Você está na página 1de 76

INSTITUT D’ENSEIGNEMENT SUPÉRIEUR DE RUHENGERI

Accredited by Ministerial Order N° 005/2010/Mineduc of 16 June 2010

FACULTY OF APPLIED FUNDAMENTAL SCIENCES


Scientia et Lux

CIVIL ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT

A STUDY ON VOLCANIC SOIL


MATERIAL AND ITS STABILITY IN
ROAD CONSTRUCTION

Case study: Musanze District


A dissertation presented in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the

award of Bachelor’s degree in Civil Engineering.

By: Patrick NTEZIRYAYO

Reg. No: 16/10642

B.P.155

Supervisor: Dr. Eng. Jean de Dieu NZABONIMPA Ruhengeri

Rwanda

T : +250 788 90 30 30
Musanze, December 2018
: +250 788 90 30 32

E: inesruhengeri@yahoo.fr
1
W: www.ines.ac.rw
DECLARATION OF ORIGINALITY
I do hereby declare that the work presented in this dissertation is my own contribution to
the best of my knowledge. The same work has never been submitted to any other University
or Institution. I, therefore declare that this work is my own for the partial fulfillment of the
award of bachelor’s degree with honors in Civil Engineering at INES-Ruhengeri.

The candidate name: Patrick NTEZIRYAYO

Signature of the candidate: ……………

Date of submission: ………………

i
APPROVAL
This is to certify that this dissertation work entitled “Study on volcanic soil material and
its stability in road construction” is an original study conducted by Patrick
NTEZIRYAYO under my supervision and guidance.

The supervisor’s name: Dr. Eng. Jean de Dieu NZABONIMPA

Signature of the supervisor: ………………………….

Submission date: ………………

ii
DEDICATION
This research project is dedicated to:

My Parents;

My Brothers and Sisters;

My Classmates and friends!!!

iii
ABSTRACT
In this study, a study on volcanic soil materials was undertaken to better understand the
application of volcanic soil in road construction industry. Volcanic soil were collected from
RUVUMBA Quarry, MUSANZE District, Rwanda. The selected area contains soil
volcanic with undiscovered material properties. With the aim of understanding the material
properties of the collected soil samples, a wide range of tests including soil tests (Sieve
analysis, Atterberg limit, Proctor test, and California bearing ratio), losangeles test and
sieve analysis of volcanic aggregates were carried out. After handling and interpreting the
results of the tested samples with respect to Sieve analysis, some of the soil samples were
classified as poorly graded material with no plastic index identified by Atterberg limit.
Three categories were identified as follow: Sample I and II were classified as quite good
material in compaction while Sample III was identified as a poor material with low density
and strength. The study also revealed that the CBR (California Bearing Ratio) in Sample
III could be improved with the addition of only 1% of cement which can be used as a
stabilizer. The experimental results showed that both dry density and strength of Sample
III was significantly increased by the addition of 1% of cement at 95% of CBR. These
findings demonstrated that volcanic soils with category quartzite can be good materials to
serve as local materials in Rwanda for the implementation of road construction in some
road layers especially in sub-base course and for base course while its was stabilized with
cement.

iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First, I wish to thank all the lecturers in the department of civil engineering who took their
time to share their knowledge and encouraged me to persevere in my studies. Their
understanding, kindness and wisdom were absolutely helpful.

Special thanks to my supervisor Dr. Eng. Jean de Dieu NZABONIMPA. He has sacrificed
most of his precious time for giving me the opportunity to work under his guidance and for
having provided the necessary resources to complete this work and Saint Joseph
Engineering Company for letting me use their civil engineering laboratory during the
research time.

I whole heartedly move appreciation to my beloved parents, my brothers and sisters for
their encouragement and understanding during my academic career. I say a very big thank
you.

I would like to thank in special way all my classmates for their appreciable support
throughout the two years together; I would also like to express my gratitude to my closest
friends for all their contribution in one or another way over this period of my academic life.

I would also like to thank the authors of various research, articles and books that I referred
to.

v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DECLARATION OF ORIGINALITY .................................................................... i

APPROVAL ............................................................................................................. ii

DEDICATION ........................................................................................................ iii

ABSTRACT ........................................................................................................... iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ......................................................................................v

ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................................................. xi

CHAPTER I: GENERAL INTRODUCTION .........................................................1

1.1. Background of the study ......................................................................................1

1.2. Problem statement................................................................................................2

1.3. Research questions ...............................................................................................3

1.4. Research objectives ..............................................................................................3

1.4.1 The general objective .........................................................................................3

1.4.2 The specific objectives .......................................................................................3

1.5. Limitation of the research ....................................................................................3

1.6. Significance of this study .......................................................................................4

1.6.1. Personal interest ................................................................................................4

1.6.2. Academic and scientific interest ........................................................................5

1.6.3. Social interest ...................................................................................................5

1.7. Organization of the study .....................................................................................5

CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................6

2.1. Pavement structure ..........................................................................................6

2.1.1 Sub grade course ................................................................................................6

2.1.2. Sub base course ...............................................................................................7

2.1.3. Base course .......................................................................................................7


vi
2.1.4. Surfacing ..........................................................................................................8

2.2. Soil in general ......................................................................................................8

2.2.1. Soil properties ...................................................................................................9

2.2.2. Soil Tests ........................................................................................................ 10

2.2.3. Tests on volcanic aggregates ........................................................................... 16

CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHODOLOGY .................................................. 19

3.1. Introduction .................................................................................................... 19

3.2. Research materials ............................................................................................. 21

3.3. Methodology.................................................................................................... 21

3.3.1 Laboratory work .............................................................................................. 22

3.3.2 Volcanic soil .................................................................................................... 22

3.4. Analysis method .............................................................................................. 33

CHAPTER IV: RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS ................................................. 34

4.1. Introduction ....................................................................................................... 34

4.2. Laboratory test results and Discussions .............................................................. 34

4.2.1 Soil material ..................................................................................................... 34

4.2.2.3 Losangeles test of crushed volcanic stones .................................................... 39

4.2.2.4 Sand equivalent test ...................................................................................... 39

CHAPTER V: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................... 40

5.1 Conclusion .......................................................................................................... 40

5.2 Recommendations ............................................................................................... 42

REFERENCES ....................................................................................................... 43

APPENDIX ............................................................................................................. 45

Acceptance letter of using St Joseph Engineering Company Laboratory ................... 45

Laboratory test results............................................................................................... 46


vii
Sieve analysis ........................................................................................................... 46

Atterberg limit .......................................................................................................... 50

Proctor test ............................................................................................................... 54

California bearing ratio (CBR Test) .......................................................................... 58

Soil classification charts based on AASHTO ............................................................ 62

Summary sheet of a study on volcanic soil materials ................................................. 64

viii
LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Failed road in Musanze District: source the new times published:May 06, 2013,
Peterson tumwebaze. ..................................................................................................2
Figure 2: Number of collected volcanic soil samples. Source: ArcMap ......................4
Figure 3: Three basic component of the pavement structure (Nicol, 1980)..................6
Figure 4 :Three phase of soil (Fredlund and Rahardjo, 1993) .....................................9
Figure 5: Particle size distribution (Jenny, 1994). ..................................................... 11
Figure 6: CBR Machine ........................................................................................... 14
Figure 7 : Losangeles machine. ................................................................................ 16
Figure 8 : Sand Equivalent test ................................................................................. 18
Figure 9: Map illustrating the boundaries of Rwanda covered by volcanic material. . 19
Figure 10: Location of collected samples. ................................................................ 20
Figure 11: Ruvunda quarry. ..................................................................................... 20
Figure 12: Used Hand GPS-Garmin. ........................................................................ 21
Figure 13: Sample preparation and Air-drying. ........................................................ 22
Figure 14: After washing samples for sieve analysis ................................................ 23
Figure 15: Set of sieves with shaker. ........................................................................ 24
Figure 16: Liquidity limit test (Picture taken in s t Joseph’s soil laboratory). ............. 25
Figure 17: Proctor test (Picture taken in Soil lab) ..................................................... 27
Figure 18: Soaked Samples for CBR Test (Picture taken in Soil lab). ....................... 29
Figure 19: Losangeles Machine. ............................................................................... 31
Figure 20: The behavior of volcanic material during liquid limit test. ....................... 36

ix
LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Sieve classification (Gee and Or, 2002) ...................................................... 10


Table 2: Classification of proctor test (Mitchell and Soga, 2005). ............................. 13
Table 3: CBR Range classification (Stevens, 1982) .................................................. 16
Table 4: Grading zone and mass of size fractions (AASHTO T176). ........................ 17
Table 5: Geographic coordinates illustrates where the soil samples were collected. .. 21
Table 6: Number of balls added in drum according to grading zone.......................... 30
Table 7: Rock Type based on losangeles test. ........................................................... 32
Table 8: Sieve analysis test results............................................................................ 34
Table 9: Classification of all tested samples based on sieve analysis results. ............. 35
Table 10: Atterberg limit test results for collected samples. ......................................36
Table 11: Combination of all proctor test results ...................................................... 37
Table 12: California bearing ratio test results ........................................................... 38
Table 13: Losangeles test results .............................................................................. 39
Table 14: Sand equivalent test results ....................................................................... 39

x
ABBREVIATIONS
AASHTTO: American Association of State Highway and Transportation Official
ASTM: American Society for Testing and Materials
BS: British standard
CBR: California bearing ratio
CH: Clay of high plasticity
CL: Clay of low plasticity
GIS: Geographic information system
GM: Silty gravel
GM: Silty gravel
GP: Poor graded gravel
GP: Poor graded gravel
GW: Well grade gravel
GW: Well grade gravel
INES - Ruhengeri: Institut d’enseignement supérieur de Ruhengeri
LL: Liquid limit
MDD: Maximum Dry Density
MH: Silt of high plasticity
ML: Silt of low plasticity
No: Number
OH: Organic soils of high plasticity
OL: Organic soils of low plasticity
OMC: Optimum Moisture Content
PI: Plastic Index
PL: Plastic limit
PPC: Pozzolana Portland cement
S: Collected samples
SP: Poorly graded sand
SW: Well graded sand

xi
CHAPTER I: GENERAL INTRODUCTION

1.1. Background of the study


Volcanic soils cover 1% of the Earth’s surface yet support 10% of the world’s population,
including some of the highest human population densities. This is usually attributed to their
high natural fertility. However, this is true only in part. Clearly, such soils represent the
surface areas of our planet that are being replenished with new minerals escaping from the
interior of the Earth. However, some deep magmatic processes lead to an imbalance of
elements in volcanic soil parent materials, having an effect on the health of plants and
animals growing in or on them. In contrast, all other soils express various stages of the
degradation (weathering) of these minerals. This account addresses the specific features
and genesis of volcanic soils including their classifications and their usage in various global
environmental settings(Lowe & Palmer, 2005).
Soils formed where there is a lot of volcanic activities often possess special chemical
properties. They are often very rich in nutrients and hold water well because of their
volcanic ash content. These soils are called Andisols, and they are often very young, and
acidic depending on the type of volcano they come from. Volcanic soils around the equator
can be very weathered. However, their nutrients can be lost unless there is another eruption.
These materials can be very dark in color (Lowe & Palmer, 2005).

The material to be used as either a base course or sub-base course depends on its strength
in transmitting the axle-load to the sub-soil or sub-grade. The characteristics and durability
of any constructional material is a function of its efficiency in response to the applied load
(AASHTO, 1993).

In the construction industry, volcanic materials are used in Road construction in some road
layers such as Subgrade, Subbase and Base course. They are also used as paved stones in
parking areas and in construction of retaining walls or water channels. The construction
materials to be used are always provided before the construction activities. In fact, it is
necessary that the sources and characteristics of the volcanic soil should be taken into

1
consideration and be evaluated and tested in order to prevent all the problems that can rise
from lack of all information about those materials. Demographic growth in Rwanda is at
high rate, with a growth rate of 10.9% and its population is 12,206,652 (UN, 2017); as it
goes on the country improves the infrastructure including building and paved or unpaved
road network; as a developing country, knowing the volcanic soil parameters is very
important in order to better understand both the location where the volcanic soil material
can be used in road construction and the location where the sized volcanic stone can be
used as pavers in parking areas with the purpose that contribute to the development of the
country especially in northern province precisely in MUSANZE and RUBAVU Districts.
This study aims to identify the quality of the volcanic soil material found in Musanze
District. Importantly, this study also investigates the application of the tested volcanic soil
that can be used as road layers especially for subgrade and subbase.

