Ce401 - Group 1-Final Doe PDF

Design of Experiment
Major Design of Experiment (DoE) Experience Information
CE 401 Soil Mechanics
1st Semester, SY 2019-2020
ABORITA, DANIELLE JOYCE S.

ACOPIO, DANMARK JOSEPH O.
Group Members ANDUQUE, SHEENA PAULA A.
ALEMAN, GLOREMAY ANN O.
ABRAHAM, JOSHUA P.
Utilization of Coconut (Coir) Fiber as Admixture and
DoE Title
Filter Paper as Mesh as a Soil Reinforcement
This DoE aims to:
1) Conduct a various tests that will be needed in determining the
effectiveness of coconut fiber and filter paper as a material for
Design
stabilizing soil.
Experimental
2) Identify the compressive strength difference between soil with
Objectives
coconut fiber admixture, with coconut fiber admixture and
filter paper as mesh, and without coconut fiber admixture nor
filter paper as mesh using California Bearing Ratio (CBR).
Input Factors
Coconut Fiber Coconut fiber, obtained from unripe coconut, is a natural
fiber extracted from the husk of coconut. The coconut is steeped in hot
seawater, and subsequently, the fibers are removed from the shell by
combing and crushing, the same process as jute fiber.
Filter Paper Filter paper is a semi-permeable paper barrier placed perpendicular to
a liquid or air flow. It is used to separate fine substances from liquids
or air. It is used in science labs to remove solids from liquids. This can
be used to remove sand from water.
Length Coconut Fibers have different sizes, but we use 1cm so that we can
easily put the fibers to the soil.
Diameter Each cell is about 1 mm (0.04 in) long and 10 to 20 μm (0.0004 to
0.0008 in) in diameter.
Percentage We added coconut fibers and Filter paper as mesh, for soil
stabilization and resulted to a percentage of 5%, 10%, 15% and 20%.
Output Responses
California Bearing Ratio (CBR) test was developed by the California
Division of Highway as a method of classifying and evaluating soil-
California Bearing sub grade and base course materials for flexible pavements. CBR test,
Ratio an empirical test, has been used to determine the material properties
for pavement design. Empirical tests measure the strength of the
material and are not a true representation of the resilient modulus. It is
a penetration test wherein a standard piston, having an area of 3 in2 (or
50 mm diameter), is used to penetrate the soil at a standard rate of
1.25 mm/minute. The pressure up to a penetration of
12.5 mm and its ratio to the bearing value of a standard crushed rock
is termed as the CBR.
In most cases, CBR decreases as the penetration increases. The ratio at

2.5 mm penetration is used as the CBR. In some case, the ratio at 5
mm may be greater than that at 2.5 mm. If this occurs, the ratio at 5
mm should be used. The CBR is a measure of resistance of a material
to penetration of standard plunger under controlled density and
moisture conditions. The test procedure should be strictly adhered if
high degree of reproducibility is desired. The CBR test may be
conducted in re-molded or undisturbed specimen in the laboratory.
The test is simple and has been extensively investigated for field
correlations of flexible pavement thickness requirement.
Compaction Soil Compaction is generally the cheapest method of improving the
engineering properties of the soil. In compaction, the soil solids are
forced to a tighter state in order to achieve a higher unit weight and

reduce the air voids.
The process of compaction is better understood by comprehension of
the behavior of a soil mass under compaction. In a dry condition, the
frictional resistance of the soil would resist granular rearrangement;
therefore, the compacting force is not quite effective. Introduction of a
lubricant such as a predetermined amount of water is mixed, would
then be absorbed by soil particles, forming minutely thin and coherent
water films around the particles. In this condition, the soil particles
will readily move closer together under the compacting pressure due
to the lubricating effect of water and reduced frictional resistance.
When a certain amount of water, called the optimum, has been added,
the compacting force completely overcomes the frictional resistance
and maximum density of the soil mass is attained.
Design Statistical-
Based Analysis and
Interpretation
ANOVA An ANOVA test is a way to find out if survey or experiment results
are significant.
A Two Way ANOVA is an extension of the One Way ANOVA. With

a One Way, you have one independent variable affecting a dependent
variable. With a Two Way ANOVA, there are two independents. Use a
two way ANOVA when you have one measurement variable (i.e.
a quantitative variable) and two nominal variables. In other words, if
your experiment has a quantitative outcome and you have two
categorical explanatory variables, a two way ANOVA is appropriate.
Factorial ANOVA is an efficient way of conducting a test. Instead of

performing a series of experiments where you test one independent
variable against one dependent variable, you can test all independent
variables at the same time.
Testing Standards
(If Applicable)
American Society of ASTM D698 uses a 4-inch-diameter (100 mm) mould which holds
Testing and Materials 1/30 cubic feet of soil, and calls for compaction of three separate lifts
(ASTM) of soil using 25 blows by a 5.5 lb hammer falling 12 inches, for a

compactive effort of 12,400 ft-lbf/ft.
American AAHSTO T99 uses mould given a size with a 2.5-kg (5.5-lb) hammer
Association of State dropped from a height of 305 mm (12 in.). Method A-A 101.60-mm
Highway and (4-in.) mold: Soil material passing a 4.75-mm (No. 4) sieve
Transportation
Officials (AASHTO)
TECHNOLOGICAL INSTITUTE OF THE PHILIPPINES

938 Aurora Boulevard Cubao, Quezon City
CIVIL ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT

COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND ARCHITECTURE
SOIL MECHANICS
“Utilization of Coconut (Coir) Fiber as admixture and Filter Paper as Mesh as a Soil
Reinforcement”
SUBMITTED BY:
GROUP 1
ABORITA, DANIELLE JOYCE S.

ACOPIO, DANMARK JOSEPH O.
ANDUQUE, SHEENA PAULA A.
ALEMAN, GLOREMAY ANN O.
ABRAHAM, JOSHUA P.
SUBMITTED TO:
ENGR. JENNIFER L. CAMINO
OCTOBER 18, 2019

TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
I. BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Experimental Design Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Scope and Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Hypothesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Experimental Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
II. REVIEW OF RELATED STUDIES AND LITERATURE . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
III. METHODOLOGY
Particle Size Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Soil Consistency Limits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Compaction Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
California Bearing Ratio (CBR) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
IV. DATA AND RESULTS
Particle size Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Soil Consistency Limits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Compaction Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Design Statistics
California Bearing Ratio (CBR) Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
ANOVA Statistical Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
V. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
VI. DOCUMENTATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
VII. APPENDIX A: CURRICULUM VITAE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
VIII. APPENDIX B: REFLECTION PAPER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Theoretical Framework
Figure 2: Particle Distribution Curve
Figure 3: Flow Curve for Liquid Limit
Figure 4: Compaction Curve
Figure 5: CBR Value graph
Figure 6: Flow curve for 0% CBR Test

Figure 7: Flow curve for 5% Admixture only CBR Test, Trial 1
Figure 10: Flow curve for 5% Admixture with mesh CBR Test, Trial 1
Figure 13: Flow curve for 10% CBR Test Admixture only – Trial 1
Figure 15: Flow curve for 10% CBR Test admixture only
Figure 16: Flow curve for 10% CBR Test – admixture and mesh (Layer 1-3)
Figure 18: Flow curve for 10% CBR Test – admixture and mesh (Layer 1-2-3-4)
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Sieve Analysis Data
Table 2: Determination of Liquid Limit
Table 3: Determination of Plastic Limit
Table 4: Determination of Shrinkage Limit
Table 5: Determination of Optimum Moisture Content

Table 6: CBR Value for Admixture only and Admixture with Mesh
Table 7: CBR TEST DATA: TRIAL 1
Table 11: CBR TEST DATA: TRIAL 1 (LAYER 1-3)
Table 13: CBR TEST DATA: TRIAL 3 (LAYER 1-2-3-4)
Table 32: CBR Values for Admixture Only and Admixture with Mesh
Table 33: CBR Values in varying percentage
Table 34.1: ANOVA statistical analysis two-factor without replication
ABSTRACT
As stabilization of soil improves its engineering properties, mechanical stabilization
process is use. In the present study expansive soils are stabilized with Coconut (Coir) fiber and
filter paper as mesh. Coconut (Coir) fiber and filter paper as mesh are used as soil reinforcement.
The effectiveness of Coir fiber, and filter paper are studied in terms of unconfined compressive
strength (UCS), and California Bearing Ratio test (CBR). For the stabilized soil, Unconfined
Compressive Strength (UCS) test, and California Bearing Ratio (CBR) test are also done. From
Unconfined Compressive Strength (UCS) and California Bearing Ratio (CBR) test it is observed
that the soil added with 5% coconut (coir) fiber and filter paper as mesh gave better results. It is
observed that soil mixed with more than five percent (5%) of Coir fiber and interacted with filter
paper as mesh makes the soil delicate and less durable than ordinary soil samples.
I. BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY
This project focuses on soft soil or clayey type of soils. Geotechnical engineers will face
many challenges with soft soil foundation as the soft soils present problems related to stability and
settlement. The most problem that they would face is that the properties of soil which are unable
to fulfill the specification requirements. Based on the type of soil, it is expected that the
construction of highways will face challenges in terms of soft soil improvement. With the rapid
development of highway construction, the settlement of soft soil has become the problem for
highway design. When height of a road embankment to be constructed over the soft soil, the stress
in soft soils is increasing, so does the strain or settlement of the soft soils. Highest yielding or
plastic deformation in vertical and lateral direction of soft soil will occur if the traffic load is high
and close to the ultimate bearing capacity of the supporting soft ground, and then followed by
tension crack or translational slip when deformation is large enough.
Soil stabilization is the change of one or more soil properties, by mechanical or chemical
means, for creating improvement of soft soil material possessing the desired engineering
properties. There are various categories of soil stabilization methods, such as vibration, surcharge
load, structural reinforcement improvement by structural fill, admixtures, and grouting and other
methods. Methods to stabilize the soft soil such as using floating piles, stone columns, vertical
drains and replacement method are many; however, they are costly and old methods.
Soil reinforcement technique is one of the most popular techniques used for improvement
of poor soils. Further, the soil reinforcement causes significant improvement in tensile strength,
shear strength, other properties, bearing capacity as well as economy. Use of natural fiber in civil
engineering for improving soil properties is advantageous because they are cheap, locally
available, biodegradable and environmental friendly. Coconut coir is a natural fiber belonging to
the group of hard structural fibers (Maurya etal. [4]). It can be extracted from the husk of coconut,
which is easily and locally available, cheap, biodegradable and eco-friendly. It is waste by product
of the coir manufacturing industry and for every ton of fiber extracted, about two tons of coir waste
is produced (Jayasree et al. [5]). Durability of natural fiber can be improved by chemical treatment
and by coating the fiber with Phenol, Bitumen and polymer (Abhijith [6]). As coconut fiber has
high lignin content and low cellulose content, it is resilient, strong and highly durable (Enokela
and Alada [7]). Compared to jute fiber, service life of coir is more up to 10 years because of its
high lignin content (Rowell et al. [8]). According to Goyal et al. [9], degradation of coir depends
on the medium of embedment and the climatic conditions and is found to retain 80% of its tensile
strength even after six months. Coir has low tenacity, but the elongation is much higher (Babu and
Vasudevan [10]) and it shows better resilient response against synthetic fibers by higher coefficient
of friction (Chouhan et al. [11]). Coir retains much of its tensile strength when wet and shows
reduced swelling tendency of the soil (Subaida et al. [12]).
To evaluate its capability when mixed with soil, four tests are to be performed namely:
 Sieve analysis to determine the grain size distribution of the soil, consisting of shaking
the soil sample through a set of sieves that has progressively small openings and
computation of percent passing in a cumulative procedure;
 Consistency limit in soil identification including liquid limit and plastic limit for strength
co-relation, consolidation, and settlement of the soil, undergoing groove closure and
observation of rolled soil crumbles;
 Compaction test to improve the engineering properties of soil wherein soil solids are
forced to a tighter state in order to achieve a higher unit weight and reduce the air voids;
and
 California Bearing Ratio (CBR) to determine the mechanical strength of natural ground
and load-bearing capacity by measuring the pressure required to penetrate the soil\
The experimentation will be analyzed with the existing study of a natural fiber, comparing its
properties and characteristics graphically and numerically.
EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN OBJECTIVES
This Design of Experiment aims to:
1. Conduct a various tests that will be needed in determining the effectiveness of coconut
(coir) fiber and filter paper as a material for stabilizing soil.
2. Identify and discuss the compressive strength difference between soil with coconut (coir)
fiber admixture, with coconut (coir) fiber admixture and filter paper as mesh, and without
coconut (coir) fiber admixture nor filter paper as mesh using California Bearing Ratio
(CBR).
SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS
The study is for clients who wants to have a land-based structure where the clayey soil
around the foundation has a low hear and soil bearing capacity around. A series of laboratory
experiments like sieve analysis, compaction test, consistency limits of soil or the Atterberg’s
limits, and California Bearing Ratio (CBR) test were carried out to investigate the behavior of
soil treated with Coconut (coir) fiber and filter paper as mesh.
The results undertaken was limited to the following experimental works:
 Particle size distribution by Sieve Analysis

