Gypsum Drywall Wastes Reuse As Subgrade Road Stabilizer

REASERCH PROPOSAL ID: CEGE/CE/2016-17/36
“GYPSUM DRYWALL WASTE REUSE AS SUBGRADE ROAD STABILIZER”
A RESEARCH PROJECT REPORT
Submitted by
MUSABYIMANA Tite 215027735
MPAMO MPAMBARA Derrick 215029739
Under the Guidance of
Mr. GATESI Jean de Dieu
Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the award of
BACHELOR OF SCIENCE DEGREE IN CIVIL ENGINEERING
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL, ENVIRONMENTAL AND GEOMATICS

ENGINEERING
COLLEGE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING
(Nyarugenge Campus)
P.O. Box: 3900 Kigali, Rwanda.
DEPARTMENT
OF
CIVIL, ENVIRONMENTAL AND GEOMATICS ENGINEERING
CERTIFICATE
This is to certify that the Research project report entitled “GYPSUM DRYWALL WASTE
REUSE AS SUBGRADE ROAD STABILIZER” is a record of the original veritable work
done by MUSABYIMANA Tite (215027735) and MPAMO MPAMBARA Derrick
(215029739) in partial fulfilment of the requirement for the award of Bachelor of Science
Degree in Civil Engineering of College of Science and Technology under the University of
Rwanda during the Academic Year 2016-2017.
……………………………………… ………………………………………
Mr.GATESI Jean de Dieu Dr. G.Senthil Kumaran
SUPERVISOR Associated Professor and Head of CEGE
Submitted for Final Project Examination held at School of Engineering (Nyarugenge

Campus), College of Science and Technology, on June, 19, 2017
DECLARATION
We, MUSABYIMANA Tite and MPAMO MPAMBARA Derrick hereby declare that our
research “GYPSUM DRYWALL WASTE REUSE AS SUBGRADE ROAD STABILIZER”
for the award of Bachelor of Science Degree in Civil, Environmental and Geomatics
Engineering is our original work and contains no material which has been accepted for the
award of any other degree or diploma in any university or institutions as a whole or in part.
Signature:…………….. Signature:………………………
MUSABYIMANA Tite MPAMO MPAMBARA Derrick

DEDICATION
This Research Project is dedicated
to
Almighty God
Our parents and relatives
our friends for prayers, encouragement, and support
i|Page
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We would like to first thank our parents and families for their endless support and
guidance throughout our lives, their continuous encouragement kept us going ahead.
Our grateful thanks goes to our supervisor Mr. GATESI Jean de Dieu who willingly
accepted to guide us towards the completion of this research project, his stimulating
suggestions and constructive critiques have shaped our thoughts and knowledge and have
made this Work genuine.
Also, many thanks to the staff of UR – CST and the department of civil engineering for
allowing us to use campus materials and to have access on laboratories, especially
ESTATE MANAGER for his support to get samples for this research project.
We would like to thank REAL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LTD for helping us with
sample collection. Especially the project manager of proposed students’ hostel project for
his fruitful comments and advices which have helped us to ameliorate this project research.
A special thanks to the crucial role of the staff of the soil mechanics and highway
laboratories, who gave the permission to access all required machinery and equipment,
especially DUSHIMIRIMANA LOUIS and BITANGAZA Moïse for your guidance and
commitment. The countless times you kept during our hectic schedules will not be
forgotten.
Lastly, our thankful goes to our classmates for their fruitful ideas and critics to this project.
ii | P a g e
ABSTRACT
Solid waste management is an issue in both urban and rural areas of Rwanda, it faces with
many challenges including lack of waste sorting at source, poor wastes disposal and
management of dumping sites, poor treatment and exploitation of the generated solid
waste, In order to find a solution to these challenges, Rwanda Environment Management
Authority (REMA) is devising strategies to ensure proper solid waste management,
including dissemination of practical tools on solid waste handling, promotion of wastes
recycling companies. While solid waste collection has significantly improved, waste
sorting at source is still at a low level and poor solid waste disposal still poses significant
safety and health risks, this research focused on the use of recycled gypsum which comes
from gypsum drywall waste as subgrade stabilizer, the sample of crushed recycled gypsum
were mixed with Silty clayey sand with gravel soil at ratio of 10%, 20% and 30%. Physical
tests and strength tests were performed. The tests results showed that recycled gypsum has
a significant increase on the strength of the soil and mixture of 20% prove to be better and
provide an acceptable CBR for subgrade. Generally this research give an evidence that the
utilization of recycled gypsum which comes from gypsum wastes to give stability to
subgrade show an adequate durability, increase in strength and amend the engineering
properties of subgrade. As well as drywall wastes are used effectively it gives a large
contribution to Sustainable development and minimization of wastes hence establishment
of a good Environment.
Key words: Drywall Waste, waste management, Stabilization, Road Subgrade and
Construction and Demolition Waste.
iii | P a g e
Contents
ABSTRACT ......................................................................................................................iii
LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................... vi
LIST OF TABLE .............................................................................................................. vii
LIST OF SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS ............................................................viii
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................... 1
1.1. Background .......................................................................................................... 1

1.2. Problem statement ................................................................................................ 2
1.3. Objective of the study .......................................................................................... 2
1.3.1 Main objective .................................................................................................... 2
1.3.2. Specific objectives ............................................................................................. 2
1.4 Hypothesis ................................................................................................................. 2
1.5 Research justification ................................................................................................ 3
1.6. Scope of study .......................................................................................................... 3
1.7. Organization of the study ......................................................................................... 3
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................ 4
2.1. Introduction .............................................................................................................. 4

2.2. Description ............................................................................................................... 4
2.3. Concept of stabilization. .......................................................................................... 5
2.3.1. Method of stabilization ...................................................................................... 6
2.3.3. Elements of stabilization ................................................................................... 6
2.4. Geotechnical Properties of GP Materials ................................................................. 8
2.4.1. Grain size distribution ....................................................................................... 8
2.4.2. Atterberg limit ................................................................................................... 8
2.4.3 Compaction test .................................................................................................. 9
2.4.4. Laboratory bearing ratio (LBC) of compacted soil- crushed PG mixtures ....... 9
2.5. Road pavement. ...................................................................................................... 10
2.5.1 Subgrade ........................................................................................................... 10
2.6 summary of the literature ........................................................................................ 11
CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY .............................................................. 12
3.1. Introduction ............................................................................................................ 12

3.2. Experimental investigation ................................................................................. 12
3.2.2 Experimental Design ........................................................................................ 13
iv | P a g e
3.2.3. Laboratory tests ............................................................................................... 14
CHAPTER 4: RESULTS ANALYSIS, INTERPRETATION AND PRESENTATION 18
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMANDATIONS ..................................... 24
5.1 CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................... 24

5.2 RECOMMENDATION .......................................................................................... 25
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................. 26
APPENDIX....................................................................................................................... 28
APPENDIX 1: Atterberg limits results for Silty clayey sand with gravel .................... 28
APPENDIX 2: Atterberg limits results for Silty clayey sand with gravel + 10% GD . 29
APPENDIX 3: Atterberg limits results for Silty clayey sand with gravel + 20%GP ... 30
APPENDIX 4: Atterberg limits results for Silty clayey sand with gravel +30% GP ... 31
APPENDIX 5: compaction tests results for soil ........................................................... 32
APPENDIX 6: compaction tests results for soil +10% GP .......................................... 33
APPENDIX 8: compaction tests results for soil + 30% GP ......................................... 35
APPENDIX 9: CBR Tests results for soil .................................................................... 36
APPENDIX 10: CBR Tests results for soil + 10 % GP ................................................ 37
APPENDIX 13: summarizes the suitability of different soils for subgrade applications
....................................................................................................................................... 40
APPENDIX 14: Relative CBR values for sub base and subgrade soils ....................... 41
v|Page
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: gypsum drywall waste generated from different activities and landfilled in
United States (Marvin, 2000). ............................................................................................ 5
Figure 2: Shows the waste plasterboard before and after processing WRAP, (2006) ........ 7
Figure 3: Particle size analysis of crushed and sieved GP WRAP, (2007) ........................ 8
Figure 4: Atterberg limit (AASHTO, 1993) ....................................................................... 9
Figure 5: Moisture versus density relationship ................................................................... 9
Figure 6: Typical cross section of a flexible pavement (Mathew, 2009). ........................ 10
Figure 7: Flow Chart of Research Methodology. ............................................................. 12
Figure 8: showing the collection of gypsum drywall waste ............................................. 13
Figure 9: showing research experimental design.............................................................. 13
Figure 10: showing sieve analysis process ....................................................................... 14
Figure 11: showing the materials used for liquid limits determination ............................ 16
Figure 12: show step for plastic limit determination ........................................................ 16
Figure 13: showing the modified proctor test ................................................................... 17
Figure 14: showing the CBR tests, mixing, compaction, soaking and CBR loading machine
.......................................................................................................................................... 17
Figure 15: grain size distribution of soil ........................................................................... 18
Figure 16: grain size distribution of tested soil and recycled gypsum ............................. 18
Figure 17: graphical comparison of soil Atterberg limits with its Atterberg limits at
different mixing ratios ...................................................................................................... 19
Figure 18: modified proctor for soil ................................................................................. 20
Figure 19: graphical comparison of compaction with recycled gypsum at different
ratios ................................................................................................................................. 20
Figure 20: dry density vs percentage of GDW ................................................................. 21
Figure 21: CBR graph for tested soil. ............................................................................... 22
Figure 22: CBR value against percentage of GDW.......................................................... 23
Figure 23: swelling effect on the soil stabilized by recycled gypsum .............................. 23
vi | P a g e
LIST OF TABLE
Table 1: shows the summary results of geotechnical tests in NRSWA road stabilization
project ............................................................................................................................... 11
Table 2: the results of compaction and Atterberg limit test of cement-phosphogypsum
stabilized soil .................................................................................................................... 11
Table 3: showing the particle size distribution of soil ...................................................... 15
Table 4: showing the grain size distribution of crushed GDW ........................................ 15
Table 5: showing physical and mechanical properties of tested soil ................................ 19
Table 6: Subgrade Classification for Structural Design (TRH4, 1996)............................ 21
vii | P a g e
LIST OF SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS
WRAP: Waste & Resources Program LBR: Laboratory Bearing Ratio

me.
MDD: Max. Dry Density
RURA: Rwanda Utilities Regulatory
OM: Optimum Moisture
Authority.
LL: Liquid Limits
REMA: Rwanda environment
Management authority PL: Plastic Limits
RS: Rwandan Standard. PI: Plastic Index.
IS: Indian Standard. NRSWA: new river solid waste
ASTM: American Society of Testing association
Materials AASHO: American Association for
PG: plasterboard gypsum. States Highway Office.
EPD: Energy private developers. CBR: California Bearing Ratio.
SG: subgrade class
GDW: gypsum drywall waste
CEGE: Civil environmental and