1.2. Problem statement


One of the major causes of roads failure constructed by using volcanic soil material is the
less skills of knowing how and where this volcanic soil material can be used in some road
layers. Some people haul the construction materials such as sand and gravel far from site
areas which is even very expensive while they could be using volcanic sand & gravel
materials. Figure 1 illustrates some failed area due to poor drainage system and less skills
of knowing where volcanic material can be used in some road layers.

Figure 1: Failed road in Musanze District: source the new times published:May 06, 2013,
Peterson tumwebaze.
2
1.3. Research questions
The aims of this research were to find solutions to the questions below:

1. What is the soil classification of volcanic Soil Material based on soil full identification?
2. How to stabilize the volcanic soil material with cement?

1.4. Research objectives

1.4.1 The general objective


The general objective of this research was to carry out a study on volcanic soil materials
and its stability in Road Construction.

1.4.2 The specific objectives


In order to achieve specific objectives, some research questions were stated above. The
research questions were tabled together with their corresponding specific objectives.

 Volcanic soil material


1. To conduct full identification of soil (Sieve analysis, atterberg limit, proctor test,
CBR (California Bearing Ratio) Test.
 To determine the resistance due to fragmentation of the crushed stone volcanic
material by performing Los Angeles test.
 Material to be used for stabilizing volcanic soil material.
2. The volcanic soil was stabilized on 1% of cement.
3. Analysis and interpretation of the results and recommending of how this material it
should be used and stabilized in order to increase the life and strength of road.

1.5. Limitation of the research


This study focused on Study on volcanic soil material and its stability where it is needed.
This study was conducted on the Quarry that is located in MUSANZE District, KIMONYI
Sector, RUVUNDA cell. It is based on most useful volcanic soil quarry known as
RUVUNDA Quarry. This investigation collected soil samples for geotechnical analysis. In
this geotechnical investigation, soil sieve analysis, atterberg limit, proctor test, CBR Test
and Cement of 42.5N PPC was used in stabilization. Sample collection, testing and analysis

3
were detailed in this report. This was done for a well conservation of natural environment.
In addition, sand equivalent and losangeles tests of volcanic samples were presented in this
study. Figure 2 illustrates where soil samples were collected from and “S” Represent
number of collected samples.

S2
S3

S1

Figure 2: Number of collected volcanic soil samples. Source: ArcMap

1.6. Significance of this study

1.6.1. Personal interest


This research embodies well with my background studies given that in my previous studies,
we covered the subjects including soil mechanics, high way engineering and engineering
transportation. After conducting this research, it was very helpful for me to understand
more about soil mechanics parameters, and to become familiar with the softwares used in
the previous studies. More importantly, this research helped me to link up theories from
classes and laboratory experiment and as well as to contributed to the completion on
Bachelor’s degree in civil engineering.

4
1.6.2. Academic and scientific interest
This research will serve as a reference for students who want to conduct further
investigations in the same field as source of secondary information. Actually, this project
may be considered as reference document for the students of civil engineering who may
wish to read and understand more about the soil mechanics and its stability for soil material
with less cohesion. This research can also be presented in MUSANZE district as research
that investigated the types of soil founded in volcanic region, and where they can be used
in construction field, especially, in pavement and in some road layers such as base course
and sub base course.

1.6.3. Social interest


The social interest of this research is to avoid the road failure due to bad use of volcanic
soil material. According to strength of this volcanic soil material, they are recommended to
be used in road construction. This research will lead to the development of our country by
exploiting volcanic soil materials without hauling other materials for the same purpose such
as aggregates and laterite and also this will increase the number of qualified students.

1.7. Organization of the study

This research project is organized into five chapters. The first chapter comes with the
general introduction comprising the background, a clear statement of the problem, overall
and specific objectives contribution of the study and research layout. The second chapter
reviews, explains and gives roles of each layer in a road pavement and different soil tests;
the third chapter gives a brief description of materials and methods which Illustrates the
techniques, methodologies applied to meet the objectives. The fourth chapter presents the
obtained results, their analysis and discussion. The fifth chapter draws the conclusion and
recommendations formulated with respect to the predefined research objectives.

5
CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW
This chapter presents the literature review in order to gain a deeper understanding of various
concepts, as well as to become familiar with this study conducted herein. This chapter
highlights brief description of various layers of pavement, highway materials, soil
formation and their composition.

2.1. Pavement structure


Pavement structure is typically composed of several layer of material each of which
receives the loads from the above layers spreads them out and then passes them onto the
layer bellow. The primary function of pavement structure is to reduce and distribute the
surface stresses to an acceptable level at the subgrade (to a level that prevent permanent
deformation) (Nikolaides, 2014)

There four basic components of the pavement structure as shown in Figure 3. The
components include subgrade, subbase, base course and surface or wearing course.

Figure 3: Three basic component of the pavement structure (Nicol, 1980).

2.1.1 Sub grade course


The term subgrade as used in this section refers to the natural or existing ground. For an
elevated highway, this would be immediately below the pavement section. Alternatively,
the sub-grade is a selected soil material that is carefully compacted to provide uniform
support to the pavement and the sub-grade lies directly on either the embankment or the
native soil (O'Flaherty, 2001).

6
2.1.2. Sub base course
It is layer of granular material provided above sub grade generally natural gravel. It is
usually not provided on sub grade of good quality (Nikolaides, 2014). This layer enables
traffic stresses to be reduced to acceptable levels in sub grade in road section; it acts as a
working platform for the construction of upper pavement layer. Sub-base materials
comprise natural sand, gravel, brick metal, crushed stone or any other material like
stabilized soil which remains stable under saturated conditions. For granular materials,
most of the standards recommend a wide range of grading and specify that the materials
passing 425 microns (No 40) sieve when tested in accordance with American Association
Highway and Transportation Official (AASHTO) should have Liquid Limit and Plasticity
Index of not more than 25 and 6, respectively. These requirements should be enforced
(Mathew and Krishna, 2006). The sub-base material should have minimum CBR of 25%
for Rural Road Type B. For very low trafficked rural roads, the CBR requirements may be
relaxed to 20%. The CBR samples should be prepared at the dry density (specified) and
optimum moisture content and should be tested after soaking the test specimen in water for
4 days (Krisna, 2006).

2.1.3. Base course


The base course is the main structural layer whose main function is to withstand the applied
wheel stresses and strains incident on it and distributed them in such a manner that the
materials beneath it do not became over loaded and aggregates for use in base course
construction have to be either crushed stone or crushed gravel. Crushed stone have to be
consist of hard, durable particles or fragments of stone, free from dirt or other objectionable
matter and shall contain no more than 8% of flat, elongated, soft or disintegrated pieces
(O'Flaherty, 2001)

Any material passing the 4.75 mm (No. 4) sieve and produced in the crushing process may
be incorporated in the base material up to the grading limits required for the base course
aggregate. Crushed aggregate for base course have to meet the requirements of Class A or
Class B grading and it should be tested in accordance with AASHTO T 27 after mixing
with water, just before spreading and prior to compacting. The actual grading shall be

7
continuous and smooth within the specified limits for each Class (Massarsch and Fellenius,
2002).

The loss in weight shall be in the range of 45% after 500 revolutions, when tested in
accordance with AASHTO T 96 (Los Angeles Abrasion Test) and the sand equivalent shall
be a minimum of 43% when tested in accordance with (AASHTO T85).

The crushed aggregate base course material shall have a 4-day soaked CBR of not less than
80 when compacted at 100% of modified proctor AASHTO (T180-D) and tested in
accordance with AASHTO, 1993 (Massarsch and Fellenius, 2002).

The portion of aggregate, including any blended material, passing the 0.425 mm (No. 40)
mesh sieve shall have a Liquid Limit (L.L) of not more than 25 and Plasticity Index (P.I)
of not more than 6 when tested in accordance with AASHTO T 89 and T 90 (Massarsch
and Fellenius, 2002).

2.1.4. Surfacing
The surfacing is the upper layer in roadway. It combines a good riding quality with adequate
skidding resistance while also minimizing the probability of water penetrating to the
pavement with consequent surface cracks, (Thom, 2008).

2.2. Soil in general


Soil is defined as essential highway material used in road construction because the soil sub
grade is part of the pavement structure, further the design and behavior of pavement,
especially the flexible pavement depends on the great extent on the sub grade soil. In
addition, the soil is also one of the principle materials of construction in soil embankments
and stabilized soil base and sub base courses. The soil is also used in foundation design,
soil or bed to which loads are transmitted from the base of the structure or in upper part of
earth mass carrying the load of the structure. The aspect of bearing capacity of the soil is
important because the aim of bearing capacity analysis is to control the load from the
structure by keeping it lower than allowable bearing capacity or pressure in order to avoid
shear failure of foundation as well as the excessive uniform settlement or differential of the
structure (MacIver and Hale, 1970).
8
2.2.1. Soil properties
Most of the methods for soil identification and classification are based on certain physical
properties of soils. The commonly used properties for the classification are grain size
distribution, liquid limit and plastic index. These properties have also been used in
empirical design methods for flexible pavements, and deciding the suitability of sub grade
soils (Jenny, 1994) .

2.2.1.1 Origin, classification and types of Soils


Soil is a three phase system of solid particles(S), pore fluid (W) and pore gas (A) Figure 4
illustrate the three phases comprising the soil and it Illustrates the parts that are being
occupied by air, water and solid (Fredlund and Rahardjo, 1993).

Figure 4 :Three phase of soil (Fredlund and Rahardjo, 1993)


The main types of soils: are as the following Granular: gravel, sand, (silt), cohesive: (silt),
clay, Organic: marsh soil, peat, coal, tar sand, Man-Made: mine tailings, landfill waste, ash,
aggregates.The following is a Broad Classification of soils:

Coarse-grained soils: These include sands, gravels and larger particles. For these soils the
grains are well-defined and may be seen by the naked eye. The individual particles
may vary from perfectly round to highly angular reflecting their geological origins
(Massarsch and Fellenius, 2002). And Fine-grained soils: These include the silts and clays
and have particles smaller than 60 m. Silts These can be visually differentiated from
clays because they exhibit the property of dilatancy. If a moist sample is shaken in the
hand water will appear on the surface. If the sample is then squeezed in the fingers the
water will disappear. Their gritty feel can also identify silts. Clays exhibit plasticity, they
may be readily remolded when moist, and if left to dry can attain high strengths (Hansbo,
1981).
9
2.2.2. Soil Tests
2.2.2.1. Sieve analysis Test
All soil classification systems uses the No. 200 sieve as the dividing point between
Cohesive Soil (Silt and Clay) and Cohesion less Soil (Sand and Gravel). For soil particles
smaller than No. 200 sieve, the “Hydrometer Test” is used to determine the gradation of
the soil particles and was done with respect to with respect to AASHTO T 27

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Official (AASHTTO) is a soil


classification system used in engineering and geology to describe the texture and grain size
of a soil especially in road construction. The classification system can be applied to most
unconsolidated materials.

The classification of gravel is equal to the percentage retained from the sieve size of 2mm
that soil is classified as gravel material. The classification of fine is equal to the percentage
passing from the sieve size of 0.075mm that’s the percentage in which is even containing
silt and clay material. The classification of sand is calculated as the following 100-
(%retained from 2.00mm +% passing from 0.075mm). Table 1 illustrates the sieve opening
number with their corresponding opening in millimeter (Stevens, 1982).