 Determination of maximum dry density (MDD) and the corresponding optimum moisture
content (OMC) of the soil by Proctor compaction test
 Determination of soil consistency properties (Atterberg’s Limits)
 Preparation of soil samples reinforced with Coconut (coir) Fiber and Filter paper as mesh
 Determination of the compressive strength capacity of soil by unconfined compression
test (UCS) and California Bearing Ratio (CBR) test.
HYPOTHESIS
Null Hypothesis (H0)
There's a significant difference in terms of compressive strength in using coconut fiber as
admixture and filter paper as mesh in soil as reinforcement.
Alternative Hypothesis (H1)
There's NO significant difference in terms of compressive strength in using coconut fiber
as admixture and filter paper as mesh in soil as reinforcement.
EXPERIMENTAL FRAMEWORK
PROCESS OUTPUT
INPUT
Utilization of
Sieve Analysis Coconut (Coir) Fiber
Materials (Coconut
Consistency Limit as admixture and
(coir) fiber, Filter
Compaction
paper and water)
California Bearing
Filter Paper as Mesh
Ratio (CBR) as a Soil
Reinforcement
Figure 1: Theoretical Framework

II. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND STUDIES
There are various categories of soil stabilization methods, such as vibration, surcharge
load, structural reinforcement improvement by structural fill, admixtures, and grouting and other
methods. Methods to stabilize the soft soil such as using floating piles, stone columns, vertical
drains and replacement method are many; however, they are costly and old methods.
Soil reinforcement technique is one of the most popular techniques used for improvement
of poor soils. Metal strips, synthetic geotextiles, geo grid sheets, natural geotextiles, randomly
distributed, synthetic and natural fibers are being used as reinforcing materials to soil. Further, the
soil reinforcement causes significant improvement in tensile strength, shear strength, other
properties, bearing capacity as well as economy. Use of natural fiber in civil engineering for
improving soil properties is advantageous because they are cheap, locally available, biodegradable
and environmental friendly. Coconut coir is a natural fiber belonging to the group of hard structural
fibers (Maurya etal. [4]). It can be extracted from the husk of coconut, which is easily and locally
available, cheap, biodegradable and eco-friendly. It is waste by product of the coir manufacturing
industry and for every ton of fiber extracted, about two tons of coir waste is produced (Jayasree et
al. [5]). Durability of natural fiber can be improved by chemical treatment and by coating the fiber
with Phenol, Bitumen and polymer (Abhijith [6]). As coconut fiber has high lignin content and
low cellulose content, it is resilient, strong and highly durable (Enokela and Alada [7]). Compared
to jute fiber, service life of coir is more up to 10 years because of its high lignin content (Rowell
et al. [8]). According to Goyal et al. [9], degradation of coir depends on the medium of embedment
and the climatic conditions and is found to retain 80% of its tensile strength even after six months.
Coir has low tenacity, but the elongation is much higher (Babu and Vasudevan [10]) and it shows
better resilient response against synthetic fibers by higher coefficient of friction (Chouhan et al.
[11]). Coir retains much of its tensile strength when wet and shows reduced swelling tendency of
the soil (Subaida et al. [12]).
The use of natural fibre for improving soil properties in civil engineering is a result of its
low price, local availability, biodegradability and environmental friendly. The use of coir fibres
and lime-stabilized soil has been studied in order to investigate the geotechnical properties of soft
marine clay collected from the Port Klang coastal region in Malaysia. Unconfined compressive
strength and compaction properties were carried out in this present study. A compaction apparatus
was employed to determine the strength of the stabilised soils. A strength test was carried out on
the specimens, with up to a 28- day curing period. The investigated admixture of lime and coir
fibre was fixed at 5% of lime, with the amount of coir fibre contents varying at 0.5%, 1%, 1.5%
and 2%. The results from the experimental investigation showed that by treating marine clay with
coir fibres and lime, stabilized soils improve. The use of coir fibre and lime gave better strength,
and it may be more economical than traditional methods. The interactions between the fibre surface
and the hydrated products contributed to the strength at the interface of the marine clay soil. It
could be concluded that the coir fibres and limestabilised marine clay soil studied would be suitable
for use in the construction of land-based structures. This research promotes innovativeness in
thinking and provides low-cost, as well as environmentally-friendly defense structures. (Vivi
Anggraini et.al, 2014)

Furthermore, in some studies, coconut fiber is most commonly tested as reinforcement in
concrete. A study in National Institute of Technology in Agartala, India states that Coconut fibres
and cement can be easily incorporated into the soil mixture which adds strength and durability to
the wall. Stabilization of soil was done by adding Ordinary Portland Cement (2.5%, 5.0%, 7.5%
and 10.0% by weight of soil) while Coconut Fibre in length about 15mm were added (0.2%, 0.4%,
0.6%, 0.8% and 1.0% by weight of soil) as reinforcement. Thirty types of mixes were created by
adding different proportions of cement and fibre to locally available soil and compacting the mix
at constant compaction energy in three layers with proctor rammer. In their study, Samples were
tested for compressive strength, tensile strength and failure patterns were analyzed. The use of
cement and fibre increases ultimate strengths significantly up to an optimum limit of 0.8% fibre
content, provides a secondary benefit of keeping material bound together after failure and increases
residual strength. Benefits of fibre reinforcement includes both improved ductility in comparison
with raw blocks and inhibition of crack propagation after its initial formation. After analyzing the
results, the researchers recommended to use 0.8% fibre and 5% to 10% cement by weight of soil
to achieve considerable strength. The researchers also have concluded that this research may add
a value in the areas of green and sustainable housing, waste utilization, et cetera.(Raj, Shubham
et.al, 2017)
Other experimental investigation involving coconut fiber as an admixture for soil
stabilization is done not just by mechanical process but also by chemical process. According to
Swapna (2017), as stabilization of soil improves its engineering properties, chemical and
mechanical stabilization processes are in use. In the present study expansive soils are stabilized
with Coir fiber and CaCl2. Calcium based alkaline activators and fly ash as an additives and Coir
is used as reinforcement. The effectiveness of Coir fiber, Cacl2 and fly ash are studied in terms of
unconfined compressive strength (UCS), Swelling index test(SI) ,Direct Shear tests(DST) and
California Bearing Ratio test(CBR). The swelling index of the soil has been reduced by adding fly
ash and CaCl2. The effectiveness of Coir fiber is studied based on UCS tests on soil at their
moisture content. For the stabilized soil, swelling index test, UCC test, CBR test and Direct Shear
test are also done. From UCS and CBR test it is observed that the soil added with 20% fly ash and
15% solution gave better results. It is observed that soil mixed with various percentages of Coir
fiber, CaCl2 and Fly ash are more durable than ordinary soil samples.
In addition, it is stated that the chemical stabilization method produces a better quality of
soft soil with higher strength and durability than using mechanical stabilization method. The
chemical stabilization method also depends on the chemical additives and the soil particles which
produce a strong bond of the particles of the soil.

III. METHODOLOGY
PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS

Sieve Analysis
Resources:
1. Set of Standard Sieves.
2. Oven with temperature control.
3. Balance.
4. Pans.
5. Pair of tongs.
6. Manual or Mechanical Sieve Shaker.
7. Mortar and Pestle.
Procedure:
1. Each group will obtain exactly 500g of oven-dry soil from the bag of stock material. Use
sampling or sampling splitter.
2. If the samples contain appreciable gravel, very few fines or if at the discretion of the
instructor, washing is to be omitted. Otherwise place the test sample on the no. 200 sieve
and wash the material through the sieve using the tap water until the water is clear.
3. Carefully pour the residue, using the back-washing, into a large weighed dish and let it sit
for a short period of time until the top of the suspension becomes clear. Then, place the
dish and remaining soil-water suspension in the oven for drying.
4. On the following day, weigh the oven-dry residue. (Omit this step if you do not wash).
Then run your sample through a stack of sieves from top down.
5. Place the stacks of sieves in a mechanical sieves shaker (if available) and sieve for 5 to 10
minutes until the top few sieves can be removed from the stack. If there is no mechanical
shaker, shake by hand for about 10 minutes. Do not shake in a defined pattern.
6. Remove the stack of sieves from the shaker and obtain the weight of material remaining
on each sieve. Sum these weights and compare with original. Loss of weights should not
exceed 2%, otherwise repeat the sieve test.
7. Compute the percent retained on each sieve by dividing the weight on each sieve to the
original sample weight Ws.
8. Compute the percent passing or percent finer by starting with 100 percent and subtracting
the percent retained on each sieve as a cumulative procedure.
9. Prepare a logarithmic log of percent finer versus grain size.
Note:
• If less than 12% of the soil sample passes the number 200 sieve, compute Cc and Cu
and show in the logarithmic graph.
• If more than 12% of the soil sample passes the number 200 sieve, conduct a hydrometer
analysis.
Calculation:
Cum. % retained = Total mass retained from largest sieve to current sieve/ Total mass of sample
% finer = 100% - Cum. Mass retained
SOIL CONSISTENCY LIMITS

