SOFT SOIL BEHAVIOUR DUE TO EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION USING DIFFERENT CONSTITUTIVE MODELS

7/24/2019 SOFT SOIL BEHAVIOUR DUE TO EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION USING DIFFERENT CONSTITUTIVE MODELS

1/161

2556


2/161

(.. )

(. . )()

(. . )

(... . )


3/161

: (COMPACTIONCHARACTERISTICS AND CBR OF SUBGRADE SOILS) :.

2038 200

2556


4/161

SATIT CHINON

: COMPACTION CHARACTERISTICS AND CBR OF

SUBGRADE SOILS.ADVISOR: PROF. SUKSUN HORPIBULSUK, Ph.D.,

P.E.

This research studieslaboratory and field compaction characteristics and CBR

values of subgrade soils. The gradation of the studied soils are in agreement with a

stanadrd of the Deparatment of Highways. The laboratory studies of compaction

characteristics and CBR values were performed by collecting test data from the Khon

Kaen Road Construction Center, Department of Highways, Thailand. The field

studies were perfomed at a construction project on highway route No. 2038, Ban

Muangmai, Poohweng District, Khon Kaen. The laboratory studies show that the dry

unit weight and CBR can be estimated from the basic properties, including the

percentage of soil passing sieve No. 200 and the liquid limit. The field studies on

compaction at optimum water content show that the dry unit weight and CBR increase

significantly with increasing the number of roller passes. Relationships between field

dry unit weight and field CBR versus number of rolloer passes are represented by

logarithm functions until the field dry unit weight reaches laboratory maximum dry

unit weight. An analysis of both laboratory and field studies leads to an effective field

compaction method and construction control.

School of Civil Engineering Students Signature___________________

Academic Year 2013 Advisors Signature___________________


5/161

. .

.


6/161

1 11.1 11.2 21.3 31.4 3

2

42.1 42.2 Proctor (1930) 72.3 Hogentogler (1936) 82.4 Buchanan (1942) 102.5 Hilf (1956) 112.6 Lambe (1985) 122.7

(compaction curve) 132.7.1 152.7.2 15

2.8 182.9 202.10 232.11 242.12

(embankment : Material) (..102/2532) 37


7/161

2.13 (Subbase) (..205/2532) 382.14

(.,204/2516)( AASHO T27-70) 392.14.1 392.14.2 402.14.3 412.14.4 422.14.5 42

2.15

LiquidLimit : L.L.)(.,102/2515)( AASHTO T 89) 452.15.1 452.15.2 452.15.3 492.15.4 492.15.5 49

2.16

Plastic Limit (PL) Plasticity Index (PI) (..103/2515) ( AASHTO T 90) 532.16.1 532.16.2 532.16.3 552.16.4 552.16.5 55

2.17

Compaction Test (..107/2517)( AASHTO T99) 552.17.1 552.17.2 562.17.3 612.17.4 622.17.5 62

2.18


8/161

(.-. 603/2517)( AASHTO T191) 662.18.1 662.18.2 662.18.3 732.18.4 782.18.5 79

2.19 ... (C.B.R.) (..109/2517) 852.19.1 85

2.19.2

852.19.3 962.19.4 982.19.5 98

2.20 CBR (Field CBR) (.-. 602/2517)( U.S. Corps of Engineers) 1062.20.1 106

2.20.2

1062.20.3 1112.20.4 1122.20.5 1122.20.6 113

2.21 1163 120

3.1

1203.2 1203.3 1203.4 (field density test)

Sand Cone Method 1213.5 121

4 124

4.1

124


9/161

4.2 1254.3 1264.4 1344.5 1394.6 142

5 144 145 147


10/161

2.1 392.2 404.1

32 1284.2 135


11/161

2.1 72.2 82.3

Hogentogler 92.4

Buchanan 112.5 Hilf 122.6 132.7 (compaction curve) 142.8 162.9

(Hopibulsuk et al., 2005) 16

2.10 (Johnson and Sallberg. 1960) 182.11

(Horpibulsuk et al., 2004) 19

2.12 Siburua (Lambe, 1962) 212.13

(b) (,2545) 21

2.14 -(2545) 22

2.15 - 232.16 Ohio( Joslin, 1959) 252.17 (Nagaraj et al., 2006) 252.18 (a) 272.18 (b)

(Horpibulsuk et al., 2008a) 27


12/161

2.19 (a) 282.19 (b)

(Horpibulsuk et al., 2009a) 282.20 A

d Aw (Horpibulsuk et al., 2008a) 292.21 B

d Bw (Horpibulsuk et al., 2008a) 302.22

(Horpibulsuk et al., 2009a) 312.23

( Proctor, 1948) (Horpibulsuk et al., 2008a) 332.24 Red earth

( US Army Crops of Engineers, 1970) (Horpibulsuk et al., 2008a) 332.25

( Turnbull and Foster, 1956) (Horpibulsuk et al., 2008a) 342.26

( Horpibulsuk et al., 2004c) (Horpibulsuk et al., 2009a) 34

2.27 ( Ruenkrairergsa, 1982) (Horpibulsuk et al., 2009a) 352.28 Ohio 296.3


2.29 Ohio1346.6(Horpibulsuk et al., 2008a) 36

2.30 Ohio 2693.3


2.31 Machanical Liquid Limit Device 51

2.32 (Liquid Limit) 512.33 Cylindrical Mold,101.6 mm. 63

2.34 Cylindrical Mold,152.5 mm. 63

2.35 822.36 Laboratory Loading Machine 101

2.37 CBR 102


13/161

2.38 Field CBR () 1142.39 (pneumatic-tired roller) 1162.40 (vibrating roller) 1172.41 a)

(Johnson and Sallberg. 1960) 117

2.41 b)(DAppolonia et al., 1969) 118

2.42 75%

5 1193.1 1223.2 1233.3 1234.1 200

1294.2 200

1304.3 1304.4 200 1314.5

1334.6

133

4.7 1344.8

1364.9

1374.10

138

4.11 139


14/161

4.12 141

4.13 142


15/161

1

1

1.1

(Optimum moisture content,OMC)

(Maximum dry unit weight , ,maxd )

95 -3OMC +3OMC (Kneading)

( Sand Cone Method)


16/161

2

California Bearing Ratio (CBR) CBR (Test Unit Load) (Standard Unit Load) (PenetrationPiston) CBR

(Subgrade)

(Subbase)

(Base

) CBR CBR. CBR. CBR. .

CBR /CBR. CBR. CBR (Indirect mesurment) CBR CBR

1.2

1.2.1 (maximum dry density, ,maxd ) (Optimum water content, OWC)


17/161

3

1.2.2 CBR CBR

CBR ( ,maxd

) 1.2.3

1.2.4 (

)

1.3 :

(Liquid Limit ,L.L.) (Plastic Limit ,PL) (PlasticityIndex ,PI) (Standard

Proctor) Ohios compaction curve /

1.4 1.4.1

2001.4.2 CBR CBR

( ,maxd )

1.4.3


18/161

4

2

2.1

3 5

(Permeability) (Sheep Foot Rollers) (Vibrating Roller)

2.1.1.

Stock Pile Stock Pile

2.1.2.


19/161

5

(Homogeneous)

2.1.3.

2.1.4.

- ()-

- - Grid-


20/161

6

816 4 8 ( )

2.1.5.

2.1.6.

0.96 -0.128 / 150 . 300 .

150 . 300 . 2 -6

2.1.7.

(End result Specification)


21/161

7

( Methods Specification)

Percent Compaction (Over compaction) 100 %

2.2 Proctor (1930)

R.R.Proctor (1930) Los Angeles Engineering New-Record (proctor, 1933) Proctor Test 2.1

2.1

Proctor 2.1 2 2.2

maximum dry


22/161

8

density optimum moisture content

2.2

2.3 Hogentogler (1936)Hogentogler Proctor

4 2.3 4 4


23/161

9

2.3 Hogentogler

1. Hydration Stage

2. Lubrication Stage

3. Swelling Stage

4. Saturation Stage

Hogentogler Proctor


24/161

10

2.4 Bachanan (1942)

2.4

Arching Effect Arching Effect Hogentrogler Proctor

Arching Effect OMC OMC neutralizes surface tension OMC


25/161

11

2.4 Buchanan

2.5 Hilf (1956)

( OMC) OMC (void ratio; e) (water void ratio; ew) 2.5


26/161

12

2.5 Hilf

OMC 80 Hilf

2.6 Lambe (1985)

OMC


27/161

13

OMC 2.6

- -

- -

2.6

2.7 (Compaction Curve)

............................... (2.1)


28/161

14

( dry max) 2.1

( ) = wG s / Sr

Sr = 1 w = w

opt (Optimum Water Content)

1. Sr = 1 2. w

opt (

) (

) ()

() (Compaction Curve) 2.7

2.7 (Compaction Curve)

(Compaction Curve) 2.7

(maximum dry unit weight, ( dry max) (Optimum Water Content, w

opt)


29/161

15

2.7 w

opt

(Zero air voids line) 2.1 Sr= 1

Zero air voids line: ........ (2.2)

2.7.1

2.7.2

Lee and Suekamp (1972) 35

4 2.8 A 30-70 B 1 C B C 30 D 70 C D

Horpibulsuk (2005) 2.9

(modified proctor test

)


30/161

16

2.8

2.9 (Horpibulsuk et al., 2005)


31/161

17

Gurtug and Sridharan (2002)

OMC = 0.92PL .. (2.3)

= 0.98 .. (2.4)

100

2.4


32/161

18

2.10 (Johnson and Sallberg. 1960)

2.8

1 (E)

E = (2.5)

NB= 1 NL=W =

H =

1 4 (Est) (Emod)


33/161

19

Est= = 12.375 - = 592.5

Emod

= = 56,250-

2.11

70 SC Unified (USCS)

2.11 (Horpibulsuk et al., 2004)

2.11 1. 2.


