report on evaluations and tests of laterite soil stabilized with chemroad and...

Report on

Evaluations and Tests of Laterite Soil Stabilized with CHEMROAD and cement

Submitted to:

Thanawarath Kritpuckkrapong

Indochina Engineering System Co., Ltd. 888/7 Moo 20 Soi Boonmeesap

Bangplee-Tamru Rd., Bangplee Sub-District Bangplee, Samutprakarn 10540

By:

Prof. Dennes T. Bergado, Director, ACSIG Asian Center for Soil Improvement and Geosynthetics(ACSIG)

School of Engineering and Technology Asian Institute of Technology

31 March 2010

Prof. Dennes T. Bergado ,Director Asian Center for Soil Improvement and Geosynthetics (ACSIG) School of Engineering and Technology (SET)

Street Address: Km. 42 Phaholyothin Highway Klong Luang Pathum Thani 12120 Thailand

Asian Institute of Technology

Postal Address: P.O. Box 4 Klong Luang, Pathum Thani, 12120 Thailand

Tel:(66-2)524-5512 (66-2)524-5524 Fax:(66-2)524-6050 (66-2)524-5509 e-mail: [email protected] http://www.ait.ac.th

mailto:[email protected]�

TABLE OF CONTENT

Introduction .................................................................................................................. 1 Basic Properties of Laterite Soil Sample .................................................................... 2 Atterberg’s Limit Test of Laterite Soil Sample .............................................................. 2

Soil Classification of Laterite Soil Sample .................................................................... 3

Specific Gravity Test of Laterite Soil Sample ................................................................ 4

Compaction Characteristic of Laterite Soil Sample ........................................................ 4

California Bearing Ratio (CBR) of Laterite Soil Sample................................................ 5

Unconfined Compression Strength of Laterite Soil Sample ........................................... 5

Summary of Basic Properties of Laterite Soil Sample ............................................... 6 Laterite Soil Mixed Polymer Chemroad and Cement Content ................................. 7 Unconfined Compression Strength (ASTM D2166-850 at Optimum Compaction ......... 8

California Bearing Ratio (CBR) Test (ASTM D1883) at Optimum Compaction ......... 10

Flexural-Strength Test (ASTM D1635) ........................................................................ 12

Permeability Test (ASTM D2434) ............................................................................... 12

Conclusions and Recommendations .......................................................................... 14 References ................................................................................................................... 15 Appendix A .................................................................................................................. 16

Appendix B .................................................................................................................. 18

Appendix C .................................................................................................................. 21

Appendix D .................................................................................................................. 23

Appendix E .................................................................................................................. 26

Appendix F ................................................................................................................... 31

Appendix G .................................................................................................................. 41 Appendix H .................................................................................................................. 83

Appendix I.................................................................................................................... 93

Appendix J ................................................................................................................... 99

1 INTRODUCTION Soil stabilization is the process to improve the engineering properties of poor soils as well as enhancing good soils to meet specified requirements and reduce the construction time. Soil-cement is the simple method to improve the engineering properties of the soil by using highly-cemented mixture of soil, Portland cement, and water so that the mixture gains strength and durability rapidly. Soil-cement technology was first developed in the USA in 1935 for highway construction. This technology gained its worldwide popularity rapidly with the fields of application in developed countries. The purpose is for application in road construction resulting in increased bearing capacity of soft subgrade, enabling a reduction in the thickness of the base course. Polymer Chemroad is polymer-based mixture of latex and cellulose dispersed in water. It is formulated to stabilize the cement and in-situ soils with water for an ideal and high quality concrete-like road base which will make road building much cheaper and faster than conventional methods. Polymer Chemroad worked by cementing and curing a mixture of soil/aggregate with Portland cement, Polymer Chemroad and water. Polymer Chemroad improved the bonding efficiency of the cement to minimize the micro-crack in the soil-cement and resulting modulus of elasticity created the properties of flexibility with water proof mixture. Polymer Chemroad structure is able to use the locally-available soil mixed with cement and Polymer Chemroad for construction in order to have better road base. No extra expenses and delivery charges for other materials such as gravel, thus, save both time and money. This report presents the evaluations of test results of laterite soil sample for the basic properties as well as engineering properties of laterite soil and stabilized with Polymer Chemroad and cement in the laboratory test. The laboratory tests program included unconfined compressive strength test, California Bearing Ratio test, flexural-strength test, and permeability test. These laboratory tests examine the effect of percent cement by dry weight and percent of Polymer Chemroad in each sample. Subsequently, the test results were analyzed. However, the results presented in this report are representative only to the soil sample and the type of admixture provided by the client.

2 BASIC PROPERTIES OF LATERITE SOIL SAMPLE The basic properties were determined to evaluate the characteristic of laterite soil samples. The tests were undertaken generally according to ASTM: American Society for Testing and Material, including Atterberg limits, specific gravity, particle size distribution, compaction, California Bearing Ratio test, and unconfined compressive strength test. ATTERBERG’S LIMIT TEST OF LATERITE SOIL SAMPLE Atterberg’s Limit Test (ASTM D4318) was performed to determine liquid limit, plastic limit and the plasticity of specimens in order to characterize its condition by water content. The result of liquid limit and plastic limit test are summarized in the spreadsheets as in Appendix A. Liquid limit test was performed with 4 different water contents. The Casagrande method was used to set speed and the number of bounces of the cup on the hard base counted. The rotation was continued until the groove in the soil flows and closes over a specified length. The number of blows of the cup was noted and a sample of the soil taken to determine the moisture content. The test was repeated at increasing water contents by adding water, each time noting the number of blows required to close the groove.

Figure 1 Flow curve for liquid limit (LL) determination of laterite soil After testing, the water content of soil on an arithmetic scale, in percent, and corresponding number of blows on a logarithmic scale are plotted. The relevant points are connected and this line yielded the liquid limit at its intersection with the vertical of the 25 number of blows. Figure 1 shows the average liquid limit (LL) of 46.52% at 25 number of blows. Plastic limit test was performed with two different water contents that defined the moisture content, in percent, at which the soil crumbles, when rolled into 3.2 mm in diameter to determine the water content of a section of the thread. The average plastic limit (PL) for these specimens is 17.48 %.

3 The plasticity index (PI) is the difference between the liquid limit and plastic limit of a soil (PI= LL- PL). From the results of liquid limit and plastic limit, plasticity index is 29.04%. SOIL CLASSIFICATION OF LATERITE SOIL SAMPLE In case of the particles with size larger than 75 µm (retained on sieve no. 200), the particle sizes were determined by “Sieve Analyses” (ASTM D422-63). Wet sieve analysis was applied for laterite soil samples. The soil sample was placed onto a sieve and rinsed by spraying water until water is clear. The soil sample which retained on the sieve was then air-dried and the particle size was determined by dry-sieve again. Sieve analysis is performed by shaking a sample of lateritic soil through a series of ten screens consisting of the following number of sieve: 3/4", 1/2", 3/8", 4, 10, 20, 40, 60, 100, and 200 with a pan at the bottom. After sieving, the material retained on each sieve was weighed and the masses recorded. The total mass percent of grains within the selected sieve sizes were calculated. Subtracting these percentages successively from 100% yielded the ordinates of the grain-size distribution curve. A point was marked on a semi-log graph for the percent passed through the sieve for each sieve size. Figure 2 Grain size distribution curve Sieve analysis test result was given in Appendix B which shows the percent finer or percent passing of sieve in each size. Figure 2 shows a grain size distribution curve for laterite soil sample as percent finer by weight with the particle size decreasing from left to right on the horizontal axis.

Grain Size Distribution Curve

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

80.00

90.00

100.00

0.0100.1001.00010.000100.000

Diameter in mm.

Perc

ent b

y w

eigh

t (%

)

4 For this laterite soil samples, percent passing sieve No. 200 and No. 4 are 37.90% and 76.76%, respectively. The basic properties from Atterberg’s Limit test are as follows: LL = 46.52% and PI =29.04%. According to unified classification system the soil can be classified this soil as clayey sand (SC) which has percent of gravel 23.24% or it can be classified as clayey sand with gravel. For AASHTO soil classification, can be identified soil as A-7-6 which is clayey soil. Group index can be defined as 5 that is indicated quality of this laterite soil. Thus, this laterite soil is suitable for highway subgrade material. SPECIFIC GRAVITY TEST OF LATERITE SOIL SAMPLE The definition of specific gravity is the ratio of the weight in air of a given volume of a soil at a stated temperature to the weight in air of an equal volume of distilled water at a stated temperature. The specific gravity of soils determined by means of a pycnometer (ASTM D 854-58). The result of the tests is given in Appendix C which has 2.68 on average specific gravity. COMPACTION CHARACTERISTIC OF LATERITE SOIL SAMPLE A representative portion of the laterite soil sample provided was taken for compaction test, prior to the preparation of specimens such as unconfined compression test, California Bearing Ratio Test, flexural-strength test, and permeability test. Modified Proctor Compaction tests (ASTM D1557) were conducted, and the results of the tests are given in Appendix D. The compaction curve of the soil sample is shown in Fig. 3, which demonstrated maximum dry density (γd,max) and optimum water content (OMC) of 1.945 t/m3

1.7001.7201.7401.7601.7801.8001.8201.8401.8601.8801.9001.9201.9401.9601.9802.000

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17Moisture content (%)

Dry

Uni

t Wei

ght (

ton/

m3

Max. Dry Unit Weight = 1.945 ton/m3 , Optimum Moisture Content = 11.90 %

and 11.90%, respectively, in Modified Proctor Compaction.