Atterberg Limits
Resources:
1. Liquid limit device with groove tool
2. Tin can
3. spatula
4. Triple beam balance
5. Soil oven, pan
6. Shrinkage dish
7. Paraffin wax with sewing thread
8. Spring balance
Procedure:
Liquid Limit Test
1. Prepare at least 250g of representative air dry soil sample passing the no. 40 sieve.
Pulverize this soil sample. Be sure to break all lumps to elemental particles.
2. Prepare at least 3 moisture tin cans. Mix the prepared sample with a small amount of
water. Mix the sample of soil thoroughly until it becomes uniform and consistent in
appearance (no lumps). A major source of error is poor mixing.
3. On the liquid limit device cup, place an amount of sol. Smooth the pat surface. Using the
grooving tool, cut a groove at the middle.
4. Fasten the brass cup to the hinge of the liquid limit device.
5. Using the 1cm. block at the end of the grooving tool, adjust the height of the fall to
exactly 1 centimeter. Height of fall is very critical and as little as 0.1cm can affect the
liquid limit by several percent.
6. Prepare 3 different consistencies of soil based on the number of blows in the liquid limit
device: 25-35, 20-30 and 15-25 blows. This is done carefully by adding water to the soil.
7. Mix the soil sample until the consistency would require 25-35 blows to close the groove
for about 12.5 mm. Take moisture content near the groove using 30g of soil to determine
the moisture content by placing in the oven. Keep the temperature at 105 oC.
8. Add additional water to test the remaining consistencies of soil. Repeat procedure 7.
9. Draw the flow curve wherein the data is recorded with the water content in the domain
and the log N in the abscissa. The water content that would require 25 blows to close the
groove is the liquid limit of the sample.
Plastic Limit Test

1. Take a sample of about 100 grams..
2. Start rolling the soil between the finger and the glass plate with adequate pressure to form
a soil thread approximately 3mm with 80-90 strokes per minute. When the diameter of
the threads of soil becomes 3mm, break the threads in smaller pieces, reform into a ball
and re-roll. Continue this re-balling and re-rolling until threads crumble under pressure
and soil can no longer be rolled into threads.
3. When the threads crumbles at a diameter greater than 3mm this is satisfactory to define
the plastic limit.
4. Place the crumbled soil in a tin can until a weight of about 30grams is achieved. Do this
until two (2) samples are achieved. Place it in an oven to oven dry. Maintain the
temperature at 105 oC.
5. After determining the moisture content, determine its average. The result is the plastic
limit of the soil.
Shinkage Limit Test

1. Weigh the shrinkage dish (Wsd). Fill the shrinkage dish with water and weigh again
(Wsd+water). Determine the volume (V) by getting the difference of Wsd+water and Wsd and
divide it by the unit weight of water.
V = (Wsd+water - Wsd w
2. Grease the inside surface of the shrinkage dish. Place a small portion of the soil pat and
carefully tap the dish to allow the soil pat to flow at the edges. Repeat again until the
whole shrinkage dish is filled. Strike of the excess soil using a straight edge. Record the
mass of the soil and dish.
3. Allow the soil to dry into the air until its color turns from dark to light. Oven dry the
sample to the oven kept at 105 oC. Record the mass of the soil and shrinkage dish.
Determine the weight of the dry soil (mdry). Determine its moisture content.
4. Securely tie the soil pat in a sewing thread. Immerse the soil in molten wax. Allow the
wax coating to cool. Determine the mass of the soil with wax (mdry+wax). Determine the
mass of the wax (mwax). Determine its volume by dividing the mass with the unit weight
of the wax (Vwax).
Vwax = (mdry+wax - mdry) wax
5. Using a spring balance, determine the mass of the soil and wax in air (mswa). Immerse the
soil and wax in water and determine its mass in water (msww). Determine the volume of
the wax and soil using the formula:
Vsoil+wax = (mswa-msww)/ w
6. Determine the dry volume of soil (Vd) by the difference of the Vsoil+wax and Vwax.
7. Calculate the shrinkage limit of the soil using the formula:
SL = w – (V-Vd) w/ms
COMPACTION TEST
Resources:
1. Compaction mold and hammer
2. Moisture sprayer
3. No. 4 sieve
4. Rubbed tipped pestle
5. Scoop
6. Spatula
7. Large mixing pan
8. Balance
9. Drying oven
Procedure:
1. Weigh the empty mold.
2. Obtain a 6 lb. representative specimen of the soil sample to be tested. Break sample with
the use of rubber pestle and pass through No. 4 sieve.
3. Form a 2 to 3 inch layer using the soil passing though No. 4 sieve.
4. Press soil until it is smooth and compact it with a specific number of evenly distributed
blows of the hammer, using a one foot drop. Rotate the hammer to ensure a uniform
distribution of blows.
5. Repeat the same procedure for the second and third layers seeing to it that a uniform
distribution of blows.
6. After compaction of the third layer the soil should be slightly above the top rim of the mold.
7. Remove the collar and trim off the soil from the top of the mold. Tart trimming along the
center and work towards end of the mold.
8. After the soil has been made even with the top of the mold and all base soil cleaned from
the outside, weigh the cylinder sample to 10 lb.
9. Remove the soil from cylinder and obtain a representative sample of 50gm for a water
content determination. The water content sample should be made up with specimens from
the top, middle and bottom of the compacted soil.
10. Break up by hand then removed from the cylinder and remix with the original sample and
raise its water content by 3% by adding water to the sample with sprayer. Mix the soil
thoroughly. By weighing the sprayer before and after the spraying, the amount of water
added is known.
11. Keep repeating the procedures for 5 to six times until soil is sticky. Use 3% approximate
water content.
12. Compute dry density of each sample and plot the compaction curve. Determine the
Optimum Moisture Content of the sample.
CALIFORNIA BEARING RATIO

Resources:
 Mold
 Steel Cutting collar
 Spacer Disc
 Surcharge weight
 Dial gauges
 IS Sieves
 Penetration Plunger
 Loading Machine
 Miscellaneous Apparatus
Procedure:
1. Take representative sample of soil weighing approximately 6kg and mix thoroughly at OMC.
2. Record the empty weight of the mould with base plate, with extension collar removed (m1).
3. Replace the extension collar of the mould.
4. Insert a spacer disc over the base plate and place a coarse filter paper on the top of the spacer disc.
5. Place the mould on a solid base such as a concrete floor or plinth and compact the wet soil in to the mould in
five layers of approximately equal mass each layer being given 56 blows with 4.90kg hammer equally
distributed and dropped from a height of 450 mm above the soil.
6. The amount of soil used shall be sufficient to fill the mould, leaving not more than about 6mm to be struck
off when the extension collar is removed.
7. Remove the extension collar and carefully level the compacted soil to the top of the mould by means of a
straight edge.
8. Remove the spacer disc by inverting the mould and weigh the mould with compacted soil (m2).
9. Place a filter paper between the base plate and the inverted mould.
10. Replace the extension collar of the mould.
11. Prepare two more specimens in the same procedure as described above.
IV. DATA AND RESULTS
Sieve Analysis of Coarse-grained Soil

Sieve No. Mass retained (g) Cumulative Mass Retained Percent Finer
(g)
8 62 62 12.65%
12 37 99 7.55%
16 38 137 7.56%
30 52 189 10.61%
50 191 380 38.98%
60 14 394 2.86%
80 48 442 9.80%
100 12 454 2.45%
200 30 484 6.12%
Receiver 6 490 1.22%
Total 490 100%
Table 1: Sieve Analysis Data
Figure 2: Particle Distribution Curve

SOIL CONSISTENCY LIMIT
Determination of the Liquid Limit

DESCRIPTION SAMPLE 1 SAMPLE 2 SAMPLE 3
RANGE 15-25 20-30 25-35
No. of blows 7 20 30
Wt. of tin cup (Wc) 14 g 14 g 13 g
Wt. of Tin cup +
94 g 94 g 96 g
Wet soil (Wc+Ws)
Wt. of Tin cup + dry 83 g 83 g 83 g
soil (Wc+Wd)
Wt. of Water 11 g 11 g 13 g
Wt. of dry soil (Wd) 69 g 69 g 70 g
Water content (MC) 15.94% 15.94% 18.57%
Liquid Limit 15.90% 15.93% 15.95%
Liquid Limit Ave. 15.93%
Table 2: Determination of Liquid Limit
FLOW CURVE
16
15.95%
15.93%
Moisture content (%)
15.9%
15.9
15.8
7 20 25 30
No. of Blows
Figure 3: Flow Curve for Liquid Limit

Determination of Plastic Limit

DESCRIPTION SAMPLE 1 SAMPLE 2
Wt. of Tin Cup (Wc) 25 g 25 g
Wt. of Tin Cup + Wet Soil 55 g 56 g
(Wc+Ws)
Wt. of Tin Cup & Dry Soil 44 g 45 g
(Wc+Ds)
Wt. of Water (Ww) 11 g 12 g
Wt. of Dry Soil (Wds) 24 g 25 g
Water Content (MC) 25% 24 %
Plastic Limit (55 − 44) (56 − 45)
𝑥100 = 45.83% 𝑥100 = 44%
24 25
Plastic Limit Ave. 44.92%
Table 3: Determination of Plastic Limit
DETERMINATION OF SHRINKAGE LIMIT

DESCRIPTION DATA DESCRIPTION DATA
VOLUME OF SHRINKAGE DISH VOLUME OF WAX
Volume of Mass of Dry Soil
17 mL 28 g
Shrinkage Dish and Wax
Weight of Shrinkage Volume of Wax
120 g 3.33 mL
Dish
Weight of Shrinkage
137 g VOLUME OF SOIL
Dish and Water
Mass of Soil and
WATER CONTENT 28 g
wax in air
Wt. of Tin Cup + Mass of Soil and
151 g 25 g
Wet Soil wax in water
Wt. of Tin Cup + Volume of the wax
142 g 14.33 mL
Dry Soil and soil
Wt. of Water 9g Volume of Soil 11 mL
Wt. of Dry Soil 22 g
Shrinkage Limit 13.64%
Water Content (MC) 40.91%
Table 4: Determination of Shrinkage Limit

COMPACTION
Determination of Optimum Moisture Content

Description Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3
Weight of mold 4,607 g 3,998 g
4,476 gm
(Wm)
Weight of mold
+ compacted soil 5,570 g 4,398 g
5,672 gm
(Wm+s)
Weight of
compacted soil (Ws) 1,196 gm 1,163 g 400 g
Volume of Mold
1,232 cm³ 940.50 cm³
904.78 cm³
Wet Unit
0.949 g/cm³ 0.425 g/cm³
Weight wet) 1.32 g/m³
Wt of tin cup
37 g 23 g 14 g
(Wc)
Wt. of tin cup + Wet
Soil 73 g 65 g
89 gm
(Wc+ws)
Wt. of tin cup and dry
soil 69 g 55 g
78 gm
(Wc+dc)
Wt. of water
11 gm 4g 10 g
(Ww)
Wt. of dry soil
(Wds) 41 gm 46 g 41 g
Water Content
(ω) 26.83% 8.7% 24.39%
Dry unit
weight (γdry) 0.97 g/cm³ 0.899 g/cm³ 0.3419 g/cm³
Optimum Moisture
Content (OMC) 26.83% 8.7% 24.39%
Table 5: Determination of Optimum Moisture Content