34/161

20

2.9

(dry side of optimum moisture content) 2.12

2.13

( 95

( )

(Expansive due to wetting) 100 2.13b


35/161

21

2.12 Siburua (Lambe, 1962)

2.13 (b)

(, 2545)


36/161

22

- ( 2.14 2.15) (2.14)

( 2.15)

2.14 (, 2545)


37/161

23

2.15 -

2.10

()


38/161

24

2.11 Joslin (1959)

26 Ohio 2.16 Ohio Ohio

Nagaraj et al. (2006)

( 2.17) Nagaraj et al. (2006) (w/S0.5 w/S2)


39/161

25

2.16 Ohio ( Joslin, 1959)

2.17 (Nagaraj et al., 2006)

Horpibulsuk et al. (2008a 2009a)

9 (FSR = 0.2 2.1, LL = 39.7 256.3% PL = 6.1 48.2%)


40/161

26

16 Nagaraj et al. (2006)

w = AdS

Bd .......................(2.10)

w = AdSBw

............ (2.11)

Ad, Bd, AwBw

2.16 2.17 Horpibulsuk et al. (2008a) (2.10) (2.11)


41/161

27

2.18 (a) (b) (Horpibulsuk et al. 2008a)


42/161

28

2.19(a) (b) (Horpibulsuk et al. 2009a)

(

) Ad, Bd, Aw Bw 2.18 2.19 B

d B

w A

d A

w

() ( 2.18) Bd Bw () Bd Bw (2.19) () Bd Bw 1.0


43/161

29

Horpibulsuk etal. (2008a 2009a) A

d

Aw

B

d B

w (

) ( 2.16 2.17) Bd 0.70 0.86 0.62 0.74 Bw 1.50 2.72 1.53 2.35 Nagaraj et al. (2006) ( Bd= 2.5 Bw= 2.0)

2.20 AdAw (Horpibulsuk et al. 2008a)


44/161

30

2.21 BdB

w (Horpibulsuk et al. 2008a)

Ad, Bd, Aw Bw A

d/A

dst A

w/A

wst ( A

dst A

wst A

d

Aw ) (Horpibulsuk et al. 2009a) (2.10) (2.10) ( OWC/OWC

st)

BdBw 2.20

...............(2.12)


45/161

31

2.22 (Horpibulsuk et al. 2009a)

( (2.10) (2.11)) (

(2.12))

1. Ad, Bd, AwBw (dmax ,OWC) ),

2. OWC ODS 1) OWCst (2.12)

(dmax ,OWC)st ODS


46/161

32

3. (dmax ,OWC) OWCst(2.12)

4. AdA

w (2.13) (2.14)

Ad= ...............(2.13)

Aw= ...............(2.14)

5. (w) 2.10) (2.11)

( )6.

( , w) 5 2.21 2.25

Ohio (592.5 ) Ohio (Modified Ohios compaction curves) 2.26 2.28 Ohio 296.3, 1346.6

2693.3


47/161

33

2.23 ( Proctor, 1948) (Horpibulsuk et al., 2008a)

2.24 Red earth

( Us Army Crops of Engineers, 1970) (Horpibulsuk et al., 2008a)


48/161

34

2.25 ( Turnbull and Foster, 1956) (Horpibulsuk et al.,

2008a)

2.26

( Horpibulsuk et al., 2004c) (Horpibulsuk et al., 2009a)


49/161

35

2.27 ( Ruendrairergsa, 1982) (Horpibulsuk et al., 2009a)

2.28 Ohio 296.3

(Horpibulsuk et al., 2008a)


50/161

36

2.29 Ohio 1346.6 (Horpibulsuk et al., 2008a)

2.30 Ohio 2693.3

(Horpibulsuk et al., 2008a


51/161

37

(Density) RR. Proctor (1933) (Density) (Standard Proctor Test) (Runway)

(Energy) (Modified Proctor Test)

2.12 (Embankment) (..102/2532) (Pavement Structure)

50

(Subgrade) 1 150

95 .-. 107/2515 " Compaction Test"

300 150


52/161

38

(Benching)

(1) CBR .-. 109/2517 "

CBR" 95 .-. 107/2515 " Compaction Test

"(2) .-.109/2517 " CBR"

4 95 .-.107/2515 " Compaction Test "

2.13 (Subbase) (..205/2532)

50

(1) .-.202/2515 "

Coarse Aggregate Los Angeles Abrasion" 60(2) .-.205/2517 "

" 2.1


53/161

39

2.1

A B C D E

50 ( 2")

25.0 (1")

9.5 (3/8")

2.00 (10)0.425 (40)0.075 (200)

100

-

30-65

15-40

8-20

2-8

100

75-95

40-75

20-45

15-30

5-20

-

100

50-85

25-50

15-30

5-15

-

100

60-100

40-70

25-45

10-25

-

100

-

40-100

20-50

6-20

(3) Liquid Limit .-.102/2517 " Liquid Limit(LL) " 35

(4) Plasticity Index . -.103/2517 " PlasticityLimit (PL) Plasticity Index (PI)" 11

(5) CBR . -.109/2517 " CBR" 25 95 .-.108/2517 " Compaction Test "

(6) 1

(7) Shale Durability Index

35 .-

. 206/2517" Durability "

2.14 (.,204/2516)( AASHO T 27-70 )

2.14.1

AASHO T27-70 T 37-70


54/161

40

(Particle Size Distribution) Aggregate 200 (0.075 )

2.14.2

2.14.2.1 .

. 0.2%

. (Sample Splitter).

. 110 + 5 2.14.2.2 2.14.2.3 .3-10 .2-122.14.2.4

2.2

2.2

()

4.75 (4)

9.5 (3/4)

12.5 (1/2)

19 (3/4)

25 (1)

37.5 (1 )

50 (2)

90-100

90-100

90-100

90-100

90-100

90-100

90-100

0.5

1.0

2.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0


55/161

41

2.2 ()

()63 (2 )

75 (3)

90 (3 )

90-100

90-100

90-100

25.0

30.0

35.0

2.14.2.5

2.14.2.5.1

(Surface Dry) 110+5

2.14.2.5.2

1 1% 15 4.75 (4) 4.75 ( 4) 6 1000 200 203

(.)

2.14.3

=R x 100

T


56/161

42

R =

T =2.14.4

12.14.5

2.14.5.1 1

2.14.5.2


57/161

43


58/161

44


59/161

45

2.15 Liquid Limit (LL) (.,102/2515) ( AASHTOT

89)

2.15.1. Liquid Limit (LL)

Plastic Liquid 40 (0.425 ) Liquid Limit (LL) (Liquid Limit Device) 12.7 (1/2) 10 25

ASTM D 423-66, Test Method No. Calif. 204-13 Liquid Limit Mechanical Method2.15.2.

2.15.2.1(1) (2) 4 (4.75) 40 (0.425

)

(3) Liquid Limit 1 ( 1)

(4) (1)(5) 115

(4 ) 150 x 150

(6) Spatula 75 (3.0) 20 (0.75)

(7)

Pipette (8 (9) 0.01(10) 1105

2.15.2.2

2.15.2.3

.2-02


60/161

46

2.15.2.4 (1) 60.

Quartering Sieve Analysis 40 (0.425) 300

(2)

(3) 40 (0.425) 4 (4.75) 40 (0.425) 5

(4) 40 (0.425) 40 (0.425)

2.15.2.5.2.15.2.5.1 Liquid Limit

(1) (2.31)

(2) (3) (4)

(5)

(6)

10 10


61/161

47

2.15.2.5.2

Spatula Sqatula Spatula 4 Quartering

2.15.2.5.3

15-20 Spatula 1-3 5-10

2.15.2.5.4 40 50 1 ()

2.15.2.5.5 Spatula 10

2.32

2.15.2.5.6 Plasticity Index (PI)


62/161

48

6

2.15.2.5.7 2 12.7 (1/2) 3

2.15.2.5.8 2.5.7

PI

2.15.2.5.9 12.7

(1/2)

2.15.2.5.10

() 2.5.5 2.5.9

2.15.2.5.11 4 5-7

1 35 -402 25-35

3 20-30


63/161

49

4 15-25 15-40

2.15.2.5.12

2.15.2.5.13 (

0.01) 105-115 0.