Geomatics engineering
viii | P a g e
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1. Background
Gypsum is one of the minerals that is widely used, it is in plenty all over the world
(Olsen,2001), it comes from decomposition of sedimentary rock beds, which are located
in marine basins due to the continuous cycle of evaporation and precipitation (Panagapko,
2006);the use of gypsum known as calcium disulphate (CaSO4.2H2O) in construction has
been started long time ago, investigations showed that it has been adapted 6000 BC in
western Asia and 3700 BC in Egyptian pyramids (Olsen, 2001).gypsum has proved to be
a good building material for a number of reasons such as fire resistant, abundant,
economical, ability to be manipulated into numerous shapes, and fairly strong. It can also
reduce or control sound, and its use can have environmental benefits (Olsen, 2001).
Gypsum drywall is one of the construction materials manufactured from gypsum minerals
and is mainly made of gypsum plaster core with a paper facing, it is mostly used to line
interior walls and ceiling to achieve a clean smooth finish (Euro gypsum, 2005), the use
of drywall lead to the numerous quantity of waste which are usually come up on
construction sites with different causes like, uneconomical design, off-cuts from its
installation, spoiled walls, and over-ordering. It may also develop from remove during
renovation and destruction projects; the wastes coming from this source are many, more
than one million tons of drywall wastes are generated each year from constructed and
demolished works (WRAP, 2006).
About 450 tonnes per day of solid waste of which 300 and 350tonnes/day is centrally
collected in only Kigali city (EPD, n.d), the use of drywall is being highly adopted in
construction of buildings of different developing cities in Rwanda this lead to the rise of
drywall wastes, most of this drywall ends up in landfills in adverse environmental impacts
through the release of hydrogen sulphide gas and the percolating of metallic sulphide into
groundwater. Therefore it is important to assess and found out the more economic and
environmental feasibility options which exist than the methods used traditionally of
landfills. This project come up with solution to drywall wastes for it prove recycled
gypsum to be a good subgrade stabilizer rather than putting them in landfills.
1|Page
1.2. Problem statement
Gypsum drywall is usually used to cover the interior walls of homes, offices and other
structures. It is composed of gypsum (calcium sulfate dehydrate) and a paper backing that
makes up approximately (2–4) % of the total drywall weight and much of this material is
not reusable and is usually deposited in a landfill, As nearby landfills fill up and close, the
siting of new landfills becomes more difficult and expensive, the costs of waste disposal
for construction and demolition debris are likely increasing.
In addition the chemical composition of gypsum also causes problems when disposed in
landfills. Bacteria in landfills often convert the sulfate (SO42-) present in gypsum to
hydrogen sulfide (H2S), thus a foul-smelling and sometimes toxic gas are produced, many
landfills in Rwanda have observed bad odor problems which may be a result of
H2S,sometimes caused by disposed drywall wastes.
Thus one of the government challenges today is how construction and demolished wastes
can be managed for the purpose of sustaining the development of the country, this research
project focused on how gypsum drywall wastes known as recycled gypsum can be reused
to stabilize subgrade layer of the road rather than putting them in landfills.
1.3. Objective of the study

1.3.1 Main objective
The objective of this study, is to let builders especially those who deal with roads
construction know that beyond asphalt, Portland cement and other stabilizers that are being
used in roads; there are gypsum drywall waste which can also be used as a material for
stabilizing road subgrade instead of putting them into landfills.
1.3.2. Specific objectives

 Identification of initial subgrade strength
 Identification of strength increase when gypsum drywall wastes are added
 Comparison of initial and final strength of subgrade
1.4 Hypothesis
Gypsum drywall wastes can be used in stabilizing subgrade of road.
2|Page
1.5 Research justification
According to the regulations regarding solid waste management that have been developed
by Rwanda Utilities Regulatory Authority(RURA) and Rwanda environment management
authority (REMA) as well as the rules and directives on sanitation and hygiene promotion
adopted by Kigali city, government is developing the strategic plans of integrated solid
waste management thus one of those solutions and strategies is Proper and sustainable
waste management through 3R principles (Reduce, Reuse and Recycling).therefore this
project will contribute to the reduction of gypsum drywall waste by reusing them to
stabilize subgrade.
1.6. Scope of study

This study focused on the stabilization of road layer (subgrade) using the waste of gypsum
drywalls.it covered the collection of those drywalls, crushing them as well as the
laboratory test such as classification tests and strength tests to examine and analyze their
geotechnical impacts when used as stabilizer in subgrade. The procedure and interpretation
of the tests results was based on ASTM 22 D, BS 1377:part2&4:1990, and TRH4 1996.
1.7. Organization of the study

The study is organized under five chapters. Chapter one, covers the introductory part and
it includes the background, problem statement, objectives, hypothesis, research
justification and the scope of study. The second chapter deals with the review of relevant
literatures on the subject. Thus, ideas of some researchers and authors has been reviewed.
Chapter three take look on the methodology used to cover Research design, Data
Collection Method, Laboratory Tests, Data Analysis, and Research Time Schedule. Data
presentation and interpretation are in chapter four, whilst chapter five present a summary
of the key findings recommendations and conclusion.
3|Page
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1. Introduction
Literatures related to the topic “GYPSUM DRYWALL WASTE REUSE AS
SUBGRADE ROAD STABILIZER.” is reviewed in this chapter in order to show the
applicability and source of the research problem. It cover description, concept of
stabilization, Geotechnical Properties of PG Materials, road pavement, and summary of
the literatures.
2.2. Description
It has reviewed that longtime ago until now gypsum take a huge role in construction; in
Egypt they used it to color the internal part of tombs not only them also the Americans
realize the ability of gypsum usage as plastering material and a soil improvement (Marvin,
2000).
In 1916 the US Gypsum (USG) Company invented a new interior wall material called
Drywall, at the beginning it was sold as small tiles for fireproofing areas but it have been
improved to different form till to what we are having today(one compressed layer of
gypsum between two heavy sheets of paper).
It had diversity of names firstly the USG began selling drywall under the well-known
brand name “Sheetrock” however builders adopted this new materials of finishing interior
walls slowly because they thought drywall was just a low quality alternative compare to
old technique they used of spreading layers of plaster over lathing material to create a very
hard, smooth, durable wall, A wall with drywall sounds hollow, maybe some thought that
the finish product was of lower quality.
However as with most things, price increases the plastering of the whole houses was
extensive, therefore the installation of lathing material over the rivets, a drywall hanger
can simply cut sheets, sized and nail (screw), in addition troweling two or three layers of
plaster over lath to a finished thickness makes the old technique to be expensive whereas
a drywall finisher needs only tape the seams and smooth drywall mud over the seams and
nails (USG, 2016).
Therefore during construction of new houses in USA more than 1.6 million of them contain
some part of drywall (United States Census Bureau, n.d). An approximate of one ton of
new unpolluted drywall waste comes from one family which builds 64% and others come
4|Page
from renovated and demolished wastes and from fabricating area (National Association of
Home Builders, n.d).
Gypsum Drywall wastes generators
10%
12%
construction wastes
Renovation wastes
Demolitions wastes
14%
Manufacturing wastes
64%
Figure 1: gypsum drywall waste generated from different activities and landfilled in
United States (Marvin, 2000).
Nevertheless those recyclable drywall waste are being landfilled that why due the raise of
landfill revenue the cost of disposal increase periodically, in addition to this gypsum waste
require special engineered landfill in which lead to high costs of disposal so, the measure
of other alternatives are necessary (WRAP, 2006). The potential use for recovered gypsum
drywall is in construction materials. Gypsum has been used in concrete, stucco, plaster and
blocks. Gypsum may potentially be combined with other materials like fly ash and cork for
recycling into bricks and other products. Most of the investigation of gypsum recycling in
construction materials has primarily been for phosphogypsum, or fluorogypsum, both show
to be good binders for road stabilization hence, due to the similarity in composition between
the two materials, it is likely that gypsum drywall waste could be used for the same
purposes. (Chang and Mantell, 1990).
2.3. Concept of stabilization.

