RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS 27

RESULTS AND
DISCUSSIONS
5.1 General
This chapter presents a compilation of results of laboratory investigations carried out on
the soil procured from the Bemina site. The material has been subjected to tests for
establishing their physical and geotechnical properties. The chapter also presents the
detailed results of the mechanical stabilization carried out on the above soil using sand
as the stabilization agent. The influence of sand on the various properties including the
CBR behaviour of the soil has also been studied in this chapter.

5.2 Physical Properties

5.2.1 Field Density and Moisture Content

The insitu field density and the moisture content was determined at the site and has
been presented in the tabular form below
S.No. Field Density (g/cm3) Moisture Content (%)
1 1.68 34.5

5.2.2 Specific Gravity of Natural Soil

Determination No. Specific Gravity
1 2.69
2 2.69

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS 28

5.2.3 Specific Gravity of the Sand used

Sample No. Specific Gravity
1 2.60
2 2.62

5.2.4 Grain Size Distribution

The Grain size distribution curve for the soil procured from the site for testing is plotted
as shown in Figure 5.1. The other details have been presented in the tabular form
below.

% Gravel 1
% Sand 6.5
% Silt 80.5
% Clay 12
CU 27
Cc 1.22
Comments Poorly graded soil

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS 29

120
PSD Curve

100
%AGE FINER BY WEIGHT

80
%AGE FINER BY WEIGHT

60

40
Cu = 27
Cc = 1.22

20

0
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
SIEVE SIZE (m m)

SIEVE SIZE (mm)

Fig. 5.1 Particle size distribution curve (natural soil)

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS 30

Grain size distribution for the sand used has been shown in the following figure

120
PSD Curve

100
%AGE FINER BY WEIGHT

80
%AGE FINER BY WEIGHT

60

40
Cu = 6
Cc = 1.28
20

0
0.01 0.1 1 10
SIEVE SIZE (m m )

SIEVE SIZE (mm)

Fig. 5.2 Particle size distribution curve (sand)

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS 31

5.2.5 Atterberg’s Limits

The results for the determination of Atterberg’s Limits have been plotted in Figure 5.3
And the same have been depicted below in the tabular form
Liquid limit 35%
Plastic limit 29%
Plasticity index 6
Shrinkage limit 25%
Flow Index 7
Toughness Index 0.85

40

38
Moisture Content (%)

36

34

32

30
1 10 100
Number of Blows

Fig 5.3 Flow Curve

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS 32

5.3 Geotechnical Properties

5.3.1 Compaction Characteristics

The compaction results have been plotted for the soil so procured and the same have
been plotted in the Figure 5.4. The results of the compaction test so done on the soil are
presented in the tabular form given below

S.No. OMC (%) MDD (g/cm3)

1 28 1.72

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS 33

1.76

100% NATURAL SOIL

Zav LINE
1.74
OMC = 28%
MDD = 1.72 g/cc

1.72
DRY DENSITY (g/cc)

1.7

1.68

1.66

1.64
14 19 24 29 34 39
WATER CONTENT (%)

Fig 5.4 Compaction characteristics

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS 34

5.3.2 Shear Strength Characteristics

The Unconfined Compression Test has also been performed on the soil samples so
obtained from the site. The results of the same have plotted in the Figure 5.5 and Figure
5.6 and the values of the unconfined compressive strength have been tabulated below
S.No. Unconfined compressive strength(kg/cm2)
Sample No. 1 0.3675
Sample No. 2 0.3676

0.4

SAMPLE 1
0.35

0.3
ESS (kg/sq. cm)

0.25
Fig 5.5 Stress versus Strain Curve

0.2
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS 35

0.4
SAMPLE 2

0.35

0.3

Fig 5.6 Stress versus Strain Curve

STRESS (kg/sq. cm)

0.25

0.2

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

0.15
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS 36

5.3.3 California Bearing Ratio of the natural soil

The following graphs show the CBR value of the soil obtained under natural condition
i.e. the insitu CBR behaviour

120

Fig 5.7 Load versus Penetration curve (unsoaked)

100

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS 37

60

100% NATURAL SOIL

50

40
LOAD (kg)

30

Load @ 2.5mm = 26.1kg

20
CBR = 1.91%

Load @ 5.0mm =
36.54kg
10 CBR = 1.78%

0
0 2.5 5 7.5 10 12.5 15 17.5
PENETRATION (m m )

Fig 5.8 Load versus Penetration curve (soaked)

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS 38

5.4 Properties of the soil after the addition of Sand

5.4.1 General
For the sake of establishing the degree to which the soil would respond to the addition
of sand, CBR tests and Direct Shear tests have been performed at OMC and MDD.

