LN DCP (mm/blow) w.Ommdrman

PI=14.5

59

Table( 3.24 ) Relationship between CBR & LN DCP (mm/blow) (Elsalha PI =17.5)

Test Specific PLASTIC MOISTURE Dry Initial DCP No Gravity INDEX CONTENT Density void Index CBR(%) (g/cm³) (%) (Mg/m³) ratio (mm/blow)

1 2.61 17.5 14 0.01389 0.879 7.8 17.05

2 2.61 17.5 16 0.01412 0.848 9.6 15.32

3 2.61 17.5 18 0.01482 0.761 11.9 14.91

4 2.61 17.5 20 0.01578 0.753 19.5 10.74

6 2.61 17.5 27 0.01432 0.822 24.09 2.41

7 2.61 17.5 30 0.01374 0.899 27.094 1.09

y = -0.837x + 24.21R² = 0.947

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

0 2.5 5 7.5 10 12.5 15 17.5 20 22.5 25 27.5 30

CB

R (%

)

LN DCP (mm/blow)

Fig( 3.13 ) Relationship between CBR & LN DCP (mm/blow) (Elsalha PI =17.5)

60

Table (3.25 ) Relationship between CBR & VSS tests( Elsalha PI= 17.5)

Test Specific PLASTIC MOISTURE Dry Initial VANE

SHEAR

No Gravity INDEX CONTENT Density void STRENGTH CBR(%)

(g/cm³) (%) (Mg/m³) ratio (Kpa)

1 2.61 17.5 14 0.01389 0.879 199.052 17.05

2 2.61 17.5 16 0.01412 0.848 185.088 15.32

3 2.61 17.5 18 0.01482 0.761 163.524 14.91

4 2.61 17.5 27 0.01432 0.822 109 10.74

5 2.61 17.5 30 0.01374 0.899 89.914 2.41

y = 0.113x - 4.826R² = 0.843

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210

CB

R (%

)

VSS (Kpa)Fig (3.14 ) Relationshep between CBR & VSS tests( Elsalha PI= 17.5)

61

Table ( 3.26 )RelationShip between VSS & LN DCP tests (Elsalha PI=17.5)

Test Specific PLASTIC MOISTURE Dry Initial DCP VANE

SHEAR No Gravity INDEX CONTENT Density void Index STRENGTH (g/cm³) (%) (Mg/m³) ratio (mm/blow) (Kpa)

1 2.61 17.5 14 0.01389 0.879 7.8 199.052

2 2.61 17.5 16 0.01412 0.848 9.6 185.088

3 2.61 17.5 18 0.01482 0.761 11.9 163.524

4 2.61 17.5 27 0.01432 0.822 19.5 109

5 2.61 17.5 30 0.01374 0.899 24.09 89.914

y = -6.836x + 248.9R² = 0.988

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

220

5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27

LN D

CP

(mm

/blo

w)

VSS (Kpa)Fig (3.15 )RelationShip between VSS & LN DCP tests (Elsalha PI=17.5)

62

Table ( 3.27 ) Relationship between CBR & LN DCP (mm/blow)( Elshafa PI = 26)

Test Specific PLASTIC Dry MOISTURE Initial DCP No Gravity INDEX Density CONTENT void Index CBR(%) (g/cm³) (Mg/m³) (%) ratio (mm/blow)

1 2.35 26 1.344 17 0.748 6.5 5.242

2 2.35 26 1.456 21 0.614 9.6 4.31

3 2.35 26 1.509 25 0.557 13.9 3.378

4 2.35 26 1.439 33 0.633 21.5 0.93

5 2.35 26 1.355 37 0.734 26.09 0.46

6 2.35 26 1.348 40 0.743 28.649 0.21

y = -0.236x + 6.602R² = 0.977

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

CB

R (%

)

LN DCP (mm/blow)

Fig ( 3.16 ) relationshipe between CBR & LN DCP (mm/blow) Elshafa PI = 26

63

Table ( 3.28 ) Relationship between CBR& VSS (Elshafa PI=26)

Test Specific PLASTIC Dry MOISTURE Initial VANE SHEAR

No Gravity INDEX Density CONTENT void STRENGTH CBR (%)

(g/cm³) (Mg/m³) (%) ratio (Kpa)

1 2.35 26 1.344 17 0.748 121.252 5.242

2 2.35 26 1.456 21 0.614 92.846 4.31

3 2.35 26 1.509 25 0.557 69.2 3.378

4 2.35 26 1.355 37 0.734 46 0.93

5 2.35 26 1.348 40 0.743 30 0.46

6 2.35 26 1.349 42 0.753 23.5 0.21

y = 0.0557x - 1.1304R2 = 0.9613

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

5.5

6

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130

CB

R(%

)