Figure 4: Compaction Curve
DESIGN STATISTICS
CALIFORNIA BEARING RATIO (CBR) TEST

CBR VALUE FOR ADMIXTURE ONLY
0% 5% 10% 15% 20%
31.331% 32.903% 2.575% 1.145% 1.002%
CBR VALUE FOR ADMIXTURE WITH MESH
0% 5% 10% 15% 20%
2.800% 6.130% 3.720% 4.578% 1.717%
Table 6: CBR Value for Admixture only and Admixture with Mesh
Results of California Bearing Ratio test for clayey soil stabilized with
Coconut fiber only and Coconut fiber with filter paper as mesh
40
35
30
25
CBR Value
20
15
10
0
0% 5% 10% 15% 20%
Admixture content in percent
Varying Percentage of Coconut fiber Varying Percentage of Coconut fiber with mesh
Figure 5 shows that the accepted CBR value for soil stabilized with coconut fiber as
admixture is obtained when 5% of the admixture is added to the clayey soil. It is therefore
concluded that by adding more coconut fiber as soil admixture to the clayey soil, the CBR value
is decreasing. Furthermore, the CBR value for soil stabilized with coconut fiber as admixture and
filter paper as mesh is obtained when 5% of the admixture is added to the clayey soil as well.
SPECIMEN NO. 1 – ZERO PERCENT (0%)

Diameter = 50 mm
Length = 100 mm
Area (A0) = 1963.50 mm2
Observation Calculation
Dial gauge Proving ring Corrected Compressive
Load in kg Strain Stress
Deformation Load in kN (𝜀 = ∆𝐿) Area
Reading (reading*5.88k 𝐴 𝑃
(∆L, mm) (P) 𝐿0
(𝐴𝑐 =
0
1− 𝜀
) 𝜎=
g) 𝐴
0.5 22 129.36 1.27 0.005 0.00197 643.24
1.0 70 411.6 4.04 0.01 0.00198 2036.38
1.5 75 441 4.33 0.015 0.00199 2170.82
2.0 76 446.88 4.38 0.02 0.00200 2188.60
2.5 73 429.24 4.21 0.025 0.00201 2091.48
3.0 70 411.6 4.04 0.03 0.00202 1995.24
3.5 68 399.84 3.92 0.035 0.00203 1928.25
4.0 61 358.68 3.52 0.04 0.00204 1720.79
4.5 52 305.76 3.00 0.045 0.00206 1459.26
5.0 0 0 0.00 0.05 0.00207 0.00
5.5 0 0 0.00 0.055 0.00208 0.00
6.0 0 0 0.00 0.06 0.00209 0.00
6.5 0 0 0.00 0.065 0.00210 0.00
7.0 0 0 0.00 0.07 0.00211 0.00
7.5 0 0 0.00 0.075 0.00212 0.00
8.0 0 0 0.00 0.08 0.00213 0.00
8.5 0 0 0.00 0.085 0.00215 0.00
9.0 0 0 0.00 0.09 0.00216 0.00
9.5 0 0 0.00 0.095 0.00217 0.00
10.0 0 0 0.00 0.1 0.00218 0.00
CBR Test Graph

3000
2500
Compressive Stress
2000
1500
1000
500
0
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.5 10
PENETRATION (mm)
Figure 6: Flow curve for 0% CBR Test

SPECIMEN NO. 2 – FIVE PERCENT ADMIXTURE ONLY (5%)

Diameter = 50 mm
Length = 100 mm
Area (A0) = 1963.50 mm2

Strain Stress
Deformation Load in kg Load in ∆𝐿 Area
Reading (𝜀 = ) 𝐴0 𝑃
(∆L, mm) (reading*5.88kg) kN (P) 𝐿0
(𝐴𝑐 =
1− 𝜀
) 𝜎=
𝐴
0.5 20 117.6 1.15 0.005 0.001973362 584.61
1.0 38 223.44 2.19 0.01 0.001983329 1105.19
1.5 55 323.4 3.17 0.015 0.001993396 1591.53
2.0 70 411.6 4.04 0.02 0.002003567 2015.30
2.5 90 529.2 5.19 0.025 0.002013841 2577.89
3.0 109 640.92 6.29 0.03 0.002024222 3106.09
3.5 120 705.6 6.92 0.035 0.00203471 3401.93
4.0 139 817.32 8.02 0.04 0.002045308 3920.15
4.5 145 852.6 8.36 0.045 0.002056016 4068.06
5.0 155 911.4 8.94 0.05 0.002066837 4325.85
5.5 165 970.2 9.52 0.055 0.002077773 4580.70
6.0 175 1029 10.09 0.06 0.002088825 4832.62
6.5 185 1087.8 10.67 0.065 0.002099995 5081.59
7.0 195 1146.6 11.25 0.07 0.002111285 5327.63
7.5 201 1181.88 11.59 0.075 0.002122698 5462.03
8.0 210 1234.8 12.11 0.08 0.002134234 5675.75
8.5 220 1293.6 12.69 0.085 0.002145897 5913.71
9.0 225 1323 12.98 0.09 0.002157687 6015.07
9.5 230 1352.4 13.27 0.095 0.002169608 6114.95
10.0 235 1381.8 13.56 0.1 0.002181662 6213.36
CBR Test Graph

7000
Compressive Stress
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.5 10
PENETRATION (mm)


Diameter = 50 mm
Length = 100 mm
Area (A0) = 1963.50 mm2

Strain Stress
(𝐴𝑐 =
1− 𝜀
) 𝜎=
𝐴
0.5 20 117.6 1.15 0.005 0.001973362 584.61
1.0 30 176.4 1.73 0.01 0.001983329 872.51
1.5 45 264.6 2.60 0.015 0.001993396 1302.16
2.0 55 323.4 3.17 0.02 0.002003567 1583.45
2.5 70 411.6 4.04 0.025 0.002013841 2005.02
3.0 79 464.52 4.56 0.03 0.002024222 2251.21
3.5 90 529.2 5.19 0.035 0.00203471 2551.45
4.0 100 588 5.77 0.04 0.002045308 2820.25
4.5 113 664.44 6.52 0.045 0.002056016 3170.28
5.0 125 735 7.21 0.05 0.002066837 3488.59
5.5 140 823.2 8.08 0.055 0.002077773 3886.66
6.0 150 882 8.65 0.06 0.002088825 4142.24
6.5 165 970.2 9.52 0.065 0.002099995 4532.23
7.0 180 1058.4 10.38 0.07 0.002111285 4917.81
7.5 190 1117.2 10.96 0.075 0.002122698 5163.11
8.0 210 1234.8 12.11 0.08 0.002134234 5675.75
8.5 225 1323 12.98 0.085 0.002145897 6048.12
9.0 240 1411.2 13.84 0.09 0.002157687 6416.07
9.5 248 1458.24 14.31 0.095 0.002169608 6593.51
10.0 258 1517.04 14.88 0.1 0.002181662 6821.48
CBR Test Graph

7000
Compressive Stress
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.5 10
PENETRATION (mm)


Diameter = 50 mm
Length = 100 mm
Area (A0) = 1963.50 mm2

Strain Stress
(𝐴𝑐 =
1− 𝜀
) 𝜎=
𝐴
0.5 20 117.6 1.15 0.005 0.001973362 584.61
1.0 30 176.4 1.73 0.01 0.001983329 872.51
1.5 45 264.6 2.60 0.015 0.001993396 1302.16
2.0 55 323.4 3.17 0.02 0.002003567 1583.45
2.5 70 411.6 4.04 0.025 0.002013841 2005.02
3.0 79 464.52 4.56 0.03 0.002024222 2251.21
3.5 90 529.2 5.19 0.035 0.00203471 2551.45
4.0 100 588 5.77 0.04 0.002045308 2820.25
4.5 113 664.44 6.52 0.045 0.002056016 3170.28
5.0 125 735 7.21 0.05 0.002066837 3488.59
5.5 165 970.2 9.52 0.055 0.002077773 4580.70
6.0 175 1029 10.09 0.06 0.002088825 4832.62
6.5 185 1087.8 10.67 0.065 0.002099995 5081.59
7.0 195 1146.6 11.25 0.07 0.002111285 5327.63
7.5 201 1181.88 11.59 0.075 0.002122698 5462.03
8.0 210 1234.8 12.11 0.08 0.002134234 5675.75
8.5 220 1293.6 12.69 0.085 0.002145897 5913.71
9.0 225 1323 12.98 0.09 0.002157687 6015.07
9.5 230 1352.4 13.27 0.095 0.002169608 6114.95
10.0 235 1381.8 13.56 0.1 0.002181662 6213.36
CBR Test Graph

7000
Compressive Stress
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.5 10
PENETRATION (mm)

SPECIMEN NO. 2 – FIVE PERCENT ADMIXTURE WITH MESH (5%)

Diameter = 50 mm
Length = 100 mm
Area (A0) = 1963.50 mm2

Strain Stress
(𝐴𝑐 =
1− 𝜀
) 𝜎=
𝐴
0.5 2 11.76 0.12 0.005 0.001973362 58.46
1.0 5 29.4 0.29 0.01 0.001983329 145.42
1.5 10 58.8 0.58 0.015 0.001993396 289.37
2.0 12 70.56 0.69 0.02 0.002003567 345.48
2.5 15 88.2 0.87 0.025 0.002013841 429.65
3.0 20 117.6 1.15 0.03 0.002024222 569.93
3.5 25 147 1.44 0.035 0.00203471 708.73
4.0 28 164.64 1.62 0.04 0.002045308 789.67
4.5 31 182.28 1.79 0.045 0.002056016 869.72
5.0 40 235.2 2.31 0.05 0.002066837 1116.35
5.5 45 264.6 2.60 0.055 0.002077773 1249.28
6.0 51 299.88 2.94 0.06 0.002088825 1408.36
6.5 59 346.92 3.40 0.065 0.002099995 1620.62
7.0 68 399.84 3.92 0.07 0.002111285 1857.84
7.5 80 470.4 4.61 0.075 0.002122698 2173.94
8.0 90 529.2 5.19 0.08 0.002134234 2432.47
8.5 100 588 5.77 0.085 0.002145897 2688.05
9.0 110 646.8 6.35 0.09 0.002157687 2940.70
9.5 120 705.6 6.92 0.095 0.002169608 3190.41
10.0 130 764.4 7.50 0.1 0.002181662 3437.18
CBR Test Graph

4000
Compressive Stress
3000
2000
1000
0
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.5 10
PENETRATION (mm)

Diameter = 50 mm
Length = 100 mm
Area (A0) = 1963.50 mm2

Strain Stress
(𝐴𝑐 =
1− 𝜀
) 𝜎=
𝐴
0.5 1 5.88 0.06 0.005 0.001973362 29.23
1.0 2 11.76 0.12 0.01 0.001983329 58.17
1.5 5 29.4 0.29 0.015 0.001993396 144.68
2.0 10 58.8 0.58 0.02 0.002003567 287.90
2.5 12 70.56 0.69 0.025 0.002013841 343.72
3.0 15 88.2 0.87 0.03 0.002024222 427.44
3.5 20 117.6 1.15 0.035 0.00203471 566.99
4.0 23 135.24 1.33 0.04 0.002045308 648.66
4.5 30 176.4 1.73 0.045 0.002056016 841.67
5.0 39 229.32 2.25 0.05 0.002066837 1088.44
5.5 45 264.6 2.60 0.055 0.002077773 1249.28
6.0 50 294 2.88 0.06 0.002088825 1380.75
6.5 60 352.8 3.46 0.065 0.002099995 1648.08
7.0 70 411.6 4.04 0.07 0.002111285 1912.48
7.5 80 470.4 4.61 0.075 0.002122698 2173.94
8.0 92 540.96 5.31 0.08 0.002134234 2486.52
8.5 105 617.4 6.06 0.085 0.002145897 2822.45
9.0 115 676.2 6.63 0.09 0.002157687 3074.37
9.5 125 735 7.21 0.095 0.002169608 3323.34
10.0 135 793.8 7.79 0.1 0.002181662 3569.38
CBR Test Graph

