Dry Densities Achieved in Relation to Variation of Fines Content
Abstract
The objective of this research study is to find the relation between dry densities achieved with variation of fines content. The method of choice in the determination of themaximum dry density from different soils was the Standard Proctor Test following the procedure for the standard Proctor test as is explained in ASTM Test Designation D-698. Several laboratory tests on material obtained from TikaBhairab quarry and Bhim Phedi quarry have been conducted. The laboratory test includes sieve analysis of fines and aggregate mix, index properties of fine, compaction of aggregate mix and soaked CBR test. From the test results analysis were carried out to find the correlation between CBR with fine content using Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) V 20 software.
From this investigation, the maximum dry density of two types of aggregate was obtained, the aggregate mix were classified by using the Unified Soil Classification System. The influence on the maximum dry density of the type of aggregate, type of fines, amount of fines and distribution of the grain size was determined, followed by a sensitivity analysis that measured the influence of these parameters on the obtained maximum dry density. For sub-base material obtained from Tikabhairab, best compaction is achieved at 15% fine content.
This paper focuses on the samples retrieved from the selected quarries furthermore it is recommended to carry out this research with a large number of samples including geographical areas in Nepal which are not covered by this research.
How to cite this article:
Aryal B, Mishra AK. Dry Densities Achieved in Relation to Variation of Fines Content. J Adv Res Geo Sci Rem Sens 2019; 6(3&4): 16-26.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.24321/2455.3190.201904
References
1. AASHTO T217. Determination of Moisture in Soil by Means of Calcium. Neyyork: American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. 2007.
2. AASTHO. Aashto standard specifications for transport materials. Neyyork: American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. 2001.
3. Agarwal K. Prediction of CBR from Plasticity Characteristics of Soil. Singapure: American Journal of Engineering Research (AJER). 1970.
4. ASHTO T 265. Laboratory Determination of Moisture, Washington: TRB Publications. 2016.
5. ASTM D 1557. Standard Test Methods for Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of Soil Using Modified Effort., USA: West Conshohocken. 2012.
6. ASTM D 193-99, 2003. Laboratory CBR Testing. Annual Book of ASTM Standards. America: West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania. 2003; 4.
7. ASTM D 4429-93. In-situ CBR Testing, Annual Book of ASTM Standards. Florida ed. Newyork: West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania. 2000; 4.
8. ASTM D 698. Standard Test Methods for Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of Soil. Washington: West Conshohocken. 2012.
9. ASTM D2216. Laboratory Determination of Moisture Content of Soil. West Conshohocken: ASTM International (ASTM). 2010.
10. ASTM D4318-10e1. Standard Test Methods for Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit and Plasticity Index of Soils, West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International. 2010.
11. ASTM. D 1883-99. Laboratory CBR Testing, Annual Book of ASTM Standards, America: West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania. 2003; 4.
12. ASTM. Standard Practice for classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes (Unified Soil Classification System). West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania: Annual Book of ASTM Standards. 2000.
13. Austin AM. Fundamental characterization of unbound base course materials under cyclic loading, Louisiana: s.n. 2009.
14. Barden L, Sides GR. Engineering Behavior and Structure of Compacted Clay. Journal of Soil Mechanics and Foundations Divisions 1970; 96; 1171-1200.
15. Chukka D, Chakravarthi VK. Evaluation of Properties of Soil Subgrade using Dynamic Cone Penetration Index. International Journal of Engineering Research and Development 2012; 4(4): 7-15.
16. Das BM. Principles of Geotechnical Engineering. Fifth ed. s.l.:s.n. 2002.
17. Datta TCB. Correlation between CBR and index properties of soil. Proceedings of Indian Geotechnical Conference. 2011; 2(15): 131-133.
18. DoR. Pavement design guideline flexible pavement. Kathmandu: DoR. 2013.
19. DoR. Statistics of Strategic Road Network 2015-16. Kathmandu: Department of Road. 2016.
20. DoR. Standard Specification For Road and Bridge Works, s.l.: DoR.
21. DoTM, 2015. www.dotm.gov.np.
22. Edirisinghe A, Prema K. To develop a correlation between CBR and DCPI. International Journal For Technological Research In Engineering 2014; 4(1): 2250-2459.
23. Ehsan K. Development and testing of a portable in situ near-surface soil characterization system, Boston, assachusetts: Civil Engineering Dissertations 2011.
24. ERMC. Road Improvement Project (RIP-III/PH-4), Nepal: Departmant of road. 2016.
25. Farshad A. Potential Applications of Dynamic and Static Cone Penetrometers in MDOT Pavement Design and Construction, Jackson State University, Mississippi.: Mississippi Department of Transportation And The U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration. 2003.