VSS (Kpa)Fig ( 3.17 ) Relationshipe between CBR& VSS (Elshafa PI=26)

64

Table( 3.29 ) Relationship between VSS&LN DCP (Elshafa PI=26)

Test Specific PLASTIC Dry MOISTURE Initial VANE

SHEAR DCP

No Gravity INDEX Density CONTENT void STRENGTH Index

(g/cm³) (Mg/m³) (%) ratio (Kpa) (mm/blow)

3 2.35 26 1.509 25 0.557 121.252 6.5

4 2.35 26 1.555 29 0.511 92.846 9.6

5 2.35 26 1.508 30 0.558 69.2 13.9

6 2.35 26 1.439 33 0.633 46 21.5

7 2.35 26 1.355 37 0.734 30 26.09

8 2.35 26 1.348 40 0.743 23.5 28.649

y = -0.233x + 32.57R² = 0.961

0

3

6

9

12

15

18

21

24

27

30

33

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130

LN D

CP

(mm

/blo

w)

VSS (Kpa)Fig( 3.18 ) Relationship between VSS&LN DCP (Elshafa PI=26)

65

Table ( 3.30 ) Relationship between CBR & LNDCP(mm/blow)( Elmanshia PI=51)

Test PLASTIC Specific Dry MOISTURE Initial DCP

No INDEX Gravity Density CONTENT void Index CBR(%)

(g/cm³) (Mg/m³) (%) ratio (mm/blow)

1 51 2.71 1.47 20.5 0.843 2 30.021

2 51 2.71 1.51 23.7 0.794 4.2 21.562

3 51 2.71 1.46 27.6 0.856 7.7 11.742

4 51 2.71 1.43 29.1 0.895 12.8 6.921

5 51 2.71 1.39 32.6 0.949 16 2.958

6 51 2.71 1.391 40 0.948 22 1.559

y = -1.375x + 27.29R² = 0.860

0

2.5

5

7.5

10

12.5

15

17.5

20

22.5

25

27.5

30

32.5

0 2.5 5 7.5 10 12.5 15 17.5 20 22.5 25

CB

R (%

)

LN DCP (mm/blow)

Fig ( 3.19 ) Relationship between CBR & LNDCP(mm/blow)( Elmanshia PI=51)

66

Table ( 3.31 ) Relationship between CBR & VSS tests (Elmanshia PI =51)

Test PLASTIC Specific Dry MOISTURE Initial VANE

SHEAR

No INDEX Gravity Density CONTENT void STRENGTH CBR(%)

(g/cm³) (Mg/m³) (%) ratio (Kpa)

1 51 2.71 1.41 16.7 0.922 184.9 30.021

2 51 2.71 1.47 20.5 0.843 156.4 21.562

3 51 2.71 1.51 23.7 0.794 124 11.742

4 51 2.71 1.46 27.6 0.856 94.4 6.921

5 51 2.71 1.43 29.1 0.895 67.9 2.958

6 51 2.71 1.39 32.6 0.949 46.1 1.559

7 51 2.71 1.391 40 0.948 30.5 0.954

y = 0.188x - 8.108R² = 0.938

0

2.5

5

7.5

10

12.5

15

17.5

20

22.5

25

27.5

30

32.5

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200

CB

R (%

)

VSS(Kpa)Fig ( 3.20 ) Relationship between CBR & VSS tests (Elmanshia PI =51)

67

Table ( 3.32 ) Relationship between VSS &LN DCP (mm/blow) Elmanshia PI =51)

Test PLASTIC Specific Dry MOISTURE Initial VANE SHEAR DCP

No INDEX Gravity Density CONTENT void STRENGTH Index

(g/cm³) (Mg/m³) (%) ratio (Kpa) (mm/blow)

1 51 2.71 1.41 16.7 0.922 184.9 2

2 51 2.71 1.47 20.5 0.843 156.4 4.2

3 51 2.71 1.51 23.7 0.794 124 7.7

4 51 2.71 1.46 27.6 0.856 94.4 12.8

5 51 2.71 1.43 29.1 0.895 67.9 16

6 51 2.71 1.39 32.6 0.949 46.1 22

7 51 2.71 1.391 40 0.948 30.5 23.05

y = ‐0.143x + 26.96R² = 0.977

0

2.5

5

7.5

10

12.5

15

17.5

20

22.5

25

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200

LN DCP

 (mm/blow)