Figure 3 Compaction curve of laterite soil sample by modified Proctor compaction

Modified Proctor Compaction

5 CALIFORNIA BEARING RATIO (CBR) OF LATERITE SOIL SAMPLE California Bearing Ratio (CBR) test (ASTM D1883) was determined by conducting a load penetration test in the laboratory. The CBR value of a compacted soil is an indicator of soil strength and bearing capacity and is widely used in the design of base and sub-base material for pavement. Based on the optimum moisture content (OMC) and the maximum dry density from the modified Proctor compaction test, all the specimens were prepared and compacted by using cylindrical mold of 152.4 mm inner diameter and 177.8 mm height. Soil was placed in the cylindrical mold in five layers and each layer was compacted according to the procedure of modified Proctor compaction at 12, 25 and 56 blows per layer. Then, the specimens were soaked in water before testing. Each specimen was loaded into the penetration test machine and subjected to an axial loading to determine the strength of the specimen.

Relationship between Dry Unit Weight and Percent C.B.R.

1.6

1.7

1.8

1.9

2.0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60

Percent C.B.R. (%)

Dry

Uni

t Wei

ght

(g/c

m3 )

Figure 4 Relationship between dry unit weight and C.B.R value The percent of California Bearing Ratio (CBR) value obtained by these tests was 57.17 % at maximum dry density from the modified Proctor compaction test as shown in Fig.4. The spreadsheets of the test are illustrated in Appendix E. UNCONFINED COMPRESSION STRENGTH OF LATERITE SOIL SAMPLE The specimen for unconfined compression test were prepared based on the optimum moisture content (OMC) and the maximum dry density from the modified Proctor compaction test. Each specimens were prepared using cylindrical mold having inner diameter of 101.6 mm and height of 116.4 mm. The prepared soil was placed in the cylindrical mold in five layers and each layer was compacted according to the procedure of modified Proctor compaction at 12, 25 and 56 blows per layer. All samples were ensured to have smooth ends that are perpendicular to the axis of the sample. Then, specimens were subjected to an axial loading at the testing machine.

6 Table 1 The results of unconfined compression test

Sample No.

qu Average (ksc)

E50 Average

(ksc) q Eu (ksc)

50 (ksc)

1 2.033 2.01

34.25 38.44 2 1.902 36.57

3 2.092 44.49 The results of three samples are shown in Table 1. It can be seen that the average unconfined compression strength (qu) is about 2 ksc and the relationships of average modulus of elasticity (E50

Characteristics

) is about 38.44 ksc. The test data are tabulated in Appendix F. SUMMARY OF BASIC PROPERTIES OF LATERITE SOIL SAMPLE The overall characteristics of laterite soil sample are tabulated in Table 2. Table 2 Summarized of basic properties of the laterite soil sample

Description Percent passing Sieve No. 200 37.90 Liquid Limit (%) 46.52 Plastic Limit (%) 17.48 Plasticity Index (%) 29.04 Unified Classification SC AASHTO Classification A-7-6 Group Index 5

Maximum Dry Density (Mg/m3 1.945 )

Optimum Moisture Content (%) 11.90

Unconfined Compressive Strength (ksc) 2.01

Modulus of Elasticity (ksc) 38.44 California Bearing Ratio (%) 57.17 Specific Gravity 2.68 Colour Reddish-brown

7 LATERITTIC SOIL MIXED WITH POLYMER CHEMROAD AND CEMENT To confirm the properties of lateritic soil mixed with Polymer Chemroad and cement, the specimens were tested as follows: 1. Unconfined Compressive Strength Test (ASTM D2166-85) Unconfined compressive strength (qu) of the soil at modified Proctor compaction mixed with 5% cement by dry weight with 0% and 5% of Polymer Chemroad were tested after curing at 7 days and 28 days. 2. California Bearing Ratio (CBR) Test (ASTM D1883) CBR value was evaluated on 5% cement by dry weight with 0% and 5% of Polymer Chemroad compacted at 95% of maximum dry density by modified Proctor compaction for soaked samples after curing at 28 days. 3. Flexural-Strength Test (ASTM D1635) Flexural-strength test was conducted on samples mixed with 10% cement by dry weight with 0% and 10% of Polymer Chemroad after curing at 28 days. 4. Permeability Test (ASTM D5084) Permeability test was performed to obtain the coefficient of permeability (k) of specimens mixed with 5% cement by dry weight with 0% and 5% of Polymer Chemroad after curing at 28 days.

8 UNCONFINED COMPRESSION STRENGTH (ASTM D2166-85) AT OPTIMUM COMPACTION The specimen for unconfined compression test were prepared based on the optimum moisture content (OMC) and the maximum dry density from the modified Proctor compaction test. Each specimens were prepared using cylindrical mold having inner diameter of 101.6 mm and height of 116.4 mm by using 5% cement by dry weight and 0% and 5% of Polymer Chemroad. In the case of untreated specimen (0% of Polymer Chemroad), an air-dried soil sample was prepared added with water at an amount just enough to subject the soil sample at the optimum moisture content (modified Proctor compaction). After balancing the water content by hand mixing, the prepared soil was then in placed in the cylindrical mold in five layers and each layer was compacted according to the procedure of modified Proctor compaction. After compaction, the mold was removed and the specimens were sealed tightly in plastic sheets to prevent loss of moisture due to surface evaporation and then cured for periods of 7 days and 28 days.

In the case of treated specimen (5% of Polymer Chemroad), after adding the necessary amount of water that will subject the prepared soil to the optimum water content (modified Proctor compaction), the Polymer Chemroad is added and mixed into the soil. The amount of admixture was determined based on the target admixture content, which is defined by percentage ratio of the dry weight of Polymer Chemroad to the dry unit weight of the soil. The prepared treated soil was then placed in the cylindrical mold in five layers and each layer was compacted according to the procedure of modified Proctor compaction. Subsequent steps are the same to those in the case of untreated specimen as discussed previously in the preceeding paragraph.

After 7 and 28 days curing, the specimens were removed from curing room and were prepared for testing. Prior to unconfined compression test, all samples were ensured to have smooth ends that are perpendicular to the axis of the sample. A typical set up of unconfined compression test and the typical sketches of specimens at failure are shown in Appendix G.

9

qu(C+CH) = 0.381t + 24.893

qu(C) = 0.454t + 21.443

0

10

20

30

40

50

0 5 10 15 20 25 30Curing age, t (day)

q u (k

g/cm

2 )

l

5% cement and 0% chemroad5% cement and 5% chemroad

E50(C+CH) = 160.413t + 830.517

E50(C) = 88.499t + 580.847

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

0 5 10 15 20 25 30Curing age, t (day)

E 50 (

kg/cm

2 )

l

5% cement and 0% chemroad5% cement and 5% chemroad

Results of Unconfined Compression Tests

Figure 5 Relationships of average unconfined compression strength and curing age for specimens with Polymer Chemroad contents of 0% and 5% Figure 6 Relationships of average modulus of elasticity (E50) and curing age for specimens with Polymer Chemroad contents of 0% and 5%

10 The relationship of average unconfined compression strength with admixture content for 7 days and 28 days curing period is shown in Fig. 5. The spreadsheets of unconfined compression tests are given in Appendix G corresponding to tested specimens with Polymer Chemroad contents of 0% and 5%. It is evident in Fig. 5 that the average strength of untreated sample for 7 days and 28 days are 24.62 ksc and 34.15 ksc, respectively, when compacted at optimum moisture content (modified Proctor compaction) In addition, the treated sample with 5% of Polymer Chemroad content has attained average strength ranging from 27.56 ksc to 35.56 ksc, after curing in 7 days and 28 days.

As shown in Fig. 6, the relationships of average modulus of elasticity (E50) for untreated (5% cement by dry weight and 0% of Polymer Chemroad) specimens were 1200.34 ksc and 3058.82 ksc for 7 days and 28 days, respectively. When the sample is mixed with 5% cement by dry weight and 5% of Polymer Chemroad, the average modulus of elasticity (E50

The specimen for California Bearing Ratio (CBR) test were prepared based on the optimum moisture content (OMC) and the maximum dry density from the modified compaction test. Each specimens were compacted by using cylindrical mold of 152.4 mm inner diameter and 177.8 mm height. The soil samples with 5% cement by dry weight and 0% and 5% of Polymer Chemroad contents were mixed by hand carefully with optimum moisture content (modified Proctor compaction) in order to have a homogeneous sample. After mixing, the prepared soil was then in placed in the cylindrical mold in five layers and each layer was compacted according to the procedure of modified Proctor compaction at 12, 25 and 56 blows per layer. Then, the mold and the specimens were sealed tightly in plastic sheets to prevent loss of moisture due to surface evaporation and then cured for periods 28 days. Then, the specimens were soaked in water before testing. Each specimen was loaded into the machine and subjected to an axial loading to determine the strength of the specimen.

) has increased to 1953.41 ksc and 5322.09 ksc for 7 days and 28 days, respectively.