2.15.3.

W =

W = 2.15.4.

2.15.4.1 Flow Curve Semi logarithmic Graph .2-02 3

2.15.4.2 Liquid Limit 25 Flow Curve LL .2-02 1

2.15.5. 2.15.5.1 PI Silty Clay Sandy Clay


64/161

50

Spatula Slip

2.15.5.2 Sand Grains ClayLamps 40 (0.425) 60 0. PI LL Organic Matters

2.15.5.3 12.7

(1/2)

2.15.5.4

2.15.5.5

2.15.5.6


65/161

51

2.31 MACHANICALLIQUID LIMIT DEVICE

2.32

LIQUID LIMIT


66/161

52

( : AASHO T 89-68, 10 THE DITION 1971. FIG.6)C-443 .................................. 26/4/43....................................... - 3

ATTERBERG LIMITS

Sample : Weathering Rock No.. Of ..

Soruce : km. 43+150-43+295 Frontage Rd., Rt

Test LIQUID LIMIT PLASTIC LIMIT

Trial 1 2 3 4 1 2

Can No. 10 5 13 22 16 19

No. of Blows 16 24 30 37 - -

Wet. Soil+can gm. 37.90 38.11 37.37 35.05 31.40 31.27

Dry. Soil+can gm. 33.82 34.17 33.66 31.70 29.47 29.26

Wt. of water gm. 4.08 3.94 3.71 3.35 1.93 2.01

Wt. of can gm. 20.96 20.70 20.11 18.79 19.93 19.53

Wt. of dry soil gm. 12.86 13.47 13.55 12.91 9.54 9.73

Water content % 31.72 29.23 27.37 25.97 20.28 20.66

L.L. = 28.80 P.L. = 20.47%

P.I. = L.L-P.L. = 28.80-20.47 = 8.33 %


67/161

53

2.16 Plastic Limit (PL) Plasticity Index (PI) (.. 103/2515)

(AASHTO T 90)

2.16.1 AASHTO T 90

Plastic 3.2 (1/8 )

2.16.2 2.16.2.1

(1) Liquid Limit

.-. 102/2515(2) 150 x 150 x 10

2.16.2.2

-

2.16.2.3 .2-02

2.16.2.4 LiquidLimit .-. 102/2515

2.16.2.5(1) 8

(Ellipsoidal Shape)(2)

80 90 ( 1)

(3) 3.2

(1/8 ) 2.15.2.5.11


68/161

54

(4) 3.2 (1/8 ) (2)

(5) (4) (4)

(6) (5)

3.2 (1/8 ) 3.2 2.15.2.5.11 (7)

(8) 2.5.4

6.0 10.00 (1/4 -3/8 )

(9) 2.5.4

3.2 (10)Plasticity

3.2

(11) 1105 0 .


69/161

55

(12) 2 PlasticLimit (PL) 2%

2.16.3 Plastic Limit (PL) Plasticity Index (PI)

Plastic Limit (PL) =

Plasticity Index (PI) = LL - PL

2.16.4

1 2.16.4.1 Plastic Limit (PL) Plasticity Index

(PI) PI NP (Non-Plastic)2.16.4.2 Plastic Limit Liquid Limit

PI NP2.16.5

2.16.5.1

2.16.5.2 2.16.5.3 Lilt PI

2.16.5.4 Plastic Limit LiquidLimit Non-Plastic Liquid Limit

2.17 Compaction Test (..107/2517) ( AASHTOT 99)

2.17.1 Compaction Dynamic Compaction


70/161

56

2.494 (5.5) 304.8 (12)

. 101.6 (4) 19.0 (3/4)

. 152.4 (6) 19.0 (3/4)

. 101.6 (4) 4.75 (4)

. 152.4 (6) 4.75 (4)

2.17.2 2.17.2.1

2.17.2.1.1 (Mold) 2

(1) 101.6 (4) 116.4 (4.584) 50.8 (2) 1

(2) 152.4 (6) 177.8 (7) 50.8 (2)

2.1.2 116.4 (4.584) 116.4 (4.564) 2 116.4 (4.584)


71/161

57

2.17.2.1.2 152.4 150.8 (5 15/16) 2.17.2.1.1 -(2) 116.4 (4.584)

2.17.2.1.3 50.8 (2) 2.494 (5.5 )

304.8 (12) 4 9.5 219

2.17.2.1.4 Jack

2.17.2.1.5 Balance 16 0.001

2.17.2.1.6 Scale Balance

1,000 0.1

2.17.2.1.7 1105

2.17.2.1.8 300

3.0


72/161

58

2.17.2.1.9 203 (6) 51 (2) (1) 19.0 (3/4)(2) 4.75 (4)

2.17.2.1.10 , , , , , Mechanical Mixer

2.17.2.1.11 2.17.2.2

2.17.2.3

.2-02 Compaction Test .2-15 Plot Curve Compaction Test

2.17.2.4 Soil-Aggregate

2.17.2.4.1 19.0 (3/4) (1)

Quartering

( 2-3%) 3 - 19.0 (3/4)- 19.00 (3/4)

4.75 (4)- 4.75 (4)


73/161

59

(2) 2.17.2.4.1 (1)

(3) 19.0 (3/4)

(4) 2.4.1 (3) 19.0 (3/4) 4.75 ( 4)

19.0 2,650 19.0 4.75 2,650 19.0 9,000 19.0 2,650 19.0 4.75

4,850

19.0 4.75 2,650+4,850 = 7,500 4.75 1,500

(5) 2.17.2.4.1 (4)

2.17.2.4.2 . 0 (3/4) ( 2-3%) Quartering

2.17.2.4.3 . .


74/161

60

4.75 (4)

2.17.2.4.4 2.17.2.4.1 2.17.2.4.22.17.2.4.5

(1) 2.17.2.1.1 (1) 3,000 1

(2) 2.17.2.1.1 (2) 6,000 1

2.17.2.4.6

2.4.4 42.17.2.5 Compaction Test

2.17.2.5.1 2.17.2.5.2 4%

2.17.2.5.3

2.17.2.5.4

1/3 127 (5)

2.17.2.5.5

- . . 25

- . . 562.17.2.5.6

3 127 (5) ( 10)

2.17.2.5.7 ( 116.4)


75/161

61

2.17.2.5.8 - 19.0 300- 4.75 100

2.17.2.5.9 , t , d

, w2.17.2.5.10 2.17.2.5.1 2.17.2.5.9

2% Curve

2.17.2.5.11 Curve (d) (w) Max.

d (Maximum Dry Density) , OMC. (Optimum Moisture Content)2.17.3

2.17.3.1W = ((M_1-M_2) 100)/M_2

w =

M_1 = M_2 =

2.17.3.2t = A/V

t = A =

V =


76/161

62

2.17.3.3d = t/(1+W/100)

d = t =

w = 2.17.4

Compaction Test 2.17.4.1 ()

2.17.4.2 () 2.010( 3) 20.8 % ( 1)

2.17.5. 2.17.5.1

Curve

2.17.5.2

2.17.5.3 2

1

2.17.5.4 4 (4.75)

2.17.5.5


77/161

63

2.33Cylindrical Mold, 101.6 mm. (4.0 in) for soil Tests.

2.34 Cylindrical Mold, 152.5 mm. (6.0 in) for soil Tests.


78/161

64

.......................................................................................................................................................................................... - 3 ......................... 1/5/43

COMPACTION TEST

Soil Sample : Sand Bedding - Backfill Layer MW A 1,000 mm.

Location : ..Boring No. : Depth : .Type Test : ..Mold Wt. : 3.528 kgs. Volume : 936.6 ml.

DENSITY

Trial (Water added) % 10 12 14 16

Wt. Mold + Soil (Kg.) 5.265 5.380 5.437 5.416

Wt. Mold (Kg.) 3.528 3.528 3.528 3.528

Wt. Soil (Kg.) 1.737 1.852 1.909 1.888

Wt. Density (gm./ml.) 1.855 1.977 2.038 2.016

Dry Density (gm./ml.) 1.679 1.760 1.780 1.725

Void Ratio e

Porosity n

WATER CONTENT

Can No. 27 12 19 23

Wt. Can + Wet Soil (gm.) 380.7 346.8 362.3 373.8

Wt. Can + Dry Soil (gm.) 348.5 313.4 321.6 325.8

Wt. Water (gm.) 32.2 33.4 40.7 48.0

Wt. Can (gm.) 41.5 42.0 40.9 42.0

Wt. Dry Soil (gm.) 307.0 271.4 280.7 283.8

Water Content (%) 10.5 12.3 14.5 16.9

Remarks Avg = 0.5 %


79/161

65

Test No. P-3

Type of Test Compaction Test .Datec 2/5/43

Source Sand Bedding-Backfill Layer AW A 1,000 mm.

