7/24/2019 SOFT SOIL BEHAVIOUR DUE TO EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION USING DIFFERENT CONSTITUTIVE MODELS
1/161
2556
7/24/2019 SOFT SOIL BEHAVIOUR DUE TO EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION USING DIFFERENT CONSTITUTIVE MODELS
2/161
(.. )
(. . )()
(. . )
(... . )
7/24/2019 SOFT SOIL BEHAVIOUR DUE TO EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION USING DIFFERENT CONSTITUTIVE MODELS
3/161
: (COMPACTIONCHARACTERISTICS AND CBR OF SUBGRADE SOILS) :.
2038 200
2556
7/24/2019 SOFT SOIL BEHAVIOUR DUE TO EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION USING DIFFERENT CONSTITUTIVE MODELS
4/161
SATIT CHINON
: COMPACTION CHARACTERISTICS AND CBR OF
SUBGRADE SOILS.ADVISOR: PROF. SUKSUN HORPIBULSUK, Ph.D.,
P.E.
This research studieslaboratory and field compaction characteristics and CBR
values of subgrade soils. The gradation of the studied soils are in agreement with a
stanadrd of the Deparatment of Highways. The laboratory studies of compaction
characteristics and CBR values were performed by collecting test data from the Khon
Kaen Road Construction Center, Department of Highways, Thailand. The field
studies were perfomed at a construction project on highway route No. 2038, Ban
Muangmai, Poohweng District, Khon Kaen. The laboratory studies show that the dry
unit weight and CBR can be estimated from the basic properties, including the
percentage of soil passing sieve No. 200 and the liquid limit. The field studies on
compaction at optimum water content show that the dry unit weight and CBR increase
significantly with increasing the number of roller passes. Relationships between field
dry unit weight and field CBR versus number of rolloer passes are represented by
logarithm functions until the field dry unit weight reaches laboratory maximum dry
unit weight. An analysis of both laboratory and field studies leads to an effective field
compaction method and construction control.
School of Civil Engineering Students Signature___________________
Academic Year 2013 Advisors Signature___________________
7/24/2019 SOFT SOIL BEHAVIOUR DUE TO EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION USING DIFFERENT CONSTITUTIVE MODELS
5/161
. .
.
7/24/2019 SOFT SOIL BEHAVIOUR DUE TO EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION USING DIFFERENT CONSTITUTIVE MODELS
6/161
1 11.1 11.2 21.3 31.4 3
2
42.1 42.2 Proctor (1930) 72.3 Hogentogler (1936) 82.4 Buchanan (1942) 102.5 Hilf (1956) 112.6 Lambe (1985) 122.7
(compaction curve) 132.7.1 152.7.2 15
2.8 182.9 202.10 232.11 242.12
(embankment : Material) (..102/2532) 37
7/24/2019 SOFT SOIL BEHAVIOUR DUE TO EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION USING DIFFERENT CONSTITUTIVE MODELS
7/161
2.13 (Subbase) (..205/2532) 382.14
(.,204/2516)( AASHO T27-70) 392.14.1 392.14.2 402.14.3 412.14.4 422.14.5 42
2.15
LiquidLimit : L.L.)(.,102/2515)( AASHTO T 89) 452.15.1 452.15.2 452.15.3 492.15.4 492.15.5 49
2.16
Plastic Limit (PL) Plasticity Index (PI) (..103/2515) ( AASHTO T 90) 532.16.1 532.16.2 532.16.3 552.16.4 552.16.5 55
2.17
Compaction Test (..107/2517)( AASHTO T99) 552.17.1 552.17.2 562.17.3 612.17.4 622.17.5 62
2.18
7/24/2019 SOFT SOIL BEHAVIOUR DUE TO EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION USING DIFFERENT CONSTITUTIVE MODELS
8/161
(.-. 603/2517)( AASHTO T191) 662.18.1 662.18.2 662.18.3 732.18.4 782.18.5 79
2.19 ... (C.B.R.) (..109/2517) 852.19.1 85
2.19.2
852.19.3 962.19.4 982.19.5 98
2.20 CBR (Field CBR) (.-. 602/2517)( U.S. Corps of Engineers) 1062.20.1 106
2.20.2
1062.20.3 1112.20.4 1122.20.5 1122.20.6 113
2.21 1163 120
3.1
1203.2 1203.3 1203.4 (field density test)
Sand Cone Method 1213.5 121
4 124
4.1
124
7/24/2019 SOFT SOIL BEHAVIOUR DUE TO EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION USING DIFFERENT CONSTITUTIVE MODELS
9/161
4.2 1254.3 1264.4 1344.5 1394.6 142
5 144 145 147
7/24/2019 SOFT SOIL BEHAVIOUR DUE TO EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION USING DIFFERENT CONSTITUTIVE MODELS
10/161
2.1 392.2 404.1
32 1284.2 135
7/24/2019 SOFT SOIL BEHAVIOUR DUE TO EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION USING DIFFERENT CONSTITUTIVE MODELS
11/161
2.1 72.2 82.3
Hogentogler 92.4
Buchanan 112.5 Hilf 122.6 132.7 (compaction curve) 142.8 162.9
(Hopibulsuk et al., 2005) 16
2.10 (Johnson and Sallberg. 1960) 182.11
(Horpibulsuk et al., 2004) 19
2.12 Siburua (Lambe, 1962) 212.13
(b) (,2545) 21
2.14 -(2545) 22
2.15 - 232.16 Ohio( Joslin, 1959) 252.17 (Nagaraj et al., 2006) 252.18 (a) 272.18 (b)
(Horpibulsuk et al., 2008a) 27
7/24/2019 SOFT SOIL BEHAVIOUR DUE TO EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION USING DIFFERENT CONSTITUTIVE MODELS
12/161
2.19 (a) 282.19 (b)
(Horpibulsuk et al., 2009a) 282.20 A
d Aw (Horpibulsuk et al., 2008a) 292.21 B
d Bw (Horpibulsuk et al., 2008a) 302.22
(Horpibulsuk et al., 2009a) 312.23
( Proctor, 1948) (Horpibulsuk et al., 2008a) 332.24 Red earth
( US Army Crops of Engineers, 1970) (Horpibulsuk et al., 2008a) 332.25
( Turnbull and Foster, 1956) (Horpibulsuk et al., 2008a) 342.26
( Horpibulsuk et al., 2004c) (Horpibulsuk et al., 2009a) 34
2.27 ( Ruenkrairergsa, 1982) (Horpibulsuk et al., 2009a) 352.28 Ohio 296.3
(Horpibulsuk et al., 2008a) 35
2.29 Ohio1346.6(Horpibulsuk et al., 2008a) 36
2.30 Ohio 2693.3
(Horpibulsuk et al., 2008a) 36
2.31 Machanical Liquid Limit Device 51
2.32 (Liquid Limit) 512.33 Cylindrical Mold,101.6 mm. 63
2.34 Cylindrical Mold,152.5 mm. 63
2.35 822.36 Laboratory Loading Machine 101
2.37 CBR 102
7/24/2019 SOFT SOIL BEHAVIOUR DUE TO EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION USING DIFFERENT CONSTITUTIVE MODELS
13/161
2.38 Field CBR () 1142.39 (pneumatic-tired roller) 1162.40 (vibrating roller) 1172.41 a)
(Johnson and Sallberg. 1960) 117
2.41 b)(DAppolonia et al., 1969) 118
2.42 75%
5 1193.1 1223.2 1233.3 1234.1 200
1294.2 200
1304.3 1304.4 200 1314.5
1334.6
133
4.7 1344.8
1364.9
1374.10
138
4.11 139
7/24/2019 SOFT SOIL BEHAVIOUR DUE TO EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION USING DIFFERENT CONSTITUTIVE MODELS
14/161
4.12 141
4.13 142
7/24/2019 SOFT SOIL BEHAVIOUR DUE TO EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION USING DIFFERENT CONSTITUTIVE MODELS
15/161
1
1
1.1
(Optimum moisture content,OMC)
(Maximum dry unit weight , ,maxd )
95 -3OMC +3OMC (Kneading)
( Sand Cone Method)
7/24/2019 SOFT SOIL BEHAVIOUR DUE TO EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION USING DIFFERENT CONSTITUTIVE MODELS
16/161
2
California Bearing Ratio (CBR) CBR (Test Unit Load) (Standard Unit Load) (PenetrationPiston) CBR
(Subgrade)
(Subbase)
(Base
) CBR CBR. CBR. CBR. .
CBR /CBR. CBR. CBR (Indirect mesurment) CBR CBR
1.2
1.2.1 (maximum dry density, ,maxd ) (Optimum water content, OWC)
7/24/2019 SOFT SOIL BEHAVIOUR DUE TO EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION USING DIFFERENT CONSTITUTIVE MODELS
17/161
3
1.2.2 CBR CBR
CBR ( ,maxd
) 1.2.3
1.2.4 (
)
1.3 :
(Liquid Limit ,L.L.) (Plastic Limit ,PL) (PlasticityIndex ,PI) (Standard
Proctor) Ohios compaction curve /
1.4 1.4.1
2001.4.2 CBR CBR
( ,maxd )
1.4.3
7/24/2019 SOFT SOIL BEHAVIOUR DUE TO EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION USING DIFFERENT CONSTITUTIVE MODELS
18/161
4
2
2.1
3 5
(Permeability) (Sheep Foot Rollers) (Vibrating Roller)
2.1.1.
Stock Pile Stock Pile
2.1.2.
7/24/2019 SOFT SOIL BEHAVIOUR DUE TO EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION USING DIFFERENT CONSTITUTIVE MODELS
19/161
5
(Homogeneous)
2.1.3.
2.1.4.
- ()-
- - Grid-
7/24/2019 SOFT SOIL BEHAVIOUR DUE TO EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION USING DIFFERENT CONSTITUTIVE MODELS
20/161
6
816 4 8 ( )
2.1.5.
2.1.6.
0.96 -0.128 / 150 . 300 .
150 . 300 . 2 -6
2.1.7.