CALIFORNIA BEARING RATIO (CBR) TEST (ASTM D1883) AT OPTIMUM COMPACTION

11 Results of CBR Tests


1.80

1.85

1.90

1.95

2.00

470 480 490 500 510 520 530 540 550 560

Percent C.B.R. (%)

Dry

Uni

t Wei

ght

(g/c

m3 )

(a)


1.70

1.75

1.80

1.85

1.90

1.95

2.00

600 700 800 900 1000

Percent C.B.R. (%)

Dry

Uni

t Wei

ght

(g/c

m3 )

(b)

Figure 7 Relationship between dry unit weight and C.B.R. for specimens with 5% cement by dry weight: a) 0% Polymer Chemroad and b) 5% Polymer Chemroad

The results of CBR Test is summarized in the spreadsheets as in Appendix H corresponding to admixture contents of 5% cement by dry weight with 0% (untreated) and 5% (treated) of Polymer Chemroad. Figure 7a shows the results of the CBR values (at 100% of γd,max from modified Proctor compaction). The percent of CBR value was 550% corresponding to admixture content with 5% cement and 0% of Polymer Chemroad. The CBR value increased to 940% corresponding to admixture content with 5% cement and 5% of Polymer Chemroad as shown in Fig. 7b.

0 % Polymer Chemroad


12 FLEXURAL-STRENGTH TEST (ASTM D1635) The flexural-strength test was conducted to determine the ability to resist an applied bending force to specimen with 10% cement by dry weight and 0% and 10% of Polymer Chemroad in accordance with ASTM D 1635 standards. The specimen dimensions utilized were 100x100 mm in cross section and 500 mm in length. The specimens were sealed in plastic sheets to prevent loss of moisture due to surface evaporation and then cured for 28 days. During testing, the specimen was placed in the loading platform and was adjusted to ensure that the upper-end platen gets into contact with the specimen at the center by the loading nose in order to ensure three points bending. The specimen loaded at the center span until the specimen failed. Results of Flexural-Strength Tests Table 3 Results

In this test, the fracture occurs at the middle third of the span length when load was applied at the center span as shown in Appendix I. From Table 3, the flexural strength tests results were 0.022 and 0.030 ksc for untreated and treated specimen with 10% of Polymer Chemroad, respectively. It can be seen that the treated specimen has higher flexural strength and also higher modulus of rupture. PERMEABILITY TEST (ASTM D5084) Permeability test was conducted to determine the coefficient of permeability (k) of soil that allows fluid to flow. The admixture content with 5% concrete by dry weight and 0% and 5% of Polymer Chemroad were obtained. After mixing, the prepared soil was placed in the cylindrical mold of 50 mm in diameter and 100 mm in height which the total weight is calculated from compaction test results. After modified Proctor compaction, the mold was removed and the specimens were sealed in plastic bag to prevent loss of moisture due to surface evaporation and then cured for period 28 days. An apparatus was provided in which the specimen and porous end pieces, enclosed by a membrane sealed to the cap and base, then specimens were pressurized to determine permeability by controlled fluid pressures .

of Flexural-Strength Test Cement content

Chemroad Content

Width Depth Span

Length

Moment of

Inertia Maximum

Load Moment

Modulus of

Rupture Flexural Strength

(%) (%) (cm) (cm) (cm) (cm4 (kg) ) (kg⋅cm) (ksc) (ksc) 10 0 10 10 45 833.33 81.345 610.09 3.66 0.022

10 10 10 10 45 833.33 111.845 838.84 5.03 0.030

13 Results of Permeability Tests

Flow rate with gradient

0.00000.00050.00100.00150.00200.00250.0030

0.00 100.00 200.00 300.00 400.00 500.00 600.00

Gradient

Flow

rate

(cm

3/m

in)

(a)

Flow rate with gradient

0.0000

0.0001

0.0001

0.0002

0.0002

0.00 100.00 200.00 300.00 400.00 500.00 600.00

Gradient

Flow

rate

(cm

3/m

in)

(b) Figure 8 Relationship between flow rate and gradient for specimens with 5% cement by dry weight a) 0% Polymer Chemroad b) 5% Polymer Chemroad

In this test, the results are shown in Appendix J. From the results, the flow rate for both the untreated and treated specimens are quite low as shown in Fig. 8. Hydraulic conductivity under standard temperature, 20°C (k20) were 2.125x10-9 cm/s and 2.125x10-10 cm/s for soil-cement specimens mixed with 0% Polymer Chemroad and 5% Polymer Chemroad, respectively. The addition of 5% Polymer Chemroad decreased the permeability by one order of magnitude.



14 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The tests of laterite soil stabilized with Polymer Chemroad in the laboratory test were conducted to demonstrate its performance of soil-cement samples. The test program included soil basic properties test, unconfined compressive strength test, California Bearing Ratio test, flexural-strength test

• It was confirmed that the average unconfined compressive strength of treated specimens with 5% cement by dry weight and 5% of Polymer Chemroad were increased by 11.94 percent and 4.3 percent after curing 7 days and 28 days, respectively. Furthermore, the average modulus of elasticity has increased 62.74 percent and 73.99 percent after curing 7 days and 28 days, respectively. It can be seen that specimens with Polymer Chemroad gain strength and durability rapidly.

, and permeability test to ensure the engineering properties of soil-cement stabilized with Polymer Chemroad. Based from the results in these tests, the following conclusions can be made:

• The California Bearing Ratio (CBR) test implied that the treated specimens with 5% cement by dry weight and 5% Polymer Chemroad improved the CBR values better than untreated ones with higher strength of soils and increased load carrying capacity of soils.

• Higher flexural strength was achieved after curing 28 days in treated specimen with 10% cement by dry weight and 10% of Polymer Chemroad which means Polymer Chemroad can create flexibility as well as enhancing good soil properties.

• The hydraulic conductivity was reduced for specimen with 5% cement by dry weight and 5% of Polymer Chemroad. The Polymer Chemroad improved the water proofing properties of the mixture.

• From the testing results, the Polymer Chemroad has improved the engineering properties of soil-cement mixture.

Applications of this soil stabilization in other locations, with other soils, weather conditions, etc., may produce significantly different results. Engineers experienced in soil stabilization should be involved in any further studies or applications of this nature, especially during placement, mixing, and compaction of the base course of road pavement. Soil conditions are known to vary and only an engineer experienced in the field of soil stabilization can provide the judgment necessary to ensure a successful project. In some types of soils, these testing programs may need to be repeated to ensure that the results are reliable and suited to the particular site.

15 REFERENCES AASHTO (1986), Standard specifications for transportation materials and method of testing and sampling, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington D.C, USA.

ASTM D422 – 63. Standard Test Method for Particle-Size Analysis of Soils.

ASTM D558. Standard Test Methods for Moisture-Density (Unit Weight) Relations of Soil-Cement Mixtures.

ASTM D854-58. Standard Test Methods for Specific Gravity of Soil Solids by Water Pycnometer.

ASTM D1557. Standard Test Methods for Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of Soil Using Modified Effort (56,000 ft-lbf/ft3 (2,700 kN-m/m3)).

ASTM D1635. Standard Test Method for Flexural Strength of Soil-Cement Using Simple Beam with Third-Point Loading.

ASTM D1883. Standard Test Method for CBR (California Bearing Ratio) of Laboratory-Compacted Soils.

ASTM D2166-85. Standard Test Method for Unconfined Compressive Strength of Cohesive Soil.

ASTM D4318. Standard Test Methods for Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, and Plasticity Index of Soils.

ASTM D5084. Measurement of Hydraulic Conductivity of Saturated Porous Materials Using a Flexible Wall Permeameter.

Horpibulsuk, S., Bergado, D.T. and Lorenzo G.A. (2004). Compressibity of cement admixed clays at high water content. Geotechnique, Vol. 54, No. 2, pp. 151-154. Lorenzo G.A., Bergado, D.T. and Arnigo, J.V. (2003). Compressibity and unconfined compression of cement-admixed Bangkok clay at high water content. Fourth Regional Symposium on Infrastructure Development in Civil Engineering, Bangkok, Thailand, p. 110.

Lorenzo G.A. and Bergado, D.T. (2004). Fundamental parameters of cement-admixed clay- new approach. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering. ASCE, Vol. 130, No. 10, pp. 1042-1050.

Miura, N., Horpibulsuk, S. and Nagaraj, T.S., (2001). Engineering behavior of cement stabilized clay at high water content. Soils and Foundations. Vol. 41 No. 5. pp. 3345. Wissa, A.E.Z., Ladd, C.C. and Lambe, T.W. (1965). Effective stress-strength parameters of stabilized soils. Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Montreal, Vol. 1 pp. 412-416.