Plotted by


80/161

66

2.18 (.-. 603/2517)

(AASHTO T 191

)

2.18.1 (Sand Replacement Sand Cone Method)

(In-Place Density) 50.8 (2 )

2.18.2 2.18.2.1

( 2.38) 2.18.2.1.1 (Jar)

3,780 (1 ) 160 80

2.18.2.1.2 (Metal Funnel) 210

(Value) (Orifice) 12.7 (1/2 ) 28.6 (1 1/8 ) 165.1 (6 1/2 ) 171.5 (6 3/4 ) 136.5 (5 3/8 )

Gasket

2.18.2.1.3 (Base Plate) 304.8 x304.8 (12 x 12 ) 165.1 () 3.2 (1/8 )


81/161

67

4

2,800 (0.10 )

2.18.2.1.4 (Ottawa Sand) (Free Flowing)

20 (0.85 ) 40 (0.425 ) (Bulk Density) 1

2.18.2.1.5 16 1.0

2.18.2.1.6 1,000 0.1 2.18.2.1.7 (Drying Equipment)

1105

2.18.2.1.8 19.0 (3/4) 20 (0.85 ) 40

(0.425 ) 2.18.2.2

-

2.18.2.3 2.18.2.3.1 . 6-03 .2.18.2.3.2 19 .0

10% . 6-

03 . . 6-

03 .


82/161

68

2.18.2.3.2 . 6-07 2.18.2.4

-

2.18.2.52.18.2.5.1 (Bulk Density of Sand)

(1) (M1)

(1.1)

(1.2)

(1.3) (1.4) 3 M1

(2) (L)(2.1)

(2.2) (2.3)


83/161

69

(2.4) (2.5)(2.6) 3 M2

T 1(2.7) L

1.

2.

2.18.2.5.2

19.0 (1)

(1.1) X4(1.2) P2(1.3)

M1

(2)

(3)


84/161

70

M2 M

1

M2

M5

4 (4.75 ) 3

(4)

3 W3

(5) 100-150

6 (5.1)

P1

(5.2)

P1P2 P3

(6) 100 6(6.1)

X1


85/161

71

(6.2) 1005o. X2

(6.3) X1X2 X3

(6.4)

X5

(6.5) w

(7) (

) W4

W3W4 W

6

(8) W6W5 W

7


86/161

72

(9) V1

s

2.18.2.5.3 50.8 19.0 10% (1) 2.5.2 (1) (5)(2) 19.0

P4

(3)

19.0 (4) 2.5.2 (6) (8)(5) 19.0

V2

2.18.2.5.4

50.8 19.0 10% Grade A Grade B ()(1) 2.5.2 (1) (5)(2) 19.0

(2.1) P5(2.2) P

5

(3) 19.0 Grade A Grade B V3 G BulkSaturated-Surface Dry Specific Gravity


87/161

73

.-. 207/2517 Bulk Specific Gravity

(4) 2.5.2 (6) (8)(5) V4

19.0 V5

2.18.3 2.18.3.1

2.18.3.1.1

L = M2T

L = M2 = T = 1 5

2.18.3.1.2

s =

s =

M1 =

L = 2.18.3.2

2.18.3.2.1

X3 = X

1X

2

X3 = X

1 =

M1

L


88/161

74

X2 =

2.18.3.2.2

X5 = X

2X

4

X5 = X

2 =

X4 =

2.18.3.2.3

w = x 100

w = X3 = X5 =

2.18.3.3 2.18.3.3.1

M5 = M1M2

M5

= M

1 =

M2 =

2.18.3.3.2

M6 = M

3M

4

M6

= M3 =

X3

X5


89/161

75

M4 = 2.18.3.3.3

M7 = M

6M

5

M7

= M6 = M5 =

2.18.3.4 19.0 2.18.3.4.1 *

V1 =

V1 = M7 =

s =

2.18.3.4.2

P3 = P1P2

P3 = P1 = P2 =

2.18.3.4.3

W

=

W = P

3 =

V1 =

M7

5

P3

V1


90/161

76

2.18.3.4.4

d =

d =

W =

W = 2.18.3.5 19.0

10% 2.18.3.5.1 19.0

V2 =

V2 = 19.0

M7 =

S =

2.18.3.5.2

2 =

2 =

P

4 = 19.0

V2 = 19.0

2.18.3.5.3

d =

W

100

W1+

W7

S

P4

V2

W

100

2

1+


91/161

77

d =

2 =

W =

2.18.3.6 19.0 10% Grade A Grade B

2.18.3.6.1 19.0

V3 =

V3 = 19.0

P6 = 19.0

G = 19.0

W = 1

2.18.3.6.2 19.0

V5 = V4V3

V5 = 19.0

V4 = V3 = 19.0

2.18.3.6.3

3 =

3

=

P6

GW

P5

V5


92/161

78

P5 = 19.0

V5 = 19.0

2.18.3.6.4

d =

d =

3 =

W =

2.18.3.7

Pc = x 100

Pc = d =

m = .-. 107/2517 108/2517

2.18.4

2.18.4.1

2.18.4.2 3 1

d

m

W

100

3

1+


93/161

79

2.18.5 2.18.5.1 2.18.5.2 2.18.5.3 2.18.5.4 1 2.18.5.5 2.18.5.6 2.18.5.7

2.18.5.8 19.0

2.20.2.5.4 (3)


94/161

80

DH-T 603 .-. 603/2517. 6-03 .

FIELD DENSITY TEST

SAND REPLACEMENT METHOD

- . Base Course Lime Stone . 25 .. 16 .

Density of sand (S) 1,500 gm./ml.Station Km. 1+325 1+416 1+502 1+629 1+716

Off set m. 1.5 Lt. 2.4 Rt. 1.8 Rt. 2.6 Lt. 2.0 Rt.

VOLUME DETERMINATION

Mass of Sand in funnel

initiaMass(M) gm. 7,350 7,849 8,054 7,965 8,031

finalMass (M) gm. 5,603 5,953 6,352 6,307 6,307

Mass of Sand used M = (M1M

2) gm. 1,747 1,896 1,702 1,678 1,724

Mass of Sand in hole and funnel

initialMass(M3)

gm.

8,008 8,167 7,840 7,940 7,971

finalMass(M2) gm.

2,926 3,267 3,221 3,312 3,448

Mass of Sand used M6=(M

3M

2) gm. 5,082 4,900 4,619 4,628 4,523

Mass of Sand in hole M7=(M

6-M

5) gm. 2,335 3,004 2,917 2,950 2,799

Volume of hole V1= (M

6+

S ) or = V

2 ml. 2,214.5 1,994.7 1,936.9 1,958.8 1,858.6

V5 from . 6-03 . ml. 1,937.1 1,725.8 1,684.78 1,704.3 1,614.9

WATER CONTENT DETERMINATION

Can No. gm. 20 F-80 F-2 75 81

Wet soil + can. (X1) gm. 254.3 274.0 285.2 292.6 254.6

Dry soik + can. (X2) gm. 245.3 268.2 276.0 283.0 245.2

Mass of water X3= ( X

1- X

2) gm. 9.0 5.8 9.2 9.6 9.4

Mass of can (X4) gm. 45.7 43.2 41.0 43.0 45.2

Mass of Dry soil X5= ( X

2- X

4) gm.

199.6 225.0 235.0 240.0 200.0

Water content [(X3- X

5) 100] = % 4.5 2.6 3.9 4.0 4.7

Mass OF DENSITY SAMPLE

Wet soil + container (P1) gm. 4,809 4,142 4,152 4,333 4,083

Mass of container (P2

) gm.

317 317 317 317 317

Mass of wet soil P3 = (P

1-P

2) or = P

4 = or = P

5 gm. 4,492 3,825 3,835 4,016 3,766

Wet density = (P3+V) or = (P4 V2) or=(P5 V5) gm./ml. 2.319 2.216 2.276 2.308 2.332

Dry density [ 1w

1100

] =d gm./ml. 2.219 2.150 2.191 2.219 2.227

ERCENT COMPACTION DETERMINATION

Max. density m gm./ml. 2.254 2.254 2.254 2.254 2.254

% Compaction Pc=( d m )100)

98.4 95.8 97.2 98.4 98.8

DEPTH OF COMPACTED MATERIAL

Designed depth cm. 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0

Actual depth in field cm. 38.0 35.0 40.0 37.0 40.0

(Soil-Aggregate Gradation Specs. Grade A B Data . 6-03 . )


95/161

81

DH-T 603 . 6-03 .