Table 1: Sieve classification (Gee and Or, 2002)

Sieve # Opening Size(mm)


Pan --------
200 0.075
140 0.106
100 0.15
50 0.3
30 0.6
16 1.18
8 2.36
4 4.75

10
Data often presented as particle size distribution curves with logarithmic scale on X-
axis and Figure 5 illustrates classificaion and range of well graded materials.

Figure 5: Particle size distribution (Jenny, 1994).


The coefficient of uniformity, Cu is a crude shape parameter and is calculated using the
following equation:

Equation 1 Coefficient of uniformity

Where D60 is the grain diameter at 60% passing, and D10 is the grain diameter at 10%
passing. The coefficient of curvature, Cc is a shape parameter and is calculated using the
following equation:

Equation 2 Coefficient of curvature

Where D60 is the grain diameter at 60% passing, D30 is the grain diameter at 30% passing,
and D10 is the grain diameter at 10% passing and once the coefficient of uniformity and the
coefficient of curvature have been calculated, they must be compared to published
gradation criteria.The following criteria are in accordance with the unified soil

11
classification system: For a gravel to be classified as well graded, the following criteria
must be met: Cu > 4 for coefficient of uniformity and 1 < Cc < 3 for coefficient of curvature.
If both of these criteria are not met, the gravel is classified as poorly graded or GP. If both
of these criteria are met, the gravel is classified as well graded or GW (AASHTO T-11,
AASHTO T-27 and ASTM 3282).

2.2.2.2. Atterberg limit


Plastic limit was determined by recording moisture content in the percent sign dropped, at
which the soil breaks,when rolling into thread untill it becames thinner and breaks at large
diameter.Liquid limit was a minimum moisture content at which the soil can flow under its
own weight. Plasticity index when the soil is at moisture content between the liquid limit
and the plastic limit, it is said to be in a plastic state. It can be easily molded without
cracking or breaking. The children’s toy play-dough has a similar consistency. The property
relates to the amount and type of clays in the soil. The plasticity index, PI or IP, is a measure
of the range of moisture contents that encompass the plastic state (soil properties) (Mitchell
and Soga, 2005).

According to the local standard, Classification of bonding activity allows its use in
engineering to anticipate the soils behaviour concerning compaction, expansion, shrinkage
and plastic index (Mitchell and Soga, 2005).and according to mitchell and soga 2005 the
following are the classification plastic index ranges. 0 - No plastic, (1-5) - Slightly plastic,
(5-10) - Low plasticity, (10-20) - Medium plasticity, (20-40) - High plasticity and >40 Very
high plasticity.

2.2.2.3. Proctor test


The Compaction of soil is referred as a mechanical process by which the soil particles are
constrained to be packed more close together by reducing air voids. From the compaction,
the Maximum Dry Density (MDD) and Optimum Moisture Content (OMC) of the soil is
found for the selected type and amount of compaction. These results have various uses: The
OMC of the soil indicate the particular moisture content at which the soil should be
compacted to achieve MDD. If the compacting effect applied is less, the OMC increases
and the value can again be found experimentally or by estimate. In field compaction, the
12
compacting moisture content is first controlled at OMC and adequacy of rolling or
compaction is controlled by checking the dry density achieved and comparing with MDD
achieved in the laboratory thus compaction test results (OMC and MDD) are used in the
field control test in compaction (Mitchell and Soga, 2005).

In general compaction is considered most useful in the preparation of sub grade and other
pavement layers and in construction of embankment in order to increase the stability and
to decrease settlement. There is also a soil classification method based on the MDD in the
standard (proctor) compaction test (Mitchell and Soga, 2005).and Table 2 illustrates the
classification of compacted soil material.

Table 2: Classification of proctor test (Mitchell and Soga, 2005).

Proctor density Ypr(g/cm3) Suitability of soil

<1.60 Very Poor

1.60-1.75 Poor

1.75-1.95 Quite good

1.95-2.10 Good

>2.1 Very good

13
2.2.2.4. CBR Test
The California bearing ratio (CBR) is a penetration test for evaluation of the mechanical
strength of natural ground, subgrades and base courses beneath new carriageway
construction. The CBR can also be used for measuring the load-bearing capacity of
unimproved airstrips or for soils under paved airstrips (AASHTO, 1993). Figures 6
illustrate the parts of CBR and the sample under testing process.

Figure 6: CBR Machine


Why doing a CBR test?

The CBR test is conducted by measuring the pressure required to penetrate a soil sample
with a plunger of standard area. The CBR index obtained after testing is used on charts to
show the thickness of a layer that should be added on a road maybe as base course or base
course and it’s done to ensure the quality of compacted soil material.

14
What is the process for the CBR Test?

A sample of the material that needs testing is loaded into the mold either on site or in the
laboratory. Then a 3sq inch (approx. 50mm of diameter) plunger is loaded against the
sample and the penetration into the sample is measured at various increments.

What to find out from a CBR Test?

The results are expressed in relative terms, as a percentage of the determined value of
3000lbf to penetrate 0.1inch (2.5mm at 13.3KN in today’s terms) in the originals tests.In
modern construction, the required CBR value is specified for soils and fill from formation
level up through granular fills to the sub-base immediately below a concrete slab or asphalt
road (Mitchell and Soga, 2005).

How to know the results from a CBR Test?

The results are obtained by plotting from CBR test dry density and its corresponding CBR
Value and calculation of CBR Test results was made at MDD from proctor test of 100%,
98% and 95% and the obtained results from those different percentage was plotted on stated
above chart in order to obtain CBR Values (Mitchell and Soga, 2005).

Advantages to the CBR Test

The tests are relatively quick and inexpensive, It can be performed in the laboratory or on
site on undisturbed or re-compacted samples, Results can be obtained within a day and The
results can be performed on a self-contained basis (although the assistance of an excavator
on site is often helpful) (Mitchell and Soga, 2005).

Limitations of the CBR Test

The actual CBR (California Bearing Ratio) test uses only a small diameter plunger of
approx. 50mm diameter. This is clearly of little practical use on (consist of aggregates
composed of crushed brick) containing half bricks! The CBR test is limited to the fine
grained materials such as clays, sands, pulverized fuel ash, finely crushed stone etc. or If
you need CBR values for coarse granulated materials, these can easily be obtained by
15
performing plate bearing tests or if you’re still not sure, use the following needs analysis
flow chart (Mitchell and Soga, 2005). Table 3 illustrates the CBR Range and their
classification.

Table 3: CBR Range classification (Stevens, 1982)

General General Soil


USC Soil Type CBR Range USC Soil Type CBR Range
Soil Type Type
GW 40 – 80 ML 15 or less
GP 30 – 60 CL LL < 50% 15 or less
GM 20 – 60 Fine-grained OL 5 or less
Coarse- GC 20 – 40 soils MH 10 or less
grained soils SW 20 – 40 CH LL > 50% 15 or less
SP 10 – 40 OH 5 or less
SM 10 – 40
SC 5 – 20

2.2.3. Tests on volcanic aggregates


2.2.3.1 Losangeles
This test is a measure of degradation of mineral aggregates of standard grading resulting
from a combination of actions including abrasion or attrition, impact, and grinding in a
rotating steel drum containing a specified number of steel spheres, the number depending
upon the grading of the test sample. As the drum rotates, a shelf plate picks up the sample
of the steel spheres, carrying them around until they are dropped to the opposite side of the
drum, creating an impact-crushing effect. After the prescribed number of revolutions, the
contents are removed from the drum and the aggregate portion is sieved to measure the
degradation as percent loss. Figure 7 illustrates the losangeles machine that was used to
determine the resistance of aggregate (AASHTO T176).

Figure 7 : Losangeles machine.


16
Table 4 illustrates respected sizes of crushed volcanic aggregates for losangeles test.

Table 4: Grading zone and mass of size fractions (AASHTO T176).

Test Sieve(mm) Grading Zone and mass of size fractions(g)

Passing Retained 1 2 3 A B C D

75 63 2500±50

63 50 2500±50

50 37.5 5000±50 5000±50

37.5 25 5000±25 5000±25 1250±25

25 19 5000±25 1250±25

19 12.5 1250±10 2500±10

12.5 9.5 1250±10 2500±10

9.5 6.3 2500±10

6.3 4.75 2500±10

4.75 2.36 5000±10

Mass of sample 10000±100 10000±75 10000±50 5000±10 5000±10 5000±10 5000±10

No. of revolutions 1000 1000 1000 500 500 500 500

17
2.2.3.5 Sand equivalent test
The sand equivalent test provides measure of the relative proportions of detrimental fine
dust or clay-like material in soil or fine aggregates. Figure 8 illustrates all necessary tools
and apparatus used to determine the quality of sand.

Concentrated
calcium chloride
solution

Sample in
measuring
cylinder

Stopwatch

Taking Measurement of
flocculants with ruler

Figure 8 : Sand Equivalent test

Many volcanic soils have excellent physical properties that make them highly desirable for
a wide range of uses. Volcanic ash (VA) is formed during volcanic eruptions, and is
considered as natural pozzolan as per ASTM C618-93, a standard specification for ‘Fly
Ash and Raw or Calcinated Natural Pozzolan for Use as a Mineral Admixture in Portland
Cement Concrete’. It can be suitably used in cement, mortar, and concrete. This study of
volcanic soil material presents comprehensive details of the physical properties of volcanic
soil materials and to be sure with where and how it be used especially in the region that big
part is covered by volcanic materials. It also covers the classification of Rwanda volcanic
soil material.

18
CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.1. Introduction
The research materials used and the methodology followed for this study of volcanic soil
material are described in this chapter. The research materials consisted of material which
may be used on the sub base courses, base course and the other material might be used as
stone macadam road. The location, selection and classification of these materials were
discussed in this research, which includes a description of the material where it was
collected from Rwanda, sample preparation, the testing procedure followed and the
experimental testing schedule were used. Figure 9 illustrates that north-western parts of
Rwanda are containing volcanic soil materials therefore the evaluated part in the Northern
Province (Musanze District).

Figure 9: Map illustrating the boundaries of Rwanda covered by volcanic material.

19
The test performed on this study were sieve analysis, atterberg limit, Proctor test, California
bearing ratio test(CBR), Losangeles. The analyzed material was collected from Northern
Province in MUSANZE District, KIMONYI Sector, RUVUNDA Cell and the material
collected from RUVUNDA Quarry. The Collected soil material for three different areas in
the same Quarry was 70kg each and four big stones for resizing. Figure 10 illustrates the
exact location of evaluated quarry with the number of collected soil samples for laboratory
analysis.

S3 S2
S1

Figure 10: Location of collected samples.


Volcanic soil material was collected in 13.6 meters depth. As shown on Figure 11. And this
quarry has four different layers.

Figure 11: Ruvunda quarry.

20
3.2. Research materials
When performing this study, the samples were collected from different areas in the same
quarry Figure 12 illustrates hand GPS that was used to collected the coordinates.

Figure 12: Used Hand GPS-Garmin.


Table 5: Geographic coordinates Illustrates where the soil samples were collected.

ID EASTING(X) NORTHING(Y) ELEVATION(Z)

S1 454713 4832918 1861

S2 454843 4833076 1872

S3 454580 4833000 1868

3.3. Methodology
During the study of this research on volcanic soil materials in the civil engineering
laboratory test method, sample preparation, test procedures and reporting were referred to
the laboratory soil testing books (AASHTO, TMH1 Technical Methods for Highways with
Standard methods of testing road construction material Edition 2.1986., Tanzania
laboratory testing material and BS 1377 part 2, 1990).

21
3.3.1 Laboratory work
3.3.2 Volcanic soil
3.3.2.1 Sample preparation
The used soil volcanic samples in this study some were prepared as over dried and air dried
infact the samples for sieve analysis were oven dried and other for atterberg, proctor test,
CBR were oven air dried this were done in order to be sure that the moisture content in the
material was removed. Figure 13 illustrates all collected samples after preparation.

Sample I Collected from


Ruvunda Quarry Sample II Collected from Sample III Collected from
Ruvunda Quarry Ruvunda Quarry
Sampling date: 11-May-2018
Sampling date: 11-May-2018 Sampling date: 11-May-2018

Figure 13: Sample preparation and Air-drying (Picture taken in st Joseph’s soil lab).