(End result Specification)
7/24/2019 SOFT SOIL BEHAVIOUR DUE TO EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION USING DIFFERENT CONSTITUTIVE MODELS
21/161
7
( Methods Specification)
Percent Compaction (Over compaction) 100 %
2.2 Proctor (1930)
R.R.Proctor (1930) Los Angeles Engineering New-Record (proctor, 1933) Proctor Test 2.1
2.1
Proctor 2.1 2 2.2
maximum dry
7/24/2019 SOFT SOIL BEHAVIOUR DUE TO EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION USING DIFFERENT CONSTITUTIVE MODELS
22/161
8
density optimum moisture content
2.2
2.3 Hogentogler (1936)Hogentogler Proctor
4 2.3 4 4
7/24/2019 SOFT SOIL BEHAVIOUR DUE TO EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION USING DIFFERENT CONSTITUTIVE MODELS
23/161
9
2.3 Hogentogler
1. Hydration Stage
2. Lubrication Stage
3. Swelling Stage
4. Saturation Stage
Hogentogler Proctor
7/24/2019 SOFT SOIL BEHAVIOUR DUE TO EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION USING DIFFERENT CONSTITUTIVE MODELS
24/161
10
2.4 Bachanan (1942)
2.4
Arching Effect Arching Effect Hogentrogler Proctor
Arching Effect OMC OMC neutralizes surface tension OMC
7/24/2019 SOFT SOIL BEHAVIOUR DUE TO EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION USING DIFFERENT CONSTITUTIVE MODELS
25/161
11
2.4 Buchanan
2.5 Hilf (1956)
( OMC) OMC (void ratio; e) (water void ratio; ew) 2.5
7/24/2019 SOFT SOIL BEHAVIOUR DUE TO EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION USING DIFFERENT CONSTITUTIVE MODELS
26/161
12
2.5 Hilf
OMC 80 Hilf
2.6 Lambe (1985)
OMC
7/24/2019 SOFT SOIL BEHAVIOUR DUE TO EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION USING DIFFERENT CONSTITUTIVE MODELS
27/161
13
OMC 2.6
- -
- -
2.6
2.7 (Compaction Curve)
............................... (2.1)
7/24/2019 SOFT SOIL BEHAVIOUR DUE TO EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION USING DIFFERENT CONSTITUTIVE MODELS
28/161
14
( dry max) 2.1
( ) = wG s / Sr
Sr = 1 w = w
opt (Optimum Water Content)
1. Sr = 1 2. w
opt (
) (
) ()
() (Compaction Curve) 2.7
2.7 (Compaction Curve)
(Compaction Curve) 2.7
(maximum dry unit weight, ( dry max) (Optimum Water Content, w
opt)
7/24/2019 SOFT SOIL BEHAVIOUR DUE TO EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION USING DIFFERENT CONSTITUTIVE MODELS
29/161
15
2.7 w
opt
(Zero air voids line) 2.1 Sr= 1
Zero air voids line: ........ (2.2)
2.7.1
2.7.2
Lee and Suekamp (1972) 35
4 2.8 A 30-70 B 1 C B C 30 D 70 C D
Horpibulsuk (2005) 2.9
(modified proctor test
)
7/24/2019 SOFT SOIL BEHAVIOUR DUE TO EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION USING DIFFERENT CONSTITUTIVE MODELS
30/161
16
2.8
2.9 (Horpibulsuk et al., 2005)
7/24/2019 SOFT SOIL BEHAVIOUR DUE TO EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION USING DIFFERENT CONSTITUTIVE MODELS
31/161
17
Gurtug and Sridharan (2002)
OMC = 0.92PL .. (2.3)
= 0.98 .. (2.4)
100
2.4
7/24/2019 SOFT SOIL BEHAVIOUR DUE TO EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION USING DIFFERENT CONSTITUTIVE MODELS
32/161
18
2.10 (Johnson and Sallberg. 1960)
2.8
1 (E)
E = (2.5)
NB= 1 NL=W =
H =
1 4 (Est) (Emod)
7/24/2019 SOFT SOIL BEHAVIOUR DUE TO EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION USING DIFFERENT CONSTITUTIVE MODELS
33/161
19
Est= = 12.375 - = 592.5
Emod
= = 56,250-
2.11
70 SC Unified (USCS)
2.11 (Horpibulsuk et al., 2004)
2.11 1. 2.
7/24/2019 SOFT SOIL BEHAVIOUR DUE TO EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION USING DIFFERENT CONSTITUTIVE MODELS
34/161
20
2.9
(dry side of optimum moisture content) 2.12
2.13
( 95
( )
(Expansive due to wetting) 100 2.13b
7/24/2019 SOFT SOIL BEHAVIOUR DUE TO EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION USING DIFFERENT CONSTITUTIVE MODELS
35/161
21
2.12 Siburua (Lambe, 1962)
2.13 (b)
(, 2545)
7/24/2019 SOFT SOIL BEHAVIOUR DUE TO EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION USING DIFFERENT CONSTITUTIVE MODELS
36/161
22
- ( 2.14 2.15) (2.14)
( 2.15)
2.14 (, 2545)
7/24/2019 SOFT SOIL BEHAVIOUR DUE TO EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION USING DIFFERENT CONSTITUTIVE MODELS
37/161
23
2.15 -
2.10
()
7/24/2019 SOFT SOIL BEHAVIOUR DUE TO EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION USING DIFFERENT CONSTITUTIVE MODELS
38/161
24
2.11 Joslin (1959)
26 Ohio 2.16 Ohio Ohio
Nagaraj et al. (2006)
( 2.17) Nagaraj et al. (2006) (w/S0.5 w/S2)
7/24/2019 SOFT SOIL BEHAVIOUR DUE TO EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION USING DIFFERENT CONSTITUTIVE MODELS
39/161
25
2.16 Ohio ( Joslin, 1959)
2.17 (Nagaraj et al., 2006)
Horpibulsuk et al. (2008a 2009a)
9 (FSR = 0.2 2.1, LL = 39.7 256.3% PL = 6.1 48.2%)
7/24/2019 SOFT SOIL BEHAVIOUR DUE TO EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION USING DIFFERENT CONSTITUTIVE MODELS
40/161
26
16 Nagaraj et al. (2006)
w = AdS
Bd .......................(2.10)
w = AdSBw
............ (2.11)
Ad, Bd, AwBw
2.16 2.17 Horpibulsuk et al. (2008a) (2.10) (2.11)
7/24/2019 SOFT SOIL BEHAVIOUR DUE TO EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION USING DIFFERENT CONSTITUTIVE MODELS
41/161
27
2.18 (a) (b) (Horpibulsuk et al. 2008a)
7/24/2019 SOFT SOIL BEHAVIOUR DUE TO EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION USING DIFFERENT CONSTITUTIVE MODELS
42/161
28
2.19(a) (b) (Horpibulsuk et al. 2009a)
(
) Ad, Bd, Aw Bw 2.18 2.19 B
d B
w A
d A
w
() ( 2.18) Bd Bw () Bd Bw (2.19) () Bd Bw 1.0
7/24/2019 SOFT SOIL BEHAVIOUR DUE TO EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION USING DIFFERENT CONSTITUTIVE MODELS
43/161
29
Horpibulsuk etal. (2008a 2009a) A
d
Aw
B
d B
w (
) ( 2.16 2.17) Bd 0.70 0.86 0.62 0.74 Bw 1.50 2.72 1.53 2.35 Nagaraj et al. (2006) ( Bd= 2.5 Bw= 2.0)
2.20 AdAw (Horpibulsuk et al. 2008a)
7/24/2019 SOFT SOIL BEHAVIOUR DUE TO EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION USING DIFFERENT CONSTITUTIVE MODELS
44/161
30
2.21 BdB
w (Horpibulsuk et al. 2008a)
Ad, Bd, Aw Bw A
d/A
dst A
w/A
wst ( A
dst A
wst A
d
Aw ) (Horpibulsuk et al. 2009a) (2.10) (2.10) ( OWC/OWC
st)
BdBw 2.20
...............(2.12)
7/24/2019 SOFT SOIL BEHAVIOUR DUE TO EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION USING DIFFERENT CONSTITUTIVE MODELS
45/161
31
2.22 (Horpibulsuk et al. 2009a)
( (2.10) (2.11)) (
(2.12))
1. Ad, Bd, AwBw (dmax ,OWC) ),
2. OWC ODS 1) OWCst (2.12)
(dmax ,OWC)st ODS
7/24/2019 SOFT SOIL BEHAVIOUR DUE TO EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION USING DIFFERENT CONSTITUTIVE MODELS
46/161
32
3. (dmax ,OWC) OWCst(2.12)
4. AdA
w (2.13) (2.14)
Ad= ...............(2.13)
Aw= ...............(2.14)
5. (w) 2.10) (2.11)
( )6.
( , w) 5 2.21 2.25
Ohio (592.5 ) Ohio (Modified Ohios compaction curves) 2.26 2.28 Ohio 296.3, 1346.6
2693.3
7/24/2019 SOFT SOIL BEHAVIOUR DUE TO EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION USING DIFFERENT CONSTITUTIVE MODELS
47/161
33
2.23 ( Proctor, 1948) (Horpibulsuk et al., 2008a)
2.24 Red earth
( Us Army Crops of Engineers, 1970) (Horpibulsuk et al., 2008a)
7/24/2019 SOFT SOIL BEHAVIOUR DUE TO EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION USING DIFFERENT CONSTITUTIVE MODELS
48/161
34
2.25 ( Turnbull and Foster, 1956) (Horpibulsuk et al.,
2008a)
2.26
( Horpibulsuk et al., 2004c) (Horpibulsuk et al., 2009a)
7/24/2019 SOFT SOIL BEHAVIOUR DUE TO EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION USING DIFFERENT CONSTITUTIVE MODELS
49/161
35
2.27 ( Ruendrairergsa, 1982) (Horpibulsuk et al., 2009a)
2.28 Ohio 296.3
(Horpibulsuk et al., 2008a)
7/24/2019 SOFT SOIL BEHAVIOUR DUE TO EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION USING DIFFERENT CONSTITUTIVE MODELS
50/161
36
2.29 Ohio 1346.6 (Horpibulsuk et al., 2008a)
2.30 Ohio 2693.3
(Horpibulsuk et al., 2008a
7/24/2019 SOFT SOIL BEHAVIOUR DUE TO EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION USING DIFFERENT CONSTITUTIVE MODELS
51/161
37
(Density) RR. Proctor (1933) (Density) (Standard Proctor Test) (Runway)
(Energy) (Modified Proctor Test)
2.12 (Embankment) (..102/2532) (Pavement Structure)
50
(Subgrade) 1 150
95 .-. 107/2515 " Compaction Test"
300 150
7/24/2019 SOFT SOIL BEHAVIOUR DUE TO EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION USING DIFFERENT CONSTITUTIVE MODELS
52/161
38
(Benching)
(1) CBR .-. 109/2517 "
CBR" 95 .-. 107/2515 " Compaction Test
"(2) .-.109/2517 " CBR"
4 95 .-.107/2515 " Compaction Test "
2.13 (Subbase) (..205/2532)
50
(1) .-.202/2515 "
Coarse Aggregate Los Angeles Abrasion" 60(2) .-.205/2517 "
" 2.1
7/24/2019 SOFT SOIL BEHAVIOUR DUE TO EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION USING DIFFERENT CONSTITUTIVE MODELS
53/161
39
2.1
A B C D E
50 ( 2")
25.0 (1")
9.5 (3/8")
2.00 (10)0.425 (40)0.075 (200)
100
-
30-65
15-40
8-20
2-8
100
75-95
40-75
20-45
15-30
5-20
-
100
50-85
25-50
15-30
5-15
-
100
60-100
40-70
25-45
10-25
-
100
-
40-100
20-50
6-20
(3) Liquid Limit .-.102/2517 " Liquid Limit(LL) " 35
(4) Plasticity Index . -.103/2517 " PlasticityLimit (PL) Plasticity Index (PI)" 11
(5) CBR . -.109/2517 " CBR" 25 95 .-.108/2517 " Compaction Test "
(6) 1
(7) Shale Durability Index
35 .-
. 206/2517" Durability "
2.14 (.,204/2516)( AASHO T 27-70 )
2.14.1
AASHO T27-70 T 37-70
7/24/2019 SOFT SOIL BEHAVIOUR DUE TO EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION USING DIFFERENT CONSTITUTIVE MODELS
54/161
40
(Particle Size Distribution) Aggregate 200 (0.075 )
2.14.2
2.14.2.1 .
. 0.2%
. (Sample Splitter).
. 110 + 5 2.14.2.2 2.14.2.3 .3-10 .2-122.14.2.4
2.2
2.2
()
4.75 (4)
9.5 (3/4)
12.5 (1/2)
19 (3/4)
25 (1)
37.5 (1 )
50 (2)
90-100
90-100
90-100
90-100
90-100
90-100
90-100
0.5
1.0
2.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
7/24/2019 SOFT SOIL BEHAVIOUR DUE TO EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION USING DIFFERENT CONSTITUTIVE MODELS
55/161
41
2.2 ()
()63 (2 )
75 (3)
90 (3 )
90-100
90-100
90-100
25.0
30.0
35.0
2.14.2.5
2.14.2.5.1
(Surface Dry) 110+5
2.14.2.5.2
1 1% 15 4.75 (4) 4.75 ( 4) 6 1000 200 203
(.)