FIELD DENSITY TEST

. 6-

03 . 19.0 10%

field density 19.0 10% error field density

19.0 10% Data . 6-03 .

Bulk saturated-surface-dry specific gravity (G) = 2.70

( 19.0 )

StationKm. 1+325 1+416 1+502 1+629 1+716

Off. Set. m. m. 1.5 Lt. 2.4 Rt. 1.8 Rt. 2.6 Lt. 2.0 Rt.

Volume of 19.0 mm. retained-aggregate

Wt. of + 19.0 mm. aggregate (p6) gm. 749 726 681 590 658

Volume of + 19.0 mm. aggregate V3= (p

6 G) cc. 277.4 268.9 252.2 218.5 243.7

Total Volume of hole V1from . 6-03 . = (V4) cc. 2,214.5 1,994.7 1,936.9 1,958.8 1,858.6

Volume of 19.0 mm. passing-aggregate (V5) or

Volume of hole = (V4V

3) cc.

(Volume of hole wet density . 6-03 .) 1,937.1 1,725.8 1,684.7 1,740.3 1,614.9

Soil-Aggregate Gradation Specs. Grade A B


96/161

82

DH-T 603 .-. 603

2.35


97/161

83

.-. 603

Field Density Test Report

Project : - .Section : - Date 18 .. 16 Tested by .

. Material Engineer.

No. StationDepth

cm.

Material

to be

used as

Laboratory Test In-Place Test

Percent

Compaction

Minimum

Compaction

Required

Acceptance RemarksOpt.

Moist.

%

Density

gm/ml.

Moisture

%

Density

gm/ml.

1 1+325 1.5 Lt. 23.8 Subbase 6.8 2.254 4.5 2.219 98.4 95.0 2 1+416 2.4 Rt. 23.5 Subbase 6.8 2.254 2.6 2.160 95.8 95.0 3 1+502 1.8 Rt. 24.0 Subbase 6.8 2.254 3.9 2.191 97.2 95.0 4 1+629 2.6 Lt. 23.7 Subbase 6.8 2.254 4.0 2.219 98.4 95.0 5 1+716 2.0 Rt. 24.0 Subbase 6.8 2.254 4.7 2.227 98.8 95.0

83


98/161

84

.-. 603/2517 5

(T)1214161820222426283032

53.657.260.864.468.871.675.278.882.486.089.6

1.000 481.000 731.001 031.001 381.001 771.002 211.002 681.003 201.003 751.004 351.004 97

6

()

()

5.7512.5

25.0

41/2

1

7001,400

2,100

100250

500


99/161

85

2.19 CBR (..109/2517) ( AASHTO T 193)2.19.1

CBR BearingValue (Mold) Optimum Moisture Content

CBR 2 . (Soaked)

. (Unsoaked) .2.19.2.

2.19.2.1 2.19.2.1.1 (Loading Machine)

CBR

5,000 ( 10,000 , 50 ) () ( Hydraulic) (Piston) 1.27 (0.05 ) Jack

Dial Gauge 1.27 (0.05 ) Proving Ring ( ) ( Hydraulic ) 2 (20 ) ()


100/161

86

2.19.2.1.2 (Mold) 152.4 (6 ) 177.8 (7 ) (Collar) 50.8 (2 ) (Spacer Disc) 2.13 116.4 (4.584 )

116.4 (4.584 )2.19.2.1.3 (Spacer Disc)

150.8 (5 15/16 ) 2.1.2 116.4 (4.584 )

2.19.2.1.4 (Rammer) 2

(1) 50.8 (2 ) 4,537 (10) 457.2 (18 ) 4 9.5

19.0 CBR .-.108/2517

(2) 50.8 (2 ) 2,495 (5.5 ) 304.8 (12 )


101/161

87

4 9.5 19.0 CBR . -.107/2517

2.19.2.1.5 (Expansion Measuring Apparatus)(1) (Swell Plate)

()(2) (Tripod) Dial Gauge 0.01 25 ( Dial Gauge 0.001 1 ) ()

2.19.2.1.6 (Surcharge Weight)

149.2 (57/8 ) 54.0 (2 1/8 ) 2,268 (5 )

2.19.2.1.7 (Penetration Piston) 49.5 (1.95 )

1,935.5 (3 ) 101.6 (4 )

2.19.2.1.8 (Sample Extruder) Jack


102/161

88

2.19.2.1.9 Balance 16 0.001

2.19.2.1.10 Scale Balance 1,000 0.1

2.19.2.1.11 110 5o .

2.19.2.1.12 (Straight Edge) 300 3.0

2.19.2.1.13 (Sample Splitter)2.19.2.1.14 203.2

(8 ) 50.8 (2 )

(1) 19.0 (3/4 )(2) 4.75 ( 4)2.19.2.1.15

Mechanical Mixer

2.19.2.1.16

2.19.2.1.17

2.19.2.2 2.19.2.2.1 152.4

(6 )2.19.2.2.2

2.19.2.3

. 2-11 CBR


103/161

89

. 2-15 Plot Curve CBR . 2-15 . Plot Curve CBR

2.19.2.4 Soil Aggregate

2.19.2.4.1 19.0

(3/4 ) (1)

Quartering ( 2 -3%) 3 - 19.0 (3/4 )- 19.0 (3/4 )

4.75 ( 4)- 4.75 ( 4)

(2) 2.4.1 (1)

(3) 19.0 (4) 2.21.2.4.1 (3)

19.0 4.75

19.0 2,650 19.0 4.75 2,650 19.0 9,000 19.0 2,650 19.0 4.75

4,850


104/161

90

4.75 1,500

- 19.0 4.75

2,650 + 4,850 = 7,500 - 4.75 1,500

(5) 2.21.2.4.1 (4) 2.19.2.4.2 19.0

(3/4 ) ( 2 -3%) Quartering

2.19.2.4.3 4.75 ( 4)

4.75 ( 4) 2.19.2.4.4 2.21.2.4.1 2.21.2.4.2

2.21.2.4.3 6,000 1

2.19.2.4.5 2.21.2.4.4 3

2.19.2.5 2.19.2.5.1

(1) 2.19.2.4

(2) Compaction Test .-. 107/2517 .-. 108/2517 (OptimumMoisture Content)


105/161

91

- . 2-05 . -.107/2517 . -. 108/2517

-

CBR Compaction Test

(3) 2.21.2.5.1 (2)

(4) (5)

(6)

1 5 127.0 (5 )

(7) 2.21.2.1.4 (1) 2.21.2.1.4 (2) 12

(8) 5 127.0 (5 ) 10 .0


106/161


107/161

93

- 4.75 100

(3) t (Wet Density)

t (Dry Density) w (Moisture Content) 2.21.3.1 2.19.3.2 2.19.3.3

2.19.2.5.2 (Swell)(1) (Swell Plate)

2 (Base) (Subbase) (SelectedMaterials) 3 Subgrade 2.21.2.5.1 (10) (Tripod) Dial Gauge

InitialReading Dial Gauge Reading Dial Gauge Reading Dial Gauge (Swell) Reading Dial Gauge Dial

Gauge Initial Reading

(2) 4 4 ()

15


108/161

94

Granular Material PenetrationTest

2.19.2.5.3 Penetration Test CBR(1) . (Unsoaked)

(Swell)

2.19.2.5.3 2.19.2.5.2 Penetration Test (2) 2.19.2.5.3 (2) 2.19.2.5.4 (1)

2 (Base) (Subbase)(Selected Material) 3 Subgrade

(3) (4)

4 (40 ) ProvingRing

Dial Gauge Penetration 4 (40 ) Stress vs.Penetration

(5) 1.27 (0.05


109/161

95

) Penetration Dial Gauge

(6) Penetration - 0.63 (0.025 )- 1.27 (0.050 )- 1.90 (0.075 )- 2.54 (0.100 )- 3.17 (0.125 )-

3.81 (0.150 )- 4.44 (0.175 )- 5.08 (0.200 )- 6.35 (0.250 )- 7.62 (0.300 )- 8.89 (0.350 )- 10.16 (0.400 )

- 11.43 (0.450 )- 12.70 (0.500 )

(7) 2.19.2.5.2 (2)

(8) Penetration Test 2

(9) Curve (Stress vs. Penetration) CBR

(10) CBR Curve1 CBR (Dry Density)


110/161

96

CBR

Curve Stress vs. Penetration CBR

Curve Penetration Curve CBR

2.19.3 2.19.3.1

w = x 100

w = M1 =

M2 =

2.19.3.2 (Wet Density)

t =

t = A = V =

2.19.3.3 (Dry Density)

d =

d =

M1-M

2

M2

A

V

w

100

t1 +


111/161

97

t = w =

2.19.3.4 (Swell)

Swell = x 100

S = Reading Dial Gauge Swell

H = (Initial Height)

2.19.3.5 CBR

CBR (Standard Load)

Penetration

(mm.)

