TP Road Construction

Department of Rural engineering TP road construction
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Firstly, we would like to express our sincere thanks to Dr. CHOU Soklin who is a lecturer
that responses for Road Construction for semester II. He teaches and explains the class clearly.
Adding that, he always encourages, helps, advices, and give us the suggestions and good solutions
to practice the experiment. Without him, we will dont know clear about the road construction.
Then, we would like to thank to Dr. HENG Salpisey who is a lecturer and responses for
the TP of Road Construction. He always explains the course before taking an experiment in
laboratory. He always answers to all students questions and gives the handout to the class which
is related to each experiment. Without him, its seem too hard to understand each work that is
related to the road construction.
We would like to thank to our parents who make the effort to feed us and encourage us to
study hard and support the finance a long our study.
Finally, we would prefer to thank to our team work and the other team works for their
cooperative spirit to make all tasks done smoothly and successfully.
1|Page
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Pages
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT .............................................................................................................. 1
LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................................ 5
LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................................................................... 6
TP 1: SIEVE ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................. 7
1. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 7
2. OBJECTIVE ....................................................................................................................... 7
3. EXPERIMENT ................................................................................................................... 7
3.1 Materials ....................................................................................................................... 7
3.2 Procedure ...................................................................................................................... 8
4. METHODOLOGY AND CALCULATION ...................................................................... 9
4.1 Methodology................................................................................................................. 9
4.1.1 Retained and Passing Particles .............................................................................. 9
4.1.2 Soil Classification ............................................................................................... 10
4.1.3 Coefficients Characteristic .................................................................................. 11
4.2 Calculation .................................................................................................................. 12
4.2.1 Passing Percentage ................................................................................................... 12
4.2.2 Coefficient Characteristics ....................................................................................... 14
5. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 15
TP 2: ATTERBERG LIMITS.................................................................................................... 16
1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 16
2. PLASTIC LIMIT (PL) ...................................................................................................... 16
2.1 Objective ......................................................................................................................... 16
2.2 Experiment.................................................................................................................. 16
2|Page
2.2.1 Materials .............................................................................................................. 16
2.2.2 Procedure............................................................................................................. 17
2.3 Methodology............................................................................................................... 19
3. LIQUID LIMIT ................................................................................................................. 20
3.1 Procedure .................................................................................................................... 20
3.2 Methodology............................................................................................................... 20
4. CALCULATION AND DISCUSSION ............................................................................ 21
5. CONCLUSION FROM TP1 & TP2 ................................................................................. 23
TP3: STANDARD PROCTOR TEST ....................................................................................... 24
1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 24
2. TEST EQUIPMENT ......................................................................................................... 24
3. TEST PROCEDURE ........................................................................................................ 25
4. METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................................... 26
4.1 Specific Gravity (Gs) .................................................................................................. 26
5. CALCULATION AND CONCLUSION .......................................................................... 27
5.1 Specific Gravity (Gs) .................................................................................................. 27
5.2 Standard Proctor Result .............................................................................................. 28
6. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 30
TP4: CALIFORNIA BEARING RATIO TEST (CBR) .......................................................... 31
1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 31
2. EQUIPMENT ................................................................................................................... 31
3. PROCEDURE ................................................................................................................... 32
4. METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................................... 33
5. DATA & CALCULATION .............................................................................................. 33
6. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 36
3|Page
TP5: SAND CONE...................................................................................................................... 37
1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 37
2. EQUIPMENTS ................................................................................................................. 38
3. PROCEDURE ................................................................................................................... 38
3.1 Calibration of cone ..................................................................................................... 38
3.2 Calibration of Sand Calibrating Mould ...................................................................... 40
3.3 Calibration of Density of Sand (Unit Weight)............................................................ 40
3.4 Determination of Density in Place.............................................................................. 41
4. METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................................... 42
5. CALCULATION & CONCLUSION ............................................................................... 43
TP6: .............................................................................................................................................. 45
1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 45
2. EQUIPMENTS ................................................................................................................. 45
3. PROCEDURE ................................................................................................................... 45
4. METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................................... 45
5. CALCULATION .............................................................................................................. 45
6. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 45
REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................... 46
4|Page
LIST OF FIGURES
Pages
Figure 1. Sieve analysis materials for experiment .......................................................................... 8

Figure 2.The processing of sieve analysis ...................................................................................... 9
Figure 3. Soil types by Ferret Chart .............................................................................................. 11
Figure 4. Sieve analysis curve of passing ..................................................................................... 13
Figure 5. Sieve analysis curve of Retained Particle ...................................................................... 14
Figure 6. Liquid Limit tools .......................................................................................................... 17
Figure 7. Liquid Limit procedure.................................................................................................. 18
Figure 8. Variation of clay soil behaviors according to water content ......................................... 19
Figure 9. Result curve of Liquid Limit ......................................................................................... 22
Figure 10. Standard Proctor Test Equipment ................................................................................ 25
Figure 11. Standard Proctor Test Procedure ................................................................................. 26
Figure 12. Standard Proctor graph ................................................................................................ 29
Figure 13. CBRs equipment ........................................................................................................ 32
Figure 14. The pressure value for each blows .............................................................................. 35
Figure 15. CBR (%) vs Dry density (g/cm3) ................................................................................ 36
Figure 16. Sand cone test in side .................................................................................................. 37
Figure 17. Sand cone equipments ................................................................................................. 38
Figure 18. Cone calibration........................................................................................................... 39
Figure 19. Sand density calibration .............................................................................................. 40
Figure 20. Density in place determination .................................................................................... 41
5|Page
LIST OF TABLES
Pages
Table 1. Particle size determination .............................................................................................. 10