2.14.3
=R x 100
T
7/24/2019 SOFT SOIL BEHAVIOUR DUE TO EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION USING DIFFERENT CONSTITUTIVE MODELS
56/161
42
R =
T =2.14.4
12.14.5
2.14.5.1 1
2.14.5.2
7/24/2019 SOFT SOIL BEHAVIOUR DUE TO EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION USING DIFFERENT CONSTITUTIVE MODELS
57/161
43
7/24/2019 SOFT SOIL BEHAVIOUR DUE TO EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION USING DIFFERENT CONSTITUTIVE MODELS
58/161
44
7/24/2019 SOFT SOIL BEHAVIOUR DUE TO EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION USING DIFFERENT CONSTITUTIVE MODELS
59/161
45
2.15 Liquid Limit (LL) (.,102/2515) ( AASHTOT
89)
2.15.1. Liquid Limit (LL)
Plastic Liquid 40 (0.425 ) Liquid Limit (LL) (Liquid Limit Device) 12.7 (1/2) 10 25
ASTM D 423-66, Test Method No. Calif. 204-13 Liquid Limit Mechanical Method2.15.2.
2.15.2.1(1) (2) 4 (4.75) 40 (0.425
)
(3) Liquid Limit 1 ( 1)
(4) (1)(5) 115
(4 ) 150 x 150
(6) Spatula 75 (3.0) 20 (0.75)
(7)
Pipette (8 (9) 0.01(10) 1105
2.15.2.2
2.15.2.3
.2-02
7/24/2019 SOFT SOIL BEHAVIOUR DUE TO EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION USING DIFFERENT CONSTITUTIVE MODELS
60/161
46
2.15.2.4 (1) 60.
Quartering Sieve Analysis 40 (0.425) 300
(2)
(3) 40 (0.425) 4 (4.75) 40 (0.425) 5
(4) 40 (0.425) 40 (0.425)
2.15.2.5.2.15.2.5.1 Liquid Limit
(1) (2.31)
(2) (3) (4)
(5)
(6)
10 10
7/24/2019 SOFT SOIL BEHAVIOUR DUE TO EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION USING DIFFERENT CONSTITUTIVE MODELS
61/161
47
2.15.2.5.2
Spatula Sqatula Spatula 4 Quartering
2.15.2.5.3
15-20 Spatula 1-3 5-10
2.15.2.5.4 40 50 1 ()
2.15.2.5.5 Spatula 10
2.32
2.15.2.5.6 Plasticity Index (PI)
7/24/2019 SOFT SOIL BEHAVIOUR DUE TO EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION USING DIFFERENT CONSTITUTIVE MODELS
62/161
48
6
2.15.2.5.7 2 12.7 (1/2) 3
2.15.2.5.8 2.5.7
PI
2.15.2.5.9 12.7
(1/2)
2.15.2.5.10
() 2.5.5 2.5.9
2.15.2.5.11 4 5-7
1 35 -402 25-35
3 20-30
7/24/2019 SOFT SOIL BEHAVIOUR DUE TO EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION USING DIFFERENT CONSTITUTIVE MODELS
63/161
49
4 15-25 15-40
2.15.2.5.12
2.15.2.5.13 (
0.01) 105-115 0.
2.15.3.
W =
W = 2.15.4.
2.15.4.1 Flow Curve Semi logarithmic Graph .2-02 3
2.15.4.2 Liquid Limit 25 Flow Curve LL .2-02 1
2.15.5. 2.15.5.1 PI Silty Clay Sandy Clay
7/24/2019 SOFT SOIL BEHAVIOUR DUE TO EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION USING DIFFERENT CONSTITUTIVE MODELS
64/161
50
Spatula Slip
2.15.5.2 Sand Grains ClayLamps 40 (0.425) 60 0. PI LL Organic Matters
2.15.5.3 12.7
(1/2)
2.15.5.4
2.15.5.5
2.15.5.6
7/24/2019 SOFT SOIL BEHAVIOUR DUE TO EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION USING DIFFERENT CONSTITUTIVE MODELS
65/161
51
2.31 MACHANICALLIQUID LIMIT DEVICE
2.32
LIQUID LIMIT
7/24/2019 SOFT SOIL BEHAVIOUR DUE TO EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION USING DIFFERENT CONSTITUTIVE MODELS
66/161
52
( : AASHO T 89-68, 10 THE DITION 1971. FIG.6)C-443 .................................. 26/4/43....................................... - 3
ATTERBERG LIMITS
Sample : Weathering Rock No.. Of ..
Soruce : km. 43+150-43+295 Frontage Rd., Rt
Test LIQUID LIMIT PLASTIC LIMIT
Trial 1 2 3 4 1 2
Can No. 10 5 13 22 16 19
No. of Blows 16 24 30 37 - -
Wet. Soil+can gm. 37.90 38.11 37.37 35.05 31.40 31.27
Dry. Soil+can gm. 33.82 34.17 33.66 31.70 29.47 29.26
Wt. of water gm. 4.08 3.94 3.71 3.35 1.93 2.01
Wt. of can gm. 20.96 20.70 20.11 18.79 19.93 19.53
Wt. of dry soil gm. 12.86 13.47 13.55 12.91 9.54 9.73
Water content % 31.72 29.23 27.37 25.97 20.28 20.66
L.L. = 28.80 P.L. = 20.47%
P.I. = L.L-P.L. = 28.80-20.47 = 8.33 %
7/24/2019 SOFT SOIL BEHAVIOUR DUE TO EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION USING DIFFERENT CONSTITUTIVE MODELS
67/161
53
2.16 Plastic Limit (PL) Plasticity Index (PI) (.. 103/2515)
(AASHTO T 90)
2.16.1 AASHTO T 90
Plastic 3.2 (1/8 )
2.16.2 2.16.2.1
(1) Liquid Limit
.-. 102/2515(2) 150 x 150 x 10
2.16.2.2
-
2.16.2.3 .2-02
2.16.2.4 LiquidLimit .-. 102/2515
2.16.2.5(1) 8
(Ellipsoidal Shape)(2)
80 90 ( 1)
(3) 3.2
(1/8 ) 2.15.2.5.11
7/24/2019 SOFT SOIL BEHAVIOUR DUE TO EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION USING DIFFERENT CONSTITUTIVE MODELS
68/161
54
(4) 3.2 (1/8 ) (2)
(5) (4) (4)
(6) (5)
3.2 (1/8 ) 3.2 2.15.2.5.11 (7)
(8) 2.5.4
6.0 10.00 (1/4 -3/8 )
(9) 2.5.4
3.2 (10)Plasticity
3.2
(11) 1105 0 .
7/24/2019 SOFT SOIL BEHAVIOUR DUE TO EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION USING DIFFERENT CONSTITUTIVE MODELS
69/161
55
(12) 2 PlasticLimit (PL) 2%
2.16.3 Plastic Limit (PL) Plasticity Index (PI)
Plastic Limit (PL) =
Plasticity Index (PI) = LL - PL
2.16.4
1 2.16.4.1 Plastic Limit (PL) Plasticity Index
(PI) PI NP (Non-Plastic)2.16.4.2 Plastic Limit Liquid Limit
PI NP2.16.5
2.16.5.1
2.16.5.2 2.16.5.3 Lilt PI
2.16.5.4 Plastic Limit LiquidLimit Non-Plastic Liquid Limit
2.17 Compaction Test (..107/2517) ( AASHTOT 99)
2.17.1 Compaction Dynamic Compaction
7/24/2019 SOFT SOIL BEHAVIOUR DUE TO EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION USING DIFFERENT CONSTITUTIVE MODELS
70/161
56
2.494 (5.5) 304.8 (12)
. 101.6 (4) 19.0 (3/4)
. 152.4 (6) 19.0 (3/4)
. 101.6 (4) 4.75 (4)
. 152.4 (6) 4.75 (4)
2.17.2 2.17.2.1
2.17.2.1.1 (Mold) 2
(1) 101.6 (4) 116.4 (4.584) 50.8 (2) 1
(2) 152.4 (6) 177.8 (7) 50.8 (2)
2.1.2 116.4 (4.584) 116.4 (4.564) 2 116.4 (4.584)
7/24/2019 SOFT SOIL BEHAVIOUR DUE TO EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION USING DIFFERENT CONSTITUTIVE MODELS
71/161
57
2.17.2.1.2 152.4 150.8 (5 15/16) 2.17.2.1.1 -(2) 116.4 (4.584)
2.17.2.1.3 50.8 (2) 2.494 (5.5 )
304.8 (12) 4 9.5 219
2.17.2.1.4 Jack
2.17.2.1.5 Balance 16 0.001
2.17.2.1.6 Scale Balance
1,000 0.1
2.17.2.1.7 1105
2.17.2.1.8 300
3.0
7/24/2019 SOFT SOIL BEHAVIOUR DUE TO EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION USING DIFFERENT CONSTITUTIVE MODELS
72/161
58
2.17.2.1.9 203 (6) 51 (2) (1) 19.0 (3/4)(2) 4.75 (4)
2.17.2.1.10 , , , , , Mechanical Mixer
2.17.2.1.11 2.17.2.2
2.17.2.3
.2-02 Compaction Test .2-15 Plot Curve Compaction Test
2.17.2.4 Soil-Aggregate
2.17.2.4.1 19.0 (3/4) (1)
Quartering
( 2-3%) 3 - 19.0 (3/4)- 19.00 (3/4)
4.75 (4)- 4.75 (4)
7/24/2019 SOFT SOIL BEHAVIOUR DUE TO EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION USING DIFFERENT CONSTITUTIVE MODELS
73/161
59
(2) 2.17.2.4.1 (1)
(3) 19.0 (3/4)
(4) 2.4.1 (3) 19.0 (3/4) 4.75 ( 4)
19.0 2,650 19.0 4.75 2,650 19.0 9,000 19.0 2,650 19.0 4.75
4,850
19.0 4.75 2,650+4,850 = 7,500 4.75 1,500
(5) 2.17.2.4.1 (4)
2.17.2.4.2 . 0 (3/4) ( 2-3%) Quartering
2.17.2.4.3 . .
7/24/2019 SOFT SOIL BEHAVIOUR DUE TO EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION USING DIFFERENT CONSTITUTIVE MODELS
74/161
60
4.75 (4)
2.17.2.4.4 2.17.2.4.1 2.17.2.4.22.17.2.4.5
(1) 2.17.2.1.1 (1) 3,000 1
(2) 2.17.2.1.1 (2) 6,000 1
2.17.2.4.6
2.4.4 42.17.2.5 Compaction Test
2.17.2.5.1 2.17.2.5.2 4%
2.17.2.5.3
2.17.2.5.4
1/3 127 (5)
2.17.2.5.5
- . . 25
- . . 562.17.2.5.6
3 127 (5) ( 10)
2.17.2.5.7 ( 116.4)
7/24/2019 SOFT SOIL BEHAVIOUR DUE TO EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION USING DIFFERENT CONSTITUTIVE MODELS
75/161
61
2.17.2.5.8 - 19.0 300- 4.75 100
2.17.2.5.9 , t , d
, w2.17.2.5.10 2.17.2.5.1 2.17.2.5.9
2% Curve
2.17.2.5.11 Curve (d) (w) Max.
d (Maximum Dry Density) , OMC. (Optimum Moisture Content)2.17.3
2.17.3.1W = ((M_1-M_2) 100)/M_2
w =
M_1 = M_2 =
2.17.3.2t = A/V
t = A =
V =
7/24/2019 SOFT SOIL BEHAVIOUR DUE TO EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION USING DIFFERENT CONSTITUTIVE MODELS
76/161
62
2.17.3.3d = t/(1+W/100)
d = t =
w = 2.17.4
Compaction Test 2.17.4.1 ()
2.17.4.2 () 2.010( 3) 20.8 % ( 1)
2.17.5. 2.17.5.1
Curve
2.17.5.2
2.17.5.3 2
1
2.17.5.4 4 (4.75)
2.17.5.5
7/24/2019 SOFT SOIL BEHAVIOUR DUE TO EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION USING DIFFERENT CONSTITUTIVE MODELS
77/161
63
2.33Cylindrical Mold, 101.6 mm. (4.0 in) for soil Tests.