Appendix A

AdministratorTypewritten Text16

CLIENT : Indochina Engineering Systems Co., LtdOUR REF: -PROJECT : Evaluation and Tests of Laterite Soil SOIL DESCRIPTION : Laterite Soil Stabilized with CHEM Road and CemeCEMENT CONTENT : -TESTED BY : Mr.Jaturonk and Ms.Suthasinee CHEMROAD CONTENT : -DATE : 20/03/10 AGE OF CURING: -PLASTIC LIMITContainer No.Weight of Wet Soil + Container gWeight of Dry Soil + Container gWeight of Water gWeight of Container gWeight of Dry Soil gWater Content, w %Average %LIQUID LIMITNumber of BlowsContainer No.Weight of Wet Soil + Container gWeight of Dry Soil + Container gWeight of Water gWeight of Container gWeight of Dry Soil gWater Content, w %

Liquid Limit, LL 46.52Plastic Limit, PL 17.48Plastic Index, PI 29.04

3.2017.50 17.47

11.480.518.56

A112.38

A211.99

2.92

51.99

3.6615.237.04

15B4

25.9322.27

3.2915.256.7648.67

20B3

25.3022.01

8.1644.49

25B2

25.5122.263.2515.267.0046.43

27.1423.513.6315.35

11.820.56

30B1

17.48

8.62

GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING DIVISIONSCHOOL OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY

ASIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

" Complied with ASTM D 4318 "ATTERBERG'S LIMITS TESTSOIL MECHANICS LABORATORY

40.0042.0044.0046.0048.0050.0052.0054.00

1 10 100Number of Blows

Water

Con

tent, w

(%)


Appendix B


CLIENT : Indochina Engineering Systems Co., Ltd. OUR REF:PROJECT : Evaluation and Tests of Laterite Soil Stabilized SOIL DESCRIPTION : Stabilized Laterite Soil

with CHEM Road and Cement SOIL SAMPLE WEIGHT:GS = 2.68 Container No. BB-1

Test No. 1 Weight of Container + Dry Soil 2816.81 gTest by : Mr.Jaturonk Date : 20/3/2010 Weight of Container 774.50 g

Ms.Suthasinee Weight of Dry Soil 2042.31 gSieve No. Sieve Opening Weight of Sieve Weight of Sieve Weight of Soil Comunative Retained Comunative Retained Percent Finer

mm. g + Soil, g + Retained, g g % %3/4" 19.000 561.76 561.76 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.001/2" 12.700 545.83 690.53 144.70 144.70 7.09 92.913/8" 9.500 515.36 596.62 81.26 225.96 11.06 88.94

4 4.750 486.89 735.51 248.62 474.58 23.24 76.7610 2.000 426.97 749.47 322.50 797.08 39.03 60.9720 0.850 388.72 540.72 152.00 949.08 46.47 53.5340 0.425 383.75 477.14 93.39 1042.47 51.04 48.9660 0.250 426.97 482.41 55.44 1097.91 53.76 46.24100 0.150 388.72 469.32 80.60 1178.51 57.70 42.30200 0.075 383.75 473.60 89.85 1268.36 62.10 37.90Pan - 361.40 1135.35 773.95 2042.31 - -

ASIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY

" Complied with ASTM D 422-63 "-

GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING DIVISION SIEVE ANALYSISSOIL MECHANICS LABORATORY

AdministratorTypewritten Text


Grain Size Distribution

0.0010.0020.0030.0040.0050.0060.0070.0080.0090.00

100.00

0.0100.1001.00010.000100.000Diameter in mm.

Percen

t by w

eight

(%)


Appendix C


CLIENT : Indochina Engineering Systems Co., L OUR REF: -PROJECT : Evaluation and Tests of Laterite Soil SOIL DESCRIPTION : Laterite Soil Stabilized with CHEM Road and CemCEMENT CONTENT : -TESTED BY : Mr.Jaturonk and Ms.Suthasinee CHEMROAD CONTENT : -DATE : 20/03/10 AGE OF CURING: -Flask Calibration Trial No. 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.01. Temperature C 37.0 34.2 31.2 28.3 26.5 22.42. Flask + Water g 653.02 653.54 654.08 654.49 654.64 655.42

Specific Gravity DeterminationTrial No.1. Temperature C2. Flask + Water g3. Flask + Water + Soil g4. Container No. g5. Dry soil + Container g6. Weight of Container g7. Dry Soil g8. SP. GR. of Water9. SP. GR. of Soil (7x8)/(2+7-3)Average GS


128.9

SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY

SOIL MECHANICS LABORATORY" Complied with ASTM D 854-58 "

2 327.9 26.3

SPECIFIC GRAVITY TESTGEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING DIVISION

98.8381.67

654.38

180.50AA-1716.55

654.54 654.79716.72 716.86AA-1 AA-1180.50 180.5081.67 81.6798.83 98.83

2.68

0.99540 0.99540

2.684 2.6762.684

0.99540

652.00

653.00

654.00

655.00

656.00

20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0Temperature (C)

Weigh

t of F

lask +

Wate

r (g)



Appendix D


CLIENT : Indochina Engineering Systems Co., Ltd. OUR REF: -PROJECT : Evaluation and Tests of Laterite Soil Stabilized SOIL DESCRIPTION : Laterite Soil

with CHEM Road and Cement CEMENT CONTENT : -TESTED BY : Mr.Jaturonk and Ms.Suthasinee CHEMROAD CONTENT : -DATE : 07/01/10 AGE OF CURING: -

Weight of Trial Compacted Weight Weight of Wet Can No. Weight of Weight of Weight of Weight of Weight of Moisture DryNo. Soil + Mold of Mold Compacted Unit Weight Wet Soil + Dry Soil + Water Can Dry Soil Content Unit Weight

(g) (g) Soil (g) (ton/m3) Can, (g) Can, (g) (g) (g) (g) (%) (ton/m3)1 5731.8 3958.0 1773.8 1.873 M-039 288.87 270.57 18.30 16.41 254.16 7.200 1.7472 5979.0 3958.0 2021.0 2.134 M-040 210.36 191.51 18.85 17.33 174.18 10.822 1.9263 6024.3 3958.0 2066.3 2.182 M-041 264.35 236.20 28.15 14.22 221.98 12.681 1.9374 5990.4 3958.0 2032.4 2.146 M-042 164.26 145.95 18.31 13.00 132.95 13.772 1.8865 5927.4 3958.0 1969.4 2.080 M-043 324.70 283.57 41.13 13.47 270.10 15.228 1.805

Note : 1. The testing results are good only for those specimens tested.2. Not valid unless be signed and sealed.


GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING DIVISION

Moisture Content Determination

SOIL MECHANICS LABORATORY Soil Compaction TestCompaction with Modified Proctor ASTM D 1577-64T, Method A



Note : 1. The testing results are good only for those specimens tested.2. Not valid unless be signed and sealed.

1.7001.7201.7401.7601.7801.8001.8201.8401.8601.8801.9001.9201.9401.9601.9802.000

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Moisture content (%)

Dry U

nit W

eight

(ton/m

3 )

Max. Dry Unit Weight = 1.945 ton/m3 , Optimum Moisture Content = 11.90 %

Relationship between Dry Unit Weight and Moisture Content


Appendix E


CLIENT : Indochina Engineering Systems Co., Ltd. OUR REF: -PROJECT : Evaluation and Tests of Laterite Soil Stabilized SOIL DESCRIPTION : Stabilized Laterite Soil

with CHEM Road and Cement CEMENT CONTENT : -TESTED BY : Mr.Jaturonk and Ms.Suthasinee CHEMROAD CONTENT : -DATE : 20/03/10 AGE OF CURING: - daysCOMPACTIONTest No. 1 2 3No. of Blows Per Layer 56 25 12 Max Dry Unit Weight = 1.945 g./cm

3

Weight of Air Dry Soil Used g. 6000.0 6000.0 6000.0 Optimum Moisture Content = 11.90 %Water Content of Air Dry Soil % 0.10 0.10 0.10Amount of Water Added cm

3708.0 708.0 708.0

Mold No. CBR1 CBR2 CBR3Weight of Wet Soil + Mold g. 8820.9 8570.3 8603.7Weight of Mold g. 4197.8 4280.8 4349.6Weight of Wet Soil g. 4623.1 4289.5 4254.1Volume of Mold cm3 2268.68 2268.68 2268.68Wet Unit Weight g./cm3 2.038 1.891 1.875Dry Unit Weight g./cm

31.858 1.729 1.718

MOISTURE CONTENTBefore Soaking After Soaking

Test No. 1 2 3 1 2 3Can No. S-001 S-010 S-002 M-420 M-440 M-039Weight of Wet Soil + Can g. 255.36 248.85 218.99 255.32 218.16 279.87Weight of Dry Soil + Can g. 234.43 229.30 201.95 231.21 195.89 249.91Weight of Water g. 20.93 19.55 17.04 24.11 22.27 29.96Weight of Can g. 17.96 20.56 15.95 12.45 18.90 14.90Weight of Dry Soil g. 216.47 208.74 186 218.76 176.99 235.01Water Content % 9.67 9.37 9.16 11.02 12.58 12.75Weight of Soaked Soil + Mold g. 8915.0 8736.7 8763.0Weight of Wet Soil + Mold g. 8820.9 8570.3 8603.7Water Absorbed g. 94.1 166.4 159.3Percent Water Absorbed % 2.3 4.4 4.2

CALIFORNIA BEARING RATIO (C.B.R.)