Standard Load

(kg.)

Standard Unit Load (Y)

(kg./cm2.)

2.54 (0.1)

5.08(0.2)7.62 (0.3)10.16 (0.4)12.70 (0.5)

1,360.8 (3,000 lb)

2,041.2 (4,500 lb)

2,585.5 (5,700 lb)

3,129.8 (6,900 lb)

3,538.0 (7,800 lb)

70.3 (1,000 lb/in2)

105.46 (1,500 lb/in

2

)

133.59 (1,900 lb/in2)

161.71 (2,300 lb/in2)

182.81 (2,600 lb/in2)

1. SI 2. = 1,935.5 (3 )

CBR

CBR = x 100

X = ( Penetration 2.54 0.1 2.54 )

Y = (Standard Unit Load) ()

S

H

X

Y


112/161

98

2.19.4 CBR 2.19.4.1 CBR X% (

) 1 2.19.4.2 CBR 2.21.4.1 3

2.19.4.3 (Swell) 1 2.19.4.4 . 2-15 .

2.19.5 2.19.5.1 (Heavy Clay)

4 (4.75 )

2.19.5.2

2.19.5.3 (V) 2.19.2.1.2

2.19.5.4 CBR 2.5.1 (2)


113/161

99

2.19.5.5 Penetration Test ProvingRing Penetration Dial Gauge Frame Penetration Proving Ring Proving Ring Penetration . 2-11 Penetration Dial Gauge

2.19.5.6 Penetration Plot Curve Unit Load Penetration

Curve Curve Unit Load Penetration CBR Corrected CBRValue

2.19.5.7 CBR Corrected Load Value True Load Value

(Curve Curve) Penetration 2.54 (0.1 ) Penetration 5.08 (0.2 ) CBR

CBR Penetration 2.54 CBR Penetration 5.08 CBR 5.08 2.54 CBR

5.08 2.19.5.8

75 8 Curve 2.5.4 (10) ( . 2 -15 . )

2.19.5.9* CBR 2

2.19.2.1.4 (1) 2.1.4 (2)


114/161

100

CBR CompactionTest .-. 107/2517 ( 2.1.4 (1)) CBR Compaction Test .-. 108/2517 ( 2.19.2.1.4 (2))


115/161

101

.-. 109/2517Test Number DH-T 109/2517

2.36 LABORATORY LOADING MACHINE101


116/161

102

2.37 CBR.


117/161

103

C-443 . . - 3 .

.CALIFORNIA BEARING RATIO TEST

Sample Subbase Layer km. 43+150-43+295 Frontage Rd. Rt

Mold No. 4 Weight 0.200 Kg. Volume 2127 cc. Factor 8.3195 lb/Div-23 lb

DENSITY

No.blows 12 Wt Mold+Soil Kg.

No.Layers 5 Wt Mold Kg.

Wt Soil Kg.

Wt.Hammer 4.537 Kg. Wet Density gm./cc.

Drop 45.72 cm. Dry Density gm./cc.

WATER CONTENT

25 46 33 9

Wt. Can+ Wt Soil gm. 300.5 312.0 312.0 315.0

Wt.Can+Dry Soil gm. 282.7 294.3 293.7 289.5

Wt. Water gm. 17.8 17.7 18.3 25.5

Wt.Can gm. 41.6 42.1 42.0 41.7

Wt. Dry Soil gm. 241.1 252.2 251.7 247.8

Water content % 7.4 7.0 7.3 10.3

Average Water content % - 7.2 - -

PENETRATION TEST : Surcharge 2 pcs. = 4.536 Kg. Proving Ring No. 200382

Piston area = 19.355 cm.2 (3 in.

2) at 1.27 mm/min (0.05 in/min)

Date Time Reading

mm.

Swell

mm.

Swell

%

Days Pene

(mm.) (1)

Dial

Reading

Cor. Pme.

(mm.)

(3)=(1)-(2)

Load

(Kg.)

Rdg.from (2)

Bearing

Value

Kg./cm.2

Bearing

Ratio

(From Curve)

28/4/43 10.30 1.00 - - 0 0.63(0.025*)

7

29 10.30 1.17 0.17 0.14 1 1.27

(0.050*)

16

30 10.30 1.19 0.19 0.16 2 1.90

(0.075*)

25

1/5/43 10.30 1.20 0.20 0.17 3 2.54

(0.100*)

36

2 10.30 1.20 0.20 0.17 4 3.13

(0.125*)

45

(1)Optimum Moist. 7.5% 3.81(0.150*)

55

(2)Original Moist. 0.7 % 4.44(0.175*)

62

(3) Water to be added (1)(2) 6.9% 5.08(0.200*)

70

(4) Use soil passing # 4 2.460 gm. 0.35(0.200)

(5) Use soil retained # 4 3540 gm. 7.02(0.300*)

(6) Total dry soil (4)+(5) 6000 gm. 0.09(0.350*)

(7) Total dry soil (6)+ 100 (2)

100

5961 gm. 0.008

(0.400*)

(8) Total water to be added 408(7) (3)

gm. 11.44(0.450*)

12.70

0.200*)


118/161

104

. 2-15

Test No. C-443

Type of test CBR. At 12 Blows

Date 2/5/43

Source Subbase Layer km. 43+150-43+295 Frontage Rd. RT.

Plotted by


119/161

105

. 2-15 .

SUMMARY OF RESULTS

Type and No. of test C-443 (G-22)

Type of material Weathering Rock To be used for Subbase LayerSource . . Stock pile No.Location of sampling km. 43+150-43+295 Frontage Rd., RT.

Tested by , Dated 3/5/43

MaterialsPassing

L.L. P.L.50.0 25.0 19.0 9.5 # 10 # 40 # 200

A A-2-4 100.0 91.5 86.7 60.9 30.0 20.8 16.9 28.8 8.3

B Grade B # 4 = 41.0

Mixed A : B =

Blow Density gm./cc. CBR% Swell%8 - - -12 1.780 10.6 0.1725 1.874 37.5 0.1456 1.979 53.6 0.1075 - - -

100% Mod Comp. (.-. 108/2517) = 1.995 gm./cc.95% Mod Comp. (.-. 108/2517) = 1.895 gm./cc.O.M.C. = 7.5 % water content of (molding) CBR = 7.2 %Required CBR 25.0 % Raise percent compaction - %


120/161

106

2.20 CBR (Field CBR) (.-. 602/2517)(U.S. Corps of Engineers)

2.20.1

19.0 (3/4 ) U.S. Corps of Engineers

2.20.2

2.20.2.1 1 2 2.20.2.1.1

2.20.2.1.2 (Screw Jack) 5,000 (50 )

1.27 (0.05 )

2.20.2.1.3 (Penetration Piston) 49.5 (1.95 ) 1,935.4 (3 ) 142.4 (6 ) (Piston Rod)

Proving Ring 2.20.2.1.4

(Dial Gauge With Magnetic Holder) 25 0.01 ( 1 0.001 )

2.20.2.1.5 (Steel Plate) 3


121/161

107

(1) 2 4,537 (10 ) 304.8 (12 )

(2) 4,537 (10 ) 254 (10 ) 51.6 (2 1/32 )

(3) 2,258 (5 ) 254 (10 )

(SlottedSurcharge Split Surcharge)

2.20.2.1.6 Proving Ring 1,000 (2,000 , 10) 3,000 (6,000 , 30 ) Curve Proving Ring

2.20.2.1.7

(Dial Gauge) 2.20.2.1.8 (piston Rod)

2.20.2.1.9

2.20.2.2

2.20.2.2.1 2.20.2.2.2 2.20.2.2.3

2.20.2.3 . 6-01 . 6-02

2.20.2.4


122/161

108

-

2.20.2.5 2.20.2.5.1

500 x 500 ( . -.603/2517 CBR 300 )

2.20.2.5.2

CBR 19.0 (3/4 ) (Soak) (1) 2.20.2.1.5 (1) 1

4,537 (10 )

13 ,011 (30) (2) 2.1.5 (1) 1

2.20.2.1.5 (3) 1 6,084 (15 ) Subgrade 13,611 (30 )

(Degree of Saturation) 80% ( 24 )


123/161

109

15

2.20.2.5.3 ProvingRing

(1) 2.20.2.1.5 (2) 1 4,537 (10 ) 13 ,6 11 (3 0)

(2) 2.20.2.1.5 (2) 1 2.20.2.1.5 (3)

1 6,805 (15 ) Subgrade 13,611 (30 )

2.20.2.5.4 (Dial Gauge) Dial Guage (2.20.2.1.7)

2.20.2.5.5

4,000 (40 ) Proving Ring Dial Gauge 4,000 (40 )

Stress vs. Penetration


124/161

110

2.20.2.5.6 1.27 (0.05 )