5.4.2 Compaction Characteristics

The following graphs give the compaction characteristics of the soil so obtained after
the addition of sand.

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS 39

1.8
25% SAND+75% NATURAL SOIL
1.79 Zav LINE

1.78

1.77
DRY DENSITY (g/cc)

1.76

1.75

1.74

0MC = 23%
1.73
MDD = 1.78 g/cc

1.72

1.71

1.7
16 18 20 22 24 26 28
WATER CONTENT (%)

Fig 5.9 Compaction Characteristics

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS 40

1.85

50% SAND + 50% NATURAL SOIL

1.84
Zav LINE

1.83

1.82
DRY DENSITY (g/cc)

1.81

1.8

1.79
OMC = 18.1%
MDD = 1.83 g/cc
1.78

1.77

1.76

1.75
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
WATER CONTENT (%)

Fig 5.10 Compaction Characteristics

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS 41

1.93
62.5% SAND+37.5% NATURAL SOIL
1.92
Zav LINE
1.91
OMC = 14.4%
1.9 MDD = 1.91 g/cc

1.89
DRY DENSITY (g/cc)

1.88

1.87

1.86

1.85

1.84

1.83

1.82
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
WATER CONTENT (%)

Fig 5.11 Compaction Characteristics

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS 42

1.89

75% SAND + 25% NATURAL SOIL

1.87 Zav LINE

OMC = 15.3%
1.85
MDD = 1.85 g/cc
DRY DENSITY (g/cc)

1.83

1.81

1.79

1.77

1.75
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
WATER CONTENT (%)

Fig 5.12 Compaction Characteristics

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS 43

1.83

87.5% SAND + 12.5% NATURAL SOIL

1.82
Zav LINE

1.81
OMC = 16.2%
MDD = 1.81 g/cc
1.8
DRY DENSITY (g/cc)

1.79

1.78

1.77

1.76

1.75

1.74

1.73
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
WATER CONTENT (%)

Fig 5.13 Compaction Characteristics

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS 44

5.4.3 Behaviour of California Bearing Ratio

The following graphs show as to how the CBR values of the various mixtures change
with the addition of a different percentage of sand. Figures 5.14 to 5.18 give the
unsoaked CBR values and graphs for the soil sand mixture and the figures 5.19 to 5.23
give the soaked CBR characteristics of the soil sand mixture.

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS 45

120

25% SAND+75% NATURAL SOIL

100

80
LOAD (kg)

60

Load @ 2.5mm = 57.55kg

CBR = 4.2%
40
Load @ 5.0mm = 75.85kg
CBR = 3.7%

20

0
0 2.5 5 7.5 10 12.5 15 17.5 20
PENETRATION (m m )

Fig 5.14 Load versus Penetration curve (unsoaked)

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS 46

140

50% SAND+50% NATURAL SOIL

120

100

80
LOAD (kg)

60

Load @ 2.5mm = 83.64kg

CBR = 6.1%
40

Load @ 5.0mm = 102.75kg

CBR = 5.0%
20

0
0 2.5 5 7.5 10 12.5 15 17.5 20
PENETRATION (m m )

Fig 5.15 Load versus Penetration curve (unsoaked)

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS 47

200
62.5% SAND+37.5% NATURAL SOIL
180

160

140

120
LOAD (kg)

100

80
Load @ 2.5mm = 116.28kg
CBR = 8.5%
60
Load @ 5.0mm = 144.82kg
CBR = 7.0%
40

20

0
0 2.5 5 7.5 10 12.5 15 17.5 20
PENETRATION (mm)

Fig 5.16 Load versus Penetration curve (unsoaked)

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS 48

180
75% SAND+25% NATURAL SOIL

160

140

120
LOAD (kg)

100

80

60 Load @ 2.5mm = 108.24kg

CBR = 7.9%

Load @ 5.0mm = 158.58kg

40
CBR = 7.7%

20

0
0 2.5 5 7.5 10 12.5 15 17.5 20
PENETRATION (mm)