" Complied with ASTM D 1883-87 "

SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY

SOIL MECHANICS LABORATORYGEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING DIVISION


CLIENT : Indochina Engineering Systems Co., Ltd. OUR REF: -PROJECT : Evaluation and Tests of Laterite Soil Stabilized SOIL DESCRIPTION :

with CHEM Road and Cement CEMENT CONTENT : -TESTED BY : Mr.Jaturonk and Ms.Suthasinee CHEMROAD CONTENT : -DATE : 20/03/10 AGE OF CURING: - daysC.B.R. DATAArea of Piston 19.012 cm2

Standard Unit Load at Penetration 2.5 mm 70.30 kscStandard Unit Load at Penetration 5.0 mm 105.46 kscMold No. 1 (56 blows) 2 (25 blows) 3 (12 blows)Surcharge(lb) 10 10 10

Penetration Dial reading Penetration Test Unit Load Dial Reading Penetration Test Unit Load Dial reading Penetration Test Unit Load(mm) (div) Load (kg) (ksc) (div) Load (kg) (ksc) (div) Load (kg) (ksc)

0.00 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.25 13.0 99.92 5.26 5.0 38.43 2.02 3.00 23.06 1.210.50 25.0 192.15 10.11 8.0 61.49 3.23 5.00 38.43 2.020.75 37.0 284.38 14.96 14.0 107.60 5.66 7.00 53.80 2.831.00 43.0 330.49 17.38 15.0 115.29 6.06 7.50 57.64 3.031.25 48.0 368.92 19.40 16.0 122.97 6.47 7.00 53.80 2.831.50 54.0 415.04 21.83 17.5 134.50 7.07 6.50 49.96 2.631.75 58.0 445.78 23.45 19.0 146.03 7.68 7.00 53.80 2.832.00 63.0 484.21 25.47 20.0 153.72 8.09 8.00 61.49 3.232.25 68.0 522.64 27.49 21.0 161.40 8.49 9.00 69.17 3.642.50 72.0 553.38 29.11 23.0 176.78 9.30 11.00 84.54 4.452.75 74.0 568.76 29.92 25.0 192.15 10.11 12.50 96.07 5.053.00 76.0 584.13 30.72 27.0 207.52 10.92 14.00 107.60 5.663.50 80.0 614.87 32.34 27.5 211.36 11.12 15.00 115.29 6.064.00 87.0 668.67 35.17 29.0 222.89 11.72 13.00 99.92 5.265.00 98.0 753.22 39.62 30.0 230.58 12.13 15.00 115.29 6.06

Laterite Soil


CALIFORNIA BEARING RATIO (C.B.R.)SOIL MECHANICS LABORATORYGEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING DIVISION


SWELLINGMold No. 1 2 3Blows Per Layer 56 25 12Surcharge (lb) 10 10 10Height of Sample(mm) 111.4 111.4 111.4

Date and Elapsed Time Dial Reading Swelling Percent Dial Reading Swelling Percent Dial Reading Swelling PercentTime (hr) (div) (mm) Swelling (div) (mm) Swelling (div) (mm) Swelling

0.01 mm/div (%) 0.01 mm/div (%) 0.01 mm/div (%)22/12/2009 0.0 0.0 0.0000 0.000 0.0 0.0000 0.000 0.0 0.0000 0.000

16.00 น.23/12/2009 24.0 54.0 0.5400 0.492 108.0 1.0800 0.984 205.0 2.0500 1.867

16.00 น.23/12/2009 48.0 85.0 0.8500 0.774 168.0 1.6800 1.530 296.0 2.9600 2.696

16.00 น.23/12/2009 72.0 121.0 1.2100 1.102 205.0 2.0500 1.867 303.0 3.0300 2.760

16.00 น.

Relationship between Test Unit Load and Penetration

05

1015202530354045

0.0 2.5 5.0 7.5Penetration (mm)

Test

Uni

t Loa

d (k

sc)

56 Blows

25 Blows

12



CLIENT : Indochina Engineering Systems Co., Ltd. OUR REF: -PROJECT : Evaluation and Tests of Laterite Soil Stabilized SOIL DESCRIPTION : Stabilized Laterite Soil

with CHEM Road and Cement CEMENT CONTENT : 5%TESTED BY : Mr.Jaturonk and Ms.Suthasinee CHEMROAD CONTENT : 0%DATE : 20/03/10 AGE OF CURING: 28 daysTEST RESULTSMold No. 1 2 3No. of Blows Per Layer 56 25 12Standard Unit Load at Penetration 2.5 mm ksc 70.30 70.30 70.30Standard Unit Load at Penetration 5.0 mm ksc 105.46 105.46 105.46Test Unit Load at Penetration 2.5 mm ksc 29.11 9.30 4.45Test Unit Load at Penetration 5.0 mm ksc 39.62 12.13 6.06% C.B.R. at Penetration 2.5 mm % 41.40 13.23 6.33% C.B.R. at Penetration 5.0 mm % 37.57 11.50 5.75Dry Unit Weight (Before Soaked) g./cm

31.858 1.729 1.718

Moisture Content (Before Soaked) % 9.67 9.37 9.16Percent Swell % 1.102 1.867 2.760Dry Unit Weight at 100% Modified Compaction 1.945 g./cm

3

Optimum Moisture Content Modified Compaction 11.90 %% C.B.R. at 100% Modified Compaction 57.15 %

Note: 1. The testing results are good only for those specimen tested.

2. Not valid unless signed and sealed.

" Complied with ASTM D 1883-87 "


CALIFORNIA BEARING RATIO (C.B.R.)SOIL MECHANICS LABORATORYGEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING DIVISION


1.6

1.7

1.8

1.9

2.0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60

Percent C.B.R. (%)

Dry U

nit W

eight

(g/cm

3 )


Appendix F


CLIENT : Indochina Engineering Systems Co., Ltd. OUR REF:PROJECT : Evaluation and Tests of Laterite Soil Stabilized SOIL DESCRIPTION :

with CHEM Road and Cement CEMENT CONTENT : -TESTED BY : Mr.Jaturonk and Ms.Suthasinee CHEMROAD CONTENT : -DATE : 20/03/10 AGE OF CURING: - days[A] Specimen Data

(1) Type of specimen Undisturbed Remolded Drilled Core(2) Shape of specimen Cylindrical Prismatic(3) Sample No. 1(4) Diameter of specimen , D0 10.16 cm.(5) Initial area of specimen , A0 81.07 cm

2

(6) Initial height of specimen , L0 11.64 cm.(7) Height-to-diameter ratio [ (6) / (4) ] 1.15(8) Volume of specimen [ (5) x (6) ] 943.7 cm3

(9) Weight of specimen 1991.00 g.(10) Wet unit weight of specimen [ (9) / (8) ] 2.110 g./cm3

(11) Moisture content of specimen Before After(11.1) Can No. B11 A2(11.2) Weight of can 18.10 g. 15.87 g.(11.3) Weight of wet soil + can 189.16 g. 193.16 g.(11.4) Weight of dry soil + can 167.67 g. 172.10 g.(11.5) Weight of water [ (11.3) - (11.4) ] 21.49 g. 21.06 g.(11.6) Weight of dry soil [ (11.4) - (11.2) ] 149.57 g. 156.23 g.(11.7) Moisture content [ (11.5) / (11.6) ]x 100 14.37 % 13.48 %(11.8) Average moisture content 14.37 % 13.48 %

(12) Dry unit weight of specimen [ (10) / { 1 + (11.8)} ] 1.845 g./cm3 1.859 g./cm3



Laterite Soil -


UNCONFINED COMPRESSION TEST


[ B-1 ] Compression Data : Sample No. 1Proving ring calibration kg. / div. Cement = 0%Dial gauge sensitivity 0.010 mm. / div. Chemroad = 0%Initial area of specimen 81.07 cm.2 Age of Curing 0 daysInitial height of specimen 11.64 cm.

Deformation Dial , L Unit Strain , Cross-Sectional Proving Ring Applied Axial Load per Unit Area( division ) ( cm. ) ( % ) Area , A ( cm.2 ) Dial ( div.) Load , P ( kg.) ( kg. / cm.2 ) ( ton. / m.2)

0 0.000 0.00 81.07 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.00040 0.040 0.34 81.35 7.0 5.31 0.065 0.65380 0.080 0.69 81.63 16.0 12.15 0.149 1.488

120 0.120 1.03 81.92 25.0 18.98 0.232 2.317160 0.160 1.37 82.20 36.0 27.33 0.332 3.325200 0.200 1.72 82.49 49.0 37.20 0.451 4.510240 0.240 2.06 82.78 64.0 48.59 0.587 5.870280 0.280 2.41 83.07 79.0 59.98 0.722 7.220320 0.320 2.75 83.37 93.0 70.61 0.847 8.469360 0.360 3.09 83.66 111.0 84.27 1.007 10.073400 0.400 3.44 83.96 125.0 94.90 1.130 11.303440 0.440 3.78 84.26 139.0 105.53 1.252 12.524480 0.480 4.12 84.56 151.0 114.64 1.356 13.557520 0.520 4.47 84.86 162.0 122.99 1.449 14.493560 0.560 4.81 85.17 173.0 131.34 1.542 15.421600 0.600 5.15 85.48 182.0 138.17 1.616 16.165640 0.640 5.50 85.79 191.0 145.01 1.690 16.903680 0.680 5.84 86.10 200.0 151.84 1.763 17.635720 0.720 6.19 86.42 207.0 157.15 1.819 18.185760 0.760 6.53 86.74 213.0 161.71 1.864 18.644800 0.800 6.87 87.06 220.0 167.02 1.919 19.186840 0.840 7.22 87.38 225.0 170.82 1.955 19.549880 0.880 7.56 87.70 229.0 173.86 1.982 19.823920 0.920 7.90 88.03 233.0 176.89 2.009 20.094960 0.960 8.25 88.36 236.0 179.17 2.028 20.2771000 1.000 8.59 88.69 237.5 180.31 2.033 20.3301040 1.040 8.93 89.03 238.0 180.69 2.030 20.2961080 1.080 9.28 89.36 237.5 180.31 2.018 20.177

Note : 1. The testing results are good only for those specimens tested.2. Not valid unless signed and sealed.

