TECHNOLOGICAL INSTITUTE OF THE PHILIPPINES

938 Aurora Boulevard, Cubao, Quezon City

COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND ARCHITECTURE

Civil Engineering Department

CE 510
Foundation Engineering

Design of Experiment (DoE)

STABILIZING CLAY SOIL USING CHARCOAL AS AN ADDITIVE THROUGH CALIFORNIA BEARING

RATIO TEST

SUBMITTED BY:
DE GUZMAN, Ave C.
FERNANDEZ, Dakilah B.
PORLEY, Neil Andrei
REYES, Renz Lester F.
TUAZON, Christine S.

SUBMITTED TO:
Engr. Jerome Z. Tadiosa
Instructor

March 2020
ACADEMIC INTEGRITY PLEDGE

I swear on my honor that I did not use any inappropriate aid, nor provide such to others, to accomplish this
coursework.

(Signature of the Student)

(Signature of the Student)

(Signature of the Student)

(Signature of the Student)

(Signature of the Student)

 ABSTRACT
Researchers say that adding charcoal to soil may provide more benefits for long-term soil quality than
compost or manure. It could also be used to sequester carbon captured from carbon dioxide emissions.

Application of organic fertilizers and charcoal increase nutrient stocks in the rooting zone of crops, reduce
nutrient leaching and thus improve crop production on acid and highly weathered tropical soils.
Researchers use California Bearing Ratio (CBR) test to measure of resistance of a material to penetration
of standard plunger under controlled density and moisture conditions. 

This experiment was conducted to stabilize road surface material with high carbon fly ash or charcoal. The
non-cementitious soil was activated with another recycled material. California bearing ratio (CBR) and
resilient modulus tests were conducted to determine the strength and stiffness, respectively, of the
stabilized materials.

Addition of LKD and curing of specimens generally increased CBR and summary resilient modulus (SMR)
and lowered plastic strains, whereas charcoal addition alone decreased the strength and stiffness due to
the non-cementitious nature of the ash. However, these parameters could not be correlated with the SMR.
The unpaved road materials stabilized with LKD and charcoal is expected to lose 31 to 67% of their initial
moduli after twelve cycles of freezing and thawing. Finally, required base thicknesses were calculated using
the laboratory-based strength parameters and using California Bearing Ratio.
 Table of Contents
ABSTRACT.......................................................................................................................................................3
Table of Contents..............................................................................................................................................4
CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................................................1
1.1 Project Background................................................................................................................................1
1.2 Statement of Problem.............................................................................................................................2
1.3 Objectives...............................................................................................................................................2
1.3.1 General Objectives..........................................................................................................................2
1.3.2 Specific Objectives..........................................................................................................................2
1.4 Significance of the Study........................................................................................................................3
1.5 Scope and Limitation..............................................................................................................................3
1.6 Framework of the Study.........................................................................................................................3
1.6.1 Conceptual Frameworks.................................................................................................................3
1.6.2 Methodological Frameworks...........................................................................................................3
CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW..............................................................................................................6
CHAPTER III: METHODOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK........................................................................................7
3.1 Methodological Frameworks...................................................................................................................7
3.2 Data Collection.......................................................................................................................................7
3.3 Method of Analysis...............................................................................................................................12
CHAPTER IV: EXPECTED RESULT OUTPUTS...........................................................................................15
REFERENCES................................................................................................................................................21
APPENDICES.................................................................................................................................................22
 List of Figures

Figure 1: Charcoal.............................................................................................................................................2
Figure 2: Conceptual Framework......................................................................................................................4
Figure 3: Flowchart...........................................................................................................................................5
Figure 4: California Bearing Ratio Testing Machine (Source: google).............................................................8
Figure 5: California Bearing Ratio Machine....................................................................................................10
Figure 6: California Bearing Ratio Machine Flowchart...................................................................................11
Figure 7: Comparison of Shear Strength Percentage....................................................................................19
Figure 8: Graph of Shear Strength of Soil Sample without Charcoal Additive...............................................19
 List of Tables