2.34 Cylindrical Mold, 152.5 mm. (6.0 in) for soil Tests.
7/24/2019 SOFT SOIL BEHAVIOUR DUE TO EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION USING DIFFERENT CONSTITUTIVE MODELS
78/161
64
.......................................................................................................................................................................................... - 3 ......................... 1/5/43
COMPACTION TEST
Soil Sample : Sand Bedding - Backfill Layer MW A 1,000 mm.
Location : ..Boring No. : Depth : .Type Test : ..Mold Wt. : 3.528 kgs. Volume : 936.6 ml.
DENSITY
Trial (Water added) % 10 12 14 16
Wt. Mold + Soil (Kg.) 5.265 5.380 5.437 5.416
Wt. Mold (Kg.) 3.528 3.528 3.528 3.528
Wt. Soil (Kg.) 1.737 1.852 1.909 1.888
Wt. Density (gm./ml.) 1.855 1.977 2.038 2.016
Dry Density (gm./ml.) 1.679 1.760 1.780 1.725
Void Ratio e
Porosity n
WATER CONTENT
Can No. 27 12 19 23
Wt. Can + Wet Soil (gm.) 380.7 346.8 362.3 373.8
Wt. Can + Dry Soil (gm.) 348.5 313.4 321.6 325.8
Wt. Water (gm.) 32.2 33.4 40.7 48.0
Wt. Can (gm.) 41.5 42.0 40.9 42.0
Wt. Dry Soil (gm.) 307.0 271.4 280.7 283.8
Water Content (%) 10.5 12.3 14.5 16.9
Remarks Avg = 0.5 %
7/24/2019 SOFT SOIL BEHAVIOUR DUE TO EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION USING DIFFERENT CONSTITUTIVE MODELS
79/161
65
Test No. P-3
Type of Test Compaction Test .Datec 2/5/43
Source Sand Bedding-Backfill Layer AW A 1,000 mm.
Plotted by
7/24/2019 SOFT SOIL BEHAVIOUR DUE TO EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION USING DIFFERENT CONSTITUTIVE MODELS
80/161
66
2.18 (.-. 603/2517)
(AASHTO T 191
)
2.18.1 (Sand Replacement Sand Cone Method)
(In-Place Density) 50.8 (2 )
2.18.2 2.18.2.1
( 2.38) 2.18.2.1.1 (Jar)
3,780 (1 ) 160 80
2.18.2.1.2 (Metal Funnel) 210
(Value) (Orifice) 12.7 (1/2 ) 28.6 (1 1/8 ) 165.1 (6 1/2 ) 171.5 (6 3/4 ) 136.5 (5 3/8 )
Gasket
2.18.2.1.3 (Base Plate) 304.8 x304.8 (12 x 12 ) 165.1 () 3.2 (1/8 )
7/24/2019 SOFT SOIL BEHAVIOUR DUE TO EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION USING DIFFERENT CONSTITUTIVE MODELS
81/161
67
4
2,800 (0.10 )
2.18.2.1.4 (Ottawa Sand) (Free Flowing)
20 (0.85 ) 40 (0.425 ) (Bulk Density) 1
2.18.2.1.5 16 1.0
2.18.2.1.6 1,000 0.1 2.18.2.1.7 (Drying Equipment)
1105
2.18.2.1.8 19.0 (3/4) 20 (0.85 ) 40
(0.425 ) 2.18.2.2
-
2.18.2.3 2.18.2.3.1 . 6-03 .2.18.2.3.2 19 .0
10% . 6-
03 . . 6-
03 .
7/24/2019 SOFT SOIL BEHAVIOUR DUE TO EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION USING DIFFERENT CONSTITUTIVE MODELS
82/161
68
2.18.2.3.2 . 6-07 2.18.2.4
-
2.18.2.52.18.2.5.1 (Bulk Density of Sand)
(1) (M1)
(1.1)
(1.2)
(1.3) (1.4) 3 M1
(2) (L)(2.1)
(2.2) (2.3)
7/24/2019 SOFT SOIL BEHAVIOUR DUE TO EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION USING DIFFERENT CONSTITUTIVE MODELS
83/161
69
(2.4) (2.5)(2.6) 3 M2
T 1(2.7) L
1.
2.
2.18.2.5.2
19.0 (1)
(1.1) X4(1.2) P2(1.3)
M1
(2)
(3)
7/24/2019 SOFT SOIL BEHAVIOUR DUE TO EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION USING DIFFERENT CONSTITUTIVE MODELS
84/161
70
M2 M
1
M2
M5
4 (4.75 ) 3
(4)
3 W3
(5) 100-150
6 (5.1)
P1
(5.2)
P1P2 P3
(6) 100 6(6.1)
X1
7/24/2019 SOFT SOIL BEHAVIOUR DUE TO EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION USING DIFFERENT CONSTITUTIVE MODELS
85/161
71
(6.2) 1005o. X2
(6.3) X1X2 X3
(6.4)
X5
(6.5) w
(7) (
) W4
W3W4 W
6
(8) W6W5 W
7
7/24/2019 SOFT SOIL BEHAVIOUR DUE TO EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION USING DIFFERENT CONSTITUTIVE MODELS
86/161
72
(9) V1
s
2.18.2.5.3 50.8 19.0 10% (1) 2.5.2 (1) (5)(2) 19.0
P4
(3)
19.0 (4) 2.5.2 (6) (8)(5) 19.0
V2
2.18.2.5.4
50.8 19.0 10% Grade A Grade B ()(1) 2.5.2 (1) (5)(2) 19.0
(2.1) P5(2.2) P
5
(3) 19.0 Grade A Grade B V3 G BulkSaturated-Surface Dry Specific Gravity
7/24/2019 SOFT SOIL BEHAVIOUR DUE TO EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION USING DIFFERENT CONSTITUTIVE MODELS
87/161
73
.-. 207/2517 Bulk Specific Gravity
(4) 2.5.2 (6) (8)(5) V4
19.0 V5
2.18.3 2.18.3.1
2.18.3.1.1
L = M2T
L = M2 = T = 1 5
2.18.3.1.2
s =
s =
M1 =
L = 2.18.3.2
2.18.3.2.1
X3 = X
1X
2
X3 = X
1 =
M1
L
7/24/2019 SOFT SOIL BEHAVIOUR DUE TO EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION USING DIFFERENT CONSTITUTIVE MODELS
88/161
74
X2 =
2.18.3.2.2
X5 = X
2X
4
X5 = X
2 =
X4 =
2.18.3.2.3
w = x 100
w = X3 = X5 =
2.18.3.3 2.18.3.3.1
M5 = M1M2
M5
= M
1 =
M2 =
2.18.3.3.2
M6 = M
3M
4
M6
= M3 =
X3
X5
7/24/2019 SOFT SOIL BEHAVIOUR DUE TO EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION USING DIFFERENT CONSTITUTIVE MODELS
89/161
75
M4 = 2.18.3.3.3
M7 = M
6M
5
M7
= M6 = M5 =
2.18.3.4 19.0 2.18.3.4.1 *
V1 =
V1 = M7 =
s =
2.18.3.4.2
P3 = P1P2
P3 = P1 = P2 =
2.18.3.4.3
W
=
W = P
3 =
V1 =
M7
5
P3
V1
7/24/2019 SOFT SOIL BEHAVIOUR DUE TO EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION USING DIFFERENT CONSTITUTIVE MODELS
90/161
76
2.18.3.4.4
d =
d =
W =
W = 2.18.3.5 19.0
10% 2.18.3.5.1 19.0
V2 =
V2 = 19.0
M7 =
S =
2.18.3.5.2
2 =
2 =
P
4 = 19.0
V2 = 19.0
2.18.3.5.3
d =
W
100
W1+
W7
S
P4
V2
W
100
2
1+
7/24/2019 SOFT SOIL BEHAVIOUR DUE TO EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION USING DIFFERENT CONSTITUTIVE MODELS
91/161
77
d =
2 =
W =
2.18.3.6 19.0 10% Grade A Grade B
2.18.3.6.1 19.0
V3 =
V3 = 19.0
P6 = 19.0
G = 19.0
W = 1
2.18.3.6.2 19.0
V5 = V4V3
V5 = 19.0
V4 = V3 = 19.0
2.18.3.6.3
3 =
3
=
P6
GW
P5
V5
7/24/2019 SOFT SOIL BEHAVIOUR DUE TO EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION USING DIFFERENT CONSTITUTIVE MODELS
92/161
78
P5 = 19.0
V5 = 19.0
2.18.3.6.4
d =
d =
3 =
W =
2.18.3.7
Pc = x 100
Pc = d =
m = .-. 107/2517 108/2517
2.18.4
2.18.4.1
2.18.4.2 3 1
d
m
W
100
3
1+
7/24/2019 SOFT SOIL BEHAVIOUR DUE TO EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION USING DIFFERENT CONSTITUTIVE MODELS
93/161
79
2.18.5 2.18.5.1 2.18.5.2 2.18.5.3 2.18.5.4 1 2.18.5.5 2.18.5.6 2.18.5.7
2.18.5.8 19.0
2.20.2.5.4 (3)
7/24/2019 SOFT SOIL BEHAVIOUR DUE TO EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION USING DIFFERENT CONSTITUTIVE MODELS
94/161
80
DH-T 603 .-. 603/2517. 6-03 .
FIELD DENSITY TEST
SAND REPLACEMENT METHOD
- . Base Course Lime Stone . 25 .. 16 .
Density of sand (S) 1,500 gm./ml.Station Km. 1+325 1+416 1+502 1+629 1+716
Off set m. 1.5 Lt. 2.4 Rt. 1.8 Rt. 2.6 Lt. 2.0 Rt.
VOLUME DETERMINATION
Mass of Sand in funnel
initiaMass(M) gm. 7,350 7,849 8,054 7,965 8,031
finalMass (M) gm. 5,603 5,953 6,352 6,307 6,307
Mass of Sand used M = (M1M
2) gm. 1,747 1,896 1,702 1,678 1,724
Mass of Sand in hole and funnel
initialMass(M3)
gm.
8,008 8,167 7,840 7,940 7,971
finalMass(M2) gm.
2,926 3,267 3,221 3,312 3,448
Mass of Sand used M6=(M
3M
2) gm. 5,082 4,900 4,619 4,628 4,523
Mass of Sand in hole M7=(M
6-M
5) gm. 2,335 3,004 2,917 2,950 2,799
Volume of hole V1= (M
6+
S ) or = V
2 ml. 2,214.5 1,994.7 1,936.9 1,958.8 1,858.6
V5 from . 6-03 . ml. 1,937.1 1,725.8 1,684.78 1,704.3 1,614.9
WATER CONTENT DETERMINATION
Can No. gm. 20 F-80 F-2 75 81
Wet soil + can. (X1) gm. 254.3 274.0 285.2 292.6 254.6
Dry soik + can. (X2) gm. 245.3 268.2 276.0 283.0 245.2
Mass of water X3= ( X
1- X
2) gm. 9.0 5.8 9.2 9.6 9.4
Mass of can (X4) gm. 45.7 43.2 41.0 43.0 45.2
Mass of Dry soil X5= ( X
2- X
4) gm.