26. Ferede ZW. Prediction of California Bearing Ratio (CBR) Value from Index Properties of Soil. Addis Ababa: Addis Ababa University (AAU). 2010.
27. Harison J. Correlation between California Bearing Ratio and Dynamic Cone Penetrometer Strength Measurement of Soils. Mississippi: U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration.
28. Hicks RG, Monismith CL. Factors Influencing the Resilient Properties of Granular Materials. Highway Research Record 1971; 345: 15-31.
29. HilF JW. An Investigation of Pore Water Pressure in Compacted Cohesive Soils. US Bureau of Reclamation. 1956.
30. Hogentogler CA. Essentials of soil compaction, s.l.: Proc. HRB. 1936.
31. Investopedia, Investopedia. 2017. Available at: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/coefficient-of-determination.asp
32. Itani SY, Barksdale RD. Influence of aggregate shape on base behavior. Transportation Research Record 1989; 173-182.
33. Kadiyali L. Traffic Engineering & Transportation Engineering, Delhi: Khanna Publication. 1997.
34. Kolisoja P. Large Scale Dynamic Triaxial Tests with coarse Grained Aggregates. Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA, BCRA. 1994; 94: 883-897.
35. Lambe TW. The Structure of Compacted Clay. Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, 84 (SM2), 1958; 1654-1-1654-34.
36. Lee PY. Suedkamp RY. Characteristics of Irregularly Shaped Compaction Curves of Soil, Washington D.C: National Academy of Sciences. 1972.
37. Livneh EA. Dynamic Cone Penetration Test (DCPT) for Subgrade Assessment. Technology Transfer and Project Implementation Information 1994.
38. Martin R. Highway Engineering. Ireland: Blackwell Publishing Ltd Editorial Offices. 2003.
39. Mier JGV. Fracture processes for concrete: assessment of material parameters for fracture models. 1st ed. s.l.:CRC press.
40. Mittal S. Soil Testing for Engineers, Delhi (India). Romesh Chander Khanna. 2000.
41. National Cooperative Highway Research Program, 2004. Guide for Mechanistic-Empirical Design of New and Rehabilitated Pavement Structures, Correlation of CBR Values with Soil Index Properties, Washington DC: NCHRP, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council. 2004.
42. NCHRP, N. C. H. R. P. Performance Related Tests of Aggregates for Use in Unbound Pavement Layers. Washington DC: Transportation Research Board. 2000.
43. O’Flaherty CA. Highways: The Location, Design, Construction and Maintenance of Pavements. 4 ed. s.l.:CRC Press. 2002.
44. Oslon RE. Effective stress theory of soil compaction. Journal of the Soil Mechanics & Foundations Divisions, 89 (N0 SM2). 1963; 27-45.
45. Patel RS. CBR Predicted by Index Properties of Soil for Alluvial Soils of South Gujarat. India, Indian Geotechnical Conference.
46. Proctor R. Design and Construction of rolled Earth Dams. s.l.: Engineering News Record. 1933.
47. Ramasubbarao. G. S. S. G. Predicting Soaked CBR Value of Fine Grained Soils using Index and. Jordan Journal of Civil Engineering 2013; 7.
48. Saklecha. Artificial Intelligence: Concepts. Methodologies, Tolls and Applications. USA: Information Resources and Management Association. 2012.
49. Salgado R, Yoon S. Dynamic Cone Penetration Test (DCPT) for Subgrade Assessment, West Lafayette:Indont Division of Research. 2003.
50. Salgado R, Yoon S. Dynamic Cone Penetration Test for Subgrade Assessment, West Lafayette, Indiana: FHWA. 2003.
51. Scala A. Simple method of flexible pavement design using cone penetrometers, New Zealand.: Proceedings of 2nd Australian-New Zealand Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering.
52. Talukdar DK. A Study of correlation between California Bearing Ratio (CBR) values with other properties of soil. International Journal of Emerging Technology and Advanced 2014; 4(1): 559-562.
53. US Army and Air Force. Soils and Geology Procedures for Foundation Design of Buildings and Other Structures. 1983. Washington: www.usace.army.mil/inet/usacedocs/.
54. Uthus L. Deformation Properties of Unbound Granular Aggregates. Trondheim: Norwegian University of Science and Technology. 2007.
55. Venkatasubramanian C. ANN model fo rpredicting CBR from index properties of soils. Thanjavue, India: International Journal of Civil & Structural Engineering 2011; 2(2): 614-620.
56. Yang H. Pavement Design and Analysis,Pearson Education Inc, New Saddle River, s.l.: s.n. 2004.
57. Yang H. Pavement Design and Analysis. New Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education Inc. 2004.
58. Yitagesu D. Developing correlation between DCP and CBR for locally used subgrade materials. Ethiopia.: Addis Ababa University (AAU). 2012.