Table 2. Soil type and particle size ............................................................................................... 11
Table 3. Experiment Result........................................................................................................... 13
Table 4. Coefficient Characteristics .............................................................................................. 14
Table 5. Mass of each particle that passes the sieve ..................................................................... 15
Table 6. Both results of Liquid Limit and Plastic Limit ............................................................... 21
Table 7. Data of specific gravity test and Gs result ...................................................................... 27
Table 8. Water contents Vs Dry unit weight................................................................................. 27
Table 9. Result of Standard Proctor Test ...................................................................................... 28
Table 10. Data of each blows ....................................................................................................... 33
Table 11. CALIFORNIA BEARING RATIO (CBR) TEST: AASHTO T 193 ........................... 34
Table 12. CALIFORNIA BEARING RATIO (CBR) after 96 hours ........................................... 35
Table 13. CBR Result ................................................................................................................... 36
Table 14. Data and Results ........................................................................................................... 43
Table 15. Site Result ..................................................................................................................... 43
6|Page
TP 1: SIEVE ANALYSIS
1. INTRODUCTION
Making the road system we should think about the soil distribution. Soil is the importance
facture in road construction. Soil is defined as sediments or other accumulation of mineral particles
produces by the physical or chemical disintegration of rock, plus the air, water, organic matter,
and other substances that maybe included. By the way, soil has some difficult in road construction
such as consolidated, weakness soil plastic and particle size. So in order to get the good result and
check the particle size to know the soil types, the first experiment to perform is the sieve analysis
ether in wet or dry processes.
There are two methods to define the soil grains is the Sieve Analysis and the Hydrometer
Test. In this practice, we define the soil grains by the method of sieve analysis. Even though sieve
analysis is one of the easiest method to classify the soil grains, it is the important and be able to
classify all the soil grains either coarse grains or fine grains.
Sieve analysis is one of the methods to determine the particle size distribution of fine and
coarse aggregates by sieving. In this practice, we take only the soil grains that retain on the sieve
75 micrometer diameter.
2. OBJECTIVE
The objective in this practice is:
To classify the particle size of the fine soil in order to know the soil type.
To name the soil and to know its quality.
3. EXPERIMENT
3.1 Materials
In this test requires some material such as:
Sieves
Brush and Pel
Soil grains 500 g
Millstone
Electronic balancer
Vibration sieve machine and oven.
7|Page
Sieve and machine Electronic balancer Oven Pel, Brush, Millstone
Figure 1. Sieve analysis materials for experiment
3.2 Procedure
To perform this test, just follow the following steps:
Firstly, weight the soil sample for 500 g (soil grains not the wet soil).
Then, water the soil sample and take only the soil grains which are retained on the 75
micrometer in diameter.
Water the sample until its color is clear and dont have any sediments such as dead
leaves in the sample.
After water the sample, then keep it into the container and put the groups name to
remember it is yours.
Take the sample to the oven in order to dry in 1050 for a day.
After drying the sample for a day, take it out and recode its weight.
Then, weigh each sieves and prepare it in series.
Put sample on the sieve and make the vibration with vibrate machine for 15 minutes.
After it finished, weigh each sieves and the sample that retained on.
Finally, you got the soil sample retained in each sieves, you can make the calculation
to fine the soil type.
8|Page
Figure 2.The processing of sieve analysis Dry in the Oven in 1050 C for a day
4. METHODOLOGY AND CALCULATION

4.1 Methodology
4.1.1 Retained and Passing Particles
To fine each parameter for this practice, you can follow to the below Table:
9|Page
Table 1. Particle size determination
Sieve Particle Cumulated Cumulated Cumulated

Opening retained retained retained passing (%)
(mm) (g) (g) (%)
100 (%) Cumulated

50 M1 M1 (M1 / Minit ) x 100
25 M2 M1 + M2 [(M1 + M2)/ Minit ] x 100
9.5 M3 M1 + M 2 + M3 [(M1 + M2 + M3)/ Minit ] x 100
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
0.075 M10 M10 + + M1 [(M10 + + M1) / Minit ] x 100
Note: Minit : Initial dry mass of the sample

M total = M 10 + M 1 + passing of the sieve 0.075 mm (retained in pan)
It is necessary that [(M init M total)/M init] is less than 2%
4.1.2 Soil Classification

There are many soil types such as fine particle size soil, coarse particle size soil, and
aggregate particle size. To determine each types of soil, you need to find out some parameter that
relevant to it requirement needed such as the retained or passing for the 0.0075 mm sieve. It is a
bite complicate to determine the soil type as show in the flow chart below. Thus, after you already
had determined the grand size of soil, you can know that the soil sample is good or bad for your
construction, or you need to add some materials to improve your soil if there are some problems
that you cannot accept. So, this soil classification is important, you should follow step by step if
you want to find the specific and correct type of your soil sample.
10 | P a g e
Table 2. Soil type and particle size
Soil type Description Size

Coarse grainded soil Coarse > 75 mm
Coarse grand 75 mm to 19 mm
Fine gravel 19 mm to 5 mm
Coarse sand 5 mm to 2 mm
Medium sand 2 mm to 0.4 mm
Fine sand 0.4 mm to 0.75 mm
Fine grand soil Silt and clay Microscopic or submicroscopic
Figure 3. Soil types by Ferret Chart

4.1.3 Coefficients Characteristic

Uniform Coefficient or Coefficient of Ha Zen: =

Note:
Clean gravel: UC < 4 is poorly graded gravel (GP), UC > 4 is well graded gravel (GW).
Clean sand: UC < 6 is poorly graded sand (SP), UC > 6 is well graded sand (WS).
()
Coefficient of Courbure: =
11 | P a g e
4.2 Calculation
4.2.1 Passing Percentage
Particle retained
Mass Retained = M1 = Mass soil and sieve of 9.5 mm Mass sieve of 9.5 mm
M1 = 549.4 549.4 = 0 g
Then, you can find M2 to M10 by the formula as M1, so you will get the result as shown
in Table 3, column 4.
Cumulated Retained
Cumulated Retained 1 = M1 = 0 g
Cumulated Retained 2 = M1 + M2 = 0 + 6.6 = 6.6 g
Then, just follow to the cumulated Retained formula, you will get the result as shown in
Table 3 in column 5.
Percentage of Cumulated Retained

% of cumulated Retained = (Mass of cumulated retained/mass total) x 100
% of cumulated Retained 1 = (0/87.1) x 100 = 0
Just follow to the formula, then you can get each percentages of each cumulated retained
as shown in Table 3.
Percentages of Cumulated Passing

% cumulated passing = 100 - % of cumulated retained
% cumulated passing 1 = 100 0 = 100 %
After that, find the next percentages of passing is just follow to the formula above, then
you will get the final result as show in Table 3 below.
12 | P a g e
Table 3. Experiment Result
Sieve Mass Mass Mass Cumulated Cumulated Cumulated