199.6 225.0 235.0 240.0 200.0
Water content [(X3- X
5) 100] = % 4.5 2.6 3.9 4.0 4.7
Mass OF DENSITY SAMPLE
Wet soil + container (P1) gm. 4,809 4,142 4,152 4,333 4,083
Mass of container (P2
) gm.
317 317 317 317 317
Mass of wet soil P3 = (P
1-P
2) or = P
4 = or = P
5 gm. 4,492 3,825 3,835 4,016 3,766
Wet density = (P3+V) or = (P4 V2) or=(P5 V5) gm./ml. 2.319 2.216 2.276 2.308 2.332
Dry density [ 1w
1100
] =d gm./ml. 2.219 2.150 2.191 2.219 2.227
ERCENT COMPACTION DETERMINATION
Max. density m gm./ml. 2.254 2.254 2.254 2.254 2.254
% Compaction Pc=( d m )100)
98.4 95.8 97.2 98.4 98.8
DEPTH OF COMPACTED MATERIAL
Designed depth cm. 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0
Actual depth in field cm. 38.0 35.0 40.0 37.0 40.0
(Soil-Aggregate Gradation Specs. Grade A B Data . 6-03 . )
7/24/2019 SOFT SOIL BEHAVIOUR DUE TO EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION USING DIFFERENT CONSTITUTIVE MODELS
95/161
81
DH-T 603 . 6-03 .
FIELD DENSITY TEST
. 6-
03 . 19.0 10%
field density 19.0 10% error field density
19.0 10% Data . 6-03 .
Bulk saturated-surface-dry specific gravity (G) = 2.70
( 19.0 )
StationKm. 1+325 1+416 1+502 1+629 1+716
Off. Set. m. m. 1.5 Lt. 2.4 Rt. 1.8 Rt. 2.6 Lt. 2.0 Rt.
Volume of 19.0 mm. retained-aggregate
Wt. of + 19.0 mm. aggregate (p6) gm. 749 726 681 590 658
Volume of + 19.0 mm. aggregate V3= (p
6 G) cc. 277.4 268.9 252.2 218.5 243.7
Total Volume of hole V1from . 6-03 . = (V4) cc. 2,214.5 1,994.7 1,936.9 1,958.8 1,858.6
Volume of 19.0 mm. passing-aggregate (V5) or
Volume of hole = (V4V
3) cc.
(Volume of hole wet density . 6-03 .) 1,937.1 1,725.8 1,684.7 1,740.3 1,614.9
Soil-Aggregate Gradation Specs. Grade A B
7/24/2019 SOFT SOIL BEHAVIOUR DUE TO EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION USING DIFFERENT CONSTITUTIVE MODELS
96/161
82
DH-T 603 .-. 603
2.35
7/24/2019 SOFT SOIL BEHAVIOUR DUE TO EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION USING DIFFERENT CONSTITUTIVE MODELS
97/161
83
.-. 603
Field Density Test Report
Project : - .Section : - Date 18 .. 16 Tested by .
. Material Engineer.
No. StationDepth
cm.
Material
to be
used as
Laboratory Test In-Place Test
Percent
Compaction
Minimum
Compaction
Required
Acceptance RemarksOpt.
Moist.
%
Density
gm/ml.
Moisture
%
Density
gm/ml.
1 1+325 1.5 Lt. 23.8 Subbase 6.8 2.254 4.5 2.219 98.4 95.0 2 1+416 2.4 Rt. 23.5 Subbase 6.8 2.254 2.6 2.160 95.8 95.0 3 1+502 1.8 Rt. 24.0 Subbase 6.8 2.254 3.9 2.191 97.2 95.0 4 1+629 2.6 Lt. 23.7 Subbase 6.8 2.254 4.0 2.219 98.4 95.0 5 1+716 2.0 Rt. 24.0 Subbase 6.8 2.254 4.7 2.227 98.8 95.0
83
7/24/2019 SOFT SOIL BEHAVIOUR DUE TO EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION USING DIFFERENT CONSTITUTIVE MODELS
98/161
84
.-. 603/2517 5
(T)1214161820222426283032
53.657.260.864.468.871.675.278.882.486.089.6
1.000 481.000 731.001 031.001 381.001 771.002 211.002 681.003 201.003 751.004 351.004 97
6
()
()
5.7512.5
25.0
41/2
1
7001,400
2,100
100250
500
7/24/2019 SOFT SOIL BEHAVIOUR DUE TO EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION USING DIFFERENT CONSTITUTIVE MODELS
99/161
85
2.19 CBR (..109/2517) ( AASHTO T 193)2.19.1
CBR BearingValue (Mold) Optimum Moisture Content
CBR 2 . (Soaked)
. (Unsoaked) .2.19.2.
2.19.2.1 2.19.2.1.1 (Loading Machine)
CBR
5,000 ( 10,000 , 50 ) () ( Hydraulic) (Piston) 1.27 (0.05 ) Jack
Dial Gauge 1.27 (0.05 ) Proving Ring ( ) ( Hydraulic ) 2 (20 ) ()
7/24/2019 SOFT SOIL BEHAVIOUR DUE TO EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION USING DIFFERENT CONSTITUTIVE MODELS
100/161
86
2.19.2.1.2 (Mold) 152.4 (6 ) 177.8 (7 ) (Collar) 50.8 (2 ) (Spacer Disc) 2.13 116.4 (4.584 )
116.4 (4.584 )2.19.2.1.3 (Spacer Disc)
150.8 (5 15/16 ) 2.1.2 116.4 (4.584 )
2.19.2.1.4 (Rammer) 2
(1) 50.8 (2 ) 4,537 (10) 457.2 (18 ) 4 9.5
19.0 CBR .-.108/2517
(2) 50.8 (2 ) 2,495 (5.5 ) 304.8 (12 )
7/24/2019 SOFT SOIL BEHAVIOUR DUE TO EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION USING DIFFERENT CONSTITUTIVE MODELS
101/161
87
4 9.5 19.0 CBR . -.107/2517
2.19.2.1.5 (Expansion Measuring Apparatus)(1) (Swell Plate)
()(2) (Tripod) Dial Gauge 0.01 25 ( Dial Gauge 0.001 1 ) ()
2.19.2.1.6 (Surcharge Weight)
149.2 (57/8 ) 54.0 (2 1/8 ) 2,268 (5 )
2.19.2.1.7 (Penetration Piston) 49.5 (1.95 )
1,935.5 (3 ) 101.6 (4 )
2.19.2.1.8 (Sample Extruder) Jack
7/24/2019 SOFT SOIL BEHAVIOUR DUE TO EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION USING DIFFERENT CONSTITUTIVE MODELS
102/161
88
2.19.2.1.9 Balance 16 0.001
2.19.2.1.10 Scale Balance 1,000 0.1
2.19.2.1.11 110 5o .
2.19.2.1.12 (Straight Edge) 300 3.0
2.19.2.1.13 (Sample Splitter)2.19.2.1.14 203.2
(8 ) 50.8 (2 )
(1) 19.0 (3/4 )(2) 4.75 ( 4)2.19.2.1.15
Mechanical Mixer
2.19.2.1.16
2.19.2.1.17
2.19.2.2 2.19.2.2.1 152.4
(6 )2.19.2.2.2
2.19.2.3
. 2-11 CBR
7/24/2019 SOFT SOIL BEHAVIOUR DUE TO EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION USING DIFFERENT CONSTITUTIVE MODELS
103/161
89
. 2-15 Plot Curve CBR . 2-15 . Plot Curve CBR
2.19.2.4 Soil Aggregate
2.19.2.4.1 19.0
(3/4 ) (1)
Quartering ( 2 -3%) 3 - 19.0 (3/4 )- 19.0 (3/4 )
4.75 ( 4)- 4.75 ( 4)
(2) 2.4.1 (1)
(3) 19.0 (4) 2.21.2.4.1 (3)
19.0 4.75
19.0 2,650 19.0 4.75 2,650 19.0 9,000 19.0 2,650 19.0 4.75
4,850
7/24/2019 SOFT SOIL BEHAVIOUR DUE TO EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION USING DIFFERENT CONSTITUTIVE MODELS
104/161
90
4.75 1,500
- 19.0 4.75
2,650 + 4,850 = 7,500 - 4.75 1,500
(5) 2.21.2.4.1 (4) 2.19.2.4.2 19.0
(3/4 ) ( 2 -3%) Quartering
2.19.2.4.3 4.75 ( 4)
4.75 ( 4) 2.19.2.4.4 2.21.2.4.1 2.21.2.4.2
2.21.2.4.3 6,000 1
2.19.2.4.5 2.21.2.4.4 3
2.19.2.5 2.19.2.5.1
(1) 2.19.2.4
(2) Compaction Test .-. 107/2517 .-. 108/2517 (OptimumMoisture Content)
7/24/2019 SOFT SOIL BEHAVIOUR DUE TO EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION USING DIFFERENT CONSTITUTIVE MODELS
105/161
91
- . 2-05 . -.107/2517 . -. 108/2517
-
CBR Compaction Test
(3) 2.21.2.5.1 (2)
(4) (5)
(6)
1 5 127.0 (5 )
(7) 2.21.2.1.4 (1) 2.21.2.1.4 (2) 12
(8) 5 127.0 (5 ) 10 .0
7/24/2019 SOFT SOIL BEHAVIOUR DUE TO EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION USING DIFFERENT CONSTITUTIVE MODELS
106/161
7/24/2019 SOFT SOIL BEHAVIOUR DUE TO EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION USING DIFFERENT CONSTITUTIVE MODELS
107/161
93
- 4.75 100
(3) t (Wet Density)
t (Dry Density) w (Moisture Content) 2.21.3.1 2.19.3.2 2.19.3.3
2.19.2.5.2 (Swell)(1) (Swell Plate)
2 (Base) (Subbase) (SelectedMaterials) 3 Subgrade 2.21.2.5.1 (10) (Tripod) Dial Gauge
InitialReading Dial Gauge Reading Dial Gauge Reading Dial Gauge (Swell) Reading Dial Gauge Dial
Gauge Initial Reading
(2) 4 4 ()
15
7/24/2019 SOFT SOIL BEHAVIOUR DUE TO EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION USING DIFFERENT CONSTITUTIVE MODELS
108/161
94
Granular Material PenetrationTest
2.19.2.5.3 Penetration Test CBR(1) . (Unsoaked)
(Swell)
2.19.2.5.3 2.19.2.5.2 Penetration Test (2) 2.19.2.5.3 (2) 2.19.2.5.4 (1)
2 (Base) (Subbase)(Selected Material) 3 Subgrade
(3) (4)
4 (40 ) ProvingRing
Dial Gauge Penetration 4 (40 ) Stress vs.Penetration
(5) 1.27 (0.05
7/24/2019 SOFT SOIL BEHAVIOUR DUE TO EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION USING DIFFERENT CONSTITUTIVE MODELS
109/161
95
) Penetration Dial Gauge
(6) Penetration - 0.63 (0.025 )- 1.27 (0.050 )- 1.90 (0.075 )- 2.54 (0.100 )- 3.17 (0.125 )-
3.81 (0.150 )- 4.44 (0.175 )- 5.08 (0.200 )- 6.35 (0.250 )- 7.62 (0.300 )- 8.89 (0.350 )- 10.16 (0.400 )
- 11.43 (0.450 )- 12.70 (0.500 )
(7) 2.19.2.5.2 (2)
(8) Penetration Test 2
(9) Curve (Stress vs. Penetration) CBR
(10) CBR Curve1 CBR (Dry Density)
7/24/2019 SOFT SOIL BEHAVIOUR DUE TO EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION USING DIFFERENT CONSTITUTIVE MODELS
110/161
96
CBR
Curve Stress vs. Penetration CBR
Curve Penetration Curve CBR
2.19.3 2.19.3.1
w = x 100
w = M1 =
M2 =
2.19.3.2 (Wet Density)
t =
t = A = V =
2.19.3.3 (Dry Density)
d =
d =
M1-M
2
M2
A
V
w
100
t1 +
7/24/2019 SOFT SOIL BEHAVIOUR DUE TO EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION USING DIFFERENT CONSTITUTIVE MODELS
111/161
97
t = w =
2.19.3.4 (Swell)
Swell = x 100
S = Reading Dial Gauge Swell
H = (Initial Height)
2.19.3.5 CBR
CBR (Standard Load)
Penetration
(mm.)