VSS (Kpa)Fig ( 4.19 ) Relationship between VSS &LN DCP (mm/blow) Elmanshia PI =51

Dry

Den

sity

(Kg/m³

1.3

1.35

1.4

1.45

1.5

1.55

10

Dry Den

sity Kg/m³

Fig (3.3 ) 

1.35

1.4

1.45

1.5

1.55

1.6

5

Dry Den

sity (K

g/m

Fig ( 3

12.5 15

Dry Densi

7.5 10

3.4   ) Dry D

17.5 20

ty VS Moi

12.5 1

Density VS

68

22.5 2M.C 

isture Con

5 17.5

M

S Moisture

25 27.5(%)

ntent (W.O

20 22.5

M.C (%)

e Content

30 32.5

Ommdrma

25 27.5

t (Elsalha P

35 37.5

an PI = 14.

30 32.

PI = 17.5)

40

.5)

.5 35

69

1.3

1.35

1.4

1.45

1.5

1.55

1.6

2.5 5 7.5 10 12.5 15 17.5 20 22.5 25 27.5 30 32.5 35 37.5 40 42.5 45

DR

Y D

EN

SIT

Y( M

g/m

3)

M.C %

Fig (3.5) Dry Density VS Moisture Content (Elshafa PI = 

1.38

1.4

1.42

1.44

1.46

1.48

1.5

1.52

10 11.5 13 14.5 16 17.5 19 20.5 22 23.5 25 26.5 28 29.5 31 32.5 34

DRY

 DEN

SITY (M

g/m³)

M.c (%)

Fig ( 3.6 ) Dry Density VS Moisture Content    (Elmanshia Soil PI = 

70

y = 0.142x ‐ 0.136R² = 0.94

y = 2.547x ‐ 12.90R² = 0.933

y = 0.620x ‐ 2.692R² = 0.967

y = 5.825x ‐ 22.69R² = 0.941

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

CBR (%

)

Factor Fi

Linear (W.Ommdrman (1))Linear (Elsalha (2))

Fig  ( 3.7 )   Relationship between CBR & factor (Fi )

4

2

31

71

y = 13.25x ‐ 35.52R² = 0.936

y = 16.35x + 5.245R² = 0.941

y = 13.04x ‐ 35.78R² = 0.932

y = 26.90x ‐ 74.28R² = 0.972

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

VSS (Kpa)

Factor Fi

Linear (W.Ommdrman1)Linear (Elsalha (2))

Fig (3.8 )    Relationship between VSS & Factor  (Fi)

1

3

2

4

72

y = ‐3.0441x + 69.922R² = 0.9764

y = ‐2.327x + 35.78R² = 0.986

y = ‐2.166x + 34.37R² = 0.923

y = ‐4.590x + 43.13R² = 0.957

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

DCP

 (mm/blow)

Factor  (Fi) 

W.Ommdrman1

Fig ( 3.9 )  Relationship between DCP  &   Factor   (Fi)

1

4 2

3

73

Test Specific PLASTIC Dry MOISTURE Initial Factor No Gravity INDEX Density CONTENT void Fi CBR(%) (g/cm³) (Mg/m³) (%) ratio 1 2.52 14.5 1.512 17 0.667 13.334 1.654 2 2.52 14.5 1.498 19 0.682 11.56 1.492 3 2.52 14.5 1.489 21 0.692 10.246 1.39 4 2.52 14.5 1.452 25 0.735 7.902 1.191 5 2.52 14.5 1.4 30 0.8 5.833 0.67 6 2.52 14.5 1.31 35 0.923 4.055 0.55 7 2.52 14.5 1.308 40 0.926 3.531 0.16

y = 0.142x ‐ 0.136R² = 0.94

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2

2 3.5 5 6.5 8 9.5 11 12.5 14 15.5

CBR (%

)

Initital State Factor ( Fi)Fig ( 3.22 ) Relationship Initital State Factor ( Fi) & California Bearing Ratio (CBR)

74

Test Specific PLASTIC Dry MOISTURE Initial Factor DCP No Gravity INDEX Density CONTENT void Fi Index (g/cm³) (Mg/m³) (%) ratio (mm/blow)1 2.52 14.5 1.512 17 0.667 13.334 30.061 2 2.52 14.5 1.498 19 0.682 11.56 34.9 3 2.52 14.5 1.489 21 0.692 10.246 39.87 4 2.52 14.5 1.452 25 0.735 7.902 42.94 5 2.52 14.5 1.4 30 0.8 5.833 50.8 6 2.52 14.5 1.31 35 0.923 4.055 57.21 7 2.52 14.5 1.308 40 0.926 3.531 61.8

y = ‐3.044x + 69.92R² = 0.976

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

LN DCP

 (mm/blow)