3.3.2.2. Laboratory tests


In this study on volcanic soil materials, the following tests was done in order to understand
the soil classification based on sieve analysis, atterberg limit, Proctor test, California
Bearing Ratio (CBR Test) and for checking the quality of volcanic aggregates by
performing losangeles and sand equivalent in order to ensure the quality of volcanic
crushed aggregates in terms of resistance as physical parameter.

3.3.2.2.1. Sieve analysis


The distribution of particle sizes or average grain diameter of soils is obtained by screening
a known weight of the soil through a stack of sieves of progressively finer mesh size. Each
sieve is identified by a number that correspond to the number of square holes per linear
inch of mesh. The particle diameter in the screening process, often called sieve analysis, is
the maximum particle dimension to pass through the square hole of a particular mesh. A
22
known weight of dry soil is placed on the largest sieve (the top sieve) and the nest of sieves
is then placed on the sieve shaker and shaken. The soil retained on each sieve is weighed
and the percentage of soil retained on each sieve is calculated (Gee and Or, 2002).

Sample preparation
The performed sieve analysis type was wet sieve analysis where the quartering was done
before testing. The sample was dried in oven at the temperature between 105 to 110oc
within 24hrs (AASHTO T 27). Figure 14 illustrates used sieves for sample preparation and
washed sample for sieve analysis.

Figure 14: After washing samples for sieve analysis

Test procedure:
Weight the oven dried sample, wash the sample with a sieve of 0.075 mm allowing the
material to run as waste, dry the washed sample at temperature of 105 0C to 1100C there
after sieve the material through all set of sieves (mm), Weigh the amount retained on each
sieve and any fines passing the 75µm test the sieve and record (AASHTO T 27). Apparatus
used are sieves, balances, drying oven, Evaporating diches, scoop, sieve brushes,
mechanical sieve shaker and containers as shown in Figure 15.

23
Figure 15: Set of sieves with shaker (Picture taken in soil lab at st Joseph nyamirambo).

3.3.2.2.2. Atterberg limit test


The atterberg limits are based on the moisture content of the soil. The plastic limit is the
moisture content that defines where the soil changes from a semi-solid to a plastic. The
liquid limit is the moisture content that defines where the soil changes from a plastic to
viscous fluid state. The shrinkage limit is the moisture content that defines where the soil
volume won’t reduce further if the moisture content is reduced. In engineering practice, we
use only two limits, the liquid and plastic limits (A third limit, the shrinkage limit, is used
occasionally). The Atterberg are based on the moisture content of the soil. The shrinkage
limit is the moisture content that defines where the soil volume will not reduce further if
the moisture content is reduced (AASHTO T 90).
Apparatus

The used apparatus are as the following, sieves of sizes 425µm, A flat glass plate, Two
palate knives or spatulas, Casagrande, Weighing balance, with 0.01g accuracy, Grooving
tools, Apparatus for moisture content determination, A wash bottle containing clean water,
A metal straight edge and Oven.

Sample preparation

This test commonly is performed as a continuance of the liquid limit test, and material for
test could conveniently be repeated as part of the liquid limit test.Liquid Limit (LL) is
defined as the moisture content at which soil begins to behave as a liquid material and
begins to flow (Liquid limit of a fine-grained soil gives the moisture content at which the
shear strength of the soil is approximately 2.5kN/m2), Plastic Limit (PL) is defined as the
24
moisture content at which soil begins to behave as a plastic material, Shrinkage Limit (SL)
is defined as the moisture content at which no further volume change occurs with further
reduction in moisture content. LL: The lowest water content above which soil behaves like
liquid, normally below 100. PL: The lowest water content at which soil behaves like a
plastic material, normally below 40. Shrinkage limit: the water content below which soils
do not decrease their volume anymore as they continue dry out. –needed in producing
bricks and ceramics.

Liquid Limit (LL)


In the lab, the LL is defined as the moisture content (%) required to close a 2-mm wide
groove in a soil pat a distance of 0.5 in along the bottom of the groove after 25 blows
according to AASHTO T 90, where Soil sample size 150g passing # 40 sieve by using
equipment called Casagrande liquid limit device.
Liquid Limit test procedure are as following ;150g air dry soil passing # 40 sieve, add 20%
of water -mix thoroughly, Place a small sample of soil in LL device (deepest part about 8-
10mm); cut a groove (2mm at the base),R un the device, count the number of blows, N ;
stop when the groove in the soil close through a distance of 0.5in; Take a sample and find
the moisture content; Run the test three times [N~ (10-20), N~ (20-30) and N~ (35-45)]
and Plot number of blows vs moisture content and determine the liquid limit (LL) (moisture
content at 25 blows).Figure 16 illustrates the casagrande devise that was used to check the
plastic index of the material.

Figure 16: Liquidity limit test (Picture taken in st Joseph’s soil laboratory).
25
Plastic Limit

Sample preparation

This test is commonly performed as a continuance of the liquid limit test, and material for
test could conveniently be repeated as part of the liquid limit test. Otherwise a 40 g sample
should be prepared in the same as specified for the liquid limit test.

Test procedure

The procedure are as the following;take a 40 g soil paste sample and place it on a glass
plate; Allow the soil to dry partially until it becomes plastic enough to be shaped into a ball;
Mold the ball of soil between the fingers and roll it between the palms of the hands until
the heat of the hands has dried the soil sufficiently for slight cracks to appear on its surface;
Divide this sample into 2 sub-samples of about 20 g each and carry out separate
determination on each portion; Mold the soil in the fingers to equalize the distribution of
moisture. Then form the soil into tread about 6 mm diameter between the fingers and thumb
of each hand.

Apparatus

The apparatus used are as the following: Two flat plates, one for mixing soil and one for
rolling tread, Two palate knives or spatulas, Apparatus for moisture content determination,
clean water and A length of rod, 3 mm in diameter and 100 mm long (AASHTO T 99 and
T 180).

3.3.2.2.3. Proctor test


This test is performed to reduce the subsequent settlement under working loads (it is mostly
done to reduce the voids and by increasing the dry density).

Sample preparation
Prepare 3 representative samples each of about 3 kg material passing the 20 mm test sieve
.break up lumps of fine material by rolling on a flat surface. For coarse material where max.
10% is retained on the 37.5 mm sieve and max. 30% is retained on the 20 mm sieve, CBR
mold shall be used. The material coarse than 37.5 mm shall be removed and weighed and
26
replaced by the same quantity of material of the fraction 20 mm – 37.5 mm.in this case
each of the samples should be of about 6 kg. Mix each sample thoroughly with different
amounts of water to give a suitable range of moisture contents (AASHTO T 99 and T 180).

Test procedure

The mold with the baseplate attached must be weighed; Attach the extension collar and
place the mold on a solid base, place a quantity of moist soil in the mold; place the rammer
with guide on the material in the mold; Change the position of guide and again drop
rammer. Repeat the process, a total of 55 blows shall be applied; Remove rammer and fill
the next layer of soil in the mold, and repeat the process for five layers; Remove the
extension collar, strike off excess soil and level the surface of the compaction soil to the
top of the mold using the straightedge; Weigh the soil the mold with base plate; Remove
the compacted sample from the mold; Discard the remainder of the sample. (The sample
must not be re- in a last test) (AASHTO T 99 and T 180). Figure 17 illustrates all used
apparatus in order to get the optimum moisture content and dry density.

Figure 17: Proctor test (Picture taken in Soil lab)

Apparatus

The following are used apparatus for proctor test; cylindrical compaction mold of 105 mm
of internal diameter and height of 115 mm. A metal rammer weighing 4.5 kg, A balance,
Spatulas, A straightedge, A 20 mm diameter sieve, A container suitable for mixing the
quantity of material to be used, Water proof containers and scoop, A large metal tray,
Measuring cylinder 200 ml or 500 ml, Suitable tools for extracting specimen from mold
and Apparatus for moisture content determination (AASHTO T 99 and T 180).

27
3.3.2.2.4. California bearing ratio (CBR)
The California Bearing Ratio (CBR) test a measure of resistance of a material to penetration
of standard plunger under controlled density and moisture conditions. It was developed by
the California Division of Highways as a method of classifying and evaluating soil-
subgrade and base course materials for flexible pavements (AASHTO T 99 and T 180).

Sample preparation

The CBR test shall be carried out on material passing the 20 mm test sieve. If the soil
contains particles larger than this, the friction retained on the 20 mm test sieve shall be
removed and weighed before preparing the test sample. If this friction is greater than 25%,
the test is not applicable. Prepare three specimen samples of 6 kg of the material passing
20 mm test sieve, mix each sample with different water proportions until optimum water
content is reached. Three specimens of 6 kg were compacted at the same percentage of
water obtained from compaction test or proctor test and then all samples were compacted
with 5 layers with different number of blows first trial was with 55 blows, second with 25
blows and the last with 10 blows. After compaction the material was soaked in soaking
tank in order to check the swelling or expansion of the material there after soaking for 4
days the sample was tested (AASHTO T 99 and T 180).

Test procedure

Divide the prepared quantity of soil into three portions equal to within 50g and seal each
portion in an airtight container until required for use, to prevent loss of moisture; Stand the
mold assembly on a solid base; Place the first portion of soil into the mold and compact it
about 55 blows. Ensure that the blows are evenly distributed over the surface; Repeat using
the other two portion of soil in turn, so that the final level of the soil surface is not more
than 6mm above the top the mold body; Remove the collar and trim the soil flush with the
top of mold with the scraper. Weigh mold, soil and baseplate to the nearest 5 g (AASHTO
T 99 and T 180).

28
Figure 18 illustrates how the sample was compacted in modified proctor mold and how the
weight of compacted soil were measured from balance there after the sample was soaked
in water for four days.

Figure 18: Soaked Samples for CBR Test (Picture taken in Soil lab).

Test apparatus

The following are used apparatus for CBR Test sieve of 20 mm size, A cylindrical metal
mold, A metal rammer of 4.5 kg, A steel rod, steel straightedge, A spatula, A balance,
Apparatus for moisture content determination, filter papers 150 mm diameter (AASHTO T
99 and T 180).

3.3.2.2.5. Losangeles test


The resistance to fragmentation is an important property of aggregates for use in unbound
and bituminous mixtures used for road construction.in addition it needs to be checked
before using it as sub base course. The Los Angeles test, first developed in the USA has
been universally adopted as it has been shown to give a satisfactory indication of the in-
service behavior of an aggregate; Numerous correlation exercises have been performed
which have shown that the test method relates closely to other tests for aggregate resistance
(AASHTO T 96).

29
Sample preparation
The bulk sample shall contain at least 15 kg of particles and shall be washed and dried at
110 o C + 5 o C to constant mass; Sieve the sample to produce separate size fractions then
wash each fraction; Separately using the following procedure. Place the fractions in
separate containers and cover with water. A storage period of 24 hours under water may be
appropriate to assist in breaking down lumps; the addition of a dispersing agent e.g. sodium
hexametaphosphate (buffered) is permitted wet both sides of a 63 micrometer washing
sieve, fit a guard sieve (a 5mm aperture is appropriate) and empty the container into the
guard sieve taking care not to overload the guard sieve. The maximum weight retained on
a 5mm guard sieve should not exceed 750 g for a 300 mm diameter sieve or 350 g on a 200
mm diameter sieve; continue washing the sample until the water passing the 63 micrometer
sieve is clear. Dry each fraction to constant mass in the oven at 110 + 5 degree Celsius then
allow the fractions to cool to ambient temperature (AASHTO T 96).
Test procedure

Ensure the interior of the drum is clean then place the ball load followed by the
Test specimen in the drum.

Table 6: Number of balls added in drum according to grading zone.

The mass of each individual ball should be between 390 g and 445 secure the cover in place
and place the tray below the drum as it shown on figure 20. Set the revolution counter to
500 (or 1000) as appropriate and start the machine. Stop the machine after 500 (or 1000)
revolutions. With the cover in a position where it can be removed without loss of the test
specimen, remove the cover and carefully allow the test specimen and ball load to exit the
drum into the tray without loss of any material.