Size Sieve Soil & sieve Retained Retained Retained Passing
(mm) (g) (g) (g) (g) (%) (%)
9.5 549.4 549.4 0 0 0.00 100.00
4.75 574.2 580.8 6.6 6.6 5.97 94.03
2.36 540 544.8 4.8 11.4 10.32 89.68
2 537.8 540.6 2.8 14.2 12.85 87.15
1 513 524 11 25.2 22.81 77.19
0.6 472.7 483.4 10.7 35.9 32.49 67.51
0.425 469 478.5 9.5 45.4 41.09 58.91
0.3 455.6 466.4 10.8 56.2 50.86 49.14
0.2 423.4 437.9 14.5 70.7 63.98 36.02
0.125 412.6 433.8 21.2 91.9 83.17 16.83
0.075 420.6 438.2 17.6 109.5 99.10 0.90
Pan 397.3 398.3 1 110.5 100.00 0.00
Mass soil after dry in Oven 110.5
100
90
80
70
Passing (%)
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0.0625 0.125 0.25 0.5 1 2 4 8 16
Sieve Diameter (mm) Passing
Figure 4. Sieve analysis curve of passing
13 | P a g e
Figure 4 shows about the passing percentages of the 500 g soil sample. The axis X shows
about the sieves diameter and the ordinate Y shows the passing percent. We plot the passing
percent against with sieve diameter. We plot in order to find which particle size of the soil can pass
through the sieve.
According to the figure 4, we can get varies data that passed through the sieve. The
diameter starts from 0.075 mm sieve and the passing correspond to that diameter is 0.9%. Then,
we got 36.02 % of passing for 0.2 mm sieve, we got 77.19 % passing for the 1 mm sieve, we got
94.03 for 4.75 mm sieve, and we can get the 100 % passing for the 9.5 sieve diameter. After that
we got the UC equals to 4.5555 that means the sand is the clean and well graded size.
In conclusion, as the UC is 4.555 > 4, it shows us that the sample is the clean sand and well
graded sand.
100
80
60
Retained (%)
40
20
0
0.0625 0.25 1 4 16
Sieve Diameter (mm)

Retained
Figure 5. Sieve analysis curve of Retained Particle
4.2.2 Coefficient Characteristics

By the passing curve, we can get the parameter of D10 = 0.09, D30 = 0.19, D60 = 0.41, so:
D60 0.41
UC = = = 4.5555 > 4 is the well graded sand
D10 0.09
(D30)2 0.192
CC = D10 D60 = 0.090.41 = 0.9783 < 1 is the good curve
Table 4. Coefficient Characteristics

D10 (mm) D30 (mm) D60 (mm) UC CC
0.10 0.19 0.41 4.5555 0.9783
14 | P a g e
Table 5. Mass of each particle that passes the sieve

Coarse sand Medium sand Fine sand Silt and clay
Gravel (g) (g) (g) (g) (g)
0 14.20 31.20 64.1 1
0% 12.85 % 28.24 % 58.01 % 0.90 %
Mass total 110.5
5. CONCLUSION
Sieve analysis is an easy method. However, it is really useful. With this test, we can know
the kind of soil and we can know the components and quality of the soil. In this test we find out
the UC equals to 4.5555 which means that the sample is the clay sample. After that, we can know
that how many percentages passing to each sieves as shown in Table 5.
15 | P a g e
TP 2: ATTERBERG LIMITS
1. INTRODUCTION
Sieve analysis is tested to know the soil type. However, the Atterberg Limits tests to fine
the fraction of the soil. It tests for the soil grand that pass by a sieve 0.425 mm. The Atterberg
Limit has three types. The first one is Liquid Limit. The Liquid Limit of a soil is the water content
of the soil. The second one is the Plastic Limit. The Plastic Limit is tested to define the cohesion
of the soil (the lowest water content). The third one is the Shrinkage Limit. In the road laboratory,
the last Limit is rarely in test. In this work we focus on Liquid and Plastic Limits only.
Liquid Limit (LL)
Plastic Limit (PL)
Shrinkage Limit (SL)
2. PLASTIC LIMIT (PL)
2.1 Objective
Plastic Limit is determined the plastic of the soil or want to find the cohesion of a soil. To
fine the value of the plasticity index (PI) which is a measure of the plasticity of soil and it is the
size of the range of water contents where the soil exhibits plastic properties. The PI is the difference
between the liquid limit and the plastic limit (PI = LL-PL). Soils with a high PI tend to be clay,
those with a lower PI tend to be silt, and those with a PI of 0 (non-plastic) tend to have little or no
silt or clay.
Soil descriptions based on PI
(0-3%)- Non-plastic
(3-15%) - Slightly plastic
(15-30%) - Medium plastic
>30% - Highly plastic
2.2 Experiment
2.2.1 Materials
The materials in this test has such as shown in Figure 6.
- Liquid limit device - Spatula - Grooving tool
- Cans - Balance - Dish
- Bottle filled with water - Oven - Towel and Millstone
16 | P a g e
Figure 6. Liquid Limit tools

2.2.2 Procedure
The procedure of the Plastic Limit follows to the under steps:
Weight a 700 g soil grand.
Then take the sample to the oven to dry in 105 0C for a day.
After, take the sample out to mill and sieve.
Take only the particle size that pass 0.425 mm sieve.
Then, place the soil sample on the maxing dish and thoroughly mixed with the 15 or
20 ml of distilled or determined water by alternately and repeatedly stirring kneading
and chopping with a spatula.
When sufficient water has been thoroughly mixed with the sample to form a uniform
mass of stiff consistency, filling the cup in a precise way by creating then concave
meniscus of the level on the edges that its thickness in the center of the cup is about
10 mm.
After that cutting the sample from back to the front in order to divide it into two equal
parts by using the Casagrand grooving tool, the tool must be help perpendicularly to
the surface of the bowl.
Turn the crank handle at a steady rate of about two shocks per second and as soon as
the lips of the groove are closed over a length of about 10 mm or 13 mm.
17 | P a g e
Cutting then sample in the closed zone and place it suitable in container in order to
determine its water content.
Do over the sample maybe 4 to 5 time, than take the 5 sample into the oven to dry at
105 0C for a day.
After a day, take out the sample and weigh for each samples.
Note:
The avoid groping to get a closing of the groove in 25 shocks exactly, plotting in a graph
all the result with then groove were closed between 15 to 35 shocks. In this test, the water content
is corresponding to 25 shocks.
Dry in the Oven
Figure 7. Liquid Limit procedure
18 | P a g e
2.3 Methodology
A. The water content in percentage of the mass of the oven dry soil as follow:
B. After finding the percentage of the moisture, draw the best strength line fitting the plotted
points. And then draw the ordinate representing 25 shocks, and where it intersects the flow
curve, draw the horizontal line to the moisture content axis. Read of the value of moisture
content and record the data.
C. Another way, there is a relation which allows to determine PL from only one test in which
the groove is closed between 14 and 35 blows:

= ( ) ^.