Table 1: Typical Values...................................................................................................................................13

Table 2: Optimum Moisture Content Tabulated Result (Soil sample without charcoal).................................15
Table 3: California Bearing Ratio Test Result (Soil sample without charcoal)...............................................15
Table 4: Optimum Moisture Content Tabulated Result (Soil sample with charcoal)......................................17
Table 5: California Bearing Ratio Test Result (Soil sample with charcoal)....................................................18
 CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION

1.1 Project Background

Soil stabilization has been one of the recommended methods to improve subgrade soils. Compacted clays
with low hydraulic conductivity are commonly used as a waste containment material. An important property
of compacted clay is desiccation cracking as it will cause cracks in soil liners consequently reducing the
sealing effect of the containment system dramatically. Subgrade is a very important part to support all
construction loads on it. If the soil subgrade has properties that are not profitable, such as CBR (California
Bearing Ratio) low and high swelling so that when applied to the construction of a dirt road, the land base
will easily damage. For that if used in the construction of CBR value should be towering so that it can
withstand a load on it. The swelling will reduce the volume of soil that is stable when it rains, it is not
swollen, otherwise when the dry season does not shrink too high so that the cracks in the road can be
reduced or eliminated.

The purpose of soil stabilization is to improve the physical properties, mechanical and increase the carrying
capacity of the land that will be taken into account in the planning pavement. Therefore, soil stabilization
requires the planning and implementation of an accurate method of soil change for the better. Charcoal has
been known as one of the good soil stabilization materials.

Compaction is a process by which the air in the pores of the soil removed by mechanical means to achieve
the density requirements. Soil density is usually measured in dry unit weight, not by the number of pores.
The dry unit weight great it is mean that the number of smaller pores and higher compaction. California
Bearing Ratio Test (CBR) was developed as a way to assess the strength of the foundation soil, so that we
can know the materials that will be used for the manufacture of pavement. California Bearing Ratio (CBR)
values calculated at the rate of penetration of 0.1 "and 0.2" by dividing each penetration load standards
3000-and 4500-pound load obtained from experiments on a wide crushed stone considered to have a
California Bearing Ratio (CBR) 100%. Experiments C.B.R. can be performed on samples of native soil or
compacted soil or carried on the spot. Several previous studies and only discuss the stability of the soil with
lime without waiting time due to chemical reactions. In this research, the waiting times are concerned. CBR
was developed as a way to assess the strength of the foundation soil, so that we can know the materials
that will be used for the manufacture of pavement. CBR values calculated at the rate of penetration of 0.1
"and 0.2" by dividing each penetration load standards 3000- and 4500-pound load.

In this experiment the researchers will determine the effectiveness of using charcoal as an additive for soil
stabilization.

1
 Figure 1: Charcoal
(Source: google)

1.2 Statement of Problem

1.3 Objectives

1.3.1 General Objectives

To conduct experiment that uses charcoal as an additive in the California Bearing Ratio Test in the soil.
The test is an empirical test which gives an indication of the shear strength of a soil. The great value of this
test is that it is comparatively easy to perform and because of its wide use throughout the world, there is a
vast amount of data to assist with the interpretation of results. The CBR test is essentially a laboratory test
but in some instances the test is carried out on the soil in-situ.

1.3.2 Specific Objectives

 Develop techniques in improvement of undesirable soil properties encountered in the site. They are
expected not only by providing information but also to make sure that the technique can be used
practically.
 Discuss the importance of adding the additive of charcoal in the soil to increase the shear strength of
the soil.

2
1.4 Significance of the Study

This DoE use the Californian Bearing Ratio (CBR) test it is a penetration test used to evaluate the subgrade
strength of roads and pavements. The results of these tests are used with the curves to determine the
thickness of pavement and its component layers. This is the most widely used method for the design of
flexible pavement. The designers will evaluate the soil sample, it says that adding charcoal to soil may
provide more benefits for long-term soil quality than compost or manure. It could also be used to sequester
carbon captured from carbon dioxide emissions.