It is of most important to study the geotechnical projects before a project can take off. The
surveying of the site usually comes before the design process in order to understand the
properties of subsoil through which the decision on the project can be made.
5|Page
When selecting the site the following design strength criteria should be taken into account
loading on structure and its function, desired foundation and subsoil bearing capacity
previously when the bearing capacity of the subsoil was poor the removal and replacement,
abandonment of the site and the change of the design technics were considered, usually it
is difficult to have a site with the required strength without improving the ground hence
the objective of soil stabilization is to improve soil strength and increase resistance to
softening by water by bonding soil particles together through compaction or drainage and
the addition of binders to week soil (Makusa 2012).
2.3.1. Method of stabilization

There are in situ stabilization and ex-situ stabilization. The selection to method to be
used depends on the soil properties to be modified, the chief properties that interest the
engineers are volume stability, strength, compressibility, permeability and durability
during stabilization the field and laboratory tests are necessary, laboratory tests give higher
strength compare to the field tests of the same material however field tests shows the
strength of stabilized materials in the field where laboratory results help in the choice of
binders and amounts to be used.(Makusa 2012).
In–Situ Stabilization: this is the method of improving the geotechnical properties of the
soil which is done on the site it consist of using stabilizing agent without taking out the
bulk soil. When preparing the mixing design, assessing and selection of the engineering
properties of soil to be stabilized and improved ground should be done, this kind of
stabilization is achieved by injecting into ground the binders’ materials such as cement and
lime in wet or dry forms. (Makusa 2012)
Ex-Situ Stabilization: this method is done outside of the site where soils are taken off
and move to another place for testing this is mainly done in dredging of ports and river
channeling. The mode of soil removal, way of transportation accessibility of treatment
location, disposal site and requirement for reuse should be considered (Pianc, 2009).
2.3.3. Elements of stabilization

The elements of stabilization technics involve soils or soil minerals and binding agents such
as cement, lime and recycled gypsum drywalls
6|Page
2.3.3.1. Soils
A clay soil’s particles are long and flat which give it the big surface, for silt materials they
undergo small change in moisture and this make it difficult to be stabilized, peat and organic
soils consist of extent organic matter and high porosity with water content up to 2000%.
(Makusa, 2012). Many researchers established that recycled gypsum that come from waste
of gypsum drywall has been more and more used as a stabilizing agent to improve ground
strength, due the gypsum ability of proving adequate hardening between soil particles it has
the potential for application as an additive material to earthwork projects for different types
of soils, chiefly in dry environments (Ahmed et al, 2015).
2.3.3.2. Cement and lime

Cement and lime have been used as solidification agents to prevent the solubility property
of recycled gypsum plasterboard when apply as stabilizing agent in soil the tests done
showed that the increasing in content of the gypsum–cement admixture has a significant
effect on the reduction in fluorine solubility, while there is not much difference between
the obtained results for fluorine solubility in the case of the gypsum–lime admixture
(Ahmed et al., 2015)
2.3.3.3. Recycled gypsum drywall

Gypsum drywall waste come up on construction sites with different causes like,
uneconomical design, off-cuts from its installation, spoiled walls, and over-ordering,
others are collected from destructions on sites these contain some contaminants such as
paper and glass, big pieces of paper and other contaminants are separated using a series of
sieves before the gypsum is crushed using a metal tamper. Crushed product are stored in
sealed. Plasterboard recycling plant called ‘processed PG’ has been also used. The
processed PG contained lower levels of large particles of plasterboard but the size and
amount of paper pieces were similar to the ‘plasterboard gypsum' from the Lafarge plant.
For the site trial, the plasterboard was dried, ground and passed through a 600 µm sieve1
WRAP, (2006)
Figure 2: Shows the waste plasterboard before and after processing WRAP, (2006)
7|Page
2.4. Geotechnical Properties of GP Materials
Geotechnical Properties of recycled PG waste materials need to be studied before their
application in road subgrade stabilization, different tests have been done by many
researchers to investigate the geotechnical properties of GP
2.4.1. Grain size distribution

Waste plasterboard gypsum contain paper and other contaminants these are removed
before the gypsum is crushed using a metal tamper. The crushed product is sieved through
a 600 µm sieve and stored in a sealed bucket. Particle size analysis of these crushed
gypsum plasterboard was carried out using a Malvern Master size 2000 laser analyzer with
an accuracy of ±1% , the particles are between 1 µm and 1 mm in diameter, and mostly
>300 μm.(wrap , 2007) as shown in the figure below
Figure 3: Particle size analysis of crushed and sieved GP WRAP, (2007)
2.4.2. Atterberg limit

The Atterberg limit is a common test used to determine the nature of cohesive soils. The
Atterberg Limits test determines the liquid limit (LL), plastic limit (PL) and the plasticity
index (PI) of soils. AASHTO, (1993) define plastic limit (PL) as the percentage of water
content at which plastic soil became a semi-solid soil, the percentage of water content at
which soil which was liquid become plastic is called liquid limit (LL) and the difference
between liquid limit and plastic limit is named plastic index. Figure 4 show the relationship
between the water content and volume.
The soils of high plastic index are characterized as clay, those with a lower plastic index
are characterized as silt and those with plastic index of zero seem to have few or no silt/clay
soils. The liquid index (LI) measures water content of soil samples to the limits. the only
8|Page
link between those Atterberg limits help to show the ability of soil which contain clay
minerals to absorb water means that as clay has high LL and LI it is able to absorb much
water and this make it to not be adapted for the pavement the base. The PL and LL also
give a view to soil strength.
Figure 4: Atterberg limit (AASHTO, 1993)
2.4.3 Compaction test

This is the laboratory method to determine the optimum moisture content of a test soil is
most dense and reach its maximum dry density it gives the relationship between water
content and dry unit weight of soils and then compaction curve is obtained.
Figure 5: Moisture versus density relationship
2.4.4. Laboratory bearing ratio (LBC) of compacted soil- crushed PG mixtures

Robert, et al (2012) described California Bearing Ratio (CBR) test as a penetration test
which is used for determining the strength of road subgrades courses. This test method is
used to determine the bearing ratio of soil- crushed PG mixtures when compacted and
9|Page
tested in the laboratory by comparing the penetration load of the soil- crushed PG mixture
to that of a standard material.
According to the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT), material for use in the
construction of a stabilized subgrade requires a minimum LBR value of 40 (FDOT 2001).
Scrap gypsum drywall, when mixed at 20% with a poorly graded sand, exceeded the
standard for purposes of creating a stabilized subgrade.
2.5. Road pavement.

2.5.1 Subgrade
It is of most important to have a proper understanding to soil properties, better grading
practices as well as quality control in order to attain high quality of subgrade. However
engineering capacity and pavement design needs have to be logical with relative
grandness, size and projects design costs. Hence good understanding of subgrade is of
crucial, these include soil grading, dry unit weight and estimated CBR (David J et al,
2008).
The top soil or sub-grade is a layer of natural soil prepared to receive the stresses from the
layers above. It is essential that at no time soil sub-grade is overstressed. It should be
compacted to the desirable density, near the optimum moisture content (Mathew, 2009).
Overall, fluorogypsum was rated as a suitable material for subgrade construction.
Figure 6: Typical cross section of a flexible pavement (Mathew, 2009).
10 | P a g e
2.6 summary of the literature
Recycling and reuse of waste materials is a topic of global concern and of great
international interest. Researchers got interested in the applicability of construction and
demolition waste materials like plasterboard gypsum waste in road subgrade stabilization.
However, the following tables summarize the results of the geotechnical tests performed
on the soil and soil/gypsum mixtures.
Table 1: shows the summary results of geotechnical tests in NRSWA road stabilization
project
Material Description Results

Tests LBR MDD OM (%) LL PL PI
value (lbs. /ft3)
Townsend ,T.G et al (2001)
Sample Virgin soil #1 49 119.1 14.4 39 16 23

Sample +10%gypsum #1 59 115.5 12.5 33 16 17
Sample +20%gypsum #2 50 112.1 12.1 37 19 18
Sample +30%gypsum#3 26 95.3 13.2 42 22 20
9
Table 2: the results of compaction and Atterberg limit test of cement-phosphogypsum

stabilized soil
Material Description Results

Tests MDD OM LL PL PI
(KN /m3) (%) (%) (%) (%)
Soil 1 +(2.5% C +2.5% PG 38.4 13.53 58.59 53.13 6.45
Nurhayat et al (2007)
Soil1+(5% C + 5% PG) 39 13.56 57.63 46.15 11.48

Soil1+(7.5% C + 7.5% PG) 38.35 13.62 64.72 46.67 18.05
Soil2+(2.5% C + 2.5% PG) 37.7 13.9 58.36 44 13.92
Soil2+(5% C + 5% PG) 34.3 13.95 55.22 38.46 16.76
Soil2+(7.5% C + 7.5 %PG) 31.7 14 73.32 58.58 14.74
9
LBR: Laboratory Bearing Ratio; MDD: Max. Dry Density; OM: Optimum Moisture; LL:
Liquid Limits; PL: Plastic Limits; PI: Plastic Index. NRSWA: new river solid waste
association.
11 | P a g e
CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.1. Introduction
The part of research methodology illustrates materials and methods that have been used to
ongoing research. It explains the methods and processes that have been utilized to get data
that have been used in the tests.
Literature
Review
Materials
Classification
Tests
Laboratory
Tests
Strength
Tests
Tests Analysis and
interpretation
Conclusion
Figure 7: Flow Chart of Research Methodology.
3.2. Experimental investigation

3.2.1 Sample Collection
Two different of materials have been used in this research which are soil and recycled
gypsum. The recycled gypsum have come from gypsum drywall waste and the tested soil
sample were obtained from the construction site on the plot No 1316-NYARUGENGE –
KIYOVU , at the depth ranging between 0.50 m to 1.00 m from the top soil of the earth.
The gypsum drywall wastes used in this research were produced from construction
demolitions mainly collected from KIST 2 building block of University of Rwanda
College of science and technology.
12 | P a g e
Figure 8: showing the collection of gypsum drywall waste
3.2.2 Experimental Design
Experimental
design
Laboratory
tests
Sieve analysis,
Atterberg limits,
compaction and
CBR Test
Sieve
MATERIALS analysis
SOIL Recycled gypsum wastes
(subgrade) RGDW
SOIL + RGDW Mixing ratios