Where: WL is the liquid limit of 25 blows.

W is the water content of natural soil
N is the number of blow
Solid state Semi-solid state Plastic state Liquid state

0% W%
IL < 0 IL < 0 0 < IL < 1 IL > 1
Ws Wp Wl
Figure 8. Variation of clay soil behaviors according to water content
19 | P a g e
3. LIQUID LIMIT
3.1 Procedure
Weighing the remaining empty moisture cans and record the respective weights.
Take the remaining 1/4 of the original soil sample and add distilled water until the soil is
at a consistency where it can be rolled without sticking to the hands.
Roll the mass between the palm or the fingers and the glass plate. Use sufficient pressure
to roll the mass into a thread of uniform diameter by using about 90 strokes per minute.
(A stroke is one complete motion of the hand forward and back to the starting position.)
The thread shall be deformed so that its diameter reaches 3.2 mm (1/8 in.), taking no more
than two minutes.
When the diameter of the thread reaches the correct diameter, break the thread into several
pieces. Knead and reform the pieces into ellipsoidal masses and re-roll them.
Continue this re-rolling until the thread crumbles under the pressure required for rolling
and can no longer be rolled into a 3.2 mm diameter thread.
Gather the portions of the crumbled thread together and place the soil into a moisture can,
then cover it.
Immediately weigh the moisture can containing the soil, record its mass, remove the lid,
and place the can into the oven.
Dry those sample in the oven for a day or at least 6 hours at 105 oC.
Repeat steps three, four, and five at least two more times.
Determine the water content from each trial by using the same method used in the first
laboratory.
Remember to use the same balance for all weighing.
3.2 Methodology
In this test we need to find some parameter such as Plastic Index because this data will tell
or show us about the cohesion of the sample. And we can find the Plastic Index by the following
formula:
PI = LL PL
20 | P a g e
Where:
PI is the plastic index
PL is the plastic limit
LL is the liquid limit
The methodology is according to AASTHO which means American Association of
State Highway and Transport Officials.
4. CALCULATION AND DISCUSSION
Table 6. Both results of Liquid Limit and Plastic Limit
Date of Sampling 02-Mar-17
Date of Test 03-MAR-17
Depth of Sampling Unknown
Test Liquid Limit Plastic Limit
Blow Counts 35 26 21 16
Mass of wet sample + container 16.20 13.80 14.90 11.80 9.90 10.30 9.5 9.10
Mass of dry soil + container 13.7 11.9 12.6 10.3 8.90 9.5 8.8 8.6
Mass of container 5.90 6.10 5.90 6.10 5.90 6.00 6.1 6.00
Mass of water 2.50 1.90 2.30 1.50 1.00 0.80 0.70 0.50
Mass of dry soil 7.80 5.80 6.70 4.20 3.00 3.50 2.70 2.60
Moisture content 32.05 32.76 34.33 35.71 33.33 22.86 25.93 19.23
Average of moisture content 33.71 25.34
Liquid Limit (LL)% 33.25
Plastic Limit (PL)% 25.34
Plastic index (PI)% 7.91
21 | P a g e
Figure 9. Result curve of Liquid Limit
Figure 9 shows the result curve of liquid limit. The horizontal tell about the percentage of
water contents of each blow that corresponding to the number of blow in the arc X. At the sixteen
blow, the percentage of water content is perhaps 36%. After that we increased the number of blow
to 21 and we got the water content percentage as 34 %. At the 30 blows we got the water content
equal to 32.67% and the late blow is 35 corresponding to 32 percentage of water content.
We try the procedure by adding water into the sample and increase the number of bow
because it was easy to perform the procedure. We cannot add the sample when it was over water,
so that why we need to add the little among of water in the first preferment. As the result, we got
the liquid limit at 25 blow equal to 33.25 %.
Thus,
= 33.25%
= 25.34%
Plastic index (PI)% = LL-PL = 7.91%
22 | P a g e
If 3 % < PI < 15%, this soil is slightly plastic it means that the quantity of silt is less
than clays quantity.
5. CONCLUSION FROM TP1 & TP2
From the TP 1: Sieve analysis, we checked out that the sample is clay particle (UC =
4.5555). And in TP2 we figured out the same sample as the TP 1 is the slightly plastic soil (PI =
7.91%).
Thus, after tested the TP1 and TP2, we can assign that the soil sample is the clayey silt soil.
23 | P a g e
TP3: STANDARD PROCTOR TEST
1. INTRODUCTION
In the early 1930s, University of California, Berkeley student Ralph R. Proctor developed
a method for determining the maximum density of soils. He established a laboratory procedure to
define the moisture density relationship of compacted cohesive soil. Values from the Standard
Proctor Test could be compared to unit weights and moistures of the same soils compacted in the
filed as structural earth fills to determine their degree of density and predict future performance.
These test method cover laboratory compaction method used to determine the relationship
between molding water content and dry unit weight of soil. This test method will generally produce
a well-defined maximum dry unit weight for non-free drainage soils.
For construction of highways, airports, and other structures, it is often necessary to compact
soil to improve its strength. Proctor (1933) developed a laboratory compaction test procedure to
determine the maximum dry weight of compaction soil which can be used for specification of filed
compaction. This test is referred to as the Standard Proctor Compaction Test. It is based on
compaction of soil fraction passing 0.425 mm sieve.
Soil compaction: Standard Proctor Test and Modify Proctor Test.
2. TEST EQUIPMENT
In this test need some equipment such as the following:
Compaction mold
0.425 mm sieve
Standard proctor hammer
Large plat pan
Jack
Steel straight edge
Moisture cans
Drying oven
Plastic squeeze bottle with water
24 | P a g e
Figure 10. Standard Proctor Test Equipment
3. TEST PROCEDURE
To perform this test we need to follow the bellowing steps:
Pulverize the sample and run it through the 0.425 mm sieve.
Take approximately 5 Kg of soil sample after sieving.
Determine the weight of the soil sample as well as the weight of the compaction mold
with its base (without the collar).
Compute the amount water to add from 4%, 6%, 8%, 10%, and 12% of soil sample.
Measure out the water, add it to the soil and then mix it thoroughly into the soil.
Assemble the compaction mold to the base, place some soil sample in the mold and
compact soil in three layers with 25 blows each layer.
The drop of the hammer should be applied at the uniform rate not exceeding around
1.5 second pre drop.
The soil should be compactly fill the cylinder and the last the compacted layer must
extend slightly above the collar point.
Carefully remove the collar and trim off the compacted soil.
Weigh the compacted soil while it is in the mold and the base.
Remove the soil from the mold using a mechanical extruder and take soil moisture
content samples from the top and bottom of then specimen.
25 | P a g e
Pulverize the
sample and sieve
the sample in
0.425 mm. weigh
5 Kg and mix
with 4% of water
(first proctor test)
Take the some soil in the center to