1.5 Scope and Limitation

The researchers made an initial guess that charcoal will give a significant increase in the shear strength of
a soil sample. And also, the researchers agreed to make a hypothesis that charcoal is effective as an
additive. Analysis of the soil that will be used using sieve analysis, plastic, liquid and shrinkage limit test,
compaction test and CBR test are also included in this experiment.

1.6 Framework of the Study

1.6.1 Conceptual Frameworks

The designers will evaluate the soil sample, classifying the soil and getting its properties through
geotechnical methods. After knowing these, California Bearing Ratio Test will be utilized to determine the
shear strength of the soil sample.

1.6.2 Methodological Frameworks

The charcoal will be mixed or applied to the controlled variable which is the soil sample. When this is
combined with the soil, it can now be called as experimental values. In the process, the shear strengths of
the experimental values will also be determined. Lastly, the designers will compare if there is a significant
difference on the shear strengths of the controlled variable and experimental values. The designers will
also determine which of the two experimental variable is more effective for the improvement of the shear
strength of the soil sample.

3
Figure 2: Conceptual Framework

4
 FLOW OF STUDY

IDENTIFYING THE PROBLEM

GATHERING DATA

INTELLIGENT GUESS HYPOTHESIS

EXPERIMENT

CONCLUSION

Figure 3: Flowchart

5
 CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW

Gopal Misha (2000) said that we use California Bearing Ratio (CBR) test to measure of resistance of a
material to penetration of standard plunger under controlled density and moisture conditions. It was
developed by the California Division of Highways as a method of classifying and evaluating soil- subgrade
and base course materials for flexible pavements. W.P.M Black (1961) supports that the California bearing
ratio (CBR) test on saturated clays has been carried out using finite element techniques. The aim was to
examine whether the test adequately reflected the stiffness of the clays as this is an important parameter in
determining the performance of road pavements on clay subgrades. It is shown that the CBR does not
correlate consistently with either strength or stiffness. In stiff intact clays, the CBR reflects only undrained
strength; in clays compacted wet of optimum, the CBR depends on both stiffness and strength.
Recommendations are made to use the full load-penetration curve as well as the CBR in the selection of
subgrade or capping layer materials.

When charcoal is used as an additive to clay, it can help save energy in brick production. Phonphuak &
Thiansem (2011) tested the physical and mechanical properties of fired clay briquettes containing 0%,
2.5%, 5%, 7.5%, and 10% of charcoal by weight. Charcoal particles of 2–3 mm (size 1), 1–2 mm (size 2),
and less than 0.5 mm (size 3) and a firing temperature of 950 °C were used. The charcoal additives in the
specimens were burnt out through the process of firing, leaving abundant pores in the clay bricks. The
water absorption of the briquette specimens was in the range of 18–40% and was directly proportional to
apparent porosity. The highest apparent porosity was 53% (10% of charcoal size 1) and the lowest was
31% (2.5% of charcoal size 3) , suggesting that the high percentage of charcoal in the specimens caused
an increase in porosity.  Thus, charcoal could be used as a pore former in clay body. These two properties
are closely related, and the same profile was observed. In order to determine the extent of the pore-forming
effects of charcoal, additive was added into raw brick clay

Mingxin Guo (2008) discusses new applications for the technique, used more than 1,500 years ago in the
Amazon basin. Adding charcoal to soil may provide more benefits for long-term soil quality than compost or
manure. It could also be used to sequester carbon captured from carbon dioxide emissions.

6
 CHAPTER III: METHODOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK

3.1 Methodological Frameworks

The charcoal will be mixed or applied to the controlled variable which is the soil sample. When this is
combined with the soil, it can now be called as experimental values. In the process, the shear strengths of
the experimental values will also be determined. Lastly, the designers will compare if there is a significant
difference on the shear strengths of the controlled variable and experimental values. The designers will
also determine which of the two experimental variable is more effective for the improvement of the shear
strength of the soil sample. The test is an empirical test which gives an indication of the shear strength of
a soil. The great value of this test is that it is comparatively easy to perform and because of its wide use
throughout the world, there is a vast amount of data to assist with the interpretation of results. The CBR
test is essentially a laboratory test but in some instances the test is carried out on the soil in-situ.