Standard Load
(kg.)
Standard Unit Load (Y)
(kg./cm2.)
2.54 (0.1)
5.08(0.2)7.62 (0.3)10.16 (0.4)12.70 (0.5)
1,360.8 (3,000 lb)
2,041.2 (4,500 lb)
2,585.5 (5,700 lb)
3,129.8 (6,900 lb)
3,538.0 (7,800 lb)
70.3 (1,000 lb/in2)
105.46 (1,500 lb/in
2
)
133.59 (1,900 lb/in2)
161.71 (2,300 lb/in2)
182.81 (2,600 lb/in2)
1. SI 2. = 1,935.5 (3 )
CBR
CBR = x 100
X = ( Penetration 2.54 0.1 2.54 )
Y = (Standard Unit Load) ()
S
H
X
Y
7/24/2019 SOFT SOIL BEHAVIOUR DUE TO EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION USING DIFFERENT CONSTITUTIVE MODELS
112/161
98
2.19.4 CBR 2.19.4.1 CBR X% (
) 1 2.19.4.2 CBR 2.21.4.1 3
2.19.4.3 (Swell) 1 2.19.4.4 . 2-15 .
2.19.5 2.19.5.1 (Heavy Clay)
4 (4.75 )
2.19.5.2
2.19.5.3 (V) 2.19.2.1.2
2.19.5.4 CBR 2.5.1 (2)
7/24/2019 SOFT SOIL BEHAVIOUR DUE TO EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION USING DIFFERENT CONSTITUTIVE MODELS
113/161
99
2.19.5.5 Penetration Test ProvingRing Penetration Dial Gauge Frame Penetration Proving Ring Proving Ring Penetration . 2-11 Penetration Dial Gauge
2.19.5.6 Penetration Plot Curve Unit Load Penetration
Curve Curve Unit Load Penetration CBR Corrected CBRValue
2.19.5.7 CBR Corrected Load Value True Load Value
(Curve Curve) Penetration 2.54 (0.1 ) Penetration 5.08 (0.2 ) CBR
CBR Penetration 2.54 CBR Penetration 5.08 CBR 5.08 2.54 CBR
5.08 2.19.5.8
75 8 Curve 2.5.4 (10) ( . 2 -15 . )
2.19.5.9* CBR 2
2.19.2.1.4 (1) 2.1.4 (2)
7/24/2019 SOFT SOIL BEHAVIOUR DUE TO EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION USING DIFFERENT CONSTITUTIVE MODELS
114/161
100
CBR CompactionTest .-. 107/2517 ( 2.1.4 (1)) CBR Compaction Test .-. 108/2517 ( 2.19.2.1.4 (2))
7/24/2019 SOFT SOIL BEHAVIOUR DUE TO EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION USING DIFFERENT CONSTITUTIVE MODELS
115/161
101
.-. 109/2517Test Number DH-T 109/2517
2.36 LABORATORY LOADING MACHINE101
7/24/2019 SOFT SOIL BEHAVIOUR DUE TO EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION USING DIFFERENT CONSTITUTIVE MODELS
116/161
102
2.37 CBR.
7/24/2019 SOFT SOIL BEHAVIOUR DUE TO EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION USING DIFFERENT CONSTITUTIVE MODELS
117/161
103
C-443 . . - 3 .
.CALIFORNIA BEARING RATIO TEST
Sample Subbase Layer km. 43+150-43+295 Frontage Rd. Rt
Mold No. 4 Weight 0.200 Kg. Volume 2127 cc. Factor 8.3195 lb/Div-23 lb
DENSITY
No.blows 12 Wt Mold+Soil Kg.
No.Layers 5 Wt Mold Kg.
Wt Soil Kg.
Wt.Hammer 4.537 Kg. Wet Density gm./cc.
Drop 45.72 cm. Dry Density gm./cc.
WATER CONTENT
25 46 33 9
Wt. Can+ Wt Soil gm. 300.5 312.0 312.0 315.0
Wt.Can+Dry Soil gm. 282.7 294.3 293.7 289.5
Wt. Water gm. 17.8 17.7 18.3 25.5
Wt.Can gm. 41.6 42.1 42.0 41.7
Wt. Dry Soil gm. 241.1 252.2 251.7 247.8
Water content % 7.4 7.0 7.3 10.3
Average Water content % - 7.2 - -
PENETRATION TEST : Surcharge 2 pcs. = 4.536 Kg. Proving Ring No. 200382
Piston area = 19.355 cm.2 (3 in.
2) at 1.27 mm/min (0.05 in/min)
Date Time Reading
mm.
Swell
mm.
Swell
%
Days Pene
(mm.) (1)
Dial
Reading
Cor. Pme.
(mm.)
(3)=(1)-(2)
Load
(Kg.)
Rdg.from (2)
Bearing
Value
Kg./cm.2
Bearing
Ratio
(From Curve)
28/4/43 10.30 1.00 - - 0 0.63(0.025*)
7
29 10.30 1.17 0.17 0.14 1 1.27
(0.050*)
16
30 10.30 1.19 0.19 0.16 2 1.90
(0.075*)
25
1/5/43 10.30 1.20 0.20 0.17 3 2.54
(0.100*)
36
2 10.30 1.20 0.20 0.17 4 3.13
(0.125*)
45
(1)Optimum Moist. 7.5% 3.81(0.150*)
55
(2)Original Moist. 0.7 % 4.44(0.175*)
62
(3) Water to be added (1)(2) 6.9% 5.08(0.200*)
70
(4) Use soil passing # 4 2.460 gm. 0.35(0.200)
(5) Use soil retained # 4 3540 gm. 7.02(0.300*)
(6) Total dry soil (4)+(5) 6000 gm. 0.09(0.350*)
(7) Total dry soil (6)+ 100 (2)
100
5961 gm. 0.008
(0.400*)
(8) Total water to be added 408(7) (3)
gm. 11.44(0.450*)
12.70
0.200*)
7/24/2019 SOFT SOIL BEHAVIOUR DUE TO EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION USING DIFFERENT CONSTITUTIVE MODELS
118/161
104
. 2-15
Test No. C-443
Type of test CBR. At 12 Blows
Date 2/5/43
Source Subbase Layer km. 43+150-43+295 Frontage Rd. RT.
Plotted by
7/24/2019 SOFT SOIL BEHAVIOUR DUE TO EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION USING DIFFERENT CONSTITUTIVE MODELS
119/161
105
. 2-15 .
SUMMARY OF RESULTS
Type and No. of test C-443 (G-22)
Type of material Weathering Rock To be used for Subbase LayerSource . . Stock pile No.Location of sampling km. 43+150-43+295 Frontage Rd., RT.
Tested by , Dated 3/5/43
MaterialsPassing
L.L. P.L.50.0 25.0 19.0 9.5 # 10 # 40 # 200
A A-2-4 100.0 91.5 86.7 60.9 30.0 20.8 16.9 28.8 8.3
B Grade B # 4 = 41.0
Mixed A : B =
Blow Density gm./cc. CBR% Swell%8 - - -12 1.780 10.6 0.1725 1.874 37.5 0.1456 1.979 53.6 0.1075 - - -
100% Mod Comp. (.-. 108/2517) = 1.995 gm./cc.95% Mod Comp. (.-. 108/2517) = 1.895 gm./cc.O.M.C. = 7.5 % water content of (molding) CBR = 7.2 %Required CBR 25.0 % Raise percent compaction - %
7/24/2019 SOFT SOIL BEHAVIOUR DUE TO EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION USING DIFFERENT CONSTITUTIVE MODELS
120/161
106
2.20 CBR (Field CBR) (.-. 602/2517)(U.S. Corps of Engineers)
2.20.1
19.0 (3/4 ) U.S. Corps of Engineers
2.20.2
2.20.2.1 1 2 2.20.2.1.1
2.20.2.1.2 (Screw Jack) 5,000 (50 )
1.27 (0.05 )
2.20.2.1.3 (Penetration Piston) 49.5 (1.95 ) 1,935.4 (3 ) 142.4 (6 ) (Piston Rod)
Proving Ring 2.20.2.1.4
(Dial Gauge With Magnetic Holder) 25 0.01 ( 1 0.001 )
2.20.2.1.5 (Steel Plate) 3
7/24/2019 SOFT SOIL BEHAVIOUR DUE TO EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION USING DIFFERENT CONSTITUTIVE MODELS
121/161
107
(1) 2 4,537 (10 ) 304.8 (12 )
(2) 4,537 (10 ) 254 (10 ) 51.6 (2 1/32 )
(3) 2,258 (5 ) 254 (10 )
(SlottedSurcharge Split Surcharge)
2.20.2.1.6 Proving Ring 1,000 (2,000 , 10) 3,000 (6,000 , 30 ) Curve Proving Ring
2.20.2.1.7
(Dial Gauge) 2.20.2.1.8 (piston Rod)
2.20.2.1.9
2.20.2.2
2.20.2.2.1 2.20.2.2.2 2.20.2.2.3
2.20.2.3 . 6-01 . 6-02
2.20.2.4
7/24/2019 SOFT SOIL BEHAVIOUR DUE TO EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION USING DIFFERENT CONSTITUTIVE MODELS
122/161
108
-
2.20.2.5 2.20.2.5.1
500 x 500 ( . -.603/2517 CBR 300 )
2.20.2.5.2
CBR 19.0 (3/4 ) (Soak) (1) 2.20.2.1.5 (1) 1
4,537 (10 )
13 ,011 (30) (2) 2.1.5 (1) 1
2.20.2.1.5 (3) 1 6,084 (15 ) Subgrade 13,611 (30 )
(Degree of Saturation) 80% ( 24 )
7/24/2019 SOFT SOIL BEHAVIOUR DUE TO EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION USING DIFFERENT CONSTITUTIVE MODELS
123/161
109
15
2.20.2.5.3 ProvingRing
(1) 2.20.2.1.5 (2) 1 4,537 (10 ) 13 ,6 11 (3 0)
(2) 2.20.2.1.5 (2) 1 2.20.2.1.5 (3)
1 6,805 (15 ) Subgrade 13,611 (30 )
2.20.2.5.4 (Dial Gauge) Dial Guage (2.20.2.1.7)
2.20.2.5.5
4,000 (40 ) Proving Ring Dial Gauge 4,000 (40 )
Stress vs. Penetration
7/24/2019 SOFT SOIL BEHAVIOUR DUE TO EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION USING DIFFERENT CONSTITUTIVE MODELS
124/161
110
2.20.2.5.6 1.27 (0.05 )
2.20.2.5.7 Proving Ring - 0.63 (0.025 )- 1.27 (0.050 )- 1.90 (0.075 )- 2.54 (0.100 )-
3.17 (0.125 )- 3.81 (0.150 )- 4.44 (0.175 )- 5.08 (0.200 )- 6.35 (0.250 )- 7.62 (0.300 )- 8.89 (0.350 )
- 10.16 (0.400 )- 11.43 (0.450 )- 12.70 (0.500 )
2.20.2.5.8
(1) 19.0 300
(2) 4.75 100
2.20.2.5.9 Curve Proving Ring (Dial Reading vs. Penetration) CBR
7/24/2019 SOFT SOIL BEHAVIOUR DUE TO EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION USING DIFFERENT CONSTITUTIVE MODELS
125/161
7/24/2019 SOFT SOIL BEHAVIOUR DUE TO EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION USING DIFFERENT CONSTITUTIVE MODELS
126/161
112
2.20.4
2.20.4.1 CBR 1
2.20.4.2 2 2.20.4.3
. 6-01 . 6-022.20.5
2.20.5.1 400
2.20.5.2 Soak
2
2.20.5.3
2.20.5.4
2.20.5.5 2.5.6 2.5.7 90% (Capacity) Proving Ring Proving Ring 1,000 (10 ) Proving Ring 3,000 (30 ) Proving Ring3,000 (30 )
2.20.5.6 Penetration Plot Curve Load ( Proving Ring Reading) Penetration Curve Curve
7/24/2019 SOFT SOIL BEHAVIOUR DUE TO EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION USING DIFFERENT CONSTITUTIVE MODELS