0.75920x

Failure Sketch


Relationship between stress and strain of stabilized laterite specimen with cement 0% and chemroad 0% at 0 days of curing age

0.000

0.500

1.000

1.500

2.000

2.500

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Axial Strain (%)

Axial

Stress

(kg/cm

2 )

qu = 2.033 kg/cm2

E50 = 34.25 kg/cm2





2



(11) Moisture content of specimen Before After(11.1) Can No. B21 B7(11.2) Weight of can 18.93 g. 15.90 g.(11.3) Weight of wet soil + can 217.95 g. 184.59 g.(11.4) Weight of dry soil + can 192.34 g. 163.69 g.(11.5) Weight of water [ (11.3) - (11.4) ] 25.61 g. 20.90 g.(11.6) Weight of dry soil [ (11.4) - (11.2) ] 173.41 g. 147.79 g.(11.7) Moisture content [ (11.5) / (11.6) ]x 100 14.77 % 14.14 %(11.8) Average moisture content 14.77 % 14.14 %




Laterite Soil -






0 0.000 0.00 81.07 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.00040 0.040 0.34 81.35 11.0 8.35 0.103 1.02780 0.080 0.69 81.63 24.0 18.22 0.223 2.232

120 0.120 1.03 81.92 35.0 26.57 0.324 3.244160 0.160 1.37 82.20 47.0 35.68 0.434 4.341200 0.200 1.72 82.49 63.0 47.83 0.580 5.798240 0.240 2.06 82.78 78.0 59.22 0.715 7.154280 0.280 2.41 83.07 93.0 70.61 0.850 8.499320 0.320 2.75 83.37 108.0 81.99 0.984 9.835360 0.360 3.09 83.66 122.0 92.62 1.107 11.071400 0.400 3.44 83.96 135.0 102.49 1.221 12.207440 0.440 3.78 84.26 146.0 110.84 1.316 13.155480 0.480 4.12 84.56 157.0 119.19 1.410 14.096520 0.520 4.47 84.86 166.0 126.03 1.485 14.850560 0.560 4.81 85.17 175.0 132.86 1.560 15.599600 0.600 5.15 85.48 183.0 138.93 1.625 16.253640 0.640 5.50 85.79 190.0 144.25 1.681 16.814680 0.680 5.84 86.10 197.0 149.56 1.737 17.370720 0.720 6.19 86.42 203.0 154.12 1.783 17.834760 0.760 6.53 86.74 208.0 157.91 1.821 18.206800 0.800 6.87 87.06 212.0 160.95 1.849 18.488840 0.840 7.22 87.38 216.0 163.99 1.877 18.767880 0.880 7.56 87.70 218.5 165.89 1.891 18.914920 0.920 7.90 88.03 220.5 167.40 1.902 19.016960 0.960 8.25 88.36 221.0 167.78 1.899 18.9881000 1.000 8.59 88.69 220.0 167.02 1.883 18.8321040 1.040 8.93 89.03 218.0 165.51 1.859 18.5901080 1.080 9.28 89.36 215.0 163.23 1.827 18.265


0.75920x

Failure Sketch



0.0000.2000.4000.6000.8001.0001.2001.4001.6001.8002.000

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Axial Strain (%)

Axial

Stress

(kg/cm

2 )

qu = 1.902 kg/cm2

E50 = 36.57 kg/cm2





2



(11) Moisture content of specimen Before After(11.1) Can No. A2 D2(11.2) Weight of can 16.17 g. 12.55 g.(11.3) Weight of wet soil + can 232.29 g. 240.77 g.(11.4) Weight of dry soil + can 205.13 g. 212.62 g.(11.5) Weight of water [ (11.3) - (11.4) ] 27.16 g. 28.15 g.(11.6) Weight of dry soil [ (11.4) - (11.2) ] 188.96 g. 200.07 g.(11.7) Moisture content [ (11.5) / (11.6) ]x 100 14.37 % 14.07 %(11.8) Average moisture content 14.37 % 14.07 %




Laterite Soil -







0 0.000 0.00 81.07 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.00040 0.040 0.34 81.35 10.0 7.59 0.093 0.93380 0.080 0.69 81.63 24.0 18.22 0.223 2.232

120 0.120 1.03 81.92 40.0 30.37 0.371 3.707160 0.160 1.37 82.20 60.0 45.55 0.554 5.541200 0.200 1.72 82.49 79.0 59.98 0.727 7.271240 0.240 2.06 82.78 96.0 72.88 0.880 8.804280 0.280 2.41 83.07 111.0 84.27 1.014 10.144320 0.320 2.75 83.37 126.0 95.66 1.147 11.475360 0.360 3.09 83.66 140.0 106.29 1.270 12.705400 0.400 3.44 83.96 152.0 115.40 1.374 13.745440 0.440 3.78 84.26 164.0 124.51 1.478 14.777480 0.480 4.12 84.56 175.0 132.86 1.571 15.712520 0.520 4.47 84.86 185.0 140.45 1.655 16.550560 0.560 4.81 85.17 194.0 147.28 1.729 17.293600 0.600 5.15 85.48 203.0 154.12 1.803 18.030640 0.640 5.50 85.79 210.0 159.43 1.858 18.584680 0.680 5.84 86.10 217.0 164.75 1.913 19.134720 0.720 6.19 86.42 223.0 169.30 1.959 19.591760 0.760 6.53 86.74 229.0 173.86 2.004 20.044800 0.800 6.87 87.06 234.0 177.65 2.041 20.407840 0.840 7.22 87.38 237.0 179.93 2.059 20.592880 0.880 7.56 87.70 240.0 182.21 2.078 20.775920 0.920 7.90 88.03 242.0 183.73 2.087 20.871960 0.960 8.25 88.36 243.5 184.87 2.092 20.9221000 1.000 8.59 88.69 243.0 184.49 2.080 20.8011040 1.040 8.93 89.03 241.0 182.97 2.055 20.5521080 1.080 9.28 89.36 238.0 180.69 2.022 20.219


0.75920x

Failure Sketch



0.000

0.500

1.000

1.500

2.000

2.500

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Axial Strain (%)

Axial

Stress

(kg/cm

2 )

qu = 2.092 kg/cm2

E50 = 44.49 kg/cm2


Appendix G



with CHEM Road and Cement CEMENT CONTENT : 5%TESTED BY : Mr.Jaturonk and Ms.Suthasinee CHEMROAD CONTENT : 0%DATE : 04/01/2010 AGE OF CURING: 7 days[A] Specimen Data


2


Before curing After curing(9) Weight of specimen 2047.90 g. 2046.70 g.

(10) Wet unit weight of specimen [ (9) / (8) ] 2.170 g./cm3 2.169 g./cm3

(11) Moisture content of specimen(11.1) Can No. B-18 B-11(11.2) Weight of can 20.81 g. 18.83 g.(11.3) Weight of wet soil + can 180.65 g. 174.51 g.(11.4) Weight of dry soil + can 162.79 g. 157.56 g.(11.5) Weight of water [ (11.3) - (11.4) ] 17.86 g. 16.95 g.(11.6) Weight of dry soil [ (11.4) - (11.2) ] 141.98 g. 138.73 g.(11.7) Moisture content [ (11.5) / (11.6) ]x 100 12.58 % 12.22 %(11.8) Average moisture content 12.58 % 12.22 %




-






0 0.000 0.00 81.07 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0010 0.010 0.09 81.14 8.0 22.07 0.27 2.7220 0.020 0.17 81.21 15.0 41.38 0.51 5.1030 0.030 0.26 81.28 26.0 71.72 0.88 8.8240 0.040 0.34 81.35 48.0 132.41 1.63 16.2850 0.050 0.43 81.42 148.0 408.27 5.01 50.1460 0.060 0.52 81.49 250.0 689.65 8.46 84.6370 0.070 0.60 81.56 310.0 855.17 10.48 104.8580 0.080 0.69 81.63 350.0 965.51 11.83 118.2790 0.090 0.77 81.70 387.0 1067.58 13.07 130.66