Initital State Factor ( Fi)

Fig (3.23 ) Relationship between  Initital State Factor ( Fi) & Dynamic Cone Penetration(DCP) 

75

Test Specific PLASTIC Dry MOISTURE Initial Factor VANE

SHEAR No Gravity INDEX Density CONTENT void Fi STRENGTH (g/cm³) (Mg/m³) (%) ratio (Kpa) 1 2.52 14.5 1.512 17 0.667 13.334 131.88 2 2.52 14.5 1.498 19 0.682 11.56 115.96 3 2.52 14.5 1.489 21 0.692 10.246 100.04 4 2.52 14.5 1.452 25 0.735 7.902 98.097 5 2.52 14.5 1.4 30 0.8 5.833 34.981 6 2.52 14.5 1.31 35 0.923 4.055 12.017 7 2.52 14.5 1.308 40 0.926 3.531 6.756

y = 13.25x ‐ 35.52R² = 0.936

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

2 3.5 5 6.5 8 9.5 11 12.5 14

VSS (K

pa)

Initital State Factor ( Fi)

Fig (  3.24) Relationship between Initital State Factor ( Fi) & Vane Shear Stress tests 

CBR(%

)Test SNo G (g1 2 3 4 6 7

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

5 5

CBR (%

)pecific PL

Gravity Ig/cm³) 2.61 2.61 2.61 2.61 2.61 2.61

.5 6 6

LASTIC MNDEX C

17.5 17.5 17.5 17.5 17.5 17.5

6.5 7 7

76

MOISTURE CONTENT

(%) 14 16 18 20 27 30

y = 2.547xR² = 0.

7.5 8 8Initital State

Dry Density(Mg/m³)0.013890.014120.014820.015780.014320.01374

x ‐ 12.90.933

8.5 9 9e Factor ( Fi)

Initial void

ratio 0.879 0.848 0.761 0.753 0.822 0.899

9.5 10 1

Factor Fi

11.287 10.406 10.819 10.478 6.452 5.094

10.5 11 1

CBR(%

17.0515.3214.9110.742.411.09

11.5 12

%)

Test SNo G (g1 2 3 4 5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

3

LN DCP

 (mm/blow)

pecific PLGravity Ig/cm³) 2.61 2.61 2.61 2.61 2.61

4 5

LASTIC MNDEX C

17.5 17.5 17.5 17.5 17.5

5 6

77

MOISTURE CONTENT

(%) 14 16 18 27 30

y 

7

Initital S

Dry Density(Mg/m³)0.013890.014120.014820.014320.01374

= ‐2.327x + R² = 0.98

8 9

State Factor ( 

Initial void ) ratio

0.879 0.848 0.761 0.822 0.899

35.786

10

Fi)

Factor Fi

11.887 10.906 10.819 6.852 5.094

11 1

DCPIndex

(mm/blo7.8 9.6 11.919.524.09

2 13

x ow)

78

Test Specific PLASTIC MOISTURE Dry Initial Factor VANE

SHEAR No Gravity INDEX CONTENT Density void Fi STRENGTH (g/cm³) (%) (Mg/m³) ratio (Kpa) 1 2.61 17.5 14 0.01389 0.879 11.287 199.052 2 2.61 17.5 16 0.01412 0.848 10.406 185.088 3 2.61 17.5 18 0.01482 0.761 10.819 163.524 4 2.61 17.5 27 0.01432 0.822 6.452 109 5 2.61 17.5 30 0.01374 0.899 5.094 89.914

y = 16.35x + 5.245R² = 0.941

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

220

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

VSS (K

pa)

Initital State Factor ( Fi)

Fig (3.27 )Relationship betweenInitital State Factor ( Fi)& Vane Shear Stress

Test SNo G (g1 2 3 4 5 6

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

4

CBR (%

)

pecific PLGravity Ig/cm³) 2.35 2.35 2.35 2.35 2.35 2.35

5 6

LASTIC NDEX D

(26 26 26 26 26 26

y = 0.6R²

7

79

Dry MDensity C(Mg/m³) 1.344 1.456 1.509 1.439 1.355 1.348

620x ‐ 2.69² = 0.967

8 9Initital St

MOISTURECONTENT

(%) 17 21 25 33 37 40

2

9 10ate Factor ( Fi

E Initial void ratio

0.748 0.614 0.557 0.633 0.734 0.743

11i)

Factor Fi

11.869 11.292 10.836

5.94 4.989 4.535

12 13

CBR(%)

5.242 4.31

3.378 0.93 0.46 0.21

3 14

LNDCP

(/bl

)Test SNo G (g1 2 3 4 5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

2 3

LN DCP

 (mm/blow)

pecific PLGravity Ig/cm³) 2.35 2.35 2.35 2.35 2.35

3 4

LASTIC NDEX D

(26 26 26 26 26

5 6

80

Dry MDensity CMg/m³) 1.344 1.456 1.509 1.355 1.348

y = ‐2.166xR² = 0.