4000
Compressive Stress
3000
2000
1000
0
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.5 10
PENETRATION (mm)

Diameter = 50 mm
Length = 100 mm
Area (A0) = 1963.50 mm2

Strain Stress
Deformation Load in kg Load in (𝜀 = ∆𝐿) Area
Reading 𝐴0 𝑃
(𝐴𝑐 =
1− 𝜀
) 𝜎=
𝐴
0.5 2 11.76 0.12 0.005 0.001973362 58.46
1.0 5 29.4 0.29 0.01 0.001983329 145.42
1.5 7 41.16 0.40 0.015 0.001993396 202.56
2.0 10 58.8 0.58 0.02 0.002003567 287.90
2.5 15 88.2 0.87 0.025 0.002013841 429.65
3.0 18 105.84 1.04 0.03 0.002024222 512.93
3.5 21 123.48 1.21 0.035 0.00203471 595.34
4.0 28 164.64 1.62 0.04 0.002045308 789.67
4.5 31 182.28 1.79 0.045 0.002056016 869.72
5.0 40 235.2 2.31 0.05 0.002066837 1116.35
5.5 49 288.12 2.83 0.055 0.002077773 1360.33
6.0 55 323.4 3.17 0.06 0.002088825 1518.82
6.5 62 364.56 3.58 0.065 0.002099995 1703.02
7.0 70 411.6 4.04 0.07 0.002111285 1912.48
7.5 82 482.16 4.73 0.075 0.002122698 2228.29
8.0 90 529.2 5.19 0.08 0.002134234 2432.47
8.5 100 588 5.77 0.085 0.002145897 2688.05
9.0 105 617.4 6.06 0.09 0.002157687 2807.03
9.5 112 658.56 6.46 0.095 0.002169608 2977.71
10.0 120 705.6 6.92 0.1 0.002181662 3172.78
CBR Test Graph

4000
Compressive Stress
3000
2000
1000
0
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.5 10
PENETRATION (mm)
SPECIMEN NO. 3 – TEN PERCENT ADMIXTURE ONLY (10%)

Diameter = 50 mm
Length = 100 mm
Area (A0) = 1963.50 mm2

Strain Stress
(𝐴𝑐 =
1− 𝜀
) 𝜎=
𝐴
0.5 3 17.64 0.17 0.005 0.001973 87.69
1.0 5 29.4 0.29 0.01 0.001983 145.42
1.5 6 35.28 0.35 0.015 0.001993 173.62
2.0 6 35.28 0.35 0.02 0.002004 172.74
2.5 6 35.28 0.35 0.025 0.002014 171.86
3.0 6 35.28 0.35 0.03 0.002024 170.98
3.5 9 52.92 0.52 0.035 0.002035 255.14
4.0 9 52.92 0.52 0.04 0.002045 253.82
4.5 10 58.8 0.58 0.045 0.002056 280.56
5.0 10 58.8 0.58 0.05 0.002067 279.09
5.5 10 58.8 0.58 0.055 0.002078 277.62
6.0 10 58.8 0.58 0.06 0.002089 276.15
6.5 11 64.68 0.63 0.065 0.002100 302.15
7.0 13 76.44 0.75 0.07 0.002111 355.18
7.5 15 88.2 0.87 0.075 0.002123 407.61
8.0 18 105.84 1.04 0.08 0.002134 486.49
8.5 20 117.6 1.15 0.085 0.002146 537.61
9.0 21 123.48 1.21 0.09 0.002158 561.41
9.5 25 147 1.44 0.095 0.002170 664.67
10.0 26 152.88 1.50 0.1 0.002182 687.44
CBR Test Graph

700
Compressive Stress
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.5 10
PENETRATION (mm)

Diameter = 50 mm
Length = 100 mm
Area (A0) = 1963.50 mm2

Strain Stress
(𝐴𝑐 =
1− 𝜀
) 𝜎=
𝐴
0.5 1 5.88 0.06 0.005 0.001973 29.23
1.0 1 5.88 0.06 0.01 0.001983 29.08
1.5 3 17.64 0.17 0.015 0.001993 86.81
2.0 5 29.4 0.29 0.02 0.002004 143.95
2.5 6 35.28 0.35 0.025 0.002014 171.86
3.0 9 52.92 0.52 0.03 0.002024 256.47
3.5 10 58.8 0.58 0.035 0.002035 283.49
4.0 10 58.8 0.58 0.04 0.002045 282.03
4.5 11 64.68 0.63 0.045 0.002056 308.61
5.0 12 70.56 0.69 0.05 0.002067 334.90
5.5 15 88.2 0.87 0.055 0.002078 416.43
6.0 20 117.6 1.15 0.06 0.002089 552.30
6.5 20 117.6 1.15 0.065 0.002100 549.36
7.0 21 123.48 1.21 0.07 0.002111 573.74
7.5 22 129.36 1.27 0.075 0.002123 597.83
8.0 25 147 1.44 0.08 0.002134 675.69
8.5 27 158.76 1.56 0.085 0.002146 725.77
9.0 30 176.4 1.73 0.09 0.002158 802.01
9.5 32 188.16 1.85 0.095 0.002170 850.78
10.0 40 235.2 2.31 0.1 0.002182 1057.59
CBR Test Graph

1200
Compressive Stress
1000
800
600
400
200
0
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.5 10
PENETRATION (mm)

Diameter = 50 mm
Length = 100 mm
Area (A0) = 1963.50 mm2

Strain Stress
(𝐴𝑐 =
1− 𝜀
) 𝜎=
𝐴
0.5 1 5.88 0.06 0.005 0.001973 29.23
1.0 1 5.88 0.06 0.01 0.001983 29.08
1.5 3 17.64 0.17 0.015 0.001993 86.81
2.0 5 29.4 0.29 0.02 0.002004 143.95
2.5 6 35.28 0.35 0.025 0.002014 171.86
3.0 9 52.92 0.52 0.03 0.002024 256.47
3.5 10 58.8 0.58 0.035 0.002035 283.49
4.0 10 58.8 0.58 0.04 0.002045 282.03
4.5 11 64.68 0.63 0.045 0.002056 308.61
5.0 12 70.56 0.69 0.05 0.002067 334.90
5.5 15 88.2 0.87 0.055 0.002078 416.43
6.0 20 117.6 1.15 0.06 0.002089 552.30
6.5 20 117.6 1.15 0.065 0.002100 549.36
7.0 21 123.48 1.21 0.07 0.002111 573.74
7.5 22 129.36 1.27 0.075 0.002123 597.83
8.0 25 147 1.44 0.08 0.002134 675.69
8.5 27 158.76 1.56 0.085 0.002146 725.77
9.0 30 176.4 1.73 0.09 0.002158 802.01
9.5 32 188.16 1.85 0.095 0.002170 850.78
10.0 40 235.2 2.31 0.1 0.002182 1057.59
CBR Test Graph

1200
Compressive Stress
1000
800
600
400
200
0
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.5 10
PENETRATION (mm)
Figure 15: Flow curve for 10% CBR Test admixture only
SPECIMEN NO. 3 – TEN PERCENT ADMIXTURE WITH MESH (10%)

Diameter = 50 mm
Length = 100 mm
Area (A0) = 1963.50 mm2

Strain Stress
(𝐴𝑐 =
1− 𝜀
) 𝜎=
𝐴
0.5 5 29.4 0.29 0.005 0.001973 146.15
1.0 9 52.92 0.52 0.01 0.001983 261.75
1.5 10 58.8 0.58 0.015 0.001993 289.37
2.0 10 58.8 0.58 0.02 0.002004 287.90
2.5 11 64.68 0.63 0.025 0.002014 315.07
3.0 11 64.68 0.63 0.03 0.002024 313.46
3.5 13 76.44 0.75 0.035 0.002035 368.54
4.0 15 88.2 0.87 0.04 0.002045 423.04
4.5 16 94.08 0.92 0.045 0.002056 448.89
5.0 19 111.72 1.10 0.05 0.002067 530.27
5.5 20 117.6 1.15 0.055 0.002078 555.24
6.0 21 123.48 1.21 0.06 0.002089 579.91
6.5 23 135.24 1.33 0.065 0.002100 631.77
7.0 25 147 1.44 0.07 0.002111 683.03
7.5 30 176.4 1.73 0.075 0.002123 815.23
8.0 32 188.16 1.85 0.08 0.002134 864.88
8.5 35 205.8 2.02 0.085 0.002146 940.82
9.0 40 235.2 2.31 0.09 0.002158 1069.34
9.5 45 264.6 2.60 0.095 0.002170 1196.40
10.0 48 282.24 2.77 0.1 0.002182 1269.11
CBR Test Graph

1400
Compressive Stress
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.5 10
PENETRATION (mm)

Diameter = 50 mm
Length = 100 mm
Area (A0) = 1963.50 mm2

Strain Stress
(𝐴𝑐 =
1− 𝜀
) 𝜎=
𝐴
0.5 5 29.4 0.29 0.005 0.001973 146.15
1.0 9 52.92 0.52 0.01 0.001983 261.75
1.5 9 52.92 0.52 0.015 0.001993 260.43
2.0 9 52.92 0.52 0.02 0.002004 259.11
2.5 10 58.8 0.58 0.025 0.002014 286.43
3.0 10 58.8 0.58 0.03 0.002024 284.96
3.5 10 58.8 0.58 0.035 0.002035 283.49
4.0 11 64.68 0.63 0.04 0.002045 310.23
4.5 11 64.68 0.63 0.045 0.002056 308.61
5.0 13 76.44 0.75 0.05 0.002067 362.81
5.5 15 88.2 0.87 0.055 0.002078 416.43
6.0 16 94.08 0.92 0.06 0.002089 441.84
6.5 18 105.84 1.04 0.065 0.002100 494.43
7.0 20 117.6 1.15 0.07 0.002111 546.42
7.5 21 123.48 1.21 0.075 0.002123 570.66
8.0 22 129.36 1.27 0.08 0.002134 594.60
8.5 25 147 1.44 0.085 0.002146 672.01
9.0 30 176.4 1.73 0.09 0.002158 802.01
9.5 31 182.28 1.79 0.095 0.002170 824.19
10.0 35 205.8 2.02 0.1 0.002182 925.39
CBR Test Graph