find it water content after
compacted, then dry those three
cans in the oven for a day at 105 oC.
Figure 11. Standard Proctor Test Procedure
4. METHODOLOGY
4.1 Specific Gravity (Gs)
Specific gravity (Gs) is the method to find the density of soil. We find this Gs by taking
the experiment and following the follow formula:
ms
Gs
ms m p m p '
Where:
ms = Mass soil (g)
mp= Mass picnometer filled with water (g)
mp= Mass picnometer filled with soil and water (g)
26 | P a g e
And density of solid:

ms w
s
ms m p m p '
5. CALCULATION AND CONCLUSION

5.1 Specific Gravity (Gs)
Table 7. Data of specific gravity test and Gs result

Pycnometer Number Cr7
Mass of pycnometer (g) 61.8
Mass of pycnometer and dry soil (g) 89.2
Mass of oven-dried soil, Wo (g) 27.4
Mass of pycnometer filled with water Wa (g) 171.2
Mass of pycnometer filled with water and soil Wb (g) 188.3
Specific gravity (Gs)=Wo/(Wo+WbWa) 2.66
According to Table 7, the value of specific gravity equal to 2.66. As the normal, the rang
of the specific gravity is between 2.65 to 2.75, thus this value is acceptable.
Table 8. Water contents Vs Dry unit weight
Water unit weight g/cm3 1
Degree of saturation (S) % 100
Specific gravity Gs 2.66
water content % Dry unit weight g/cm3
4.62 2.281
6.06 2.291
12.59 1.993
13.45 1.959
18.37 1.787
27 | P a g e
5.2 Standard Proctor Result
Table 9. Result of Standard Proctor Test
Mass of mold (g) = 4766 Volume of mold (cm3) = 2105 Mass of hammer = 4.54kg
Assumed moiture (%) 4 6 8 10 12
Mass of mold+wet soil (g) 9135 9450 9614.5 9428 9242.5
Mass of wet soil (g) 4369 4684 4848.5 4662 4476.5
Wet density s (g/cm3) 2.0755 2.2252 2.3033 2.2147 2.1266
Can number M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 M7 M8 M9 M10 M11 M12 M13 M14 M15
Mass of can (g) 27.9 28.1 27.5 6 6 6 9.4 10.1 9.6 28 28.1 27.8 6 6 6
Mass of can+ wet soil (g) 59.3 94.1 73.8 21.4 24.4 24.2 54.4 25 28.3 63.5 70.2 63.9 31.9 42.3 40.9
Mass of can+dry soil (g) 57.6 89.9 71.1 20.7 23.3 23 49.8 23.2 26.2 59.5 65.1 59.5 27.7 36.8 35.6
Moiture content (%) 5.72 6.80 6.19 4.76 6.36 7.06 11.39 13.74 12.65 12.70 13.78 13.88 19.35 17.86 17.91
Av.Moiture content% 6.24 6.06 12.59 13.45 18.37
Dry density d (g/cm3) 2.07 2.22 2.30 2.21 2.12
28 | P a g e
Department of Rural engineering Department of Rural engineering
2.5
2.3
Dry Desity (g/cm3)
2.1
Sr=100%
1.9
1.7
0 0.05 8% 0.1 0.15 0.2
Water Content (%)
Figure 12. Standard Proctor graph

Figure 12 shows about the standard proctor graph which water content percentage presents
on horizontal axis and dry density (g/cm3) presents on vertical axis. The value of water content
percentage varies from 0 to 20% with dry density value from 1.7 to 2.5 g/cm3.
In this graph we need to find the operation point in order to know the maximum dry density
and optimum water content. By looking to Figure 12, the maximum dry density is located at 2.3
g/cm3, thus by apply with that maximum density to water content percentage axis we will get the
optimum water content percentage. According to figure above, maximum dry density (MDD)
equal to 2.3 g/cm3 with corresponding to 8% optimum water content (OWC).
Thus:
MDD = 2.3 g/cm3
OWC = 8%
29 | P a g e
6. CONCLUSION
The standard proctor test is important to road side, it can help to find the OWC. Thus we
can take that OWC to make the compaction at road side. According Figure 3 we can find out the
OWC equal to 8% which we will take it to make the compaction.
30 | P a g e
TP4: CALIFORNIA BEARING RATIO TEST (CBR)
1. INTRODUCTION
California Bearing Ratio (CBR) is the ratio of force per unit area required to penetrate a
soil mass with standard circular piston at the rate of 1.25 mm/min to that required for the
corresponding penetration of a standard material. The CBR test is a penetration test developed be
California State Highway Department (U.S.A) for evaluating the bearing capacity of subgrade soil
for design of flexible pavement. Now, it is widely used by the road engineer who want to construct
the road pavement.
There are two types of methods in compacting soil specimen in the CBR moulds:
A. Static Compaction method.
B. Dynamic Compaction method
2. EQUIPMENT
To perform the CBR test we need the test equipment as bellow:
-Mould -Sieves (19.25mm)
-Steel Cutting collar -Penetration Plunger
-Spacer Disc -Loading Machine
-Surcharge weight -Miscellaneous Apparatus
-Dial gauges
31 | P a g e
Figure 13. CBRs equipment