127/161
113
Unit Load Penetration CBR CBR Corrected CBRValue
2.20.5.7 CBR Penetration 2.54 (0.1 ) Penetration 5.08 (0.2 ) CBR
CBR Penetration 2.54 CBR Penetration 5.08 CBR 5.08 2.54 CBR
5.08 2.20.6
2.20.6.1 The Asphalt Institute (1963). Soil Manual for Tesing of AsphaltPavement Structure.
2.20.6.2 Road Research Laboratory, Department of Scientific and IndustrialResearch, U.K. Soil Mechanics for Road Engineers.
2.20.6.3 .-. 109/2517 CBR
7/24/2019 SOFT SOIL BEHAVIOUR DUE TO EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION USING DIFFERENT CONSTITUTIVE MODELS
128/161
114
.-. 602/2517
Test Number DH-T 602/2517
2.38 Field CBR
2.38 Field CBR ()
7/24/2019 SOFT SOIL BEHAVIOUR DUE TO EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION USING DIFFERENT CONSTITUTIVE MODELS
129/161
115
. 6-01 .
-- . 1-500 L.T.
. C.B.R. Subgrade 1600 4.
Soil Agg. 80 mm. 120 mm..
Proving Ring No. AG.66 26 .. 37.Factor of Proving Ring 3.108 Kg./Division .
Pene. Dial Pene. Dial Pene. Dial
0.63
(0.025*) 1
4.44
(0.450*) 89 126
1.27
(0.050*) 16
5.08
(0.200*) 94
13.70
(0.500*) 128
1.90
(0.075*) 32
6.35
(0.250*) 104
2.51
(0.100*) 53
7.62
(0.300*) 113
3.17
(0.125*) 70
8.09
(0.350*) 120
3.81
(0.150*) 80
10.15
(1.400*) 124
7/24/2019 SOFT SOIL BEHAVIOUR DUE TO EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION USING DIFFERENT CONSTITUTIVE MODELS
130/161
116
2.21
2.21.1 ( 2.42) 4 6
85 100 (585 690)
2.39 (pneumatic-tired roller)
2.21.2 2.43 (off-center rotation weight) 20 30
(lift)
7/24/2019 SOFT SOIL BEHAVIOUR DUE TO EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION USING DIFFERENT CONSTITUTIVE MODELS
131/161
117
(drgree of compaction) ( 2.41a) 10 15
2.40 (vibrating roller)
2.41a
(Johnoso and Sallberg. 1960)
7/24/2019 SOFT SOIL BEHAVIOUR DUE TO EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION USING DIFFERENT CONSTITUTIVE MODELS
132/161
118
2.41b (DAppolonia et al, 1969)
2.41b
55.6 1.19 2.44 15 2. 44b 0.5 ()
2.36(DAppolonia et al., 1969)
7/24/2019 SOFT SOIL BEHAVIOUR DUE TO EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION USING DIFFERENT CONSTITUTIVE MODELS
133/161
119
2.42 75% 5
7/24/2019 SOFT SOIL BEHAVIOUR DUE TO EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION USING DIFFERENT CONSTITUTIVE MODELS
134/161
120
3
3.1 CBR.
CBR.
(Maximum dry density)
3.2 :
Atterberg CBR 2038 12()-.-.
3.3
- .-.204/2516
- (Liquid Limit :LL) .- 102/25/5
7/24/2019 SOFT SOIL BEHAVIOUR DUE TO EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION USING DIFFERENT CONSTITUTIVE MODELS
135/161
121
- (Plastic Limit: PL) .103/2515
- (Standrad compaction) .-107/2517
- .. ( CBR.) .-109/2517
3.4 ( Field density test)
(Sand Cone Test)
3.1 3.3 ( 500 )95 3.2
3.5 CBR.
() 0.1 3.3
7/24/2019 SOFT SOIL BEHAVIOUR DUE TO EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION USING DIFFERENT CONSTITUTIVE MODELS
136/161
122
3.1
General Test
CBR.
,maxd
>95%
7/24/2019 SOFT SOIL BEHAVIOUR DUE TO EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION USING DIFFERENT CONSTITUTIVE MODELS
137/161
123
3.2
3.3 ( Fied Compression test.)
7/24/2019 SOFT SOIL BEHAVIOUR DUE TO EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION USING DIFFERENT CONSTITUTIVE MODELS
138/161
124
4
4.1
(Stresshistory)
(Collapse duetowetting)
(Phien-wejet al., 1992)
()
California Divisionof Highway (1929)
7/24/2019 SOFT SOIL BEHAVIOUR DUE TO EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION USING DIFFERENT CONSTITUTIVE MODELS
139/161
125
95 3 +3
( )(Horpibulsuk et al., 2013)
1) 32 2)
4.2
1: 2: (Point stress ratio,
p)
0.1 (6894.76 ) 44.5 3:
Atterberg .-
7/24/2019 SOFT SOIL BEHAVIOUR DUE TO EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION USING DIFFERENT CONSTITUTIVE MODELS
140/161
126
.204/2516 .- 102/2515 .103/2515 (Standardcompaction) .- 107/2517 .-109/2517 2 3
5 5 10 () () (Unsoakedcondition)
2038 12 ()
4.3
200 25.1 56.3 10.95 4.62 17.3 18.5 4.1 0.35 32 4.1
Kumpala and Horpibulsuk(2013) 29.4 36.8
( 0.075 )
7/24/2019 SOFT SOIL BEHAVIOUR DUE TO EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION USING DIFFERENT CONSTITUTIVE MODELS
141/161
127
4.1 Degree of correlation 0.806 Leeand Suedkamp (1972) 35 30 70
7/24/2019 SOFT SOIL BEHAVIOUR DUE TO EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION USING DIFFERENT CONSTITUTIVE MODELS
142/161
128
4.1 32
% Passing
LL PI OWC
Dry CBR SwellUS
CS
No. 2" 1" 3/4" 3/8" #4 #10 #40 #200unit weight
(KN/m3)
(%) (%)
1 - - - - 100 87.5 82.8 28.7
30.7 7.4 14.0 18.32 5.18 0.6 SM
2 - - - - 100 86.0 80.2 30.7
32.0 8.4 14.4 18.09 5.06 0.8 SM
3 - - - - 100 84.9 79.3 28.6
31.4 8.8 13.1 18.51 5.41 0.9 SC
4 - - - - 100 82.6 75.8 35.9
34.0 9.4 15.0 17.96 4.72 0.8 SM
5 - - - - 100 87.5 82.8 36.1
34.0 9.5 14.8 17.86 4.83 0.8 SM
6 - - - - 100 86.0 80.2 26.5
32.3 8.9 13.2 18.49 5.41 0.6 SM
7 - - 100 95.6 82.2 74.2 69.8 28.6
31.4 8.6 13.3 18.50 5.41 0.8 SC
8 - - - - 100 84.9 79.3 34.1
31.4 8.5 14.4 18.00 5.06 0.9 SC
9 - - - - 100 86.0 80.2 40.1
34.4 8.2 15.2 17.91 4.72 1.5 SM
10 - - - - 100 95.0 91.7 44.1
33.1 8.6 15.8 17.63 4.37 1.3 SM
11 - - - - 100 95.0 91.7 37.7
31.4 8.6 14.6 17.88 4.83 1.8 SC
12 - - - - 100 95.0 91.7 41.1
33.4 9.2 15.6 17.67 4.37 1.8 SM
13 - - - - 100 93.0 88.2 37.9
31.7 8.7 15.6 17.76 4.37 0.9 SC
14 - - - - 100 95.0 91.7 28.6
31.4 8.6 13.5 18.46 5.41 0.8 SC
15 - - - - 100 97.2 95.6 29.0
33.0 9.3 13.7 18.40 5.06 0.8 SM
16 - - - - 100 86.0 80.2 37.9
32.7 9.7 15.2 17.66 4.26 1.4 SC
17 - - - - 100 97.2 95.6 26.6
29.4 7.6 14.7 18.09 5.29 1.3 SC
18 - - - - 100 86.0 80.2 33.1
31.4 8.1 15.3 17.89 4.72 1.2 SM
19 - - - - 100 95.0 91.7 37.7
31.4 8.5 14.0 18.30 4.6 1.8 SC
20 - - - - 100 95.0 91.7 31.0
30.0 8.0 14.0 18.13 4.95 0.8 SC
21 - - - - 100 93.0 88.2 34.0
31.0 8.2 14.8 17.80 4.83 0.8 SC
22 - - - - 100 95.0 91.7 34.1
33.4 9.6 13.3 18.41 4.72 2.0 SM23 - - - - 100 95.0 91.7 35.1
31.4 8.9 15.0 17.74 5.29 1.1 SC
24 - - - - 100 85.2 73.5 47.1
32.6 10.6 15.3 17.82 4.37 2.6 SC
25 - - - - 100 86.8 78.5 43.4
33.3 9.3 16.0 17.63 4.6 2.5 SM
26 - - - - 100 86.5 57.5 53.8
33.7 9.5 15.4 17.52 4.37 2.5 ML
27 - - - - 100 86.9 78.7 54.2
36.8 11.6 15.8 17.34 4.49 2.1 ML
28 - - - 100 95.8 82.4 68.3 56.3
35.9 10.5 16.4 17.46 4.03 2.5 ML
29 10
99.
98 89.3 68.8 63.7 53.8 46.7
35.3 10.8 15.1 17.59 4.37 2.5 SM
30 10
99.
99.2 89.1 67.1 61.8 52.1 46.1
32.5 10.1 15.6 17.78 4.49 2.5 SC
31 10
99.