3.2 Data Collection

PROCEDURE

Optimum Moisture Content Determination

Equipment:

• Compaction mold and hammer

• Moisture sprayer
• Different kind of sieves
• Scoop
• Mixing pan
• Balance
• Drying oven

Procedure:

1. Weigh the empty mold.

2. Obtain a representative specimen of the soil sample to be tested.
3. Form a 2 to 3-inch layer using the soil passing through the sieves.
4. Press soil until it is smooth and then compact it with evenly distributed blows of the hammer, with a
one-foot drop. Compact the soil with 25 blows. 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.

7
 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.
9. Remove the soil from cylinder and obtain a representative sample for a water content determination.
10. Break up by hand then removed from the cylinder and remix with the original sample and raise its
water content by adding water to the sample with the moisture sprayer.
11. Compute dry density of each sample and plot the compaction curve. Determine the Optimum
Moisture content of the sample.

California Bearing Ratio Test

Equipment:

• CBR Mold
• Hammer
• Spacer disk
• Apparatus for measuring expansions
• Dial indicators
• Penetrating piston
• Loading device
• Drying oven
• Miscellaneous tools such as mixing pans
• Spoons, straight edge, balance, drying oven

Figure 4: California Bearing Ratio Testing Machine (Source: google)

8
Procedure:

1. Prior to compaction of the soil mass, take a representative sample of soil samples from the top and
bottom layers of each mold for water content determination.
2. Determine the optimum moisture content of the material using the modified AASHO Method (see
Compaction Test) with the following exceptions.
3. Use ¾ inch maximum size material instead of the ¼ inch material.
4. Use the CBR compaction mold (with 2-inch spacer disk in bottom) instead of the 1/30 cu ft mold
5. Compact material with 55 blows before putting in the California Bearing Testing Machine.
6. Remove the extension collar and carefully trim the compacted soil. Even with the top of the mold by
means of a straight edge or knife patch with smaller size material any holes that may have developed
in the surface by the removal of coarse material. Remove the weight of the mold and compacted soil.
7. Place the surcharge load (weights) directly on the sample and center it under the penetration piston in
the loading apparatus and bring the penetration piston in contact with the soil through the annular
surcharge weight. Adjust the diameter gage for measuring the penetration so that its stem bears on the
rim of the mold and record the initial reading.
8. Apply the load smoothly so rate of penetration is 0.05 inch (n 1.27 mm) per minute. Check the rate of
load application by using a stopwatch. Record the load readings at penetrations 0.025 (0.64 mm),
0.050 (1.27 mm), 0.075, (1.91 mm), 0.100 (2.54 mm), 0.125 (3.18 mm), 0.150 (3.81 mm), and 0.175
(4.45 mm). 0.200 (5.05 mm), 0.300 (7.62 mm), 0.400 (10.16 mm) and 0.500 inch (12.70 mm)

Mass of soil for test. When the density or air voids content of a compacted sample is specified the exact
amount of soil required for the test can be calculated as described in a) or b) below. When a
compactive effort is specified the mass of soil can only be estimated, as described in c) below.
a) Dry density specification. The mass of soil m1 (in g), required to just fill the CBR mould of
volume Vm (in cm3) is given by the equation
m1 = Vm (100 + w)rd
100

9
 Figure 5: California Bearing Ratio Machine

where, w is the moisture content of the soil (in %); and p d is the specified dry density (in
Mg/m3).
b) Air voids specification. The dry density, rd, (in Mg/m3), corresponding to an air voids content
of Va (in %) is given by the equation

Va
1-
100
rd =
1 w
+
rs 100 rw

Where,
Va is the air voids expressed as a percentage of the total volumes of soil ;
r s is the particle density (in Mg/m 3); w is
the soil moisture content (in %);
r w is the density of water (in Mg/m 3), assumed equal to 1.
The corresponding mass of soil to just fill the CBR mould is calculated from the equation in
(a) above.