30
Figure 19 illustrates used machine for checking the resistance of crushed volcanic material.

Figure 19: Losangeles Machine.

The procedure for the preparation of Losangeles Machine are as follows: Clean out the
drum into the tray, paying particular attention to the area around the internal shelf, then,
carefully remove the ball load from the tray ensuring no loss of the test specimen. Dismantle
and clean the apparatus. Wash the test portion through a 1.7 mm sieve. Dry the portion
retained on the 1.7 mm sieve to constant mass in the oven at 110+ 5 o C and record the
weight retained (m).
Apparatus

In order to achieve the resistance of crushed volcanic aggregates the following are used
machine and apparatus; Los Angeles test machine, with a rotational speed of 32 + 1 r/min;
fitted with a revolution counter which will stop the machine automatically and comprising;
a hollow steel drum with an opening in the drum 150 + 3 mm wide and preferably extending
over the whole length of the drum; providing a dust free seal when closed. A steel shelf
fitted to the interior of the drum and 380 mm to 820 mm from the nearest edge of the
opening measured along the inside face of the drum in the direction of rotation. The shelf
shall be equal in length to the drum, 90 + 2 mm wide and 25 + 1 mm thick. Ball load,
comprising 12 spherical steel balls, 45 mm to 49 mm in diameter. Each ball shall weigh
between 390 g and 445 g. Tray, of a suitable size to collect the sample and ball load after
completion of the test. Test sieves, square hole perforated plate of aperture sizes appropriate
to the sample size fractions. Balance, a suitable size is 25 kg readable to 2 g with an
accuracy of 0.1 % of the weight of the test specimen. Ventilated drying oven

31
thermostatically controlled to maintain a temperature of 110 + 5 degree Celsius. The
following Table 7 illustrates the type of rock based on abrasion losses.
Table 7: Rock type based on losangeles test.

Rock Type L.A. Abrasion loss (by percent weight)


General Values
Hard,Igneous rock 10
Soft limestones and sandstones 60
Range for specific rocks
Basalt 10-17
Dolomite 18-30
Gneiss 33-57
Granite 27-49
Limestone 19-30
Quartzite 25-35

3.3.2.2.6. Sand equivalent test


This procedure covers the determination of plastic fines in accordance with AASHTO T
176- 08. It serves as a rapid test to show the relative proportion of fine dust or clay-like
materials in fine aggregates (FA) and soils.

Sample preparation

Sample was prepared as the following where it was oven dried within 24hrs at 105 o C to
110o Celsius, the sample used in sand equivalent test was the sample passed through sieve
of 2 mm and used sample in the test was 120gramms.
Test procedure

Read and record the temperature of the working solution. a. In a temperature-controlled


work area where the room temperature remains constant within ± 5°F over a 24 hr period,
the average room temperature may be recorded in lieu of the solution temperature, fill the

32
plastic cylinder to 4 ± 0.1 inches with working calcium chloride solution, pour the prepared
test specimen into the plastic cylinder (see Figure 11). Use the funnel to avoid spillage,
release air bubbles and promote thorough wetting by bumping the base of the cylinder
against a firm object while the test specimen is being poured into the cylinder or by tapping
the cylinder sharply on the heel of the hand several times after the test specimen has been
poured in. c. Allow the wetted material to stand undisturbed for 10 ± 1 min. 4. Immediately
following the 10 min wetting period, agitate the test specimen to break up clay lumps and
remove coatings. Add other solution till you reach to the final level of the measuring
cylinder wait for 20 min there after take the measurement was taken accordingly flocculants
separation(AASHTO CT 217).

Apparatus

The used apparatus for sand equivalent test was sand equivalent test Apparatus, A
graduated plastic cylinder, rubber stopper, irrigator tube, weighted foot assembly, and
siphon assembly (AASHTO CT 217).

3.4. Analysis method


After getting results of tests (sieve analysis, atterberg limit, proctor test, California bearing
ratio, losangeles and sand equivalent test) and compared them with the values which were
in literature review, the material from RUVUNDA QUARRY can be to be used in road
construction as base course.

33
CHAPTER IV: RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
4.1. Introduction
This chapter illustrates several laboratory test results in order to determine the soil
properties and its soil classification of collected volcanic soil samples. Performed tests were
described in previous chapters where in general all samples were classified as poorly graded
material.in addition was subdivided in to sandy and gravely volcanic material.

4.2. Laboratory test results and Discussions


4.2.1 Soil material
4.2.1.1.1 Sieve analysis test results
Table 8: Sieve analysis test results. The table below it combines all test results for
different collected volcanic soil samples and its classification is shown on the table 9.

SIEVE ANALYSIS
SAMPLE I SAMPLE II SAMPLE III Stabilized
Sieve
Size(mm) %Retaine %Retaine %Retaine
%Retained %Passing %Passing %Passing %Passing
d d d
63 0.00 100.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 100.00
50 0.00 100.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 100.00
40 0.00 100.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 100.00
37.5 0.00 100.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 100.00
31.5 0.00 100.00 2.79 97.21 0.00 100.00 0.00 100.00
28 1.59 98.41 5.65 94.35 0.00 100.00 1.53 98.47
25 4.57 95.43 9.59 90.41 12.29 87.71 4.40 95.60
20 6.35 93.65 16.81 83.19 30.77 69.23 6.11 93.89
16 7.56 92.44 22.21 77.79 32.65 67.35 7.28 92.72
14 8.73 91.27 26.81 73.19 32.98 67.02 8.41 91.59
12.5 12.48 87.52 30.38 69.62 33.20 66.80 12.01 87.99
10 18.22 81.78 37.42 62.58 35.97 64.03 17.55 82.45
8 21.14 78.86 45.29 54.71 38.74 61.26 20.36 79.64
6.3 24.76 75.24 51.44 48.56 42.61 57.39 23.84 76.16
5 28.30 71.70 63.57 36.43 43.17 56.83 27.25 72.75
3.35 33.71 66.29 76.63 23.37 47.04 52.96 32.46 67.54
2 39.73 60.27 85.86 14.14 55.89 44.11 38.26 61.74
1.18 45.54 54.46 89.79 10.21 64.19 35.81 43.85 56.15
0.6 55.81 44.19 92.97 7.03 67.52 32.48 53.74 46.26
0.425 63.24 36.76 93.79 6.21 78.03 21.97 60.89 39.11
0.3 70.44 29.56 94.70 5.30 80.91 19.09 67.83 32.17
0.15 87.16 12.84 96.12 3.88 86.88 13.12 83.92 16.08
0.075 96.41 3.59 96.83 3.17 91.86 8.14 92.83 7.17

Sieve analysis curves


110.00
100.00
90.00
80.00
70.00
%Passing

60.00
Sample I
50.00
Sample II
40.00
Sample III
30.00
Stabilized(1%cement)
20.00
10.00
0.00
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Si eve s i ze(mm)

34
4.2.1.1.2 Results discussion
Table 9: Classification of all tested samples based on sieve analysis results.

Classification

Collected %Retained %Retained %Passing


Gravel% Sand% Fines%
Samples 5mm 2mm 0.075mm

Sample I 28.30 39.73 3.59 39.73 56.68 3.59

Sample II 63.57 85.86 3.17 85.86 10.97 3.17

Sample III 43.17 43.17 8.14 43.17 48.70 8.14

Stabilized 27.25 27.25 7.17 27.25 65.58 7.17

From Chart SAMPLE I SAMPLE II SAMPLE III Stabilized


D10 0.14 1.01 0.1 0.1
D30 0.3 3.2 0.44 0.29
D60 2 1.8 7.5 1.7
Cu=D60/D10 14.3 1.8 75.0 17.0 Cu > 4

Cc=D30^2/(D
0.32 5.63 0.26 0.49 1 < Cc < 3
60*D10)

The Coefficients of Uniformity and Curvature

As sieve analysis is among of the test that can classify the type of soil thereafter analyzing
the study on volcanic soil material with respect to soil sieve analysis or grading size for
stabilized and un-stabilized materials or virgin material as it shown on table 8 and 9, the
results from analysis showed that the material is classified as poorly graded material with
no presence of clay and it was classified as sandy material with respect to classification
system of American associate state for highway and transportation officials (AASHTO).
The percentage of sand=100-(%Retained on sieve of 2 mm +% Passed on sieve of
0.075mm).

35
4.2.1.2.1 Atterberg limit test results
Table 10: Atterberg limit test results for collected samples.

As it illustrated in the lab results below the material failed to reach to plastic index, where
the liquidity and plasticity limit test was not giving the results with casagrande device and
from this that’s where the material was classified as sandy soil material.
S AMPLE DES CR. RUVUNDA QUARRY S AMPLE I REF

ATTERBERG LIMITS

LIQUID LIMIT TEST PLASTIC LIMIT TEST


Number of blows Sample N°1 Sample N°2 Sample N°3
N° of container
Wt of wet soil + container
Wt of dry soil + container NO MESURABLE
Wt of container
Wt of moisture
Wt of dry soil
Moisture content Ψ %
Average %

LL: PL: P.I:


Moisture content %

10 15 20 25 Number
30 of blows 35 40 45 50

4.2.1.2.2 Results discussion


After cut off with
groove cutter the
material separate
automatically

Figure 20: The behavior of volcanic material during liquid limit test.

After the analysis of study of volcanic material with respect to atterberg limit which gives
liquid limit, plastic limit and plastic index of the material, the results that were founded as
it was illustrated in the Table 10 and Figure 20 in this study showed that the material were
founded to be no measurable with the test by perming liquid limit and plastic limit
therefore the material were classified as sandy material where sandy material is no cohesive
material.

36
4.2.1.3.1 Proctor test results
Table 11 illustrates the test results and classification of compaction test or modified
proctor test both for stabilized and un-stabilized volcanic material.

Table 11: Combination of all proctor test results

PROCTOR OR COMPACTION TEST


SAMPLE I Classification
MC % 8.92 10.50 12.30 14.45 OMC 12.30
DD 1.50 1.64 1.76 1.60 MDD 1.76 Quite good
SAMPLE II
MC % 7.14 9.49 11.21 13.26 OMC 11.21
DD 1.55 1.71 1.78 1.69 MDD 1.78 Quite good
SAMPLE III
MC % 10.76 12.59 14.25 16.13 OMC 14.25
DD 1.55 1.66 1.74 1.67 MDD 1.74 Poor
STABILIZED
MC % 2.46 4.32 6.44 8.43 OMC 6.44
DD 1.53 1.73 1.88 1.70 MDD 1.88 Quite good

C O MB IN ATIO N O F P R O C TO R TE S T
SAMPLE 1 SAMPLE II SAMPLE III STABILIZED

1.90
1.88
1.85
1.80
1.78
1.75 1.76
1.73 1.74
1.70 1.71
MDD

1.70 1.69
1.66 1.67
1.65 1.64
1.60 1.60
1.55 1.55 1.55
1.53
1.50 1.50
1.45
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00 18.00
OMC

4.2.1.3.2 Results discussion


After the analysis of study of volcanic material with respect to Proctor or compaction test
which gave the optimum moisture content and Maximum Dried density, as it shown on
Table 11, the results were founded in this study showed that collected samples I, II were
classified as quite good material and The collected sample III, was classified as poor
material in Compaction but by stabilizing this sample with 1% of cement the material was
automatically increased around 7.44% in dry density where it was also classified as quite
good material. This means that the increase in cement resulted in the increase in dry
density. This classification was done accordingly to American associate state for highway
and transportation officials (AASHTO).
37
4.2.1.4.1 CBR test results
Table 12 illustrates the test results of CBR test both for stabilized and un-stabilized
volcanic material.