2.20.2.5.7 Proving Ring - 0.63 (0.025 )- 1.27 (0.050 )- 1.90 (0.075 )- 2.54 (0.100 )-

3.17 (0.125 )- 3.81 (0.150 )- 4.44 (0.175 )- 5.08 (0.200 )- 6.35 (0.250 )- 7.62 (0.300 )- 8.89 (0.350 )

- 10.16 (0.400 )- 11.43 (0.450 )- 12.70 (0.500 )

2.20.2.5.8

(1) 19.0 300

(2) 4.75 100

2.20.2.5.9 Curve Proving Ring (Dial Reading vs. Penetration) CBR


125/161


126/161

112

2.20.4

2.20.4.1 CBR 1

2.20.4.2 2 2.20.4.3

. 6-01 . 6-022.20.5

2.20.5.1 400

2.20.5.2 Soak

2

2.20.5.3

2.20.5.4

2.20.5.5 2.5.6 2.5.7 90% (Capacity) Proving Ring Proving Ring 1,000 (10 ) Proving Ring 3,000 (30 ) Proving Ring3,000 (30 )

2.20.5.6 Penetration Plot Curve Load ( Proving Ring Reading) Penetration Curve Curve


127/161

113

Unit Load Penetration CBR CBR Corrected CBRValue

2.20.5.7 CBR Penetration 2.54 (0.1 ) Penetration 5.08 (0.2 ) CBR

CBR Penetration 2.54 CBR Penetration 5.08 CBR 5.08 2.54 CBR

5.08 2.20.6

2.20.6.1 The Asphalt Institute (1963). Soil Manual for Tesing of AsphaltPavement Structure.

2.20.6.2 Road Research Laboratory, Department of Scientific and IndustrialResearch, U.K. Soil Mechanics for Road Engineers.

2.20.6.3 .-. 109/2517 CBR


128/161

114

.-. 602/2517

Test Number DH-T 602/2517

2.38 Field CBR

2.38 Field CBR ()


129/161

115

. 6-01 .

-- . 1-500 L.T.

. C.B.R. Subgrade 1600 4.

Soil Agg. 80 mm. 120 mm..

Proving Ring No. AG.66 26 .. 37.Factor of Proving Ring 3.108 Kg./Division .

Pene. Dial Pene. Dial Pene. Dial

0.63

(0.025*) 1

4.44

(0.450*) 89 126

1.27

(0.050*) 16

5.08

(0.200*) 94

13.70

(0.500*) 128

1.90

(0.075*) 32

6.35

(0.250*) 104

2.51

(0.100*) 53

7.62

(0.300*) 113

3.17

(0.125*) 70

8.09

(0.350*) 120

3.81

(0.150*) 80

10.15

(1.400*) 124


130/161

116

2.21

2.21.1 ( 2.42) 4 6

85 100 (585 690)

2.39 (pneumatic-tired roller)

2.21.2 2.43 (off-center rotation weight) 20 30

(lift)


131/161

117

(drgree of compaction) ( 2.41a) 10 15

2.40 (vibrating roller)

2.41a

(Johnoso and Sallberg. 1960)


132/161

118

2.41b (DAppolonia et al, 1969)

2.41b

55.6 1.19 2.44 15 2. 44b 0.5 ()

2.36(DAppolonia et al., 1969)


133/161

119

2.42 75% 5


134/161

120

3

3.1 CBR.

CBR.

(Maximum dry density)

3.2 :

Atterberg CBR 2038 12()-.-.

3.3

- .-.204/2516

- (Liquid Limit :LL) .- 102/25/5


135/161

121

- (Plastic Limit: PL) .103/2515

- (Standrad compaction) .-107/2517

- .. ( CBR.) .-109/2517

3.4 ( Field density test)

(Sand Cone Test)

3.1 3.3 ( 500 )95 3.2

3.5 CBR.

() 0.1 3.3


136/161

122

3.1

General Test

CBR.

,maxd

>95%


137/161

123

3.2

3.3 ( Fied Compression test.)


138/161

124

4

4.1

(Stresshistory)

(Collapse duetowetting)

(Phien-wejet al., 1992)

()

California Divisionof Highway (1929)


139/161

125

95 3 +3

( )(Horpibulsuk et al., 2013)

1) 32 2)

4.2

1: 2: (Point stress ratio,

p)

0.1 (6894.76 ) 44.5 3:

Atterberg .-


140/161

126

.204/2516 .- 102/2515 .103/2515 (Standardcompaction) .- 107/2517 .-109/2517 2 3

5 5 10 () () (Unsoakedcondition)

2038 12 ()

4.3

200 25.1 56.3 10.95 4.62 17.3 18.5 4.1 0.35 32 4.1

Kumpala and Horpibulsuk(2013) 29.4 36.8

( 0.075 )


141/161

127

4.1 Degree of correlation 0.806 Leeand Suedkamp (1972) 35 30 70


142/161

128

4.1 32

% Passing

LL PI OWC

Dry CBR SwellUS

CS

No. 2" 1" 3/4" 3/8" #4 #10 #40 #200unit weight

(KN/m3)

(%) (%)

1 - - - - 100 87.5 82.8 28.7

30.7 7.4 14.0 18.32 5.18 0.6 SM

2 - - - - 100 86.0 80.2 30.7

32.0 8.4 14.4 18.09 5.06 0.8 SM

3 - - - - 100 84.9 79.3 28.6

31.4 8.8 13.1 18.51 5.41 0.9 SC

4 - - - - 100 82.6 75.8 35.9

34.0 9.4 15.0 17.96 4.72 0.8 SM

5 - - - - 100 87.5 82.8 36.1

34.0 9.5 14.8 17.86 4.83 0.8 SM

6 - - - - 100 86.0 80.2 26.5

32.3 8.9 13.2 18.49 5.41 0.6 SM

7 - - 100 95.6 82.2 74.2 69.8 28.6

31.4 8.6 13.3 18.50 5.41 0.8 SC

8 - - - - 100 84.9 79.3 34.1

31.4 8.5 14.4 18.00 5.06 0.9 SC

9 - - - - 100 86.0 80.2 40.1

34.4 8.2 15.2 17.91 4.72 1.5 SM

10 - - - - 100 95.0 91.7 44.1

33.1 8.6 15.8 17.63 4.37 1.3 SM

11 - - - - 100 95.0 91.7 37.7

31.4 8.6 14.6 17.88 4.83 1.8 SC

12 - - - - 100 95.0 91.7 41.1

33.4 9.2 15.6 17.67 4.37 1.8 SM

13 - - - - 100 93.0 88.2 37.9

31.7 8.7 15.6 17.76 4.37 0.9 SC

14 - - - - 100 95.0 91.7 28.6

31.4 8.6 13.5 18.46 5.41 0.8 SC

15 - - - - 100 97.2 95.6 29.0

33.0 9.3 13.7 18.40 5.06 0.8 SM

16 - - - - 100 86.0 80.2 37.9

32.7 9.7 15.2 17.66 4.26 1.4 SC

17 - - - - 100 97.2 95.6 26.6

29.4 7.6 14.7 18.09 5.29 1.3 SC

18 - - - - 100 86.0 80.2 33.1

31.4 8.1 15.3 17.89 4.72 1.2 SM

19 - - - - 100 95.0 91.7 37.7

31.4 8.5 14.0 18.30 4.6 1.8 SC

20 - - - - 100 95.0 91.7 31.0

30.0 8.0 14.0 18.13 4.95 0.8 SC

21 - - - - 100 93.0 88.2 34.0

31.0 8.2 14.8 17.80 4.83 0.8 SC

22 - - - - 100 95.0 91.7 34.1

33.4 9.6 13.3 18.41 4.72 2.0 SM23 - - - - 100 95.0 91.7 35.1

31.4 8.9 15.0 17.74 5.29 1.1 SC

24 - - - - 100 85.2 73.5 47.1

32.6 10.6 15.3 17.82 4.37 2.6 SC

25 - - - - 100 86.8 78.5 43.4

33.3 9.3 16.0 17.63 4.6 2.5 SM

26 - - - - 100 86.5 57.5 53.8

33.7 9.5 15.4 17.52 4.37 2.5 ML

27 - - - - 100 86.9 78.7 54.2

36.8 11.6 15.8 17.34 4.49 2.1 ML

28 - - - 100 95.8 82.4 68.3 56.3

35.9 10.5 16.4 17.46 4.03 2.5 ML

29 10

99.

98 89.3 68.8 63.7 53.8 46.7

35.3 10.8 15.1 17.59 4.37 2.5 SM

30 10

99.

99.2 89.1 67.1 61.8 52.1 46.1

32.5 10.1 15.6 17.78 4.49 2.5 SC

31 10

99.