59. Yoder E. Principal of pavement Design. New york: John Wiley and Son. 1975.
60. Younis F, Duggal AK, Farroq A. Case Study on Correlation between California Bearing Ratio (CBR) and Dynamic Cone Penetration Test (DCPT). International Journal of Civil and Structural Engineering Research 2015; 5(8): 39-41.
61. Zheng JJP. Improved equation of the continuous particle size distribution. Journal of American Ceramic Society 1990; 73(5): 1392-1398.
62. Zumrawi M. Performance and design of expansive soils as road subgrade. China: Chang’an University. 2000.
2. AASTHO. Aashto standard specifications for transport materials. Neyyork: American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. 2001.
3. Agarwal K. Prediction of CBR from Plasticity Characteristics of Soil. Singapure: American Journal of Engineering Research (AJER). 1970.
4. ASHTO T 265. Laboratory Determination of Moisture, Washington: TRB Publications. 2016.
5. ASTM D 1557. Standard Test Methods for Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of Soil Using Modified Effort., USA: West Conshohocken. 2012.
6. ASTM D 193-99, 2003. Laboratory CBR Testing. Annual Book of ASTM Standards. America: West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania. 2003; 4.
7. ASTM D 4429-93. In-situ CBR Testing, Annual Book of ASTM Standards. Florida ed. Newyork: West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania. 2000; 4.
8. ASTM D 698. Standard Test Methods for Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of Soil. Washington: West Conshohocken. 2012.
9. ASTM D2216. Laboratory Determination of Moisture Content of Soil. West Conshohocken: ASTM International (ASTM). 2010.
10. ASTM D4318-10e1. Standard Test Methods for Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit and Plasticity Index of Soils, West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International. 2010.
11. ASTM. D 1883-99. Laboratory CBR Testing, Annual Book of ASTM Standards, America: West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania. 2003; 4.
12. ASTM. Standard Practice for classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes (Unified Soil Classification System). West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania: Annual Book of ASTM Standards. 2000.
13. Austin AM. Fundamental characterization of unbound base course materials under cyclic loading, Louisiana: s.n. 2009.
14. Barden L, Sides GR. Engineering Behavior and Structure of Compacted Clay. Journal of Soil Mechanics and Foundations Divisions 1970; 96; 1171-1200.
15. Chukka D, Chakravarthi VK. Evaluation of Properties of Soil Subgrade using Dynamic Cone Penetration Index. International Journal of Engineering Research and Development 2012; 4(4): 7-15.
16. Das BM. Principles of Geotechnical Engineering. Fifth ed. s.l.:s.n. 2002.
17. Datta TCB. Correlation between CBR and index properties of soil. Proceedings of Indian Geotechnical Conference. 2011; 2(15): 131-133.
18. DoR. Pavement design guideline flexible pavement. Kathmandu: DoR. 2013.
19. DoR. Statistics of Strategic Road Network 2015-16. Kathmandu: Department of Road. 2016.
20. DoR. Standard Specification For Road and Bridge Works, s.l.: DoR.
21. DoTM, 2015. www.dotm.gov.np.
22. Edirisinghe A, Prema K. To develop a correlation between CBR and DCPI. International Journal For Technological Research In Engineering 2014; 4(1): 2250-2459.
23. Ehsan K. Development and testing of a portable in situ near-surface soil characterization system, Boston, assachusetts: Civil Engineering Dissertations 2011.
24. ERMC. Road Improvement Project (RIP-III/PH-4), Nepal: Departmant of road. 2016.
25. Farshad A. Potential Applications of Dynamic and Static Cone Penetrometers in MDOT Pavement Design and Construction, Jackson State University, Mississippi.: Mississippi Department of Transportation And The U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration. 2003.
26. Ferede ZW. Prediction of California Bearing Ratio (CBR) Value from Index Properties of Soil. Addis Ababa: Addis Ababa University (AAU). 2010.
27. Harison J. Correlation between California Bearing Ratio and Dynamic Cone Penetrometer Strength Measurement of Soils. Mississippi: U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration.
28. Hicks RG, Monismith CL. Factors Influencing the Resilient Properties of Granular Materials. Highway Research Record 1971; 345: 15-31.
29. HilF JW. An Investigation of Pore Water Pressure in Compacted Cohesive Soils. US Bureau of Reclamation. 1956.
30. Hogentogler CA. Essentials of soil compaction, s.l.: Proc. HRB. 1936.
31. Investopedia, Investopedia. 2017. Available at: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/coefficient-of-determination.asp
32. Itani SY, Barksdale RD. Influence of aggregate shape on base behavior. Transportation Research Record 1989; 173-182.
33. Kadiyali L. Traffic Engineering & Transportation Engineering, Delhi: Khanna Publication. 1997.
34. Kolisoja P. Large Scale Dynamic Triaxial Tests with coarse Grained Aggregates. Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA, BCRA. 1994; 94: 883-897.