10%, 20% and 30%
Atterberg limits,
modified proctor and
CBR tests
Figure 9: showing research experimental design
13 | P a g e
3.2.3. Laboratory tests
3.2.3.1. Preparation of the specimens and tests procedures
Samples and specimens were prepared according to BS1377 of 1990 and ASTM 422 D
the tests were in two main categories which are classification tests and strength tests
accordingly to the objectives of the research.
The classification tests (Sieve analysis and Atterberg) are those which have been used to
describe the physical properties of soil and mixture of soil with recycled gypsum, the
strength tests (CBR tests and modified proctor) were used to view the mechanical
properties of tested soil and its mixture with recycled gypsum at a desired proportions.
1. Sieve analysis
A grading analysis is a crucial classification test for soil, chiefly coarse soils, for it give
the relative portions of particle sizes. Therefore it is easy to determine if the soil consists
of predominantly gravel, silt sand or clay sizes and to limited extent and hence those size
range help to control engineering properties of the soil, the soil and crushed gypsum
drywall wastes were firstly air dried before sieving using automatic mechanical checker
for 10min.
Figure 10: showing sieve analysis process
After checking each sieve was weighed with its retainings and by subtracting the weight
of net sieve, the weight of retained soil were found.
The table 3&4 below show the sieve number and the percentage of retainings and passings,
the interpretation follow the ASTM D 422
14 | P a g e
Table 3: showing the particle size distribution of soil
depth: 50cm-100cm from top soil

Testing Method : ASTM D 422
Initial Weight (gr): 3000

Final Weight (gr): 2998.2
Sieve no Sieve Dia (mm)mass of empty sieve (g)
mass of sieve +retained soil soil
(g) retained (g)Cumulative retained% of retained % of passing
1 4.75 505.6 1068.4 562.8 562.8 19 81
2 3.35 484.8 824.2 339.4 902.2 30 70
3 2 445.2 988 542.8 1445 48 52
4 1.18 423.7 904.9 481.2 1926.2 64 36
5 0.6 405 930.3 525.3 2451.5 82 18
6 0.425 386 579.5 193.5 2645 88 12
7 0.3 360.8 471.8 111 2756 92 8
8 0.212 340.4 415.5 75.1 2831.1 94 6
9 0.15 347 400.6 53.6 2884.7 96 4
10 0.075 320.5 384.9 64.4 2949.1 98 2
11 pan 386.7 435.8 49.1 2998.2 100 0
Table 4: showing the grain size distribution of crushed GDW
sample: GDW
Initial Weight (gr): 3000

Final Weight (gr): 2995.4
Sieve no Sieve Dia(mm) mass of empty sieve(g) mass of sieve +retained GP(g) soil retained(g) Cumulative retained % of retained % of passing
1 4.75 506.6 506.8 0.2 0.2 0 100
2 3.35 484.8 487.4 2.6 2.8 0 100
3 2 445.2 448.2 3 5.8 0 100
4 1.18 423.7 719.2 295.5 301.3 10 90
5 0.6 405 903.1 498.1 799.4 27 73
6 0.425 386 919.7 533.7 1333.1 44 56
7 0.3 360.8 961.5 600.7 1933.8 64 36
8 0.212 340.4 868.8 528.4 2462.2 82 18
9 0.15 347 624 277 2739.2 91 9
10 0.075 320.5 549.6 229.1 2968.3 99 1
11 pan 386.7 413.8 27.1 2995.4 100 0
And the classification was done according to Unified Soil Classification System (USCS),
with Cu = D60/D10 and CZ =D230/D60*D10 where Cu is uniformity coefficient and CZ is
coefficient of gradation or coefficient of curvature.
2 . Liquid limit determination

The soil sample of 200g passing through 425µm sieve was mixed homogeneously and the
paste was put into cassagrandi apparatus cup and the number of blows to close it were
recorded, a sample of paste was taken to dry oven for 24hours at 110 0 to determine the
15 | P a g e
liquid limit, these were repeated for soil plus 10%, 20% and 30% of recycled gypsum
drywall.
Figure 11: showing the materials used for liquid limits determination
a. Plastic limits determination

Soil sample weighing 200g was taken from the material passing the 425µm test sieve and
then mixed with water till it becomes a homogeneous plastic to be moulded to ball. Soil
ball was rolled on flat glass until the thread cracks at 3mm diameter approximate.
Therefore, the sample of ball was taken to dry oven for 24hours and the moisture content
was determined. The same steps was done for the mixture of soil with recycled gypsum
drywall.
Figure 12: show step for plastic limit determination
3. Compaction (moistures density) tests
For this test four prepared samples of 6kg (Soil was taken from the material passing the
20 mm test sieve and crushed gypsum drywall waste passing the 425µm) then each mixed
with water at increment of 2% of its weight were compacted using modified proctor energy
(27 blows with a 4.5kg hammer for each layer) for determining the dry density/moisture
content relationship.
16 | P a g e
Figure 13: showing the modified proctor test
4. California bearing ratio tests (CBR)
A portion of air-dried 3 soil samples of 6kg each were mixed at optimum

moisture content, put in CBR mould in 5 layers, then compacted at 62 strokes and 30
strokes with 4.5kg rammer and 3 layers for 62 strokes using 2.5kg rammer each layer. The
samples were soaked for four days before being tested in CBR machine, therefore, the
swelling was recorded for mould compacted at 62 strokes with 4.5kg rammer. The
compacted soil and the mould was weighed and placed under CBR motor driven
compression machine and a seating load of approximately 4.5 kg was applied.
Figure 14: showing the CBR tests, mixing, compaction, soaking and CBR loading machine
17 | P a g e
CHAPTER 4: RESULTS ANALYSIS, INTERPRETATION AND
PRESENTATION
The results from the tests done to this research project are discussed, analysed and
presented in this chapter to get the viability of the project.
4.1 Grain size Distribution (Sieve analysis) and soil properties
The sand soil used in this research was found to be Silty clayey sand with gravel by
Unified Soil Classification System (USCS), the grain size distribution graph of the soil is
represented on the figure 15 and the engineering properties of the tested soil are tabulated
in the table 5 The crushed gypsum waste was screened over sieve size 4.75 mm to remove
any impurities or solid wastes, such as paper and fibers. Gypsum waste powder was placed
over a plate and dry ovened for 24hours at 1100, the purpose of this heating was to convert
gypsum drywall wastes into recycled gypsum i.e to change from CaSO4.2H2O to
CaSO4.1/2H2O
Grading curve for soil

100
Parcentage of Passings
80
60
40
20
0
100 10 1 0.1 0.01
Sieve diameter (mm)
Figure 15: grain size distribution of soil
Grading curve for soil

Grading curve for GDW
100
80
Parcentage of Passing
60
40
20
0
100 10 1 0.1 0.01
Sieve diameter (mm)
Figure 16: grain size distribution of tested soil and recycled gypsum
18 | P a g e
Table 5: showing physical and mechanical properties of tested soil
soil properties values Soil properties Values

Coefficient of uniformity Cu 6.5 Liquid limit LL [%] 47
Coefficient of gradation Cz 1 Plastic index PI [%] 20
Dry density [g/cm3] 1.66 D60 [mm] 2.6
Optimum water content [%] 17.8 D30 [mm] 1
Plastic limit PL [%] 27 D10 [mm] 0.4
During this project research three different content of recycled gypsum were used with
different ratios 10%, 20% and 30%. Figure 16 show the grain size distribution of the soil
and recycled gypsum used.
4. 2 Atterberg limit tests
These tests are done only on the fine-grained, silty and clay soil, as the soil dries the
strength and stiffness increase, the liquid limit and plastic limit give a significant meaning
to the strength of a soil.it give a simple measure of water absorbing ability of soil
containing clay minerals. The 17 below give a graphical comparison of the Atterberg limits
of the tested soil with PI 20% and the addition of recycled gypsum at a desired mixing
ratio 10%, 20% and 30% and PI are 7.48%, 5.21% and 8.35% respectively.
51.00
47.00
Atterberg Limit for soil
43.00
39.00 Atterberg limit for soil + 10%
GDW
water content
35.00 atterberg of soil + 20% GDW

31.00 Atterberg limit for soil + 30 %
27.00 GDW
Linear (Atterberg Limit for soil)
23.00
19.00 Linear (Atterberg limit for soil +
10% GDW)
15.00 Linear (atterberg of soil + 20%
10 14 18 22 26 30 34 38 GDW)
Number of blows
Figure 17: graphical comparison of soil Atterberg limits with its Atterberg limits at
different mixing ratios
The soil with very high liquid limit has the ability of absorbing large amount of water and
prove to be not good for subgrade from fig 17 as the recycled gypsum was added there
was a decrease in water content hence decrease the plastic index, however at 30% the soil
19 | P a g e
tended to increase water content. With the accordance with (SCAPA, 2014) guidelines for
subgrade allowable liquid limit and plastic limit prove that as the recycled gypsum was
added the soil was becoming good for subgrade.
4.3. Compaction (Modified proctor)
In highway and many other engineering projects dry density is an important factor to show
the strength of soil, the graph 18&19 show the modified proctor for soil and the
comparative graph for soil and its mixture with 10%, 20% and30% of GDW respectively
Compaction curve for soil

1.70
Dry density (g/cm3 )
1.60
1.50
1.40
1.30
10.00 13.00 16.00 19.00 22.00 25.00
Moisture content (w%)
Figure 18: modified proctor for soil
1.80 Compaction curve for soil