Fig 5.17 Load versus Penetration curve (unsoaked)

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS 49

180
87.5% SAND+12.5% NATURAL SOIL

160

140

120
LOAD (kg)

100

80

60 Load @ 2.5mm = 98.92kg

CBR = 7.2%

40 Load @ 5.0mm = 144.77kg

CBR = 7.0%

20

0
0 2.5 5 7.5 10 12.5 15 17.5 20
PENETRATION (mm)

Fig 5.18 Load versus Penetration curve (unsoaked)

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS 50

The following figures viz 5.19 to 5.23 show the laod versus penetration curves for the
various soil mixes when soaked for a period of 4 days.

100
25% SAND+75% NATURAL SOIL
90

80

70

60
LOAD (kg)

50

40 Load @ 2.5mm =47.85kg

CBR = 3.5%
30
Load @ 5.0mm = 66.99kg
20
CBR = 3.2%

10

0
0 2.5 5 7.5 10 12.5 15 17.5 20
PENETRATION (m m )

Fig 5.19 Load versus Penetration curve (soaked)

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS 51

120
50% SAND+50% NATURAL SOIL

100

80
LOAD (kg)

60

Load @ 2.5mm = 72.94kg

40 CBR = 5.3%

Load @ 5.0mm = 100.29kg

CBR = 4.8%

20

0
0 2.5 5 7.5 10 12.5 15 17.5 20
PENETRATION (mm)

Fig 5.20 Load versus Penetration curve (soaked)

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS 52

180
62.5% SAND+37.5% NATURAL SOIL
160

140

120
LOAD (kg)

100

80

Load @ 2.5mm = 97.44kg

60 CBR = 7.1%

Load @ 5.0mm = 139.66kg

40 CBR = 6.8%

20

0
0 2.5 5 7.5 10 12.5 15 17.5 20
PENETRATION (mm)

Fig 5.21 Load versus Penetration curve (soaked)

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS 53

180

75% SAND+25% NATURALSOIL

160

140

120

100
LOAD (kg)

80
Load @ 2.5mm = 93.96kg
CBR = 6.9%
60

Load @ 5.0mm = 136.24kg

40 CBR = 6.6%

20

0
0 2.5 5 7.5 10 12.5 15 17.5 20
PENETRATION (m m )

Fig 5.22 Load versus Penetration curve (soaked)

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS 54

160
87.5% SAND+12.5% NATURAL SOIL

140

120

100
LOAD (kg)

80

Load @ 2.5mm = 86.28kg

60 CBR = 6.3%

Load @ 5.0mm = 111.65kg

40 CBR = 5.4%

20

0
0 2.5 5 7.5 10 12.5 15 17.5 20
PENETRATION (mm)

Fig 5.23 Load versus Penetration curve (soaked)

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS 55

200

180

160

140

120
LOAD (kg)

100

80

60

40

20

0
0 2.5 5 7.5 10 12.5 15 17.5
PENETRATION (m m )

100% NATURAL SOIL; CBR = 2.54% 25% SAND+75% NATURAL SOIL; CBR = 4.2%

50% SAND+50% NATURAL SOIL; CBR = 6.1% 62.5% SAND+37.5% NATURAL SOIL; CBR = 8.5%

75% SAND+25% NATURAL SOIL; CBR = 7.9% 87.5% SAND+12.5% NATURAL SOIL; CBR = 7.2%

Fig 5.24 Comparative graph of load vs. penetration (Unsoaked)

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS 56

180

160

140

120

100
LOAD (kg)

80

60

40

20

0
0 2.5 5 7.5 10 12.5 15 17.5
PENETRATION (mm)
25% SAND+75% NATURAL SOIL; CBR = 3.5% 50% SAND+50% NATURAL SOIL; CBR = 5.3%

62.5% SAND+37.5% NATURAL SOIL; CBR = 7.1% 75% SAND+25% NATURAL SOIL; CBR = 6.9%
87.5% SAND+12.5% NATURAL SOIL; CBR = 6.3% 100% NATURAL SOIL; CBR = 1.9

Fig 5.25 Comparative graph of load vs. penetration (Soaked)

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS 57

5.4.4 Direct Shear test

The following Graphs show the relation between shearing stress and normal stress for
various percentages of sand these graphs give us the shearing strength characteristics
of the soil sand mixtures at various percentages of sand.