35. Lambe TW. The Structure of Compacted Clay. Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, 84 (SM2), 1958; 1654-1-1654-34.
36. Lee PY. Suedkamp RY. Characteristics of Irregularly Shaped Compaction Curves of Soil, Washington D.C: National Academy of Sciences. 1972.
37. Livneh EA. Dynamic Cone Penetration Test (DCPT) for Subgrade Assessment. Technology Transfer and Project Implementation Information 1994.
38. Martin R. Highway Engineering. Ireland: Blackwell Publishing Ltd Editorial Offices. 2003.
39. Mier JGV. Fracture processes for concrete: assessment of material parameters for fracture models. 1st ed. s.l.:CRC press.
40. Mittal S. Soil Testing for Engineers, Delhi (India). Romesh Chander Khanna. 2000.
41. National Cooperative Highway Research Program, 2004. Guide for Mechanistic-Empirical Design of New and Rehabilitated Pavement Structures, Correlation of CBR Values with Soil Index Properties, Washington DC: NCHRP, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council. 2004.
42. NCHRP, N. C. H. R. P. Performance Related Tests of Aggregates for Use in Unbound Pavement Layers. Washington DC: Transportation Research Board. 2000.
43. O’Flaherty CA. Highways: The Location, Design, Construction and Maintenance of Pavements. 4 ed. s.l.:CRC Press. 2002.
44. Oslon RE. Effective stress theory of soil compaction. Journal of the Soil Mechanics & Foundations Divisions, 89 (N0 SM2). 1963; 27-45.
45. Patel RS. CBR Predicted by Index Properties of Soil for Alluvial Soils of South Gujarat. India, Indian Geotechnical Conference.
46. Proctor R. Design and Construction of rolled Earth Dams. s.l.: Engineering News Record. 1933.
47. Ramasubbarao. G. S. S. G. Predicting Soaked CBR Value of Fine Grained Soils using Index and. Jordan Journal of Civil Engineering 2013; 7.
48. Saklecha. Artificial Intelligence: Concepts. Methodologies, Tolls and Applications. USA: Information Resources and Management Association. 2012.
49. Salgado R, Yoon S. Dynamic Cone Penetration Test (DCPT) for Subgrade Assessment, West Lafayette:Indont Division of Research. 2003.
50. Salgado R, Yoon S. Dynamic Cone Penetration Test for Subgrade Assessment, West Lafayette, Indiana: FHWA. 2003.
51. Scala A. Simple method of flexible pavement design using cone penetrometers, New Zealand.: Proceedings of 2nd Australian-New Zealand Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering.
52. Talukdar DK. A Study of correlation between California Bearing Ratio (CBR) values with other properties of soil. International Journal of Emerging Technology and Advanced 2014; 4(1): 559-562.
53. US Army and Air Force. Soils and Geology Procedures for Foundation Design of Buildings and Other Structures. 1983. Washington: www.usace.army.mil/inet/usacedocs/.
54. Uthus L. Deformation Properties of Unbound Granular Aggregates. Trondheim: Norwegian University of Science and Technology. 2007.
55. Venkatasubramanian C. ANN model fo rpredicting CBR from index properties of soils. Thanjavue, India: International Journal of Civil & Structural Engineering 2011; 2(2): 614-620.
56. Yang H. Pavement Design and Analysis,Pearson Education Inc, New Saddle River, s.l.: s.n. 2004.
57. Yang H. Pavement Design and Analysis. New Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education Inc. 2004.
58. Yitagesu D. Developing correlation between DCP and CBR for locally used subgrade materials. Ethiopia.: Addis Ababa University (AAU). 2012.
59. Yoder E. Principal of pavement Design. New york: John Wiley and Son. 1975.
60. Younis F, Duggal AK, Farroq A. Case Study on Correlation between California Bearing Ratio (CBR) and Dynamic Cone Penetration Test (DCPT). International Journal of Civil and Structural Engineering Research 2015; 5(8): 39-41.
61. Zheng JJP. Improved equation of the continuous particle size distribution. Journal of American Ceramic Society 1990; 73(5): 1392-1398.
62. Zumrawi M. Performance and design of expansive soils as road subgrade. China: Chang’an University. 2000.
Published
2021-05-17
How to Cite
MISHRA, Anjay Kumar; ARYAL, Binod.
Dry Densities Achieved in Relation to Variation of Fines Content.
Journal of Advanced Research in Geo Sciences & Remote Sensing, [S.l.], v. 6, n. 3&4, p. 16-26, may 2021.
ISSN 2455-3190.
Available at: <http://thejournalshouse.com/index.php/geoscience-remotesensing-earth/article/view/121>. Date accessed: 22 dec. 2024.
Section
Research Article