7Initital St

MOISTURE CONTENT

(%) 17 21 25 37 40

x + 34.37923

8 9tate Factor ( F

Initial void ratio 0.748 0.614 0.557 0.734 0.743

10 11Fi)

Factor Fi

11.869 11.292 10.836 4.989 4.535

12

DCP Index

(mm/blow6.5 9.6 13.9 21.5

26.09

13 14

)

Test SNo G (g3 4 5 6 7 8

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

2

VSS (Kpa)

pecific PLGravity INg/cm³) 2.35 2.35 2.35 2.35 2.35 2.35

3 4

LASTIC NDEX D

(M26 26 26 26 26 26

y = 13.0R² = 

5

81

Dry MDensity CMg/m³) 1.509 1.555 1.508 1.439 1.355 1.348

4x ‐ 35.780.932

6Initital 

OISTURE CONTENT

(%) 25 29 30 33 37 40

7 8State Facto

Initial void ratio 0.557 0.511 0.558 0.633 0.734 0.743

9r ( Fi)

Factor Fi S

10.836 10.493 9.000 5.94 4.989 4.535

10 1

VANE SHEAR

STRENGTH(Kpa)

121.252 92.846

69.2 46 30

23.5

1 12

Test PLNo IN 1 2 3 4 5 6

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

3

CBR (%

)LASTIC SNDEX G

(g51 51 51 51 51 51

3.5 4

SpecificGravity Dg/cm³) (M2.71 2.71 2.71 2.71 2.71 2.71

4.5 5

82

Dry MDensity CMg/m³)

1.47 1.51 1.46 1.43 1.39

1.391

y = 6.35R² =

5.5Initital St

MOISTURE CONTENT

(%) 20.5 23.7 27.6 29.1 32.6 40

58x ‐ 25.26= 0.903

6 6.5tate Factor (

Initial void ratio 0.843 0.794 0.856 0.895 0.949 0.948

7 7.5( Fi)

Factor Fi

8.5 8.02 6.179 5.49 4.492 3.668

5 8

CBR(%)

30.821 21.562 11.742 6.921 2.958 1.559

8.5 9

LNDCP

(/bl

)Test PLNo IN 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

2 2.

LN DCP

 (mm/blow)

LASTIC SNDEX G

(g51 51 51 51 51 51 51

5 3 3.5

SpecificGravity Dg/cm³) (M2.71 2.71 2.71 2.71 2.71 2.71 2.71

4 4.5

83

Dry MDensity CMg/m³) 1.41 1.47 1.51 1.46 1.43 1.39

1.391

5 5.5Initital S

MOISTURE CONTENT

(%) 16.7 20.5 23.7 27.6 29.1 32.6 40

y = ‐4.590x +R² = 0.9

6 6.5 7State Factor 

Initial void ratio

0.922 0.843 0.794 0.856 0.895 0.949 0.948

+ 43.13957

7 7.5 8( Fi)

Factor Fi

9.157 8.5

8.02 6.179 5.49

4.492 3.668

8.5 9

DCP Index

(mm/blow)2

4.2 7.7

11.8 16 22

29.333

9.5 10

)

Test PLNo IN 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

2

VSS (Kpa)

LASTIC SNDEX G

(g51 51 51 51 51 51 51

2.5 3

pecific Gravity Dg/cm³) (M2.71 2.71 2.71 2.71 2.71 2.71 2.71

y

3.5 4 4

84

Dry MDensity CMg/m³) 1.41 1.47 1.51 1.46 1.43 1.39 1.391

y = 26.90x ‐ 74R² = 0.972

4.5 5 5.5Initita

OISTURE CONTENT

(%) 16.7 20.5 23.7 27.6 29.1 32.6 40

4.282

6 6.5l State Factor 

Initial void ratio

0.922 0.843 0.794 0.856 0.895 0.949 0.948

7 7.5 8( Fi)

Factor Fi S

9.157 8.5 8.02 6.179 5.49 4.492 3.668

8 8.5 9

VANE SHEAR

STRENGTH(Kpa) 184.9 156.4 124 94.4 67.9 46.1 30.5

9.5 10