1.70
compaction of soil +10%
1.60 GDW
1.50 compaction of soil +20 %
1.40 GDW
1.30 compaction of soil +
30%GDW
1.20
11.00 13.00 15.00 17.00 19.00 21.00 23.00 25.00 27.00
Figure 19: graphical comparison of compaction with recycled gypsum at different ratios
The value of the characteristic proctor (dry density and moisture content) for soil, soil
+10%, 20% and 30% GDW are 1.66g/cm3&17.8%, 1.67g/cm3 &17.6% ,
1.692g/cm3&12.8% and 1.556g/cm&18.15% respectively the results above shows that at
20% the dry density have been increased as the moisture content have been decreased. The
20 | P a g e
dry density increase as the recycled gypsum are added, however there is a point where it
comes down notice at 30 %. The figure 20 below shows the effect of recycled gypsum to
dry density
1.8
Dry density
dry density vs percentage of GDW

[g/cm3]
1.7
1.6
1.5
1.4
0 10 20 30 GDW percentage
Figure 20: dry density vs percentage of GDW
Looking the figure 20 as the recycled gypsum were added there was an increase in dry
density of soil which lead good and strong soil. The reduction in moisture content and
increase in dry density improves the strength. This increase of dry density at the addition
of recycled gypsum to test can be assigned to the tendency of calcium of recycled gypsum
to stimulate the soil particle to modify thus the soil particles become liked together.
4.4 California bearing ratio [CBR]
Subgrade quality is an important parameter in analysis procedure, the most design methods
is based on CBR values, TRH4 provide a CBR cover design table 6 below. Also table that
why CBR test is taken as one of the most authoritative tests to examine the geotechnical
properties of materials in road construction, therefore during this research CBR values
gives a crucial focus to decide on the applicability of recycled gypsum in the subgrade
stabilization considered.
Table 6: Subgrade Classification for Structural Design (TRH4, 1996)
Class Subgrade CBR (%) Comment

SG1 >15 Good quality material
SG2 7 to 15 Moderate quality, needs 15 CBR>15 above
SG3 3 to 7 Fair quality, needs CBR>15 + CBR>7 above
SG4 <3 Poor material, special treatment
21 | P a g e
Therefore from the table 6, the tested soil was found to be SG2 (subgrade class 2) for its
CBR was found to be 12.18 which fall in range of 7 to 15 and then in the design it should
need to be raised above 15, the figure 20 give the summary of the CBR test of the soil that
have been used during the project research and figure 21 show the graphical comparison
of the CBR of soil at different ratios of recycled gypsum.
According to BS 1377 part 4:1990, the compactive effort used for this test of CBR of three
point method are 5 layers ,62 blows each layer with 4.5 kg rammer , 5 layers ,30 blows
each layer with 4.5 kg rammer and 3 layers , 62 blows each layer with 2.5 kg rammer.
Graphic of penetration
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
Load[ KN ]
1.00
0.00
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0
penetration [mm]
62 Blows with 4.5 kg hammer 30 Blows of 4.5 kg hammer
62 Blows with 2.5 kg hammer Poly. (62 Blows with 4.5 kg hammer)
Poly. (30 Blows of 4.5 kg hammer) Poly. (62 Blows with 2.5 kg hammer)
Figure 21: CBR graph for tested soil.
22 | P a g e
29
CBR value [%] 25
21
17
13
5
0 10 20 30
Percentage of GDW
Figure 22: CBR value against percentage of GDW
Soaking is an important test during subgrade stabilization due to weather condition this
subgrade shall meet the rainfall and floods that why the study of on the durability and
stability of soil stabilized by recycled gypsum after soaking is a crucial regard, for this
reason The compacted mould was soaked for 4 days before putting them in CBR machine
the swelling of soil was 0.315mm and after addition of recycled gypsum at 10%, 20% and
30% was found to be 27.6%mm22.83%mm and 30.7% respectively and it found that at
20% the effect of water was too short and has risen the percentage increase. According to
Ahmed et al 2014 this increase is due to the percentage of water added size of the gypsum
powder and the presence of the other minerals the figure 23 below show the comparison
of the effect of water i.e swelling after soaking on the soil with different ratios of gypsum
recycled.
32
swelling vs percentage of recycled
gypsum with soil
28
swelling [%]
24
20
16
0 10 20 30
mixing percentage of recycled gypsum with soil
Figure 23: swelling effect on the soil stabilized by recycled gypsum
23 | P a g e
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMANDATIONS
5.1 CONCLUSION
Waste management is a problem of global concern especially in Rwanda as the time move
on it result in fast urbanization and the construction expand, main tall building are being
raised and most of them are using gypsum drywall in wall partition , ceiling , inside doors
which lead to the rise in the amount of gypsum drywall wastes that are being produced,
the research project was to prove the potential use of recycled gypsum which come from
gypsum drywall wastes as subgrade road stabilizer, which shall lead to minimization of
landfills, much saving to the costs of wastes disposal and amend environmental
sustainability. Recycled gypsum has shown to be a good stabilizing agent for subgrade for
it gave a strong and unyielding subgrade which exceed CBR value recommended. Through
the tests results obtained from laboratory the following conclusions were extended
 Grain size distribution analysis assigned the tested soil as Silty clayey sand with gravel
with the accordance to the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS).The initial dry
density of the soil was 1.66g/cm3 and the CBR was 12.18
 Recycled gypsum was ascertained to be good in increasing the operational and
consistency of subgrade for it increase its dry density and decrease its moisture the
CBR at 10% was 22.95, CBR at 20% was 26.48 and the CBR at 30% was 17.65
throughout those results the mixing ratio of 20% of recycled gypsum was found to be
the best mixture for silty clayey sand with gravel soil.
 The increase in CBR value of the tested soil as the recycled gypsum was added indicate
that there is an increases in the strength of the soil and this has been raised the CBR
value to the acceptable range of CBR for subgrade design. The increase recycled
gypsum – soil ratio tend to slowly decrease the swelling of the tested soil, However as
the percentage of recycled gypsum increase the swelling decrease this implies the
recycled gypsum tend to absorb water as they become more hence the use of
solidification to decrease gypsum solubility is required.
24 | P a g e
5.2 RECOMMENDATION
The main aim of this research project was to prove recycled gypsum drywall wastes as
stabilizer of subgrade, according to the tests done the objectives of the project have been
achieved however following recommendations regard the future researchers
 The projects focus on one type of soil , and it is better to keep going to other types of
soils , in addition to this the tests are not limited to those done in this project however
many other strength tests shall be done for more knowledge. Therefore further research
is need so as to establish the use of recycled gypsum for subgrade stabilization for soil
other than this tested in this project.
 The increase in recycled gypsum-soil ratio decrease the swelling however as the
percentage is high the gypsum which are soluble in water tend to increase in water so
it is batter to add the solidification agents like cement or lime to minimize the solubility
of gypsum.
 The formulation of new technologies like recycling plants which are economically
feasible that can be used in crushing the demolition wastes.
25 | P a g e
REFERENCES
1. AASHTO. (1993). guide for design pavement structures.volI&II. Washington
D.C.: highway subcommittee on design.
2. AEA Technology Plc. (2006) Review of Plasterboard Material Flows and Barriers
to Greater Use of Recycled Plasterboard, The Waste & Resources Programme
1-84405-247-8.
3. Ahmed et al, (2015). An assessment of geo-environmental properties for utilization

of recycled gypsum in earthwork projects. J. Soils and foundations.55 (5) 1139-
1147.
4. Chang, W. and Mantell, M. (1990) Engineering Properties and Construction

Applications of Phosphogypsum. Phosphate Research Institute, University of
Miami. University of Miami Press, Coral Gables, FL.
5. Cobbinah P.J, (2010). Maintenance of buildings of public institutions in Ghana.

Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology: s.n.
6. David j. et al, (2008) Design Guide for Improved Quality of Roadway Subgrades
and Subbase Statewide Urban Design Manual and Specifications V9.
7. EPD (n.d) waste to water in Rwanda. Available from: http://www.epd-

rwanda.com/waste-to-power-kigali.html [Accessed 24 March 2016].
8. Eurogypsum (2005), waste policy: building value for society. Available from
http://www.eurogypsum.org/wpcontent/uploads/2005/04/EUROGYPSUMWAST
EPOLICY.pdf [accessed 24 march 2016].
9. Florida, department of environmental protection (2001), recycling of discarded

gypsum drywall in Florida.
10. Hemming’s, R. T., Venta, G.J., “Comments on the Use of gypsum Drywall Scrap
as an Admixture for Concrete,” New West Gypsum, Radian Report No. 714-069-
01, February 8, 1994.
11. Marvin, E. (2000) Gypsum Wallboard Recycling and Reuse Opportunities in the
State of Vermont”, Waste Management Division, Vermont Agency of Natural
Resources.
12. Mathew, T.V. (2009) Transportation Systems Engineering [Handout].3rd August.

(https://www.civil.iitb.ac.in/tvm/1100_LnTse/401_lnTse/plain/plain.htm).
13. National Association of Home Builders. “Residential Construction Waste: From

disposal to management.” www.nahbrc.org Viewed: 6 march 2016.
14. Nurhayat et al (2007) “Application of Phosphogypsum in soil stabilization”

Building and Environment.
26 | P a g e
15. Olsen, D. (2001), Gypsum.U.S Geological survey minerals Yearbook.
[Online].Availablefrom:http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/gypsu
m/gypsumyb01.pdf [accessed 14 March 2016].
16. Panagapko, D. (2006), “Gypsum and anhydrite”. Canadian minerals Year book.
[Online].available from http.//www.nrcan.gc.ca/ms/cmy/content/2004/30.pdf
[accessed 14 March 2016].
17. Pianc, (2009). Dredged Material as a Resource: Option and Constraints. Report
No. 104-2009. Available at http://www.pianc.org.
18. RBS, (2014). Newsletter. Roads, M. & Q, O., 2009. Pavement Design Manual.
Supplement to party 2: Pavement structural Design of the Austrauds Guide to
Pavement technology.
19. Robert, B. & Mehmet, C, (2012). Application of Construction and Demolition waste
for improving Performance of Subgrade and Sub-base layers. IJRRAS, Volume 12,
pp. 297-306.
20. SCAPA, (2014) overlay design and construction, Asphalt Pavement Design Guide
for Low-Volume Roads and Parking Lots.
21. Townsend, T.G et al (2001), recycling of discarded gypsum drywall in Florida.