Table 12: California bearing ratio test results

CBR TEST COMPARISONS


C O MBINATION O F MD D VS C B R
SAMPLE I Unstabilized
SAMPLE I SAMPLE II SAMPLE III STABILIZED
CBR@ 100% 98.00% 95%
1.90
Dry Density 1.76 1.73 1.67
CBR Value(%) 60.20 54.00 41.00 1.85
SAMPLE II Unstabilized 1.80

DRY DENSITY
Dry Density 1.78 1.75 1.69
1.75
CBR Value(%) 62.33 50.00 40.00
SAMPLE III Unstabilized 1.70

Dry Density 1.74 1.70 1.65 1.65


CBR Value(%) 51.94 41.00 31.00
1.60
STABILIZED with cement 1% 0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00 120.00
Dry Density 1.88 1.84 1.78 CBR VALUE(%)
CBR Value(%) 106.41 96.00 80.00

4.2.1.4.2 Results discussion


After the analysis of this study on volcanic soil material with respect to California Bearing
Ratio (CRB test) which gave the results of CBR Index by giving the resistance of
compacted soil due to plunger penetration. Table 12 illustrates the results obtained where
the materials were coarse grained soils and classified as poorly graded materials even
through it was stabilized with 1% of cement still its poorly graded material but with high
CBR Index. The added cement illustrates that the material can resist to high loading or
traffic and by soaking this material in order to check the expansion, the material can’t
expand because it’s classified as sandy material. In addition for more details about CBR
test refer to the appendix page 70.

38
4.2.2.3 Losangeles test of crushed volcanic stones
After carrying out Losangeles test, Table 13 illustrate tested results of crushed volcanic
aggregate that was classified as quartzite material depends on its hardness as it referred
in the literature review. While the losangeles coefficient is less than 30%, meaning that
material is good to be used in concreting works.

Table 13: Losangeles test results


SAMPLE DESCR. RUVUNDA QUARRY SAMPLE I REF

LOS-ANGELES TEST
10/19 10/25 10/31.5
Grading classes U 2.36/4.75 6.3/9.5
9.5/12.5 12.5/19 10/14 16/25 20/25 25/31.5
Weight of specimens g 5000
Number of balls - 12
Weight of specimens >
g 3538
1.7mm
Weight of specimens<
g 1462
1.7mm
L.A coefficient. % 29.2

Remark :The resistance to the fragmatation has the value of the coefficient about 29.2%

4.2.2.4 Sand equivalent test


After carrying out sieve analysis of collected sample with its analysis it showed that the
material was classified as sandy material therefore sand equivalent test was conducted to
ensure the quality of sand. 120gramms passed through a sieve of 2mm was analyzed with
respect to the test procedure of sand equivalent where the obtained results were 78.6% as
it illustrated in the Table 14. Which means the good quality of sand should have the sand
equivalent value which should be greater than 70% according to AASHTO T85.

Table 14: Sand equivalent test results

SAMPLE DESCR. SAND QUARRY RUVUNDA

SAND EQUIVALENT
Height of the floculat H1 (cm) 12 12 12.5
Height of the sediment H2 (cm) 9.3 9.5 9.9
Equivalent of sand 100*(h2/h1) cm 77.5 79.2 79.2
Average of 3 measures (%) 78.6

39
CHAPTER V: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 Conclusion
The present study was carried out to better understand the application of volcanic soil in
road construction industry. The author attempted to explore the material properties of the
volcanic soil located in the area of RUVUMBA Quarry, MUSANZE District, Rwanda. A
wide range of soil tests were performed and their findings were outlined below:

(i) From experimental investigation, the sieve analysis demonstrated that Sample I
contained 39.73% of gravel, 56.68% of sand and 3.59% of fines. This sample I was
classified as sandy material depending on its percentage of sand content. On the other hand,
Sample II showed 85.86% of gravel, 10.97% of sand, and 3.17% of fines. Therefore, this
sample II was classified as gravely Material depending on its high percentage of gravel
content. In addition to the tested material, Sample III contained 43.1% of gravel, 48.7% of
sand and 8.17% of fines. This sample III was classified as sandy material based on its high
percentage of sand content. Based on the results shown above, the tested material was
classified ad poorly graded material according to the coefficient of uniformity and
curvature with respect to AASHTO Rules.

(ii) To check the plasticity of the selected soil samples, a depth analysis of Atterberg limit
was carried out. Atterberg limit test was undertaken. However, this test did not show any
measurement. This was because the tested soil was a poor graded material with high content
of sand. It should be noted that this soil showed fine behavior while passing through a sieve
of #425 micro.

(iii) To investigate the application of the tested soil samples to the road construction,
Proctor or Compaction test was carried out. The compaction test showed that Samples I
and II exhibited good behaviors in compaction. However, the Sample III was classified as
poor material in compaction. The sample III was then stabilized with 1% of cement, making
it suitable for the compaction as Samples I and II. The measured maximum density in the
soil was as much as 1.75 which was greater than that of specified in the literature.

40
(iv) The California Bearing Test (CBR) was conducted in the tested samples I, II, and III.
According to CBR test at 95%, the ratios of 41%, 40%, and 31% were recorded in Sample
I, II, and III, respectively. Sample III was improved with the addition of only 1% of cement
which was used as a stabilizer. The experimental results showed that both density and
strength of Sample III was significantly increased by the addition of 1% of cement at 95%
of CBR. The density was increased by 7.44%.

These findings demonstrated that volcanic soils with category quartzite can be good
materials to serve as local materials in Rwanda for the implementation of road construction
in some road layers such as sub-base course and base course while its was stabilized with
cement.

41
5.2 Recommendations
The following recommendations are addressed:

 To all civil engineers that knowing the soil properties before constructing any civil
structure it’s very important.
 To all civil engineers having their construction projects in volcanic region to exploit
volcanic instead of hauling other construction materials far from their working
place.
 To the further researchers to work on how the volcanic soil material can be mixed
with cohesive material in order to get the medium plastic index so, it can be
classified as well graded material.
 To INES-Ruhengeri civil engineering department for selecting and supporting
financially student’s projects which can be involved in the competitions of the
international standard market.

42
REFERENCES
AASHTO, T. (1993). Recommended practice for the classification of soils and soils
aggregate mixtures for highway construction purposes. Washington,DC:
AASHTO.
Allen, T. (2013). Particle size measurement. London: Springer.
Amadi, A. N., Akande, W. G., Okunlola, I. A., & Jimoh, M. O. (2015). Assessment of the
Geotechnical Properties of Lateritic Soils in Minna, North Central Nigeria for Road
design and Construction. American Journal of Mining and Metallurgy, 3 , 15-20.
Arthur, C. (1960). From theory to practice in soil mechanics. New York: Wiley.
Black, W. P. (1962). A method of estimating the California bearing ratio of cohesive soils
from plasticity data. Geotechnique, 12(4) , 271-282.
CSRA, C. O. (1985). Guidelines for road construction materials. Technical
Recommendations for Highway 14 , 1-57.
Das, B. M. (2013). Advanced soil mechanics. London: CRC Press.
Fang, H. Y. (2013). Foundation engineering handbook. London: Springer Science &
Business Media.
Jenny, H. (1994). Factors of soil formation: a system of quantitative pedology. New York:
Courier Corporation.
Horace, K. (1981). Excavation Handbook. New York: Mcgraw-Hill.
Gee, G. W., & Or, D . (2002). 2.4 Particle-size analysis. Methods of soil analysis. Part,
4(598) , 255-293.
Kosmatka S.H., Kerkhoff B. and Panarese W.C., (2002), “Design and Control of
Mixtures”, Portland cement Association, Skokie, IL. 14thEdition.
Los Angeles Abrasion | Pavement Interactive. (n.d.). Retrieved April 10, 2018, from
http://www.pavementinteractive.org/los-angeles-abrasion/

43
Lowe, D. J., & Palmer, D. J. (2005). Andisols of New Zealand and Australia, 2, 39–65.
Soil classification. (n.d.). Retrieved April 10, 2018, from
http://environment.uwe.ac.uk/geocal/SoilMech/classification/default.htm
Mathew, T. V., & Krishna Rao, K. V. (2006). Flexible pavement design. Introduction to
Transportation Engineering ,6 , 1-8.
McNally, G. (2002). Soil and rock construction materials. London: CRC Press.
Mitchell, J. K., & Soga, K. (2005). Fundamentals of soil behavior. California: Wiley.
Molenaar, A. (1989). Characterization of some tropical soils for road pavements.
Transportation Research Record. Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 8
, 186-193.
Nikolaides, A. (2014). Highway Engineering: Pavements, Materials and Control of
Quality. London: CRC Press.
Oyenuga, V.O. (2001), “Simplified Reinforced Concrete Design”, 2nd Ed. Lagos: Asros
Publishers.

Raheem, A.A. and Bamigboye, G.O. (2013) “Establishing Threshold Level for Gravel
Inclusion in Concrete.

Shetty, M. S. (2005), Concrete Technology: Theory and Practice, Multi-Color illustration


Edition, New Delhi, S. Chand.

USCS, (1986). Soil classification handbook: Unified soil classification system.


Manhattan: John Wiley & Sons

Yahaya, B.S., Egbuna, I.C., Apeh. E.S. Ogwu, E., Achema. F., and Fabiyi. M. O. (2014),
“Comparism of the compressive strength of concrete made with different brands of
cement” International Journal of Engineering and Innovative Technology (IJEIT).
Vol. 4(3) pp. 36-ongjin, L. (2011), Advanced Concrete Technology, 1stEd. New
Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.; 2011.

44
APPENDIX
Acceptance letter of using St Joseph Engineering Company Laboratory

45
Laboratory test results
Sieve analysis
SAMPLE DESCR. RUVUNDA QUARRY SAMPLE I REF
Gravel% Sand% Fines%
Classification
39.73 56.68 3.59

Dry weight : 630 gr SOIL SIEVE ANALYSIS

PARTIAL COMBINED %
SIEVE % RETAINED
RETAINED RETAINED PASSING
63 0 0 0.00 100.00
50 0 0 0.00 100.00
40 0 0 0.00 100.00
37.5 0 0 0.00 100.00
31.5 0 0 0.00 100.00
28 10 10 1.59 98.41
25 18.8 28.8 4.57 95.43
20 11.2 40 6.35 93.65
16 7.6 47.6 7.56 92.44
14 7.4 55 8.73 91.27
12.5 23.6 78.6 12.48 87.52
10 36.2 114.8 18.22 81.78
8 18.4 133.2 21.14 78.86
6.3 22.8 156 24.76 75.24
5 22.3 178.3 28.30 71.70
3.35 34.1 212.4 33.71 66.29
2 37.9 250.3 39.73 60.27
1.18 36.6 286.9 45.54 54.46
0.6 64.7 351.6 55.81 44.19
0.425 46.8 398.4 63.24 36.76
0.3 45.4 443.8 70.44 29.56
0.15 105.3 549.1 87.16 12.84
0.075 58.3 607.4 96.41 3.59

Grading Size
100.00
90.00
80.00
70.00
%Passing

60.00
50.00
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00
100 10 1 0.1 0.01
Sieve(log)mm

46
SAMPLE DESCR. RUVUNDA QUARRY SAMPLE II REF
Gravel% Sand% Fines%
Classification
85.86 10.97 3.17

Dry weight : 1026.3 gr SOIL SIEVE ANALYSIS

PARTIAL COMBINED %
SIEVE % RETAINED
RETAINED RETAINED PASSING
63 0 0 0.00 100.00
50 0 0 0.00 100.00
40 0 0 0.00 100.00
37.5 0 0 0.00 100.00
31.5 28.6 28.6 2.79 97.21
28 29.4 58 5.65 94.35
25 40.4 98.4 9.59 90.41
20 74.1 172.5 16.81 83.19
16 55.4 227.9 22.21 77.79
14 47.3 275.2 26.81 73.19
12.5 36.6 311.8 30.38 69.62
10 72.2 384 37.42 62.58
8 80.8 464.8 45.29 54.71
6.3 63.1 527.9 51.44 48.56
5 124.5 652.4 63.57 36.43
3.35 134.1 786.5 76.63 23.37
2 94.7 881.2 85.86 14.14
1.18 40.3 921.5 89.79 10.21
0.6 32.6 954.1 92.97 7.03
0.425 8.5 962.6 93.79 6.21
0.3 9.3 971.9 94.70 5.30
0.15 14.6 986.5 96.12 3.88
0.075 7.3 993.8 96.83 3.17