100 0.100 0.86 81.78 425.0 1172.41 14.34 143.37110 0.110 0.95 81.85 465.0 1282.75 15.67 156.73120 0.120 1.03 81.92 510.0 1406.89 17.17 171.74130 0.130 1.12 81.99 540.0 1489.65 18.17 181.69140 0.140 1.20 82.06 575.0 1586.20 19.33 193.30150 0.150 1.29 82.13 610.0 1682.75 20.49 204.88160 0.160 1.37 82.20 638.0 1759.99 21.41 214.10170 0.170 1.46 82.27 665.0 1834.48 22.30 222.97180 0.180 1.55 82.35 690.0 1903.44 23.11 231.15190 0.190 1.63 82.42 710.0 1958.61 23.76 237.64200 0.200 1.72 82.49 725.0 1999.99 24.25 242.45210 0.210 1.80 82.56 742.0 2046.89 24.79 247.92220 0.220 1.89 82.64 750.0 2068.96 25.04 250.37230 0.230 1.98 82.71 762.0 2102.06 25.42 254.16240 0.240 2.06 82.78 770.0 2124.13 25.66 256.60250 0.250 2.15 82.85 780.0 2151.72 25.97 259.70260 0.260 2.23 82.93 785.0 2165.51 26.11 261.14270 0.270 2.32 83.00 790.0 2179.30 26.26 262.57280 0.280 2.41 83.07 791.0 2182.06 26.27 262.67290 0.290 2.49 83.14 785.0 2165.51 26.05 260.45300 0.300 2.58 83.22 775.0 2137.92 25.69 256.91


2.75861x

Failure Sketch



0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00 2.20 2.40 2.60 2.80

Axial Strain (%)

Axial

Stress

(kg/cm

2 )

qu = 26.27 kg/cm2

E50 = 1716.94 kg/cm2





2




(11) Moisture content of specimen(11.1) Can No. A-1 W-9(11.2) Weight of can 14.93 g. 14.10 g.(11.3) Weight of wet soil + can 164.62 g. 198.83 g.(11.4) Weight of dry soil + can 147.65 g. 179.81 g.(11.5) Weight of water [ (11.3) - (11.4) ] 16.97 g. 19.02 g.(11.6) Weight of dry soil [ (11.4) - (11.2) ] 132.72 g. 165.71 g.(11.7) Moisture content [ (11.5) / (11.6) ]x 100 12.79 % 11.48 %(11.8) Average moisture content 12.79 % 11.48 %




-






0 0.000 0.00 81.07 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0010 0.010 0.09 81.14 5.0 13.79 0.17 1.7020 0.020 0.17 81.21 10.0 27.59 0.34 3.4030 0.030 0.26 81.28 20.0 55.17 0.68 6.7940 0.040 0.34 81.35 35.0 96.55 1.19 11.8750 0.050 0.43 81.42 64.0 176.55 2.17 21.6860 0.060 0.52 81.49 100.0 275.86 3.39 33.8570 0.070 0.60 81.56 140.0 386.21 4.74 47.3580 0.080 0.69 81.63 200.0 551.72 6.76 67.5890 0.090 0.77 81.70 278.0 766.89 9.39 93.86

100 0.100 0.86 81.78 395.0 1089.65 13.32 133.25110 0.110 0.95 81.85 542.0 1495.17 18.27 182.68120 0.120 1.03 81.92 670.0 1848.27 22.56 225.63130 0.130 1.12 81.99 777.0 2143.44 26.14 261.43140 0.140 1.20 82.06 828.0 2284.13 27.83 278.35150 0.150 1.29 82.13 857.0 2364.13 28.78 287.85160 0.160 1.37 82.20 870.0 2399.99 29.20 291.96170 0.170 1.46 82.27 876.0 2416.54 29.37 293.72180 0.180 1.55 82.35 872.0 2405.51 29.21 292.12190 0.190 1.63 82.42 865.0 2386.20 28.95 289.52


2.75861x

Failure Sketch



0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00Axial Strain (%)

Axial

Stress

(kg/cm

2 )

qu = 29.37 kg/cm2

E50 = 1098 kg/cm2





2




(11) Moisture content of specimen(11.1) Can No. B-7 B-19(11.2) Weight of can 15.92 g. 17.42 g.(11.3) Weight of wet soil + can 122.41 g. 326.09 g.(11.4) Weight of dry soil + can 112.03 g. 297.58 g.(11.5) Weight of water [ (11.3) - (11.4) ] 10.38 g. 28.51 g.(11.6) Weight of dry soil [ (11.4) - (11.2) ] 96.11 g. 280.16 g.(11.7) Moisture content [ (11.5) / (11.6) ]x 100 10.80 % 10.18 %(11.8) Average moisture content 10.80 % 10.18 %




-







0 0.000 0.00 81.07 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0010 0.010 0.09 81.14 5.0 13.79 0.17 1.7020 0.020 0.17 81.21 10.0 27.59 0.34 3.4030 0.030 0.26 81.28 16.0 44.14 0.54 5.4340 0.040 0.34 81.35 25.0 68.97 0.85 8.4850 0.050 0.43 81.42 34.0 93.79 1.15 11.5260 0.060 0.52 81.49 45.0 124.14 1.52 15.2370 0.070 0.60 81.56 57.0 157.24 1.93 19.2880 0.080 0.69 81.63 72.0 198.62 2.43 24.3390 0.090 0.77 81.70 87.0 240.00 2.94 29.37

100 0.100 0.86 81.78 107.0 295.17 3.61 36.10110 0.110 0.95 81.85 124.0 342.07 4.18 41.79120 0.120 1.03 81.92 144.0 397.24 4.85 48.49130 0.130 1.12 81.99 167.0 460.69 5.62 56.19140 0.140 1.20 82.06 184.0 507.58 6.19 61.86150 0.150 1.29 82.13 205.0 565.52 6.89 68.85160 0.160 1.37 82.20 233.0 642.76 7.82 78.19170 0.170 1.46 82.27 271.0 747.58 9.09 90.86180 0.180 1.55 82.35 332.0 915.86 11.12 111.22190 0.190 1.63 82.42 439.0 1211.03 14.69 146.94200 0.200 1.72 82.49 601.0 1657.92 20.10 200.98210 0.210 1.80 82.56 681.0 1878.61 22.75 227.54220 0.220 1.89 82.64 717.0 1977.92 23.94 239.36230 0.230 1.98 82.71 705.0 1944.82 23.51 235.14240 0.240 2.06 82.78 680.0 1875.85 22.66 226.61


2.75861x

Failure Sketch



0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00 2.20

Axial Strain (%)

Axial

Stress

(kg/cm

2 )

qu = 23.94 kg/cm2

E50 = 466.16 kg/cm2





2




(11) Moisture content of specimen(11.1) Can No. BH-5 B-19(11.2) Weight of can 12.42 g. 17.44 g.(11.3) Weight of wet soil + can 157.58 g. 267.91 g.(11.4) Weight of dry soil + can 141.30 g. 240.61 g.(11.5) Weight of water [ (11.3) - (11.4) ] 16.28 g. 27.30 g.(11.6) Weight of dry soil [ (11.4) - (11.2) ] 128.88 g. 223.17 g.(11.7) Moisture content [ (11.5) / (11.6) ]x 100 12.63 % 12.23 %(11.8) Average moisture content 12.63 % 12.23 %




-






0 0.000 0.00 81.07 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0010 0.010 0.09 81.14 10.0 27.59 0.34 3.4020 0.020 0.17 81.21 25.0 68.97 0.85 8.4930 0.030 0.26 81.28 70.0 193.10 2.38 23.7640 0.040 0.34 81.35 200.0 551.72 6.78 67.8250 0.050 0.43 81.42 309.0 852.41 10.47 104.6960 0.060 0.52 81.49 405.0 1117.24 13.71 137.1070 0.070 0.60 81.56 515.0 1420.68 17.42 174.1880 0.080 0.69 81.63 623.0 1718.61 21.05 210.5390 0.090 0.77 81.70 698.0 1925.51 23.57 235.67100 0.100 0.86 81.78 735.0 2027.58 24.79 247.94110 0.110 0.95 81.85 760.0 2096.54 25.62 256.16120 0.120 1.03 81.92 770.0 2124.13 25.93 259.30130 0.130 1.12 81.99 775.0 2137.92 26.08 260.76140 0.140 1.20 82.06 775.0 2137.92 26.05 260.53150 0.150 1.29 82.13 770.0 2124.13 25.86 258.63


2.75861x

Failure Sketch



0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00

Axial Strain (%)

Axial

Stress

(kg/cm

2 )

qu = 26.08 kg/cm2

E50 = 3109.30 kg/cm2





2




(11) Moisture content of specimen(11.1) Can No. G-7 L-5(11.2) Weight of can 12.55 g. 16.37 g.(11.3) Weight of wet soil + can 134.84 g. 276.60 g.(11.4) Weight of dry soil + can 122.65 g. 252.45 g.(11.5) Weight of water [ (11.3) - (11.4) ] 12.19 g. 24.15 g.(11.6) Weight of dry soil [ (11.4) - (11.2) ] 110.10 g. 236.08 g.(11.7) Moisture content [ (11.5) / (11.6) ]x 100 11.07 % 10.23 %(11.8) Average moisture content 11.07 % 10.23 %