Florida department of environmental protection.
22. TRH4, (1996) Subgrade Classification for Structural Design, structural design of
flexible pavement for interurban and rural Roads.
23. United States Census Bureau (n.d) “Housing Completions” available from
http://www.census.gov/const/c22_hist.html [Accessed: May 2016].
24. USG, (2016) “Ultra-light Drywall” available from

http://drywall01.com/articles/drywall[accessed: 25 April 2016].
25. WRAP, (2007) Use of recycled gypsum in road foundation construction, Waste &
Resources action programme.1-84405-368-7.
27 | P a g e
APPENDIX
GYPSUM DRYWALL WASTE(GDW) REUSE AS SUBGRAGE STABILIZER
ATTERBERG LIMIT
project: final year project Done by 215027735 and 215029739
sampling site: PLOT No 1316-NYARUGENGE-KIYOVU
sampling date: 12/4/2016
testing date: 26/4/2016
sample: soil
depth: 50cm-100cm From top soil
LIQUID LIMIT
PLACTIC LIMIT Liquid limit
Number of blows 38 35 29 24 47%
Can Nr° 1 2 3 4 1 2 3
Mass of empty can +lid [g] 69.70 71.30 68.10 71.60 73.00 69.80 70.30
mass of can +lid +moist soil [g] 98.50 96.32 99.00 100.44 82.90 77.40 80.80 Plastic limit
mass of can +lid +dry soil [g] 89.70 88.50 89.00 90.80 80.50 75.90 78.70
mass of soil solid [g] 20.00 17.20 20.90 19.20 7.50 6.10 8.40 27%
mass of pore water [g] 8.80 7.82 10.00 9.64 2.40 1.50 2.10
water content [%] 44.00 45.47 47.85 50.21 32.00 24.59 25.00
Plastic Indice
AVERAGE [%] 46.88 27.20 20%
Atterberg Limit for soil

50.00
Linear (Atterberg Limit for soil)
48.00
water content
46.00
44.00
42.00
23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39
Number of blows
APPENDIX 1: Atterberg limits results for Silty clayey sand with gravel
28 | P a g e
GYPSUM DRYWALL WASTE (GDW) REUSE AS SUBGRAGE STABILIZER
ATTERBERG LIMIT
testing date:April/2017
sample: soil+ 10% GP
LIQUID LIMIT PLACTIC LIMIT Liquid limit
Number of blows 34 24 20 15 32.74%

can Nr° 1 2 3 4 1 2 3
Mass of empty can +lid [g] 69.6 70.2 69.9 70.5 70.8 69 70.4
mass of can +lid +dry soil [g] 91.21 100.5 100.7 96.8 86.8 75.4 79.1
mass of soil solid [g] 21.61 30.3 30.8 26.3 16 6.4 8.7 25.27%
mass of pore water [g] 6.69 9.9 10.2 9 4.7 1.5 2
water content [%] 30.96 32.67 33.12 34.22 29.38 23.44 22.99
AVERAGE [%] 32.74 25.27 Plastic Indice
7.48%
35.00 ATTERBERG LIMIT CURVE

Water content (%)
34.00
33.00
atterberg for soil+10%GDW
32.00
Linear (atterberg for soil+10%GDW)
31.00
30.00
14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34
Number of Blows
APPENDIX 2: Atterberg limits results for Silty clayey sand with gravel + 10% GD
29 | P a g e
ATTERBERG LIMIT
testing date: April/2017
sample: soil+ 20 % GP
LIQUID LIMIT
Number of blows 32 25 19 15 24.60%
can Nr° 1 2 3 4 1 2 3
Mass of empty can +lid [g] 67.1 81 67.5 68 70.6 68 70
mass of can +lid +dry soil [g] 94.39 110.86 92.31 90.84 88 83.9 83.6
mass of soil solid [g] 27.29 29.86 24.81 22.84 17.4 15.9 13.6 19.39%
water content [%] 21.29 23.58 26.12 27.41 18.39 21.38 18.38
Plastic Indice
AVERAGE [%] 24.60 19.39 5.21%
28.00
Atterberg limit for soil +20GDW
27.00 Linear (Atterberg limit for soil

+20GDW)
26.00
25.00
Water content (%)
24.00
23.00
22.00
21.00
20.00
14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32
Number of Blows
APPENDIX 3: Atterberg limits results for Silty clayey sand with gravel + 20%GP
30 | P a g e
ATTERBERG LIMIT
sampling date: march/2017
testing date: April/2017
sample: soil+ 30 % GP
LIQUID LIMIT
Number of blows 30 24 22 17 34.68%
Pan Nr° 1 2 3 4 1 2 3
Mass of empty can +lid [g] 68.7 69.7 81.4 69.6 69.6 70.1 69.5
mass of can +lid +moist soil [g] 99.12 100.88 112.3 101.6 76.7 84 80.7 Plastic limit
mass of can +lid +dry soil [g] 92 92.9 104.25 92.7 75.2 81.1 78.4
mass of soil solid [g] 23.3 23.2 22.85 23.1 5.6 11 8.9 26.33%
water content [%] 30.56 34.40 35.23 38.53 26.79 26.36 25.84
Plastic Indice
AVERAGE [%] 34.68 26.33 8.35%
39.00
Atterberg limit for soil+30%GDW
38.00
Linear (Atterberg limit for
soil+30%GDW)
37.00
36.00
Water content(%)
35.00
34.00
33.00
32.00
31.00
30.00
16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30
Number of blows
APPENDIX 4: Atterberg limits results for Silty clayey sand with gravel +30% GP
31 | P a g e
MODIFIED PROCTOR
Date of testing:April/2017
Testing Method : BS 1377:part 4:1990
Added water % 4 6 8 10
Weight mould - Wet soil gr 9,462.80 9,997.80 9,861.10 9,340.50
Weight mould gr 5,537.10 5,537.10 5,537.10 5,537.10
Weight wet soil gr 3,925.70 4,460.70 4,324.00 3,803.40
Wet density g/cm³ 1.70 1.94 1.88 1.65
Volume mould cm³ 2,303.40 2,303.40 2,303.40 2,303.40
Dry density g/cm³ 1.49 1.65 1.57 1.35
can N° 1 2 3 4
Weight can +Wet soil gr 83.60 76.23 73.43 66.53
Weight can+dry soil gr 78.98 71.50 68.81 62.90
Weight can gr 46.17 44.50 45.13 46.47
Weight water gr 4.62 4.73 4.62 3.63
Weight dry soil gr 32.82 27.00 23.68 16.43
Moisture content 14.07 17.53 19.53 22.11
Compaction curve for soil

PROCTOR Mould
1.70
Number of blows :27 Dry density=1.66
Number of layers:5 W%=17.8

1.60
1.50
1.40
1.30
10.00 13.00 16.00 19.00 22.00 25.00
APPENDIX 5: compaction tests results for soil
32 | P a g e
MODIFIED PROCTOR

Date of testing:
Sample: SOIL + 10% GP
Weight mould - Wet soil gr 9718.1 10021.8 9916.9 9938.60
Weight mould gr 5429.5 5498.3 5429.5 5498.30
Weight wet soil gr 4288.6 4523.5 4487.4 4440.30
Wet density g/cm³ 1.86186 1.96384 1.94816 1.93
Volume mould cm³ 2303.4 2303.4 2303.4 2303.40
Dry density g/cm³ 1.61 1.67 1.60 1.54
can N° 1 2 3 4
Weight can +lid+Wet soil gr 103.8 117.8 109.5 108.90
Weight can+lid+dry soil gr 99.1 111.1 102.2 100.80
Weight can+lid gr 69 73.1 69.2 68.50
Weight water gr 4.7 6.7 7.3 8.10
Weight dry soil gr 30.1 38 33 32.30
PROCTOR Mould Dry density=1.67g/cm 3

Number of blows :27 W%=17.6
Number of layers:5
Compaction curve for Soil+GDW
1.68
1.66
1.64
1.62
1.60
1.58
1.56
1.54
1.52
1.50
10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00 18.00 20.00 22.00 24.00 26.00
APPENDIX 6: compaction tests results for soil +10% GP

33 | P a g e
MODIFIED PROCTOR
Date of testing:April/2017
Added water % 10 12 14
Weight mould - Wet soil gr 9604.2 9894.8 9669.4
Weight mould gr 5433.4 5498.8 5487.6
Weight wet soil gr 4170.8 4396 4181.8
Wet density g/cm³ 1.81 1.91 1.82
Volume mould cm³ 2303.4 2303.4 2303.4
Dry density g/cm³ 1.62 1.69 1.55
can N° 30 78 18
Weight can +lid+Wet soil gr 106.6 118.9 105.5
Weight can+lid+dry soil gr 102 113.4 99.7
Weight can+lid gr 62 71 65.4
Weight water gr 4.6 5.5 5.8
Weight dry soil gr 40 42.4 34.3
Moisture content 11.50 12.97 16.91
PROCTOR Mould Dry density=1.692