Grading Size
100.00
90.00
80.00
70.00
%Passing

60.00
50.00
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00
100 10 1 0.1 0.01
Sieve(log)mm

47
SAMPLE DESCR. RUVUNDA QUARRY SAMPLE III REF
Gravel% Sand% Fines%
Classification
55.89 35.97 8.14

Dry weight : 903.5 gr SOIL SIEVE ANALYSIS

PARTIAL COMBINED %
SIEVE % RETAINED
RETAINED RETAINED PASSING
63 0 0 0.00 100.00
50 0 0 0.00 100.00
40 0 0 0.00 100.00
37.5 0 0 0.00 100.00
31.5 0 0 0.00 100.00
28 0 0 0.00 100.00
25 111 111 12.29 87.71
20 167 278 30.77 69.23
16 17 295 32.65 67.35
14 3 298 32.98 67.02
12.5 2 300 33.20 66.80
10 25 325 35.97 64.03
8 25 350 38.74 61.26
6.3 35 385 42.61 57.39
5 5 390 43.17 56.83
3.35 35 425 47.04 52.96
2 80 505 55.89 44.11
1.18 75 580 64.19 35.81
0.6 30 610 67.52 32.48
0.425 95 705 78.03 21.97
0.3 26 731 80.91 19.09
0.15 54 785 86.88 13.12
0.075 45 830 91.86 8.14

Grading Size
100.00
90.00
80.00
70.00
%Passing

60.00
50.00
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00
100 10 1 0.1 0.01
Sieve(log)mm

48
SAMPLE DESCR. RUVUNDA QUARRY Stabilized Material 1% of Cement REF
Gravel% Sand% Fines%
Classification
38.26 54.58 7.17

Dry weight : 793 gr SOIL SIEVE ANALYSIS

PARTIAL COMBINED %
SIEVE % RETAINED
RETAINED RETAINED PASSING
63 0 0 0.00 100.00
50 0 0 0.00 100.00
40 0 0 0.00 100.00
37.5 0 0 0.00 100.00
31.5 0 0 0.00 100.00
28 12.12 12.1 1.53 98.47
25 22.7856 34.9 4.40 95.60
20 13.5744 48.5 6.11 93.89
16 9.2112 57.7 7.28 92.72
14 8.9688 66.7 8.41 91.59
12.5 28.6032 95.3 12.01 87.99
10 43.8744 139.1 17.55 82.45
8 22.3008 161.4 20.36 79.64
6.3 27.6336 189.1 23.84 76.16
5 27.0276 216.1 27.25 72.75
3.35 41.3292 257.4 32.46 67.54
2 45.9348 303.4 38.26 61.74
1.18 44.3592 347.7 43.85 56.15
0.6 78.4164 426.1 53.74 46.26
0.425 56.7216 482.9 60.89 39.11
0.3 55.0248 537.9 67.83 32.17
0.15 127.6236 665.5 83.92 16.08
0.075 70.6596 736.2 92.83 7.17

Grading Size
100.00
90.00
80.00
70.00
%Passing

60.00
50.00
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00
100 10 1 0.1 0.01
Sieve(log)mm

49
Atterberg limit
SAMPLE DESCR. RUVUNDA QUARRY SAMPLE I REF

ATTERBERG LIMITS

LIQUID LIMIT TEST PLASTIC LIMIT TEST


Number of blows Sample N°1 Sample N°2 Sample N°3
N° of container
Wt of wet soil + container
Wt of dry soil + container NO MESURABLE
Wt of container
Wt of moisture
Wt of dry soil
Moisture content Ψ %
Average %

LL: PL: P.I:


Moisture content %

10 15 20 25 Number
30of blows 35 40 45 50

50
SAMPLE DESCR. RUVUNDA QUARRY SAMPLE II REF

ATTERBERG LIMITS

LIQUID LIMIT TEST PLASTIC LIMIT TEST


Number of blows Sample N°1 Sample N°2 Sample N°3
N° of container
Wt of wet soil + container
Wt of dry soil + container NO MESURABLE
Wt of container
Wt of moisture
Wt of dry soil
Moisture content Ψ %
Average %

LL: PL: P.I:


Moisture content %

10 15 20 25 Number
30of blows 35 40 45 50

51
SAMPLE DESCR. RUVUNDA QUARRY SAMPLE III REF

ATTERBERG LIMITS

LIQUID LIMIT TEST PLASTIC LIMIT TEST


Number of blows Sample N°1 Sample N°2 Sample N°3
N° of container
Wt of wet soil + container
Wt of dry soil + container NO MESURABLE
Wt of container
Wt of moisture
Wt of dry soil
Moisture content Ψ %
Average %

LL: PL: P.I:


Moisture content %

10 15 20 25 Number
30of blows 35 40 45 50

52
SAMPLE DESCR. RUVUNDA QUARRY Stabilized Material 1% of Cement REF

ATTERBERG LIMITS

LIQUID LIMIT TEST PLASTIC LIMIT TEST


Number of blows Sample N°1 Sample N°2 Sample N°3
N° of container
Wt of wet soil + container
Wt of dry soil + container NO MESURABLE
Wt of container
Wt of moisture
Wt of dry soil
Moisture content Ψ %
Average %

LL: PL: P.I:


Moisture content %

10 15 20 25 Number
30of blows 35 40 45 50

53
Proctor test
SAMPLE DESCR. RUVUNDA QUARRY SAMPLE I REF

MODIFIED PROCTOR TEST


0
Mould number n° 1 2 3 4
% added water % 6% 8% 10% 12%
Wt of mould+base+compacted soil (m2) gr 9890 10282 10630 10320
Wt of mould + base (m1) gr 6405 6405 6400 6405
Wt of compacted soil (m2-m1) gr 3485 3877 4230 3915
Mould capacity ( c ) cm3 2122 2122 2122 2122
Bulk density ρ=(m2-m1)/c gr/cm3 1.642 1.827 1.993 1.845
Moisture content container n° N° U1 J2 A O
Wt of wet soil + container (m4) gr 226.9 210.3 150.0 212.0
Wt of dry soil + container (m5) gr 212 194 138.5 190
Wt of container (m3) gr 45.0 38.8 45.0 37.8
Wt of dry soil (m5-m3) gr 167.0 155.2 93.5 152.2
Wt of moisture (m4-m5) gr 14.9 16.3 11.5 22.0
Moisture content % 8.92 10.50 12.30 14.45
Dry density ρd=ρ/(1+Ψ/100) gr/cm3 1.504 1.645 1.761 1.604
Yd MDD: 1.761
W% OMC: 12.30

COMPACTION CURVE
1.790
1.770 1.761 1.761
1.750
1.730
1.710
1.690
Dry Density

1.670
1.650 1.645
1.630
1.610 1.604
1.590
1.570
12.30%
1.550
1.530
1.510 1.504
1.490
1.470
1.450
8.00 9.00 10.00 11.00 12.00 13.00 14.00 15.00
MOISTURE CONTENT %

54
SAMPLE DESCR. RUVUNDA QUARRY SAMPLE II REF

MODIFIED PROCTOR TEST


0
Mould number n° 1 2 3 4
% added water % 6% 8% 10% 12%
Wt of mould+base+compacted soil (m2) gr 9990 10439 10680 10520
Wt of mould + base (m1) gr 6400 6400 6400 6400
Wt of compacted soil (m2-m1) gr 3590 4039 4280 4120
Mould capacity ( c ) cm3 2122 2122 2122 2122
Bulk density ρ=(m2-m1)/c gr/cm3 1.692 1.903 2.017 1.942
Moisture content container n° N° W B I T1
Wt of wet soil + container (m4) gr 175.0 185.0 161.0 176.2
Wt of dry soil + container (m5) gr 166 172 148.8 160
Wt of container (m3) gr 40.0 35.0 40.0 37.8
Wt of dry soil (m5-m3) gr 126.0 137.0 108.8 122.2
Wt of moisture (m4-m5) gr 9.0 13.0 12.2 16.2
Moisture content % 7.14 9.49 11.21 13.26
Dry density ρd=ρ/(1+Ψ/100) gr/cm3 1.549 1.713 1.782 1.688
Yd MDD: 1.782
W% OMC: 11.21

COMPACTION CURVE
1.810
1.780 1.782 1.782
1.750
1.720 1.713
Dry Density

1.690 1.688
1.660
1.630
1.600
11.21%
1.570
1.540 1.549

1.510
1.480
1.450
6.50 7.50 8.50 9.50 10.50 11.50 12.50 13.50 14.50
MOISTURE CONTENT %

55
SAMPLE DESCR. RUVUNDA QUARRY SAMPLE III REF

MODIFIED PROCTOR TEST


0
Mould number n° 1 2 3 4
% added water % 8% 10% 12% 14%
Wt of mould+base+compacted soil (m2) gr 9990 10330 10580 10477
Wt of mould + base (m1) gr 6405 6405 6405 6405
Wt of compacted soil (m2-m1) gr 3585 3925 4175 4072
Mould capacity ( c ) cm3 2122 2122 2122 2122
Bulk density ρ=(m2-m1)/c gr/cm3 1.689 1.850 1.967 1.919
Moisture content container n° N° 2 Y B C
Wt of wet soil + container (m4) gr 160.0 201.0 188.3 204.8
Wt of dry soil + container (m5) gr 148.2 183 169.8 183.3
Wt of container (m3) gr 38.5 40.0 40.0 50.0
Wt of dry soil (m5-m3) gr 109.7 143.0 129.8 133.3
Wt of moisture (m4-m5) gr 11.8 18.0 18.5 21.5
Moisture content % 10.76 12.59 14.25 16.13
Dry density ρd=ρ/(1+Ψ/100) gr/cm3 1.547 1.665 1.738 1.668
Yd MDD: 1.738
W% OMC: 14.25

COMPACTION CURVE
1.780
1.750
1.738 1.738
1.720
1.690
Dry Density

1.660 1.665 1.668

1.630
1.600
1.570
14.25%
1.540 1.547

1.510
1.480
1.450
10.50 11.50 12.50 13.50 14.50 15.50 16.50
MOISTURE CONTENT %

56
Stabilized Material 1% of
SAMPLE DESCR. RUVUNDA QUARRY
Cement REF

MODIFIED PROCTOR TEST


0
Mould number n° 1 2 3 4
% added water % 4% 6% 8% 10%
Wt of mould+base+compacted soil (m2) gr 9890 10420 10855 10490
Wt of mould + base (m1) gr 6345 6345 6345 6345
Wt of compacted soil (m2-m1) gr 3545 4075 4510 4145
Mould capacity ( c ) cm3 2122 2122 2122 2122
Bulk density ρ=(m2-m1)/c gr/cm3 1.671 1.920 2.125 1.953
Moisture content container n° N° B J2 X3 Y
Wt of wet soil + container (m4) gr 149.0 180.0 225.0 170.3
Wt of dry soil + container (m5) gr 146.5 174 213.5 160
Wt of container (m3) gr 45.0 35.0 35.0 37.8
Wt of dry soil (m5-m3) gr 101.5 139.0 178.5 122.2
Wt of moisture (m4-m5) gr 2.5 6.0 11.5 10.3
Moisture content % 2.46 4.32 6.44 8.43
Dry density ρd=ρ/(1+Ψ/100) gr/cm3 1.530 1.728 1.878 1.698
Yd MDD: 1.878
W% OMC: 6.44

COMPACTION CURVE
1.900
1.878 1.878
1.850

1.800
Dry Density

1.750
1.728
1.700 1.698

1.650
6.44%
1.600

1.550
1.530
1.500

1.450
2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00
MOISTURE CONTENT %