3. PROCEDURE
To perform the CBR test, following to the step below:
- Normally 3 specimens each of about 3 kg must be compacted so that their compacted densities
range from 95% to 100% generally with 10, 30 and 65 blows.
- Weigh of empty mould.
- Add water to the first specimen (compact it in five layer by giving 10 blows per layer)
- After compaction, remove the collar and level the surface.
- Take sample for determination of moisture content.
- Weight of mould + compacted specimen.
- Place the mold in the soaking tank for four days.
- Take other samples and apply different blows and repeat the whole process.
- After four days, measure the swell reading and find % age swell.
- Remove the mould from the tank and allow water to drain.
- Then place the specimen under the penetration piston, load (kN).
- Apply the load and note the penetration load values.
- Draw the graphs between the penetration and penetration load and find the value of CBR.
- Draw the graph between the % age CBR and Dry Density, and find CBR at required degree of
compaction.
32 | P a g e
4. METHODOLOGY
After wetting under water 4 day and then applied the load in laboratory, we can define the
CBR value by the following formula:
test unit laod
CBR 100%
s tan dard unit load
Where:
P (2.54)
CBR1 100%
70
In general CBR1 > CBR2
P (5.08) CBR = max(CBR1; CBR2)

CBR2 100%
105
Where:
P(2.54): pressure of the penetrate piston corresponding to sieve diameter 2.54 mm.
P(5.08): pressure of the penetrate piston corresponding to sieve diameter 5.08 mm.
P express as kg/cm2
5. DATA & CALCULATION

Table 10. Data of each blows
Volume of Mould 2151.09
Number of blows 10 blows/layer 30 blows/layer 65 blows/layer
Mould number J1 J2 J3
Mass Mould 4956.5 4858.5 4884
Mass of mold and wet soil 9361.5 9571.5 9565.5
Contain number C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6
Mass of container (g) 73.2 70.2 74.2 72.6 63.5 76.1
M.continer and wet soil (g) 180.1 187.4 182 150.8 156.7 172.3
M.continer and dry soil (g) 168.8 175.1 170.3 142.3 146.2 162.4
Moiture Content (%) 11.82 11.73 12.17 12.20 12.70 11.47
Moiture content average (%) 11.77 12.18 12.08
Wet density s (g/cm3) 2.048 2.191 2.176
Dry density d (g/cm3) 1.832 1.953 1.942
33 | P a g e
Table 11. CALIFORNIA BEARING RATIO (CBR) TEST: AASHTO T 193
LOAD PENETRATION DATA

Penetration Proving Ring Reading and Stress
H= 116.43 Mould 10 Blows Mould 30 Blows Mould 65 Blows
Dial Load Stress Dial Load Stress Dial Load Stress
inch S(mm)
Reading kN Kg/cm2 Reading kN Kg/cm2 Reading kN Kg/cm2
0.000 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0.025 0.64 0.02 0.00064 0.3283 0.01 0.00032 0.1641 0.012 0.00038 0.1969
0.050 1.27 0.025 0.00080 0.4104 0.015 0.00048 0.2462 0.021 0.00067 0.3447
0.075 1.91 0.031 0.00100 0.5088 0.019 0.00061 0.3119 0.032 0.00103 0.5253
0.100 2.54 0.035 0.00113 0.5745 0.025 0.00080 0.4104 0.042 0.00135 0.6894
0.125 3.18 0.041 0.00132 0.6730 0.031 0.00100 0.5088 0.051 0.00164 0.8372
0.150 3.81 0.045 0.00145 0.7387 0.038 0.00122 0.6238 0.058 0.00187 0.9521
0.175 4.45 0.048 0.00155 0.7879 0.045 0.00145 0.7387 0.065 0.00210 1.0670
0.200 5.08 0.051 0.00164 0.8372 0.051 0.00164 0.8372 0.071 0.00229 1.1655
0.225 5.72 0.053 0.00171 0.8700 0.056 0.00181 0.9192 0.079 0.00255 1.2968
0.250 6.35 0.056 0.00181 0.9196 0.063 0.00203 1.0342 0.084 0.00271 1.3789
0.275 6.99 0.059 0.00190 0.9685 0.069 0.00223 1.1327 0.089 0.00287 1.4610
0.300 7.62 0.061 0.00197 1.0013 0.075 0.00242 1.2312 0.096 0.00310 1.5759
0.325 8.25 0.063 0.00203 1.0342 0.08 0.00258 1.3132 0.1 0.00323 1.6416
0.350 8.89 0.065 0.00210 1.0670 0.087 0.00281 1.4281 0.105 0.00339 1.7236
0.400 10.16 0.068 0.00219 1.1162 0.097 0.00313 1.5923 0.117 0.00378 1.9206
Ring coefficient 0.03233 KN/div
34 | P a g e
2
1.8
Pressuer (kg/cm2)
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00
Sieve diameter (mm)
10 blows 30 blows 65 blows
Figure 14. The pressure value for each blows

Figure 14 shows the result of pressure respect to the sieves diameter. The pressure start
from 0 kg/cm2 to 2 kg/cm2 while the sieves diameter varies from 0 mm to 12 mm. There are three
graphs in this figure, those graphs are the pressure with different blow (10 blows, 30 blows, and
65 blows). Thus according to this figure, we find the value of P(2.54) and P(5.08) as show in Table
12.
Table 12. CALIFORNIA BEARING RATIO (CBR) after 96 hours
Sectional Area of Piston: 19.32 cm2
Penetration Force Standard CBR Dry density

(kN) Strength (%) (g/cm3)
10 30 65 10 30 65 10 30 65
(mm) kg/cm2
Blows Blows Blows Blows Blows Blows Blows Blows Blows
2.54 0.5745 0.4104 0.6894 13.26
4.333 4.207 5.857 1.832 1.953 1.942
5.08 0.8372 0.8372 1.1655 19.90
35 | P a g e
9.0
8.0 65
Blows
7.0
30 Blows
CBR (%)
6.0
5.0
10 Blows
4.0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
Dry density (g/cm3)
Figure 15. CBR (%) vs Dry density (g/cm3)

