CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background of the study

Nowadays, civil engineers seek to make use of improved, commercially available

materials for pavement construction. One of such materials is laterite. Laterite has been defined

in various forms according to its physical (particle size distribution, and state of hardening) and

chemical properties. In petrology, laterite is defined as a red or brown, superficial deposit of clay

or earth which gathers on the surface of rocks and have been produced by their decomposition.

For engineering purposes they can be generalized as highly weathered residual soil material

resulting from the leaching of bases and silica but rich in concretions of secondary oxides,

hydroxides of iron, aluminum and possessing little organic matter though slightly acidic. They

can also be conventionally thought of as hard red sandy gravelly clays, as nearly all laterite are

rusty red; because of the presence of iron oxides. Laterite soils are formed in hot and wet tropical

areas like Africa and are significant in more ways than one (Tardy, 1977). In Nigeria, road bases

are mostly of lateritic soils. The high incidence and frequency of road pavement failures have

been of great concern to road engineers in Nigeria. This has given rise to intensive research to

find ways and means of improving the strength of road bases. It has been found that mixing two

or more materials granular materials and compacting them improves the strength of the treated

soil. This improvement is known as stabilization. In Awka, the Anambra State capital in Nigeria,

failure of most roads can be attributed to the use of lateritic materials as sub-base and base

materials, arising from non-satisfaction of strength requirement to support the design traffic load.

The conventional stabilization of laterite with cement proves uneconomical (Dallah, 1991) and

1
has necessitated research into a more effective and economic way of treatment. The thrust of this

investigation therefore is to formulate a material composition which satisfies both strength

requirement and cost considerations. Because of its availability, quarry dust and sand were

chosen for this study as a suitable admixture, to cement and laterite combination. The use of

admixture modification is important and has increased over the years because of its economy and

improved strength of composite materials.

There is no standard definition of quarry dust in the quarrying sector or construction industry.

This leaves room for arbitrariness in description of the material. The terms quarry fines, dusts

and wastes are used interchangeably, and are used to refer to materials which are of different

particle size distribution; some of which are produced intentionally, and is thus not a waste

material. According to the Commission of the European Communities (2007), if materials are

not useable, do not meet the technical specifications required for its use or there is no specified

market for it, then it remains a waste until a useful output has been identified. Finding uses for

quarry dust will solve the problem of its disposal and resultant environmental pollution. It also

yields some revenue.

1.2 Statement of the problem

Inspection of road surfaces in Awka shows that nearly all the roadways are in poor condition

due to weak sub-base soils. Weak sub-base soils promote rutting or longitudinal grooves in a

road surface leading to premature failures. Driving on poor road surface is a public safety hazard

and also costs vehicle owners annually in extra vehicle repairs. Some soils encountered in many

areas of Awka do not meet engineering requirements for use in construction. Various researchers

(Ramadas et.al (2010), Agrawal and Gupta (2011), have carried out extensive study on laterite

stabilization for road work using various stabilization agents. Other notable researchers have also
2
carried out studies on general laterite stabilization but not much has been done on Awka laterite

and the use of quarry dust or sand as an admixture in laterite stabilization.

1.3 Aim and Objectives

The aim of the project is to compare the strength characteristics of laterite- quarry dust mixture

and laterite-sand mixture at different proportions using different compactive effort (BSL and

BSH) and to use quarry dust or sand to economically stabilize soils of marginal quality for use

on roads, highways, and other similar applications.

The objectives of this study are

1. To determine the optimum improvement quantity and proportion needed for improving

lateritic soil with quarry dust or sand.

2. To compare the strength characteristics of laterite-sand mixture and laterite-quarry dust

mixture.

3. To determine the effect of sand and quarry dust on the unconfined compressive strength

and absorbed energy of the soils.

1.4 Scope and delimitation of study

The scope of this study is essentially centered on the use of quarry dust or sharp river sand for

improving strength characteristics of lateritic soil.

The study is delimited only to analysis of lateritic soil collected from Awka town. It involves

carrying out various laboratory tests such as particle size analysis, specific gravity, Atterberg‘s

limit test, compaction and unconfined compressive strength test on the soil before and after the

addition of the quarry dust or sharp river sand.

3
1.5 Significance of the study

The need for the study is to provide maximum improvement effects of quarry dust and sharp

river sand on laterite. It is necessary for civil engineering professionals to know the effect of

quarry dust and sand additive on laterite.

Also, a lasting solution may be provided to the constant road failure due to poor grade, sub-base

and base course materials.

4
 CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Preamble

From an engineering perspective, soil is any un-cemented or weakly cemented

accumulation of mineral particles formed by the weathering of rocks and contains void spaces

between particles, which are filled by water, and air. Bell (1993) defined soil as a material

having three components, which include; solid particles, air and water. The geological formation

is based on rock weathering which can occur either chemically when the minerals of a rock are

altered through a chemical reaction with rain water, or mechanically through climate effects such

as freeze – thaw and erosion.

Soil is said to be residual soil, if the present location of the soil is that in which the

original weathering of the parent rock occurred, otherwise, the soil is referred to as transported.

Laterite is a soil group, which are formed under weathering systems productive of the process of

laterization (decomposition of ferro alumino – silicate minerals, leaching of the combined silica

and base; and the permanent deposition of sesquioxide within the profiles. The silica that is left

unleached after laterization will form secondary clay silicate minerals. Laterites usually form a

poor soil full of concretionary lumps and very unfertile because the potash and phosphate has

been removed in solution, while only iron and silica are left behind (Gidigasu, 1976).

Laterites have been widely used for foundations and other construction purposes in

subtropical and tropical regions, where they are deposited abundantly. For any soil to be utilized

for Civil Engineering works there is need for its investigation to enable the engineers to use the

soil economically, to predict their engineering properties and their performance under field

conditions, with a fairly good degree of accuracy.

5
2.2 Origin and Definition of Laterite

The soil named ―Laterite‖ was coined by Buchanan in India from a Latin word ―Later‖

meaning brick. He described the material as ―diffused in great masses, without any appearance

of stratification, and is placed over the granite that forms the basis of Malayala (India). It is full

of cavities and pores, and contains a very large quantity of iron in the form of red and yellow

ochres. In the mass, while excluded from the air, it is so soft that any iron instrument readily

cuts it and it is cut into square masses with a pick axe and immediately cut into the shape wanted

with a trowel or large knife. It very soon becomes as hard as brick and resists the air and water

much better than any bricks I have seen in India‘‘ (Charman, 1988).

In civil engineering the confusion regarding laterite has been caused largely by the

tendency to apply the term to any red soil or rock in the tropics. The concept of self-hardening

has persisted but several theories have been advanced to account for the origin and formation of

laterite. Laterite mainly occurs in six regions of the world, which includes Africa, India, South –

East Asia, Australia, central and South America. Lateritic materials constitute the major surfacial

deposit of engineering materials in many parts of Australia, Africa and South America

(Charman, 1988).

2.2.1 Definition of laterite

Many conflicting definitions of laterite have been proposed in literature. Buchanan‘s is

the earliest and his definition is based on the ability of a soft red material to harden on exposure

to air. Attempts at a more precise definition resulted in the application of chemical criteria to

laterite, the potential of laterite as an iron or aluminium has helped to promote interest in their

identification.

6
 Lacroix (1913) divided laterite into true laterite, silicate laterite and lateritic clays, on the

basis of their hydroxides content. Alexander and Cady (1962) reintroduced the concept of

hardening and its relationship to the crystallization of iron oxides and dehydration. A silica

sesquioxide ratio {SiO2 / (Al2O3 + Fe2O3)} with the ratio between 1.33 and 2 was therefore

proposed for lateritic soils. Values greater than 2 indicated non-lateritic, tropically – weathered

soils (Bell, 1993).

Several attempts at a more useful definition based on morphology have also been

made. Pendleton and Sharasuvana (1946) have defined lateritic soils as profiles in which a

laterite horizon is found.

None of the above definitions, however, helps the field identification of useful

engineering material. Most researchers now prefer to use the definitions based on hardening,

such as ―Ferric‖ for iron – rich cemented crusts, ―alcrete‖ or bauxete for aluminium–rich

cemented crusts, ―Calcrete‖ for calcium carbonate–rich crusts and ―Silcrete for silica rich

cemented crusts‖ (Fookes, 1997).

Laterite covers have mostly a thickness of a few meters but occasionally they can be

much thicker. Their formations are favoured by a slight relief, which prevents erosion of the

surface cover. Laterite occurring in non-tropical areas is product of former geological

epochs. Lateritic soils from the uppermost part of the lateritic cover, in soil science are given

specific names such as oxisol, latosol, ferallitic soil.

2.3 Formation of lateritic soils

For engineering purposes, the term ―Laterite‖ is confined to the coarse-grained vermicular

concrete materials, including massive laterite. The term ―lateritic soil‖ refers to materials with

lower concentration of oxides (Gidigasu, 1976).

7
Lateritic soils are formed in hot, wet tropical regions with an annual rainfall between 750 to 300

mm, (usually in areas with a significant dry season) on a variety of different types of rocks with

high iron content.

Laterization is the removal of silicon through hydrolysis and oxidation that result in the

formation of laterite and lateritic soils. The degree of laterization is estimated by the silica

sesquioxides (S-S) ratio (SiO2/Fe2O3 + Al2O3). Laterization involves physico-chemical alteration

of primary rocks forming minerals into materials rich in 1:1 lattice clay minerals (Kaolinite), and

laterite constituents (Fe, Al, Ti and Mn). In the first place Ca, Mg, Na and K are released, leaving

behind a siliceous framework for the formation of clay minerals. During prolonged alkaline

attack, the siliceous framework consisting silica tetrahedral and alumina octahedral is

disintegrated. Silica will be leached slowly, while alumina and ferri-sesquioxides (Fe2O3, Al2O3,

and TiO2) remain together with kaolinite as the end products of clay weathering. The end result

is a ―reddish matrix‖ made from kaolinite, goethite, and ―fragments of the pisolitic iron crust‖.

Two aspects of the parent rocks affect the formation of laterite (Gidigasu, 1976).

1. The availability of iron and aluminum minerals, which are more readily available in basic

rocks.

2. The quartz contents of the parent rocks, where quartz is a substantial component of the

original rock, it may remain as quartz grains.

From the above, three major processes can therefore be identified as follows: -

Decomposition: Physico-chemical breakdown of primary minerals and the release of constituent

elements (SiO2, Al2O3, Fe2O3, CaO, MgO, K2O, Na2O, etc.) which appear in simple ionic forms.

Laterization: Leaching under appropriate conditions, of combined silica and bases and the

relative accumulation of enrichment oxides and hydroxides of sesquioxides (Fe2O3, Al2O3,

8
TiO2). The soil conditions under which the various elements are rendered soluble and removed

through leaching or combination with other substances depend mainly on the pH of the ground

water and the drainage conditions ( Loughman, 1969).

Dessication: Dessication or dehydration involves partial or complete dehydration (sometimes

involving hardening) of the sesquioxides rich materials and secondary minerals. The dehydration

of colloidal hydrated iron oxide involves loss of water and the concentration and crystallization

of the amorphous iron colloids into dense crystals, in the sequence; limonite, goethite to hematite

(Hamilton, 1964). Dehydration may be caused by climatic changes, upheaval of the land, or may

also be induced by human activities (e.g. by clearing of forests).

2.3.1 Mineralogical /chemical characteristics

Mallet (1883) was perhaps the first to introduce the chemical concept for establishing the

ferruginous and aluminium nature of lateritic soils. Fermor (1911) defined various forms of

lateritic soils on the basis of the relative contents of the so-called lateritic constituents (Iron,

Aluminum, Titanium and Manganese in relation to silica. Also Lacroix (1913) divided laterite

into:-true laterite, silicate laterite, and lateritic clays depending on the relative contents of the

hydroxides. There are other several attempts by the researchers to classify laterite in terms of

their chemical compositions, but Fox (1936) has demonstrated that such classifications are

inadequate, other than in relations to deposits that may be exploited for their minerals content,

classification based on chemical composition cannot be used to distinguish between indurate and

softer formations.

The high content of the sesquioxides of iron or aluminum relative to other components is a

feature of laterite. These essential components are mixed in variable proportions. Some laterite

may contain more than 80% of Fe2O3 and little of Al2O3; while others may contain up to 60% of

9
Al2O3 and only a little of Fe2O3. Although alkali and alkaline bases are almost entirely absent in

most cases, this is not an absolute criterion. In particular, some ferruginous tropical soils may

contain significant amounts of alkali and alkaline bases.

Combined silica content is low in sesquioxides. This combined silica is predominantly in the

form of Kaolinite, the characteristic clay mineral of most tropical formation. It was on this basis

that D‘Hoore (1954) made a theoretical calculation of free Al2O3 content from combined silica

content employing the formula:

Free Al2O3 = Total Al2O3 — (SiO2 x 0.849) ( 2.1)

The use of this formula leads to the statement that alumina were present principally in

combined form in laterite of Buchanan‘s type. Although alumina are sometimes the main

constituents, the sesquioxides of iron are most common and the most frequent.

2.4 Physical and Engineering properties of lateritic soils

Geotechnical characteristics and field performance of lateritic soils, as well as their

reaction to different stabilizing agents may be interpreted in the light of all or some of the

following parameters (Gidigasu, 1976):

I. Genesis and pedological factors (parent material, climate, topography, vegetation, period

of time in which the process have operated)

II. Degree of weathering (decomposition, sesquioxides enrichment and clay-size content,

degree of leaching)

III. Position in the topographic site, and

IV. Depth of soil in the profile

10
2.4.1 Particle size distribution of lateritic soils

Experience with soils in stable temperate zones has revealed that particle-size

distribution exerts great influence on the engineering properties of soils. It is also one of the most

important properties by which soils can be easily identified and classified on the basis of simple

field and laboratory tests.

Consequently great importance has also been accorded to particle-size distribution in dealing

with lateritic soils. Recent studies have revealed however, that lateritic soils are strikingly

different from temperate zone soils in terms of genesis and structure. Their concretionary

structure as compared to the dispersed temperate zone soils has necessitated modifications to

mechanical or grading tests (Remillion, 1967; 1955). Consistent reports of variations in the

particle-size distribution with methods of pretreatment and testing have been widely reported on

laterite soils. Schofield (1957) found out that wet sieving increased the silt and clay fraction from

7 to 20% as compared to the dry sieving. It has been found that sodium hexametaphosphate

generally gives better dispersion of the fine fractions. It was also found, for example, that using

sodium oxalate on a halloysitic clay from Kenya gave between 20 and 30% clay fraction, while

the sodium hexametaphosphate gave as high as between 40 to 50% clay fraction for the same soil

(Quinones, 1963).

Another factor which has been found to affect the sedimentation test is the method of drying.

Oven-dried lateritic soils were found to give the least amount of clay fraction, as compared to

air-dried or as received (natural moisture content) samples (Moh and Mazhar, 1969). The

decrease in the clay content was accompanied by an increase in silt and sand fraction contents as

a result of the cementation and coagulation of the clay particles by free iron oxide into clusters

(Terzaghi, 1958). The variation in the grading of lateritic gravels with the method of

11
manipulation is also widely reported (Novais-Ferreira and Correia 1965 and Nascimento et al.,

1959). In the study of the particle-size distribution of lateritic soils, three sources of confusion

were noted. The first confusion arises from the belief by some authors, e.g. Bawa (1957), opined

that lateritic soils represent a group of materials that can be defined within a specific range of

particle-size distribution. The second source of confusion seems to arise out of attempts by some

authors to confine the word laterite to concretionary lateritic gravels. The third source of

confusion arises out of the attachment of unnecessary importance to the soil colour. (Nascimento

et al. 1959) have suggested an interesting lithological classification of lateritic soils as follows:

Lateritic clays <0.002 mm

Lateritic silts =0.002 - 0.06 mm

Lateritic sands ~0.06- 2 mm

Lateritic gravel =2 - 60 mm

Laterite stones and cuirasse ≥ 60 mm

In this way the textural significance of "laterite" is dispensed with. Studies on indurated laterite

reveal that fairly good assessment of their engineering properties and field performance as road

materials (aggregates) can be obtained from test procedures established for natural rocks and

aggregates (Ackroyd, 1960; Novais-Ferreira and Correia, 1965; and de Graft-Johnson et al,

1969). The most important differentiating factor with regard to indurated laterite seems to be

hardness. Attempts have been made to group these materials and some success has been attained.

The summary of the results so far obtained will be discussed under appropriate sections together

with those of other lateritic soils. One of the main characteristics of lateritic gravels and gravelly

soils is the high content of fines. Consequently, such materials do not fit into the existing

temperate-zone classification systems for coarse-grained soils. The grading curves often have flat

12
platforms between 4 mm and 0.5 mm revealing the absence of this fraction. Studies on lateritic

gravels by de Graft-Johnson et al. (1969) among others have shown that the grading, though

important for identification purposes, cannot alone form the basis for grouping lateritic gravels in

terms of mechanical properties. The strength of the aggregates was found to be an important

factor. On the basis of studies of lateritic aggregates in Nigeria, It was also established that the

strength of the aggregates is mainly a function of the degree of maturity of the lateritic

concretionary particles and the predominant sesquioxide in the aggregates (Novais-Ferreira and

Correia, 1965). Soils with hard aggregates generally have stable grading curves while weak

gravels give different grading curves with different methods of pretreatment. The problem of

particle-size distribution of the fine-grained lateritic soils is more complex than those of the

gravels and gravelly soils. Information on the grading of fine-grained soils is rather scanty,

because they have been least studied. The silt and clay contents reported vary from 12% to over

82% (Winterkorn and Chandrasekharan, 1951).

2.4.2 Plasticity characteristics of lateritic soils

The interaction of the soil particles at the micro scale is reflected in the Atterberg limits of

the soil at micro-scale level. Knowledge of the Atterberg limits may provide the following

information: -

i. A basis for identification and classification of a given soil

ii. Texture

iii. Strength and compressibility characteristics swell potential of the soil or the water

holding capacity.

Atterberg limits depend on: -

1) The clay content; plasticity increases with increase in clay content.

13
 2) Nature of soil minerals; only minerals with sheet-like or plate-like structures exhibit

plasticity. This is attributed to the high specific surface areas and hence the increased

contact in plate shaped particles

3) Chemical composition of the soil environment; the absorptive capacity of the colloidal

surface of the cations and water molecules decrease as the ratio of silica to sesquoixides

decreases.

4) Nature of exchangeable cations; this has a considerable influence upon the soil plasticity

(Hough, 1959).

5) Organic matter, high organic matter increases plasticity (Skempton, 1953).

Pre-test preparation, degree of moulding and time of mixing, dry and re-wetting, and

irreversible changes may affect plasticity test in plasticity on drying. Drying drives off adsorbed

water, which is not completely regained, on re-wetting (this is the case in both oven and air

drying) (Fookes, 1997).

Studies on the relationship between the natural moisture content and the liquid limits and

plastic limits have shown that generally the natural moisture contents is less than the plastic limit

in normal lateritic soils. However, the lateritic soils from high rainfall areas may have moisture

contents as high as the liquid limit.

2.4.3 Compaction characteristics of lateritic soils

The compaction characteristics of lateritic soils are determined by their grading

characteristics and plasticity of fines. These in turn can be traced to genetics and pedological

factors.

The significant characteristics of lateritic soils are influenced by the strength of

concretionary coarse particles on compaction. Most lateritic soils contain a mixture of quartz and

14
concretionary coarse particles, which may vary from very hard to very soft. The strength of these

particles has major implications in terms of field and laboratory compaction results and their

subsequent performance in road pavements. The higher the iron oxides content the more the

degree of dehydration in the lateritic soil, the harder the concretionary particles

become.

Placement variables (moisture content, amount of compaction, and type of compaction

efforts) also influence the compaction characteristics. Varying each of these placement variables

has an effect on permeability, compressibility, swellability, strength and stress-strain

characteristics . For example, soils compacted on the dry side of optimum moisture content swell

more than soils compacted on the wet side because the soils compacted on the dry side have a

greater moisture deficiency and a lower degree of saturation (Mitchel et al., 1969). On the other

hand, soils compacted on the wet side of the optimum moisture content will shrink more on

drying than soils compacted on the dry side .

2.4.4 Shear strength characteristics of lateritic soils

The main objectives of shear strength test in soil engineering, is generally to determine

the shear strength parameters (i.e., the cohesion and angle of internal friction) in terms of total or

effective stresses under known test condition. Its determination directly or indirectly enters into

virtually every soil engineering problems.

The cohesion is attributable to the resultant of inter particle forces which are mainly

associated with the clay-size particle of soils and will vary with the particle size of the particle

and the distance separating them. Some of the inter particle forces which are believed to

contribute to soil cohesion includes:-

(a) Valence forces associated with surface

15
(b) Ionic forces associated with ions dissociated from polar materials

(c) Dipole forces and moments associated with polar materials

(d) Molecular attraction or Van der Waal‘s forces.

The angle of internal friction included the effect of interlocking. The interlocking effect

itself is affected to some degree by the shape of particles and the grain–size distribution. The

interlocking action varies with the density and the angle of internal friction increases with

increase in density. The two parameters cohesion (c) and angle of friction (ø) depends on the

following factors; grading, particle shape and void ratio. The cohesion also depends on degree of

saturation, while angle of internal friction did not (Gidigasu, 1976).

The shear strength characteristics of lateritic soils have been found to depend

significantly on the parent materials, and the degree of weathering (i.e., degree of decomposition,

laterization and dessication) which depends on the position of the sample in the soil profile and

compositional factors as well as the pretest preparation of the samples ( Lohnes et al., 1971 and

Wallace, 1973). The higher the degree of laterization, the more favourable is the shears.

2.4.5 Consolidation and permeability characteristics

The consolidation and permeability characteristics of tropical lateritic soils have been recently

summarized (de Graft-Johnson and Bhatia, 1969). The compressibility is generally moderate

with the modulus of compressibility ranging between 1 x 10-3 to 1×10-2 sq. ft./ton. The

permeabilities show wide variations, being generally higher for the residual soils and less for the

clayey and compacted materials. The higher the molding moisture content, the lower the

permeability for compacted soil strength parameters (Baldovin, 1976).

16
2.4.6 Specific Gravity

The available data indicate that specific gravities vary not only with the textural soil groups but

also within different fractions. In the first place lateritic soils have been found to have very high

specific gravities of between 2.6 to 3.4 (de Graft-Johnson and Bhatia, 1969). For the same soil,

gravel fractions were found to have higher specific gravities than fine fractions due to the

concentration of iron oxide in the gravel fraction, while alumina is concentrated in the silt and

clay fractions (Nascimento et al., 1959; Novais-Ferreira and Correia, 1965). It is common to see

specific gravities reported for the gravel and fines separately. The average of the two values can

be assumed to be more representative of the specific gravity for the whole soil.

2.5 Problematic Soils

In civil engineering, soils with properties that cannot be safely and economically used for the

construction of civil engineering structures without adopting some form of stabilization measures

are termed as ‗problematic or problem soils‘. Problem soils are expansive/swelling and

collapsing soils. Clay is predominant in most of the sub-grade soils in south eastern zones. The

clay minerals absorb water and hold the water absorbed for a long period of time due to its

characteristics low permeability.

To the geotechnical and highway engineers, a problem soil is one that poses difficulty to/during

construction. Such problems may be as a result of instability of the soil which makes it

unsuitable as construction material in foundations, highway and water retaining structures and

dams (Ola 1987).

17
Clay is predominant in most of subgrade soils of Nigeria. The clay minerals attract and adsorb

water. Problem soils as those soils which exhibit low strength and high compressibility,

collapsibility, and are characterized by swelling and shrinkage due to moisture content changes.

Has also through laboratory testing procedures identified the problem soil in the Lagos area as

peaty-clay. In Port-Harcourt area, problem soils occur as clayey-peat over the mud plains.

Adesunloye (1987) also noted that the problem soil tend to fall above the casagrande plasticity

chart.

According to Gidigasu (1976), structurally unstable tropical and residual soil includes the

following:

 Basic igneous rocks subject to rapid physico-chemical weathering in the wet tropical and

sub-tropical environments.

 Carbonates rocks which are prone to sink-holes formations.

 Expansive and highly compressible and shrinkable soils

 Sensitive and highly compressible red clays in high rainfall regions.

 Collapsing soils

 Dispersive and erosive soil.

 Organic soils including peats

 Saline or salt bearing soils

 Pedogenic materials especially lateritic materials, calcretes, silcretes, e.t.c

Conclusively, in the real sense there is almost no soil that is completely problem-free. We can

only measure the degree of problem associated with the soil under investigation.

18
2.6 Stabilization of lateritic soils

Stabilization may be defined as any processes by which a soil material is improved and made

more stable. The goals of stabilization are therefore to improve the soil strength, to improve the

bearing capacity and durability under adverse moisture and stress condition, and to improve the

volume stability of a soil mass.

Stabilization may include; mechanical, cement, lime, lime-fly-ash, bitumen, sand and traditional

stabilizers. The choice of a stabilizing method should be based on the following factors:

I. Genetics characteristics

II. Particle-size distribution

III. Mineralogical composition of the soil and

IV. Organic matter and physical chemical characteristics of the soil

2.6.1 Chemical stabilization (lime, cement, bitumen)

Chemical stabilization includes the use of admixtures (chemicals and emulsions) as cementing

agents, modifiers, water proofing, water retaining and miscellaneous chemicals to improve the

engineering properties of undesirable soils. The behaviour of each of these admixtures differs

vastly from the others; each has its particular use and conversely each has its own limitations

(Gidigasu, 1976). Cement and lime stabilization modifies the physiochemical properties of

cohesive soils as well as improve the static and dynamic strength.

Cement stabilization mechanism is mainly controlled by hydrolysis and hydration. Factors which

affect physical properties of soil-cement include:

• Soil type (particle size distribution, grain shape, mineralogy)

• Proportion of soil, cementitious material and water content

• Quantity of cement

19
• Degree of mixing

• Time of curing and

• Cement stabilization usually result in decreased density, increased compressive strength,

decreased plasticity, decreased volume change characteristics of expansive clays when compared

to the natural soil.

Lime is generally restricted to the warm to moderate climates, since lime-stabilized soils are

susceptible to breaking under freezing and thawing. Lime stabilization will generally bring about

a decrease in the density a change in the plasticity of the soil and an increase in the soil strength.

The action of lime in soil stabilization may be reduced to three basic reactions :

• Alteration of water film through cation exchange.

• Flocculation-agglomeration

• Lime reaction with clay crystal edges producing accumulation of cementitious materials which

aid in the formation of new chemicals.

2.6.2 Non Traditional stabilizers

This involves the use of local materials such as rice husk, fly ash, coconut husk etc, to improve

the strength characteristics of soils.

The analysis of the geotechnical properties of poor lateritic soil mixed with varying percentages

of coconut husk ash have been carried out in compliance with BS 1377 (1990). The results

showed that coconut husk ash has effect on Atterberg limit, compaction and California bearing

ratio of soil. The addition of coconut husk ash increases the plastic limit but reduces the

plasticity index of the lateritic soil. California bearing ratio of the poor lateritic soil also increases

continuously with the addition of coconut husk ash. Result also shows that maximum dry density

of soil increases from 0% to 4% addition of coconut husk ash but reduces after 4%, giving an

20
indication that 4% addition of coconut husk ash is the effective optimum value because

minimum optimum water content was also recorded at this value. Based on these results, it is

very clear that coconut husk ash increases the California bearing ratio and can therefore be used

to improve soils with low CBR values but unsuitable for stabilizing soils with extremely high

liquid limits. Based on this study, it is therefore necessary to recommend coconut husk ash as a

stabilizing agent for improving soils with low California bearing ratio and to increase and

decrease the plastic limit and plasticity index of soils respectively.

2.6.3 Mechanical Stabilization

Mechanical stabilization consists of compacting the soil to affect its resistance, compressibility,

permeability and porosity. The soil is mechanically treated so that maximum air can be

eliminated and this contributes to an increase in its density. With mechanical stabilization, the

particle size distribution constituting the material is not affected, but its structure is changed

because the particles are redistributed (Houben, and Guillaud 1994)

Mechanical stabilization is widely used in road construction and requires a prior analysis of the

soil to determine the optimum water content for better soil compressibility.

2.6.4 Physical Stabilization

Physical stabilization consists of modifying the properties of soil by intervening with its texture

(granulometry treatment, heat (dehydration or freezing) or electric (electrosmosis) treatments

that lead to the drainage of the soil and thus confer new structural properties to it) (Stulz,and

mukerji 1993).

Physical stabilization may also involve the introduction of synthetic fibers or fibers originating

from plants, animals and minerals into the soil. This method is used when there are reasons not

to affect the particle size distribution of the soil or if the material is sensitive to movements

21
induced by factors such as water action, thermal expansion, etc. These movements can then be

countered by a frame made of fibers. The armature acts at a macroscopic level (on grain

aggregation), and not at the level of individual grains.

2.7 Previous work on stabilization of lateritic soil stabilization using granular materials.

Sridharan and Soosan et.al (2006) identified that quarry dust manifests high shear strength and is

beneficial for its use as a geotechnical material. Sabat (2012) conducted compaction, tri-axial

and durability tests on lime stabilized expansive soil-quarry dust mixes.

Ramadas et.al (2010) reported that the combination of fly ash and stone dust were found to be

suitable to reduce swelling and increase the strength of expansive soil. Onyelowe et.al (2012)

exposes the qualities and applications of quarry dust as admixture during soil improvement and

for a more economic approach. Agrawal et.al (2011) reported that the potential use of marble

dust as stabilizing additive to expansive soil, involves the determination of the swelling potential

of expansive soil in its natural state as well as when mixed with varying proportion of marble

dust. Madu, (1975) reported that, the mixing of sand to laterites reduces the Atterberg limits and

the linear shrinkage of the laterites, each laterite sample attained the greatest maximum dry

density at a sand percentage which in general corresponds to that giving the minimum optimum

moisture content, and the CBR values show an irregular pattern with increase in the sand

percentage but all samples gave good CBR values.

22
 CHAPTER THREE

MATERIALS AND METHODS

3.1 Geology of Study Area

Awka lies below 300 meters above sea in a valley on the plains of the Mamu River. Two

ridges or cuestas, both lying in a North-South direction, form the major topographical features of

the area. The ridges reach the highest point at Agulu just outside the Capital Territory. About six

kilometers east of this, the minor cuesta peaks about 150 metres above sea level at Ifite –Awka.

Awka is sited in a fertile tropical valley but most of the original Rain forest has been lost

due to clearing for farming and human settlement. Wooded savannah grassland predominates

primarily to the north and east of the city. South of the town on the slopes of the Awka-Orlu

Uplands are some examples of soil erosion and gullying.

3.1.1 Climate

Awka is in the tropical zone of Nigeria and experiences two distinct seasons brought

about by the two predominant winds that rule the area: the south western monsoon winds from

the Atlantic Ocean and the North eastern dry winds from across the Sahara desert. The Monsoon

winds from the Atlantic creates seven months of heavy tropical rains which occur between April

and October which are then followed by five months of dryness (November - March). The

harmattan also known as Ugulu in Igbo is a particularly dry and dusty wind which enters Nigeria

in late December or in the early part of January and is characterized by a grey haze limiting

visibility and blocking the sun's rays. The temperature in Awka is generally a comfortable 27-30

degrees celsius between June and December but rises to 32-34 degrees between January and

April with the last few months of the dry season marked by intense heat.
23
 AWKA

Fig 3.4: Map of Nigeria showing the geographical location of Awka

3.1.2 Sampling Locality and Procedures:

The samples were collected within the geological location of Awka.

Table 3.1: coordinates of sample materials.

S/N Samples Latitude Longitude

1 LAT 1 6.21151N 7.09176E

2 LAT 2 6.31140N 7.091688

3 LAT 3 6.21150N 7.09182E

The lateritic soil samples used for this project were disturbed samples collected from a burrow

pit located at Awka in Anambra state. LAT 1 was collected from Ring road, LAT 2 was

24
 collected at Agu Awka at Tamad construction company burrow pit while LAT 3 was collected

from Nawfia bypass.

Fig 3.1 Map location of sample LAT 1 Fig 3.2. Map location of sample

Fig 3.3 Map location of LAT 3

25
3.2 Materials

Three lateritic soils were sampled (LAT 1, LAT 2, LAT 3,) and selected for the various testing

techniques. The study is aimed to investigate in the laboratory, the strength and compaction

characteristics including the unconfined compressive strength of lateritic soils from around

Awka when stabilized with quarry dust or sharp river sand. The compaction test was carried out

by BSL and BSH method. For the BSL, the following materials were used: volume of

mould=1000cm3, weight of rammer=2.5kg, no of layers=3, no of blows=27.But for BSH, weight

of rammer=4.5kg, no of layers=5. The analyses were carried out at the Civil Engineering

Laboratory, Nnamdi Azikiwe University Awka.

3.3 Methodology

The Method of test, analysis and presentation of test results are in accordance with BS

1377:1990. The tests carried out on the lateritic soil samples includes determination of water

content (moisture content), specific gravity (particle density), particle size distribution, (PSD),

Atterberg limits (consistency limits): liquid limit, plastic limit and plasticity index), compaction

characteristics (in terms of dry density),and unconfined compressive strength.

s3.3.1 Index Properties

Laboratory tests will be conducted to determine the index properties of the natural soil

and when the laterite is stabilized with quarry dust or with sharp river sand in accordance with

British Standards.

26
Basically, soil is a more complex material usually realized. The complexity is contributed by its

existence in almost innumerable varieties, by its combination of solid, liquid and gases, where in

many instances the solid particles vary in size ranging from big boulders to colloidal size.

Furthermore the relative quantities of solid, liquid and gases in a given soil is bound to change

due to any physical cause, such as loading, seasonal variation and change of temperature.

Besides, because of their peculiar formation processes and strong mineralogical influences

lateritic soils add further complexities. The physical properties of soils which serve mainly for

identification and classification are commonly known as index properties.

The various properties of soils which could be considered as index properties under this specific

case are:

 Natural moisture content determination

 Particle grading

 Atterberg limits

3.3.2 Natural moisture content

Quantity of water naturally present in the soil samples in-situ is very important, as it helps us

know the range of the optimum moisture content (OMC). Equipment to be used are balance,

moisture cans, drying oven set at 110°C, hand gloves etc.

The moisture cans were weighed then labelled; a representative portion of soil sample is placed

in each moisture can and covered with filter paper immediately to avoid moisture loss through

evaporation. Each moisture can with wet soil are weighed and recorded and labeled (W t).

Moisture cans content were dry, each moisture can was weighed after allowing it to cool for

some time, the weight of moisture can [with dry content (Ws)] recorded.

27
Natural moisture content wn= × 100%

3.3.3 Sieve Analysis

Mechanical (sieve) analysis was used to obtain the particle-size distributions of the soil samples

in accordance with BS 1377 (BSI 1990),

Purpose:

This test is performed to determine the percentage of different grain sizes contained within a soil.

Significance:

The distribution of different grain sizes affects the engineering properties of soil. Grain size

analysis provides the grain size distribution, and it is required in classifying the soil.

Equipment:

A weighing balance set of sieves, cleaning brush, sieve shaker (vibrator), timing device and

thermostatically controlled drying oven.

28
Plate 1: Set of sieves mounted on mechanical shaker

Procedure

The particles sizes of the quarry dust, sharp river sand and the three lateritic samples where

determined. when carrying out the particle grading of the lateritic samples, 200g of each

differently dried laterite was taken from each labeled sample bags, placed in no 200 sieve in turn

and each washed (with care not to lose any soil particle) with tap water until the water was clear,

the residues were carefully poured back from sieve without leaving any particle behind and dried

in the oven. The dried residues were taken out of the oven, allowed to cool then weighed and

their weights recorded. Then the dried residues were run through the sieve stack which ranged

from sieve no 10 (2mm) to no 200 (0.075mm) and the final bottom pan, then the shaker was

switched on. When switched off, the percentage passing and retained was calculated, the graphs

29
were plotted on semi logarithm graphs sheets. Cu and Cc of the three samples where determined

thus:

Where

= Uniformity coefficient

= Coefficient of curvature

= Particle size such that 60% of the soil is finer than this size

= Particle size such that 10% of the soil is finer than this size

= Particle size corresponding to 30% finer

When < 2, the soil is uniform and non uniform when > 2.

Coarse grained soil is when more than half is larger than sieve number 200

Well graded sand (SW) is when the value obtained from is greater than 6 and is between 1

and 3.

Poorly graded sand (SP) is when not meeting the entire gradation requirement of well graded

sand (SW).

30
3.3.4 Atterberg Limit

The Atterberg limits consists of the liquid limit (LL), the plastic limit (PL) and the

shrinkage limit (LS). A value frequently used in conjunction with these limits is the plasticity

index (PI). The hydraulic conductivity of soil vary with the amount of water present, and results

of the three consistency tests, expressed as moisture contents are arbitrarily used to differentiate

between the various states of material. The liquid limit and plastic limit for the three lateritic soil

samples were determined using the following procedure described below.

3.3.5 Liquid Limit

The liquid limit is the moisture content at which soil changes from the liquid to the plastic state.

It is the minimum moisture content at which the soil will flow under its own weight.

Apparatus

A flat glass plate of about 10mm thick, distilled water bottle, two palette knives (200mm long

and 30mm wide), moisture content tin, desiccators, liquid limit devices, weighing balance and

grooving equipment.

31
Plate 2: Liquid limit device

Procedure

The samples passing through sieve number 40 (sieve size 0.425mm of ASTM sieve) was

prepared for the test .Liquid limit was started with the pulverizing of a sufficient quantity of each

of the differently dried lateritic samples, which were individually taken and added with a small

amount of water (enough to realize a uniform color and state of consistency), applied about 20g

to the brass cup and applied a groove at the center and at an instantaneous tangent to the curved

cup surface. The machine was put on after setting the counter to zero, the number of blows

required to close the groove were counted, recorded and a representative moisture sample was

taken from the closed groove section in moisture cans and weighed. When this was done, more

water was added to the soil mixture so as to use an even smaller number of blows to close the

groove. This procedure was repeated 4 times the number of blows required to close the groove
32
were counted, recorded and a representative moisture sample was taken from the closed groove

section in moisture cans and weighed. The moisture cans and wet contents were then put in oven

for drying, and reweighed after cooling the dried moisture can content. The liquid limit is the

moisture content at twenty-five blows.

3.3.6 Plastic Limit

Plastic limit, PL: is the water content in percentage, at which a soil can no longer be deformed by

rolling into 3.2mm (118 in.) diameter threads without crumbling.

Test Procedure

This was started with the different lateritic samples being mixed individually with clean water to

the extent at which they could be rolled without sticking to the hands. The mass of soil was

rolled between the fingers and glass plate. The rolling continue until the ellipsoidal masses can

no longer be rolled into 3.2 mm diameter thread. This involved reforming into ball and re-rolling

again until cracking occurred. When this was done, some of the rolled laterite was put in the

moisture can and weighed. The whole process was repeated 2 times (so as to obtain an average)

then the moisture cans and content were put in the oven for drying. The dried sample was re-

weighed and averaged to obtain the plastic limit content.

3.3.7 Plasticity Index, PI:

This is a measure of the plasticity of a soil. The plasticity index is the size of the range of water

contents where the soil exhibits plastic properties. It is the difference between the liquid limit and

the plastic limit (PI= LL-PL). Soils with a high PI tend to be clayey while those with a lower PI

tend to be silty.

3.3.8 Specific Gravity

Specific gravity is the ratio of the mass of unit volume of soil at a stated temperature to the mass
33
of the same volume of gas-free distilled water at a stated temperature. The specific gravity of a

soil is used in the phase relationship of air, water, and solids in a given volume of the soil.

Apparatus:

Pycnometer, weighing Balance, Vacuum pump, Funnel and Spoon.

Analysis:

Where:

M1 = weight of empty pycnometer

M2 = weight of pycnometer with dry soil

M3 = weight of pycnometer with soil and water

M4 = weight of pycnometer with water only.

34
Plate 3: Electronic balance and pycnometer

3.3.9 Effect of Drying on Specific Gravity

The specific gravity is used in the computations of most of the laboratory tests and identification

of minerals. Unlike lateritic soils, specific gravity of most temperate zones and non lateritic soils

of tropical soils fall in a narrow range, and thus has a limited value in identification and

classification of soils. The laboratory test results that will be gotten from the lateritic soils of

Awka area (Table 5) show, increased temperature from insitu condition to oven drying

temperature decreases specific gravity by an average of 4%. A decrease in specific gravity is due

to aggregation of clay particles on drying and an increased valve in test result indicates the

presence of minerals constituting iron, which later recognized through chemical analysis. There

35
were no cases where the specific gravity of these soils was unusually high or low, which may

insight to the inexistence of amorphous clay minerals, which also been confirmed through

chemical analysis (Section 4.6) The specific gravities were determined using ASTM designation

D854 – 58.

3.4 Compaction characteristics

This laboratory test was performed to determine moisture content and the dry density of a soil for

a specified compactive effort.

Specimens of the soil samples were disaggregated to pass the U.S. No. 4 Sieve (4.8 mm

openings). Three kilograms (3kg) of each of the specimens of the three soil samples were

collected and compacted at five different molding water contents and two compactive efforts,

namely British Standard Light (BSL) and British Standard Heavy (BSH) in accordance with BS

1377 (BSI 1990). Each of the three soil samples were moistened to five different molding water

content (4%, 8%, 12%, 16% and 20% by weight) by the increment of four percent (4%) after

each molding water content. At each of the molding water contents, the soil samples were

thoroughly mixed by hand and compacted thereafter using the two compactive effort listed above

(BSL and BSH). Subsequently the soil samples were also compacted with varying percentage

of quarry dust and later with sharp river sand which ranged from (10%,20%,30%,40%,50%)

respectively.

After compaction, the collar of the mould was removed and excess soil was trimmed off so that it

is completely even with the top of the mold using a trimming knife (Straight Edge). Initially the

weight of the empty mould and its base plate was determined and recorded and then the weight

of the compacted soil was finally determined. Two moisture content tins were filled with few

grams of soil each from the compacted mold. The moisture content tins were allowed to stay in
36
the oven for about 24 hours and the weight of the dry samples measured thereafter the weight of

water determined by subtracting the weight of dry soil from moist soil.

Plate 4: Compaction mould, rammer, graduated cylinder, mixing tray and moisture

content tins.

Analysis:

1. Moisture content of each compacted soil specimen was determined by dividing the

weight of water by that of dry soil then the result multiplied by 100 the average of the

two water contents becomes the moisture content (MC) at that molding water content.

37
The bulk density (Yb) is determined by dividing the weight of moist soil by the volume of mold.

2. Dry density (Yd) is determined using the following formula.

3.4.1 Compactive Efforts / Compaction Energy (CE)

Compactive Energy / Compaction Effort (CE) is equal to number of layers multiplied by number

of blows, weight of rammer, height of fall and acceleration due to gravity (9,81m/s2) all divided

by the volume of mold.

 British Standard Light (BSL) Compactive Effort / Compaction Energy (CE)

For the British Standard Light (BSL) compactive energy the soil samples were divided

into three layers with twenty seven blows per layer. The mold used here being the BS

mold has the volume of 1000cm3, the weight of rammer used is 2.5kg with a height of

fall of 0.3048m.

38
  British Standard Heavy (BSH) Compactive Effort / Compaction Energy (CE)

The British Standard Heavy (BSH) compactive energy the soil samples were divided into five

layers with twenty seven blows per layer. The mold used here being the BS mold has the volume

of 1000cm3, the weight of rammer used is 4.5kg with a height of fall of 0.457m.

 Details of the Different Compactive Effort / Compaction Energy (CE)

Table 3.2 Details of the different Compactive Effort / Compaction Energy (CE)

Compaction B.S Light B.S Heavy

Number of blows 27 27

Number of layers 3 5

Weight of rammer (kg) 2.5 4.5

Volume of mould (CM3) 1000 1000

Height of fall (m) 0.3048 0.4575

Energy of compaction (MNm/m3) 0.605 MNm/m3 2.724 MNm/m3

39
3.5 Unconfined compressive strength

According to the ASTM standard, the unconfined compressive strength (qu) is defined as the

compressive stress at which an unconfined cylindrical specimen of soil will fail in a simple

compression test.

Objective

To determine the unconfined compressive strength (qu) of the soil

Apparatus

 Compression machine with a proving factor of 3KN

 Dial gauge having a least count of 0.01mm for measuring strain

 Split mould of internal diameter of 39.1mm and length of 80mm, and a mini rammer

 Vernier calliper and scale.

 Balance of accuracy 0.1g

 Oven, desiccator, crucibles, balance etc, for determining moisture content of the soil.

The loading frame consists of two metal plates. The top plate is stationary and is attached to

the load-measuring device. The bottom plate is raised and lowered by means of a crank on

the front of the loading frame. After the soil sample has been placed between the plates, the

bottom plate is gradually raised, the resistance provided by the stationary top plate applies an

axial force to the sample. Loads are measured with a calibrated proving ring or an electronic

load cell. Vertical deformations are measured with a dial gauge; the dial gauge is attached to

the top plate and measures the relative movement between the top and bottom plates.

40
 Plate 5: Triaxial setup

Plate 6: Placing the specimen on the Triaxial setup

41
Procedure

 The natural soil was compacted at its optimum moisture content using a split mould and a

mini rammer. For BSH the soil was compacted in five layers with 46 blows for each layer

while for BSL the soil was compacted in 3 layers with 27 blows for each layer.

 The natural soil was compacted with sand and later with quarry dust at different

percentages (10%, 20%, 30%, 40% and 50%) at its optimum moisture content.

 Place the compacted specimen on the bottom plate of the compression machine and

adjust it until the top plate makes contact with the top of the specimen.

 Set the proving ring and strain dial gauges to zero.

 Load the specimen at a strain rate of about 2% per minute, i.e. the deformation or change

in length of sample is 2% of the length of the sample (1.6mm/min).

 Read and record the proving ring dial gauge readings of the applied load, after the

reading of strain dial gauge advances each time by 0.1mm.

 Continue with the test until the load dial gauges recedes after recording a definite

maximum load before failure of the sample.

 Take sample from collapse zone for moisture content determination.

3.5.1 Significance

- A quick test to obtain the shear strength parameters of cohesive (fine grained) soils either in

undisturbed or remolded state.

• The test is not applicable to cohesionless or coarse grained soils

• The test is strain controlled and when the soil sample is loaded rapidly, the pore pressures

(water within the soil) undergo changes that do not have enough time to dissipate
42
• Hence the test is representative of soils in construction sites where the rate of construction is

very fast and the pore waters do not have enough time to dissipate.

3.5.2 Sources of Error in the Unconfined Compression Test

If the sample is too short there will be significant end effects. End effects are caused by the top

and bottom loading plates that grip the sample. They can increase the strength of a soil sample by

preventing the formation of the weakest failure plane. If the sample is too long, we find out that

it tends to buckle. A length-to-width ratio of two to three is recommended to avoid this problem.

Another source of error is that the soil is not confined during shear but will be confined in the

field if the soil is located at a depth of a few feet or more. The problem is most severe with

fissured soils (soils that contain cracks). In the ground, the cracks are held closed by the

confining pressure due to the weight of soil above it. The soil is much stronger in this state than

it is with no confining pressure in an unconfined compression test.

Analysis

Proving factor = 3KN

Sensitivity =0.01

Load =

Diameter of specimen = 39.1 mm and length of specimen of 80mm

Ac = ⁄

= ⁄

43
Ao

Stress = ⁄

3.5.3 Applications

• The test results provide an estimate of the relative consistency of the soil as can be seen in

Table 3.3.

• Almost used in all geotechnical engineering designs (e.g. design and stability analysis of

foundations, retaining walls, slopes and embankments) to obtain a rough estimate of the soil

strength and viable construction techniques.

• To determine Undrained Shear Strength or Undrained Cohesion (Su or Cu) = ⁄

Table 3.3: Relative consistency as a function of unconfined compressive strength

44
3.6 ENERGY ABSORPTION CAPACITY

The energy absorption capacity was calculated by measuring the area under the stress strain
curve as show in Fig (3.5) below. The energy absorption capacity values were calculated by
taking into consideration the area under the stress strain curves up to maximum axial stress at
failure.(Guleria, and Dutta 2012) .

100

80

60

40

20

0
0 1 2 3 4 5

Fig 3.5: Graph of stress (kN/m2) against strain (%)

45
 CHAPTER FOUR
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1 Identification and Classification

Table 4.1 Physical Properties of Lateritic Soils, sand and quarry dust.

Property LAT 1 LAT 2 LAT 3 SAND QUARRY

DUST
Specific gravity 2.61 2.51 2.62 2.63 2.75
Grain size distribution
Gravel (%) NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL
Coefficient of uniformity NIL NIL NIL 2.22 8.88
Effective size D10(mm) NIL NIL NIL 0.18 0.1
Mean size D50 (mm) 0.18 0.13 0.28 0.33 0.6
Sand (%) 59.30 60.26 61.82 99.25 93.41
Silt & Clay (%) 40.70 39.74 38.18 0.75 6.59
Natural moisture content 14.60 9.87 8.43 NIL NIL
(%)
Atterberg Limits
Liquid limit (%) 36.1 34.35 32.80 NIL NIL
Plastic limit (%) 20.33 24.36 24.07 NIL NIL
Plasticity index (%) 15.67 9.99 8.73 NIL NIL

The particle size analysis for the lateritic samples shows that the cumulative percentage retained

on No. 200 BS sieve were in the range of 59.30% and 61.82%. From the results also, the

cumulative percentage passing on No: 200 BS sieve are in the range of 38.18 and 40.70 from the

analysis, it is clear that there is higher percentage of sand than the fines (silt and clay). According

to the Federal Ministry of Works and Housing (1997) specification (Bello and Adegoke 2010), it

can be deduced that only the samples that have percentage passing less than 35% is suitable for

sub base and base materials. Therefore it can be affirmed that the entire samples are not suitable

46
as base and sub base materials unless it is stabilized. The sand has a coefficient of uniformity

(Cu) of 2.2 which is less than 4, this shows that the sand is uniformly graded containing particles

of the same size. The Cu of the quarry dust is 8.88 with Cc of 1.25, since the Cc is more than 1

and but less than 3, it shows that the quarry dust is well graded. The plasticity indices of the three

lateritic samples are 15.67, 9.99, and 8.73 respectively which is greater than 7 but less than 17.

This shows that the soils are inorganic clays of medium plasticity with group name SC.

PARTICLE GRADING
100

90

80

70
cummulative % passing

60 LAT 1
50 LAT 2
LAT 3
40
SAND
30
QUARRY
20

10

0
0.01 0.1 1 10
Sieve sizes (mm)
.

Fig 4.1: Graph of the particle grading of the three lateritic samples, sand and quarry dust.

47
4.1.1. Classification of Soil Sample; USCS Soil Classification .

The unified soil classification system is used for virtually all geotechnical engineering work

except highway and road construction. The unified soil classification is based on the airfield

classification system developed by a casagrande during World War II with some modification. It

was jointly adopted by several U.S. government agencies in 1952. Additional refinements were

made and it is currently standardized as ASTMD 2487-93. It is used in the U.S. and much of the

world for geotechnical work other than roads and highways.

In the unified system soils are designated by two-letter symbol: the first identifies the primary

component of the soil and the second describe its grain size or plasticity characteristics. For

example poorly graded sand is designated SP and low plasticity clay is CL first five symbols are

used: G for gravel, S for sand, M for silt, C for clay and O for organic soil.

Since all the soils sample have more than 50% of the soil retained on the No. 200 BS sieve, the

soil is coarse grained, and the soil is identified as sand. Since the three lateritic soils (LAT 1,

LAT 2, LAT 3) has its plasticity index greater than 7, the soils may be referred to as inorganic

clays with medium plasticity with group name SC.

4.1.2 Classification of Soil Samples: AASHTO Soil Classification System.

This system was originally proposed in 1928 by the U.S. Bureau of Public Roads for use by

highway engineers. A Committee of highway engineers for the Highway Research Board met in

1945 and made an extensive revision of the PRA System. This system is known as the AASHTO

(American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials) System. The revised

system comprises seven groups of inorganic soils, A-l to A-7 with 12 subgroups in all. The

system is based on the following three soil properties:

48
1. Particle-size distribution

2. Liquid Limit

3. Plasticity Index.

The soil samples LAT 2 and LAT 3 have more than 36% minimum of their particles passing

through the No. 200 BS sieve, the liquid limit and plasticity index is less than 40 and 10

maximum respectively. Therefore they may be classified into group A-4 soils which may be

either Inorganic silts with medium plasticity. LAT 1 has a plasticity index of more than 11

minimum, thus may be classified into group A-6 soils which may be clayey soil with medium

plasticity.

4.2. Compaction characteristics of the Natural Soil

BSL
2000

1900
DRY DENSITY kg/m3

1800

1700
LAT 1
1600
LAT 2
1500 LAT 3

1400

1300
0 5 10 15 20 25
moisture content (%)

Figure4.2:Graph of dry density versus water content

49
 BSH
2100

2000
dry density (kg/m3)

1900

1800
LAT 1
1700 LAT 2

1600 LAT 3

1500
0 5 10 15 20 25
water content (%)

Fig4.3 Graph of dry density versus water content

from Figs. 4.2 and 4.3 it can be observed that the maximum dry density of the three lateritic

sample was lower when the compactive effort of BSL was used to compact the soils but

increased when compactive effort of BSH was used to compact the soils. Increase in the

maximum dry density (MDD) may be attributed to more densely packing of the soil. While the

optimum moisture content of the soils was higher when the soils was compacted with

compactive effort of BSL but decreased when the soils were compacted with compactive effort

of BSH. According to O‘Flaherty (1988) the ranges of values that may be anticipated when using

the standard proctor test methods are: for clay, maximum dry density (MDD) may fall before

1.44Mg/m3 and 1.685Mg/ m3 and optimum moisture content (OMC) may fall between 20-30%.

For silty clay MDD is usually between 1.6 and 1.845Mg/m3 and OMC ranged between 15-25%.

For clayey or silty sand, MDD usually ranged between 1.76 and 2.165Mg/m3 and OMC between

8 and 15%. Thus, looking at the results of the soil samples, it could be noticed that they are

clayey or silty sand materials.

50
Since the best compaction can be achieved at OMC, its determination will help to carry out

compaction in the field by adding that amount of water to the soil during compaction. This

values has given highway Engineers a guide on the amount of water needed to achieve a dry

density of those values for laterite from the burrow pits under investigation.

4.3. Properties of Lateritic Soils when Mixed with Quarry Dust or with Sand.
4.3.1 Specific Gravity

2.7
2.68
2.66
2.64
SPECIFIC GRAVITY

2.62
2.6 LAT 3
2.58 LAT 2
2.56 LAT 1

2.54
2.52
2.5
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Percentage of Stabilizer (%)

Figure 4.4: Graph of specific gravity versus % sand addition

51
 2.75

2.7
SPECIFIC GRAVITY

2.65
LAT 3
2.6 LAT 2
LAT 1
2.55

2.5
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Percentage of Stabilizer (%)

Figure 4.5: Graph of specific gravity versus % quarry dust addition

From the figure 4.4 and figure 4.5 the specific gravity of sample 1(LAT 1) ranges between 2.53

and 2.61when mixed with sand and 2.61 to 2.71 when mixed with quarry dust. From the result,

the maximum value of specific gravity is at 30% when mixed with sand and also when it was

mixed with quarry dust. The specific gravity of sample 2 (LAT 2) ranges between 2.51 and 2.60

when mixed with sand and 2.51 to 2.61 when mixed with quarry dust. From the result, the

maximum value of specific gravity is at 30% when mixed with sand and also quarry dust. The

specific gravity of sample 3 (LAT 3) ranges between 2.62 and 2.68 when mixed with sand and

2.62 to 2.71 when mixed with quarry dust. From the result, the maximum value of specific

gravity is at 30% when mixed with sand and at 10% when mixed with quarry dust. The specific

gravity of sand is 2.63 while that of quarry dust is 2.75. From observation of the trend in which

the specific gravity increases with sand and quarry dust and later decrease, it may be deduced

52
that the decrease in specific gravity may be due to addition of the admixtures in excess or due to

the plasticity of the laterite.

4.3.2. Compaction characteristics Based on British Standard Light effort (BSL)

17
16
LAT 1
Optimum Moisture Content (%)

15
14
13
12 SAND
11 QUARRY
10
9
8
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Percentage of granular material (%)

Fig 4.6: Graph of OMC versus % of water content

2050
LAT 1
Maximum dry density (kg/m3

2000

1950

SAND
1900
QUARRY
1850

1800
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
percentage of granular material (%)

Fig4.7: Graph of MDD versus % of admixtures

53
 14
LAT 2
Optimum moisture content (%)

13

12

11
SAND
10 QUARRY

8
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Percentage of granular material (%)

Fig4.8: Graph of OMC versus % of admixtures

2060
LAT 2
2040
Maximum dry density (kg/m3

2020

2000

1980
SAND
1960
QUARRY
1940

1920
1900
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Percentage of granular material (%)

Fig 4.9: Graph of MDD versus % of admixtures

54
 12.6
Optimum Moisture Content (%)
12.4
LAT 3
12.2
12
11.8
11.6
SAND
11.4
QUARRY
11.2
11
10.8
10.6
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Percentage of Stabilizer (%)

Fig 4.10: Graph of OMC versus % of admixtures

2060
LAT 3
Maximum Dry Density (Kg/m3

2040

2020

2000

1980
SAND
1960
QUARRY
1940

1920

1900
0 20 40 60
Percentage of Stabilizer (%)

Fig 4.11: Graph of MDD versus % of admixtures

From figs 4.6 - 4.11, the optimum moisture content of LAT 1 decreased as the percentage of

sand and quarry dust increases while the maximum dry density increased as the percentage of

quarry dust and sand added increases. The soil attained its highest dry density at 40% of sand and

quarry dust and decreased at 50%. The optimum moisture content of LAT 2 decreased as the

55
percentage of sand and quarry dust increases, while the maximum dry density increased as the

percentage of quarry dust and sand added increases. The soil attained its highest dry density at

40% of sand and quarry dust and decreased at 50%. The optimum moisture content of LAT 3

decreased as the percentage of sand and quarry dust increases but at 50% of sand addition the

moisture content of the soil began to increase while the maximum dry density increased as the

percentage of quarry dust and sand added increases. The soil attained its highest dry density at

40% of sand and quarry dust and decreased at 50%. The decrease in moisture content is due to

the quantity of laterite that contains clayey particles, which requires water for the bonding action

is reducing thereby needing less water for hardening, while the increase in the maximum dry

density is due to the increased resultant specific gravity of the mixture.

17
Optimum Moisture Conttent (%)

16
15
14
13
LAT 1
12
LAT 2
11
LAT 3
10
9
8
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Percentage of Stabilizer (%)

Fig 4.12: Graph of OMC versus percentage of sand

56
 17
16
Optimum Moisture Content (%)

15
14
13
LAT 1
12
LAT 2
11
LAT 3
10
9
8
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Percentage of Stabilizer (%)

Fig 4.13: Graph of OMC versus % of quarry dust

2050
Maximum dry density 9kg/m3

2000

1950
LAT 1
1900 LAT 2
LAT 3
1850

1800
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Percentage of Stabilizer (%)

Fig 4.14: Graph of MDD versus % of sand

57
 2100
Maximum dry density (kg/m3)
2050

2000

1950 LAT 1
LAT 2
1900
LAT 3
1850

1800
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Percentage of Stabilizer (%)

Fig 4.15: Graph of MDD versus % of quarry dust

Figs 4.12 – 4.15 show the OMC and MDD of the three lateritic samples when compacted with

sand and also when compacted with quarry dust. From the graph it can be deduced that LAT 1

has the least MDD and highest OMC values when compacted at different percentage addition of

the admixtures.

58
4.3.3. Compaction characteristics based on British standard heavy effort (BSH)

2200
LAT 1
maximum dry density kg/m3)

2150

2100

2050

2000 QUARRY
SAND
1950

1900

1850
0 20 40 60
Percentage of granular material (%)

Fig 4.16: Graph of MDD versus % of admixtures

16
LAT 1
14
Optimum moisture content (%)

12

10

8
QUARRY
6 SAND
4

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Percentage of granular material (%)

Fig 4.17: Graph of OMC versus % of admixtures

59
 14
LAT 2
Optimum moisture Content 9%)

12

10

6 QUARRY
SAND
4

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Percentage of granular material (%)

Fig 4.18: Graph of OMC versus % of admixtures

2120
2100
LAT 2
Maximum dry density kg/m3)

2080
2060
2040
2020 QUARRY
2000 SAND
1980
1960
1940
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Percentage of granular material (%)

Fig 4.19: Graph of MDD versus % of admixtures

60
 2080
Maximum dry density (kg/m3)
2070
LAT 3
2060
2050
2040
2030 QUARRY
2020 SAND
2010
2000
1990
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Percentage of granular material (%)

Fig 4.20: Graph of MDD versus % of admixtures

9.4
LAT 3
Optimum moisture content (%)

9.2
9
8.8
8.6
QUARRY
8.4
SAND
8.2
8
7.8
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Percentage of granular material (%)

Fig 4.21: Graph of OMC versus % of admixtures

Figs 4.16 – 4.21 show the trend in which sand and quarry dust addition to the soil vary with the

maximum dry density and optimum moisture content. From the graph, the soil reacts differently

as quarry dust and sand is being added to it. The MDD of LAT 1 increased as the percentage of

61
quarry dust and sand increases while the OMC decreased with in the percentage of quarry dust

and sand. The OMC of LAT 3 decreased as the percentage of quarry dust and sand increased but

attained its highest MDD at 40% of quarry dust and sand addition. The MDD of LAT 3 increased

with increase in the percentage of sand and quarry dust added but started deceasing at 50% of

sand and quarry dust, while the OMC decreased with increase in percentage of sand and quarry

dust added but started to increase at 50% of sand and quarry dust. The decrease in moisture

content is due to the quantity of laterite that contains clayey particles, which requires water for

the bonding action is reducing thereby needing less water for hardening, while the increase in the

maximum dry density is due to the increased resultant specific gravity of the mixture.

2200
Maximum dry density (kg/m3)

2150

2100

2050
LAT 1
2000
LAT 2
1950 LAT 3

1900

1850
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
percentage of stabilizer (%)

Fig 4.22: Graph of MDD versus % of sand

62
 2200
Maximum dry density (kg/m3)
2150

2100

2050
LAT I
2000
LAT 2
1950 LAT 3

1900

1850
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Percentage of Stabilizer (%)

Fig 4.23: Graph of MDD versus percentage of quarry dust

16
Optimum Moisture content (%)

14
12
10
8 LAT 1

6 LAT 2

4 LAT 3

2
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Percentage of Stabilizer (%)

Fig 4.24: Graph of OMC versus % of sand

63
 16
Optimum moisture content (%)
14
12
10
8 LAT 1

6 LAT 2

4 LAT 3

2
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Percentage of Stabilizer (%)

Fig 4.25: Graph of OMC versus % of quarry dust

Figs 4.22 – 4.25 show the OMC and MDD of the three lateritic samples when compacted with

compactive effort of BSH with sand and also when compacted with quarry dust at various

percentage addition of the admixtures (sand and quarry dust).

64
4.3.4. Effect of granular material on the Unconfined Compressive Strength of the Lateritic
Soils based British standard light effort (BSL).

700
LAT 1
Unconfined compressive strength

600

500
(KN/M2)

400

300 QUARRY
SAND
200

100

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Percentage of granular material (%)

Fig 4.26: Graph of UCS versus % of admixtures

250
LAT 2
Unconfined compressive strength (KN/M2)

200

150

QUARRY
100
SAND

50

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Percentage of granular material (%)

Fig 4.27: Graph of UCS versus % of admixtures

65
 300
LAT 3
Unconfiined compressive strength

250

200
(KN/M2)

150
QUARRY
100 SAND

50

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Percentage of granular material (%)

Fig 4.28: Graph of UCS versus % of admixtures

The variation of the unconfined compressive strength with the percentages of admixtures is

given in the figs 4.26 – 4.28 above. For LAT 1 it is observed that as the percentage of admixtures

increases, unconfined compressive strength decreases. For LAT 2 it is observed that as the

percentage of quarry dust increases, the unconfined compressive strength increases while as the

percentage of sand increases the unconfined compressive strength increased up to 20% and then

decreased. While for LAT 3 as the percentage of sand increases, the unconfined compressive

strength decreased while as the percentage of quarry dust increased the unconfined compressive

strength decreased at 10% and then increased up to 40% and then decreased. The decrease in the

UCS value is as a result of lack of fiber in the mixture, soils stabilized without fiber exhibit

brittle stress-strain and have relatively little toughness, which may cause the treated soil to crack

and fail suddenly.

66
4.3.5. Effect of granular material on Unconfined Compressive Strength of the Lateritic
Soils based on British standard heavy effort (BSH).

800
LAT 1
Unconfined compressive strength (KN/M2)

700

600

500

400
QUARRY
300 SAND
200

100

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Percentage of granular material (%)

Fig 4.29: Graph of UCS versus % of admixtures

500
LAT 2
Unconfined compressive strength (KN/M2)

450
400
350
300
250
QUARRY
200
Sand
150
100
50
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Percentage of granular matreial (%)

Fig 4.30: Graph of UCS versus % of admixtures

67
 700
LAT 3
Unconfined compressive srength

600

500
(KN/M2)

400

300 QUARRY
SAND
200

100

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Percentage of granular material (%)

Fig 4.31: Graph of UCS versus % of admixtures

The variation of the unconfined compressive strength with the percentages of admixtures when

compacted using BSH method is given in figs 4.29 – 4.31 above. For LAT 1 It is observed that

as the percentage of admixtures increases, the unconfined compressive strength increased up to

20% and then decreased. For LAT 2 it is observed that as the percentage of admixtures increases,

the unconfined compressive strength increased up to 40% and then decreased. While for LAT 3

as the percentage of sand increases, the unconfined compressive strength decreased while as the

percentage of quarry dust increased, the unconfined compressive strength increased up to 40%

and then decreased. The decrease in the UCS value is as a result of lack of fiber in the mixture,

soils stabilized without fiber exhibit brittle stress-strain and have relatively little toughness,

which may cause the treated soil to crack and fail suddenly Amadi et. al (2013).

68
4.3.6. Effect of granular material on the Absorbed Energy of Lateritic Sample based on

British standard light effort (BSL).

12
LAT 1
10
Absorbed Energy (KJ/m2)

6
QUARRY
4 SAND

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Percentage of granular material (%)

Fig 4.32: Graph of absorbed energy versus % of admixture.

25
LAT 2
20
Absorbed energy (KJ/m2)

15

QUARRY
10
SAND

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Percentage of granular material (%)

Fig 4.33: Graph of absorbed energy versus % of admixture.

69
 7
LAT 3
6
Absorbed energy (KJ/m2)

3 QUARRY
SAND
2

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Percentage of granular material (%)

Fig 4.34: Graph of absorbed energy versus % of admixture.

The variation of the absorbed energy with the percentages of admixtures when compacted using

BSL method is given in figs 4.32 – 4.34 above. For LAT 1 It is observed that as the percentage

of quarry dust increases, the absorbed decreased and tend to increase 40% and then decreased

while as the percentage of sand increases the absorbed energy decreased at 10% and then

increased up to 30% before decreasing. For LAT 2 it is observed that as the percentage of

admixtures increases, the absorbed energy decreases. While for LAT 3 as the percentage of sand

increases, the absorbed energy decreased while as the percentage of quarry dust increased the

absorbed energy decreased at 10% and tend to increase at 30% and then decreased. The decrease

in the absorbed energy of the soil may be attributed to the increased brittle nature of the soil as

the proportion of the admixture increases.( Amadi et al. 2013).

70
4.3.7. Effect of granular material on the Absorbed Energy of the Lateritic Sample based on
British standard heavy effort (BSH).

18
16
LAT 1
ABSORBED ENERGY (Kj/m2)

14
12
10
8 QUARRY
6 SAND
4
2
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Percentage of granular material (%)

Fig 4.35: Graph of absorbed energy versus % of admixture.

8
LAT 2
7

6
Absorbed energy KJ/m2

4
QUARRY
3 SAND

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Percentage of granular material (%)

Fig 4.36: Graph of absorbed energy versus % of admixture.

71
 8
LAT 3
7
Absorbed Energy (Kj/m2)

6
5
4
QUARRY
3
SAND
2
1
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Percentage of granular material (%)

Fig 4.37: Graph of absorbed energy against % of admixture.

The variation of the absorbed energy with the percentages of admixtures when compacted using

BSH method is given in Figs 4.35- 4.37. For LAT 1 It is observed that as the percentage of

quarry dust increases, the absorbed decreased and tend to increase at 30% and then decreased

while as the percentage of sand increases the absorbed energy increased at 10% and then

decreased. For LAT 2 it is observed that as the percentage of admixtures increases, the absorbed

energy decreased and tend to increase at 20% and then decreased. While for LAT 3 as the

percentage of sand increases, the absorbed energy increased at 10% and then decreased while as

the percentage of quarry dust increased the absorbed energy increases. The decrease in the

absorbed energy may be as a result of brittleness of the soil due to the presence of the admixture.

72
4.3.8 Normalized UCS based on British standard light (BSL).

0.6 0.8
LAT 1 LAT 1

UCS with quarry dust/ UCS without

UCS with sand/ UCS without sand

0.7
0.5
0.6
0.4 0.5

quarry dust
0.3 0.4

0.3
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1

0 0
0 20 40 60 0 20 40 60
sand content (%) quarry dust content (%)

Fig 4.38 Graph of normalized UCS Fig 4.39: Graph of normalized UCS versus
versus sand content of stabilized soil quarry dust content of stabilized soil.

1.2 1.3
LAT 2 LAT 2
UCS with quarry dust/ UCS without quarry

1.2
UCS with sand/ UCS without sand

1
1.1
0.8
1
dust

0.6 0.9

0.8
0.4
0.7
0.2
0.6

0 0.5
0 20 40 60 0 20 40 60
sand content (%) quarry dust content (%)

Fig 4.40: Graph of normalized UCS versus Fig 4.41: Graph of normalized UCS
sand content of stabilized soil. versus quarry dust content of stabilized
soil.
73
 0.7 0.8
LAT 3 LAT 3

UCS with quarry/ UCS without quarry dust

0.75
0.6
UCS with sand/UCS without sand

0.7
0.5 0.65
0.6
0.4
0.55
0.3 0.5

0.2 0.45
0.4
0.1
0.35
0 0.3
0 20 40 60 0 20 40 60
sand content (%) quarry dust content (%)

Fig 4.42: Graph of normalized UCS versus Fig 4.43: Graph of normalized UCS versus
sand content of stabilized soil. quarry dust content of stabilized soil.

From Figs 4.38-4.43 can be observed that the energy absorption capacity (normalized UCS) of

LAT 1 decreased with increase in the percentage of sand and quarry dust. Similar trend was

observed in the addition of sand to LAT 2 and LAT 3 while the addition of quarry dust to LAT 2

and LAT 3 resulted in an increase in the energy absorption capacity (normalized UCS). Thus

from the above graphs it can be deduced that laterite-quarry dust mixture shows higher values of

absorption capacity in comparison with laterite-sand mixtures.

74
4.3.9 Normalized UCS based on British standard heavy effort (BSH).

2 2.5
LAT 1 LAT 1

UCS with quarry dust/ ucs without

UCS with sand/ UCS without sand

1.8
1.6 2
1.4

quarry dust
1.2 1.5
1
0.8 1
0.6
0.4 0.5
0.2
0 0
0 20 40 60 0 20 40 60
sand content (%) quarry dust content (%)

Fig 4.44: Graph of normalized UCS versus sand Fig 4.45: Graph of normalized UCS versus
content of stabilized soil. quarry dust content of stabilized soil.

2.5 3.5
LAT 2 LAT 2
USC with quarry dust/ UCS without
UCS with sand/ UCS without sand

3
2
2.5
quarry dust

1.5 2

1 1.5

1
0.5
0.5

0 0
0 20 40 60 0 20 40 60
sand content (%) Axis Title

Fig 4.46: Graph of normalized UCS versus sand Fig 4.47: Graph of normalized UCS versus
content of stabilized soil. quarry dust content of stabilized soil.

75
 1.2 1.1
LAT 3 LAT 3

UCS with quarry dust/UCS without quarry

UCS with sand/UCS without sand

1 1

0.8 0.9

0.6 0.8

dust
0.4 0.7

0.2 0.6

0 0.5
0 20 40 60 0 20 40 60
sand content (%) quarry dust content (%)

Fig 4.48: Graph of normalized UCS versus Fig 4.49: Graph of normalized UCS versus
sand content of stabilized soil. quarry dust content of stabilized soil.

From Fig 4.44 it can be observed that the normalized UCS of LAT 1 increased with increase in

sand content and attained it maximum value at 20% sand content before decreasing. From fig

4.45, the normalized UCS of LAT 1 attained its maximum at 10% quarry dust content before

decreasing. For LAT 2 it can be observed that the normalized UCS increased with increase in the

sand content but attained its maximum value at 40% sand content before decreasing. The same

trend was also observed when quarry dust was added to LAT 2. The increase in the percentage of

sand resulted in decrease in the normalized UCS of LAT 3, but when quarry dust was added to

LAT 3 the normalized UCS decreased and started increasing at 30% quarry dust content.

76
4.3.10 Normalized Absorbed Energy based on British standard light effort (BSL)

0.8 1
LAT 1 LAT 1
Absorbed energy with sand/absorbed

dust/absorbed energy without quarry

0.7

Absorbed energy with quarry

0.6 0.8
energy without sand

0.5

dust
0.4 0.6
0.3
0.2 0.4
0.1
0 0.2
0 20 40 60 0 20 40 60
sand content (%) quarry dust content (%)

Fig 4.50 Graph of normalized absorbed Fig 4.51 Graph of normalized absorbed
energy versus sand content. energy versus quarry dust content.

0.6 0.5
LAT 2 LAT 2
absorbed energy with sand/absorbed

absorbed energy without quarry dust

absorbed energy with quarry dust/

0.5
0.4
energy without sand

0.4
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2

0.1 0.1

0 0
0 20 40 60 0 20 40 60
sand content (%) quarry dust content (%)

Fig 4.52 Graph of normalized absorbed Fig 4.53 Graph of normalized absorbed
energy versus sand content energy versus quarry dust content.

77
 0.7 1.2
LAT 3 LAT 3
absorbed energy with sand/ absorbed

dust/absorbed energy without quarry

0.6

absorbed energy with quarry

1
energy without sand

0.5
0.8
0.4

dust
0.6
0.3
0.4
0.2

0.1 0.2

0 0
0 20 40 60 0 20 40 60
sand content (%) quarry dust content (%)

Fig 4.54 Graph of normalized absorbed Fig 4.55 Graph of normalized absorbed
4.3.11 versus
energy Normalised UCS (BSH).
sand content. energy versus quarry dust content.

From Fig 4.50, it can be observed that as sand content increases the Normalized absorbed energy

of LAT 1 increased and attained its maximum value at 30% sand content before decreasing,

while from fig 4.51, the increase in quarry dust content resulted in decrease of the normalized

absorbed energy of LAT 1. The normalized absorbed energy of LAT 2 and LAT 3 was observed

to decrease with increase in the sand and quarry dust content.

78
4.3.11 Normalized Absorbed Energy based on British standard heavy effort (BSH).

1.4 1.2
LAT 1 LAT 1

dust/absorbed energy without quarry

Absorbed energy with sand/ absorbed

1.2

Absorbed energy with quarry

1
energy without sand

1
0.8
0.8

dust
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.4

0.2 0.2

0 0
0 20 40 60 0 20 40 60
sand content (%) quarry dust content (%)

Fig 4.56 Graph of normalized absorbed Fig 4.57 Graph of normalized absorbed
energy versus sand content. energy versus quarry dust content.

From Fig 4.56 it can be deduced that the increase in the sand content resulted in the decrease in

the normalized absorbed energy of LAT 1. From Fig 4.57 it can be observed that as the

percentage of quarry dust increases the normalized absorbed energy of LAT 1 increased and

attained its maximum value at 20% quarry dust content before decreasing.

79
 1.4 1.2
LAT 2 LAT 2

dust/absorbed energy without quarry

absorbed energy with sand/absorbed
1.2

absorbed energy with quarry

1
energy without sand

1
0.8
0.8

dust
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.4

0.2 0.2

0 0
0 20 40 60 0 20 40 60
sand content (%) quarry dust content (%)

Fig 4.58 Graph of normalized absorbed energy Fig 4.59 Graph of normalized absorbed
versus sand content. energy versus quarry dust content.

1.2 1.6
LAT 3 LAT 3
dust/absorbed energy without quarry
absorbed energy with sand/absorbed

1.4
absorbed energy with quarry

1
1.2
energy without sand

0.8
1
dust

0.6 0.8
0.6
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.2
0 0
0 20 40 60 0 20 40 60
sand content (%) quarry dust content (%)

Fig 4.60 Graph of normalized absorbed energy Fig 4.61 Graph of normalized absorbed
versus sand content. energy versus quarry dust content.

80
From Figs 4.58 – 4.61 it can be observed that the normalized absorbed energy of LAT 1 and

LAT 2 decreased with increase in the sand content. While as the quarry dust content increases

the normalized absorbed energy of LAT 2 increased and attained it maximum value at 20%

quarry dust content before decreasing. The normalized absorbed energy of LAT 3 increased with

increase in the quarry dust content but decreased at 50% quarry dust content.

4.4 Statistical Analysis

4.4.1 Two-Factor without Replication (ANOVA)

Tables below represents the two factor without replication for maximum dry density, optimum

moisture content, unconfined compressive strength test, and absorbed energy when the lateritic

samples is mixed with sand or with quarry dust at different percentages (0,10,20,30,40,50) with

compactive effort of BSL and BSH. Two way anova can be used when you have one

measurement variable and two nominal variables, and each value of one nominal variable is

found in combination with each value of the other nominal variable. For this experiments any

p-value less than 0.05 and F > F crit would indicate a significant effect.

Table 4.2a Two-factor ANOVA without replication for maximum dry density of LAT 1

mixed with sand and then with quarry dust (BSL) at different percentages.

ANOVA
Source of SS Df MS F P-value F crit
Variation
Rows 27613.67 5 5522.733 11.88878 0.008363 5.050329
Columns 4256.333 1 4256.333 9.1626 0.029182 6.607891
Error 2322.667 5 464.5333

Total 34192.67 11

81
Table 4.2b Two-factor ANOVA without replication for maximum dry density of LAT 2

mixed with sand and then with quarry dust (BSL) at different percentages.

ANOVA
Source of SS Df MS F P-value F crit
Variation
Rows 16130.42 5 3226.083 11.98026 0.008222 5.050329
Columns 2494.083 1 2494.083 9.26193 0.028641 6.607891
Error 1346.417 5 269.2833

Total 19970.92 11

Table 4.2c Two-factor ANOVA without replication for maximum dry density of LAT 3

mixed with sand and then with quarry dust (BSL) at different percentages.

ANOVA
Source of SS Df MS F P-value F crit
Variation
Rows 14827.75 5 2965.55 13.21056 0.006606 5.050329
Columns 1704.083 1 1704.083 7.591135 0.040062 6.607891
Error 1122.417 5 224.4833

Total 17654.25 11

From the Tables 4.2 (a-c) it can be deduced from the rows that variation in the percentages of

sand and quarry dust has a significant effect in the MDD of the lateritic samples since p<0.05.

From the columns it can also be deduced that when the lateritic samples were mixed with sand

and also when it was mixed with quarry dust and compacted using BSL method that there was

also a significant influence on the MDD of the three lateritic samples since p<0.05 and F>Fcrit.

82
Table 4.3a Two-factor ANOVA without replication for maximum dry density of LAT 1

mixed with sand and then with quarry dust (BSH) at different percentages.

ANOVA
Source of SS Df MS F P-value F crit
Variation
Rows 86667.67 5 17333.53 16.18242 0.004165 5.050329
Columns 4033.333 1 4033.333 3.765482 0.110002 6.607891
Error 5355.667 5 1071.133

Total 96056.67 11

Table 4.3b Two-factor ANOVA without replication for maximum dry density of LAT 2

mixed with sand and then with quarry dust (BSH) at different percentages.

ANOVA
Source of SS Df MS F P-value F crit
Variation
Rows 41786.42 5 8357.283 27.66549 0.001189 5.050329
Columns 1302.083 1 1302.083 4.310345 0.092515 6.607891
Error 1510.417 5 302.0833

Total 44598.92 11

From Tables 4.3 (a-c) it can be deduced from the rows that the variation in the percentages of

sand and quarry dust has a significant effect in the MDD of LAT 1 and LAT 2 since p<0.05.

From the columns it can also be deduced that when the lateritic samples (LAT 1 and LAT 2) was

mixed with sand and also when it was mixed with quarry dust and compacted using BSH method

that there was no significant influence on the MDD of the three lateritic samples since p>0.05

and F<Fcrit.

83
Table 4.3c Two-factor ANOVA without replication for maximum dry density of LAT 3

mixed with sand and then with quarry dust (BSH) at different percentages.

ANOVA

Source of Variation SS Df MS F P-value F crit

Rows 5999.417 5 1199.883 56.91146 0.000209 5.050329

Columns 154.0833 1 154.0833 7.3083 0.042611 6.607891

Error 105.4167 5 21.08333

Total 6258.917 11

From the Table 4.3c it can be deduced from the rows that the variation in the percentages of sand

and quarry dust has a significant effect in the MDD of LAT 3 since p<0.05. from the columns it

can also be deduced that when LAT 3 was mixed with sand and also when it was mixed with

quarry dust and compacted using BSH method that there was also a significant influence on the

MDD of the three lateritic samples since p<0.05 and F>Fcrit.

Table 4.4a Two-factor ANOVA without replication for optimum moisture content of LAT

1 mixed with sand and then with quarry dust (BSL) at different percentages.

ANOVA
Source of SS df MS F P-value F crit
Variation
Rows 30.80417 5 6.160833 70.40952 0.000124 5.050329
Columns 0.1875 1 0.1875 2.142857 0.203111 6.607891
Error 0.4375 5 0.0875

Total 31.42917 11

84
Table 4.4b Two-factor ANOVA without replication for optimum moisture content of LAT

2 mixed with sand and then with quarry dust (BSL) at different percentages.

ANOVA
Source of SS Df MS F P-value F crit
Variation
Rows 5.336667 5 1.067333 7.8867 0.020355 5.050329
Columns 0.853333 1 0.853333 6.305419 0.053758 6.607891
Error 0.676667 5 0.135333

Total 6.866667 11

Table 4.4c Two-factor ANOVA without replication for optimum moisture content of LAT 3

mixed with sand and then with quarry dust (BSL) at different percentages.

ANOVA
Source of SS df MS F P-value F crit
Variation
Rows 2.676667 5 0.535333 11.15278 0.009636 5.050329
Columns 0.27 1 0.27 5.625 0.063817 6.607891
Error 0.24 5 0.048

Total 3.186667 11

From Table 4.3c and Tables 4.4 (a-c) it can be deduced from the rows that variation in the

percentages of sand and quarry dust has a significant effect in the OMC of the lateritic samples

since p<0.05. from the columns it can also be deduced that when the lateritic samples was mixed

with sand and also when it was mixed with quarry dust and compacted using BSL method that

there was no significant influence on the OMC of the three lateritic samples since p>0.05 and

F<Fcrit.

85
Table 4.5a Two-factor ANOVA without replication for optimum moisture content of LAT

1 mixed with sand and then with quarry dust (BSH) at different percentages.

ANOVA
Source of SS Df MS F P-value F crit
Variation
Rows 44.93417 5 8.986833 7.23869 0.024345 5.050329
Columns 0.3675 1 0.3675 0.296013 0.609766 6.607891
Error 6.2075 5 1.2415

Total 51.50917 11

Table 4.5b Two-factor ANOVA without replication for optimum moisture content of LAT

2 mixed with sand and then with quarry dust (BSH) at different percentages.

ANOVA
Source of SS Df MS F P-value F crit
Variation
Rows 44.09417 5 8.818833 386.2263 1.84E-06 5.050329
Columns 0.240833 1 0.240833 10.54745 0.022754 6.607891
Error 0.114167 5 0.022833

Total 44.44917 11

Table 4.5c Two-factor ANOVA without replication for optimum moisture content of LAT 3

mixed with sand and then with quarry dust (BSH) at different percentages.

ANOVA
Source of SS Df MS F P-value F crit
Variation
Rows 2.324167 5 0.464833 29.98925 0.000981 5.050329
Columns 0.0675 1 0.0675 4.354839 0.091267 6.607891
Error 0.0775 5 0.0155

Total 2.469167 11
86
From Table 4.5 (a-c) it can be deduced from the rows that variation in the percentages of sand

and quarry dust has a significant effect in the OMC of the lateritic samples since p<0.05. from

the columns it can also be deduced that when the lateritic samples was mixed with sand and also

when it was mixed with quarry dust and compacted using BSH method that there was no

significant influence on the OMC of LAT 1 and LAT 3 samples since p>0.05 and F<Fcrit but

there was a significant influence on the OMC of LAT 2 since p<0.05.

Table 4.6a Two-factor ANOVA without replication for optimum moisture content of LAT

1 mixed with sand and compacted with compactive effort of BSL and BSH at different %

of sand

ANOVA
Source of SS df MS F P-value F crit
Variation
Rows 42.55667 5 8.511333 7.426992 0.02308 5.050329
Columns 21.87 1 21.87 19.08377 0.007232 6.607891
Error 5.73 5 1.146

Total 70.15667 11

From the Table 4.6a it can be deduced from the rows that variation in the percentages of sand has

a significant effect on the OMC of LAT 1 since p<0.05. from the columns it can also be deduced

that when the lateritic samples was mixed with sand and compacted using BSL and then BSH

method that there was also a significant influence on the OMC of LAT 2 since p<0.05 and

F>Fcrit.

87
4.6b Two-factor ANOVA without replication for optimum moisture content of LAT 2

mixed with sand and compacted with compactive effort of BSL and BSH at different % of

sand.

ANOVA
Source of SS df MS F P-value F crit
Variation
Rows 19.73417 5 3.946833 3.755908 0.086367 5.050329
Columns 6.020833 1 6.020833 5.72958 0.062106 6.607891
Error 5.254167 5 1.050833

Total 31.00917 11

From the Table above it can be deduced from the rows that variation in the percentages of sand

has no significant effect on the OMC of LAT 2 since p>0.05. from the columns it can also be

deduced that when the lateritic samples was mixed with sand and compacted using BSL and

then BSH method that there was also no significant influence on the OMC of LAT 2 since

p>0.05 and F<Fcrit.

4.6c Two-factor ANOVA without replication for optimum moisture content of LAT 3

mixed with sand and compacted with compactive effort of BSL and BSH at different % of

sand.

ANOVA
Source of SS df MS F P-value F crit
Variation
Rows 1.7675 5 0.3535 4.071017 0.074773 5.050329
Columns 33.00083 1 33.00083 380.048 6.55E-06 6.607891
Error 0.434167 5 0.086833

Total 35.2025 11

88
From the Table 4.4c it can be deduced from the rows that variation in the percentages of sand an

has no significant effect on the OMC of LAT 3 since p>0.05. from the columns it can also be

deduced that when the lateritic samples was mixed with sand and compacted using BSL and

then BSH method that there was a significant influence on the OMC of LAT 3 since p<0.05 and

F>Fcrit.

Table 4.7a Two-factor ANOVA without replication for optimum moisture content of LAT

2 mixed with quarry dust and compacted with compactive effort of BSL and BSH at

different % of quarry dust.

ANOVA
Source of SS df MS F P-value F crit
Variation
Rows 32.05667 5 6.411333 15.71405 0.004455 5.050329
Columns 20.28 1 20.28 49.70588 0.000887 6.607891
Error 2.04 5 0.408

Total 54.37667 11

4.7b Two-factor ANOVA without replication for optimum moisture content of LAT 2

mixed with quarry dust and compacted with compactive effort of BSL and BSH at

different % of quarry dust

ANOVA
Source of SS df MS F P-value F crit
Variation
Rows 20.02667 5 4.005333 3.846351 0.082798 5.050329
Columns 14.96333 1 14.96333 14.3694 0.012749 6.607891
Error 5.206667 5 1.041333

Total 40.19667 11

89
4.7c Two-factor ANOVA without replication for optimum moisture content of LAT 3

mixed with quarry dust and compacted with compactive effort of BSL and BSH at

different % of quarry dust.

ANOVA
Source of SS df MS F P-value F crit
Variation
Rows 2.83 5 0.566 9.872093 0.01259 5.050329
Columns 30.08333 1 30.08333 524.7093 2.95E- 6.607891
06
Error 0.286667 5 0.057333

Total 33.2 11

From Tables 4.7 (a-c) it can be deduced from the rows that variation in the percentages of

quarry dust has a significant effect on the OMC of LAT 1and LAT 3 since p<0.05 but has no

significant effect on LAT 2 since p>0.05. from the columns it can also be deduced that when the

lateritic samples was mixed with quarry dust and compacted using BSL and then BSH method

that there was also a significant influence on the OMC of the three lateritic samples since p<0.05

and F>Fcrit.

Table 4.8a Two-factor ANOVA without replication for maximum dry density of LAT 1

mixed with sand and compacted with compactive effort of BSL and BSH at different % of

sand.

ANOVA
Source of Variation SS df MS F P-value F crit
Rows 50732.42 5 10146.48 3.611255 0.092533 5.050329
Columns 37744.08 1 37744.08 13.43357 0.014516 6.607891
Error 14048.42 5 2809.683

Total 102524.9 11
90
Table 4.8b Two-factor ANOVAwithout replication for maximum dry density of LAT 2

mixed with sand and compacted with compactive effort of BSL and BSH at different % of

sand.

ANOVA
Source of Variation SS df MS F P-value F crit
Rows 23500.67 5 4700.133 4.655441 0.058368 5.050329
Columns 11163 1 11163 11.05685 0.020889 6.607891
Error 5048 5 1009.6

Total 39711.67 11

Table 4.8c Two-factor ANOVA without replication for maximum dry density of LAT 3

mixed with sand and compacted with compactive effort of BSL and BSH at different % of

sand.

ANOVA
Source of SS Df MS F P-value F crit
Variation
Rows 7231.667 5 1446.333 9.169484 0.01477 5.050329
Columns 14560.33 1 14560.33 92.30981 0.000207 6.607891
Error 788.6667 5 157.7333

Total 22580.67 11

From the Tables 4.8 (a-c) it can be deduced from the rows that variation in the percentages of

sand d has no significant effect on the MDD of LAT 1and LAT 2 since p>0.05 but has a

significant effect on LAT 3 since p<0.05. from the columns it can also be deduced that when the

lateritic samples was mixed with sand and compacted using BSL and then BSH method that

there was also a significant influence on the MDD of the three lateritic samples since p<0.05 and

F>Fcrit.

91
Table 4.9a Two-factor ANOVA without replication for maximum dry density of LAT 1

mixed with quarry dust and compacted with compactive effort of BSL and BSH at

different % of quarry dust.

ANOVA
Source of SS df MS F P-value F crit
Variation
Rows 49601.42 5 9920.283 6.545953 0.029929 5.050329
Columns 37074.08 1 37074.08 24.46354 0.0043 6.607891
Error 7577.417 5 1515.483

Total 94252.92 11

Table 4.9b Two-factor ANOVA without replication for maximum dry density of LAT 2

mixed with quarry and compacted with compactive effort of BSL and BSH at different %

of quarry.

ANOVA
Source of SS df MS F P-value F crit
Variation
Rows 31073 5 6214.6 26.97309 0.001263 5.050329
Columns 8427 1 8427 36.57552 0.001782 6.607891
Error 1152 5 230.4

Total 40652 11

Table 4.9c Two-factor ANNOVA without replication for maximum dry density of LAT 3

mixed with quarry dust and compacted with compactive effort of BSL and BSH at

different % of quarry dust.

ANOVA
Source of Variation SS df MS F P-value F crit
Rows 12188.67 5 2437.733 6.602745 0.029407 5.050329
Columns 8427 1 8427 22.82503 0.004981 6.607891
Error 1846 5 369.2
92
Total 22461.67 11

From the Tables 4.9 (a-c) it can be deduced from the rows that variation in the percentages of

quarry dust has a significant effect on the MDD of the three lateritic samples since p<0.05. From

the columns it can also be deduced that when the lateritic samples was mixed with quarry dust

and compacted using BSL and then BSH method that there was also a significant influence on

the MDD of the three lateritic samples since p<0.05 and F>Fcrit.

Table 4.10a Two-factor ANOVA without replication for unconfined compressive strength

of LAT 1 mixed with sand and then with quarry dust (BSL) at different percentages.

ANOVA
Source of Variation SS df MS F P-value F crit
Rows 249475.8 5 49895.17 26.60014 0.001305 5.050329
Columns 14390.84 1 14390.84 7.672054 0.039372 6.607891
Error 9378.742 5 1875.748

Total 273245.4 11

From the Table 4.10a it can be deduced from the rows that variation in the percentages of quarry

dust and sand has a significant effect on the UCS of LAT 1 sample since p<0.05. From the

columns it can also be deduced that when LAT 1 sample was mixed with quarry dust and then

with sand and compacted using BSL method that there was also a significant influence on the

UCS of LAT 1 sample since p<0.05 and F>Fcrit.

93
Table 4.10b Two-factor ANOVA without replication for unconfined compressive strength

of LAT 2 mixed with sand and then with quarry dust (BSL) at different percentages.

ANOVA
Source of SS df MS F P-value F crit
Variation
Rows 2254.223942 5 450.8448 0.404704 0.828309 5.050329
Columns 3000.421875 1 3000.422 2.693353 0.161691 6.607891
Error 5570.049875 5 1114.01

Total 10824.69569 11

Table 4.10c Two-factor ANOVA without replication for unconfined compressive strength

of LAT 3 mixed with sand and then with quarry dust (BSL) at different percentages.

ANOVA
Source of SS df MS F P-value F crit
Variation
Rows 27761.2 5 5552.241 4.303419 0.067565 5.050329
Columns 7786.179 1 7786.179 6.034896 0.057468 6.607891
Error 6450.964 5 1290.193

Total 41998.35 11

From the Tables 4.10 (b-c) it can be deduced from the rows that variation in the percentages of

quarry dust and sand has no significant effect on the UCS of LAT 2 and LAT 3 samples since

p>0.05. From the columns it can also be deduced that when LAT 2 and LAT 3 sample was

mixed with quarry dust and then with sand and compacted using BSL method that there was also

no significant influence on the UCS of LAT 2 and LAT 3 samples since p>0.05 and F<Fcrit

94
Table 4.11a Two-factor ANOVA without replication for unconfined compressive strength

of LAT 1 mixed with sand and then with quarry dust (BSH) at different percentages.

ANOVA
Source of Variation SS df MS F P-value F crit
Rows 126510. 5 25302.1 2.93020 0.13152 5.05032
8 6 3 4 9
Columns 3313.36 1 3313.36 0.38371 0.56275 6.60789
3 3 5 4 1
Error 43174.7 5 8634.95
5

Total 172998. 11
9

Table 4.11b Two-factor ANOVA without replication for unconfined compressive strength

of LAT 2 mixed with sand and also with quarry dust (BSH) at different percentages.

ANOVA
Source of SS df MS F P-value F crit
Variation
Rows 72166.18014 5 14433.24 2.082034 0.220017 5.050329
Columns 11790.73521 1 11790.74 1.700846 0.248984 6.607891
Error 34661.38914 5 6932.278

Total 118618.3045 11

Table 4.11c Two-factor ANOVA without replication for unconfined compressive strength

of LAT 3 mixed with sand and then with quarry dust (BSH) at different percentages.

ANOVA
Source of Variation SS df MS F P-value F crit
Rows 66941.27447 5 13388.25 0.523407 0.752751 5.050329
Columns 223548.7816 1 223548.8 8.739519 0.031655 6.607891
Error 127895.3545 5 25579.07

Total 418385.4106 11
95
From the Tables 4.11 (a-c) it can be deduced from the rows that variation in the percentages of

quarry dust and sand has no significant effect on the UCS of the three lateritic samples since

p>0.05. From the columns it can also be deduced that when LAT 1 and LAT 2 sample was

mixed with quarry dust and then with sand and compacted using BSH method that there was also

no significant influence on the UCS of LAT 1 and LAT 2 samples since p>0.05 and F<Fcrit, but

there was a significant effect on the UCS of LAT 3 since F>F cirt.

Table 4.12a Two-factor ANOVA without replication for unconfined compressive strength

of LAT 1 mixed with sand and compacted with compactive effort of BSL and BSH at

different % of sand

ANOVA
Source of Variation SS df MS F P-value F crit
Rows 115078.1 5 23015.62 0.978796 0.509095 5.050329
Columns 66358.86 1 66358.86 2.822075 0.153811 6.607891
Error 117571 5 23514.21

Total 299008 11

Table 4.12b Two-factor ANOVA without replication for unconfined compressive strength

of LAT 2 mixed with sand and compacted with compactive effort of BSL and BSH at

different % of sand.

ANOVA
Source of Variation SS df MS F P-value F crit
Rows 8446.976 5 1689.395 0.587492 0.713196 5.050329
Columns 9540.06 1 9540.06 3.317583 0.128174 6.607891
Error 14378.03 5 2875.605

Total 32365.06 11
96
Table 4.12c Two-factor ANOVA without replication for unconfined compressive strength

of LAT 3 mixed with sand and compacted with compactive effort of BSL and BSH at

different % of sand

ANOVA
Source of Variation SS df MS F P-value F crit
Rows 163208.5228 5 32641.7 4.651543 0.05846 5.050329
Columns 96035.31001 1 96035.31 13.68533 0.014009 6.607891
Error 35086.96344 5 7017.393

Total 294330.7963 11

From the Tables 4.12 (a-c) it can be deduced from the rows that variation in the percentages of

sand has no significant effect on the UCS of the three lateritic samples since p>0.05. From the

columns it can also be deduced that when LAT 1 and LAT 2 sample was mixed with sand and

compacted using BSL and then BSH method that there was also no significant influence on the

UCS of LAT 1 and LAT 2 samples since p>0.05 and F<Fcrit, but there was a significant effect

on the UCS of LAT 3 since F>F cirt.

Table 4.13a Two-factor ANOVA without replication for unconfined compressive strength

of LAT 1 mixed with quarry dust and compacted with compactive effort of BSL and BSH

at different % of quarry dust.

ANOVA
Source of Variation SS df MS F P-value F crit
Rows 111863 5 22372.6 1.331258 0.380601 5.050329
Columns 38103.87 1 38103.87 2.267332 0.192473 6.607891
Error 84028 5 16805.6

Total 233994.8 11

97
Table 4.13b Two-factor ANOVA without replication for unconfined compressive strength

of LAT 2 mixed with quarry dust and compacted with compactive effort of BSL and BSH

at different % of quarry dust.

ANOVA
Source of Variation SS Df MS F P-value F crit
Rows 51435.86 5 10287.17 1.273449 0.398641 5.050329
Columns 22946.88 1 22946.88 2.840595 0.152723 6.607891
Error 40390.98 5 8078.195

Total 114773.7 11

Table 4.13c Two-factor ANOVA without replication for unconfined compressive strength

of LAT 3 mixed with quarry dust and compacted with compactive effort of BSL and BSH

at different % of quarry dust.

ANOVA
Source of Variation SS df MS F P-value F crit
Rows 20695.93817 5 4139.188 2.057788 0.223613 5.050329
Columns 482282.7075 1 482282.7 239.7658 2.04E-05 6.607891
Error 10057.3709 5 2011.474

Total 513036.0166 11

From the Tables 4.13 (a-c) it can be deduced from the rows that variation in the percentages of

quarry dust has no significant effect on the UCS of the three lateritic samples since p>0.05. From

the columns it can also be deduced that when LAT 1 and LAT 2 sample was mixed with quarry

dust and compacted using BSL and then BSH method that there was also no significant influence

on the UCS of LAT 1 and LAT 2 samples since p>0.05 and F<Fcrit, but there was a significant

effect on the UCS of LAT 3 since F>F cirt.

98
Table 4.14a Two-factor ANOVA without replication for absorbed energy of LAT 1 mixed

with sand and then with quarry dust (BSL) at different percentages.

ANOVA
Source of Variation SS Df MS F P-value F crit
Rows 35.53404 5 7.106808 4.284802 0.068106 5.050329
Columns 14.76301 1 14.76301 8.900841 0.030679 6.607891
Error 8.293042 5 1.658608

Total 58.59009 11

From Table 4.14a it can be deduced from the rows that variation in the percentages of quarry

dust and sand has no significant effect on the absorbed energy of LAT 1 sample since p>0.05.

From the columns it can also be deduced that when LAT 1 sample was mixed with quarry dust

and then with sand and compacted using BSL method that there was a significant influence on

the absorbed energy of LAT 1 sample since p<0.05 and F>Fcrit.

Table 4.14b Two-factor ANOVA without replication for absorbed energy of LAT 2 mixed

with sand and then with quarry dust (BSL) at different percentages.

ANOVA
Source of Variation SS df MS F P-value F crit
Rows 460.6339224 5 92.12678 29.39823 0.001029 5.050329
Columns 6.58452675 1 6.584527 2.101163 0.20687 6.607891
Error 15.66876575 5 3.133753

Total 482.8872149 11

99
Table 4.14c Two-factor ANOVA without replication for absorbed energy of LAT 3 mixed

with sand and also with quarry dust (BSL) at different percentages.

ANOVA
Source of Variation SS df MS F P-value F crit
Rows 23.65775042 5 4.73155 6.330809 0.032026 5.050329
Columns 14.00328075 1 14.00328 18.73637 0.00751 6.607891
Error 3.73692375 5 0.747385

Total 41.39795492 11

From Tables 4.14 (b-c) it can be deduced from the rows that variation in the percentages of

quarry dust and sand has a significant effect on the absorbed energy of LAT 2 and LAT 3

samples since p<0.05. From the columns it can also be deduced that when LAT 3 sample was

mixed with quarry dust and then with sand and compacted using BSL method that there was a

significant influence on the absorbed energy of LAT 3 sample since p<0.05 and F>Fcrit, but

there was no significant effect on the absorbed energy of LAT 2since p > 0.05.

Table 4.15a Two-factor ANOVA without replication for absorbed energy of LAT 1 mixed

with sand and then with quarry dust (BSH) at different percentages.

ANOVA
Source of Variation SS df MS F P-value F crit
Rows 136.011 5 27.2022 4.39909 0.06487 5.05032
1 1 5 7 9
Columns 15.2325 1 15.2325 2.46337 0.17732 6.60789
3 3 9 2 1
Error 30.9179 5 6.18359
7 3

Total 182.161 11
6

100
Table 4.15b Two-factor ANOVA without replication for absorbed energy of LAT 2 mixed

with sand and then with quarry dust (BSH) at different percentages.

ANOVA
Source of Variation SS df MS F P-value F crit
Rows 13.88427 5 2.776853 2.675265 0.151996 5.050329
Columns 1.840833 1 1.840833 1.773488 0.24043 6.607891
Error 5.189867 5 1.037973

Total 20.91497 11

Table 4.15c Two-factor ANOVA without replication for absorbed energy of LAT 3 mixed

with sand and then with quarry dust (BSH) at different percentages.

ANOVA
Source of SS Df MS F P-value F crit
Variation
Rows 2.452342 5 0.490468333 0.200349 0.94886 5.050329
Columns 14.36641 1 14.36640833 5.868467 0.059933 6.607891
Error 12.24034 5 2.448068333

Total 29.05909 11

From the Tables 4.15 (a-c) it can be deduced from the rows that the variation in the percentages

of quarry dust and sand has no significant effect on the absorbed energy of the three lateritic

samples since p>0.05. From the columns it can also be deduced that when the three lateritic

sample was individually mixed with quarry dust and then with sand and compacted using BSH

method that there was also no significant influence on the absorbed energy of the samples since

p>0.05 and F<Fcrit.

101
Table 4.16a Two-factor ANOVA without replication for absorbed energy of LAT 1 mixed

with sand and compacted with compactive effort of BSL and BSH at different % of sand.

ANOVA
Source of Variation SS Df MS F P-value F crit
Rows 137.8566 5 27.57133 3.360043 0.104778 5.050329
Columns 25.90141 1 25.90141 3.156534 0.135777 6.607891
Error 41.02824 5 8.205648

Total 204.7863 11

Table 4.16b Two-factor without replication for absorbed energy of LAT 2 mixed with sand

and compacted with compactive effort of BSL and BSH at different % of sand.

ANOVA
Source of Variation SS df MS F P-value F crit
Rows 184.6680417 5 36.93361 1.709431 0.285285 5.050329
Columns 14.191875 1 14.19188 0.656855 0.454502 6.607891
Error 108.028975 5 21.6058

Total 306.8888917 11

Table 4.16c Two-factor ANOVA without replication for absorbed energy of LAT 3 mixed

with sand and compacted with compactive effort of BSL and BSH at different % of sand.

ANOVA
Source of Variation SS df MS F P-value F crit
Rows 29.14246667 5 5.828493 11.48336 0.009033 5.050329
Columns 2.5392 1 2.5392 5.002758 0.075528 6.607891
Error 2.5378 5 0.50756

Total 34.21946667 11

102
From the tables 4.16 (a-c) it can be deduced from the rows that variation in the percentages of

sand has no significant effect on the absorbed energy LAT 1 and LAT 2 samples since p>0.05,

but has a significant effect on the absorbed energy of LAT 3. From the columns it can also be

deduced that when the three lateritic samples was individually mixed with sand and compacted

using BSL and then BSH method that there was also no significant influence on the absorbed

energy the three lateritic samples since p>0.05 and F<Fcrit.

Table 4.17a Two-factor ANOVA without replication for absorbed energy of LAT 1 mixed

with quarry dust and compacted with compactive effort of BSL and BSH at different % of

quarry dust.

ANOVA
Source of Variation SS df MS F P-value F crit
Rows 27.55467 5 5.510933 6.383468 0.031494 5.050329
Columns 26.52213 1 26.52213 30.72133 0.002624 6.607891
Error 4.316567 5 0.863313

Total 58.39337 11

Table 4.17b Two-factor ANOVA without replication for absorbed energy of LAT 2 mixed

with quarry dust and compacted with compactive effort of BSL and BSH at different % of

quarry dust.

ANOVA
Source of Variation SS df MS F P-value F crit
Rows 51435.86 5 10287.17 1.273449 0.398641 5.050329
Columns 22946.88 1 22946.88 2.840595 0.152723 6.607891
Error 40390.98 5 8078.195

Total 114773.7 11

103
Table 4.17c Two-factor ANOVA without replication for absorbed energy of LAT 3 mixed

with quarry dust and compacted with compactive effort of BSL and BSH at different % of

quarry dust.

ANOVA
Source of SS df MS F P-value F crit
Variation
Rows 1.86349 5 0.372698 0.218115353 0.939931 5.050329058
Columns 2.695164 1 2.695164 1.577299939 0.26464 6.607890974
Error 8.5436 5 1.70872

Total 13.10225 11

From the Tables 4.17 (a-c) it can be deduced from the rows that variation in the percentages of

quarry dust has no significant effect on the absorbed energy LAT 2 and LAT 3 samples since

p>0.05, but has a significant effect on the absorbed energy of LAT 1. From the columns it can

also be deduced that when the three lateritic samples was individually mixed with quarry dust

and compacted using BSL and then BSH method that there was also no significant influence on

the absorbed energy of LAT 2 and LAT 3 since p>0.05 and F<Fcrit, but there was a significant

effect on the absorbed energy of LAT 1 since F>Fcrit.

104
 CHAPTER FIVE

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Conclusion

The compaction and strength characteristics of different lateritic soil mixtures around the

geographical location of Awka, Anambra State, using sand and quarry dust as admixtures have

been investigated in this study. Graphical analyses show that the geotechnical properties of these

soils are sensitive to variations in compactive effort, percentage variation of the admixtures,

compaction water content, dry unit weight as well as to initial degree of saturation. Atterberg

limit, specific gravity, particle size, and unconfined compressive strength are properly

investigated. The particle size distribution analysis shows that the percentage passing BS No 200

sieve of the samples from the study area shows greater amount of sand and the specific gravity

value for the lateritic soils ranges between 2.51 and 2.62 but increased up to 2.68 when mixed

with sand and 2.71 when mixed with quarry dust. It implies that the soil can be used as sub-base

material in road construction when the strength is improved using sand or quarry dust as

admixture. The results of the investigation carried out show that the soil samples are better

classified as inorganic clays of medium plasticity with group name SC.

The compaction characteristics of the soil samples show that the soils attained their maximum

dry density at 40% of the admixtures by dry weight of the soil. From the results it was observed

that quarry dust has a greater impact in the improvement of strength of the soils than sand. The

unconfined compressive test appears to have limited application as the basis for design of

stabilized materials. There does not appear to be any clear correlation between the unconfined

compressive strength and the compaction values. There is very little agreement upon design

105
criteria based on the unconfined compressive strength of stabilized materials. The graphical

analysis of the absorbed energy and unconfined compressive strength of the soils shows that

quarry dust was better than sand in the improvement of the soil strength.

106
5.2 RECOMMENDATION

This work is recommended for any geotechnical investigation that will be carried out on

improvement of lateritic soils using granular materials. I recommend that quarry dust not more

than 40% should be used for lateritic soil stabilization. Reference can be sited form this work for

any future investigation in Awka lateritic soil mainly covering Agu-Awka, Ring road and

Amawbia. Soil samples can be collected at various locations to compare the geotechnical

characteristics of the samples at various depths because of the anisotropic nature of soil.

Further detailed investigation has to be carried out on both disturbed and undisturbed soil

samples deeply in order to correlate and specify guide lines as regards design purposes and basic

soil classification of the area.

Finally, higher institutions should equip their respective laboratories in order to enable students

carry out laboratory test with relative ease and accuracy. This lack of laboratory equipment is a

major reason for the abandonment of some laboratory soil tests that would have otherwise been

very relevant in further classification and justification of the unsuitability of the various soil

samples of the region under study as subgrade, sub-base nor base material.

107
 REFERENCES

Ackroyd, L.W (1963). The Correlation between Engineering and Pedological Classification

Systems in Western Nigeria and its Implications Proc. Third Reg. Conf. for Africa on

Soil Mech. and Foundn. Engineering Salisbury, Southern Rhodesia. Vol. 1, pp 85-88.

Adesunloye, M.O, (1987). Investigating the problem soils of Nigeria. 9th regional conference on

soil mechanics.

Agrawal vinay and Mohit Gupta,(2011) ―Expansive Soil Stabilization Using Marble Dust,‖ in

International Journal of Earth Sciences and Engineering, ISSN 0974-5904, Volume 04,

No 06 SPL, October 2011, pp 59-62.

Akshaya Kumar Sabat,(2012) ―A Study on Some Geotechnical Properties of Lime Stabilised

Expansive Soil –Quarry Dust Mixes,‖ in IJEED, ISSN: 2249-6149, Issue 2, Vol.1, PP

42-49.

Alexander L. T. and Cady J. G. (1962), ―Genesis and Hardening of laterite in Soil‖, U.S.

Department of Agric, Technical Bulletin No. 1282 Washington DC USA, 1962, p. 1-

10.

Amadi A.A, Eberemu, A. O. and Momoh O. H (2013). Use of coir fiber Reinforcement

Technique to improve strength of cement Klin Dust Treated Black Cotton Soil

Subgrade. Journal of Geosynthetics Long Beach California.

108
Amu, O.O Ogunniyi, S.A and Oladele, O.O (2011); Geotechnical properties of lateritic soil

stabilized with sugar cane straw ash. America Journal of Scientific and Industrial

Research p 323-331

Baver , l. D. and Scarseth, S. D . (1930). Subtropical weathering in Alabama as evidenced in

the Susquehanna fine sandy loam profile. Soil Res., vol. 2, p. 288-307.

Bawa, K.S., (1957). Laterite soils and their engineering characteristics, Proc. Amer. Soc. Civil

Eng., Jour. Soil Mech. And Found, Div., Vol. 83: 1-15.

Bell F.G. (1993) The Engineering Treatment of Soils. Chapter 10: Stabilization. Published by

E&FN Spon.

Bello and C.W. Adegoke (2010): Evaluation of the geotechnical properties of Ilesha East,

Southwestern Nigeria‘s Lateritic Soil. The pacific Journal of Science and Technology

volume 11 No 2, pp 617-624.

BS 1377:1990 Methods of test for Soils for civil engineering purposes —Part 2: Classification

tests.

BS 1377:1990 Methods of test for Soils for civil engineering purposes — Part 1: General

requirements and sample preparation

BS 1377:1990 Methods of test for Soils for civil engineering purposes — Part 4: Compaction-

related tests.

Charman J.H (1988). Laterite in Road Pavements. Construction industry Research and ormation

Association (CIRCA), special pubilication 47, westminister London.

109
Clare, K. E., and O'Reilly, M. P., (1960). Road construction over tropical red clays. Conf. on

Civil Eng. Problems Overseas. Inst. Civil Eng.: 243-256.

Commission of the European Communities (2007). ―Communication from the Commission to

the Council and the European Parliament on the Interpretative Communication on

waste and byproducts.‖ COM (2007) 59 final.

D‘Hoore, J.L (1954) Studies in the accumulation of sesquioxides in tropical soils. Science Series,

National Institute of Agronomy. Belgore. Congo, 62, Pg 132.

Dallah, A. A. (1991): ―Stabilizastion of Laterite Soil by Lime and Cement for Use as Base/Sub-

Base in Makurdi‖ (unpublished B.Eng. Thesis of Civil Eng Dept., UAM, Benue State).

De Graft-Johnson, J. W. S., and Bhatia, H. S., (1969). Engineering properties of lateritic soils.

General Report, Spec. Session on Eng. Prop. of lateritic soils, Seventh Int. Conf. Soil

Mech. and Found. Eng., Mexico City, vol.1: 117-128.

Eze-Uzomaka O. J. and Agbo D. (2010). Suitability of quarry dust as improvement to cement

stabilized laterite for road bases. EJGE 15, 1053-1066.

Federal ministry of works and Housing (1997). General specification for Roads and Bridges

volume 2, Federal Highway Department, FMWH: Lagos 317 p.

Fermor. L. L (1911) What is laterite? Geological Magazine, Pg. 453-462; 507-517 and 559-556.

Fookes,G (1997) Tropical Residual Soils. A Geological Society Engineering Group

Workingparty. Revised Report. Published by the Geological Society. London, Tulsa,

New South Australia, Delhi, Tokyo.

110
Fox, c.s 1936. Buchanan's latérite of Malabar and Kamara. Records Geol. Survey India, vol.

69, p. 389

Garg, S.K.(2005). Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering (Geotechnical Engineering),

Khana Publishers, Delhi, India,

Gidigasu, M.D., (1976). Laterite Soil Engineering. Elsevier Scientific Publishing Co., New York

Guleria S. P. and R. K. Dutta (2012). Effect of addition of tire chips on the unconfined

compressive strength of fly ash-lime-gypsum mixture. International Journal of

Geotechnical Engineering (2012) 6: p. (1-13).

Hamilton, R., (1964) Microscopic studies of laterite formation. Soil Micromorphology. Elsevier,

Amsterdam, Pg 269-278.

Holtz R. D. and Kovacs W. D., (1981) An Introduction to Geotechnical Engineering. Prentice

Hall Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey 07632.

Houben, H. and Guillaud, H. (1994), Earth Construction: A Comprehensive Guide; Intermediate

Technology Publications: London, UK; p. 73.

Hough, B.K. (1959). Compressibility as the basis for soil bearing value. Journal of soil

mechanics and foundations division, vol. 85, No SM4, pp. 11-39.

Lacroix , A . 1913. Les latérites de Guinée et les produits d'altération qui leur sont associés.

Nouv. Arch. M u s . Hist. Nat., vol. V , p . 255-356.

111
Lohnes, R A, Fish, R O and Demirel, T (1971). Geotechnical properties of selected Puerto Rican

soils in relation to climate and parent rock. Bulletin of the Geological Society,

America, 82:2617–2624.

Loughnan, F. C., (1969). Chemical weathering of the silicate minerals. American Elsevier Publ.

Co., Inc., New York: 154 p.

Madu .R.M. (1975). Sand-Laterite mixtures for Road Construction, Nigerian Journal of

Technology, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp 28-37.

Mallet, F.R (1883) On lateritic and other manganese ore occuring at Gosalpur, Jabalpur district.

Records Geol. Survey India, vol. 16, p. 103-18.

Mitchell, J., Hooper .D. and Campanella, R. (1965). Permability of compacted clays. Journal of

soil mechanics and foundation division, ASCE 91(4) pp. 41-65.

Moh, Z.C; Mazhar, F.M (1969) The effect of method of preparation on index properties of

lateritic soils. Proceeding of 7th International Conference of Soil Mechanics and

Foundation Engineering. Mexico, 1, Pg 53-63.

Nascimento, U. (1959). As laterites do ultramar Portuguese. Laboratorio Nacional de Engenharia

Civil, Lisbon, Memoria No. 14 1.

Novais-Ferreira, H., and Correia, J. A., (1965). The hardness of laterite concretions and its

influence in the performance of soil mechanics tests. Sixth Int. Conf. Soil Mech. and

Found. Eng., Montreal, Vol. 1 : 82-86.

112
Nwaiwu, C.M.O., Mshelia, S.H. and Durkwa, J.K. (2012), Compactive effort influence on

properties of quarry dust-black cotton soil mixtures, International Journal of Geotech.

Engineering, 6, 91-101.

O‘ Flaherty, C.A., (1988). Highway Engineering. Volume 2, Edward Amold Publishers, London

UK.

Ola, S.A. (1987). Laboratory testing and geotechnical characterization of black cotton soil and

expansive shales in Nigeria. 9th regional conference for Africa on soil mechanics and

foundation engineering. Vol 1, pp. 991-995

Omotosho, O. and O.J. Eze-Uzomaka, (2008). Optimal stabilization of deltaic laterite. J. S. Afr.

Inst. Civil Eng., 50(2): 10-17.

Onyelowe Ken C, Okafor F.O, and Nwachukwu D,(2012) ―Geophysical Use of Quarry Dust (as

admixture) As Applied to Soil Stabilization and Modification-A Review,‖ in ARPN,

(2006), Vol. 1, No. 1, ISSN: 2305-493X.

Pendleton, R. L and Sharasuvana (1946) Analyses of some Siamese latérites. J. Soil Sci., vol. 62,

p. 423-40.

Quinones, P. J. (1963). Compaction characteristics of tropically weathered soils. Unpublished

Ph.D. thesis, Univ. of Illinois: 134 p.

Ramadas T.L, Kumar N. Darga, and Aparna G,(2010). ―Swelling and Strength Characteristics of

Expansive Soil Treated with Stone Dust and Fly ash,‖ International Journal of Earth

Sciences and Engineering.

113
Remillon A., (1967). Les recherches routieres entreprise en Afrique d'expression Franaise. An.

de 1'Inst. Tech. du Batiment et des Travaux Publics, No. 231-232: 366-388.

Remillon, A.,( 1955). Stabilization of laterite soils. High. Res. Board. Bull. No. 108: 96-101

Schofield, A. N., (1957). Lime-stabilization of nodular clayey pea-laterite in Nyasaland. Dept.

Sci. and Ind. Res., (U.K.),Road Res. Lab. Overseas Bull. No. 3: 15 p.

Skempton, L.M. (1953) Soil mechanics in relation to geology. Proceedings of the Yorkshire

Geological society, vol 29, part 1, no 3, pp. 33-62.

Sridharan A, Soosan T.G, Babu T. Jose, and Abraham B.M, (2006) ―Shear strength studies on

soil- quarry dust mixtures,‖ in SPRINGER, Geotechnical and Geological Engineering,

1163–1179.

Stulz, R. and Mukerji, K.(1993). Appropriate Building Materials, Catalogue of Potential

Solution, 3rd ed.; SKAT: St. Gallen, Switzerland, p. 29.

Tardy, Yves (1997) Petrology of Laterite and Tropical Soils. ISBN 90-5410-678-6. Retrieve

April 17, 2010.

Terzaghi, K (1958). Design and performance of the Sasumua Dam. Proceedings, ICE (London),

19:369–39

Wallace, K.B. (1973) Structural behaviour of residual soils of continually wet highlands of

Papua, New Guinea. Geo-technique, 23(2), Pg 203-218.

Winterkorn, H. F., and Chandrasekharan, E. C., (1951). Laterite soils and their stabilization.

High. Res. Board, Bull. No. 44: 16-29.

114
 APPENDIX (1)

NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT

Table 1a: Natural moisture content

samples wt of tinwt of tin wt of tin natural mc(%)

+wet +dry moisture
soil soil content
sample 34.27 47.70 56.73 0.146 14.60
1
sample 35.5 57.53 45.97 0.0987 9.87
2
sample 14.27 54.64 51.50 0.0843 8.43
3

115
 APPENDIX (11)

INDEX PROPERTIES

Table 2a: Particle size analysis for sample LAT 1

Sieve Size Mass Retained % Retained Cum% Passing Cum%

(mm) Retained
2 0.3 0.15 99.85 0.15
1.18 5.21 2.605 97.245 2.755
0.6 25.52 12.76 84.485 15.515
0.425 20.38 10.19 74.295 25.705
0.3 20.27 10.135 64.16 35.84
0.15 31.2 15.6 48.56 51.44
0.075 15.72 7.86 40.7 59.3

120
particle grading of LAT 1
cummulative % passing

100

80

60

40 PARTICLE SIZE

20

0
0.01 0.1 sieve sizes 1 10

Figure 1a GRAPH OF CUMMULATIVE % PASSING AGAINST SIEVE SIZES

Table 2b

Particle size analysis of sample LAT 2

Sieve Size Mass Retained % Retained Cum% Passing Cum%

Retained
2 0.44 0.22 99.78 0.22
116
1.18 8.84 4.42 95.36 4.64
0.6 21.79 10.895 84.465 15.535
0.425 14.29 7.145 77.32 22.68
0.3 16.09 8.045 69.275 30.725
0.15 31.51 15.755 53.52 46.48
0.075 27.55 13.775 39.745 60.255

particle grading of LAT 2

120
cummulative % passing

100
80
60
40 PARTICLE SIZE
20
0
0.01 0.1 1 10
sieve sizes

Figure 1b GRAPH OF CUMMULATIVE % PASSING AGAINST SIEVE SIZES

Table 2c: particle size analysis for LAT 3

sieve sizes mass % cummulative % cummulative %

(mm) retained retained retained Passing
(g)
2 2.09 1.045 1.045 98.955
1.18 5.42 2.71 3.755 96.245
0.6 24.14 12.07 15.825 84.175
0.425 40.23 20.115 35.94 64.06
0.3 23.06 11.53 47.47 52.53
0.15 28.68 14.34 61.81 38.19
0.075 0.01 0.005 61.815 38.185
tray 0.5 0.25 62.065 37.935

117
 particle grading of LAT 3
120
cummulative pssing (%)

100
80
60
40
20
0
0.01 0.1 1 10
sieve sizes (mm)

Figure 1c GRAPH OF CUMMULATIVE % PASSING AGAINST SIEVE SIZES

Table 2d: particle size analysis of sharp river sand

Sieve Size Mass Retained % Retained Cum% Passing Cum% Retained

2 0.87 0.435 99.565 0.435
1.18 3.71 1.855 97.71 2.29
0.6 21.61 10.805 86.905 13.095
0.425 36.27 18.135 68.77 31.23
0.3 55.76 27.88 40.89 59.11
0.15 71.12 35.56 5.33 94.67
0.075 9.16 4.58 0.75 99.25

particle grading of sand

110
100
cummulative % passing

90
80
70
60
50
40
30 Series1
20
10
0
0.01 0.1 1 10
sieve sizes

Figure 1d GRAPH OF CUMMULATIVE % PASSING AGAINST SIEVE SIZES

118
Table 2e: Sieve analysis of quarry dust

Sieve Size Mass Retained % Retained Cum% Passing Cum%

(mm) (g) Retained
2 28.75 14.375 85.625 14.375
1.18 23.36 11.68 73.945 26.055
0.6 46.07 23.035 50.91 49.09
0.425 20.65 10.325 40.585 59.415
0.3 19.44 9.72 30.865 69.135
0.15 28.98 14.49 16.375 83.625
0.075 19.57 9.785 6.59 93.41

particle grading of qarry dust

100
cummulative % passing

80
60
40
20
0
0.01 0.1 1 10
sieve sizes

Figure 1e GRAPH OF CUMMULATIVE % PASSING AGAINST SIEVE SIZES

Table 2f: liquid limit of LAT 1

WT. OF WT. OF
NO OF WT. OF TIN + WT. OF DRY
WT. OF TIN TIN+ WET MC%
BLOWS
WET SOIL DRY SOIL SOIL SOIL
48 34.3 40.67 39.12 6.37 4.82 32.15768
32 35.63 44.42 42.17 8.79 6.54 34.40367
24 36.45 43.66 41.74 7.21 5.29 36.2949

21 37.13 43.15 41.49 6.02 4.36 38.07339

16 36.48 42.4 40.73 5.92 4.25 39.29412

119
 LIQUID LIMIT OF LAT 1
40

39

38

37
moisture content (%)

36

35

34

33

32

31

30
1 10 100
No of blows

Figure 2a: graph of moisture content against no of blows

Table 2g: plastic limit of LAT 1

WT. OF TIN WT. OF TIN WT. OF TIN+ WT. OF WT. OF MC%

+ WET DRY
WET SOIL DRY SOIL SOIL SOIL
33.24 34.5 34.29 1.26 1.05 20
29.62 30.68 30.53 1.06 0.91 20.48351648
29.68 30.62 30.46 0.94 0.78 20.51282051
20.332
PL=
`

120
 Table 2h: liquid limit of LAT 2

NO OF BLOWS WT. WT. WT. WT. OF WT. OF DRY

OF OF OF WET SOIL MC%
TIN TIN TIN+ SOIL
+ DRY
WET SOIL
SOIL
40 27.52 34.81 33.07 7.29 5.55 31.3513514
35 21.56 27.21 25.81 5.65 4.25 32.9411765
28 34 39.42 38.03 5.42 4.03 34.4913151
19 33.22 40.63 38.63 7.41 5.41 36.9685767
12 52.87 60.07 58.06 7.2 5.19 38.7283237

40

39

38

37
moisture content (%)

36

35

34

33

32

31

30
1 10 100
NO of Blows

Figure 2b: graph of moisture content against no of blows

121
Table 2i: plastic limit of LAT 2

WT. OF TIN WT. OF TIN + WT. OF TIN+ WT. OF WET WT. OF DRY MC%
WET SOIL DRY SOIL SOIL SOIL
34.39 37.4 36.81 3.01 2.42 24.38016529
29.63 32.98 32.33 3.35 2.7 24.07407407
30.18 32.66 32.17 2.48 1.99 24.62311558
PL= 24.35911831

Table 2j: liquid limit of LAT 3

WT. OF WT. OF
NO OF WT. OF TIN + WT. OF DRY
WT. OF TIN TIN+ WET MC%
BLOWS
WET SOIL DRY SOIL SOIL SOIL
48 28.76 40.43 37.79 11.67 9.03 29.23588
32 29.62 38.7 36.53 9.08 6.91 31.40376
24 30.23 40.78 38.24 10.55 8.01 31.71036

21 33.23 41.33 39.24 8.1 6.01 34.77537

16 29.18 37.49 35.2 8.31 6.02 38.03987

122
 Liquid limit of LAT 3
40

38
MOISTURE CONTENT (%)

36

34

32

30

28

26
1 10 100
NO OF BLOWS

Figure 2c: graph of moisture content against no of blows

Table 2k: liquid limit of LAT 3

WT. OF TIN WT. OF TIN WT. OF TIN+ WT. OF WT. OF MC%

+ WET DRY
WET SOIL DRY SOIL SOIL SOIL
30 31.39 31.16 1.39 1.16 19.82758621
27.55 28.8 28.59 1.25 1.04 20.19230769
30.38 31.63 31.42 1.25 1.04 20.19230769
20.07073386
PL=

123
 APPENDIX (111)

COMPACTION RESULTS

Table 3a: BS LIGHT COMPACTION FOR LAT 1

PERCENTAGE VOLUME WEIGHT OF BULK Dry density, Oven-

LAT 1 OF OF COMPACTED DENSITY, ρd (kg/m3) dry
MOISTURE MOULD SOIL M (g) ρ= M/V MC
3
ADDED (%) V(M ) (kg/m3) ( ) (%)

0% SAND 4% 0.001 1500 1588.98 1513.32 5

8% 0.001 1450 1536.01 1413.08 8.7
12% 0.001 1850 1959.75 1740.45 12.6
16% 0.001 2000 2118.64 1815.46 16.7
20% 0.001 1850 2065.68 1717.11 20.3
10% 4% 0.001 1450 1536.02 1476.80 4.01
SAND 8% 0.001 1550 1641.95 1523.00 7.81
12% 0.001 1950 2065.68 1844.68 11.98
16% 0.001 2000 2118.68 1832.58 15.61
20% 0.001 1950 2065.68 1714.97 20.45
20% 4% 0.001 1550 1550 1472.82 5.24
SAND 8% 0.001 1750 1750 1600.51 9.34
12% 0.001 2100 2100 1859.39 12.94
16% 0.001 2050 2050 1747.51 17.31
20% 0.001 2000 2000 1649.08 21.28

30% 4% 0.001 1550 1550.00 1487.24 4.22

SAND 8% 0.001 1850 1850.00 1699.27 8.87
12% 0.001 2150 2150.00 1915.03 12.27
16% 0.001 2100 2100.00 1816.92 15.58
20% 0.001 2000 2000.00 1660.44 20.45
4% 0.001 1550 1550.00 1483.96 4.45
40% 8% 0.001 1900 1900.00 1758.93 8.02
SAND 12% 0.001 2150 2150.00 1927.56 11.54
16% 0.001 2100 2100.00 1819.60 15.41
20% 0.001 2000 2000.00 1678.56 19.15
50% 4% 0.001 1550 1550.00 1484.82 4.39
SAND 8% 0.001 1950 1950.00 1794.75 8.65
12% 0.001 2150 2150.00 1916.73 12.17
16% 0.001 2100 2050.00 1762.23 16.33
20% 0.001 2000 2000.00 1663.62 20.22

124
 1900 1900
1800
1800
dry density (jg|m3)

dry density (kg|m3)

1700
1700
1600
1600
1500
natural soil 10% sand
1400 1500

1300 1400
1200 1300
0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30
moisture content % moisture content (%)

Figure 2aGRAPH OF DRY DENSITY AGAINST

Figure 2b GRAPH OF DRY DENSITY AGAINST
MOISTURE CONTENT FOR 0% sand
MOISTURE CONTENT FOR 10% sand

1900 2100

1800 2000
dry density (kg|m3)
dry density (kg|m3)

1900
1700
1800 30% sand
1600
1700
20% sand
1500 1600

1400 1500
1400
1300
0 10 20 30
0 10 20 30
moisture content (%)
M0isture content (%)

Figure 2d GRAPH OF DRY DENSITY AGAINST

Figure 2c GRAPH OF DRY DENSITY AGAINST MOISTURE CONTENT FOR 30% SAND
MOISTURE CONTENT 20% SAND

125
 2100 2000
2000 1900

dry density (kg|m3)

dry density (kg|m3)

1900 40% sand 1800

1800 50% sand
1700
1700
1600
1600
1500 1500

1400 1400
0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30
moisture content moisture content (%)

Figure 2e DRY DENSITY AGAINST MOISTURE Figure 2f DRY DENSITY AGAINST MOISTURE
CONTENT 40%SAND CONTENT 50% SAND

Table 3b:BS LIGHT COMPACTION FOR LAT 1

PERCENTAGE VOLUME WEIGHT OF BULK Dry Oven-

LAT 1 OF OF COMPACTED DENSITY, density, ρd dry
MOISTURE MOULD SOIL M (g) ρ= M/V (kg/m3) MC
ADDED (%) V(M3) (kg/m3) (%)
( )
0% 4% 0.001 1500 1588.98 1513.32 5
QUARRY 8% 0.001 1450 1536.01 1413.08 8.7
DUST 12% 0.001 1850 1959.75 1740.45 12.6
16% 0.001 2000 2118.64 1815.46 16.7
20% 0.001 1850 2065.68 1717.11 20.3
10% 4% 0.001 1500 1588.98 1516.21 4.8
QUARRY 8% 0.001 1500 1588.98 1456.45 9.1
DUST 12% 0.001 2000 2118.64 1876.57 12.9
16% 0.001 2000 2118.64 1817.02 16.6
20% 0.001 1950 2065.67 1718.53 20.2
20% 4% 0.001 1450 1536.02 1460.09 5.2
QUARRY 8% 0.001 1650 1747.88 1600.62 9.2
DUST 12% 0.001 2050 2171.61 1920.08 13.1
16% 0.001 2050 2171.61 1852.91 17.2

126
 20% 0.001 1950 2065.68 1709.99 20.8

30% 4% 0.001 1550 1641.95 1574.26 4.3

QUARRY 8% 0.001 1700 1800.85 1665.91 8.1
DUST 12% 0.001 2050 2171.61 1940.67 11.9
16% 0.001 2000 2118.64 1831.15 15.7
20% 0.001 1950 2065.68 1732.95 19.2
4% 0.001 1550 1641.95 1577.28 4.1
40% 8% 0.001 1750 1853.81 1716.49 8
QUARRY 12% 0.001 2100 2224.58 1995.14 11.5
DUST 16% 0.001 2050 2171.61 1876.93 15.7
20% 0.001 1950 2065.68 1732.95 19.2
50% 4% 0.001 1600 1600 1539.94 3.9
QUARRY
DUST 8% 0.001 1850 1850 1722.53 7.4

12% 0.001 2150 2150 1924.79 11.7

16% 0.001 2000 2000 1727.12 15.8

20% 0.001 1900 1900 1589.96 19.5

2000 2000
1900 1900
dry density (kg|m3)

dry density (kg|m3)

1800 1800
1700
1700
1600
10% 1600 20%
1500 quarry quarry
1400 dust 1500 dust
1300 1400
1200 1300
0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30
moisture content % moisture content

Figure a GRAPH OF DRY DENSITY AGAINST Figure b GRAPH OF DRY DENSITY AGAINST
MOISTURE CONTENT FOR 10% QUARRY MOISTURE CONTENT FOR 20% QUARRY

127
 2000 2100
2000 40%

dry density (kg|m3)

1900
1900 quarry
dry density (kg|m3)

1800 dust
1800

1700 1700
30% 1600
1600 quarry…
1500

1500 1400
0 10 20 30
1400 moisture content
0 10
moisture 20
content 30

Figure 3c GRAPH OF DRY DENSITY AGAINST Figure 3d GRAPH OF DRY DENSITY

MOISTURE CONTENT FOR 30% SAND AGAINST MOISTURE CONTENT FOR 40%
SAND

2000

1900
dry density (kg|m3)

50% Quarry
1800

1700

1600

1500

1400
0 10 20 30
moisture content (%)

Figure 3e GRAPH OF DRY DENSITY AGAINST

MOISTURE CONTENT FOR 50% SAND

128
Table 3c: BS LIGHT COMPACTION FOR LAT 2

PERCENTAGE VOLUME WEIGHT OF BULK Dry density, Oven-

LAT 2 OF OF COMPACTED DENSITY, ρd (kg/m3) dry
MOISTURE MOULD SOIL M (g) ρ= M/V MC
3
ADDED (%) V(M ) (kg/m3) ( ) (%)

0% 4% 0.001 1650 1650.00 1577.44 4.6

SAND 8% 0.001 1900 1900.00 1740.72 9.15
12% 0.001 2150 2150.00 1906.54 12.77
16% 0.001 2100 2100.00 1809.10 16.08
20% 0.001 2000 2000.00 1663.20 20.25
10% 4% 0.00944 1550 1641.95 1571.69 4.47
SAND 8% 0.00944 1900 2012.71 1854.01 8.56
12% 0.00944 2050 2171.61 1936.34 12.15
16% 0.00944 2050 2171.61 1851.01 17.32
20% 0.00944 1950 2065.68 1720.11 20.09
20% 4% 0.00944 1600 1694.92 1626.60 4.2
SAND 8% 0.00944 1900 2012.71 1854.86 8.51
12% 0.00944 2050 2171.61 1946.41 11.57
16% 0.00944 2050 2171.61 1886.06 15.14
20% 0.00944 1950 2065.68 1738.35 18.83

30% 4% 0.00944 1600 1694.92 1628.47 4.08

SAND 8% 0.00944 1950 2012.71 1870.20 7.62
12% 0.00944 2050 2171.61 1952.89 11.2
16% 0.00944 2050 2171.61 1884.42 15.24
20% 0.00944 1950 2065.68 1733.82 19.14
4% 0.00944 1550 1641.95 1579.56 3.95
40% 8% 0.00944 1950 2065.68 1918.53 7.67
SAND 12% 0.00944 2100 2224.58 2003.40 11.04
16% 0.00944 2050 2171.61 1891.98 14.78
20% 0.00944 1950 2065.68 1740.25 18.7
50% 4% 0.001 1800 1800.00 1713.96 5.02
SAND 8% 0.001 2100 2100.00 1936.55 8.44
12% 0.001 2200 2200.00 1958.86 12.31
16% 0.001 2100 2100.00 1807.70 16.17
20% 0.001 2050 2050.00 1707.91 20.03

129
 2000 2000

1900
dry density (kg|m3)

1900

dry density (kg|m3)

100% LAT 2 1800
1800
1700
1700
1600 10% sand
1600
1500
1500
0 10 20 30 1400
0 10 20 30
Moisture content (%)
moisture content (%)

Figure 4a: GRAPH OF DRY DENSITY AGAINST Figure 4b: GRAPH OF DRY DENSITY AGAINST
MOISTURE CONTENT FOR 0% SAND MOISTURE CONTENT FOR 10% SAND

2000 2000
dry density (kg|m3)

1900 1900
dry density (kg|m3)

30% sand
1800 1800

1700 1700
20% sand
1600
1600
0 5 10 15 20
0 10 20 30
moisture content (%)
moisture content (%)

Figure 4c: GRAPH OF DRY DENSITY AGAINST Figure 4d: GRAPH OF DRY DENSITY AGAINST
MOISTURE CONTENT FOR 20% SAND MOISTURE CONTENT FOR 30% SAND

130
 2100 2000

2000
dry density (kg|m3)

dry density (kg|m3)

1900
1900

1800 1800
50% sand
1700
40% sand 1700
1600

1500 1600
0 5 10 15 20 0 10 20 30
moisture content (%) moisture content (%)

Figure 4e: GRAPH OF DRY DENSITY AGAINST Figure 4f: GRAPH OF DRY DENSITY AGAINST
MOISTURE CONTENT FOR 30% SAND MOISTURE CONTENT FOR 30% SAND

Table 3d: BS LIGHT COMPACTION FOR LAT 2

PERCENTAGE VOLUME WEIGHT OF BULK Dry Oven-

LAT 2 OF OF COMPACTED DENSITY, density, ρd dry
MOISTURE MOULD SOIL M (g) ρ= M/V (kg/m3) MC
ADDED (%) V(M3) (kg/m3) (%)
( )
0% 4% 0.001 1650 1650.00 1577.44 4.6
QUARRY 8% 0.001 1900 1900.00 1740.72 9.15
DUST 12% 0.001 2150 2150.00 1906.54 12.77
16% 0.001 2100 2100.00 1809.10 16.08
20% 0.001 2000 2000.00 1663.20 20.25
10% 4% 0.001 1700 1700.00 1620.28 4.92
QUARRY 8% 0.001 1950 1950.00 1793.10 8.75
DUST 12% 0.001 2200 2200.00 1960.09 12.24
16% 0.001 2100 2100.00 1813.94 15.77
20% 0.001 2050 2050.00 1722.54 19.01
20% 4% 0.00944 1600 1694.92 1614.36 4.99
QUARRY 8% 0.00944 1900 2012.71 1846.86 8.98

131
DUST 12% 0.00944 2100 2224.58 1965.35 13.19
16% 0.00944 2050 2171.61 1853.07 17.19
20% 0.00944 1950 2065.68 1709.72 20.82

30% 4% 0.00944 1700 1747.88 1656.29 5.53

QUARRY 8% 0.00944 1950 2065.68 1902.62 8.57
DUST 12% 0.00944 2100 2224.58 1977.23 12.51
16% 0.00944 2050 2171.61 1867.89 16.26
20% 0.00944 1850 2065.68 1722.26 19.94
4% 0.00944 1650 1747.88 1674.70 4.37
40% 8% 0.00944 2000 2118.64 1957.36 8.24
QUARRY 12% 0.00944 2150 2277.54 2039.16 11.69
DUST 16% 0.00944 2050 2171.61 1880.34 15.49
20% 0.00944 1950 2065.68 1728.89 19.48
50% 4% 0.001 1700 1800.85 1718.86 4.77
QUARRY 8% 0.001 2050 2171.61 2001.30 8.51
DUST 12% 0.001 2150 2277.54 2028.27 12.29
16% 0.001 2050 2171.61 1864.52 16.47
20% 0.001 1950 2065.68 1713.54 20.55

2000 2000

1900 1900
dry density (kg|m3)
dry density (kg|m3)

1800 1800

1700 1700

10% quarry 20% quarry

1600
1600 dust dust

1500
1500
0 10 20 30
0 5 10 15 20
Moisture content (%)
moisture content (%)

Figure 5a: GRAPH OF DRY DENSITY AGAINST Figure 5b: GRAPH OF DRY DENSITY AGAINST
MOISTURE CONTENT FOR 10% QUARRY MOISTURE CONTENT FOR 10% QUARRY

132
 2000 2100

2000
dry density (kg|m3)

1900

dry density (kg|m3)

40%
quarry…
1900
1800
1800
1700
30% quarry 1700
dust
1600 1600
0 5 10 15 20 25 0 5 10 15 20 25
moisture content (%)
moisture content (%)

Figure 5c: GRAPH OF DRY DENSITY AGAINST Figure 5d: GRAPH OF DRY DENSITY AGAINST
MOISTURE CONTENT FOR 30% QUARRY MOISTURE CONTENT FOR 40% QUARRY

2100

2000 50% quarry

dry density (kg|m3)

dust
1900

1800

1700

1600
0 10 20 30
moisture content (%)

Figure 5e: GRAPH OF DRY DENSITY AGAINST

MOISTURE CONTENT FOR 50% QUARRY

133
Table 3e: BS LIGHT COMPACTION FOR LAT 3

PERCENTAGE VOLUME WEIGHT OF BULK Dry density, Oven-

LAT 3 OF OF COMPACTED DENSITY, ρd (kg/m3) dry
MOISTURE MOULD SOIL M (g) ρ= M/V MC
3
ADDED (%) V(M ) (kg/m3) ( ) (%)

0% 4% 0.001 1550 1550.00 1485.39 4.35

SAND 8% 0.001 1900 1900.00 1749.86 8.58
12% 0.001 2150 2150.00 1915.03 12.27
16% 0.001 2050 2050.00 1763.90 16.22
20% 0.001 2000 2000.00 1670.70 19.71
10% 4% 0.00944 1450 1536.02 1470.15 4.48
SAND 8% 0.00944 1800 1906.78 1751.11 8.89
12% 0.00944 2050 2171.61 1934.79 12.24
16% 0.00944 2000 2118.64 1814.22 16.78
20% 0.00944 1950 2065.68 1718.68 20.19
20% 4% 0.00944 1500 1588.98 1520.56 4.5
SAND 8% 0.00944 1900 2012.71 1852.30 8.66
12% 0.00944 2100 2224.58 1977.40 12.5
16% 0.00944 2000 2118.64 1810.50 17.02
20% 0.00944 1950 2065.68 1710.42 20.77

30% 4% 0.00944 1500 1588.98 1521.43 4.44

SAND 8% 0.00944 1900 2012.71 1854.52 8.53
12% 0.00944 2100 2224.58 1979.51 12.38
16% 0.00944 2000 2118.64 1809.26 17.1
20% 0.00944 1950 2065.68 1722.55 19.92
4% 0.00944 1500 1588.98 1519.83 4.55
40% 8% 0.00944 1900 2012.71 1858.12 8.32
SAND 12% 0.00944 2100 2224.58 1999.26 11.27
16% 0.00944 2000 2118.64 1822.65 16.24
20% 0.00944 1950 2065.68 1724.85 19.76
50% 4% 0.001 1500 1588.98 1519.10 4.6
SAND 8% 0.001 1900 2012.71 1860.18 8.2
12% 0.001 2100 2224.58 1992.46 11.65
16% 0.001 2000 2118.64 1808.95 17.12
20% 0.001 1950 2065.68 1719.97 20.1

134
 2000 100% of LAT 3 2000 10% sand
1900 1900
dry density (kg/m3)

dry density (kg/m3)

1800 1800

1700 1700
1600
1600
1500
1500
1400
0 10 20 30 1400
moisture content (%) 0 10 20 30
moisture content (%)

Figure 6a: GRAPH OF DRY DENSITY Figure 6b: GRAPH OF DRY DENSITY
AGAINST MOISTURE CONTENT FOR AGAINST MOISTURE CONTENT FOR 10%
0%SAND SAND

2100 2100
2000
20% sand 2000
30% sand
dry density (kg/m3)
dry density (kg/m3)

1900 1900
1800
1800
1700
1700
1600
1600 1500
1500 1400
0 10 20 30
1400
moisture content (%)
0 10 content
moisture 20 (%) 30

Figure 6c: GRAPH OF DRY DENSITY Figure 6d: GRAPH OF DRY DENSITY
AGAINST MOISTURE CONTENT FOR AGAINST MOISTURE CONTENT FOR
20%SAND 30%SAND

135
 2100
40% sand 2100 50% sand
2000
2000
dry density (kg/m3)

1900

dry density (kg/m3)

1900
1800
1800
1700
1700
1600
1600
1500 1500
1400 1400
0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30
moisture content (%) moisture content (%)

Figure 6e: GRAPH OF DRY DENSITY Figure 6f: GRAPH OF DRY DENSITY
AGAINST MOISTURE CONTENT FOR AGAINST MOISTURE CONTENT FOR
40%SAND 50%SAND

Table 3f: BS LIGHT COMPACTION FOR LAT 3

PERCENTAGE VOLUME WEIGHT OF BULK Dry Oven-

LAT 3 OF OF COMPACTED DENSITY, density, ρd dry
MOISTURE MOULD SOIL M (g) ρ= M/V (kg/m3) MC
3 3
ADDED (%) V(M ) (kg/m ) (%)
( )
0% 4% 0.001 1550 1550.00 1485.39 4.35
QUARRY 8% 0.001 1900 1900.00 1749.86 8.58
DUST 12% 0.001 2150 2150.00 1915.03 12.27
16% 0.001 2050 2050.00 1763.90 16.22
20% 0.001 2000 2000.00 1670.70 19.71
10% 4% 0.00944 1500 1588.98 1520.56 4.5
QUARRY 8% 0.00944 1850 1959.75 1799.25 8.92
DUST 12% 0.00944 2100 2224.58 1979.86 12.36
16% 0.00944 2000 2118.64 1821.55 16.31
20% 0.00944 1950 2065.68 1719.54 20.13
20% 4% 0.00944 1550 1641.95 1564.66 4.94
QUARRY 8% 0.00944 1950 2065.68 1900.52 8.69
DUST 12% 0.00944 2100 2224.58 1982.16 12.23
16% 0.00944 2000 2118.64 1809.72 17.07
20% 0.00944 1950 2065.68 1706.18 21.07

136
30% 4% 0.00944 1600 1694.92 1620.69 4.58
QUARRY 8% 0.00944 1950 2065.68 1902.97 8.55
DUST 12% 0.00944 2100 2224.58 1984.46 12.1
16% 0.00944 2050 2171.61 1870.47 16.1
20% 0.00944 1950 2065.68 1729.32 19.45
4% 0.00944 1700 1800.85 1721.32 4.62
40% 8% 0.00944 2050 2171.61 2004.81 8.32
QUARRY 12% 0.00944 2150 2277.54 2028.63 12.27
DUST 16% 0.00944 2050 2171.61 1866.13 16.37
20% 0.00944 2000 2065.68 1711.42 20.7
50% 4% 0.00944 1750 1800.85 1724.78 4.41
QUARRY 8% 0.00944 2050 2171.61 2009.63 8.06
DUST 12% 0.00944 2150 2277.54 2022.68 12.6
16% 0.00944 2050 2171.61 1864.68 16.46
20% 0.00944 2000 2065.68 1707.45 20.98

10% quarry dust

2100
20% quarry dust
2000 2100
dry density (kg/m3)

2000
dry density (kg/m3)

1900

1800 1900

1700 1800

1600 1700

1500 1600

1400 1500
0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30
moisture content (%) moisture content (%)

Figure 7a: GRAPH OF DRY DENSITY AGAINST Figure 7b: GRAPH OF DRY DENSITY AGAINST
MOISTURE CONTENT FOR 10% QUARRY MOISTURE CONTENT FOR 20% QUARRY

137
 2100 30% quarry dust 2100 40% quarry dust
2000

dry density (kg/m3)

2000
1900
1900
dry density (kg/m3)

1800
1800
1700
1700
1600
1600
1500 0 10 20 30
0 10 20 30
moisture content (%) moisture content (%)

Figure 7c: GRAPH OF DRY DENSITY Figure 7d: GRAPH OF DRY DENSITY
AGAINST MOISTURE CONTENT FOR AGAINST MOISTURE CONTENT FOR
30% QUARRY 40% QUARRY

50% quarry dust

2100
2050
dry density (kg/m3)

2000
1950
1900
1850
1800
1750
1700
1650
0 10 20 30
moisture content (%)

Figure 7e: GRAPH OF DRY DENSITY

AGAINST MOISTURE CONTENT FOR 50%
QUARRY

138
Table 3g: BS HEAVY COMPACTION FOR LAT 1

PERCENTAGE VOLUME WEIGHT OF BULK Dry density, Oven-

LAT 1 OF OF COMPACTED DENSITY, ρd (kg/m3) dry
MOISTURE MOULD SOIL M (g) ρ= M/V MC
3
ADDED (%) V(M ) (kg/m3) ( ) (%)

0% 4% 0.00944 1700 1700.00 1614.43 5.3

SAND 8% 0.0944 1850 1850.00 1699.43 8.86
12% 0.00944 2150 2150.00 1891.94 13.64
16% 0.00944 2100 2100.00 1795.64 16.95
20% 0.00944 1950 1950.00 1621.08 20.29
10% 4% 0.001 1800 1750.00 1663.18 5.22
SAND 8% 0.001 2100 1950.00 1787.19 9.11
12% 0.001 2200 2150.00 1902.32 13.02
16% 0.001 2100 2050.00 1752.14 17
20% 0.001 2000 2000.00 1653.03 20.99
20% 4% 0.001 1750 1750.00 1658.30 5.53
SAND 8% 0.001 2150 2150.00 1969.77 9.15
12% 0.001 2150 2150.00 1901.48 13.07
16% 0.001 2050 2050.00 1756.79 16.69
20% 0.001 2000 2000.00 1647.18 21.42

30% 4% 0.001 1750 1750.00 1673.04 4.6

SAND 8% 0.001 2150 2150.00 1974.47 8.89
12% 0.001 2150 2150.00 1909.41 12.6
16% 0.001 2050 2050.00 1750.34 17.12
20% 0.001 2000 2065.68 1704.35 21.2
4% 0.00944 1750 1750.00 1681.24 4.09
40% 8% 0.00944 2150 2150.00 2002.61 7.36
SAND 12% 0.00944 2200 2200.00 1990.05 10.55
16% 0.00944 2150 2150.00 1884.48 14.09
20% 0.00944 2050 2050.00 1748.55 17.24
50% 4% 0.00944 1800 1906.78 1831.86 4.09
SAND 8% 0.00944 2200 2330.51 2170.74 7.36
12% 0.00944 2150 2277.54 2060.19 10.55
16% 0.00944 2050 2171.61 1903.42 14.09
20% 0.00944 2000 2118.64 1807.10 17.24

139
 2000 1950
1900
1900

dry density (kg|m3)

dry density (kg|m3)

natural 1850
1800 soil
1800
1750
1700 10% sand
1700
1600 1650

1500 1600
0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30

moisture content (%) moisture content (%)

Figure 8a: GRAPH OF DRY DENSITY Figure 8b: GRAPH OF DRY DENSITY
AGAINST MOISTURE CONTENT FOR 0% AGAINST MOISTURE CONTENT FOR
SAND 10% SAND

2100
30% SAND
2000 2000
dry density (kg|m3)

1950
Dry density (Kg/m3)

1900
1900
1800 20% 1850
sand 1800
1700
1750
1600
1700
1500 1650
0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30
moisture content (%) moisture content (%)

Figure 8c: GRAPH OF DRY DENSITY Figure 8d: GRAPH OF DRY DENSITY
AGAINST MOISTURE CONTENT FOR20% AGAINST MOISTURE CONTENT FOR 30%
SAND SAND

140
 2100 2200

2000 2100

dry density (kg|m3)

dry density (kg|m3)

1900 2000

1800 1900

1700 1800
50%
1600 40% 1700
sand
sand
1500 1600
0 10 20 0 10 20
moisture content (%) moisture content (%)

Fig 8e GRAPH OF DRY DENSITY Figure 8f: GRAPH OF DRY DENSITY

AGAINST MOISTURE CONTENT FOR AGAINST MOISTURE CONTENT FOR 50%
40% SAND SAND

Table 3h: BS HEAVY COMPACTION FOR LAT 1

PERCENTAGE VOLUME WEIGHT OF BULK Dry Oven-

LAT 1 OF OF COMPACTED DENSITY, density, ρd dry
MOISTURE MOULD SOIL M (g) ρ= M/V (kg/m3) MC
3 3
ADDED (%) V(M ) (kg/m ) (%)
( )
0% 4% 0.00944 1700 1700.00 1614.43 5.3
QUARRY 8% 0.00944 1850 1850.00 1699.43 8.86
DUST 12% 0.00944 2150 2150.00 1891.94 13.64
16% 0.00944 2100 2100.00 1795.64 16.95
20% 0.00944 1950 1950.00 1621.08 20.29
10% 4% 0.001 1800 1750.00 1673.36 4.58
QUARRY 8% 0.001 2100 2100.00 1942.11 8.13
DUST 12% 0.001 2200 2200.00 1972.21 11.55
16% 0.001 2100 2100.00 1821.02 15.32
20% 0.001 2050 2050.00 1729.52 18.53
20% 4% 0.001 1850 1850.00 1771.86 4.41
141
 QUARRY 8% 0.001 2150 2150.00 1983.58 8.39
DUST 12% 0.001 2250 2250.00 2014.68 11.68
16% 0.001 2100 2100.00 1817.55 15.54
20% 0.001 2050 2050.00 1718.79 19.27

30% 4% 0.001 1900 1900.00 1814.88 4.69

QUARRY 8% 0.001 2100 2100.00 1941.03 8.19
DUST 12% 0.001 2300 2300.00 2072.26 10.99
16% 0.001 2150 2150.00 1874.78 14.68
20% 0.001 2050 2050.00 1732.88 18.3
4% 0.001 1850 1850.00 1774.58 4.25
40% 8% 0.001 2200 2200.00 2034.78 8.12
QUARRY 12% 0.001 2300 2300.00 2064.08 11.43
DUST 16% 0.001 2150 2150.00 1860.99 15.53
20% 0.001 2050 2050.00 1733.18 18.28
50% 4% 0.001 1900 1900.00 1822.89 4.23
QUARRY 8% 0.001 2300 2300.00 2140.13 7.47
DUST 12% 0.001 2250 2250.00 2029.22 10.88
16% 0.001 2150 2150.00 1872.50 14.82
20% 0.001 2050 2050.00 1729.81 18.51

2100 2100

10%
dry density (kg|m3)

2000 quarry 2000

dry density (kg|m3)

dust
1900
1900
20%
quarry
1800 dust
1800

1700
1700
0 10 20 30
1600
0 10 20 moisture content (%)
moisture content (%)

Fig 9a GRAPH OF DRY DENSITY AGAINST Fig 9b GRAPH OF DRY DENSITY AGAINST
MOISTURE CONTENT FOR 10% QUARRY MOISTURE CONTENT FOR 20% QUARRY

You can position the text box anywhere in

142
 2200
2100
2050 30% 2100
quarry 40% quarry

dry density (kg|m3)

2000
dry density (Kg|m3)

dust 2000 dust

1950
1900
1900
1850 1800
1800
1700
1750
1600
1700
0 5 10 15 20
0 10 20
moisture content (%) moisture content (%)

Fig 9c GRAPH OF DRY DENSITY AGAINST Fig 9d GRAPH OF DRY DENSITY AGAINST
MOISTURE CONTENT FOR 30% QUARRY MOISTURE CONTENT FOR 40% QUARRY

2200

2100 50%
dry density (kg|m3)

quarry
2000 dust

1900

1800

1700

1600
0 10 20
moisture content (%)

Fig 9f GRAPH OF DRY DENSITY AGAINST

MOISTURE CONTENT FOR 50% QUARRY

143
Table 3i: BS HEAVY COMPACTION FOR LAT 2

PERCENTAGE VOLUME WEIGHT OF BULK Dry density, Oven-

LAT 2 OF OF COMPACTED DENSITY, ρd (kg/m3) dry
MOISTURE MOULD SOIL M (g) ρ= M/V MC
3
ADDED (%) V(M ) (kg/m3) ( ) (%)

0% 4% 0.001 1750 1750.00 1659.40 5.46

SAND 8% 0.001 1900 1900.00 1746.00 8.82
12% 0.001 2200 2200.00 1957.30 12.4
16% 0.001 2150 2150.00 1853.61 15.99
20% 0.001 2050 2050.00 1715.05 19.53
10% 4% 0.001 1800 1800.00 1705.35 5.55
SAND 8% 0.001 2050 2050.00 1882.63 8.89
12% 0.001 2200 2200.00 1957.99 12.36
16% 0.001 2100 2100.00 1806.30 16.26
20% 0.001 2050 2050.00 1708.48 19.99
20% 4% 0.00944 1750 1750.00 1667.46 4.95
SAND 8% 0.00944 2100 2100.00 1933.52 8.61
12% 0.00944 2200 2200.00 1963.76 12.03
16% 0.00944 2100 2100.00 1815.82 15.65
20% 0.00944 2050 2050.00 1711.33 19.79

30% 4% 0.001 1750 1750.00 1670.64 4.75

SAND 8% 0.001 2150 2150.00 1983.58 8.39
12% 0.001 2200 2200.00 1971.50 11.59
16% 0.001 2100 2100.00 1820.39 15.36
20% 0.001 2050 2050.00 1706.77 20.11
4% 0.00944 1750 1750.00 1682.53 4.01
40% 8% 0.00944 2250 2250.00 2087.78 7.77
SAND 12% 0.00944 2200 2200.00 1967.62 11.81
16% 0.00944 2050 2050.00 1775.81 15.44
20% 0.00944 2000 1950.00 1635.22 19.25
50% 4% 0.00944 1850 1850.00 1772.54 4.37
SAND 8% 0.00944 2250 2250.00 2098.68 7.21
12% 0.00944 2200 2200.00 1966.22 11.89
16% 0.00944 2100 2100.00 1819.60 15.41
20% 0.00944 2000 2000.00 1675.32 19.38

144
 2000 2000

dry density (kg|m3)

dry density (kg|m3)

1900 1900
10% sand
LAT 2
1800 1800

1700 1700

1600 1600
0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30
Moisture content (%) moisture content (%)

Fig 10a: GRAPH OF DRY DENSITY Fig 10b: GRAPH OF DRY DENSITY
AGAINST MOISTURE CONTENT FOR 0% AGAINST MOISTURE CONTENT FOR 0%
SAND SAND

2000 2100

2000
dry density (kg|m3)
dry density (kg|m3)

1900
20% sand 1900 30% sand
1800
1800

1700 1700

1600
1600
0 10 20 30
0 10 20 30
moisture content (%)
moisture content (%)

Fig 10c: GRAPH OF DRY DENSITY AGAINST Fig 10d: GRAPH OF DRY DENSITY AGAINST
MOISTURE CONTENT FOR 0% SAND MOISTURE CONTENT FOR 0% SAND

145
 2200 2200

2100 2100
dry density (kg|m3)

dry density (kg|m3)

2000
2000
1900
1900 40%
sand 1800
50% sand
1800
1700
1700 1600
1600 1500
0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30
Moisture content (%) moisture content (%)

Fig 10e: GRAPH OF DRY DENSITY AGAINST Fig 10f: GRAPH OF DRY DENSITY AGAINST
MOISTURE CONTENT FOR 0% SAND MOISTURE CONTENT FOR 0% SAND

Table 3j: BS HEAVY COMPACTION FOR LAT 2

PERCENTAGE VOLUME WEIGHT OF BULK Dry Oven-

LAT 2 OF OF COMPACTED DENSITY, density, ρd dry
MOISTURE MOULD SOIL M (g) ρ= M/V (kg/m3) MC
ADDED (%) V(M3) (kg/m3) (%)
( )
0% 4% 0.001 1800.00 1800.00 1715.10 4.95
QUARRY 8% 0.001 2050.00 2050.00 1896.04 8.12
DUST 12% 0.001 2200.00 2200.00 1970.44 11.65
16% 0.001 2100.00 2100.00 1808.79 16.1
20% 0.001 2050.00 2050.00 1706.91 20.1
10% 4% 0.001 1800.00 1800.00 1715.10 4.95
QUARRY 8% 0.001 2050.00 2050.00 1896.04 8.12
DUST 12% 0.001 2200.00 2200.00 1970.44 11.65
16% 0.001 2100.00 2100.00 1808.79 16.1
20% 0.001 2050.00 2050.00 1706.91 20.1
20% 4% 0.001 1750.00 1750.00 1672.72 4.62
QUARRY 8% 0.001 2050.00 2050.00 1893.76 8.25
DUST 12% 0.001 2250.00 2250.00 2017.58 11.52
16% 0.001 2100.00 2100.00 1819.13 15.44
146
 20% 0.001 2050.00 2050.00 1713.33 19.65

30% 4% 0.001 1750.00 1750.00 1674.32 4.52

QUARRY 8% 0.001 2200.00 2200.00 2035.15 8.1
DUST 12% 0.001 2250.00 2250.00 2019.39 11.42
16% 0.001 2100.00 2100.00 1821.65 15.28
20% 0.001 2050.00 2050.00 1708.48 19.99
4% 0.001 1750.00 1750.00 1683.34 3.96
40% 8% 0.001 2250.00 2250.00 2091.47 7.58
QUARRY 12% 0.001 2200.00 2200.00 1970.97 11.62
DUST 16% 0.001 2100.00 2100.00 1820.39 15.36
20% 0.001 2050.00 2050.00 1720.09 19.18
50% 4% 0.001 1850.00 1850.00 1775.43 4.2
QUARRY 8% 0.001 2250.00 2250.00 2100.64 7.11
DUST 12% 0.001 2200.00 2200.00 1970.44 11.65
16% 0.001 2100.00 2100.00 1819.76 15.4
20% 0.001 2050.00 2050.00 1718.07 19.32

2000 2100
1950
2000
dry density (Kg|m3)

dry density (kg|m3)

1900
1900
1850
1800 1800
10% 20%
quarry 1700 quarry
1750
1700 1600
1650
1500
0 10 20 30
0 10 20 30
Moisture content (%) moisture content (%)

Fig 11a: GRAPH OF DRY DENSITY AGAINST Fig 11b: GRAPH OF DRY DENSITY
MOISTURE CONTENT FOR 10% QUARRY AGAINST MOISTURE CONTENT FOR
20% QUARRY

147
 2100 2200

2000 2100

dry density (kg|m3)

dry density (Kg|m3)

1900 2000

1800 1900
30% 40%
1700 quarry 1800 quarry

1600 1700

1500 1600
0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30
moisture content (%) moisture content (%)

Fig 11c: GRAPH OF DRY DENSITY AGAINST Fig 11d: GRAPH OF DRY DENSITY AGAINST
MOISTURE CONTENT FOR 30% QUARRY MOISTURE CONTENT FOR 40%QUARRY

2200

2100
dry density (kg|m3)

2000

1900
50%
1800 quarry

1700

1600
0 10 20 30
moisture content (%)

Fig 11e: GRAPH OF DRY DENSITY AGAINST

MOISTURE CONTENT FOR 50% QUARRY

148
Table 3k: BS HEAVY COMPACTION FOR LAT 3

PERCENTAGE VOLUME WEIGHT OF BULK Dry density, Oven-

LAT 3 OF OF COMPACTED DENSITY, ρd (kg/m3) dry
MOISTURE MOULD SOIL M (g) ρ= M/V MC
ADDED (%) V(M3) (kg/m3) ( ) (%)

0% 4% 0.001 1750.00 1750.00 1666.03 5.04

SAND 8% 0.001 2150.00 2150.00 1983.94 8.37
12% 0.001 2150.00 2150.00 1905.86 12.81
16% 0.001 2100.00 2100.00 1806.14 16.27
20% 0.001 2050.00 2050.00 1684.61 21.69
10% 4% 0.001 1800.00 1800.00 1723.15 4.46
SAND 8% 0.001 2200.00 2200.00 2028.40 8.46
12% 0.001 2200.00 2200.00 1963.76 12.03
16% 0.001 2100.00 2100.00 1813.00 15.83
20% 0.001 2050.00 2050.00 1711.61 19.77
20% 4% 0.001 1850.00 1850.00 1764.76 4.83
SAND 8% 0.001 2200.00 2200.00 2035.34 8.09
12% 0.001 2200.00 2200.00 1996.01 10.22
16% 0.001 2100.00 2100.00 1810.34 16
20% 0.001 2050.00 2050.00 1704.36 20.28

30% 4% 0.001 1850.00 1850.00 1775.09 4.22

SAND 8% 0.001 2200.00 2200.00 2040.25 7.83
12% 0.001 2200.00 2200.00 1977.53 11.25
16% 0.001 2100.00 2100.00 1825.61 15.03
20% 0.001 2050.00 2050.00 1718.21 19.31
4% 0.001 1900.00 1900.00 1823.42 4.2
40% 8% 0.001 2200.00 2200.00 2047.65 7.44
SAND 12% 0.001 2200.00 2200.00 1974.33 11.43
16% 0.001 2100.00 2100.00 1818.97 15.45
20% 0.001 2000.00 2000.00 1772.18 19.55
50% 4% 0.001 1850.00 1850.00 1775.77 4.18
SAND 8% 0.001 2200.00 2200.00 2041.76 7.75
12% 0.001 2200.00 2200.00 1968.33 11.77
16% 0.001 2100.00 2100.00 1818.97 15.45
20% 0.001 2000 2000 1777.09 19.22

149
 2100
NATURAL SOIL 10% Sand
2100
dry density (kg/m3)

dry density (kg/m3)

2000 2000
1900 1900
1800 1800

1700 1700

1600 1600
0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30
moisture content (%) Moisture content (%)

Fig 12a: GRAPH OF DRY DENSITY Fig 12b: GRAPH OF DRY DENSITY
AGAINST MOISTURE CONTENT FOR AGAINST MOISTURE CONTENT FOR
0%SAND 10% SAND

20% sand 2100 30% sand

2100
dry density (kg/m3)
dry density (kg/m3)

2000 2000
1900
1900
1800
1700 1800
1600
1700
1500
0 10 20 30
0 10 20 30
moisture content (%) Moisture content (%)

Fig 12c: GRAPH OF DRY DENSITY Fig 12d: GRAPH OF DRY DENSITY
AGAINST MOISTURE CONTENT FOR AGAINST MOISTURE CONTENT FOR
20% SAND 30% SAND

150
 40% SAND 50% sand
2100
2100

dry density (kg/m3)

2050
dry density (kg/m3)

2000 2000
1950
1900 1900
1850
1800 1800
1750
1700 0 10 20 30
0 10 20 30
Moisture content (%) moisture content (%)

Fig 12e: GRAPH OF DRY DENSITY Fig 12f: GRAPH OF DRY DENSITY
AGAINST MOISTURE CONTENT FOR AGAINST MOISTURE CONTENT FOR
40% SAND 50% SAND

Table 3L: BS HEAVY COMPACTION FOR LAT 3

PERCENTAGE VOLUME WEIGHT OF BULK Dry Oven-

LAT 3 OF OF COMPACTED DENSITY, density, ρd dry
MOISTURE MOULD SOIL M (g) ρ= M/V (kg/m3) MC
ADDED (%) V(M3) (kg/m3) (%)
( )
0% 4% 0.001 1750.00 1750.00 1666.03 5.04
QUARRY 8% 0.001 2150.00 2150.00 1983.94 8.37
DUST 12% 0.001 2150.00 2150.00 1905.86 12.81
16% 0.001 2100.00 2100.00 1806.14 16.27
20% 0.001 2050.00 2050.00 1684.61 21.69
10% 4% 0.001 1800.00 1800.00 1724.14 4.4
QUARRY 8% 0.001 2200.00 2200.00 2032.90 8.22
DUST 12% 0.001 2200.00 2200.00 1959.04 12.3
16% 0.001 2100.00 2100.00 1811.91 15.9
20% 0.001 2050.00 2050.00 1709.47 19.92
20% 4% 0.001 1800.00 1800.00 1721.50 4.56
QUARRY 8% 0.001 2200.00 2200.00 2039.11 7.89
DUST 12% 0.001 2200.00 2200.00 1984.13 10.88
16% 0.001 2100.00 2100.00 1805.67 16.3
20% 0.001 2050.00 2050.00 1706.77 20.11

151
30% 4% 0.001 1850.00 1850.00 1775.94 4.17
QUARRY 8% 0.001 2200.00 2200.00 2043.47 7.66
DUST 12% 0.001 2200.00 2200.00 1980.91 11.06
16% 0.001 2100.00 2100.00 1815.82 15.65
20% 0.001 2050.00 2050.00 1716.20 19.45
4% 0.001 1900.00 1900.00 1825.34 4.09
40% 8% 0.001 2200.00 2200.00 2052.05 7.21
QUARRY 12% 0.001 2200.00 2200.00 1968.33 11.77
DUST 16% 0.001 2100.00 2100.00 1818.97 15.45
20% 0.001 2000.00 2000.00 1777.09 19.22
50% 4% 0.001 1900.00 1900.00 1822.89 4.23
QUARRY 8% 0.001 2200.00 2200.00 2045.56 7.55
DUST 12% 0.001 2200.00 2200.00 1966.39 11.88
16% 0.001 2100.00 2100.00 1803.50 16.44
20% 0.001 2000.00 2000.00 1774.11 19.42

10% quarry dust

2100 20% quarry dust
2100
dry density (kg/m3)
dry density (kg/m3)

2000
2000
1900
1900
1800
1800 1700
1700 1600
1600 1500
0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30
moisture content (%) moisture content (%)

Fig 13a: GRAPH OF DRY DENSITY

Fig 13b: GRAPH OF DRY DENSITY
AGAINST MOISTURE CONTENT FOR
AGAINST MOISTURE CONTENT FOR
10% QUARRY
20% QUARRY

152
 30% quarry dust 40% quarry dust
2100
2100

dry density (kg/m3)

dry density (kg/m3)

2000 2000

1900 1900
1800
1800
1700
1600 1700
0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30
moisture content (%) Moisture content (%)

Fig 13c: GRAPH OF DRY DENSITY Fig 13d: GRAPH OF DRY DENSITY
AGAINST MOISTURE CONTENT FOR AGAINST MOISTURE CONTENT FOR
30% QUARRY 40% QUARRY

50% quarry dust

2100
dry density (kg/m3)

2050
2000
1950
1900
1850
1800
1750
0 10 20 30
moisture content (%)

Fig 13e: GRAPH OF DRY DENSITY

AGAINST MOISTURE CONTENT FOR
50% QUARRY

153
TABLE 3m: BSL

PERCENTAGE OMC MDD OMC MDD OMC MDD

(SAND) LAT 1 LAT 1 LAT 2 LAT 2 LAT 3 LAT 3

0 16.5 1818 13 1910 12.2 1918

10 13 1840 12 1939 12.2 1938
20 13.4 1863 11.8 1948 12.5 1980
30 12.5 1920 11.4 1951 12.1 1982
40 11.6 1930 10.9 2006 11.3 2000
50 12 1920 11.1 1968 11.6 1995

TABLE 3n: BSL

PERCENTAGE OMC MDD OMC MDD OMC MDD

(QUARRY LAT 1 LAT 1 LAT 2 LAT 2 LAT 3 LAT 3
DUST)

0 16.5 1818 13 1910 12.2 1918

10 13.8 1892 12.3 1960 12.2 1980
20 14 1932 13.2 1968 12 1986
30 12.5 1947 12.2 1979 11.9 1990
40 12 2000 11.5 2040 11 2042
50 11.7 1928 11.2 2038 10.8 2040

TABLE 3o: BSH

PERCENTAGE OMC MDD OMC MDD OMC MDD

(SAND) LAT 1 LAT 1 LAT 2 LAT 2 LAT 3 LAT 3

0 14 1892 12.8 1960 9.2 1994

10 13 1908 12 1960 9.3 2040
20 10 1980 11.5 1970 8.5 2042
30 10 1984 9.3 1995 8.5 2050
40 8.3 2020 8.5 2100 8 2055
50 7.5 2180 7.6 2103 8.5 2050

154
TABLE 3P: BSH

PERCENTAGE OMC MDD OMC MDD OMC MDD

(QUARRY LAT 1 LAT 1 LAT 2 LAT 2 LAT 3 LAT 3
DUST)

0 14 1892 12.8 1960 9.2 1994

10 10.5 1980 11.4 1973 9 2045
20 11 2020 11.2 2020 8.5 2055
30 10.9 2072 9 2049 8.3 2060
40 10.5 2075 8.1 2102 8 2070
50 8 2145 7.5 2109 8.1 2050

155
 APPENDIX (IV)

UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH RESULT

Table 4a: 100% LAT 1 (BSL)

SAMPLE
STRESS STRESS STRESS
DEFORMATION
(∆L) M STRAIN TRIAL 1 TRIAL 2 TRIAL 3
(%) (KN/M2) (KN/M2) (KN/M2)
0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.0001 0.125 29.96 24.97 29.96
0.0002 0.25 44.89 37.41 44.89
0.0003 0.375 52.30 62.27 57.28
0.0004 0.5 62.19 87.06 74.63
0.0005 0.625 99.38 124.22 99.38
0.0006 0.75 124.06 223.31 173.69
0.0007 0.875 173.47 322.16 247.81
0.0008 1 247.50 371.25 321.75
0.0009 1.125 333.70 444.94 395.50
0.001 1.25 395.00 493.75 469.06
0.0012 1.5 541.75 591.00 566.38
0.0014 1.75 614.06 618.98 618.98
0.0016 2 588.00 612.50 612.50
0.0018 2.25 537.63 562.06 537.63

Table 4b 10% of quarry dust

SAMPLE
DEFORMATION STRESS STRESS STRESS
STRAIN TRIAL 1 TRIAL 2 TRIAL 3
(∆L) M
(%) (KN/M2) (KN/M2) (KN/M2)
0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.0001 0.125 44.94 37.45 42.45
0.0002 0.25 74.81 67.33 69.83
0.0003 0.375 99.63 97.13 89.66
0.0004 0.5 111.94 109.45 106.96
0.0005 0.625 136.64 134.16 131.67
0.0006 0.75 148.88 148.88 143.91
0.0007 0.875 161.08 163.56 153.64

156
0.0008 1 173.25 175.73 170.78
0.0009 1.125 197.75 197.75 192.81
0.001 1.25 246.88 251.81 234.53
0.0012 1.5 320.13 320.13 307.81
0.0014 1.75 368.44 368.44 343.88
0.0016 2 416.50 416.50 392.00
0.0018 2.25 444.76 439.88 427.66
0.002 2.5 438.75 426.56 414.38
0.0024 3 278.88 266.75 291.00

Table 4c: 20% quarry dust

SAMPLE
STRESS STRESS STRESS
DEFORMATION
STRAIN TRIAL 1 TRIAL 2 TRIAL 3
(∆L) M 2 2
(%) (KN/M ) (KN/M ) (KN/M2)
0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.0001 0.125 49.94 44.94 49.94
0.0002 0.25 74.81 74.81 74.81
0.0003 0.375 99.63 92.15 94.64
0.0004 0.5 124.38 119.40 116.91
0.0005 0.625 149.06 149.06 149.06
0.0006 0.75 173.69 171.21 171.21
0.0007 0.875 198.25 193.29 188.34
0.0008 1 222.75 222.75 222.75
0.0009 1.125 247.19 247.19 242.24
0.001 1.25 296.25 296.25 296.25
0.0012 1.5 327.51 332.44 334.90
0.0014 1.75 368.44 375.81 373.35
0.0016 2 367.50 367.50 367.50
0.0018 2.25 317.69 366.56 354.34
0.002 2.5 243.75 316.88 316.88

157
Table 4d: 30% quarry dust

SAMPLE
STRESS STRESS STRESS
DEFORMATION
STRAIN TRIAL 1 TRIAL 2 TRIAL 3
(∆L) M
(%) (KN/M2) (KN/M2) (KN/M2)
0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.0001 0.125 24.97 19.98 24.97
0.0002 0.25 29.93 24.94 32.42
0.0003 0.375 37.36 34.87 37.36
0.0004 0.5 49.75 44.78 47.26
0.0005 0.625 74.53 64.59 69.56
0.0006 0.75 81.88 74.44 79.40
0.0007 0.875 99.13 91.69 99.13
0.0008 1 123.75 101.48 123.75
0.0009 1.125 131.01 121.12 133.48
0.001 1.25 148.13 135.78 148.13
0.0012 1.5 184.69 147.75 172.38
0.0014 1.75 218.61 179.31 191.59
0.0016 2 220.50 208.25 208.25
0.0018 2.25 219.94 219.94 217.49
0.002 2.5 216.94 219.38 216.94
0.0024 3 169.75 213.40 210.98

Table 4e: 40% quarry dust

SAMPLE
STRESS STRESS STRESS
DEFORMATION
STRAIN TRIAL 1 TRIAL 2 TRIAL 3
(∆L) M
(%) (KN/M2) (KN/M2) (KN/M2)
0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.0001 0.125 12.48 9.99 14.98
0.0002 0.25 22.44 17.46 22.44
0.0003 0.375 32.38 29.89 32.38
0.0004 0.5 39.80 39.80 42.29
0.0005 0.625 47.20 47.20 49.69
0.0006 0.75 57.07 57.07 59.55
0.0007 0.875 66.91 66.91 69.39
0.0008 1 71.78 71.78 74.25
0.0009 1.125 79.10 79.10 79.10
0.001 1.25 86.41 86.41 86.41

158
0.0012 1.5 98.50 98.50 98.50
0.0014 1.75 122.81 127.73 122.81
0.0016 2 139.65 147.00 139.65
0.0018 2.25 146.63 166.18 156.40
0.002 2.5 170.63 182.81 170.63
0.0024 3 194.00 194.00 179.45
0.0028 3.5 217.13 229.19 193.00
0.0032 4 244.80 264.00 216.00
0.0036 4.5 257.85 267.40 226.81
0.004 5 261.25 273.13 237.50
0.0044 5.5 271.69 259.88 226.80
0.0048 6 253.80

Table 4f: 50% quarry dust

SAMPLE
STRESS STRESS STRESS
DEFORMATION
STRAIN TRIAL 1 TRIAL 2 TRIAL 3
(∆L) M
(%) (KN/M2) (KN/M2) (KN/M2)
0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.0001 0.125 12.48 14.98 9.99
0.0002 0.25 17.46 24.94 22.44
0.0003 0.375 27.40 37.36 32.38
0.0004 0.5 37.31 49.75 42.29
0.0005 0.625 47.20 64.59 49.69
0.0006 0.75 57.07 74.44 57.07
0.0007 0.875 64.43 84.26 66.91
0.0008 1 69.30 94.05 74.25
0.0009 1.125 76.63 101.35 86.52
0.001 1.25 88.88 111.09 98.75
0.0012 1.5 110.81 135.44 128.05
0.0014 1.75 132.64 152.29 147.38
0.0016 2 147.00 171.50 169.05
0.0018 2.25 171.06 195.50 171.06
0.002 2.5 195.00 219.38 195.00
0.0024 3 213.40 227.95 210.98
0.0028 3.5 224.36 234.01 226.78
0.0032 4 259.20 240.00 240.00
0.0036 4.5 226.81 224.43 226.81

159
Table 4g: 10% sand

SAMPLE
STRESS STRESS STRESS
DEFORMATION
STRAIN TRIAL 1 TRIAL 2 TRIAL 3
(∆L) M
(%) (KN/M2) (KN/M2) (KN/M2)
0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.0001 0.125 37.45 17.48 12.48
0.0002 0.25 67.33 34.91 24.94
0.0003 0.375 94.64 49.81 42.34
0.0004 0.5 124.38 94.53 62.19
0.0005 0.625 149.06 124.22 81.98
0.0006 0.75 171.21 153.84 99.25
0.0007 0.875 185.86 173.47 111.52
0.0008 1 207.90 210.38 138.60
0.0009 1.125 227.41 222.47 153.26
0.001 1.25 271.56 246.88 172.81
0.0012 1.5 283.19 270.88 201.93
0.0014 1.75 287.38 282.47 221.06
0.0016 2 294.00 294.00 237.65
0.0018 2.25 305.47 300.58 254.15
0.002 2.5 312.00 314.44 268.13
0.0024 3 303.13 305.55 266.75
258.14

Table 4h: 20% sand

SAMPLE
STRESS STRESS STRESS
DEFORMATION
STRAIN TRIAL 1 TRIAL 2 TRIAL 3
(∆L) M
(%) (KN/M2) (KN/M2) (KN/M2)
0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.0001 0.125 9.99 14.98 14.98
0.0002 0.25 17.46 24.94 22.44
0.0003 0.375 24.91 34.87 32.38
0.0004 0.5 34.83 49.75 44.78
0.0005 0.625 47.20 59.63 59.63
0.0006 0.75 57.07 74.44 74.44
0.0007 0.875 71.87 86.73 86.73
0.0008 1 74.25 99.00 99.00
0.0009 1.125 86.52 111.23 111.23
0.001 1.25 98.75 123.44 123.44
0.0012 1.5 135.44 147.75 147.75
160
0.0014 1.75 157.20 164.57 164.57
0.0016 2 171.50 183.75 178.85
0.0018 2.25 183.28 200.39 193.06
0.002 2.5 195.00 219.38 207.19
0.0024 3 218.25 232.80 218.25
0.0028 3.5 234.01 248.49 229.19
0.0032 4 252.00 264.00 240.00
0.0036 4.5 262.63 253.08 231.59
0.004 5 251.75

Table 4i: 30% sand

SAMPLE
DEFORMATION STRESS STRESS STRESS
STRAIN TRIAL 1 TRIAL 2 TRIAL 3
(∆L) M 2 2
(%) (KN/M ) (KN/M ) (KN/M2)
0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.0001 0.125 9.99 12.48 9.99
0.0002 0.25 14.96 19.95 17.46
0.0003 0.375 24.91 29.89 24.91
0.0004 0.5 32.34 42.29 29.85
0.0005 0.625 39.75 52.17 39.75
0.0006 0.75 47.14 66.99 47.14
0.0007 0.875 54.52 79.30 49.56
0.0008 1 61.88 94.05 59.40
0.0009 1.125 66.74 106.29 66.74
0.001 1.25 74.06 123.44 74.06
0.0012 1.5 105.89 135.44 98.50
0.0014 1.75 122.81 147.38 117.90
0.0016 2 142.10 156.80 127.40
0.0018 2.25 153.96 166.18 136.85
0.002 2.5 170.63 175.50 146.25
0.0024 3 181.88 181.88 155.20
0.0028 3.5 193.00 185.76 168.88
0.0032 4 204.00 192.00 180.00
0.0036 4.5 207.71 214.88 174.29
0.004 5 213.75 237.50
0.0044 5.5 203.18 224.44

161
Table 4j: 40% sand

SAMPLE
STRESS STRESS STRESS
DEFORMATION
STRAIN TRIAL 1 TRIAL 2 TRIAL 3
(∆L) M
(%) (KN/M2) (KN/M2) (KN/M2)
0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.0001 0.125 24.97 9.99 9.99
0.0002 0.25 37.41 19.95 17.46
0.0003 0.375 47.32 29.89 29.89
0.0004 0.5 57.21 49.75 74.63
0.0005 0.625 74.53 79.50 109.31
0.0006 0.75 86.84 101.73 129.03
0.0007 0.875 99.13 136.30 148.69
0.0008 1 123.75 148.50 160.88
0.0009 1.125 133.48 173.03 180.45
0.001 1.25 148.13 197.50 197.50
0.0012 1.5 162.53 206.85 209.31
0.0014 1.75 169.48 216.15 221.06
0.0016 2 171.50 227.85 230.30
0.0018 2.25 178.39 237.04 237.04
0.002 2.5 182.81 243.75 243.75
0.0024 3 186.73 230.38 230.38
0.0028 3.5 178.53

Table 4k: 50% sand

SAMPLE
STRESS STRESS STRESS
DEFORMATION
STRAIN TRIAL 1 TRIAL 2 TRIAL 3
(∆L) M
(%) (KN/M2) (KN/M2) (KN/M2)
0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.0001 0.125 7.49 4.99 2.50
0.0002 0.25 17.46 9.98 9.98
0.0003 0.375 22.42 17.43 17.43
0.0004 0.5 27.36 24.88 24.88
0.0005 0.625 32.30 32.30 29.81
0.0006 0.75 39.70 37.22 37.22
0.0007 0.875 47.08 44.61 42.13
0.0008 1 49.50 49.50 47.03
0.0009 1.125 56.85 54.38 51.91

162
0.001 1.25 61.72 61.72 56.78
0.0012 1.5 73.88 73.88 73.88
0.0014 1.75 81.06 83.51 103.16
0.0016 2 88.20 98.00 115.15
0.0018 2.25 95.31 109.97 127.08
0.002 2.5 99.94 121.88 146.25
0.0024 3 109.13 121.25 152.78
0.0028 3.5 113.39 120.63 154.40
0.0032 4 120.00 120.00 156.00
0.0036 4.5 109.83 150.41

Table4l 100% OF LAT 1 (BSH)

SAMPLE
STRESS STRESS STRESS
DEFORMATION
STRAIN TRIAL 1 TRIAL 2 TRIAL 3
(∆L) M 2 2
(%) (KN/M ) (KN/M ) (KN/M2)
0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.0001 0.125 9.99 7.49 14.98
0.0002 0.25 14.96 12.47 19.95
0.0003 0.375 22.42 22.42 29.89
0.0004 0.5 27.36 32.34 37.31
0.0005 0.625 34.78 37.27 47.20
0.0006 0.75 42.18 42.18 54.59
0.0007 0.875 49.56 44.61 59.48
0.0008 1 56.93 49.50 66.83
0.0009 1.125 64.27 56.85 74.16
0.001 1.25 74.06 61.72 81.47
0.0012 1.5 123.13 86.19 123.13
0.0014 1.75 152.29 108.08 140.01
0.0016 2 171.50 122.50 159.25
0.0018 2.25 180.84 134.41 175.95
0.002 2.5 195.00 146.25 195.00
0.0024 3 242.50 169.75 218.25
0.0028 3.5 277.44 193.00 265.38
0.0032 4 304.80 216.00 288.00
0.0036 4.5 334.25 262.63 315.15
0.004 5 368.13 308.75 332.50
163
0.0044 5.5 370.91 330.75 344.93
0.0048 6 373.65 340.75 361.90
0.0052 6.5 374.00 350.63 374.00
0.0056 7 325.50 337.13 353.40

Table 4m: 10% sand

SAMPLE
STRESS STRESS STRESS
DEFORMATION
STRAIN TRIAL 1 TRIAL 2 TRIAL 3
(∆L) M
(%) (KN/M2) (KN/M2) (KN/M2)
0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.0001 0.125 12.48 12.48 7.49
0.0002 0.25 17.46 19.95 12.47
0.0003 0.375 24.91 24.91 17.43
0.0004 0.5 32.34 32.34 24.88
0.0005 0.625 37.27 42.23 34.78
0.0006 0.75 44.66 49.63 42.18
0.0007 0.875 49.56 59.48 49.56
0.0008 1 54.45 69.30 59.40
0.0009 1.125 59.33 76.63 74.16
0.001 1.25 61.72 86.41 86.41
0.0012 1.5 98.50 103.43 147.75
0.0014 1.75 115.44 122.81 179.31
0.0016 2 127.40 137.20 196.00
0.0018 2.25 139.29 149.07 219.94
0.002 2.5 146.25 170.63 243.75
0.0024 3 194.00 206.13 286.15
0.0028 3.5 289.50 246.08 313.63
0.0032 4 345.60 288.00 352.80
0.0036 4.5 370.06 331.86 386.78
0.004 5 403.75 380.00 403.75
0.0044 5.5 425.25 425.25 418.16
0.0048 6 446.50 462.95 430.05
0.0052 6.5 467.50 502.56 455.81
0.0056 7 446.40 485.93 441.75

164
Table 4n: 20% sand

SAMPLE
STRESS STRESS STRESS
DEFORMATION
STRAIN TRIAL 1 TRIAL 2 TRIAL 3
(∆L) M
(%) (KN/M2) (KN/M2) (KN/M2)
0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.0001 0.125 24.97 24.97 17.48
0.0002 0.25 29.93 29.93 24.94
0.0003 0.375 39.85 39.85 34.87
0.0004 0.5 49.75 49.75 44.78
0.0005 0.625 57.14 57.14 54.66
0.0006 0.75 74.44 69.48 66.99
0.0007 0.875 99.13 91.69 86.73
0.0008 1 123.75 118.80 118.80
0.0009 1.125 148.31 138.43 138.43
0.001 1.25 197.50 185.16 185.16
0.0012 1.5 283.19 283.19 283.19
0.0014 1.75 368.44 363.53 393.00
0.0016 2 441.00 441.00 441.00
0.0018 2.25 488.75 488.75 513.19
0.002 2.5 524.06 524.06 560.63
0.0024 3 569.88 582.00 592.91
0.0028 3.5 627.25 651.38 627.25
0.0032 4 576.00 612.00 480.00

Table 4o: 30% sand

SAMPLE
STRESS STRESS STRESS
DEFORMATION
(∆L) M STRAIN TRIAL 1 TRIAL 2 TRIAL 3
(%) (KN/M2) (KN/M2) (KN/M2)
0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.0001 0.125 24.97 24.97 24.97
0.0002 0.25 44.89 44.89 44.89
0.0003 0.375 57.28 57.28 57.28
0.0004 0.5 74.63 74.63 74.63
0.0005 0.625 99.38 99.38 99.38
0.0006 0.75 111.66 111.66 111.66
0.0007 0.875 123.91 123.91 123.91
0.0008 1 143.55 143.55 143.55
0.0009 1.125 165.62 165.62 165.62
0.001 1.25 197.50 197.50 197.50
165
0.0012 1.5 270.88 270.88 270.88
0.0014 1.75 314.40 314.40 314.40
0.0016 2 343.00 343.00 343.00
0.0018 2.25 410.55 410.55 410.55
0.002 2.5 450.94 450.94 450.94
0.0024 3 485.00 460.75 485.00
0.0028 3.5 468.03 451.14 468.03

Table 4p: 40% sand

SAMPLE
STRESS STRESS STRESS
DEFORMATION
STRAIN TRIAL 1 TRIAL 2 TRIAL 3
(∆L) M
(%) (KN/M2) (KN/M2) (KN/M2)
0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.0001 0.125 19.98 12.48 17.48
0.0002 0.25 37.41 39.90 34.91
0.0003 0.375 62.27 74.72 59.78
0.0004 0.5 111.94 116.91 111.94
0.0005 0.625 149.06 191.30 149.06
0.0006 0.75 198.50 223.31 205.94
0.0007 0.875 272.59 297.38 275.07
0.0008 1 346.50 363.83 351.45
0.0009 1.125 395.50 400.44 395.50
0.001 1.25 419.69 444.38 432.03
0.0012 1.5 438.33 450.64 443.25
0.0014 1.75 422.48 417.56 417.56

Table 4q: 50% SAND

SAMPLE
STRESS STRESS STRESS
DEFORMATION
STRAIN TRIAL 1 TRIAL 2 TRIAL 3
(∆L) M
(%) (KN/M2) (KN/M2) (KN/M2)
0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.0001 0.125 24.97 24.97 24.97
0.0002 0.25 39.90 44.89 42.39
0.0003 0.375 54.79 54.79 57.28
0.0004 0.5 77.11 67.16 79.60
0.0005 0.625 99.38 74.53 99.38
0.0006 0.75 124.06 84.36 129.03
0.0007 0.875 153.64 99.13 156.12
166
0.0008 1 185.63 106.43 193.05
0.0009 1.125 222.47 118.65 227.41
0.001 1.25 241.94 130.84 246.88
0.0012 1.5 265.95 160.06 258.56
0.0014 1.75 265.28 171.94 262.82
0.0016 2 257.25 171.50 262.15
158.84 254.15

Table 4r: 10% quarry

SAMPLE
STRESS STRESS STRESS
DEFORMATION
STRAIN TRIAL 1 TRIAL 2 TRIAL 3
(∆L) M
(%) (KN/M2) (KN/M2) (KN/M2)
0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.0001 0.125 12.48 24.97 17.48
0.0002 0.25 19.95 39.90 24.94
0.0003 0.375 32.38 74.72 37.36
0.0004 0.5 39.80 99.50 49.75
0.0005 0.625 49.69 124.22 74.53
0.0006 0.75 79.40 173.69 124.06
0.0007 0.875 118.95 215.60 185.86
0.0008 1 136.13 247.50 227.70
0.0009 1.125 148.31 296.63 271.91
0.001 1.25 160.47 370.31 320.94
0.0012 1.5 320.13 438.33 369.38
0.0014 1.75 442.13 471.60 417.56
0.0016 2 514.50 539.00 490.00
0.0018 2.25 586.50 586.50 610.94
0.002 2.5 682.50 658.13 682.50
0.0024 3 691.13 703.25 679.00
0.0028 3.5 723.75 651.38 603.13
0.0032 4 696.00

167
Table 4r: 20% quarry

SAMPLE
STRESS STRESS STRESS
DEFORMATION
STRAIN TRIAL 1 TRIAL 2 TRIAL 3
(∆L) M
(%) (KN/M2) (KN/M2) (KN/M2)
0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.0001 0.125 9.99 14.98 24.97
0.0002 0.25 17.46 24.94 34.91
0.0003 0.375 29.89 37.36 49.81
0.0004 0.5 39.80 49.75 62.19
0.0005 0.625 49.69 74.53 74.53
0.0006 0.75 62.03 86.84 101.73
0.0007 0.875 74.34 99.13 143.73
0.0008 1 86.63 111.38 173.25
0.0009 1.125 98.88 123.59 197.75
0.001 1.25 111.09 148.13 222.19
0.0012 1.5 147.75 246.25 295.50
0.0014 1.75 171.94 343.88 368.44
0.0016 2 196.00 392.00 441.00
0.0018 2.25 237.04 434.99 488.75
0.002 2.5 292.50 487.50 524.06
0.0024 3 363.75 509.25 533.50
0.0028 3.5 422.19 530.75 542.81
0.0032 4 458.40 552.00 552.00
0.0036 4.5 501.38 501.38 518.09
0.004 5 510.63
0.0044 5.5 484.31

Table 4s: 30% quarry

SAMPLE
STRESS STRESS STRESS
DEFORMATION
(∆L) M STRAIN TRIAL 1 TRIAL 2 TRIAL 3
2 2
(%) (KN/M ) (KN/M ) (KN/M2)
0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.0001 0.125 24.97 24.97 24.97
0.0002 0.25 37.41 37.41 39.90
0.0003 0.375 49.81 49.81 52.30
0.0004 0.5 62.19 62.19 74.63
0.0005 0.625 86.95 74.53 99.38
0.0006 0.75 104.21 94.29 124.06
168
0.0007 0.875 131.34 123.91 141.25
0.0008 1 148.50 153.45 165.83
0.0009 1.125 160.67 173.03 177.98
0.001 1.25 172.81 197.50 197.50
0.0012 1.5 201.93 221.63 221.63
0.0014 1.75 245.63 245.63 245.63
0.0016 2 269.50 269.50 281.75
0.0018 2.25 293.25 293.25 303.03
0.002 2.5 316.88 316.88 329.06
0.0024 3 339.50 363.75 363.75
0.0028 3.5 361.88 410.13 395.65
0.0032 4 384.00 427.20 408.00
0.0036 4.5 405.88 417.81 393.94
0.004 5 356.25

Table 4t: 40% quarry

SAMPLE
DEFORMATION STRESS STRESS
STRAIN TRIAL 1 TRIAL 3
(∆L) M
(%) (KN/M2) 0.00 (KN/M2)
0 0 0.00 7.49 0.00
0.0001 0.125 9.99 19.95 24.97
0.0002 0.25 19.95 29.89 34.91
0.0003 0.375 32.38 52.24 49.81
0.0004 0.5 47.26 74.53 62.19
0.0005 0.625 62.11 81.88 86.95
0.0006 0.75 74.44 94.17 99.25
0.0007 0.875 84.26 103.95 111.52
0.0008 1 99.00 111.23 138.60
0.0009 1.125 111.23 118.50 148.31
0.001 1.25 123.44 142.83 160.47
0.0012 1.5 147.75 159.66 197.00
0.0014 1.75 184.22 196.00 245.63
0.0016 2 220.50 268.81 286.65
0.0018 2.25 251.71 329.06 307.91
0.002 2.5 280.31 354.05 341.25
0.0024 3 339.50 386.00 371.03
0.0028 3.5 381.18 408.00 398.06
0.0032 4 420.00 393.94 408.00
0.0036 4.5 405.88 391.55

169
Table 4u: 50% quarry

SAMPLE
STRESS STRESS STRESS
DEFORMATION
STRAIN TRIAL 1 TRIAL 2 TRIAL 3
(∆L) M
(%) (KN/M2) (KN/M2) (KN/M2)
0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.0001 0.125 24.97 24.97 24.97
0.0002 0.25 39.90 39.90 39.90
0.0003 0.375 54.79 54.79 54.79
0.0004 0.5 77.11 74.63 77.11
0.0005 0.625 99.38 86.95 99.38
0.0006 0.75 129.03 99.25 129.03
0.0007 0.875 158.60 111.52 158.60
0.0008 1 173.25 128.70 173.25
0.0009 1.125 190.33 150.78 190.33
0.001 1.25 209.84 172.81 209.84
0.0012 1.5 241.33 246.25 241.33
0.0014 1.75 270.19 294.75 270.19
0.0016 2 294.00 311.15 294.00
0.0018 2.25 322.58 342.13 322.58
0.002 2.5 341.25 365.63 341.25
0.0024 3 371.03 388.00 371.03
0.0028 3.5 398.06 398.06 398.06
0.0032 4 384.00 384.00 384.00

Table 5a: 100% 0f LAT 2 (BSL)

SAMPLE STRAIN STRESS STRESS STRESS

DEFORMATION (%) TRIAL 1 TRIAL 2 TRIAL 3
(∆L) M (KN/M2) (KN/M2) (KN/M2)
0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.0001 0.125 19.98 12.48 9.99
0.0002 0.25 22.44 19.95 19.95
0.0003 0.375 24.91 24.91 24.91
0.0004 0.5 24.88 27.36 24.88
0.0005 0.625 27.33 29.81 27.33

170
0.0006 0.75 29.78 32.26 32.26
0.0007 0.875 34.69 34.69 39.65
0.0008 1 37.13 39.60 44.55
0.0009 1.125 44.49 46.97 49.44
0.001 1.25 49.38 49.38 51.84
0.0012 1.5 51.71 54.18 56.64
0.0014 1.75 56.49 63.86 68.78
0.0016 2 66.15 71.05 73.50
0.0018 2.25 73.31 75.76 78.20
0.002 2.5 78.00 82.88 90.19
0.0024 3 97.00 97.00 99.43
0.0028 3.5 106.15 108.56 115.80
0.0032 4 120.00 120.00 122.40
0.0036 4.5 124.15 126.54 131.31
0.004 5 142.50 142.50 142.50
0.0044 5.5 148.84 148.84 144.11
0.0048 6 162.15 159.80 157.45
0.0052 6.5 165.96 163.63 161.29
0.0056 7 174.38 167.40 162.75
0.006 7.5 180.38 166.50 161.88
0.0064 8 181.70 161.00 156.40
0.0068 8.5 183.00 148.69
0.0072 9 170.63 136.50

Table 5b: 10% sand

SAMPLE STRAIN STRESS STRESS STRESS

DEFORMATION (%) TRIAL 1 TRIAL 2 TRIAL 3
(∆L) M (KN/M2) (KN/M2) (KN/M2)
0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.0001 0.125 12.48 9.99 12.48
0.0002 0.25 19.95 19.95 22.44
0.0003 0.375 24.91 24.91 24.91
0.0004 0.5 27.36 29.85 27.36
0.0005 0.625 29.81 34.78 32.30
0.0006 0.75 34.74 39.70 39.70
0.0007 0.875 42.13 44.61 47.08

171
0.0008 1 47.03 49.50 51.98
0.0009 1.125 49.44 54.38 59.33
0.001 1.25 51.84 59.25 69.13
0.0012 1.5 61.56 64.03 73.88
0.0014 1.75 73.69 76.14 85.97
0.0016 2 78.40 83.30 90.65
0.0018 2.25 92.86 95.31 95.31
0.002 2.5 97.50 99.94 99.94
0.0024 3 116.40 113.98 116.40
0.0028 3.5 132.69 132.69 130.28
0.0032 4 144.00 144.00 148.80
0.0036 4.5 152.80 150.41 162.35
0.004 5 163.88 161.50 166.25
0.0044 5.5 177.19 177.19 174.83
0.0048 6 171.55 171.55 169.20
0.0052 6.5 163.63 158.95 158.95
0.0056 7 139.50

Table 5c: 20% sand

SAMPLE STRAIN STRESS STRESS STRESS

DEFORMATION (%) TRIAL 1 TRIAL 2 TRIAL 3
(∆L) M (KN/M2) (KN/M2) (KN/M2)
0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.0001 0.125 7.49 4.99 7.49
0.0002 0.25 12.47 12.47 9.98
0.0003 0.375 14.94 17.43 14.94
0.0004 0.5 17.41 22.39 19.90
0.0005 0.625 19.88 24.84 24.84
0.0006 0.75 22.33 27.29 29.78
0.0007 0.875 22.30 29.74 32.22
0.0008 1 24.75 32.18 34.65
0.0009 1.125 27.19 34.61 37.08
0.001 1.25 29.63 37.03 39.50
0.0012 1.5 32.01 41.86 41.86
0.0014 1.75 41.76 46.67 44.21
0.0016 2 53.90 56.35 56.35
0.0018 2.25 65.98 68.43 65.98
0.002 2.5 73.13 78.00 80.44
172
0.0024 3 92.15 92.15 94.58
0.0028 3.5 98.91 101.33 103.74
0.0032 4 120.00 120.00 122.40
0.0036 4.5 131.31 133.70 138.48
0.004 5 147.25 149.63 152.00
0.0044 5.5 165.38 170.10 165.38
0.0048 6 176.25 173.90 176.25
0.0052 6.5 184.66 182.33 184.66
0.0056 7 186.00 188.33
0.006 7.5 180.38 182.69
0.0064 8 172.50 170.20

Table 5d: 30% sand

SAMPLE STRAIN STRESS STRESS STRESS

DEFORMATION (%) TRIAL 1 TRIAL 2 TRIAL 3
(∆L) M (KN/M2) (KN/M2) (KN/M2)
0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.0001 0.125 12.48 12.48 9.99
0.0002 0.25 22.44 19.95 17.46
0.0003 0.375 24.91 27.40 22.42
0.0004 0.5 27.36 32.34 29.85
0.0005 0.625 29.81 37.27 34.78
0.0006 0.75 39.70 42.18 39.70
0.0007 0.875 44.61 47.08 44.61
0.0008 1 49.50 51.98 49.50
0.0009 1.125 51.91 56.85 54.38
0.001 1.25 54.31 59.25 59.25
0.0012 1.5 61.56 66.49 68.95
0.0014 1.75 73.69 78.60 78.60
0.0016 2 80.85 88.20 90.65
0.0018 2.25 90.42 95.31 97.75
0.002 2.5 97.50 99.94 104.81
0.0024 3 109.13 109.13 113.98
0.0028 3.5 120.63 120.63 120.63
0.0032 4 120.00 120.00 120.00
0.0036 4.5 119.38 119.38 119.38
0.004 5 114.00 111.63 116.38

173
Table 5e: 40% sand

SAMPLE STRAIN STRESS STRESS STRESS

DEFORMATION (%) TRIAL 1 TRIAL 2 TRIAL 3
(∆L) M (KN/M2) (KN/M2) (KN/M2)
0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.0001 0.125 4.99 4.99 9.99
0.0002 0.25 12.47 12.47 12.47
0.0003 0.375 19.93 17.43 17.43
0.0004 0.5 24.88 22.39 22.39
0.0005 0.625 27.33 27.33 27.33
0.0006 0.75 29.78 32.26 32.26
0.0007 0.875 37.17 37.17 37.17
0.0008 1 44.55 42.08 42.08
0.0009 1.125 46.97 46.97 46.97
0.001 1.25 51.84 51.84 51.84
0.0012 1.5 56.64 56.64 56.64
0.0014 1.75 61.41 66.32 61.41
0.0016 2 73.50 80.85 73.50
0.0018 2.25 85.53 92.86 85.53
0.002 2.5 97.50 102.38 97.50
0.0024 3 113.98 116.40 109.13
0.0028 3.5 120.63 120.63 120.63
0.0032 4 120.00 120.00 120.00
0.0036 4.5 116.99 114.60 114.60
0.004 5 99.75 102.13 99.75

Table 5f: 50% sand

SAMPLE STRAIN STRESS STRESS STRESS

DEFORMATION (%) TRIAL 1 TRIAL 2 TRIAL 3
(∆L) M (KN/M2) (KN/M2) (KN/M2)
0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.0001 0.125 4.99 4.99 9.99
0.0002 0.25 7.48 9.98 12.47
0.0003 0.375 12.45 14.94 17.43
0.0004 0.5 17.41 19.90 19.90

174
0.0005 0.625 22.36 24.84 24.84
0.0006 0.75 27.29 29.78 29.78
0.0007 0.875 32.22 34.69 32.22
0.0008 1 37.13 39.60 34.65
0.0009 1.125 44.49 44.49 39.55
0.001 1.25 46.91 49.38 44.44
0.0012 1.5 59.10 54.18 51.71
0.0014 1.75 66.32 61.41 58.95
0.0016 2 73.50 68.60 68.60
0.0018 2.25 78.20 75.76 78.20
0.002 2.5 85.31 80.44 85.31
0.0024 3 92.15 87.30 92.15
0.0028 3.5 94.09 94.09 96.50
0.0032 4 91.20 98.40 103.20
0.0036 4.5 81.18 95.50 100.28
90.25 92.63

Table 5g: 10% quarry dust

SAMPLE STRAIN STRESS STRESS STRESS

DEFORMATION (%) TRIAL 1 TRIAL 2 TRIAL 3
(∆L) M (KN/M2) (KN/M2) (KN/M2)
0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.0001 0.125 7.49 9.99 12.48
0.0002 0.25 17.46 14.96 17.46
0.0003 0.375 19.93 19.93 22.42
0.0004 0.5 22.39 24.88 24.88
0.0005 0.625 24.84 29.81 29.81
0.0006 0.75 27.29 32.26 34.74
0.0007 0.875 29.74 34.69 37.17
0.0008 1 32.18 37.13 39.60
0.0009 1.125 34.61 39.55 42.02
0.001 1.25 37.03 41.97 44.44
0.0012 1.5 46.79 49.25 49.25
0.0014 1.75 49.13 54.04 56.49
0.0016 2 53.90 63.70 61.25
0.0018 2.25 65.98 73.31 68.43

175
0.002 2.5 73.13 82.88 78.00
0.0024 3 82.45 92.15 87.30
0.0028 3.5 96.50 101.33 94.09
0.0032 4 108.00 112.80 105.60
0.0036 4.5 119.38 124.15 116.99
0.004 5 133.00 137.75 133.00
0.0044 5.5 141.75 146.48 141.75
0.0048 6 148.05 152.75 148.05
0.0052 6.5 161.29 163.63 158.95
0.0056 7 162.75 169.73 162.75
0.006 7.5 166.50 171.13 168.81
0.0064 8 170.20 172.50 172.50
0.0068 8.5 171.56 171.56 171.56
0.0072 9 168.35 168.35 168.35
0.0076 9.5 158.38 158.38 165.16

Table 5h: 20% of quarry dust

SAMPLE STRAIN STRESS STRESS STRESS

DEFORMATION (%) TRIAL 1 TRIAL 2 TRIAL 3
(∆L) M (KN/M2) (KN/M2) (KN/M2)
0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.0001 0.125 4.99 4.99 4.99
0.0002 0.25 7.48 9.98 9.98
0.0003 0.375 12.45 12.45 12.45
0.0004 0.5 14.93 17.41 17.41
0.0005 0.625 19.88 19.88 19.88
0.0006 0.75 22.33 22.33 22.33
0.0007 0.875 24.78 27.26 29.74
0.0008 1 27.23 32.18 34.65
0.0009 1.125 29.66 37.08 39.55
0.001 1.25 32.09 39.50 44.44
0.0012 1.5 36.94 44.33 54.18
0.0014 1.75 41.76 49.13 58.95
0.0016 2 49.00 53.90 63.70
0.0018 2.25 56.21 58.65 70.87
0.002 2.5 63.38 65.81 78.00

176
0.0024 3 70.33 72.75 84.88
0.0028 3.5 77.20 84.44 94.09
0.0032 4 88.80 91.20 105.60
0.0036 4.5 95.50 100.28 119.38
0.004 5 106.88 114.00 130.63
0.0044 5.5 118.13 127.58 141.75
0.0048 6 129.25 143.35 148.05
0.0052 6.5 140.25 156.61 158.95
0.0056 7 151.13 167.40 165.08
0.006 7.5 161.88 168.81 168.81
0.0064 8 167.90 170.20 170.20
0.0068 8.5 169.28 171.56 171.56
0.0072 9 170.63 170.63 168.35
0.0076 9.5 167.43 165.16 165.16

Table 5i: 30% of quarry dust

SAMPLE STRAIN STRESS STRESS STRESS

DEFORMATION (%) TRIAL 1 TRIAL 2 TRIAL 3
(∆L) M (KN/M2) (KN/M2) (KN/M2)
0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.0001 0.125 7.49 9.99 7.49
0.0002 0.25 19.95 19.95 19.95
0.0003 0.375 22.42 22.42 22.42
0.0004 0.5 27.36 29.85 27.36
0.0005 0.625 34.78 37.27 34.78
0.0006 0.75 44.66 44.66 44.66
0.0007 0.875 49.56 49.56 49.56
0.0008 1 51.98 54.45 51.98
0.0009 1.125 54.38 59.33 54.38
0.001 1.25 56.78 64.19 56.78
0.0012 1.5 66.49 71.41 66.49
0.0014 1.75 73.69 78.60 73.69
0.0016 2 75.95 85.75 75.95
0.0018 2.25 80.64 95.31 80.64
0.002 2.5 90.19 102.38 90.19
0.0024 3 99.43 116.40 99.43

177
0.0028 3.5 115.80 123.04 115.80
0.0032 4 122.40 136.80 122.40
0.0036 4.5 133.70 145.64 133.70
0.004 5 142.50 154.38 142.50
0.0044 5.5 146.48 165.38 146.48
0.0048 6 159.80 171.55 159.80
0.0052 6.5 161.29 168.30 161.29
0.0056 7 165.08 162.75 165.08
0.006 7.5 161.88 161.88 161.88
0.0064 8 156.40 158.70 156.40
0.0068 8.5 148.69 153.26 148.69
0.0072 9 141.05 141.05 141.05

Table 5j: 40% quarry dust

SAMPLE STRAIN STRESS STRESS STRESS

DEFORMATION (%) TRIAL 1 TRIAL 2 TRIAL 3
(∆L) M (KN/M2) (KN/M2) (KN/M2)
0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.0001 0.125 19.98 12.48 14.98
0.0002 0.25 24.94 19.95 22.44
0.0003 0.375 27.40 24.91 24.91
0.0004 0.5 29.85 29.85 27.36
0.0005 0.625 44.72 37.27 32.30
0.0006 0.75 47.14 44.66 42.18
0.0007 0.875 49.56 49.56 47.08
0.0008 1 54.45 54.45 51.98
0.0009 1.125 66.74 59.33 54.38
0.001 1.25 71.59 69.13 64.19
0.0012 1.5 76.34 73.88 68.95
0.0014 1.75 85.97 73.69 78.60
0.0016 2 98.00 78.40 88.20
0.0018 2.25 100.19 85.53 97.75
0.002 2.5 102.38 92.63 102.38
0.0024 3 109.13 101.85 111.55
0.0028 3.5 120.63 120.63 123.04
0.0032 4 129.60 129.60 134.40
0.0036 4.5 143.25 143.25 145.64
0.004 5 152.00 154.38 154.38
178
0.0044 5.5 163.01 163.01 163.01
0.0048 6 171.55 169.20 171.55
0.0052 6.5 165.96 165.96 177.65
0.0056 7 158.10 158.10 174.38
164.19

Table 6k: 50% quarry dust

SAMPLE STRAIN STRESS STRESS STRESS

DEFORMATION (%) TRIAL 1 TRIAL 2 TRIAL 3
(∆L) M (KN/M2) (KN/M2) (KN/M2)
0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.0001 0.125 7.49 7.49 9.99
0.0002 0.25 17.46 14.96 17.46
0.0003 0.375 29.89 32.38 32.38
0.0004 0.5 34.83 39.80 37.31
0.0005 0.625 49.69 47.20 49.69
0.0006 0.75 62.03 59.55 62.03
0.0007 0.875 74.34 69.39 74.34
0.0008 1 86.63 81.68 86.63
0.0009 1.125 98.88 93.93 98.88
0.001 1.25 111.09 108.63 111.09
0.0012 1.5 123.13 123.13 123.13
0.0014 1.75 147.38 147.38 135.09
0.0016 2 159.25 161.70 147.00
0.0018 2.25 171.06 173.51 163.73
0.002 2.5 182.81 177.94 180.38
0.0024 3 194.00 194.00 194.00
0.0028 3.5 205.06 207.48 205.06
0.0032 4 204.00 211.20 208.80
0.0036 4.5 193.39 205.33 202.94

179
BSH of LAT 2

Table 5l: 100% of LAT 2

SAMPLE STRAIN STRESS STRESS STRESS

DEFORMATION (%) TRIAL 1 TRIAL 2 TRIAL 3
(∆L) M (KN/M2) (KN/M2) (KN/M2)
0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.0001 0.125 4.99 7.49 4.99
0.0002 0.25 7.48 12.47 9.98
0.0003 0.375 12.45 17.43 14.94
0.0004 0.5 17.41 22.39 22.39
0.0005 0.625 22.36 24.84 27.33
0.0006 0.75 24.81 27.29 32.26
0.0007 0.875 27.26 29.74 37.17
0.0008 1 29.70 34.65 42.08
0.0009 1.125 32.13 39.55 44.49
0.001 1.25 34.56 44.44 49.38
0.0012 1.5 44.33 51.71 56.64
0.0014 1.75 49.13 56.49 61.41
0.0016 2 53.90 61.25 66.15
0.0018 2.25 65.98 68.43 70.87
0.002 2.5 73.13 75.56 78.00
0.0024 3 80.03 82.45 84.88
0.0028 3.5 96.50 86.85 91.68
0.0032 4 103.20 96.00 100.80
0.0036 4.5 119.38 107.44 109.83
0.004 5 137.75 118.75 118.75
0.0044 5.5 141.75 129.94 125.21
0.0048 6 145.70 141.00 138.65
0.0052 6.5 147.26 149.60 151.94
0.0056 7 151.13 151.13 151.13
0.006 7.5 150.31 152.63 150.31
0.0064 8 149.50 151.80 149.50
0.0068 8.5 137.25 148.69 144.11

180
Table 5m: 10% quarry dust

SAMPLE STRAIN STRESS STRESS STRESS

DEFORMATION (%) TRIAL 1 TRIAL 2 TRIAL 3
(∆L) M (KN/M2) (KN/M2) (KN/M2)
0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.0001 0.125 7.49 7.49 9.99
0.0002 0.25 12.47 12.47 14.96
0.0003 0.375 19.93 19.93 19.93
0.0004 0.5 24.88 24.88 24.88
0.0005 0.625 27.33 27.33 29.81
0.0006 0.75 29.78 32.26 34.74
0.0007 0.875 32.22 37.17 39.65
0.0008 1 34.65 42.08 44.55
0.0009 1.125 37.08 46.97 49.44
0.001 1.25 41.97 51.84 54.31
0.0012 1.5 49.25 56.64 61.56
0.0014 1.75 58.95 61.41 73.69
0.0016 2 68.60 71.05 83.30
0.0018 2.25 73.31 78.20 95.31
0.002 2.5 75.56 85.31 102.38
0.0024 3 87.30 94.58 113.98
0.0028 3.5 96.50 101.33 120.63
0.0032 4 108.00 112.80 127.20
0.0036 4.5 119.38 121.76 133.70
0.004 5 123.50 133.00 142.50
0.0044 5.5 129.94 141.75 148.84
0.0048 6 138.65 152.75 159.80
0.0052 6.5 140.25 163.63 165.96
0.0056 7 134.85 165.08 162.75
0.006 7.5 122.56 159.56 157.25

Table 5n: 20% of quarry dust

SAMPLE STRAIN STRESS STRESS STRESS

DEFORMATION (%) TRIAL 1 TRIAL 2 TRIAL 3
(∆L) M (KN/M2) (KN/M2) (KN/M2)
0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.0001 0.125 19.98 12.48 14.98

181
0.0002 0.25 24.94 22.44 19.95
0.0003 0.375 27.40 24.91 24.91
0.0004 0.5 29.85 32.34 29.85
0.0005 0.625 32.30 37.27 37.27
0.0006 0.75 34.74 42.18 44.66
0.0007 0.875 39.65 47.08 49.56
0.0008 1 44.55 49.50 54.45
0.0009 1.125 46.97 54.38 59.33
0.001 1.25 49.38 56.78 64.19
0.0012 1.5 54.18 64.03 71.41
0.0014 1.75 61.41 71.23 76.14
0.0016 2 71.05 78.40 83.30
0.0018 2.25 75.76 87.98 92.86
0.002 2.5 85.31 97.50 99.94
0.0024 3 104.28 109.13 106.70
0.0028 3.5 118.21 120.63 115.80
0.0032 4 124.80 127.20 122.40
0.0036 4.5 140.86 138.48 136.09
0.004 5 147.25 144.88 144.88
0.0044 5.5 165.38 163.01 155.93
0.0048 6 171.55 173.90 164.50
0.0052 6.5 177.65 179.99 172.98
0.0056 7 179.03 181.35 176.70
0.006 7.5 173.44 178.06 182.69
172.50 177.10

Table 5o: 30% of quarry dust

SAMPLE STRAIN STRESS STRESS STRESS

DEFORMATION (%) TRIAL 1 TRIAL 2 TRIAL 3
(∆L) M (KN/M2) (KN/M2) (KN/M2)
0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.0001 0.125 17.48 12.48 9.99
0.0002 0.25 24.94 19.95 22.44
0.0003 0.375 29.89 29.89 32.38
0.0004 0.5 44.78 42.29 47.26
0.0005 0.625 54.66 57.14 59.63
0.0006 0.75 69.48 66.99 71.96
0.0007 0.875 76.82 79.30 81.78
182
0.0008 1 99.00 94.05 99.00
0.0009 1.125 111.23 111.23 111.23
0.001 1.25 123.44 123.44 123.44
0.0012 1.5 152.68 147.75 150.21
0.0014 1.75 181.76 169.48 176.85
0.0016 2 220.50 196.00 215.60
0.0018 2.25 232.16 212.61 232.16
0.002 2.5 248.63 238.88 243.75
0.0024 3 261.90 254.63 257.05
0.0028 3.5 246.08 265.38 260.55
259.20 252.00

Table 5p: 50% of quarry dust

SAMPLE STRAIN STRESS STRESS STRESS

DEFORMATION (%) TRIAL 1 TRIAL 2 TRIAL 3
(∆L) M (KN/M2) (KN/M2) (KN/M2)
0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.0001 0.125 29.96 34.96 29.96
0.0002 0.25 57.36 59.85 62.34
0.0003 0.375 94.64 97.13 89.66
0.0004 0.5 124.38 119.40 119.40
0.0005 0.625 173.91 173.91 161.48
0.0006 0.75 223.31 228.28 218.35
0.0007 0.875 235.42 242.86 237.90
0.0008 1 247.50 254.93 252.45
0.0009 1.125 259.55 266.96 269.43
0.001 1.25 271.56 283.91 278.97
0.0012 1.5 320.13 332.44 307.81
0.0014 1.75 393.00 393.00 368.44
0.0016 2 399.35 404.25 401.80
0.0018 2.25 410.55 415.44 412.99
0.002 2.5 390.00 365.63 390.00
0.0024 3 291.00

183
Table 5q: 10% of sand

SAMPLE STRAIN STRESS STRESS STRESS

DEFORMATION (%) TRIAL 1 TRIAL 2 TRIAL 3
(∆L) M (KN/M2) (KN/M2) (KN/M2)
0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.0001 0.125 4.99 7.49 4.99
0.0002 0.25 7.48 9.98 12.47
0.0003 0.375 9.96 14.94 17.43
0.0004 0.5 14.93 19.90 22.39
0.0005 0.625 19.88 22.36 27.33
0.0006 0.75 22.33 24.81 32.26
0.0007 0.875 24.78 29.74 37.17
0.0008 1 27.23 32.18 42.08
0.0009 1.125 29.66 34.61 46.97
0.001 1.25 32.09 39.50 49.38
0.0012 1.5 36.94 46.79 56.64
0.0014 1.75 44.21 54.04 61.41
0.0016 2 49.00 58.80 66.15
0.0018 2.25 53.76 70.87 73.31
0.002 2.5 58.50 78.00 80.44
0.0024 3 72.75 89.73 87.30
0.0028 3.5 84.44 103.74 91.68
0.0032 4 96.00 120.00 100.80
0.0036 4.5 112.21 131.31 109.83
0.004 5 125.88 142.50 123.50
0.0044 5.5 141.75 153.56 137.03
0.0048 6 145.70 159.80 145.70
0.0052 6.5 151.94 163.63 154.28
0.0056 7 160.43 167.40 162.75
0.006 7.5 161.88 166.50 161.88
0.0064 8 161.00 163.30 161.00
0.0068 8.5 160.13 160.13 148.69
0.0072 9 147.88 152.43

184
Table 5r: 20% of sand

SAMPLE STRAIN STRESS STRESS STRESS

DEFORMATION (%) TRIAL 1 TRIAL 2 TRIAL 3
(∆L) M (KN/M2) (KN/M2) (KN/M2)
0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.0001 0.125 7.49 9.99 12.48
0.0002 0.25 17.46 19.95 17.46
0.0003 0.375 22.42 24.91 22.42
0.0004 0.5 24.88 29.85 27.36
0.0005 0.625 29.81 39.75 32.30
0.0006 0.75 42.18 47.14 39.70
0.0007 0.875 47.08 52.04 47.08
0.0008 1 49.50 56.93 54.45
0.0009 1.125 51.91 61.80 59.33
0.001 1.25 54.31 66.66 61.72
0.0012 1.5 64.03 73.88 68.95
0.0014 1.75 73.69 83.51 78.60
0.0016 2 78.40 90.65 88.20
0.0018 2.25 87.98 97.75 97.75
0.002 2.5 97.50 109.69 112.13
0.0024 3 118.83 121.25 133.38
0.0028 3.5 132.69 132.69 144.75
0.0032 4 156.00 151.20 156.00
0.0036 4.5 171.90 167.13 167.13
0.004 5 190.00 190.00 185.25
0.0044 5.5 210.26 207.90 196.09
0.0048 6 211.50 213.85 209.15
0.0052 6.5 210.38 212.71 210.38
0.0056 7 209.25 209.25 209.25
0.006 7.5 196.56 198.88 208.13

185
Table 5s: 20% of sand

SAMPLE STRAIN STRESS STRESS STRESS

DEFORMATION (%) TRIAL 1 TRIAL 2 TRIAL 3
(∆L) M (KN/M2) (KN/M2) (KN/M2)
0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.0001 0.125 4.99 9.99 9.99
0.0002 0.25 9.98 14.96 14.96
0.0003 0.375 14.94 19.93 19.93
0.0004 0.5 19.90 24.88 24.88
0.0005 0.625 24.84 29.81 29.81
0.0006 0.75 29.78 32.26 32.26
0.0007 0.875 32.22 37.17 37.17
0.0008 1 37.13 42.08 42.08
0.0009 1.125 44.49 46.97 46.97
0.001 1.25 49.38 49.38 49.38
0.0012 1.5 59.10 61.56 61.56
0.0014 1.75 66.32 68.78 68.78
0.0016 2 80.85 83.30 83.30
0.0018 2.25 90.42 97.75 97.75
0.002 2.5 107.25 112.13 112.13
0.0024 3 133.38 135.80 135.80
0.0028 3.5 168.88 176.11 176.11
0.0032 4 211.20 204.00 204.00
0.0036 4.5 226.81 214.88 214.88
0.004 5 237.50 225.63 225.63
0.0044 5.5 224.44 212.63 212.63

186
Table 5t: 40% sand

SAMPLE STRAIN STRESS STRESS STRESS

DEFORMATION (%) TRIAL 1 TRIAL 2 TRIAL 3
(∆L) M (KN/M2) (KN/M2) (KN/M2)
0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.0001 0.125 22.47 17.48 12.48
0.0002 0.25 27.43 29.93 22.44
0.0003 0.375 29.89 32.38 32.38
0.0004 0.5 32.34 37.31 37.31
0.0005 0.625 42.23 47.20 44.72
0.0006 0.75 74.44 74.44 62.03
0.0007 0.875 86.73 84.26 74.34
0.0008 1 99.00 99.00 86.63
0.0009 1.125 123.59 123.59 98.88
0.001 1.25 135.78 133.31 111.09
0.0012 1.5 177.30 172.38 140.36
0.0014 1.75 225.98 221.06 196.50
0.0016 2 264.60 257.25 220.50
0.0018 2.25 293.25 285.92 256.59
0.002 2.5 304.69 304.69 268.13
0.0024 3 298.28 310.40 278.88
0.0028 3.5 277.44 282.26 265.38

Table 5u : 50% of sand

SAMPLE STRAIN STRESS STRESS STRESS

DEFORMATION (%) TRIAL 1 TRIAL 2 TRIAL 3
(∆L) M (KN/M2) (KN/M2) (KN/M2)
0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.0001 0.125 19.98 14.98 12.48
0.0002 0.25 32.42 24.94 24.94
0.0003 0.375 39.85 37.36 37.36
0.0004 0.5 49.75 49.75 49.75
0.0005 0.625 62.11 62.11 62.11
0.0006 0.75 74.44 74.44 74.44
0.0007 0.875 81.78 86.73 84.26
0.0008 1 99.00 99.00 94.05
0.0009 1.125 111.23 113.71 108.76

187
0.001 1.25 123.44 123.44 118.50
0.0012 1.5 140.36 135.44 135.44
0.0014 1.75 147.38 147.38 152.29
0.0016 2 151.90 154.35 159.25
0.0018 2.25 151.51 153.96 158.84
0.002 2.5 151.13 153.56 156.00
0.0024 3 145.50 145.50
0.0028 3.5 132.69 137.51

TABLE 6a : 100% LAT 3 (BSL)

SAMPLE
STRESS STRESS STRESS
DEFORMATION
(∆L) M STRAIN TRIAL 1 TRIAL 2 TRIAL 2
(%) (KN/M2) (KN/M2) (KN/M2)
0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.0001 0.125 4.99 7.49 4.99
0.0002 0.25 24.94 19.95 22.44
0.0003 0.375 37.36 32.38 37.36
0.0004 0.5 49.75 49.75 44.78
0.0005 0.625 54.66 57.14 62.11
0.0006 0.75 74.44 69.48 74.44
0.0007 0.875 86.73 86.73 89.21
0.0008 1 99.00 99.00 96.53
0.0009 1.125 111.23 108.76 103.82
0.001 1.25 123.44 123.44 120.97
0.0012 1.5 147.75 147.75 147.75
0.0014 1.75 171.94 171.94 167.03
0.0016 2 196.00 196.00 220.50
0.0018 2.25 219.94 219.94 232.16
0.002 2.5 243.75 231.56 255.94
0.0024 3 266.75 254.63 266.75
0.0028 3.5 270.20 265.38 277.44
0.0032 4 264.00 268.80 252.00
0.0036 4.5 226.81 226.81 238.75
0.004 5 201.88 190.00 190.00

188
TABLE 6b: 10% sand

SAMPLE
STRESS STRESS STRESS
DEFORMATION
STRAIN TRIAL 1 TRIAL 2 TRIAL 3
(∆L) M
(%) (KN/M2) (KN/M2) (KN/M2)
0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.0001 0.125 17.48 14.98 17.48
0.0002 0.25 24.94 24.94 24.94
0.0003 0.375 29.89 32.38 32.38
0.0004 0.5 37.31 37.31 39.80
0.0005 0.625 44.72 42.23 47.20
0.0006 0.75 49.63 49.63 49.63
0.0007 0.875 54.52 54.52 54.52
0.0008 1 56.93 61.88 61.88
0.0009 1.125 61.80 66.74 69.21
0.001 1.25 74.06 74.06 74.06
0.0012 1.5 78.80 91.11 83.73
0.0014 1.75 93.34 98.25 93.34
0.0016 2 100.45 117.60 110.25
0.0018 2.25 109.97 127.08 122.19
0.002 2.5 121.88 138.94 131.63
0.0024 3 145.50 150.35 145.50
0.0028 3.5 168.88 161.64 159.23
0.0032 4 187.20 165.60 163.20
0.0036 4.5 167.13 155.19 167.13
0.004 147.25 144.88

Table 6c: 20% sand

SAMPLE
STRESS STRESS STRESS
DEFORMATION
STRAIN TRIAL 1 TRIAL 2 TRIAL 3
(∆L) M 2 2
(%) (KN/M ) (KN/M ) (KN/M2)
0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.0001 0.125 24.97 19.98 17.48
0.0002 0.25 29.93 24.94 24.94
0.0003 0.375 37.36 29.89 29.89
0.0004 0.5 49.75 37.31 37.31
0.0005 0.625 62.11 49.69 44.72
0.0006 0.75 74.44 52.11 52.11
0.0007 0.875 76.82 54.52 59.48
0.0008 1 79.20 61.88 69.30
189
0.0009 1.125 81.57 66.74 74.16
0.001 1.25 86.41 74.06 81.47
0.0012 1.5 93.58 88.65 91.11
0.0014 1.75 98.25 98.25 98.25
0.0016 2 102.90 102.90 107.80
0.0018 2.25 109.97 122.19 117.30
0.002 2.5 114.56 134.06 129.19
0.0024 3 116.40 140.65 140.65
0.0028 3.5 118.21 144.75 147.16
0.0032 4 96.00 127.20 141.60

Table 6d: 30% sand

SAMPLE
STRESS STRESS STRESS
DEFORMATION
(∆L) M STRAIN TRIAL 1 TRIAL 2 TRIAL 3
(%) (KN/M2) (KN/M2) (KN/M2)
0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.0001 0.125 9.99 14.98 19.98
0.0002 0.25 22.44 24.94 29.93
0.0003 0.375 32.38 34.87 37.36
0.0004 0.5 39.80 39.80 44.78
0.0005 0.625 49.69 44.72 49.69
0.0006 0.75 57.07 49.63 57.07
0.0007 0.875 61.95 69.39 66.91
0.0008 1 66.83 79.20 74.25
0.0009 1.125 69.21 86.52 81.57
0.001 1.25 74.06 98.75 86.41
0.0012 1.5 83.73 103.43 98.50
0.0014 1.75 93.34 117.90 110.53
0.0016 2 98.00 122.50 120.05
0.0018 2.25 109.97 129.52 127.08
0.002 2.5 121.88 134.06 129.19
0.0024 3 121.25 133.38 128.53
0.0028 3.5 120.63 127.86 127.86
0.0032 4 108.00 108.00 120.00

190
Table 6e: 40% sand

SAMPLE STRESS STRESS STRESS

DEFORMATION STRAIN TRIAL 1 TRIAL 2 TRIAL 3
(∆L) M (%) 2
(KN/M ) 2
(KN/M ) (KN/M2)
0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.0001 0.125 19.98 14.98 19.98
0.0002 0.25 24.94 24.94 27.43
0.0003 0.375 37.36 37.36 34.87
0.0004 0.5 49.75 44.78 44.78
0.0005 0.625 62.11 74.53 64.59
0.0006 0.75 66.99 79.40 71.96
0.0007 0.875 69.39 81.78 76.82
0.0008 1 74.25 86.63 84.15
0.0009 1.125 81.57 93.93 88.99
0.001 1.25 86.41 98.75 93.81
0.0012 1.5 91.11 103.43 98.50
0.0014 1.75 93.34 105.62 105.62
0.0016 2 98.00 110.25 105.35
0.0018 2.25 97.75 109.97 105.08
0.002 2.5 97.50 109.69 104.81
0.0024 3 97.00 97.00 97.00
0.0028 3.5 84.44 84.44 86.85

Table 6f: 50% sand

SAMPLE
STRESS STRESS STRESS
DEFORMATION
(∆L) M STRAIN TRIAL 1 TRIAL 2 TRIAL 3
(%) (KN/M2) (KN/M2) (KN/M2)
0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.0001 0.125 7.49 4.99 4.99
0.0002 0.25 19.95 12.47 17.46
0.0003 0.375 29.89 24.91 29.89
0.0004 0.5 37.31 37.31 34.83
0.0005 0.625 49.69 44.72 37.27
0.0006 0.75 52.11 49.63 42.18
0.0007 0.875 57.00 54.52 49.56
0.0008 1 59.40 61.88 51.98
191
0.0009 1.125 61.80 61.80 56.85
0.001 1.25 61.72 61.72 59.25
0.0012 1.5 61.56 61.56 61.56
0.0014 1.75 61.41 61.41 61.41
0.0016 2 61.25 58.80 61.25
0.0018 2.25 61.09 51.32 58.65
0.002 2.5 56.06 48.75 53.63

Table 6g: 10% quarry dust

SAMPLE
STRESS STRESS STRESS
DEFORMATION
STRAIN TRIAL 1 TRIAL 2 TRIAL 3
(∆L) M
(%) (KN/M2) (KN/M2) (KN/M2)
0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.0001 0.125 4.99 7.49 4.99
0.0002 0.25 12.47 14.96 12.47
0.0003 0.375 22.42 19.93 22.42
0.0004 0.5 37.31 42.29 37.31
0.0005 0.625 47.20 49.69 47.20
0.0006 0.75 52.11 54.59 54.59
0.0007 0.875 57.00 57.00 59.48
0.0008 1 59.40 61.88 61.88
0.0009 1.125 61.80 66.74 69.21
0.001 1.25 66.66 74.06 74.06
0.0012 1.5 73.88 98.50 86.19
0.0014 1.75 85.97 105.62 98.25
0.0016 2 98.00 117.60 110.25
0.0018 2.25 109.97 122.19 122.19
0.002 2.5 121.88 134.06 134.06
0.0024 3 145.50 145.50 140.65
0.0028 3.5 156.81 159.23 144.75
0.0032 4 165.60 168.00 148.80
0.0036 4.5 167.13 167.13 143.25
0.004 5 166.25 166.25 142.50
0.0044 5.5 141.75 141.75 129.94

192
Table 6h: 20% quarry dust

SAMPLE
STRESS STRESS STRESS
DEFORMATION
STRAIN TRIAL 1 TRIAL 2 TRIAL 3
(∆L) M
(%) (KN/M2) (KN/M2) (KN/M2)
0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.0001 0.125 9.99 7.49 12.48
0.0002 0.25 19.95 17.46 14.96
0.0003 0.375 29.89 34.87 22.42
0.0004 0.5 39.80 39.80 37.31
0.0005 0.625 49.69 44.72 49.69
0.0006 0.75 54.59 57.07 59.55
0.0007 0.875 59.48 61.95 69.39
0.0008 1 66.83 74.25 74.25
0.0009 1.125 71.68 86.52 79.10
0.001 1.25 74.06 98.75 86.41
0.0012 1.5 86.19 110.81 98.50
0.0014 1.75 98.25 122.81 110.53
0.0016 2 110.25 134.75 122.50
0.0018 2.25 122.19 139.29 141.74
0.002 2.5 134.06 146.25 153.56
0.0024 3 157.63 157.63 162.48
0.0028 3.5 168.88 168.88 176.11
0.0032 4 180.00 180.00 182.40
0.0036 4.5 186.23 183.84 188.61
0.004 5 190.00 178.13 175.75
0.0044 5.5 177.19

Table 6i: 30% quarry dust

SAMPLE
STRESS STRESS STRESS
DEFORMATION
(∆L) M STRAIN TRIAL 1 TRIAL 2 TRIAL 3
2 2
(%) (KN/M ) (KN/M ) (KN/M2)
0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.0001 0.125 12.48 9.99 17.48
0.0002 0.25 24.94 22.44 24.94
0.0003 0.375 39.85 37.36 37.36
0.0004 0.5 52.24 49.75 44.78
0.0005 0.625 62.11 57.14 52.17

193
0.0006 0.75 69.48 62.03 62.03
0.0007 0.875 74.34 66.91 66.91
0.0008 1 84.15 74.25 71.78
0.0009 1.125 91.46 84.04 79.10
0.001 1.25 98.75 91.34 86.41
0.0012 1.5 110.81 98.50 98.50
0.0014 1.75 117.90 108.08 110.53
0.0016 2 129.85 120.05 117.60
0.0018 2.25 139.29 122.19 127.08
0.002 2.5 146.25 134.06 138.94
0.0024 3 157.63 145.50 152.78
0.0028 3.5 168.88 156.81 164.05
0.0032 4 180.00 168.00 175.20
0.0036 4.5 191.00 183.84 191.00
0.004 5 180.50 171.00 182.88

Table 6j: 40% quarry dust

SAMPLE
STRESS STRESS STRESS
DEFORMATION
STRAIN TRIAL 1 TRIAL 2 TRIAL 3
(∆L) M
(%) (KN/M2) (KN/M2) (KN/M2)
0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.0001 0.125 9.99 7.49 12.48
0.0002 0.25 19.95 14.96 22.44
0.0003 0.375 24.91 24.91 32.38
0.0004 0.5 29.85 37.31 44.78
0.0005 0.625 37.27 49.69 57.14
0.0006 0.75 44.66 57.07 64.51
0.0007 0.875 49.56 64.43 74.34
0.0008 1 56.93 74.25 81.68
0.0009 1.125 66.74 86.52 93.93
0.001 1.25 74.06 98.75 106.16
0.0012 1.5 86.19 123.13 123.13
0.0014 1.75 98.25 147.38 147.38
0.0016 2 122.50 171.50 178.85
0.0018 2.25 146.63 183.28 193.06
0.002 2.5 170.63 195.00 199.88
0.0024 3 181.88 203.70 210.98
0.0028 3.5 193.00 214.71 217.13
194
0.0032 4 204.00 204.00 208.80
0.0036 4.5 191.00 179.06 191.00

Table 6k: 50% quarry dust

SAMPLE
STRESS STRESS STRESS
DEFORMATION
(∆L) M STRAIN TRIAL 1 TRIAL 2 TRIAL 3
(%) (KN/M2) (KN/M2) (KN/M2)
0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.0001 0.125 19.98 17.48 12.48
0.0002 0.25 24.94 27.43 29.93
0.0003 0.375 49.81 52.30 52.30
0.0004 0.5 74.63 74.63 74.63
0.0005 0.625 99.38 86.95 94.41
0.0006 0.75 106.69 94.29 106.69
0.0007 0.875 118.95 104.08 116.47
0.0008 1 123.75 121.28 123.75
0.0009 1.125 135.95 123.59 128.54
0.001 1.25 148.13 148.13 135.78
0.0012 1.5 155.14 155.14 140.36
0.0014 1.75 164.57 162.11 144.92
0.0016 2 169.05 166.60 151.90
0.0018 2.25 171.06 171.06 153.96
0.002 2.5 170.63 173.06 158.44
0.0024 3 145.50 152.78 145.50

Table 6L 100% LAT 3 (BSH)

SAMPLE STRESS STRESS STRESS

DEFORMATION TRIAL TRIAL TRIAL
(∆L) M STRAIN 1 2 3
(%) (KN/M2) (KN/M2) (KN/M2)
0 0 0 0 0
0.0001 0.125 29.96 24.97 29.96
0.0002 0.25 44.89 37.41 44.89
0.0003 0.375 52.3 62.27 57.28
0.0004 0.5 62.19 87.06 74.63
0.0005 0.625 99.38 124.22 99.38
195
0.0006 0.75 124.06 223.31 173.69
0.0007 0.875 173.47 322.16 247.81
0.0008 1 247.5 371.25 321.75
0.0009 1.125 333.7 444.94 395.5
0.001 1.25 395 493.75 469.06
0.0012 1.5 541.75 591 566.38
0.0014 1.75 614.06 618.98 618.98
0.0016 2 588 612.5 612.5
0.0018 2.25 537.63 562.06 537.63

Table 6m: 10% sand

SAMPLE STRESS STRESS STRESS

DEFORMATION TRIAL TRIAL TRIAL
(∆L) M STRAIN 1 2 3
(%) (KN/M2) (KN/M2) (KN/M2)
0 0 0 0 0
0.0001 0.125 44.94 37.45 42.45
0.0002 0.25 74.81 67.33 69.83
0.0003 0.375 99.63 97.13 89.66
0.0004 0.5 111.94 109.45 106.96
0.0005 0.625 136.64 134.16 131.67
0.0006 0.75 148.88 148.88 143.91
0.0007 0.875 161.08 163.56 153.64
0.0008 1 173.25 175.73 170.78
0.0009 1.125 197.75 197.75 192.81
0.001 1.25 246.88 251.81 234.53
0.0012 1.5 320.13 320.13 307.81
0.0014 1.75 368.44 368.44 343.88
0.0016 2 416.5 416.5 392
0.0018 2.25 444.76 439.88 427.66
0.002 2.5 438.75 426.56 414.38
0.0024 3 278.88 266.75 291

196
Table 6n: 20% sand

SAMPLE STRESS STRESS STRESS

DEFORMATION TRIAL TRIAL TRIAL
(∆L) M STRAIN 1 2 3
(%) (KN/M2) (KN/M2) (KN/M2)
0 0 0 0 0
0.0001 0.125 49.94 44.94 49.94
0.0002 0.25 74.81 74.81 74.81
0.0003 0.375 99.63 92.15 94.64
0.0004 0.5 124.38 119.4 116.91
0.0005 0.625 149.06 149.06 149.06
0.0006 0.75 173.69 171.21 171.21
0.0007 0.875 198.25 193.29 188.34
0.0008 1 222.75 222.75 222.75
0.0009 1.125 247.19 247.19 242.24
0.001 1.25 296.25 296.25 296.25
0.0012 1.5 327.51 332.44 334.9
0.0014 1.75 368.44 375.81 373.35
0.0016 2 367.5 367.5 367.5
0.0018 2.25 317.69 366.56 354.34
0.002 2.5 243.75 316.88 316.88

Table 6o: 30% sand

SAMPLE STRESS STRESS STRESS

DEFORMATION TRIAL TRIAL TRIAL
(∆L) M STRAIN 1 2 3
(%) (KN/M2) (KN/M2) (KN/M2)
0 0 0 0 0
0.0001 0.125 24.97 19.98 24.97
0.0002 0.25 29.93 24.94 32.42
0.0003 0.375 37.36 34.87 37.36
0.0004 0.5 49.75 44.78 47.26
0.0005 0.625 74.53 64.59 69.56
0.0006 0.75 81.88 74.44 79.4
0.0007 0.875 99.13 91.69 99.13
0.0008 1 123.75 101.48 123.75
0.0009 1.125 131.01 121.12 133.48
0.001 1.25 148.13 135.78 148.13

197
0.0012 1.5 184.69 147.75 172.38
0.0014 1.75 218.61 179.31 191.59
0.0016 2 220.5 208.25 208.25
0.0018 2.25 219.94 219.94 217.49
0.002 2.5 216.94 219.38 216.94
0.0024 3 169.75 213.4 210.98

Table 6p: 40% sand

SAMPLE STRESS STRESS STRESS

DEFORMATION TRIAL TRIAL TRIAL
(∆L) M STRAIN 1 2 3
(%) (KN/M2) (KN/M2) (KN/M2)
0 0 0 0 0
0.0001 0.125 17.48 12.48 14.98
0.0002 0.25 22.44 19.95 22.44
0.0003 0.375 32.38 24.91 29.89
0.0004 0.5 42.29 37.31 39.8
0.0005 0.625 49.69 47.2 49.69
0.0006 0.75 62.03 57.07 66.99
0.0007 0.875 74.34 66.91 69.39
0.0008 1 81.68 74.25 81.68
0.0009 1.125 93.93 81.57 91.46
0.001 1.25 103.69 86.41 98.75
0.0012 1.5 135.44 118.2 130.51
0.0014 1.75 147.38 135.09 147.38
0.0016 2 156.8 147 159.25
0.0018 2.25 171.06 158.84 171.06
0.002 2.5 173.06 170.63 173.06
0.0024 3 172.18 174.6 172.18
0.0028 3.5 168.88 173.7 166.46

198
Table 6q: 50% SAND

SAMPLE STRESS
DEFORMATION TRIAL STRESS STRESS
(∆L) M STRAIN 1 TRIAL 2 TRIAL 3
(%) (KN/M2) (KN/M2) (KN/M2)
0 0 0 0 0
0.0001 0.125 9.99 12.48 12.48
0.0002 0.25 22.44 17.46 19.95
0.0003 0.375 32.38 24.91 29.89
0.0004 0.5 42.29 34.83 37.31
0.0005 0.625 54.66 44.72 44.72
0.0006 0.75 66.99 57.07 54.59
0.0007 0.875 84.26 69.39 64.43
0.0008 1 94.05 81.68 74.25
0.0009 1.125 103.82 91.46 84.04
0.001 1.25 111.09 98.75 91.34
0.0012 1.5 123.13 123.13 118.2
0.0014 1.75 125.27 135.09 130.18
0.0016 2 124.95 134.75 129.85
0.0018 2.25 124.63 134.41 129.52
0.002 2.5 119.44 129.19 129.19
0.0024 126.1

Table 6r: 10% quarry

SAMPLE STRESS STRESS

DEFORMATION TRIAL STRESS TRIAL
(∆L) M STRAIN 1 TRIAL 2 3
(%) (KN/M2) (KN/M2) (KN/M2)
0 0 0 0 0
0.0001 0.125 49.94 37.45 29.96
0.0002 0.25 54.86 49.88 54.86
0.0003 0.375 124.53 112.08 99.63
0.0004 0.5 174.13 161.69 149.25
0.0005 0.625 248.44 223.59 198.75
0.0006 0.75 297.75 297.75 260.53
0.0007 0.875 346.94 371.72 322.16
0.0008 1 396 420.75 371.25
0.0009 1.125 444.94 457.3 444.94
0.001 1.25 469.06 481.41 493.75
0.0012 1.5 492.5 504.81 517.13
199
0.0014 1.75 498.62 503.53 510.9
0.0016 2 494.9 497.35 490
0.0018 2.25 483.86 488.75
0.002 2.5 463.13

Table 6s: 20% quarry

SAMPLE STRESS STRESS STRESS

DEFORMATION TRIAL TRIAL TRIAL
(∆L) M STRAIN 1 2 3
(%) (KN/M2) (KN/M2) (KN/M2)
0 0 0 0 0
0.0001 0.125 22.47 29.96 17.48
0.0002 0.25 37.41 49.88 44.89
0.0003 0.375 49.81 62.27 64.76
0.0004 0.5 69.65 74.63 87.06
0.0005 0.625 99.38 99.38 116.77
0.0006 0.75 124.06 136.47 148.88
0.0007 0.875 148.69 161.08 168.51
0.0008 1 173.25 198 202.95
0.0009 1.125 222.47 222.47 239.77
0.001 1.25 246.88 259.22 271.56
0.0012 1.5 344.75 320.13 344.75
0.0014 1.75 405.28 368.44 417.56
0.0016 2 441 441 490
0.0018 2.25 464.31 513.19 537.63
0.002 2.5 450.94 548.44 548.44
0.0024 3 388 540.78 533.5

Table 6t: 30% quarry

SAMPLE STRESS STRESS STRESS

DEFORMATION TRIAL TRIAL TRIAL
(∆L) M STRAIN 1 2 3
(%) (KN/M2) (KN/M2) (KN/M2)
0 0 0 0 0
0.0001 0.125 24.97 24.97 29.96
0.0002 0.25 49.88 49.88 64.84
0.0003 0.375 74.72 74.72 99.63
0.0004 0.5 94.53 87.06 119.4

200
0.0005 0.625 124.22 111.8 139.13
0.0006 0.75 143.91 148.88 173.69
0.0007 0.875 173.47 193.29 198.25
0.0008 1 222.75 222.75 247.5
0.0009 1.125 271.91 284.27 271.91
0.001 1.25 320.94 320.94 320.94
0.0012 1.5 418.63 413.7 443.25
0.0014 1.75 540.38 515.81 540.38
0.0016 2 624.75 612.5 637
0.0018 2.25 635.38 647.59 654.93
2.5 585 609.38 621.56

Table 6u: 40% quarry

SAMPLE STRESS STRESS STRESS

DEFORMATION TRIAL TRIAL TRIAL
(∆L) M STRAIN 1 2 3
(%) (KN/M2) (KN/M2) (KN/M2)
0 0 0 0 0
0.0001 0.125 29.96 24.97 37.45
0.0002 0.25 49.88 54.86 57.36
0.0003 0.375 84.68 87.17 89.66
0.0004 0.5 124.38 109.45 111.94
0.0005 0.625 178.88 151.55 149.06
0.0006 0.75 235.72 181.13 193.54
0.0007 0.875 252.77 223.03 227.99
0.0008 1 321.75 272.25 272.25
0.0009 1.125 375.73 321.34 313.93
0.001 1.25 407.34 357.97 345.63
0.0012 1.5 541.75 467.88 480.19
0.0014 1.75 614.06 552.66 564.94
0.0016 2 673.75 649.25 656.6
0.0018 2.25 659.81 610.94 635.38

201
Table 6v: 50% quarry

SAMPLE STRESS STRESS STRESS

DEFORMATION TRIAL TRIAL TRIAL
(∆L) M STRAIN 1 2 3
(%) (KN/M2) (KN/M2) (KN/M2)
0 0 0 0 0
0.0001 0.125 29.96 32.46 24.97
0.0002 0.25 49.88 54.86 54.86
0.0003 0.375 74.72 89.66 84.68
0.0004 0.5 111.94 109.45 106.96
0.0005 0.625 149.06 141.61 136.64
0.0006 0.75 186.09 173.69 166.24
0.0007 0.875 205.68 215.6 198.25
0.0008 1 247.5 247.5 225.23
0.0009 1.125 276.85 296.63 257.08
0.001 1.25 313.53 335.75 283.91
0.0012 1.5 394 418.63 394
0.0014 1.75 461.78 564.94 523.18
0.0016 2 539 637 607.6
0.0018 2.25 630.49 647.59 635.38
0.002 2.5 611.81 633.75 609.38

Table 7a: UCS (BSL)

% of UCS OF UCS OF UCS UCS OF UCS OF UCS OF

ADMIXTURE SAND QUARRY SAND QUARRY SAND QUARRY
(LAT 1) (LAT 2) (LAT 2) (LAT 2) (LAT 3) (LAT 3)
(KN/M2) (KN/M2) (KN/M2) (KN/M2) (KN/M2) (KN/M2)

0 617.32 617.32 171.05 171.05 272.15 272.15

10 298.19 437.43 176.4 172.19 173.31 161.31
20 255.54 372.53 186.77 171.25 136.7 180.8
30 210.41 219.31 120.63 169.39 128.38 188.61
40 224.74 260.77 120.63 172.8 104.62 211.94
50 132 246.4 98.56 207.11 61.69 167.71

202
Table 7b: UCS (BSH)

% of UCS OF UCS OF UCS UCS OF UCS OF UCS OF

ADMIXTURE SAND QUARRY SAND QUARRY SAND QUARRY
(LAT 1) (LAT 2) (LAT 2) (LAT 2) (LAT 3) (LAT 3)
(KN/M2) (KN/M2) (KN/M2) (KN/M2) (KN/M2) (KN/M2)

0 366 366 151.9 151.9 617.34 617.34

10 475 702 164.01 157.09 437.43 506.85
20 635 538.21 211.91 157.62 372.53 520.39
30 476.91 413.69 233.34 262.61 219.31 645.96
40 444.07 412 296.06 446.33 173.57 659.86
50 233.58 398.06 155.17 412.99 130.18 637.82

Table 7c: absorbed energy (BSL)

% of ABSORBE ABSORBE ABSORBE ABSORBE ABSORBE ABSORBE

ADMIXTUR D ENERGY D ENERGY D ENERGY D ENERGY D ENERGY D ENERGY
E OF SAND OF OF SAND OF OF SAND OF
(LAT 1) QUARRY (LAT 2) QUARRY (LAT 3) QUARRY
(KJ/M2) (LAT 1) (KJ/M2) (LAT 2) (KJ/M2) (LAT 3)
(KJ/M2) (KJ/M2) (KJ/M2)

0 9.87 9.87 21.18 21.18 6.17 6.17

10 5.405 9.16 10.35 8.566 4.07 5.6
20 6.69 8.33 6.83 8.19 3.18 5.68
30 7.08 7.361 2.42 7.48 2.15 5.43
40 3.89 7.93 2.77 6.45 1.51 4.613
50 2.38 5.98 1.88 2.453 0.42 2.97

203
Table 7d: absorbed energy (BSH)

% of ABSORBE ABSORBE ABSORBE ABSORBE ABSORBE ABSORBE

ADMIXTUR D ENERGY D ENERGY D ENERGY D ENERGY D ENERGY D ENERGY
E OF SAND OF OF SAND OF OF SAND OF
(LAT 1) QUARRY (LAT 2) QUARRY (LAT 3) QUARRY
(KJ/M2) (LAT 1) (KJ/M2) (LAT 2) (KJ/M2) (LAT 3)
(KJ/M2) (KJ/M2) (KJ/M2)

0 13.13 13.13 6.49 6.49 5.2 5.2

10 15.47 12.32 6.56 6.12 5.62 5.2
20 11.35 13.26 7.01 7.22 3.85 5.3
30 7.38 10.4 5.79 5.98 3.53 6.81
40 3.49 8.77 4.46 5.7 3.33 6.94
50 2.13 8.59 2.07 5.57 1.49 6.7

204