98.4 90.2 72.8 69.8 56.4 47.3

34.3 10.6 15.5 17.58 4.72 1.9 SC

32 - - - 100 96.6 83.0 65.3 53.1

35.3 10.9 16.3 17.39 4.26 2.6 ML


143/161

129

(Sridharan, 1991 Sridharan and Rao, 1975) Ramiah et al. (1970),Pandian et al. (1997) Nagaraj et al. (2006) ( 4.1) 4.2

200

,max 0.0339 19.211d P .. (4.1)

P200

20 30 40 50 600

20

40

60

LLandPI(%)

Percent finer than 0.075 mm, P

LL = 0.2046P+24.892|r|=0.836

Highway No. 2420, Khon KeanHighway No. 2038, Amphoe Phuwiang, Khon KeanAmphoe Namsom, Udonthani

PI = 0.0907P+ 5.691|r|=0.772

4.1 200


144/161

130

20 30 40 50 6017

18

19

Dr

yunitweight,

d,max

(kN/m

3)


Highway No. 2420, Khon KeanHighway No. 2038, Amphoe Phuwiang, Khon Kean

Amphoe Namsom, Udonthani

d, max = -0.0339(P) + 19.211

|r|=0.873

4.2 200

16 17 18 19 2012

14

16

18

Dry unit weight, d, max(kN/m3)

Optimumwatercontent,OWC(%) Highway No. 2420, Khon KeanHighway No. 2038, Amphoe Phuwiang, Khon Kean

Amphoe Namsom, Udonthani

Chinkulkijniwat et al. (2010)OWC = 0.1154d,max

2- 6.7924d,max+ 99.407

4.3


145/161

131

Chinkulkijniwat et al. (2010) 32 4.3

20 30 40 50 600

1

2

3

4

Swell,S(%)


S = 0.0687P - 1.175|r|=0.873


4.4200

() () 4.4


146/161

132

(Attractiveforces) (Swell, S) 200

0.0687 1.175S P ..(4.2)

Horpibulsuk et al. (2013)

4.5 (CBR

soaked)

,max0.891 11.194soaked dCBR (4.3)

( 4.6)

4.7 ( ) 4.1 4.6


147/161

133

17.0 17.5 18.0 18.5 19.03

4

5

6

CBR

soaked(%)

Dry unit weight, d, max(kN/m3)

CBRsoaked= 0.891d, max - 11.194|r|=0.785


4.5

0 1 2 33

4

5

6

C

BR

soaked

(%)

Swell, S(%)

CBRsoaked= -0.3958S + 5.335|r|=0.708


4.6


148/161

134

25 30 35 403

4

5

6

7

CBR

soaked

(%)

Liquid limit, LL (%)

Highway No. 2420, Khon Kean

Highway No. 2038, Amphoe Phuwiang, Khon KeanAmphoe Namsom, Udonthani

Gaaver (2012)Borg El-Arab SoilCBR = 0.076LL-2822


149/161

135

4.2

Material%Passing LL LL PI PI OWC OWC

d

max

d

max

#4 #10 #40 #200 (M) (P) (M) (P) (M) (P) (M) (P)

SM 100 98 93 29.4 31.4 30.5 8.6 8.4 13.5 13.8 18.3 18.2

* M P 4.8a 18.2 11.2

11.2 5940, 12375 27720 4.8b 4.57, 4.89, 8.94 12.66

(Punching shear)


150/161

136

0 5 10 15 20 2515

16

17

18

19

Drydensity,d

(kN/m

3)

Water content (%)

SM LL = 31.4 PI = 8.6 Gs= 2.65

d,max= 18.2 kN/m3

OWC = 11.2 %

ZeroAir Voids

0 5 10 1515

16

17

18

19

Dryunitweight,

d(kN/m

3)

Point Pressure, p(%)

Unsoaked with surcharge (CBRunsoaked)Unsoaked without surchargesoaked with surcharge (CBRsoaked)soaked without surcharge

d= 1.23CBRunsoaked+12.61d= 1.85p, unso aked+ 9.34d= 0.684CBRsoaked+12.05d= 0.36p, soaked+13.57

4.8

4. 9 CBRunsoaked 2.6 (=1.39/0.539) CBRsoaked 4.10 (Horpibulsuk et al. 2009 and 2013) 4.11


151/161

137

0 5 10 150

5

10

15

CBR(%)

Unsoaked point stress ratio, p, unsoaked(%)

CBRunsoaked= 1.391p|r|=0.926

CBRsoaked= 0.538p|r|=0.916

4.9


152/161

138

1040

5

10

15

Point

stressratio,p

(%)

Compaction energy (kJ/m3)

Unsoaked with surcharge (CBRunsoaked)

Unsoaked without surchargeSoaked with surcharge (CBRsoaked)Soaked without surcharge

4.10


153/161

139

16 17 18 19 200

5

10

15

20

Poin

tstressratio,p

(%)

Dry unit weight, d(kN/m3)

Unsoaked with surcharge (CBRunsoaked)Unsoaked without surchargeSoaked with surcharge (CBRsoaked)Soaked without surcharge

CBRunsoaked= 2.722d-36.807|r|=0.994

p, unsoaked= 1.388d-16.278|r|=0.974

CBRsoaked = 0.516d- 4.625|r|=0.991

p, soaked= 0.796d- 9.959|r|=0.991

4.11

4.5 2038

12() . . () 30 40 1 200 ( 6)

95 12 20 30 6 4.12 6 11


154/161

140

( 4.12b) 11 () (Zero air void) (Relative compaction,

df/

d,max) (Horpibulsuk et al., 2013)

,max

lndf

d

a b N

(4.4)

df a b N

ab 74.85 10.81 Horpibulsuk et al. (2013) ab75.92 9.61 N 100

0 5 10 15 2016

17

18

19

Fielddrydensity,d(kN/m

3)

Number of roller passes, N

km.22+000 - km.22+250km.22+300 - km.22+500km.22+500 - km.22+750

d, max = 18.3 (kN/m3)

|r|=0.976


155/161

141

(a)

0 5 10 15 2090

95

100

105

Relativecom

paction,d

/d,max

(%)


km.22+000 - km.22+250km.22+300 - km.22+500km.22+500 - km.22+750

d/d, max = 74.85 + 10.21 lnN|r|=0.976

d/d, max = 100 %

(b)

4.12

4.13 11 12 4.13 CBR

soaked= 0.538

p


156/161

142

0 5 10 15 203.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

5.5

CBR(%)


km.22+000 - km.22+250km.22+300 - km.22+500km.22+500 - km.22+750

CBRmax= 4.82 %

CBR predicted

4.13

4.6

1.

2.

3.

1.

2 2. a b

(

) 100


157/161

143

3. a b

4. 3

5. 95 95


158/161

144

5

1. 200

2. 2.6

3.

1.0

4.


159/161

145

. (2545).

. . 240 . (2545). - .. 241 .

Normalization. . 243 . (2548). . . 248Proctor. (1930). . . .

738-739

Hogentogler. (1936). . . .739-740

Buchanan. (1942). .. . 740- 741

Hilf. (1956). .. . 741-742Lambe. (1985). . . . 742- 743

. (Embankment) (..102/2532)

. (Subbase) (..205/2532)

.(.,204/2516)

. Liquid Limit (LL) (.,

102/2515)


160/161

146

. Plastic Limit (PL) PlasticityIndex (PI)

(

..103/2515)

. Compaction Test(..107/2517)

. (.-. 603/2517) . CBR (..109/2517)

. CBR (Field CBR)(.-. 602/2517)

Horpibulsuk, S., Suddeepong, A., Chamket, P. and Chinkulkijniwat, A. (2013), Compaction

behavior of fine-grained soils, lateritic soils and crushed rocks, Soils and

Foundations, Vol.53, No.1, pp.166-172.

Horpibulsuk, S., Katkan, W., and Naramitkornburee, A. (2009), Modified Ohios curves: A

rapid estimation of compaction curves for coarse- and fine-grained soils,

Geotechnical Testing Journal, ASTM, Vol.32, No.1, pp.64-75.Sridharan, A., 1991. Engineering behavior of fine grained soils A fundamental approach.

Indian Geotechnical Journal 21 (1), 1-136.

Sridharan, A. and Rao, G.V., 1975. Mechanism controlling the liquid limit of clays.

Proceedings of Istanbul Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering.

vol. 1, pp. 65-74.

Kumpala, A. and Horpibulsuk, S. (2013), Engineering properties of calcium carbide residue

stabilized silty clay,Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, ASCE, Vol.25, No.5,

doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0000618.

Chinkulkijniwat, A., Man-koksung, E, Uchaipichat, A., and Horpibulsuk, S. (2010),

Compaction characteristics of non-gravel and gravelly soils using a small

compaction apparatus, Journal of ASTM International.Vol.7, No.7, Paper ID

JAI102945.


161/161

147

28 2511 . . . . . (.) (.) .. 2544

Documents

SOFT SOIL BEHAVIOUR DUE TO EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION USING DIFFERENT CONSTITUTIVE MODELS