Figure 15 shows the CBR percentage versus Dry Density in g/cm3. The CBR percentages
are represented in 10 blows, 30 blows, and 65 blows with the dry density 1.06, 2.08, and 3.07
g/cm3 correctively. With the CBR equal to 6.9 percent we got the s=dry density 2.08 g/cm3. After
fond all the parameters, we get the result as shown in Table 13.
Table 13. CBR Result
OMC 8% at MDD, (g/cm3) 2.30
CBR at 90% of MDD, (g/cm3) 2.07
CBR at 95% of MDD, (g/cm3) 2.19
Socked CBR (90%) 6.79
Socked CBR (95%) 6.97
6. CONCLUSION
After the experiment, we can get many results such as maximum dry density at 8% of
optimum moisture content is 2.30 g/cm3, the CBR at 90% of maximum dry density is 2.07 g/cm3,
the CBR at 95% of maximum dry density is 2.19 g/cm3, soaked CBR at 90% is 6.79, and soaked
CBR at 95% is 6.97, this results is a bit accurate so we can accept.
36 | P a g e
TP5: SAND CONE
1. INTRODUCTION
The Sand Cone Test is a sand replacement method for determining the field unit weight or
the in-situ density of natural or compacted soil. In this test, a hole is excavated in the site where
the soil has been compacted and the dry weight of the soil can be obtained by determining the
weight of the moist soil and the moisture content. The volume for the hole excavated is calculated
by reintroducing the sand into the hole and then the dry unit weight of compaction is calculated by
dividing the dry weight of the soil by the volume of the hole. This test method is applicable for
soils without appreciable amounts of rock or coarse materials in excess of 1 1/2 in. (38 mm) in
diameter. The main application of this test is the cases like embankment and pavement
construction; this is basically a quality control test where a certain degree of compaction is
required. This test is performed in accordance with the ASTM 1556-07.
Figure 16. Sand cone test in side
37 | P a g e
2. EQUIPMENTS
The equipment of the test has such as:
Sand pouring Apparatus
Standard sand-graded between the 0.3 mm and 0.6 mm sieves diameter
Soil tray with a central hole
Oven and chisels
Small picks and spoons
Buckets with lids and moisture cans with lids
Brush, thermometer, small brush, calculator, field data recording work sheet,
Figure 17. Sand cone equipments
3. PROCEDURE
To perform the Sand Cone test, you can follow to the following procedures:
3.1 Calibration of cone

To calibrate the cone do the following:
Select the sand sample which retain on the 0.3mm and 0.6 mm diameter.
Fit the sand cone with the sand pouring bottle to full capacity and close the valve,
Remove excess sand if any outside the valve.
Weigh the apparatus with sand filled before test, (bottle+cone+sand) = W1
38 | P a g e
Place the apparatus upside down on the density plate the already been has placed on the
firm level surface.
Open the valve of the cone to allow free flowing of sand to fill the full capacity of cone
and depression of density tray.
When the sand pouring is completed, close the valve and weigh the apparatus with sand
left in the bottle after the test, (bottle+cone+sand) = W2
Calculate the mass of sand in cone and base plate by deducting W2 from W1 in g.
Fill sand into the cone until Then, upside down the
full (0.3 sand diameter) apparatus and open valve
Finally, get this result, so you need

to weigh the remained sand in cone.
Repeat this procedure three time in
order to make more accuracy. Pour the sand on the plate
Figure 18. Cone calibration
39 | P a g e
3.2 Calibration of Sand Calibrating Mould

To calibrate the mould do the following:
Clean, dry, weigh and record the mass of the empty mould along with the glass sheet, to
be used to make the water surface air bubble free, W3
Place the calibration mould upright on a firm level surface and fill with distilled or
demineralized water to full capacity. To get rid of the air bubbles and check water surface,
use a plane glass sheet of 4 to 5 mm thickness to drive out air bubbles.
Weigh and record the mass of the calibration mould plus water inside plus the glass sheet
to check water level, W4.
Record the temperature of the water in the mould in Co and calculate the volume of the
mould.
3.3 Calibration of Density of Sand (Unit Weight)
To calibrate do the following:
Fit the cone with the sand bottle of sand cone apparatus and fill with sand nearly to full
capacity. Weigh and record the mass of bottle plus sand cone as W5 in g before pouring.
Place the sand calibrating mould on a firm level place, set the density tray on the top of the
mould and then place that sand cone apparatus upside down on the tray to fill the calibrating
mould with sand.
Open the valve and allow the sand to flow and fill the calibrating mould.
Close the valve and weigh the sand cone apparatus and sand in side (after pouring) and
record it as W6 in g.
Find the density of sand.
Figure 19. Sand density calibration
40 | P a g e
3.4 Determination of Density in Place

Follow the steps below to determine the density in place:
Prepare the surface of the location to be tested so that it is the level plate.
Seat the density tray on the prepared location and fix it by using nails.
Dig the hole having same diameter as the density tray or the big end diameter of the sand
cone. Care shall be taken to avoid disturbing the soil that will bound the hole, for granular
soils or materials extreme care to be taken while digging.
Dig the hole up to required depth. Place all loosened material in a container having airtight
lids to avoid moisture loss before weighting. When the digging is complete weigh the
materials collected out of the hole, W7 in g.
Fix the cone with the bottle and fill the sand bottle nearly full capacity. Weigh the sand
cone apparatus and sand (sand bottle+cone+sand inside) before pouring. Record this mass
as W8 in g.
Seat the sand cone apparatus upside down on the already placed density try on dug hole.
Open the valve of the sand cone apparatus to pour sand in the hole until sand stop running
in the san bottle. Recorded the mass of the apparatus and sand in the bottle (sand
bottle+cone+sand) after pouring and call this mass as W9 in g.
Calculate the mass of sand in the hole by deducting W9 from W8 in g. and then deduct
weight of sand in cone.
Figure 20. Density in place determination
41 | P a g e
4. METHODOLOGY
A. The volume of the mould:
(massof mould water glass sheet ) massof mould glass sheet (W4 W3 )
Vcm o

Density of water atT C Dw
Where: Vcm is the volume of calibrating mould in cm3

W3 is the mass of mould + glass sheet in g
W4 is the mass of mould + water + glass sheet in g
Dw is the density of water at degree C
T is the temperature of water in the mould during the test.
B. The density of sand:
W5 W6
Dsand
Vcm
Where: Dsand is density of sand

W5 is the weight of sand bottle + cone + sand (before pouring), in g
W6 is the mass of sand cone apparatus plus sand inside after pouring in g.
C. Volume of the hole
mass of sand in hole W6 W9 mass of sand incone