1000
Compressive Stress
800
600
400
200
0
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.5 10
PENETRATION (mm)

Diameter = 50 mm
Length = 100 mm
Area (A0) = 1963.50 mm2

Strain Stress
(𝐴𝑐 =
1− 𝜀
) 𝜎=
𝐴
0.5 1 5.88 0.06 0.005 0.001973 29.23
1.0 1 5.88 0.06 0.01 0.001983 29.08
1.5 1 5.88 0.06 0.015 0.001993 28.94
2.0 3 17.64 0.17 0.02 0.002004 86.37
2.5 5 29.4 0.29 0.025 0.002014 143.22
3.0 6 35.28 0.35 0.03 0.002024 170.98
3.5 9 52.92 0.52 0.035 0.002035 255.14
4.0 10 58.8 0.58 0.04 0.002045 282.03
4.5 10 58.8 0.58 0.045 0.002056 280.56
5.0 11 64.68 0.63 0.05 0.002067 307.00
5.5 12 70.56 0.69 0.055 0.002078 333.14
6.0 15 88.2 0.87 0.06 0.002089 414.22
6.5 20 117.6 1.15 0.065 0.002100 549.36
7.0 21 123.48 1.21 0.07 0.002111 573.74
7.5 25 147 1.44 0.075 0.002123 679.36
8.0 29 170.52 1.67 0.08 0.002134 783.79
8.5 32 188.16 1.85 0.085 0.002146 860.18
9.0 35 205.8 2.02 0.09 0.002158 935.68
9.5 40 235.2 2.31 0.095 0.002170 1063.47
10.0 45 264.6 2.60 0.1 0.002182 1189.79
CBR Test Graph

1200
Compressive Stress
1000
800
600
400
200
0
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.5 10
PENETRATION (mm)
Figure 18: Flow curve for 10% CBR Test – admixture and mesh (Layer 1-2-3-4)
SPECIMEN NO. 4 – FIFTEEN PERCENT ADMIXTURE ONLY (15%)

Diameter = 50 mm
Length = 100 mm
Area (A0) = 1963.50 mm2

Strain Stress
(𝐴𝑐 =
1− 𝜀
) 𝜎=
𝐴
0.5 1 5.88 0.06 0.005 0.001973 29.23
1.0 1 5.88 0.06 0.01 0.001983 29.08
1.5 1 5.88 0.06 0.015 0.001993 28.94
2.0 2 11.76 0.12 0.02 0.002004 57.58
2.5 2 11.76 0.12 0.025 0.002014 57.29
3.0 5 29.4 0.29 0.03 0.002024 142.48
3.5 7 41.16 0.40 0.035 0.002035 198.45
4.0 8 47.04 0.46 0.04 0.002045 225.62
4.5 8 47.04 0.46 0.045 0.002056 224.44
5.0 10 58.8 0.58 0.05 0.002067 279.09
5.5 13 76.44 0.75 0.055 0.002078 360.90
6.0 15 88.2 0.87 0.06 0.002089 414.22
6.5 17 99.96 0.98 0.065 0.002100 466.96
7.0 17 99.96 0.98 0.07 0.002111 464.46
7.5 18 105.84 1.04 0.075 0.002123 489.14
8.0 18 105.84 1.04 0.08 0.002134 486.49
8.5 18 105.84 1.04 0.085 0.002146 483.85
9.0 20 117.6 1.15 0.09 0.002158 534.67
9.5 22 129.36 1.27 0.095 0.002170 584.91
10.0 25 147 1.44 0.1 0.002182 661.00
CBR Test Graph

COMPRESSIVE STRESS
620
520
420
320
220
120
20
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.5 10
PENETRATION (MM)

Diameter = 50 mm
Length = 100 mm
Area (A0) = 1963.50 mm2

Strain Stress
(𝐴𝑐 =
1− 𝜀
) 𝜎=
𝐴
0.5 1 5.88 0.06 0.005 0.001973 29.23
1.0 2 11.76 0.12 0.01 0.001983 58.17
1.5 2 11.76 0.12 0.015 0.001993 57.87
2.0 2 11.76 0.12 0.02 0.002004 57.58
2.5 3 17.64 0.17 0.025 0.002014 85.93
3.0 3 17.64 0.17 0.03 0.002024 85.49
3.5 4 23.52 0.23 0.035 0.002035 113.40
4.0 5 29.4 0.29 0.04 0.002045 141.01
4.5 5 29.4 0.29 0.045 0.002056 140.28
5.0 7 41.16 0.40 0.05 0.002067 195.36
5.5 8 47.04 0.46 0.055 0.002078 222.09
6.0 8 47.04 0.46 0.06 0.002089 220.92
6.5 9 52.92 0.52 0.065 0.002100 247.21
7.0 10 58.8 0.58 0.07 0.002111 273.21
7.5 11 64.68 0.63 0.075 0.002123 298.92
8.0 13 76.44 0.75 0.08 0.002134 351.36
8.5 13 76.44 0.75 0.085 0.002146 349.45
9.0 15 88.2 0.87 0.09 0.002158 401.00
9.5 18 105.84 1.04 0.095 0.002170 478.56
10.0 20 117.6 1.15 0.1 0.002182 528.80
CBR Test Graph

520
COMPRESSIVE STRESS
420
320
220
120
20
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.5 10
PENETRATION (MM)

Diameter = 50 mm
Length = 100 mm
Area (A0) = 1963.50 mm2

Strain Stress
(𝐴𝑐 =
1− 𝜀
) 𝜎=
𝐴
0.5 1 5.88 0.06 0.005 0.001973 29.23
1.0 2 11.76 0.12 0.01 0.001983 58.17
1.5 2 11.76 0.12 0.015 0.001993 57.87
2.0 2 11.76 0.12 0.02 0.002004 57.58
2.5 3 17.64 0.17 0.025 0.002014 85.93
3.0 3 17.64 0.17 0.03 0.002024 85.49
3.5 4 23.52 0.23 0.035 0.002035 113.40
4.0 5 29.4 0.29 0.04 0.002045 141.01
4.5 5 29.4 0.29 0.045 0.002056 140.28
5.0 7 41.16 0.40 0.05 0.002067 195.36
5.5 13 76.44 0.75 0.055 0.002078 360.90
6.0 15 88.2 0.87 0.06 0.002089 414.22
6.5 17 99.96 0.98 0.065 0.002100 466.96
7.0 17 99.96 0.98 0.07 0.002111 464.46
7.5 18 105.84 1.04 0.075 0.002123 489.14
8.0 18 105.84 1.04 0.08 0.002134 486.49
8.5 18 105.84 1.04 0.085 0.002146 483.85
9.0 20 117.6 1.15 0.09 0.002158 534.67
9.5 22 129.36 1.27 0.095 0.002170 584.91
10.0 25 147 1.44 0.1 0.002182 661.00
CBR Test Graph

COMPRESSIVE STRESS
625
525
425
325
225
125
25
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.5 10
PENETRATION (MM)
SPECIMEN NO. 4 – FIFTEEN PERCENT ADMIXTURE WITH MESH (15%)

Diameter = 50 mm
Length = 100 mm
Area (A0) = 1963.50 mm2

Strain Stress
(𝐴𝑐 =
1− 𝜀
) 𝜎=
𝐴
0.5 5 29.4 0.29 0.005 0.001973 146.15
1.0 5 29.4 0.29 0.01 0.001983 145.42
1.5 7 41.16 0.40 0.015 0.001993 202.56
2.0 10 58.8 0.58 0.02 0.002004 287.90
2.5 15 88.2 0.87 0.025 0.002014 429.65
3.0 15 88.2 0.87 0.03 0.002024 427.44
3.5 15 88.2 0.87 0.035 0.002035 425.24
4.0 17 99.96 0.98 0.04 0.002045 479.44
4.5 17 99.96 0.98 0.045 0.002056 476.95
5.0 18 105.84 1.04 0.05 0.002067 502.36
5.5 19 111.72 1.10 0.055 0.002078 527.47
6.0 20 117.6 1.15 0.06 0.002089 552.30
6.5 25 147 1.44 0.065 0.002100 686.70
7.0 25 147 1.44 0.07 0.002111 683.03
7.5 27 158.76 1.56 0.075 0.002123 733.71
8.0 28 164.64 1.62 0.08 0.002134 756.77
8.5 32 188.16 1.85 0.085 0.002146 860.18
9.0 34 199.92 1.96 0.09 0.002158 908.94
9.5 34 199.92 1.96 0.095 0.002170 903.95
10.0 35 205.8 2.02 0.1 0.002182 925.39
CBR Test Graph

920
COMPRESSIVE STRESS
820
720
620
520
420
320
220
120
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.5 10
PENETRATION (MM)

Diameter = 50 mm
Length = 100 mm
Area (A0) = 1963.50 mm2

Strain Stress
(𝐴𝑐 =
1− 𝜀
) 𝜎=
𝐴
0.5 3 17.64 0.17 0.005 0.001973 87.69
1.0 3 17.64 0.17 0.01 0.001983 87.25
1.5 4 23.52 0.23 0.015 0.001993 115.75
2.0 5 29.4 0.29 0.02 0.002004 143.95
2.5 7 41.16 0.40 0.025 0.002014 200.50
3.0 7 41.16 0.40 0.03 0.002024 199.47
3.5 8 47.04 0.46 0.035 0.002035 226.80
4.0 9 52.92 0.52 0.04 0.002045 253.82
4.5 13 76.44 0.75 0.045 0.002056 364.72
5.0 15 88.2 0.87 0.05 0.002067 418.63
5.5 15 88.2 0.87 0.055 0.002078 416.43
6.0 18 105.84 1.04 0.06 0.002089 497.07
6.5 21 123.48 1.21 0.065 0.002100 576.83
7.0 25 147 1.44 0.07 0.002111 683.03
7.5 27 158.76 1.56 0.075 0.002123 733.71
8.0 27 158.76 1.56 0.08 0.002134 729.74
8.5 29 170.52 1.67 0.085 0.002146 779.53
9.0 30 176.4 1.73 0.09 0.002158 802.01
9.5 30 176.4 1.73 0.095 0.002170 797.60
10.0 31 182.28 1.79 0.1 0.002182 819.64
CBR Test Graph

880
COMPRESSIVE STRESS
780
680
580
480
380
280
180
80
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.5 10
PENETRATION (MM)

Diameter = 50 mm
Length = 100 mm
Area (A0) = 1963.50 mm2

Strain Stress
(𝐴𝑐 =
1− 𝜀
) 𝜎=
𝐴
0.5 1 5.88 0.06 0.005 0.001973 29.23
1.0 1 5.88 0.06 0.01 0.001983 29.08
1.5 3 17.64 0.17 0.015 0.001993 86.81
2.0 5 29.4 0.29 0.02 0.002004 143.95
2.5 6 35.28 0.35 0.025 0.002014 171.86
3.0 10 58.8 0.58 0.03 0.002024 284.96
3.5 12 70.56 0.69 0.035 0.002035 340.19
4.0 15 88.2 0.87 0.04 0.002045 423.04
4.5 16 94.08 0.92 0.045 0.002056 448.89
5.0 18 105.84 1.04 0.05 0.002067 502.36
5.5 21 123.48 1.21 0.055 0.002078 583.00
6.0 22 129.36 1.27 0.06 0.002089 607.53
6.5 25 147 1.44 0.065 0.002100 686.70
7.0 28 164.64 1.62 0.07 0.002111 764.99
7.5 29 170.52 1.67 0.075 0.002123 788.05
8.0 31 182.28 1.79 0.08 0.002134 837.85
8.5 32 188.16 1.85 0.085 0.002146 860.18
9.0 35 205.8 2.02 0.09 0.002158 935.68
9.5 37 217.56 2.13 0.095 0.002170 983.71
10.0 38 223.44 2.19 0.1 0.002182 1004.71
CBR Test Graph