Number of layers:5
compaction of soil +20% of GP
1.74
1.71
1.68
1.65
1.62
1.59
1.56
1.53
10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00 18.00
APPENDIX 7: compaction tests results for soil + 20% GP
34 | P a g e
MODIFIED PROCTOR
Date of testing:April / 2017
Weight mould - Wet soil gr 9640.00 9735.10 9796.70 9783.10
Weight mould gr 5558.00 5558.00 5562.80 5561.80
Weight wet soil gr 4082.00 4177.10 4233.90 4221.30
Wet density g/cm³ 1.77 1.81 1.84 1.83
Volume mould cm³ 2303.40 2303.40 2303.40 2303.40
Dry density g/cm³ 1.51 1.54 1.56 1.54
can N° 900 100 37 0.00
Weight can +lid+Wet soil gr 114.50 103.70 118.70 100.30
Weight can+lid+dry soil gr 109.10 98.50 111.60 95.00
Weight can+lid gr 77.50 69.10 72.50 67.00
Weight water gr 5.40 5.20 7.10 5.30
Weight dry soil gr 31.60 29.40 39.10 28.00
PROCTOR Mould Dry density=1.556

Number of layers:5
Compaction curve for Soil+30%GDW
1.57
1.56
1.55
1.54
1.53
1.52
1.51
1.50 DD 1.555g/cm3
17.00 17.25 17.50 17.75 18.00
OMC 18.18 18.25
18.50 18.75 19.00
APPENDIX 8: compaction tests results for soil + 30% GP
35 | P a g e
C.B.R Test (California Bearing Ratio)

sampling site: Plot NO 1316-NYARUGENGE -KIYOVU
sampling Date
testing date: 13-14th april 2017
depth:50cm-100cm from The top soil
Ring factor :0.233 PENETRATION

Blows 62 of 4.5 kg hammer 30 of 4.5kg hammer62 of 2.5kg hammer Graphic of penetration
Penetration Reading (mm) Load(KN) Reading Load Reading Load 5.00
0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00
4.50
0.50 1.1 0.26 1 0.23 0.6 0.14
1.00 2 0.47 2 0.47 0.8 0.19 4.00
1.50 3 0.70 2.4 0.56 1 0.23
2.00 4 0.93 2.8 0.65 1.2 0.28 3.50
2.50 6.9 1.61 4 0.93 1.6 0.37
Load[ KN ]
3.00 7 1.63 4.2 0.98 1.7 0.40 3.00
3.50 8 1.86 4.8 1.12 1.82 0.42
2.50
4.00 9.4 2.19 5.2 1.21 1.9 0.44
4.50 10 2.33 5.4 1.26 1.94 0.45 2.00
5.00 10.2 2.38 5.6 1.30 1.96 0.46
5.50 13.8 3.22 6.6 1.54 1.98 0.46 1.50
6.00 15 3.50 6.8 1.58 2.4 0.56
6.50 16 3.73 7.2 1.68 2.8 0.65 1.00
7.00 18 4.19 7.6 1.77 3.2 0.75 0.50

7.50 19 4.43 8 1.86 3.6 0.84
8.00 20.9 4.87 8.8 2.05 4 0.93 0.00
2.5 mm 12.18 2.5mm 7.06 2.5 mm 2.82 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 8.5 9.0 9.510.0
C.B.R Value :
5.0 mm 11.88 5.0 mm 6.52 5.0 mm 2.28 penetration [mm]
choice : 12.18 7.06 2.82 62 Blows with 4.5 kg hammer 30 Blows of 4.5 kg hammer
62 Blows with 2.5 kg hammer Poly. (62 Blows with 4.5 kg hammer)
Poly. (30 Blows of 4.5 kg hammer) Poly. (62 Blows with 2.5s3kg hammer)
100.00
C.B.R Indices
DRY DENSITY
N° of mould ... A B 6
Number of blows ... 62 30 62
CBR Values
Mass mould - Wet[g]soil 9980 9530 9179.6

CBR Values VS Dry density
Mass mould [g] 5550 5500 5577 10.00
Mass Wet soil [g] 4430 4030 3602.6
Linear (CBR Values VS Dry
Volume of mould [cm³] 2303.4 2303.4 2303.4 density)
Wet density [g/cm³] 1.92 1.75 1.56
Moisuture content[ % ] 17.8% 17.8% 17.8%
Dry Density [g/cm³] 1.63 1.49 1.33
Reference Proctor[g/cm³] 1.63 1.63 1.63
% compaction [%] 100.0% 91.0% 81.3% 1.00
C.B.R Value % 12.18 7.06 2.82 1.30 1.35 1.40 1.45 1.50 1.55 1.60 1.65
Dry Density
EXPANSION RATIO 1/100 mm(SWELLING 1/100 mm) MOISTURE CONTENT AFTER COMPACTION
Blows MOISUTURE CONTENT AFTER COMPACTION

62 30 62
Date
initial dial guage setting 0.00 Number of blows 62 30 62
final dial guage setting 0.40 can N° 40 10 21
diference 0.40 Mass can+lid+Wet soil 80.5 91.5 91.6
percentage 31.50% Mass can+lid+Dry soil 79.8 89.9 89.6
Mass can 70.5 70.5 70.2
Mass water 0.7 1.6 2
Mass Dry material 9.3 19.4 19.4
Moisuture content 7.5% 8.2% 10.3%
APPENDIX 9: CBR Tests results for soil

36 | P a g e

Sample:Soil+10%GP
Blows 62 with 4.5 kg hammer 30 with 4.5 kg hammer 62 with 2.5 kg hammer Graphic of penetration
Penetration Reading Load Reading Load Reading Load
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.50
0.50 3.20 0.75 2.50 0.58 1.15 0.27
5.00
1.00 5.20 1.21 5.50 1.28 1.25 0.29
1.50 8.20 1.91 6.50 1.51 1.35 0.31 4.50
2.00 11.50 2.68 7.10 1.65 1.40 0.33 4.00
2.50 13.00 3.03 7.30 1.70 1.65 0.38
Load[ KN ]
3.50
3.00 15.00 3.50 7.90 1.84 1.75 0.41
3.50 16.40 3.82 8.00 1.86 1.85 0.43 3.00
4.00 17.10 3.98 8.10 1.89 2.00 0.47
2.50
4.50 18.40 4.29 8.20 1.91 2.15 0.50
5.00 19.00 4.43 8.30 1.93 2.25 0.52 2.00
5.50 19.70 4.59 8.40 1.96 2.25 0.53
1.50
6.00 20.80 4.85 8.50 1.98 2.26 0.53
6.50 21.70 5.06 8.70 2.03 2.27 0.53 1.00
7.00 22.80 5.31 8.90 2.07 2.27 0.53 0.50

7.50 23.00 5.36 9.00 2.10 2.27 0.53
0.00
8.00 23.00 5.36 9.10 2.12 2.27 0.53 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 8.5
C.B.R Indices : 2.5 mm 22.95 2.5mm 12.89 2.5 mm 2.91 penetration[mm]
5.0 mm 22.14 5.0 mm 9.67 5.0 mm 2.62 62 Blows with 4.5 kg hammer 30 Blows of 4.5 kg hammer
choice : 22.95 12.89 2.91 62 Blows with 2.5 kg hammer Poly. (62 Blows with 4.5 kg hammer)
C.B.R Indice 100
DRY DENSITY
Mass mould - Wet soil [g] 10059.5 8808.6 9199.1
CBR Val ues
Mass mould [g] 5575.4 4737 5574.7

10
Mass Wet soil [g] 4484.1 4071.6 3624.4 CBR Values VS Dry density
Volume of mould [cm³] 2303.4 2303.4 2303.4 Linear (CBR Values VS Dry density)
Wet density [g/cm³] 1.95 1.77 1.57
Moisuture content [%] 17.6% 17.6% 17.6%
Dry Density [g/cm³] 1.66 1.50 1.34
Reference Proctor [g/cm³] 1.66 1.66 1.66
1
% compaction [%] 100.0% 90.8% 80.8%
1.30 1.35 1.40 1.45 1.50 1.55 1.60 1.65 1.70
C.B.R Indice [1] 23 13 3
Dry Density

62 30 62
Date
initial dial guage setting 0.00
final dial guage setting 0.35 Number of blows 62 30 62
diference 0.35 can N° 5 10 2
percentage 27.56% Mass can+lid+Wet soil 124.6 116.7 106.7
Mass can+lid+Dry soil 116.7 109.4 100.6
Mass can +lid 70.5 72.4 70.2
Mass water 7.9 7.3 6.1
Mass Dry material 46.2 37 30.4
APPENDIX 10: CBR Tests results for soil + 10 % GP
37 | P a g e
Sample:Soil+20%GP
Blows 62 with 4.5 kg hammer 30 with 4.5 kg hammer 62 with 2.5 kg hammer Load-penetration graph
Penetration Reading Load Reading Load Reading Load
0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 5.50
0.50 5.1 1.19 4.1 0.96 1.8 0.42 5.00
1.00 8.1 1.89 5.1 1.19 2 0.47
4.50
1.50 11.2 2.61 7 1.63 2.1 0.49
2.00 12.7 2.96 7.6 1.77 2.4 0.56 4.00
2.50 15 3.50 8.6 2.00 2.9 0.68
Load[ KN ]
3.50
3.00 15.8 3.68 8.59 2.00 3 0.70
3.00
3.50 16.7 3.89 9 2.10 3.02 0.70
4.00 17.8 4.15 9.2 2.14 3.05 0.71 2.50
4.50 18.5 4.31 9.59 2.23 3.2 0.75 2.00
5.00 19.95 4.65 9.9 2.31 3.5 0.82
1.50
5.50 20.6 4.80 10.5 2.45 3.9 0.91
6.00 21.08 4.91 10.9 2.54 4 0.93 1.00
6.50 21.6 5.03 11.5 2.68 4 0.93
0.50
7.00 22.1 5.15 11.9 2.77 4.02 0.94
0.00
7.50 22.7 5.29 12.7 2.96 4.1 0.96
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 8.5
8.00 23.1 5.38 13.5 3.15 4.5 1.05
penetration[mm]
2.5 mm 26.48 2.5mm 15.18 2.5 mm 5.12 62 Blows with 4.5 kg hammer 30 Blows of 4.5 kg hammer
C.B.R Valuues :
5.0 mm 23.24 5.0 mm 11.53 5.0 mm 4.08 62 Blows with 2.5 kg hammer Poly. (62 Blows with 4.5 kg hammer)
choice : 26.48 15.18 5.12
C.B.R Values 100
DRY DENSITY
Mass mould - Wet soil [g] 9966 9819 8253.2
Mass mould [g] 5485 5579.5 4302.7
Mass Wet soil [g] 4481 4239.5 3950.5 CBR Values VS Dry
CBR Val ues
Density
Volume of mould [cm³] 2303.4 2303.4 2303.4 10
Linear (CBR Values
Wet density [g/cm³] 1.95 1.84 1.72 VS Dry Density)
Moisuture content [%] 12.8% 12.8% 12.8%
Dry Density [g/cm³] 1.72 1.63 1.52
% compaction [%] 100.0% 94.6% 88.2%
C.B.R Values % 26 15 5
1
1.50 1.55 1.60 1.65 1.70 1.75
Dry Density