10
 c) Compactive effort specification. About 6kg of soil shall be prepared for each sample to be
tested. The initial mass shall be measured to the nearest 5g so that the mass used for the
test sample can be determined after compaction by difference, as a check.

Figure 6: California Bearing Ratio Machine Flowchart

3.3 Method of Analysis

DESIGN STATISTICS

11
Analysis

The California Bearing Ratio (CBR) test is a simple strength test that compares the bearing capacity of a
material with that of a well-graded crushed stone (thus, a high-quality crushed stone material should have a
CBR at 100%). It is primarily intended for, but not limited to, evaluating the strength of cohesive materials
having maximum particle sizes less than 19 mm (0.75 in.) (AASHTO, 2000 [1]). It was developed by the
California Division of Highways around 1930 and was subsequently adopted by numerous states, counties,
U.S. federal agencies and internationally. As a result, most agency and commercial geotechnical
laboratories in the U.S. are equipped to perform CBR tests.

The basic CBR test involves applying load to a small penetration piston at a rate of 1.3 mm (0.05″) per
minute and recording the total load at penetrations ranging from 0.64 mm (0.025 in.) up to 7.62 mm (0.300
in.). Figure 1 is a sketch of a typical CBR sample.

Values obtained are inserted into the following equation to obtain a CBR value:

12
Table 1: Typical Values

General Soil Type USC Soil Type CBR Range

GW 40 - 80

GP 30 - 60

GM 20 - 60

GC 20 - 40
Coarse-grained soils
SW 20 - 40

SP 10 - 40

SM 10 - 40

SC 5 - 20

ML 15 or less

CL LL 15 or less

OL 5 or less
Fine-grained soils
MH 10 or less

CH LL > 50% 15 or less

OH 5 or less

 AASHTO T 193: The California Bearing Ratio

 ASTM D 1883: Bearing Ratio of Laboratory Compacted Soils

13
 CHAPTER IV: EXPECTED RESULT OUTPUTS

The expected result below are sample data form previous studies and experiment we retrieved from online
materials.

OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT: (Soil sample without charcoal)

Table 2: Optimum Moisture Content Tabulated Result (Soil sample without charcoal)

CALIFORNIA BEARING RATIO TEST (Soil sample without charcoal)

Table 3: California Bearing Ratio Test Result (Soil sample without charcoal)

14
Penetration (in) Unit load (psi)
mm MPa
(0.1) 2.5 (1000) 6.895
(0.2) 5.0 (1500) 10.342
(0.3)7.5 (1900) 13.100
(0.4) 10.0 (2300) 15.858
(0.5) 12.5 (2600) 17.926

15
OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT: (Soil sample with charcoal)

Table 4: Optimum Moisture Content Tabulated Result (Soil sample with charcoal)

Weight of mold (Wm) 2052 g

Weight of mold + compacted soil (Wm+s) 2362.82 g

Weight of compacted soil (Ws) 310.82 g

Volume of Mold 1.766 x 10-3 m3

Wet Unit Weight 179 kg/m3

Weight of tin cup (Wc) 27 g

No. of Sprays 25

Weight. of tin cup + Wet Soil (Wc+ws) 64 g

Weight. of tin cup and dry soil (Wc+dc) 57.22 g

Weight. of water (Ww) 6.78 g

Weight. of dry soil (Wds) 30.22 g

Water Content 24.35 %

Dry unit weight 145.85 kg/m3

16
CALIFORNIA BEARING RATIO TEST (Soil sample with charcoal)

Table 5: California Bearing Ratio Test Result (Soil sample with charcoal)

Penetration (in) Unit load (psi)

mm MPa

(0.1) 2.5 (1000) 6.895

(0.2) 5.0 (1500) 10.342
(0.3)7.5 (1900) 13.100
(0.4) 10.0 (2300) 15.858
(0.5) 12.5 (2600) 17.926

The following data gathered by the researchers analyzed are only estimated through comparison of the
graphs.