98.4 90.2 72.8 69.8 56.4 47.3
34.3 10.6 15.5 17.58 4.72 1.9 SC
32 - - - 100 96.6 83.0 65.3 53.1
35.3 10.9 16.3 17.39 4.26 2.6 ML
7/24/2019 SOFT SOIL BEHAVIOUR DUE TO EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION USING DIFFERENT CONSTITUTIVE MODELS
143/161
129
(Sridharan, 1991 Sridharan and Rao, 1975) Ramiah et al. (1970),Pandian et al. (1997) Nagaraj et al. (2006) ( 4.1) 4.2
200
,max 0.0339 19.211d P .. (4.1)
P200
20 30 40 50 600
20
40
60
LLandPI(%)
Percent finer than 0.075 mm, P
LL = 0.2046P+24.892|r|=0.836
Highway No. 2420, Khon KeanHighway No. 2038, Amphoe Phuwiang, Khon KeanAmphoe Namsom, Udonthani
PI = 0.0907P+ 5.691|r|=0.772
4.1 200
7/24/2019 SOFT SOIL BEHAVIOUR DUE TO EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION USING DIFFERENT CONSTITUTIVE MODELS
144/161
130
20 30 40 50 6017
18
19
Dr
yunitweight,
d,max
(kN/m
3)
Percent finer than 0.075 mm, P
Highway No. 2420, Khon KeanHighway No. 2038, Amphoe Phuwiang, Khon Kean
Amphoe Namsom, Udonthani
d, max = -0.0339(P) + 19.211
|r|=0.873
4.2 200
16 17 18 19 2012
14
16
18
Dry unit weight, d, max(kN/m3)
Optimumwatercontent,OWC(%) Highway No. 2420, Khon KeanHighway No. 2038, Amphoe Phuwiang, Khon Kean
Amphoe Namsom, Udonthani
Chinkulkijniwat et al. (2010)OWC = 0.1154d,max
2- 6.7924d,max+ 99.407
4.3
7/24/2019 SOFT SOIL BEHAVIOUR DUE TO EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION USING DIFFERENT CONSTITUTIVE MODELS
145/161
131
Chinkulkijniwat et al. (2010) 32 4.3
20 30 40 50 600
1
2
3
4
Swell,S(%)
Percent finer than 0.075 mm, P
S = 0.0687P - 1.175|r|=0.873
Highway No. 2420, Khon KeanHighway No. 2038, Amphoe Phuwiang, Khon KeanAmphoe Namsom, Udonthani
4.4200
() () 4.4
7/24/2019 SOFT SOIL BEHAVIOUR DUE TO EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION USING DIFFERENT CONSTITUTIVE MODELS
146/161
132
(Attractiveforces) (Swell, S) 200
0.0687 1.175S P ..(4.2)
Horpibulsuk et al. (2013)
4.5 (CBR
soaked)
,max0.891 11.194soaked dCBR (4.3)
( 4.6)
4.7 ( ) 4.1 4.6
7/24/2019 SOFT SOIL BEHAVIOUR DUE TO EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION USING DIFFERENT CONSTITUTIVE MODELS
147/161
133
17.0 17.5 18.0 18.5 19.03
4
5
6
CBR
soaked(%)
Dry unit weight, d, max(kN/m3)
CBRsoaked= 0.891d, max - 11.194|r|=0.785
Highway No. 2420, Khon KeanHighway No. 2038, Amphoe Phuwiang, Khon KeanAmphoe Namsom, Udonthani
4.5
0 1 2 33
4
5
6
C
BR
soaked
(%)
Swell, S(%)
CBRsoaked= -0.3958S + 5.335|r|=0.708
Highway No. 2420, Khon KeanHighway No. 2038, Amphoe Phuwiang, Khon KeanAmphoe Namsom, Udonthani
4.6
7/24/2019 SOFT SOIL BEHAVIOUR DUE TO EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION USING DIFFERENT CONSTITUTIVE MODELS
148/161
134
25 30 35 403
4
5
6
7
CBR
soaked
(%)
Liquid limit, LL (%)
Highway No. 2420, Khon Kean
Highway No. 2038, Amphoe Phuwiang, Khon KeanAmphoe Namsom, Udonthani
Gaaver (2012)Borg El-Arab SoilCBR = 0.076LL-2822
7/24/2019 SOFT SOIL BEHAVIOUR DUE TO EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION USING DIFFERENT CONSTITUTIVE MODELS
149/161
135
4.2
Material%Passing LL LL PI PI OWC OWC
d
max
d
max
#4 #10 #40 #200 (M) (P) (M) (P) (M) (P) (M) (P)
SM 100 98 93 29.4 31.4 30.5 8.6 8.4 13.5 13.8 18.3 18.2
* M P 4.8a 18.2 11.2
11.2 5940, 12375 27720 4.8b 4.57, 4.89, 8.94 12.66
(Punching shear)
7/24/2019 SOFT SOIL BEHAVIOUR DUE TO EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION USING DIFFERENT CONSTITUTIVE MODELS
150/161
136
0 5 10 15 20 2515
16
17
18
19
Drydensity,d
(kN/m
3)
Water content (%)
SM LL = 31.4 PI = 8.6 Gs= 2.65
d,max= 18.2 kN/m3
OWC = 11.2 %
ZeroAir Voids
0 5 10 1515
16
17
18
19
Dryunitweight,
d(kN/m
3)
Point Pressure, p(%)
Unsoaked with surcharge (CBRunsoaked)Unsoaked without surchargesoaked with surcharge (CBRsoaked)soaked without surcharge
d= 1.23CBRunsoaked+12.61d= 1.85p, unso aked+ 9.34d= 0.684CBRsoaked+12.05d= 0.36p, soaked+13.57
4.8
4. 9 CBRunsoaked 2.6 (=1.39/0.539) CBRsoaked 4.10 (Horpibulsuk et al. 2009 and 2013) 4.11
7/24/2019 SOFT SOIL BEHAVIOUR DUE TO EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION USING DIFFERENT CONSTITUTIVE MODELS
151/161
137
0 5 10 150
5
10
15
CBR(%)
Unsoaked point stress ratio, p, unsoaked(%)
CBRunsoaked= 1.391p|r|=0.926
CBRsoaked= 0.538p|r|=0.916
4.9
7/24/2019 SOFT SOIL BEHAVIOUR DUE TO EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION USING DIFFERENT CONSTITUTIVE MODELS
152/161
138
1040
5
10
15
Point
stressratio,p
(%)
Compaction energy (kJ/m3)
Unsoaked with surcharge (CBRunsoaked)
Unsoaked without surchargeSoaked with surcharge (CBRsoaked)Soaked without surcharge
4.10
7/24/2019 SOFT SOIL BEHAVIOUR DUE TO EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION USING DIFFERENT CONSTITUTIVE MODELS
153/161
139
16 17 18 19 200
5
10
15
20
Poin
tstressratio,p
(%)
Dry unit weight, d(kN/m3)
Unsoaked with surcharge (CBRunsoaked)Unsoaked without surchargeSoaked with surcharge (CBRsoaked)Soaked without surcharge
CBRunsoaked= 2.722d-36.807|r|=0.994
p, unsoaked= 1.388d-16.278|r|=0.974
CBRsoaked = 0.516d- 4.625|r|=0.991
p, soaked= 0.796d- 9.959|r|=0.991
4.11
4.5 2038
12() . . () 30 40 1 200 ( 6)
95 12 20 30 6 4.12 6 11
7/24/2019 SOFT SOIL BEHAVIOUR DUE TO EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION USING DIFFERENT CONSTITUTIVE MODELS
154/161
140
( 4.12b) 11 () (Zero air void) (Relative compaction,
df/
d,max) (Horpibulsuk et al., 2013)
,max
lndf
d
a b N
(4.4)
df a b N
ab 74.85 10.81 Horpibulsuk et al. (2013) ab75.92 9.61 N 100
0 5 10 15 2016
17
18
19
Fielddrydensity,d(kN/m
3)
Number of roller passes, N
km.22+000 - km.22+250km.22+300 - km.22+500km.22+500 - km.22+750
d, max = 18.3 (kN/m3)
|r|=0.976
7/24/2019 SOFT SOIL BEHAVIOUR DUE TO EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION USING DIFFERENT CONSTITUTIVE MODELS
155/161
141
(a)
0 5 10 15 2090
95
100
105
Relativecom
paction,d
/d,max
(%)
Number of roller passes, N
km.22+000 - km.22+250km.22+300 - km.22+500km.22+500 - km.22+750
d/d, max = 74.85 + 10.21 lnN|r|=0.976
d/d, max = 100 %
(b)
4.12
4.13 11 12 4.13 CBR
soaked= 0.538
p
7/24/2019 SOFT SOIL BEHAVIOUR DUE TO EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION USING DIFFERENT CONSTITUTIVE MODELS
156/161
142
0 5 10 15 203.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.5
CBR(%)
Number of roller passes, N
km.22+000 - km.22+250km.22+300 - km.22+500km.22+500 - km.22+750
CBRmax= 4.82 %
CBR predicted
4.13
4.6
1.
2.
3.
1.
2 2. a b
(
) 100
7/24/2019 SOFT SOIL BEHAVIOUR DUE TO EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION USING DIFFERENT CONSTITUTIVE MODELS
157/161
143
3. a b
4. 3
5. 95 95
7/24/2019 SOFT SOIL BEHAVIOUR DUE TO EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION USING DIFFERENT CONSTITUTIVE MODELS
158/161
144
5
1. 200
2. 2.6
3.
1.0
4.
7/24/2019 SOFT SOIL BEHAVIOUR DUE TO EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION USING DIFFERENT CONSTITUTIVE MODELS
159/161
145
. (2545).
. . 240 . (2545). - .. 241 .
Normalization. . 243 . (2548). . . 248Proctor. (1930). . . .
738-739
Hogentogler. (1936). . . .739-740
Buchanan. (1942). .. . 740- 741
Hilf. (1956). .. . 741-742Lambe. (1985). . . . 742- 743
. (Embankment) (..102/2532)
. (Subbase) (..205/2532)
.(.,204/2516)
. Liquid Limit (LL) (.,
102/2515)
7/24/2019 SOFT SOIL BEHAVIOUR DUE TO EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION USING DIFFERENT CONSTITUTIVE MODELS
160/161
146
. Plastic Limit (PL) PlasticityIndex (PI)
(
..103/2515)
. Compaction Test(..107/2517)
. (.-. 603/2517) . CBR (..109/2517)
. CBR (Field CBR)(.-. 602/2517)
Horpibulsuk, S., Suddeepong, A., Chamket, P. and Chinkulkijniwat, A. (2013), Compaction
behavior of fine-grained soils, lateritic soils and crushed rocks, Soils and
Foundations, Vol.53, No.1, pp.166-172.
Horpibulsuk, S., Katkan, W., and Naramitkornburee, A. (2009), Modified Ohios curves: A
rapid estimation of compaction curves for coarse- and fine-grained soils,
Geotechnical Testing Journal, ASTM, Vol.32, No.1, pp.64-75.Sridharan, A., 1991. Engineering behavior of fine grained soils A fundamental approach.
Indian Geotechnical Journal 21 (1), 1-136.
Sridharan, A. and Rao, G.V., 1975. Mechanism controlling the liquid limit of clays.
Proceedings of Istanbul Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering.
vol. 1, pp. 65-74.
Kumpala, A. and Horpibulsuk, S. (2013), Engineering properties of calcium carbide residue
stabilized silty clay,Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, ASCE, Vol.25, No.5,
doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0000618.
Chinkulkijniwat, A., Man-koksung, E, Uchaipichat, A., and Horpibulsuk, S. (2010),
Compaction characteristics of non-gravel and gravelly soils using a small
compaction apparatus, Journal of ASTM International.Vol.7, No.7, Paper ID
JAI102945.
7/24/2019 SOFT SOIL BEHAVIOUR DUE TO EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION USING DIFFERENT CONSTITUTIVE MODELS
161/161
147
28 2511 . . . . . (.) (.) .. 2544