-






0 0.000 0.00 81.07 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0010 0.010 0.09 81.14 29.0 80.00 0.99 9.8620 0.020 0.17 81.21 36.0 99.31 1.22 12.2330 0.030 0.26 81.28 46.0 126.90 1.56 15.6140 0.040 0.34 81.35 58.0 160.00 1.97 19.6750 0.050 0.43 81.42 75.0 206.90 2.54 25.4160 0.060 0.52 81.49 102.0 281.38 3.45 34.5370 0.070 0.60 81.56 137.0 377.93 4.63 46.3480 0.080 0.69 81.63 195.0 537.93 6.59 65.9090 0.090 0.77 81.70 250.0 689.65 8.44 84.41100 0.100 0.86 81.78 310.0 855.17 10.46 104.57110 0.110 0.95 81.85 372.0 1026.20 12.54 125.38120 0.120 1.03 81.92 429.0 1183.44 14.45 144.47130 0.130 1.12 81.99 490.0 1351.72 16.49 164.87140 0.140 1.20 82.06 537.0 1481.37 18.05 180.52150 0.150 1.29 82.13 602.0 1660.68 20.22 202.20160 0.160 1.37 82.20 657.0 1812.41 22.05 220.48170 0.170 1.46 82.27 720.0 1986.20 24.14 241.41180 0.180 1.55 82.35 778.0 2146.20 26.06 260.63190 0.190 1.63 82.42 827.0 2281.37 27.68 276.80200 0.200 1.72 82.49 876.0 2416.54 29.29 292.95210 0.210 1.80 82.56 928.0 2559.99 31.01 310.07220 0.220 1.89 82.64 963.0 2656.54 32.15 321.48230 0.230 1.98 82.71 968.0 2670.33 32.29 322.87240 0.240 2.06 82.78 940.0 2593.09 31.33 313.25


2.75861x

Failure Sketch



0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00 2.20

Axial Strain (%)

Axial

Stress

(kg/cm

2 )

qu = 32.29 kg/cm2

E50 = 1343.26 kg/cm2





2




(11) Moisture content of specimen(11.1) Can No. B-12 A-4(11.2) Weight of can 17.62 g. 16.05 g.(11.3) Weight of wet soil + can 244.62 g. 125.65 g.(11.4) Weight of dry soil + can 218.96 g. 114.66 g.(11.5) Weight of water [ (11.3) - (11.4) ] 25.66 g. 10.99 g.(11.6) Weight of dry soil [ (11.4) - (11.2) ] 201.34 g. 98.61 g.(11.7) Moisture content [ (11.5) / (11.6) ]x 100 12.74 % 11.14 %(11.8) Average moisture content 12.74 % 11.14 %




-






0 0.000 0.00 81.07 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0010 0.010 0.09 81.14 7.0 19.31 0.24 2.3820 0.020 0.17 81.21 15.0 41.38 0.51 5.1030 0.030 0.26 81.28 52.0 143.45 1.76 17.6540 0.040 0.34 81.35 75.0 206.90 2.54 25.4350 0.050 0.43 81.42 95.0 262.07 3.22 32.1960 0.060 0.52 81.49 120.0 331.03 4.06 40.6270 0.070 0.60 81.56 170.0 468.96 5.75 57.5080 0.080 0.69 81.63 225.0 620.69 7.60 76.0390 0.090 0.77 81.70 272.0 750.34 9.18 91.84100 0.100 0.86 81.78 320.0 882.76 10.79 107.95110 0.110 0.95 81.85 360.0 993.10 12.13 121.34120 0.120 1.03 81.92 400.0 1103.44 13.47 134.70130 0.130 1.12 81.99 449.0 1238.62 15.11 151.07140 0.140 1.20 82.06 480.0 1324.13 16.14 161.36150 0.150 1.29 82.13 510.0 1406.89 17.13 171.30160 0.160 1.37 82.20 545.0 1503.44 18.29 182.89170 0.170 1.46 82.27 590.0 1627.58 19.78 197.82180 0.180 1.55 82.35 618.0 1704.82 20.70 207.03190 0.190 1.63 82.42 710.0 1958.61 23.76 237.64200 0.200 1.72 82.49 735.0 2027.58 24.58 245.80210 0.210 1.80 82.56 765.0 2110.34 25.56 255.60220 0.220 1.89 82.64 785.0 2165.51 26.21 262.06230 0.230 1.98 82.71 810.0 2234.47 27.02 270.17240 0.240 2.06 82.78 830.0 2289.65 27.66 276.59250 0.250 2.15 82.85 850.0 2344.82 28.30 283.01260 0.260 2.23 82.93 865.0 2386.20 28.78 287.75270 0.270 2.32 83.00 875.0 2413.78 29.08 290.82280 0.280 2.41 83.07 890.0 2455.16 29.55 295.55290 0.290 2.49 83.14 910.0 2510.34 30.19 301.92300 0.300 2.58 83.22 925.0 2551.71 30.66 306.63310 0.310 2.66 83.29 928.0 2559.99 30.74 307.35320 0.320 2.75 83.37 915.0 2524.13 30.28 302.78


2.75861x

Failure Sketch



0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00 2.20 2.40 2.60 2.80

Axial Strain (%)

Axial

Stress

(kg/cm

2 )

qu = 30.74 kg/cm2

E50 = 1407.67 kg/cm2





2




(11) Moisture content of specimen(11.1) Can No. B-13 BH-5(11.2) Weight of can 16.29 g. 12.41 g.(11.3) Weight of wet soil + can 225.51 g. 195.99 g.(11.4) Weight of dry soil + can 202.35 g. 177.23 g.(11.5) Weight of water [ (11.3) - (11.4) ] 23.16 g. 18.76 g.(11.6) Weight of dry soil [ (11.4) - (11.2) ] 186.06 g. 164.82 g.(11.7) Moisture content [ (11.5) / (11.6) ]x 100 12.45 % 11.38 %(11.8) Average moisture content 12.45 % 11.38 %




-







0 0.000 0.00 81.07 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0010 0.010 0.09 81.14 215.0 593.10 7.31 73.0920 0.020 0.17 81.21 313.0 863.44 10.63 106.3230 0.030 0.26 81.28 400.0 1103.44 13.58 135.7540 0.040 0.34 81.35 490.0 1351.72 16.62 166.1650 0.050 0.43 81.42 578.0 1594.48 19.58 195.8360 0.060 0.52 81.49 655.0 1806.89 22.17 221.7270 0.070 0.60 81.56 762.0 2102.06 25.77 257.7280 0.080 0.69 81.63 840.0 2317.23 28.39 283.8690 0.090 0.77 81.70 900.0 2482.75 30.39 303.87100 0.100 0.86 81.78 960.0 2648.27 32.38 323.84110 0.110 0.95 81.85 1008.0 2780.68 33.97 339.74120 0.120 1.03 81.92 1040.0 2868.95 35.02 350.22130 0.130 1.12 81.99 1065.0 2937.92 35.83 358.33140 0.140 1.20 82.06 1080.0 2979.30 36.31 363.06150 0.150 1.29 82.13 1090.0 3006.88 36.61 366.11160 0.160 1.37 82.20 1091.0 3009.64 36.61 366.12170 0.170 1.46 82.27 1070.0 2951.71 35.88 358.76


2.75861x

Failure Sketch



0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00

Axial Strain (%)

Axial

Stress

(kg/cm

2 )

qu = 36.61 kg/cm2

E50 = 3512.83 kg/cm2





2




(11) Moisture content of specimen(11.1) Can No. A-2 B-7(11.2) Weight of can 15.85 g. 15.90 g.(11.3) Weight of wet soil + can 173.65 g. 50.58 g.(11.4) Weight of dry soil + can 158.14 g. 47.66 g.(11.5) Weight of water [ (11.3) - (11.4) ] 15.51 g. 2.92 g.(11.6) Weight of dry soil [ (11.4) - (11.2) ] 142.29 g. 31.76 g.(11.7) Moisture content [ (11.5) / (11.6) ]x 100 10.90 % 9.19 %(11.8) Average moisture content 10.90 % 9.19 %




-






0 0.000 0.00 81.07 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0010 0.010 0.09 81.14 20.0 55.17 0.68 6.8020 0.020 0.17 81.21 45.0 124.14 1.53 15.2930 0.030 0.26 81.28 63.0 173.79 2.14 21.3840 0.040 0.34 81.35 95.0 262.07 3.22 32.2150 0.050 0.43 81.42 195.0 537.93 6.61 66.0760 0.060 0.52 81.49 305.0 841.38 10.32 103.2470 0.070 0.60 81.56 580.0 1599.99 19.62 196.1680 0.080 0.69 81.63 770.0 2124.13 26.02 260.2090 0.090 0.77 81.70 927.0 2557.23 31.30 312.98100 0.100 0.86 81.78 992.0 2736.54 33.46 334.64110 0.110 0.95 81.85 1052.0 2902.06 35.46 354.57120 0.120 1.03 81.92 1092.0 3012.40 36.77 367.74130 0.130 1.12 81.99 1105.0 3048.26 37.18 371.79140 0.140 1.20 82.06 1108.0 3056.54 37.25 372.48150 0.150 1.29 82.13 1098.0 3028.95 36.88 368.79160 0.160 1.37 82.20 1090.0 3006.88 36.58 365.79170 0.170 1.46 82.27 1050.0 2896.54 35.21 352.06180 0.180 1.55 82.35 1030.0 2841.37 34.50 345.05


2.75861x

Failure Sketch



0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00

Axial Strain (%)

Axial

Stress

(kg/cm

2 )

qu = 37.25 kg/cm2

E50 = 3712.94 kg/cm2





2


Before curing After c

report on evaluations and tests of laterite soil stabilized with chemroad and...

Documents