Vhole
Density of sand Dsand
Where: Vhole is the volume of hole in Cm3

W8 is the mass of sand bottle + cone + sand before pouring in g
W9 is the mass of sand bottle + cone + sand after pouring in g
Dsand is the density of sand
42 | P a g e
5. CALCULATION & CONCLUSION
Table 14. Data and Results
Mould Volume 4108.33 cm3

Number of calibration 1 2 3
Mass Cone + Sand, (Kg)
9.59 9.89 10.04
Mass Sand remains + Cone, (Kg)
8.16 8.47 8.63
Mass Cone Head, (Kg)
1.43 1.42 1.41
Av.Mass Cone Head, (Kg)
1.42
Calibration of sand density
Mass Cone + Sand, (Kg)
10.12 10.24 10.21
3.32 3.44 3.41
Mass sand in cylinder, (Kg) 5.38 5.38 5.38
Sand Density, (g/cm3) 1.3095 1.3095 1.3095
Av.Sand Density, (g/cm3) 1.31
Table 15. Site Result
MDD from Proctor, (g/cm3) 2.30

Mass Sand + Cone, (Kg)
9.66
5.14
Mass Sand in Hole, (Kg)
3.09
Mass of Can, (g)
0.17
Mass Can + soil wet, (g)
0.87
Mass Can + soil dry, (g)
0.84
Moisture content, (%)
4.20
Volume of Hole, (cm3)
2363.05
Density of Soil, (g/cm3)
1.31
Density at site, (g/cm3)
1.26
Compaction, (%)
55
43 | P a g e
Table 14 shows the data of the sand cone test. To have an accurate result we need to have
three calibarations, so each result we do it three times. After the calibration, we got mass cone
head 1.42 kg and sand density 1.31 gram per centimeter cube. This sand density is important
because we need to correct to the site sand density. The purpose is to find the accuracy between
the sand density in laboratory and road site.
In road site, we need to find the moisture content of the soil that we dig out the hole, so
this result equals 4.20% (From Table 15). Adding that, we can get the site density 1.26 gram per
centimeter cube, so this result can be accepted.
44 | P a g e
TP6:
1. INTRODUCTION
2. EQUIPMENTS
3. PROCEDURE
4. METHODOLOGY
5. CALCULATION
6. CONCLUSION
45 | P a g e
REFERENCES
Dr. LIM SOKTAY (2012), Course of Rural Road Construction.
Dr. LIM SOKTAY (2012), Course of Soil Mechanic.
Particle size distribution.
Dr. HENG Salpisey year 4 cours: Soil Classification and Proctor Test.
Civil Engineering Notes Engineering Materials Laboatory Tests CBR Test
LABORATORY DETERMINATION OF CALIFORNIA BEARING RATIO
http://www.zeminetudtasarim.com.tr/index.php?id=210000&dil=EN
https://www.astm.org/Standards/D1556.htm
46 | P a g e

TP Road Construction

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

TP Road Construction

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Department of Rural engineering TP road construction

LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................................ 5

LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................................................................... 6

TP 1: SIEVE ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................. 7

3.1 Materials ....................................................................................................................... 7

3.2 Procedure ...................................................................................................................... 8

4. METHODOLOGY AND CALCULATION ...................................................................... 9

4.1.1 Retained and Passing Particles .............................................................................. 9

4.1.2 Soil Classification ............................................................................................... 10

4.1.3 Coefficients Characteristic .................................................................................. 11

4.2 Calculation .................................................................................................................. 12

4.2.1 Passing Percentage ................................................................................................... 12

4.2.2 Coefficient Characteristics ....................................................................................... 14

2. PLASTIC LIMIT (PL) ...................................................................................................... 16

2.1 Objective ......................................................................................................................... 16

2.2.1 Materials .............................................................................................................. 16

3. LIQUID LIMIT ................................................................................................................. 20

3.1 Procedure .................................................................................................................... 20

4. CALCULATION AND DISCUSSION ............................................................................ 21

5. CONCLUSION FROM TP1 & TP2 ................................................................................. 23

TP3: STANDARD PROCTOR TEST ....................................................................................... 24

2. TEST EQUIPMENT ......................................................................................................... 24

3. TEST PROCEDURE ........................................................................................................ 25

4.1 Specific Gravity (Gs) .................................................................................................. 26

5. CALCULATION AND CONCLUSION .......................................................................... 27

5.1 Specific Gravity (Gs) .................................................................................................. 27

5.2 Standard Proctor Result .............................................................................................. 28

TP4: CALIFORNIA BEARING RATIO TEST (CBR) .......................................................... 31

5. DATA & CALCULATION .............................................................................................. 33

TP5: SAND CONE...................................................................................................................... 37

3.1 Calibration of cone ..................................................................................................... 38

3.2 Calibration of Sand Calibrating Mould ...................................................................... 40

3.3 Calibration of Density of Sand (Unit Weight)............................................................ 40

3.4 Determination of Density in Place.............................................................................. 41

5. CALCULATION & CONCLUSION ............................................................................... 43

Figure 1. Sieve analysis materials for experiment .......................................................................... 8

Table 1. Particle size determination .............................................................................................. 10

Sieve and machine Electronic balancer Oven Pel, Brush, Millstone

Figure 1. Sieve analysis materials for experiment

4. METHODOLOGY AND CALCULATION

Table 1. Particle size determination

Sieve Particle Cumulated Cumulated Cumulated

100 (%) Cumulated

Note: Minit : Initial dry mass of the sample

4.1.2 Soil Classification

Table 2. Soil type and particle size

Soil type Description Size

Figure 3. Soil types by Ferret Chart

Cumulated Retained 2 = M1 + M2 = 0 + 6.6 = 6.6 g

Percentage of Cumulated Retained

% of cumulated Retained 1 = (0/87.1) x 100 = 0

Percentages of Cumulated Passing

% cumulated passing 1 = 100 0 = 100 %

Table 3. Experiment Result

Sieve Mass Mass Mass Cumulated Cumulated Cumulated

Mass soil after dry in Oven 110.5

Figure 4. Sieve analysis curve of passing

Sieve Diameter (mm)

4.2.2 Coefficient Characteristics

Table 4. Coefficient Characteristics

Table 5. Mass of each particle that passes the sieve

Figure 6. Liquid Limit tools

Figure 7. Liquid Limit procedure

Where: WL is the liquid limit of 25 blows.