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS 58

2.5
25% SAND+75% NATURAL SOIL

2
SHEARING STRESS (kg/sq.cm)

1.5

1 c = 0.3kg/sq.cm
φ = 360

0.5

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
NORMAL STRESS (kg/sq.cm)

Fig 5.26 Direct Shear test

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS 59

2.5
50% SAND+50% NATURAL SOIL

2
SHEARING STRESS (kg/sq.cm)

1.5

1
c = 0.4kg/sq.cm
φ = 370

0.5

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
NORMAL STRESS (kg/sq.cm )

Fig 5.27 Direct Shear test

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS 60

2.5

62.5% SAND+37.5% NATURAL SOIL

2
SHEARING STRESS (kg/sq.cm)

1.5

1
c = 0.45kg/sq.cm
φ = 390

0.5

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
NORMAL STRESS (kg/sq.cm )

Fig 5.28 Direct Shear test

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS 61

3.5
75% SAND+25% NATURAL SOIL

2.5
SHEARING STRESS (kg/sq.cm)

1.5

1
c = 0.42kg/sq.cm
φ =400

0.5

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
NORMAL STRESS (kg/sq.cm )

Fig 5.29 Direct Shear test

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS 62

87.5% SAND+12.5% NATURAL SOIL

3.5

3
SHEARING STRESS (kg/sq.cm)

2.5

1.5

1 c = 0.4kg/sq.cm
φ = 410

0.5

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

NORMAL STRESS (kg/sq.cm )

Fig 5.30 Direct Shear test

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS 63

5.5 Inferences Drawn

We can see from the following figures that the value of CBR varies with the percentage
of sand added and the value of CBR becomes maximum when the percentage of sand
is nearly 62.5 % by weight of the soil so there is an optimum value of sand percentage
at which the value of CBR becomes maximum.

UNSOAKED
8

6
CBR VALUE (%)

0
0 12.5 25 37.5 50 62.5 75 87.5 100
%AGE OF SAND

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS 64

Fig 5.31 Variation of CBR with the % of sand (Un-soaked)

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS 65

8.4

SOAKED
7.4

6.4

5.4
CBR VALUE (%)

4.4

3.4

2.4

1.4

0.4
0 12.5 25 37.5 50 62.5 75 87.5 100
%AGE OF SAND

Fig 5.32 Variation of CBR with the % of sand (Soaked)

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS 66

Summary of Results
The results of the above conducted tests are summarized in a tabular form as below: -
100% 100% NATURAL SOIL TREATED WITH
PROPERTY NATURA SAND 25% 50% 62.5% 75% 87.5%
L SOIL SAND SAND SAND SAND SAND
Field Density 1.68g/cc — — — — — —
Natural Moisture
34.5 % 3.09% — — — — —
Content
Specific Gravity 2.69 2.61 2.66 2.65 2.64 2.63 2.62
% Gravel 1 — — — — — —
% Sand 6.5 97 — — — — —
% Silt 80.5 — — — — —
3
% Clay 12 — — — — —
Cu 27 6 — — — — —
Cc 1.22 1.28 — — — — —
Liquid
limit 35% — — — — — —
ATTERBERG LIMITS

Plastic
29% — — — — — —
limit
Shrinkage
25% — — — — — —
limit
Plasticity
index 6 — — — — — —

Classification MI SW — — — — —
Flow Index 7 — — — — — —
Toughness Index 0.85 — — — — — —

100% NATURAL SOIL TREATED WITH

100%
PROPERTY NATURAL 25% 50% 62.5% 75% 87.5%
SAND
SOIL SAND SAND SAND SAND SAND
OMC (%) 28 — 23 18.1 14.4 15.3 16.2

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS 67
MDD (g/cc) 1.72 — 1.78 1.83 1.91 1.85 1.81

Unsoaked
2.5 7.75 4.2 6.1 8.5 7.9 7.2
CBR Values (%)

Soaked

1.9 6.6 3.5 5.3 7.1 6.9 6.3

c
— — 0.3 0.4 0.45 0.42 0.4
(kg/cm2)
DST Values

φ (0) — — 36 37 39 40 41

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING