Major Design of Experiment (DoE) Experience Information

CE 510 Foundation Engineering

Summer, SY 2019-2020

Chang, Christine Danielle

Culala, Mark Christian
Flores, Arby Jay
Group Members
Fortaleza, Jas Jesse
Gabucay, Jane Lucien
Geronimo, Joshua
Design Experiment on Drinking Straws as an Alternate Geosynthetic
DoE Title
Reinforcement using California Bearing Ratio Test

This DoE aims to:

1) Conduct an experiment with the use California Bearing Ratio Test in
determining the effect of drinking straw as an alternate geosyntethic
Design Experimental reinforcement.
Objectives
2) Develop a conclusion and recommendation regarding the result of the
design experiment.
3) Discuss the effect of softdrink straw to the properties of soil.
Input Factors
Natural Soil
Drinking Straw
Output Responses
CBR?
Design Statistical-
Based Analysis and
Interpretation

Note: choose a statistical tool for the analysis of data

Testing Standards
(If Applicable)
American Society of ASTM D698 uses a 4-inch-diameter (100 mm) mould which holds 1/30 cubic
Testing and Materials feet of soil, and calls for compaction of three separate lifts of soil using 25
blows by a 5.5 lb hammer falling 12 inches, for a compactive effort of 12,400
(ASTM)
ft-lbf/ft.
American Association of AAHSTO T99 uses mould given a size with a 2.5-kg (5.5-lb) hammer dropped
State Highway and from a height of 305 mm (12 in.). Method A-A 101.60-mm (4-in.) mold: Soil
Transportation Officials material passing a 4.75-mm (No. 4) sieve
(AASHTO)
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. GENERAL BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................................ 5
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................ 5
BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY ....................................................................................................................... 5
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY........................................................................................................................ 6
SCOPE AND DELIMITATION ............................................................................................................................ 6
II. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN OBJECTIVES ................................................................................................. 7
III. EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM................................................................................................................... 7
FRAMEWORK ............................................................................................................................................... 7
ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITATIONS ................................................................................................................... 8
HYPOTHESIS ............................................................................................................................................... 8
DEFINITION OF TERMS .................................................................................................................................. 8
ACRONYMS ................................................................................................................................................. 9
IV. PROCEDURE .......................................................................................................................................... 9
PROJECT DESIGN ........................................................................................................................................ 9
EXPERIMENTAL RESEARCH ......................................................................................................................... 10
DATA COLLECTION PROCEDURE ................................................................................................................. 10
OPERATING TESTING ................................................................................................................................. 11
MATERIALS ............................................................................................................................................... 17
V. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS.............................................................................................................. 19
ANALYSIS .................................................................................................................................................. 19
INTERPRETATION ....................................................................................................................................... 22
CALIFORNIA BEARING RATIO ....................................................................................................................... 22
 Design of Experiment (DoE)

entitled

Design Experiment on Drinking Straws as an Alternate Geosynthetic Reinforcement using

California Bearing Ratio Test

Chang, Christine Danielle

Culala, Mark Christian
Flores, Jas Jesse
Fortaleza, Jas Jesse
Gabucay, Jane Lucien
Geronimo, Joshua

Technological Institute of the Philippines

Cubao, Quezon City

MAY 2019
I. GENERAL BACKGROUND

Introduction

Soil reinforcement has been around for ages. It is a

technique used to improve the stiffness and strength of
the soil using geo – engineering method. Soil
reinforcement is necessary for lands that where
chances of erosion are high. It is particularly useful in
areas with soft soil, as it cannot provide adequate
support to any construction or building. In soil
reinforcement, different techniques are used to
enhance the natural stability and strength of soil. One
product that is available is geogrids.

Geogrids can be categorized as geosynthetic materials Figure 1.1 Drinking Straws

that are used in the construction industry. The Figure 1.1 shows the geogrid’s rib formation.
application of geogrid in construction is due to the fact
that it is good in tension and has a higher ability to distribute the load across a large area. Geosynthetic
material are polymeric material which are formed by means of intersecting grids. Just like drinking straw
which is made of polypropylene, a type of polymer that is used in wide variety of application. A plastic straw
is something that comes with most beverages. Though may look small, when its usage added up, creates a
problem with the environment. It is one of the country’s top pollutants of canals, rivers and other waterways.
Most of these buoyant materials end up in the open seas. According to a released report a few years ago,
the Ocean Conservancy singled out the Philippines as one of five countries where majority of plastics
originates. Drinking straws are single – use plastic. Once they are used, they are just thrown away. These
drinking straws can remain in the environment for up to 2,000 years and longer.

Background of the Study

When designing and constructing a superstructure’s foundation, the enhancement of soft ground conditions
can often eliminate the need for a deep foundation. Geogrids are commonly used to reinforce retaining
walls, as well as subbases or subsoil below roads or structures. The reinforcement adds significant strength
to the soil and prevents it from failing. It allows the soil to handle additional weight by holding the soil
together. They are in the form of open grids so that soil can strike through the apertures and the two
materials interlock together to give composite behavior. Geogrid are materials that yield excellent result. It
has effectively solved problems of soil mass like, bearing capacity, failure of slopes, erosion control,
landslip repair and others.

There are several materials that can be used as soil reinforcement that can improve the strength
characteristics of soil. Main areas of research nowadays revolve around how construction business can be
made cost effective and reliable with no compromise on strength. Using waste materials can solve
problems in constructions sites and reduce environmental problems. Depending on the properties of the
waste, it can be used in different areas of civil engineering. Among these waste materials, the design team
made use of drinking straw as soil reinforcement.

Plastic has many valuable uses, half of all the plastic produced is designed to be used only once then
thrown away. Plastic straw, which is made out of polypropylene, has been used as a filler in thermoplastic
building materials, Lakshmipathy et.al. (2003), have done experimental investigations to study the suitability
of the use of Re-engineered plastics as fibers for road pavements, the results have shown that the
improvement of concrete properties at lower cost is obtained with Re-engineered plastic shred reinforced
concrete. Chandrakaran (2004) has explained a laboratory experimental study carried out to utilize waste
plastics (in the form of strips) obtained from milk pouches in the pavement construction. Results of the
study indicate that by adding plastic strips in the soil, shear strength, tensile strength and CBR values of the
soil increases. There has been much research that showed improvement in using plastic as construction
material.

In this experiment, drinking straw will be used as soil reinforcement to improve the strength characteristic of
the soil sample.

Significance of the Study

This study will be beneficial not only to the people but also to the environment as one of the major inputs in
the design experiment is the use of solid waste material, drinking straw.

 To the Civil Engineering Students. This study will help them to widen their knowledge about the
use of drinking straw as soil reinforcement. This will also help them gain information about the
effect of drinking straw on the mechanical strength of subgrade soil.
 To the Engineers. This study will help Engineers to think of cost effective possible soil
reinforcement and consider drinking straw as one of their choices.
 To the Future Researchers. This study will provide information regarding the effect of drinking
straw to the mechanical strength of subgrade soil.

Scope and Delimitation

The design project covers the use of drinking straws. It will be used as a reinforcement material to the soil.
We are to limit the test up to 2 to 4 layers of reinforced soil samples. The research will also be limited on
evaluating the effect of drinking straw to the characteristics of soil.

The test covers only the strength and soil property. The test was conducted at the Soil Mechanics
Laboratory of the Technological Institute of the Philippines, Quezon City.
II. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN OBJECTIVES

This DoE aims to:

1) Conduct experiments on the effect of drinking straw as soil reinforcement.
2) Develop a design of drinking straw as reinforcement to subgrade soil.
3) Discuss the effect of drinking straw on the behavior of soil.

III. EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM

Framework

Figure 3.1 Research Paradigm

The figure shows the conceptual framework of the design experiment wherein the input is consisting of soil
sample and drinking straw as an Alternate Geosynthetic Reinforcement. The researcher wanted to test the
effect of drinking straw as soil stabilizer.
On the other hand, the process of gathering of soil sample, and gathering weaving drinking straws are
essential in completing the experiment. Afterwards, sieving and compacting soil with the weaved drinking
straw to give the soil higher resistance and greater stability. Finally, performing the California Bearing Ratio
Test to evaluate the strength of sub grade soil, sub base, and base course material for design thickness.

Assumptions and Limitations

Hypothesis
Definition of Terms

ATTERBERG LIMITS
 It is a basic measure of the critical water content of fine-grained soils. These tests include
shrinkage limit, plastic limit, and liquid limit, which are outlined in ASTM D4943. Depending on the
water content of a soil, it may appear in four states: solid, semi-solid, plastic and liquid.

DRINKING STRAW
 A thin hollow tube of paper or plastic for sucking drink from a glass or bottle.

GEO-GRID
 Is geosynthetic material used to reinforce soils and similar materials. Geogrids are commonly used
to reinforce retaining walls, as well as subbases or subsoil below roads or structures. Soils pull
apart under tension. Compared to soil, geogrids are strong in tension.

GEOSYNTHETIC
 Are synthetic products used to stabilize terrain. They are generally polymeric products used to
solve civil engineering problems.

CALIFORNIA BEARING RATIO TEST

 It is a simple strength test that compares the bearing capacity of a material with that of a well-
graded crushed stone (thus, a high quality crushed stone material should have a CBR @ 100%). It
is primarily intended for, but not limited to, evaluating the strength of cohesive materials having
maximum particle sizes less than 19 mm (0.75 in.).

LIQUID LIMIT TEST

 Defined in ASTM Standard D4318, determines the water content at which the behavior of a clayey
soil changes from plastic to liquid. Liquid Limit can be determined using the Casagrande cup
 method, which is widely used in the United States or with a cone penetrometer, which is more
prevalent in Europe.

MOISTURE CONENT
 Also known as water content is defined as quantity of water that exists in the soil mass. It can
either represent the naturally present or water which is manually added.

PLASTIC LIMIT TEST

 Is a test that involves rolling out a thread of the fine portion of a soil on a flat, non-porous surface.
The procedure is defined in ASTM Standard D4318. If the soil is at moisture content where its
behavior is plastic, this thread will retain its shape down to a very narrow diameter. The sample can
then be remolded and the test repeated. As the moisture content falls due to evaporation, the
thread will begin to break apart at larger diameters. The plastic limit is defined as the moisture
content where the thread breaks apart at a diameter of 3.2 mm (about 1/8 inch). A soil is
considered non-plastic if a thread cannot be rolled out down to 3.2 mm at any moisture possible.

SIEVE ANALYSIS
 Is an analytical technique used to determine the particle size distribution of a granular material with
macroscopic granular sizes.

SOIL
 Often called the Skin of the Earth, is a mixture of decaying organic matter (humus), minerals,
liquids, and many countless living organisms. Soil covering the Earth is a medium for plant growth
and a means of water storage.

STABILITY
 Ability of a substance to remain unchanged over time under stated or reasonably expected
conditions of storage and use.

Acronyms

IV. PROCEDURE

Project Design
The drinking straws were prepared by cutting it into half and arranged horizontally and vertically to form a
grid. Drinking straws were then put into layers of the soil and will be then tested using California bearing
ratio to determine its effects on the soil. Drinking straws were the main component to be used as the design
experiment of stabilizing soil.
The soil properties; unit weight, water content, and the atterberg limits, was obtained in order to determine
how the drinking straw affects the stabilization and behavior of the soil. In order to interpret the effects of
drinking straw as geo-grid, the process of California Bearing Ratio Test.
Experimental Research

The design experiment is composed of the following procedures:

1. Determination of Water Content of the Soil Sample

Wwet soil - Wdry soil

WC = (100%)
Wdry soil

Where:
WC – Water Content in Percent (%)
Wwet soil – Weight of the Wet Soil Sample (g)
Wdry soil – Weight of the Dry Soil Sample (g)

2. Determination of Unit Weight of the Soil Sample

Density of Paraffin = 0.90

WParaffin = Wsoil coated with paraffin - Wuncoated soil

Weightsoil g kg
Wet density of Soil = (units in ⁄cc or ⁄ 3 )
Volumesoil m

3. Determination of Atterberg Limits

4. Determination of soil particle size
5. Preparation of Soil sample without the drinking straw.
6. Preparation of Soil Sample with drinking straw with layers 1-2-3-4, 1-3 and, 2-4 of drinking straws.
7. Testing of all Soil Sample (including control sample) using the CBR Test Machine

Data Collection Procedure

The laboratory test enumerated below will be done and the results will be used for this design experiment.
The results will act as the basis if the drinking straw is an effective geo-grid.
1. Preparation of Soil Sample
2. Determination of Water Content through Oven Drying Method
3. Determination of Unit Weight of Soil through the utilization of Paraffin Wax
4. Determination of the Soil’s Atterberg Limits (Liquid Limit and Plastic Limit)
5. Determination of the Soil’s Particle size.
6. Preparation of Soil Samples with the mixture of drinking straw in different layers
7. Testing of Soil Samples using the CBR Testing Machine

Operating Testing

To collect the necessary data, the following procedures and laboratory tests were conducted:
1. Water Content Determination
a. Weigh a tin cup including its cover; identify the cover and its lid. Determine the weight of
the tin cup.
b. Place a representative sample of wet soil in the cup. Determine the weight of wet soil and
tin cup.
c. Place the sample in the oven for at least 3 hours.
d. When the sample has dried to constant weight, obtain the weight of cup and dry soil.
e. Compute the water content. The difference between the weight of wet soil plus the cup
(Wwet soil) and the weight of dry soil plus the cup (Wdry soil) is the weight of water (Ww).
Compute the weight of dry soil (Wdry soil).
f. To determine the water content (WC)

Ww
WC = (100%)
Wdry soil

g. Repeat until three (3) trial are achieved. Determine the average water content of the soil.

Unit Weight Determination

h. Trim a sample of soil to about 1 ½ inches diameter and 2 to 3 inches long. Surface should
be smooth and rounded. Weigh to up to the nearest 0.1 gram.
i. Cover with a thin coating of paraffin and weigh again. Compute the volume of paraffin from
weight of paraffin. The specific gravity of paraffin is about 0.9.
j. Immerse the coated sample in water in the graduated cylinder and determine its
displacement. The volume of the sample is the volume of the water displaced minus the
volume of the paraffin.
k. Compute the unit weight in grams/cu. Cm.
Calculations:
The volume of the paraffin is equal to the weight of paraffin used to coat the soil sample divided by the
density of paraffin. Density of paraffin is 0.90.

WParaffin =Wsoil coated with paraffin - Wuncoated soil

The volume of the paraffin-coated sample is equal to the weight in air minus the weigh in water (express
the weight in grams).

Weightsoil g kg
Wet density of Soil = (units in ⁄cc or ⁄ 3 )
Volumesoil m

2. Atterberg Limits Determination

Liquid Limit Test

a. Prepare at least 300g of representative air-dry soil sample using the no. 40 sieve. Pulverize
this soil sample. Be sure to break all lumps to elemental particles.
b. Prepare at least 3 moisture tin cans. Mix the prepared sample with a small amount of water.
Mix the sample of soil thoroughly until it becomes uniform and consistent in appearance (no
lumps). A major source of error is poor mixing.
c. On the liquid limit device cup, place an amount of soil. Smooth the pat surface. Using the
grooving tool, cut a groove in the middle.
d. Fasten the brass cup to the hinge of the liquid limit device.
e. Using the 1cm block at the end of the grooving tool, adjust the height of the fall to exactly 1
centimeter. Height of fall is very critical and as little as 0.1cm can affect the liquid limit by
several percent.
f. Prepare 3 different consistencies of soil based on the number of blows in the liquid limit device:
25-35, 20-30, and 15-25 blows. This is done carefully by adding water to the soil.
g. Mix the soil sample until the consistency would require 25-35 blows to close the groove for
about 12.5 min. Take moisture content near the groove using 50g of soil to determine the
moisture content by placing in the oven. Keep the temperature at 105 °C.
h. Add additional water to test the remaining consistencies of soil. Repeat procedure (g).
i. Draw the flow curve wherein the data is recorded with the water content in the domain and the
log N in the abscissa. The water content that would require 25 blows to close the groove is the
liquid limit of the sample.

Plastic Limit Test

a. Take a sample of about 100 grams. Start rolling the soil between the finger and the glass plate
with adequate pressure to form a soil thread approximately 3mm with 80-90 strokes per
minute, when the diameter of the threads of soil becomes 3mm, break the threads in smaller
 pieces, reform into a ball and re-roll. Continue this re-balling and re-rolling until the threads
crumble under pressure and soil can no longer be rolled into threads.
b. When the thread crumbles at a diameter greater than 3mm, this is satisfactory to define the
plastic limit.
c. Placed the crumbled soil in a tin can until a weight of about 50 grams is achieved. Do this until
two (2) samples are achieved. Place it in an oven to over dry. Maintain the temperature at 105
°C.
d. After determining the moisture content, determine its average. The result is the plastic limit of
the soil.

Shrinkage Limit Test

a. Weigh the shrinkage dish (Wsd). Fill the shrinkage dish with water and weigh again (Wsd+water).
Determine the volume (V) by getting the difference of Wsd+water and Wsd and divide it by the unit
weight of water.

(Wsd+water - Wsd )
V= ⁄γ
w

b. Grease the inside surface of the shrinkage dish. Place a small portion of the soil pat and
carefully tap the dish to allow the soil pat to flow at the edges. Repeat again until the whole
shrinkage dish is filled. Strike of the excess soil using a straight edge. Record the mass of the
soil and dish.
c. Allow the soil to dry into the air until its color turns from dark to light. Oven dry the sample to
the oven kept at 105 °C. Record the mass of the soil and shrinkage dish. Determine the weight
of the dry soil (mdry). Determine its moisture content.
d. Securely tie the soil pat in a sewing thread. Immerse the soil in molten wax. Allow the wax
coating to cool. Determine the mass of the soil with wax (mdry+wax). Determine the mass of the
wax (mwax). Determine its volume by dividing the mass with the unit weight of the wax (Vwax).

(mdry+wax - mdry )
Vwax =
γmax

e. Using a spring balance, determine the mass of the soil and wax in air (mswa). Immerse the soil
and wax in water and determine its mass in water (msww). Determine the volume of the wax
and soil using the formula:

(mswa - msww )
Vsoil+wax =
γw
 f. Determine the dry volume of soil (Vd) by the difference of the Vsoil+wax and Vwax.
g. Calculate the shrinkage limit of the soil using the formula:

(V - Vd )ρw
SL = w -
ms

Sieve Analysis

1. Each group will obtain exactly 500g of oven-dry soil from the bag of stock material. Use sampling
or sampling splitter.
2. If the samples contain appreciable gravel, very few fines or if at the discretion of the instructor,
washing is to be omitted. Otherwise place the test sample on the no. 200 sieve and wash the
material through the sieve using the tap water until the water is clear.
3. Carefully pour the residue, using the back washing, into a large weighed dish and let it sit for a
short period of time until the top of the suspension becomes clear. Then, place the dish and
remaining soil-water suspension in the oven for drying.
4. On the following day, weigh the oven-dry residue. (Omit this step if you do not wash). Then run
your sample through a stack of sieves from top down.
5. Place the stacks of sieves in a mechanical sieves shaker (if available) and sieve for 5 to 10
minutes until the top few sieves can be removed from the stack. If there is no mechanical shaker,
shake by hand for about 10 minutes. Do not shake in a defined pattern.
6. Remove the stack of sieves from the shaker and obtain the weight of material remaining on each
sieve. Sum these weights and compare with original. Loss of weights should not exceed 2%,
otherwise repeat the sieve test.
7. Compute the percent retained on each sieve by dividing the weight on each sieve to the original
sample weight Ws.
8. Compute the percent passing or percent finer by starting with 100 percent and subtracting the
percent retained on each sieve as a cumulative procedure.
9. Prepare a logarithmic log of percent finer versus grain size.
Note:
• If less than 12% of the soil sample passes the number 200 sieve, compute Cc and Cu and
show in the logarithmic graph.
• If more than 12% of the soil sample passes the number 200 sieve, conduct a hydrometer
analysis.

Calculation:
Cum. % retained = Total mass retained from largest sieve to current sieve/ Total mass of sample
% finer = 100% - Cum. Mass retained

Compaction Test

1. Weigh the empty mold.

2. Obtain a 6 lb. representative specimen of the soil sample to be tested. Break sample with the use
of rubber pestle and pass through No. 4 sieve.
 3. Form a 2 to 3 inch layer using the soil passing though No. 4 sieve.
4. Press soil until it is smooth and compact it with a specific number of evenly distributed blows of the
hammer, using a one-foot drop. Rotate the hammer to ensure a uniform distribution of blows.
5. Repeat the same procedure for the second and third layers seeing to it that a uniform distribution of
blows.
6. After compaction of the third layer the soil should be slightly above the top rim of the mold.
7. Remove the collar and trim off the soil from the top of the mold. Tart trimming along the center and
work towards end of the mold.
8. After the soil has been made even with the top of the mold and all base soil cleaned from the
outside, weigh the cylinder sample to 10 lb.
9. Remove the soil from cylinder and obtain a representative sample of 50gm for a water content
determination. The water content sample should be made up with specimens from the top, middle
and bottom of the compacted soil.
10. Break up by hand then removed from the cylinder and remix with the original sample and raise its
water content by 3% by adding water to the sample with sprayer. Mix the soil thoroughly. By
weighing the sprayer before and after the spraying, the amount of water added is known.
11. Keep repeating the procedures for 5 to six times until soil is sticky. Use 3% approximate water
content.
12. Compute dry density of each sample and plot the compaction curve. Determine the Optimum
Moisture Content of the sample.

California Bearing Ratio Test

Sample Preparation:

1. Air-dry and pulverize approximately 100 Ib of material, screen through a ¾” inch sieve, weigh the
material retained and discard this material. Replace the wasted material with an equal weight of
material passing the ¾” inch sieve and retained on the ¼ inch sieve.
2. Determine the optimum moisture content of the material using the modified AASHO Method (see
Compaction Test) with the following exceptions.
a. Use ¾ inch maximum size material instead of the ¼ inch material.
b. Use the CBR compaction mold (with 2 inch spacer disk in bottom) instead of the 1/30 cu ft
mold
c. Compact material with 55 blows per layer instead of 25
d. Compact in 5 layers instead of 3 layers. The compacted specimen should consist of 5 one-
inch layers
e. Use fresh material for each compaction sample instead of pulverizing and recompacting
the same material
3. Conduct the control compaction test with a sufficient number of specimens to definitely establish
the optimum moisture (water), content for 100 percent of modified AASCO density. At least 4 to 5
specimens should be compacted with water contents within plus or minus 2 percent of the optimum
moisture content so that the optimum condition can be rigidly established.
Note: Height of fall of the hammer must be carefully controlled and the blows
uniformly distributed over the specimen
 4. Upon establishing the optimum moisture content, mix about 30Ibs (13.64 kg) of the air-dried
material with enough water to bring the moisture content to the optimum value determined in step
(2) and (3). Cover the material with a damp cloth to prevent the loss of moisture while preparing the
specimens.
5. Number and weigh the three CBR molds and attach extension collars and base plates. Insert one
of the 2” (250 mm) spacer disks on the base plate of each mold and place a 6 inches (150 mm)
diameter filter paper or wire mesh on top of each disks.
6. Compact the soil- water mixture into the CBR mold in accordance with the procedures stated in
step 2 and 3 and Compaction Test of previous experiment

Note:

1. Prior to compaction of the soil mass, take a representative sample of 20 to 50 gm of soil

samples from the top and bottom layers of each mold for water content determination.
2. Remove the extension collar and carefully trim the compacted soil. Even with the top of the
mold by means of a straight edge or knife, patch with smaller size material any holes that
may have developed in the surface by the removal of coarse material. Remove the weight
of the mold and compacted soil.
3. Place a disk of filter paper or wire mesh on the base plate, invert the mold and compacted
soil, and clamp the base plate to the mold with the compacted soil in contact with the filter
paper. The sample is now ready for soaking.

A. Swell Test:

To simulate field conditions, the specimen is soaked under a surcharge weight that is equivalent to the
weight produced by the soil, base, or pavement, which will overlie the material in the completed structure.
Three inches of overlying material is assumed equal to 5 Ib (2.27 kg) surcharge load on the sample, the
total surcharge weight shall not be less than 100 Ib (4.54 kg)

1. Place the adjustable stem and perforated plate on the compacted soil specimen in the mold and
apply weight to produce a surcharge equal to the weight specified or required. In addition, place
the portable tripod with gage (dial extensometer) on the rim of the mold and mark its location.
Adjust stem of perforated plate, record the initial dial reading and remove the tripod with gage.
2. Immerse the specimen in the water tank in four days (96 hrs) by maintaining a constant water level
during this period. Each day during the soaking period, place the tripod clamp on the mold in its
marked location and record the dial reading and time.
3. After soaking period, remove the mold from the water, hold the surcharge weight and perforated
plate firmly in place, and pour the excess water from the surface and then let the specimen drain in
a vertical position for 15 minutes. Remove the surcharge weight, perforated plate and filter paper or
wire mesh, and weigh
4. Calculate the percentage of water absorbed by the specimen and the swell in percent of the initial
height
B. California Bearing Ratio Test:
1. Place the surcharge load (weights) directly on the sample and center it under the penetration
piston in the loading apparatus and bring the penetration piston in contact with the soil through the
annular surcharge weight. Adjust the diameter gage for measuring the penetration so that its stem
bears on the rim of the mold and record the initial reading.
2. Apply the load smoothly so rate of penetration is 0.05 inch (n 1.27 mm) per minute. Check the rate
of load application by using a stopwatch. Record the load readings at penetrations 0.025 (0.64
mm), 0.050 (1.27 mm), 0.075, (1.91 mm), 0.100 (2.54 mm), 0.125 (3.18 mm), 0.150 (3.81 mm),
0.175 (4.45 mm). 0.200 (5.05 mm), 0.300 (7.62 mm), 0.400 (10.16 mm) and 0.500 inch (12.70 mm)

Note: For manually operated loading machine, it may be necessary to take load readings
at closer intervals to control the rate of penetration.
3. Release the load, remove the mold from the loading machine, and remove surcharge weight and
base plate. Take 20-50 grams for moisture content from top and bottom of the specimen and
record.

Materials

The following are the materials used in the experiment.

Spatula - a broad, flat, flexible blade used to mix, spread

and lift material including foods, drugs, plaster and paints.

Casagrande liquid limit device - This apparatus is used

to determine the moisture content at which clay soils pass from a
plastic to a liquid state.
 Sieve - a device for separating wanted elements from unwanted
material or for characterizing the particle size distribution of a sample,
typically using a woven screen such as a mesh or net or metal.

Laboratory Oven - ovens for high-forced volume thermal convection

applications. These ovens generally provide uniform temperatures
throughout.

Scoop - It is a utensil resembling a spoon, with a long handle and a

deep bowl, used for removing powdered, granulated, or semisolid
substances (such as ice cream) from a container.

Compaction mold and hammer – Moulds and rammers are used

to determine the connection between the density and moisture
content of compacted soil. The moulds are made of plated steel and
are supplied complete with a collar, mould body and base plate.
Rammers are made of plated steel and are used to compact the soil
sample in the compaction mould.
 Electronic weighing scale - A weighing scale (or weighing
balance) is a device to measure weight or mass.

V. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

This section present the results, analysis, and interpretation of data gathered during the
performance measure. The analysis of data identifies logical relationships between dependent and
independent variable in each test in the design experiment with the help of graphs and charts, while the
interpretation of data gives a thorough explanation and prediction of the analysis of output response.

This study is conducted to produce an alternative to stabilize the soil with the help of coconut fiber.
Laboratory tests and methods were done in the soil alone and soil with additives. The tests conducted are
as follows: Sieve Analysis, Moisture Content Determination, and Atterberg limits. As for the soil with
additives of chestnut shells, the laboratory test conducted is Direct Shear Test.

Analysis

The data that gathered enabled the researchers to answer the specific problems stated in Chapter I, are
presented in this chapter. The presentation, analysis and interpretations are likewise done on this data,
which served as the basis for the conclusion.

Table 5-1 Moisture Content Determination of Soil alone

Description Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3

Wt of tin cup(Wc) 12 g 11 g 7g
Wt of tin cup + wet
35 g 37 g 34 g
soil(Wc+ws)
Wt of tin cup + dry
29 g 30 g 31 g
soil(Wc+ds)
Wt of water (Ww) 6g 7g 3g
Wt of dry soil(Wds) 17 g 16 g 24 g
Moisture content (w%) 35.29% 43.75% 12.5%
Average 30.51%

Moisture Content Determination

50
45
40
35
30
Shear Strenght

25
20
15
10
5
0
1 2 3

Figure 5-1. Flow Curve

Figure 5-1 Shows the result in determination of the Moisture Content of the Soil Sample. The researcher
made 3 trial and get its Average Moisture Content.

Table 5-2 Unit Weight Determination of Soil Alone

Wt of soil(Ws) 200 g Wt of paraffin(Wp) 11 g

Wt of soil and
211 g Vol. of paraffin(Vp) 10 cm3
paraffin(Ws+p)
Vol. of soil + paraffin
451 cm3 Vol. of soil(Vs) 434 cm3
(Vs+p)
Unit Weight (γ) 4.522 KN/m3

Table 5-2 Shows the Unit Weight Determination of the Soil Sample by making 200g of cylindrical Soil
Sample and cover it with paraffin, after that the sample will submerge into graduated cylinder with water
and the change of water level will be its volume.
Table 5-3 Determination of the Liquid Limit
 Determination of the Liquid Limit
Description Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3
Range 15-25 20-30 25-35
No. of Blows 25 28 34
Wt. of tin cup (WC) 13 14 14
Wt. of tin cup + Wet Soil 20 27 24
(Wc+ws)
Wt. of tin cup + Dry Soil 19 23 22
(Wc+dc)
Wt. of water (Ww) 1 4 2
Wt. of dry soil (Wds) 7 7 8
Water Content (ω) 14.29 57.14 25
Liquid Limit 14.29

Table 5-3 Shows the Determination of Liquid Limit of the Soil Sample using Liquid Limit test. The
researcher made 3 trial with different No. of Blow and different moisture content. After that the researcher
average the results and that’s the liquid limit of the soil sample.
Table 5-4 Determination of Plastic Limit

Determination of the Plastic Limit

Description Sample 1 Sample 2
Wt of tin cup (Wc) 13 14
Wt. of tin cup + Wet Soil (Wc+ws) 26 24
Wt. of tin cup + Dry Soil (Wc+dc) 23 21
Wt. of water (Ww) 3 3
Wt. of dry soil (Wds) 10 7
Water Content (ω) 30 42.86
Plastic Limit (Average) 36.43

Table 5-4 Shows the Determination of Plastic Limit of the Soil Sample. The researcher made 2 trial and get
the average result of plastic limit test.

Table 5-5 Sieve Analysis of Coarse-Grain Soil

Sieve Analysis of Coarse-grained Soil

Sieve No. Mass retained Cumulative Mass Percent Finer
Retained
3/8 55g 11.02% 88.98%
12 48g 20.64% 79.36%
16 95g 39.68% 60.32%
30 133g 66.33% 33.67%
 50 87g 83.77% 16.23%
60 53g 94.39% 5.61%
80 16g 97.60% 2.4%
100 12g 100% 0%
200 0g
Pan 0g
Total 499

Table 5-5 Shows the Sieve Analysis of Coarse-Grain Soil, using different sieve no, the design tabulated the
mass retained and computed the cumulative retained and percent finer of the soil sample.

Table 5-6 Determination of Optimum Moisture Content using Compaction

Determination of Optimum Moisture Content using Compaction

Description Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3
Weight of mold 4068g 4068g 4068g
Weight of mold + 6606g 6720g 6571g
compacted soil
Weight of compacted 2538g 2652g 2503g
soil
Volume of mold 0.07905m3 0.07905m3 0.07905m3
Wet Unit Weight 32.11kg/m3 33.55kg/m3 31.66kg/m3
Wt of tin cup 14g 14g 14g
Wt of tin cup + Wet soil 27g 27g 27g
Wt of water 3g 4g 3g
Wt of dry soil 10g 11g 10g
Water content 30% 40% 30%
Dry unit weight 94.49kN/m3 131.64kN/m3 93.19kN/m3
Optimum Moisture 33.33%
Content

Interpretation
California Bearing Ratio

A California Bearing Ratio test is a penetration test meant for the evaluation of subgrade strength of roads
and pavements. The results obtained by these tests are used with the empirical curves to determine the
thickness of pavement and its component layers. This is the most widely used method for the design of
flexible pavement.
The advantages of the California Bearing Ratio test are it is correlated to service behavior and construction
methods and has been successfully used for many years, the CBR method adapts more quickly to airfield
pavement design for immediate use than any other method and it can test soil with simple, portable
equipment.

FIRST SAMPLE: Specimen without reinforcement

Experiment: Soil Sample only

Description of Sample: Moist brown in color
Sample at: Ampid, San Mateo, Rizal
CONDITION OF SAMPLE:

( / ) SOAKED ( ) UNSOAKED

Water Content = 9.83%

Table 5-7 Tabulated Result (Soil Sample only)

PENETRATION LOAD AREA OF UNIT LOAD IN

NUMBER PENETRATION
inch mm lbf KN. Piston psi Mpa
0.025 0.64 166.359 0.74 1134.114948 mm2 94.565 0.652
0.050 1.27 334.965 1.49 1134.114948 mm2 190.580 1.314
0.075 1.91 391.168 1.74 1134.114948 mm2 222.488 1.534
0.100 2.54 458.610 2.04 1134.114948 mm2 260.923 1.799
0.125 3.18 557.526 2.48 1134.114948 mm2 317.198 2.187
0.150 3.81 692.412 3.08 1134.114948 mm2 393.923 2.716
0.175 4.45 804.816 3.58 1134.114948 mm2 457.885 3.157
0.200 5.08 894.740 3.98 1134.114948 mm2 508.938 3.509
0.300 7.62 1072.339 4.77 1134.114948 mm2 610.030 4.206
0.400 10.16 1229.705 5.47 1134.114948 mm2 699.518 4.823
0.500 12.7 1398.312 6.22 1134.114948 mm2 795.388 5.484

Proving ring number: WF6450

The standard unit load obtained from the average of a large number of tests on different crushed stones
and are as follows:
Table 5-8 Standard Unit Load

Penetration (in) mm Unit load (psi) MPa

(0.1) 2.5 (1000) 6.895
(0.2) 5.0 (1500) 10.342
 (0.3)7.5 (1900) 13.100
(0.4) 10.0 (2300) 15.858
(0.5) 12.5 (2600) 17.926
Table 5-9 CBR Values

Penetration CBR (%)

(mm)
2.5 9.46
5 12.71
7.5 11.71
10 11.34
12.5 12.20
Ave. 11.48

CBR-Value (Soil Sample Only)

14
12.71
12 12.2
11.71
11.34
10
9.46
8

0
1 2 3 4 5

Figure 5-2 CBR Value Graph

Based on the experiment of the researcher using CBR test, the soil sample only can withstand up to
6.22kN and a stress of 5.484MPa. As seen in the figure, the CBR Value based on the unit load over
standard unit load has a maximum capacity of 12.71% and the average CBR value of the soil sample is
11.48%.
SECOND SAMPLE: Specimen with reinforcement in 1st and 3rd layer

Experiment: Soil Sample only

Description of Sample: Moist brown in color
Sample at: Ampid, San Mateo, Rizal
CONDITION OF SAMPLE:

( / ) SOAKED ( ) UNSOAKED

Water Content = 12.71%

Table 5-7 Tabulated Result (Soil Sample only)

PENETRATION LOAD AREA OF UNIT LOAD IN

NUMBER PENETRATION
inch mm lbf KN. Piston psi Mpa
0.025 0.64 89.024 0.396 1134.114948 mm2 50.618 0.349
0.050 1.27 148.374 0.660 1134.114948 mm2 84.412 0.582
0.075 1.91 197.832 0.880 1134.114948 mm2 112.549 0.776
0.100 2.54 227.507 1.012 1134.114948 mm2 129.374 0.892
0.125 3.18 296.748 1.320 1134.114948 mm2 168.824 1.164
0.150 3.81 326.423 1.452 1134.114948 mm2 185.649 1.280
0.175 4.45 365.989 1.628 1134.114948 mm2 208.130 1.435
0.200 5.08 385.772 1.716 1134.114948 mm2 219.442 1.513
0.300 7.62 593.496 2.64 1134.114948 mm2 337.648 2.328
0.400 10.16 741.870 3.300 1134.114948 mm2 422.061 2.910
0.500 12.7 791.328 3.520 1134.114948 mm2 450.198 3.104

Proving ring number: WF6450

The standard unit load obtained from the average of a large number of tests on different crushed stones
and are as follows:
Table 5-8 Standard Unit Load

Penetration (in) mm Unit load (psi) MPa

(0.1) 2.5 (1000) 6.895
(0.2) 5.0 (1500) 10.342
(0.3)7.5 (1900) 13.100
(0.4) 10.0 (2300) 15.858
(0.5) 12.5 (2600) 17.926
Table 5-9 CBR Values
 Penetration CBR (%)
(mm)
2.5 10.11
5 13.12
7.5 13.45
10 12.15
12.5 12.23
Ave. 12.21

CBR-Value (Soil Sample Only)

16

14
13.12 13.45
12 12.15 12.23

10 10.11

0
1 2 3 4 5

Figure 5-2 CBR Value Graph

THIRD SAMPLE: Specimen with reinforcement in 2nd and 4th layer

Experiment: Soil Sample only

Description of Sample: Moist brown in color
Sample at: Ampid, San Mateo, Rizal
CONDITION OF SAMPLE:

( / ) SOAKED ( ) UNSOAKED

Water Content = 11.43%

Table 5-7 Tabulated Result (Soil Sample only)

PENETRATION LOAD AREA OF UNIT LOAD IN

NUMBER PENETRATION
inch mm lbf KN. Piston psi Mpa
0.025 0.64 93.296 0.415 1134.114948 mm2 53.084 0.366
0.050 1.27 161.862 0.720 1134.114948 mm2 92.099 0.635
0.075 1.91 201.204 0.895 1134.114948 mm2 114.435 0.789
0.100 2.54 255.383 1.136 1134.114948 mm2 145.328 1.002
0.125 3.18 325.973 1.450 1134.114948 mm2 185.504 1.279
0.150 3.81 356.772 1.587 1134.114948 mm2 202.908 1.399
0.175 4.45 400.610 1.782 1134.114948 mm2 227.855 1.571
0.200 5.08 429.610 1.911 1134.114948 mm2 244.389 1.685
0.300 7.62 665.435 2.960 1134.114948 mm2 378.549 2.610
0.400 10.16 885.747 3.940 1134.114948 mm2 503.862 3.474
0.500 12.7 1071.665 4.767 1134.114948 mm2 609.595 4.203

Proving ring number: WF6450

The standard unit load obtained from the average of a large number of tests on different crushed stones
and are as follows:
Table 5-8 Standard Unit Load

Penetration (in) mm Unit load (psi) MPa

(0.1) 2.5 (1000) 6.895
(0.2) 5.0 (1500) 10.342
(0.3)7.5 (1900) 13.100
(0.4) 10.0 (2300) 15.858
(0.5) 12.5 (2600) 17.926
Table 5-9 CBR Values
 Penetration CBR (%)
(mm)
2.5 11.92
5 12.45
7.5 12.14
10 11.21
12.5 11.15
Ave. 11.88

CBR-Value (Soil Sample Only)

13

12.5 12.45

12.14
12
11.92

11.5

11.21 11.15
11

10.5
1 2 3 4 5

Figure 5-2 CBR Value Graph

FOURTH SAMPLE: Specimen with reinforcement in 1st, 2nd ,3rd and 4th layer

Experiment: Soil Sample only

Description of Sample: Moist brown in color
Sample at: Ampid, San Mateo, Rizal
CONDITION OF SAMPLE:

( / ) SOAKED ( ) UNSOAKED

Water Content = 12.17%

Table 5-7 Tabulated Result (Soil Sample only)

PENETRATION LOAD AREA OF UNIT LOAD IN

NUMBER PENETRATION
inch mm lbf KN. Piston psi Mpa
0.025 0.64 124.994 0.556 1134.114948 mm2 71.069 0.490
0.050 1.27 183.894 0.818 1134.114948 mm2 104.572 0.721
0.075 1.91 207.499 0.923 1134.114948 mm2 118.061 0.814
0.100 2.54 296.073 1.317 1134.114948 mm2 168.389 1.161
0.125 3.18 342.384 1.523 1134.114948 mm2 194.786 1.343
0.150 3.81 358.795 1.596 1134.114948 mm2 204.068 1.407
0.175 4.45 425.563 1.893 1134.114948 mm2 242.068 1.669
0.200 5.08 437.254 1.945 1134.114948 mm2 248.740 1.715
0.300 7.62 707.924 3.149 1134.114948 mm2 402.771 2.777
0.400 10.16 956.787 4.256 1134.114948 mm2 544.328 3.753
0.500 12.7 1321.652 5.879 1134.114948 mm2 751.877 5.184

Proving ring number: WF6450

The standard unit load obtained from the average of a large number of tests on different crushed stones
and are as follows:
Table 5-8 Standard Unit Load

Penetration (in) mm Unit load (psi) MPa

(0.1) 2.5 (1000) 6.895
(0.2) 5.0 (1500) 10.342
(0.3)7.5 (1900) 13.100
(0.4) 10.0 (2300) 15.858
(0.5) 12.5 (2600) 17.926
Table 5-9 CBR Values
 Penetration CBR (%)
(mm)
2.5 8.43
5 10.71
7.5 11.21
10 10.43
12.5 10.24
Ave. 10.20

CBR-Value (Soil Sample Only)

12
11.21
10.71 10.43
10 10.24

8.43
8

0
1 2 3 4 5

Figure 5-2 CBR Value Graph