1020
COMPRESSIVE STRESS
920
820
720
620
520
420
320
220
120
20
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.5 10
PENETRATION (MM)
SPECIMEN NO. 5 – TWENTY PERCENT ADMIXTURE ONLY (20%)

Diameter = 50 mm
Length = 100 mm
Area (A0) = 1963.50 mm2

Strain Stress
(𝐴𝑐 =
1− 𝜀
) 𝜎=
𝐴
0.5 1 5.88 0.06 0.005 0.001973 29.23
1.0 1 5.88 0.06 0.01 0.001983 29.08
1.5 1 5.88 0.06 0.015 0.001993 28.94
2.0 1 5.88 0.06 0.02 0.002004 28.79
2.5 1 5.88 0.06 0.025 0.002014 28.64
3.0 2 11.76 0.12 0.03 0.002024 56.99
3.5 2 11.76 0.12 0.035 0.002035 56.70
4.0 5 29.4 0.29 0.04 0.002045 141.01
4.5 5 29.4 0.29 0.045 0.002056 140.28
5.0 6 35.28 0.35 0.05 0.002067 167.45
5.5 7 41.16 0.40 0.055 0.002078 194.33
6.0 8 47.04 0.46 0.06 0.002089 220.92
6.5 8 47.04 0.46 0.065 0.002100 219.74
7.0 9 52.92 0.52 0.07 0.002111 245.89
7.5 11 64.68 0.63 0.075 0.002123 298.92
8.0 15 88.2 0.87 0.08 0.002134 405.41
8.5 8 47.04 0.46 0.085 0.002146 215.04
9.0 7 41.16 0.40 0.09 0.002158 187.14
9.5 4 23.52 0.23 0.095 0.002170 106.35
10.0 0 0 0.00 0.1 0.002182 0.00
CBR Test Graph

COMPRESSIVE STRESS
525
425
325
225
125
25
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.5 10
PENETRATION (MM)

Diameter = 50 mm
Length = 100 mm
Area (A0) = 1963.50 mm2

Strain Stress
(𝐴𝑐 =
1− 𝜀
) 𝜎=
𝐴
0.5 0 0 0.00 0.005 0.001973 0.00
1.0 1 5.88 0.06 0.01 0.001983 29.08
1.5 1 5.88 0.06 0.015 0.001993 28.94
2.0 2 11.76 0.12 0.02 0.002004 57.58
2.5 3 17.64 0.17 0.025 0.002014 85.93
3.0 3 17.64 0.17 0.03 0.002024 85.49
3.5 5 29.4 0.29 0.035 0.002035 141.75
4.0 6 35.28 0.35 0.04 0.002045 169.22
4.5 7 41.16 0.40 0.045 0.002056 196.39
5.0 7 41.16 0.40 0.05 0.002067 195.36
5.5 8 47.04 0.46 0.055 0.002078 222.09
6.0 9 52.92 0.52 0.06 0.002089 248.53
6.5 14 82.32 0.81 0.065 0.002100 384.55
7.0 12 70.56 0.69 0.07 0.002111 327.85
7.5 11 64.68 0.63 0.075 0.002123 298.92
8.0 13 76.44 0.75 0.08 0.002134 351.36
8.5 7 41.16 0.40 0.085 0.002146 188.16
9.0 5 29.4 0.29 0.09 0.002158 133.67
9.5 0 0 0.00 0.095 0.002170 0.00
10.0 0 0 0.00 0.1 0.002182 0.00
CBR Test Graph

620
520
COMPRESSIVE STRESS
420
320
220
120
20
-80 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.5 10
PENETRATION (MM)

Diameter = 50 mm
Length = 100 mm
Area (A0) = 1963.50 mm2

Strain Stress
(𝐴𝑐 =
1− 𝜀
) 𝜎=
𝐴
0.5 0 0 0.00 0.005 0.001973 0.00
1.0 1 5.88 0.06 0.01 0.001983 29.08
1.5 1 5.88 0.06 0.015 0.001993 28.94
2.0 2 11.76 0.12 0.02 0.002004 57.58
2.5 3 17.64 0.17 0.025 0.002014 85.93
3.0 3 17.64 0.17 0.03 0.002024 85.49
3.5 5 29.4 0.29 0.035 0.002035 141.75
4.0 6 35.28 0.35 0.04 0.002045 169.22
4.5 7 41.16 0.40 0.045 0.002056 196.39
5.0 7 41.16 0.40 0.05 0.002067 195.36
5.5 7 41.16 0.40 0.055 0.002078 194.33
6.0 8 47.04 0.46 0.06 0.002089 220.92
6.5 8 47.04 0.46 0.065 0.002100 219.74
7.0 9 52.92 0.52 0.07 0.002111 245.89
7.5 11 64.68 0.63 0.075 0.002123 298.92
8.0 15 88.2 0.87 0.08 0.002134 405.41
8.5 8 47.04 0.46 0.085 0.002146 215.04
9.0 7 41.16 0.40 0.09 0.002158 187.14
9.5 4 23.52 0.23 0.095 0.002170 106.35
10.0 0 0 0.00 0.1 0.002182 0.00
CBR Test Graph

610
510
COMPRESSIVE STRESS
410
310
210
110
10
-90 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.5 10
PENETRATION (MM)
SPECIMEN NO. 5 – TWENTY PERCENT ADMIXTURE WITH MESH (20%)

Diameter = 50 mm
Length = 100 mm
Area (A0) = 1963.50 mm2

Strain Stress
(𝐴𝑐 =
1− 𝜀
) 𝜎=
𝐴
0.5 2 11.76 0.12 0.005 0.001973 58.46
1.0 2 11.76 0.12 0.01 0.001983 58.17
1.5 3 17.64 0.17 0.015 0.001993 86.81
2.0 4 23.52 0.23 0.02 0.002004 115.16
2.5 5 29.4 0.29 0.025 0.002014 143.22
3.0 5 29.4 0.29 0.03 0.002024 142.48
3.5 6 35.28 0.35 0.035 0.002035 170.10
4.0 7 41.16 0.40 0.04 0.002045 197.42
4.5 7 41.16 0.40 0.045 0.002056 196.39
5.0 8 47.04 0.46 0.05 0.002067 223.27
5.5 10 58.8 0.58 0.055 0.002078 277.62
6.0 11 64.68 0.63 0.06 0.002089 303.76
6.5 12 70.56 0.69 0.065 0.002100 329.62
7.0 13 76.44 0.75 0.07 0.002111 355.18
7.5 17 99.96 0.98 0.075 0.002123 461.96
8.0 15 88.2 0.87 0.08 0.002134 405.41
8.5 13 76.44 0.75 0.085 0.002146 349.45
9.0 10 58.8 0.58 0.09 0.002158 267.34
9.5 9 52.92 0.52 0.095 0.002170 239.28
10.0 9 52.92 0.52 0.1 0.002182 237.96
CBR Test Graph

755
COMPRESSIVE STRESS
655
555
455
355
255
155
55
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.5 10
PENETRATION (MM)

Diameter = 50 mm
Length = 100 mm
Area (A0) = 1963.50 mm2

Strain Stress
(𝐴𝑐 =
1− 𝜀
) 𝜎=
𝐴
0.5 2 11.76 0.12 0.005 0.001973 58.46
1.0 2 11.76 0.12 0.01 0.001983 58.17
1.5 3 17.64 0.17 0.015 0.001993 86.81
2.0 4 23.52 0.23 0.02 0.002004 115.16
2.5 4 23.52 0.23 0.025 0.002014 114.57
3.0 5 29.4 0.29 0.03 0.002024 142.48
3.5 9 52.92 0.52 0.035 0.002035 255.14
4.0 12 70.56 0.69 0.04 0.002045 338.43
4.5 12 70.56 0.69 0.045 0.002056 336.67
5.0 15 88.2 0.87 0.05 0.002067 418.63
5.5 18 105.84 1.04 0.055 0.002078 499.71
6.0 18 105.84 1.04 0.06 0.002089 497.07
6.5 19 111.72 1.10 0.065 0.002100 521.89
7.0 22 129.36 1.27 0.07 0.002111 601.07
7.5 20 117.6 1.15 0.075 0.002123 543.49
8.0 18 105.84 1.04 0.08 0.002134 486.49
8.5 14 82.32 0.81 0.085 0.002146 376.33
9.0 9 52.92 0.52 0.09 0.002158 240.60
9.5 8 47.04 0.46 0.095 0.002170 212.69
10.0 8 47.04 0.46 0.1 0.002182 211.52
CBR Test Graph

750
COMPRESSIVE STRESS
650
550
450
350
250
150
50
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.5 10
PENETRATION (MM)

Diameter = 50 mm
Length = 100 mm
Area (A0) = 1963.50 mm2

Strain Stress
(𝐴𝑐 =
1− 𝜀
) 𝜎=
𝐴
0.5 1 5.88 0.06 0.005 0.001973 29.23
1.0 1 5.88 0.06 0.01 0.001983 29.08
1.5 2 11.76 0.12 0.015 0.001993 57.87
2.0 3 17.64 0.17 0.02 0.002004 86.37
2.5 3 17.64 0.17 0.025 0.002014 85.93
3.0 3 17.64 0.17 0.03 0.002024 85.49
3.5 5 29.4 0.29 0.035 0.002035 141.75
4.0 7 41.16 0.40 0.04 0.002045 197.42
4.5 9 52.92 0.52 0.045 0.002056 252.50
5.0 13 76.44 0.75 0.05 0.002067 362.81
5.5 15 88.2 0.87 0.055 0.002078 416.43
6.0 18 105.84 1.04 0.06 0.002089 497.07
6.5 22 129.36 1.27 0.065 0.002100 604.30
7.0 20 117.6 1.15 0.07 0.002111 546.42
7.5 18 105.84 1.04 0.075 0.002123 489.14
8.0 17 99.96 0.98 0.08 0.002134 459.47
8.5 15 88.2 0.87 0.085 0.002146 403.21
9.0 10 58.8 0.58 0.09 0.002158 267.34
9.5 9 52.92 0.52 0.095 0.002170 239.28
10.0 7 41.16 0.40 0.1 0.002182 185.08
CBR Test Graph

925
COMPRESSIVE STRESS
825
725
625
525
425
325
225
125
25
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.5 10
PENETRATION (MM)
CBR VALUE FOR ADMIXTURE ONLY

0% 5% 10% 15% 20%
31.331% 32.903% 2.575% 1.145% 1.002%
CBR VALUE FOR ADMIXTURE WITH MESH
0% 5% 10% 15% 20%
2.800% 6.130% 3.720% 4.578% 1.717%
Table 32: CBR Values for Admixture Only and Admixture with Mesh
Results of California Bearing Ratio test for clayey soil stabilized with
Coconut fiber only and Coconut fiber with filter paper as mesh
40
35
30
25
CBR Value
20
15
10
0
0% 5% 10% 15% 20%
Admixture content in percent
Varying Percentage of Coconut fiber Varying Percentage of Coconut fiber with mesh