The following graphs show the difference of the California Bearing Ratio of the soils in the project.

SHEAR
SUMMARY OF CALIFORNIA
STRENGTH
BEARING RATIO VALUE
Soil Sample without Charcoal 14.50%

Soil Sample with Charcoal 16.51

17
 Figure 7: Comparison of Shear Strength Percentage

Figure 8: Graph of Shear Strength of Soil Sample without Charcoal Additive

18
DISCUSSION

The comparison of soil with and without the charcoal additive as shown at the Comparison of Shear
Strength Percentage. As we can see, the soil with the charcoal additive has a greater shear strength than
the sample without the charcoal additive. Therefore, charcoal properties had an impact in the shear
strength of the soil as proven by the California Bearing Ratio Test. In Figures 5 and 6, the graph shows that
when the depth or penetration of the California Bearing Ratio Test increases, the shear strength of the soil
increases as well.

CONCLUSION

After a thorough research and study, the designers must say that California Bearing Ratio (CBR) Test is
one of the most commonly used methods to evaluate the strength of a sub grade soil, sub base, and base
course material for design of thickness for highways and airfield pavement. The California Bearing Ratio
Test is a penetration test meant for the evaluation of subgrade strength of roads and pavements. The
results obtained by these tests are used with the empirical curves to determine the thickness of pavement
and its component layers. This is the most widely used method for the design of flexible pavement.

There is only one important parameter that has been well investigated in this paper. The parameter of the
ratio of reinforcement due to the position of layering it has been used. The effect of those parameters
studied on CBR values. The type of material used in this study is Charcoal. Following results were derived:

o Increasing the charcoal percentage increased CBR values in soil

o CBR values for the soil sample was less than those with charcoal additive.

RECOMMENDATION

For the convenience of future researches, the researchers give the following recommendations.

1. For the improvement of construction industry in the Philippines, we recommend to try other
additives for the improvement of soil shear resistance.
2. Other test for the soil with additives sample may be conducted in the capacity of geotechnical
engineering such as measure of soil stability through bearing strength of the soil.
3. The researchers also recommend doing experiments on the soil in other areas.
4. The researchers also recommend to experiment on the soil properties such as plastic limit, liquid
limit, etc.
5. Using other methods in determining the shear strength such as direct shear, or other type of tri-
axial test such as consolidated drained can also be done.

19
 REFERENCES

Gopal Misha (2000). California Bearing Test Ratio. Retrieved from http:// www.brainkart.com/article//
California-Bearing-Ratio - Test_3905/
W.P.M Black (1961). An analysis of the California bearing ratio test in saturated clays. Retrieved from
https://www.icevirtuallibrary.com/doi/abs/10.1680/geot.1982.32.4.315
Phonphuak & Thiansem (2011). Eco-efficient Masonry Bricks and Blocks. Retrieved from
https://www.sciencedirect.com/book/9781782423058/eco-efficient-masonry-bricks-and-blocks
Mingxin Guo (2008). Charcoal May Help Improve Soil Quality. Retrieved from
https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=89562594

20
 APPENDICES

Typical Values

General Soil Type USC Soil Type CBR Range

GW 40 - 80

GP 30 - 60

GM 20 - 60

GC 20 - 40
Coarse-grained soils
SW 20 - 40

SP 10 - 40

SM 10 - 40

SC 5 - 20

ML 15 or less

CL LL 15 or less

OL 5 or less
Fine-grained soils
MH 10 or less

CH LL > 50% 15 or less

OH 5 or less

21
Optimum Moisture Content Tabulated Result (Soil sample without charcoal)

California Bearing Ratio Test Result (Soil sample without charcoal)

Penetration (in) Unit load (psi)

mm MPa
(0.1) 2.5 (1000) 6.895
(0.2) 5.0 (1500) 10.342
(0.3)7.5 (1900) 13.100
(0.4) 10.0 (2300) 15.858
(0.5) 12.5 (2600) 17.926

Equation to obtain CBR:

22
23