57
California bearing ratio (CBR Test)
SAMPLE DESCR. RUVUNDA QUARRY SAMPLE I REF

CBR TEST
WATER CONTENT OF COMPACTION DRY DENSITY

Number of blows 55 25 10 Number of blows 55 25 10


N° of container G Y B1 N° of mould H I PO
Wt of wet soil + container 263.2 255.0 215.5 Wt of 10595 10420 10080
Wt of dry soil + container 238 230 196 Wt of mould 6405 6405 6405
Wt of container 30.0 35.0 38.0 Wt of compacted soil 4190 4015 3675
Wt of moisture 208.0 195.0 158.0 Mould capacity 2122.0 2122.0 2122.0
Wt of dry soil 25.2 25.0 19.5 Bulk density 1.975 1.892 1.732
Moisture content Ψ 12.12 12.82 12.34 Moisture content Ψ 12.12 12.82 12.34
WATER CONTENT AFTER SOAKING Dry density ρd 1.761 1.677 1.542
Blows Number 55 25 10 Proctor of reference 1.761 1.761 1.761
N° of container U IO K % of compaction 100.0 95.2 87.5
Wt of wet soil + container 180.9 195.0 198.0 CBR TESTER
Wt of dry soil + container 164 175 176 Penetration 55 25 10
Wt of container 35.6 38.9 35.0 mm Reading Load Reading Load Reading Load
Wt of moisture 16.9 136.1 141.0 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0
Wt of dry soil 128.4 20.0 22.0 0.500 27 1.0 10 0.4 8 0.3
Moisture content Ψ 13.2 14.70 15.60 1.00 62 2.4 30 1.2 20 0.8
EXPANSION RATIO (1/100mm) 1.50 103 4.0 60 2.3 46 1.8
Mould Number H I PO 2.00 140 5.4 85 3.3 77 3.0
Blows 55 25 10 2.50 177 6.8 117 4.5 90 3.5
Date 3.00 210 8.1 154 6.0 100 3.9
22-May-18 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.00 260 10.1 180 7.0 115 4.5
23-May-18 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.00 310 12.0 228 8.8 132 5.1
24-May-18 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 340 13.2 255 9.9 157 6.1
25-May-18 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.00 368 14.2 280 10.8 174 6.7
26-May-18 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.00 389 15.1 310 12.0 189 7.3
Total : % mm 0.00 0.00 0.00 20 Graph test
18
16
Enf. 55 25 10 14
12 55 Blows
10
2,5 mm 51.3 33.9 26.1 25 blows
Load

8 10 blows
6
5 mm 60.2 44.3 25.6 4
2
CBR 60.2 44.3 26.1 0
0 1 2 3 Drive
4 in 5 6 7 8 9

58
SAMPLE DESCR. RUVUNDA QUARRY SAMPLE II REF

CBR TEST
WATER CONTENT OF COMPACTION DRY DENSITY

Number of blows 55 25 10 Number of blows 55 25 10


N° of container V L G N° of mould XX DI A
Wt of wet soil + container 135.2 205.0 218.5 Wt of 10618 10488 10110
Wt of dry soil + container 125.8 188.1 201 Wt of mould 6400 6400 6400
Wt of container 45.0 45.0 45.0 Wt of compacted soil 4218 4088 3710
Wt of moisture 80.8 143.1 156.0 Mould capacity 2122.0 2122.0 2122.0
Wt of dry soil 9.4 16.9 17.5 Bulk density 1.988 1.926 1.748
Moisture content Ψ 11.63 11.81 11.22 Moisture content Ψ 11.63 11.81 11.22
WATER CONTENT AFTER SOAKING Dry density ρd 1.781 1.723 1.572
Blows Number 55 25 10 Proctor of reference 1.782 1.782 1.782
N° of container N U 1 % of compaction 99.9 96.7 88.2
Wt of wet soil + container 180.9 195.0 198.0 CBR TESTER
Wt of dry soil + container 164 175 176 Penetration 55 25 10
Wt of container 35.6 38.9 35.0 mm Reading Load Reading Load Reading Load
Wt of moisture 16.9 136.1 141.0 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0
Wt of dry soil 128.4 20.0 22.0 0.500 35 1.4 13 0.5 7 0.3
Moisture content Ψ 13.2 14.70 15.60 1.00 70 2.7 26 1.0 12 0.5
EXPANSION RATIO (1/100mm) 1.50 111 4.3 48 1.8 21 0.8
Mould Number XX DI A 2.00 148 5.7 70 2.7 35 1.4
Blows 55 25 10 2.50 187 7.2 99 3.8 52 2.0
Date 3.00 220 8.5 133 5.1 73 2.8
22-May-18 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.00 270 10.4 174 6.7 109 4.2
23-May-18 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.00 321 12.4 228 8.8 148 5.7
24-May-18 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 351 13.6 265 10.2 178 6.9
25-May-18 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.00 379 14.7 300 11.6 207 8.0
26-May-18 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.00 400 15.5 317 12.3 214 8.3
Total : % mm 0.00 0.00 0.00 20 Graph test
18
16
Enf. 55 25 10 14
12 55 Blows
10
2,5 mm 54.2 28.6 15.1 25 blows
Load

8 10 blows
6
5 mm 62.3 44.2 28.7 4
2
CBR 62.3 44.2 28.7 0
0 1 2 3 Drive
4 in 5 6 7 8 9

59
SAMPLE DESCR. RUVUNDA QUARRY SAMPLE III REF

CBR TEST
WATER CONTENT OF COMPACTION DRY DENSITY

Number of blows 55 25 10 Number of blows 55 25 10


N° of container L1 L8 R N° of mould PU B1 VV
Wt of wet soil + container 135.5 199.0 248.0 Wt of 10620 10459 10130
Wt of dry soil + container 124 180.1 221 Wt of mould 6405 6405 6405
Wt of container 43.5 50.0 35.8 Wt of compacted soil 4215 4054 3725
Wt of moisture 80.5 130.1 185.2 Mould capacity 2122.0 2122.0 2122.0
Wt of dry soil 11.5 18.9 27.0 Bulk density 1.986 1.910 1.755
Moisture content Ψ 14.29 14.53 14.58 Moisture content Ψ 14.29 14.53 14.58
WATER CONTENT AFTER SOAKING Dry density ρd 1.738 1.668 1.532
Blows Number 55 25 10 Proctor of reference 1.738 1.738 1.738
N° of container H P F % of compaction 100.0 96.0 88.1
Wt of wet soil + container 180.9 195.0 198.0 CBR TESTER
Wt of dry soil + container 164 175 176 Penetration 55 25 10
Wt of container 35.6 38.9 35.0 mm Reading Load Reading Load Reading Load
Wt of moisture 16.9 136.1 141.0 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0
Wt of dry soil 128.4 20.0 22.0 0.500 29 1.1 14 0.5 10 0.4
Moisture content Ψ 13.2 14.70 15.60 1.00 58 2.3 27 1.0 19 0.7
EXPANSION RATIO (1/100mm) 1.50 93 3.6 44 1.7 32 1.2
Mould Number PU B1 VV 2.00 123 4.8 62 2.4 44 1.7
Blows 55 25 10 2.50 156 6.0 83 3.2 59 2.3
Date 3.00 183 7.1 105 4.1 75 2.9
22-May-18 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.00 225 8.7 136 5.3 97 3.7
23-May-18 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.00 268 10.4 172 6.7 122 4.7
24-May-18 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 293 11.3 196 7.6 139 5.4
25-May-18 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.00 316 12.2 219 8.5 155 6.0
26-May-18 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.00 333 12.9 230 8.9 163 6.3
Total : % mm 0.00 0.00 0.00 20 Graph test
18
16
Enf. 55 25 10 14
12 55 Blows
10
2,5 mm 45.2 24.2 17.2 25 blows
Load

8 10 blows
6
5 mm 51.9 33.4 23.7 4
2
CBR 51.9 33.4 23.7 0
0 1 2 3 Drive
4 in 5 6 7 8 9

60
Stabilized Material
SAMPLE DESCR. RUVUNDA QUARRY
1% of Cement REF

CBR TEST
WATER CONTENT OF COMPACTION DRY DENSITY

Number of blows 55 25 10 Number of blows 55 25 10


N° of container P T A N° of mould K JI Y
Wt of wet soil + container 135.2 142.8 163.5 Wt of 10465 10310 10010
Wt of dry soil + container 129 136.5 156 Wt of mould 6405 6405 6405
Wt of container 35.5 40.0 42.0 Wt of compacted soil 4060 3905 3605
Wt of moisture 93.5 96.5 114.0 Mould capacity 2122.0 2122.0 2122.0
Wt of dry soil 6.2 6.3 7.5 Bulk density 1.913 1.840 1.699
Moisture content Ψ 6.63 6.53 6.58 Moisture content Ψ 6.63 6.53 6.58
WATER CONTENT AFTER SOAKING Dry density ρd 1.794 1.727 1.594
Blows Number 55 25 10 Proctor of reference 1.794 1.794 1.794
N° of container F N O % of compaction 100.0 96.3 88.8
Wt of wet soil + container 135.0 140.0 132.0 CBR TESTER
Wt of dry soil + container 127 130 121.4 Penetration 55 25 10
Wt of container 35.0 45.0 45.0 mm Reading Load Reading Load Reading Load
Wt of moisture 8 85.0 76.4 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0
Wt of dry soil 92 10.0 10.6 0.500 47 1.8 31 1.2 24 0.9
Moisture content Ψ 8.7 11.76 13.87 1.00 102 3.9 68 2.6 51 2.0
EXPANSION RATIO (1/100mm) 1.50 173 6.7 115 4.5 87 3.3
Mould Number K JI Y 2.00 235 9.1 157 6.1 118 4.5
Blows 55 25 10 2.50 304 11.8 203 7.8 152 5.9
Date 3.00 374 14.5 249 9.6 187 7.2
24-May-18 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.00 450 17.4 300 11.6 225 8.7
25-May-18 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.00 548 21.2 365 14.1 274 10.6
26-May-18 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 605 23.4 403 15.6 303 11.7
27-May-18 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.00 658 25.5 439 17.0 329 12.7
28-May-18 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.00 709 27.4 473 18.3 355 13.7
Total : % mm 0.00 0.00 0.00 30 Graph test
25
Enf. 55 25 10 20
55 Blows
15
2,5 mm 88.1 58.8 44.1 25 blows
Load

10 blows
10
5 mm 106.4 70.9 53.2 5
CBR 106.4 70.9 53.2 0
0 1 2 3 Drive
4 in 5 6 7 8 9

61
Soil classification charts based on AASHTO

62
63
Summary sheet of a study on volcanic soil materials
SUMMARY SHEET OF A STUDY ON VOLCANIC SOIL MATERIAL
Ruvunda Quarry and Sample Locations Sieve analysis Atterberg Limite Proctor CBR Test
Data Collection ITEMS
5(mm)% 2(mm)% 0.075(mm)% GRAVEL SAND FINE
Classification Classification Classification
Yd OPM at
AASHTO
LL (%) PL (%) IP(%) ɣs(kg/cm3) w (%) CBR at 95%
RETAINED RETAINED PASSING % % % 95%

ID EASTING(X) NORTHING(Y) ELEVATION(Z) Sample I 28.30 39.73 3.59 39.73 56.68 3.59 Sandy Material 1.76 12.30 Quite Good 1.67 41.00
S2
S3
S1 454713 4832918 1864 Sample II 63.57 85.86 3.17 85.86 10.97 3.17 Gravely Material 1.78 11.21 Quite Good 1.69 40.00
No Cohesive GP
S1 NO-MEASURABLE
Material (Poorly Graded )
S2 454843 4833076 1872 Sample III 43.17 43.17 8.14 43.17 48.70 8.14 Sandy Material 1.74 14.25 Poor 1.65 31.00

S3 454580 4833000 1868 Stabilized 27.25 27.25 7.17 27.25 65.58 7.17 Sandy Material 1.88 6.44 Quite Good 1.78 80.00

Used Softwares Aggregates

Microsoft Office Losangeles Test (%) 29.2

ArchMap Sand Equivalent (%) 78.60

Zotero 5.1

Google Earth

AutoCad

64

Você também pode gostar