Figure 31 shows that the accepted CBR value for soil stabilized with coconut fiber as
admixture is obtained when 5% of the admixture is added to the clayey soil. It is therefore
concluded that by adding more coconut fiber as admixture to the clayey soil, the CBR value is
decreasing. Furthermore, the CBR value for soil stabilized with coconut fiber as admixture and
filter paper as mesh is obtained when 5% of the admixture is added to the clayey soil as well.
Hence, throughout this design experiment, we can conclude that adding five percent (5%)
of coconut fiber in the total mass of your soil sample is recommendable to use as soil admixture
for additional compressive stress. On the other hand, although there’s a significant difference in
soil compressive stress in zero percent (0%) admixture with mesh and five percent (5%) admixture
with mesh, it is still not recommendable to use filter paper as mesh for soil stabilization as it has a
low CBR value.
ANOVA STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
ANOVA: two-factor without replication
Dependent Variable: Soil compressive strength/ CBR Value
Independent Variable:
Soil with coconut (coir) fiber as admixture (5%-20%)
Soil with coconut (coir) fiber as admixture and filter paper as mesh (5%-20%)
Assigned value of alpha = 0.05
CBR VALUES IN VARYING PERCENTAGE

0% 5% 10% 15% 20%
Soil with admixture 31.331 32.903 2.575 1.145 1.002
Soil with admixture and
mesh 2.8 6.13 3.72 4.578 1.717
Table 33: CBR Values in varying percentage
SUMMARY Count Sum Average Variance

Row 1 5 0.5 0.1 0.00625
Row 2 5 68.956 13.7912 280.5497
Row 3 5 18.945 3.789 2.844717
Column 1 3 34.131 11.377 300.5816

Column 2 3 39.083 13.02767 305.5133
Column 3 3 6.395 2.131667 3.423508
Column 4 3 5.873 1.957667 5.397116
Column 5 3 2.919 0.973 0.575953
Source of Variation SS df MS F P-value F crit

Rows 501.8361 2 250.9181 2.753005 0.123098 4.45897
Columns 404.4558 4 101.114 1.109395 0.415445 3.837853
Error 729.1467 8 91.14334
Total 1635.439 14
As shown in the statistical analysis table above, the P value in Table 34.2 is greater than our
assigned value of alpha which tells us that our null hypothesis is accepted wherein there’s a great
significant difference in terms of compressive strength in using coconut fiber as admixture and
filter paper as mesh in soil as reinforcement.

V. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
All throughout the process of this design of experiment, we conclude that there’s a great
significant difference in using coconut fiber as admixture and filter paper as mesh as soil
reinforcement.
Furthermore, our study found that the best result for soil stabilized with coconut fiber as
admixture is obtained when 5% of the admixture is added to the clayey soil. By adding more
coconut fiber as admixture to the clayey soil, the CBR value is decreasing. Furthermore, the CBR
value for soil stabilized with coconut fiber as admixture and filter paper as mesh is obtained when
5% of the admixture is added to the clayey soil as well.
Hence, throughout this design experiment, we can conclude that adding five percent (5%)
of coconut fiber in the total mass of your soil sample is recommendable to use as soil admixture
for additional compressive stress. On the other hand, although there’s a significant difference in
soil compressive stress in zero percent (0%) admixture with mesh and five percent (5%) admixture
with mesh, it is still not recommendable to use filter paper as mesh for soil stabilization as it has a
low CBR value. Also, the researchers recommend to consider using different material or paper for
the mesh since using filter paper is a bit costly and is not economical in large-scale projects or
earthworks.
VI. DOCUMENTATION:

SIEVE ANALYSIS
COMPACTION
LIQUID LIMIT
SHRINKAGE LIMIT
PLASTIC LIMIT
CALIFORNIA BEARING RATIO

CALIFORNIA BEARING RATIO (0%)

REFERENCES
https://www.statisticshowto.datasciencecentral.com/probability-and-statistics/hypothesis-
testing/anova/
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324819858_Utilization_of_Coconut_Coir_Fibr
e_For_Improving_Subgrade_Strength_Characteristics_Of_Clayey_Sand
https://www.constructiontest.org/cbr-test-of-soil-procedure-calculation-graph/
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/277774490_Effect_of_coir_fibre_and_lime_on
_geotechnical_properties_of_marine_clay_soil
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/315463042_Coconut_fibre-reinforced_cement-
stabilized_rammed_earth_blocks
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/8ace/c2bb8906a1eff9158bab09eacf30b38dad7e.pdf
APPENDIX A
CURRICULUM
VITAE
Aborita, Danielle Joyce S.

Blk 19 Lot 10 Sto. Tomas st. Guadanoville Subdivision Brgy.
183 Caloocan City
0998-491-0592
danielle.aborita22@gmail.com
Personal Information
Birthday: January 11, 1997
Birthplace: Caloocan City
Age: 22
Religion: Roman Catholic
Civil Status: Single
Educational Attainment
Tertiary: Technological Institute of the Philippines, Quezon City
Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering
2017-present
Mapua University
Bachelor of Science in Construction Engineering and Management
2014-2017
Secondary: Manuel Luis Quezon High School
2010-2014
Elementary: Gregoria De Jesus Elementary School
2004-2010
Aleman, Gloremay Ann, O.

Phase 1 Blk. 21 Lot 2 Eastwood Residence, Brgy. San Isidro,
Rodriguez Rizal
0912-408-1396
agloremayaleman@gmail.com
Birthday: May 17, 1999
Birthplace: San Lorenzo Ruiz, Taytay, Rizal
Age: 20
2016-present
Polytechnic University of the Philippines, Sta.Mesa, Manila
Bachelor in Advertising and Public Relations
2015-2016
Secondary: Roosevelt College Rodriguez
2011-2015
Elementary: Star of Hope, Christian School
2005-2011
Acopio, Danmark Joseph O.

113 Unit 3-B Paraiso St., Parang, Marikina City
0906-343-4070
djoacopio@gmail.com
Birthday: September 23, 1996
Birthplace: Quezon City, Metro Manila
Age: 23
Religion: Christian
2015-present
Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Marikina
Bachelor of Science in Information Technology
2013-2014
Secondary: Sta. Elena High School, Marikina City
2009-2013
Elementary: Sto. Nino Elementary School, Marikina City
2003-2009
Abraham, Joshua P.
Blk 10 Lot 5j Pigeon Alley Street Batasan Hills Quezon City
0936-824-8450
Joshuaabraham66@gmail.com
Birthday: May 12, 1998
Age: 21
2014-present
Secondary: Batasan Hills National High School
2010-2014
Elementary: Batasan Hills Elementary School
2004-2010
Anduque, Sheena Paula A.

#39 Sitio Lumang Ilog St. Brgy. Evangelista Baras, Rizal
0995-792-7708
sheenaanduque@gmail.com
Birthday: June 03, 1996
Birthplace: Baras, Rizal
Age: 23
2018-present
Technological Institute of the Philippines, Manila

2015-2017
University of the East, Manila
2013 – 2014
Secondary: Saint Joseph Parish School

2009-2013
Elementary: Saint Joseph Parish School

2004-2009
APPENDIX B
REFLECTION
PAPER
The civil engineering structures like building, bridge, highway, tunnel, dam, tower, etc. are
founded below or on the surface of the earth. For their stability, suitable foundation soil is required.
To check the suitability of soil to be used as foundation or as construction materials, its properties
are required to be assessed. As per different researchers, geotechnical properties of subsoil at
project site is necessary for generating relevant input data for design and construction of
foundations for the proposed structures. Some have stated that proper design and construction of
civil engineering structures prevent an adverse environmental impact or structural failure or post
construction problems.
Soil as defined by wikipedia is a mixture of organic matter minerals, gases, liquids, and
organisms that together support life. Thus, as a reflection in our daily lives as a civil engineering
student for us to become and deserve to be a licensed civil engineer, we need to dedicate a more
than enough effort and time in studying and understanding soil for it will dictate the output of our
future project as a Civil Engineer.
In addition, all throughout the semester in the course Soil Mechanics under Engr. Jennifer
Camino, we also have learnt the importance of studying soil as the foundation – most important
factor in building your structure aside from the proper design and construction of civil engineering
structures. When the foundations of any structure are constructed on compressible soil, it leads to
settlement. Knowledge of the rate at which the compression of the soil takes place is essential from
design consideration. The properties of the soil such as plasticity, compressibility or strength of
the soil always affect the design in the construction. Lack of understanding of the properties of the
soil can lead to the construction errors. The suitability of soil for a particular use should be
determined based on its engineering characteristics and not on visual inspection or apparent
similarity to other soils. The loading capability of soil depends upon the type of soil. Furthermore,
as studying soil mechanics is complicated, our professor, Engr. Camino discuss it in a less
complicated way and easier to understand.

Ce401 - Group 1-Final Doe PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ce401 - Group 1-Final Doe PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Design of Experiment

Major Design of Experiment (DoE) Experience Information

CE 401 Soil Mechanics

1st Semester, SY 2019-2020

ABORITA, DANIELLE JOYCE S.

In most cases, CBR decreases as the penetration increases. The ratio at

forced to a tighter state in order to achieve a higher unit weight and

A Two Way ANOVA is an extension of the One Way ANOVA. With

Factorial ANOVA is an efficient way of conducting a test. Instead of

(ASTM) of soil using 25 blows by a 5.5 lb hammer falling 12 inches, for a

TECHNOLOGICAL INSTITUTE OF THE PHILIPPINES

CIVIL ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT

ABORITA, DANIELLE JOYCE S.

OCTOBER 18, 2019

Figure 6: Flow curve for 0% CBR Test

Table 5: Determination of Optimum Moisture Content

As stabilization of soil improves its engineering properties, mechanical stabilization

I. BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY

tension crack or translational slip when deformation is large enough.

reduced swelling tendency of the soil (Subaida et al. [12]).

EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN OBJECTIVES

This Design of Experiment aims to:

(coir) fiber and filter paper as a material for stabilizing soil.

SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS

The results undertaken was limited to the following experimental works:

 Particle size distribution by Sieve Analysis

content (OMC) of the soil by Proctor compaction test

 Determination of soil consistency properties (Atterberg’s Limits)

 Determination of the compressive strength capacity of soil by unconfined compression

test (UCS) and California Bearing Ratio (CBR) test.

Null Hypothesis (H0)

There's a significant difference in terms of compressive strength in using coconut fiber as

admixture and filter paper as mesh in soil as reinforcement.

Alternative Hypothesis (H1)

There's NO significant difference in terms of compressive strength in using coconut fiber

as admixture and filter paper as mesh in soil as reinforcement.

Figure 1: Theoretical Framework

II. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND STUDIES

the soil (Subaida et al. [12]).

thinking and provides low-cost, as well as environmentally-friendly defense structures. (Vivi

Anggraini et.al, 2014)

Furthermore, in some studies, coconut fiber is most commonly tested as reinforcement in

Other experimental investigation involving coconut fiber as an admixture for soil

produce a strong bond of the particles of the soil.

PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS

SOIL CONSISTENCY LIMITS

Plastic Limit Test

Shinkage Limit Test

Vwax = (mdry+wax - mdry) wax

CALIFORNIA BEARING RATIO

IV. DATA AND RESULTS

PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS

Sieve Analysis of Coarse-grained Soil

Table 1: Sieve Analysis Data

Figure 2: Particle Distribution Curve

SOIL CONSISTENCY LIMIT

Determination of the Liquid Limit

Table 2: Determination of Liquid Limit

Figure 3: Flow Curve for Liquid Limit

Determination of Plastic Limit

Table 3: Determination of Plastic Limit

DETERMINATION OF SHRINKAGE LIMIT

Table 4: Determination of Shrinkage Limit