62 30 62
Date
initial dial guage setting 0.00
final dial guage setting 0.29 Number of blows 62 30 62
diference 0.29 can N° 33 54 10
percentage 22.83% Mass can+lid+Wet soil 117.0 114.6 140.0
Mass can+lid+Dry soil 109.8 107.5 129.3
Mass can +lid 70.0 69.2 72.4
Mass water 7.2 7.1 10.7
38 | P a g e

sample: SOIL+30%GP
Blows 62 30 62 LOAD -PENETRATION
Penetration Reading Load Reading Load Reading Load 5.00
0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 4.50
0.50 3.2 0.75 2 0.47 1.5 0.35
1.00 5.2 1.21 3.9 0.91 2 0.47 4.00
1.50 7.2 1.68 6.4 1.49 3.5 0.82
3.50
2.00 8.2 1.91 6.5 1.51 4.2 0.98
2.50 10 2.33 7.5 1.75 4.9 1.14 3.00
Load[ KN ]
3.00 10.4 2.42 8.9 2.07 5.6 1.30
2.50
3.50 10.6 2.47 9.5 2.21 7.2 1.68
4.00 12.4 2.89 10.2 2.38 7.3 1.70 2.00
4.50 13.5 3.15 11.1 2.59 7.4 1.72
5.00 14.9 3.47 11.2 2.61 7.4 1.72 1.50
5.50 14.6 3.40 12.5 2.91 7.5 1.75
1.00
6.00 16.8 3.91 13.3 3.10 7.6 1.77
6.50 17.6 4.10 14 3.26 7.7 1.79 0.50
7.00 17.8 4.15 14.4 3.36 7.8 1.82
0.00
7.50 19.9 4.64 15.1 3.52 8 1.86 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0
8.00 21 4.89 16 3.73 8.9 2.07 penetration[mm]
2.5 mm 17.65 2.5mm 13.24 2.5 mm 8.65 62 Blows with 4.5 kg hammer
C.B.R Values : 30 Blows of 4.5 kg hammer
5.0 mm 17.36 5.0 mm 13.05 5.0 mm 8.62 62 Blows with 2.5 kg hammer
Poly. (62 Blows with 4.5 kg hammer)
choice : 17.65 13.24 8.65 Poly. (30 Blows of 4.5 kg hammer)
Poly. (62 Blows with 2.5 kg hammer)
100
C.B.R Values
DRY DENSITY
N° of mould ... A with 4.5kg hammer
B,with 4.5kg hammerC,
Mass mould - Wet soil [g] 9947.5 9884.8 9318.3
Mass mould [g] 5502.9 5676.2 5484.8
CBR Values
Mass Wet soil [g] 4444.6 4208.6 3833.5 CBR Values VS Dry
Volume of mould [cm³] 2303.4 2303.4 2303.4 10 density
Wet density [g/cm³] 1.93 1.83 1.66

Linear (CBR Values
Moisuture content [%] 18.2% 18.2% 18.2% VS Dry density)
Dry Density [g/cm³] 1.63 1.55 1.41
% compaction [%] 105.0% 99.4% 90.6%
C.B.R Values % 18 13 9
1
1.40 1.45 1.50 1.55 1.60 1.65
Dry Density

62 30 62
Date
initial dial guage setting 0.00 Number of blows 62 30 62
final dial guage setting 0.39 can N° 20 100 31
diference 0.39 Mass can+lid+Wet soil 130.0 127.8 139.6
percentage 30.71% Mass can+lid+Dry soil 118.6 116.4 125.8
Mass can 70.4 69.8 70.7
Mass water 11.4 11.4 13.8
39 | P a g e
APPENDIX 13: summarizes the suitability of different soils for subgrade
applications
Subgrade
Unified Soil CBR
Soils Load Support and Drainage Characteristics
Classifications Range
for Design
Crushed GW, GP, and Excellent support and drainage characteristics
30 to 80
Stone GU with no frost potential
GW, GP, and Excellent support and drainage characteristics
Gravel 30 to 80
GU with very slight frost potential
GW-GM, GP- Good support and fair drainage, characteristics
Silty gravel 20 to 60
GM,and GM with moderate frost potential
SW, SP, GP- Good support and excellent drainage
Sand 10 to 40
GM, and GM characteristics with very slight frost potential
SM, nonplastic
Poor support and poor drainage with very high
Silty sand and >35%silt 5 to 30
frost potential
(minus #200)
SM, (PI) <10, Poor support and fair to poor drainage with
Silty sand 5 to 20
and<35 % silt moderate to high frost potential
ML, >50% silt,
Poor support and impervious drainage with
Silt LL<40,and 1 to 15
very high frost value
PI<10
CL, LL>40 Very poor support and impervious drainage with
Clay 1 to 15
and PI >10 high frost potential
Source: American Concrete Pavement Association; Asphalt Paving Association; State of

Ohio; State of Iowa; Rollings and Rollings 1996.
40 | P a g e
APPENDIX 14: Relative CBR values for sub base and subgrade soils
CBR (%) Material Rating

> 80 Subbase Excellent
50 to 80 Subbase Very Good
30 to 50 Subbase Good
20 to 30 Subgrade Very good
10 to 20 Subgrade Fair-good
5 to 10 Subgrade Poor-fair
<5 Subgrade Very poor
41 | P a g e

Gypsum Drywall Wastes Reuse As Subgrade Road Stabilizer

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

Gypsum Drywall Wastes Reuse As Subgrade Road Stabilizer

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

REASERCH PROPOSAL ID: CEGE/CE/2016-17/36

“GYPSUM DRYWALL WASTE REUSE AS SUBGRADE ROAD STABILIZER”

A RESEARCH PROJECT REPORT

MUSABYIMANA Tite 215027735

MPAMO MPAMBARA Derrick 215029739

Under the Guidance of

Mr. GATESI Jean de Dieu

Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the award of

BACHELOR OF SCIENCE DEGREE IN CIVIL ENGINEERING

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL, ENVIRONMENTAL AND GEOMATICS

P.O. Box: 3900 Kigali, Rwanda.

CIVIL, ENVIRONMENTAL AND GEOMATICS ENGINEERING

REUSE AS SUBGRADE ROAD STABILIZER” is a record of the original veritable work

done by MUSABYIMANA Tite (215027735) and MPAMO MPAMBARA Derrick

Rwanda during the Academic Year 2016-2017.

Mr.GATESI Jean de Dieu Dr. G.Senthil Kumaran

SUPERVISOR Associated Professor and Head of CEGE

Submitted for Final Project Examination held at School of Engineering (Nyarugenge

MUSABYIMANA Tite MPAMO MPAMBARA Derrick

This Research Project is dedicated

Our parents and relatives

our friends for prayers, encouragement, and support

waste, In order to find a solution to these challenges, Rwanda Environment Management

Authority (REMA) is devising strategies to ensure proper solid waste management,

including dissemination of practical tools on solid waste handling, promotion of wastes

contribution to Sustainable development and minimization of wastes hence establishment

Construction and Demolition Waste.

LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................... vi

LIST OF TABLE .............................................................................................................. vii

LIST OF SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS ............................................................viii

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................... 1

1.1. Background .......................................................................................................... 1

2.1. Introduction .............................................................................................................. 4

3.1. Introduction ............................................................................................................ 12

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMANDATIONS ..................................... 24

5.1 CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................... 24

WRAP: Waste & Resources Program LBR: Laboratory Bearing Ratio

RS: Rwandan Standard. PI: Plastic Index.

IS: Indian Standard. NRSWA: new river solid waste

ASTM: American Society of Testing association

Materials AASHO: American Association for

PG: plasterboard gypsum. States Highway Office.

EPD: Energy private developers. CBR: California Bearing Ratio.

SG: subgrade class

GDW: gypsum drywall waste

CEGE: Civil environmental and

1.3. Objective of the study

1.3.2. Specific objectives

1.6. Scope of study

1.7. Organization of the study

Gypsum Drywall wastes generators

2.3. Concept of stabilization.

2.3.1. Method of stabilization

2.3.3. Elements of stabilization

2.3.3.2. Cement and lime

2.3.3.3. Recycled gypsum drywall

2.4.1. Grain size distribution

Figure 3: Particle size analysis of crushed and sieved GP WRAP, (2007)

2.4.2. Atterberg limit

Figure 4: Atterberg limit (AASHTO, 1993)

2.4.3 Compaction test

Figure 5: Moisture versus density relationship

2.4.4. Laboratory bearing ratio (LBC) of compacted soil- crushed PG mixtures