You are on page 1of 103

CORRELATION STUDIES ON LAB CBR TEST

ON SOIL SUBGRADE FOR FLEXIBLE


PAVEMENT DESIGN

TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT................................................................................................................vi
LIST OF TABLES.....................................................................................................vii
LIST OF FIGURES...................................................................................................vii
Chapter-1: Introduction..............................................................................................1
1.1 General........................................................................................................................................1
1.2 Background.................................................................................................................................1
1.3 Objectives.....................................................................................................................................2
1.4 Scope of work..............................................................................................................................2
1.5 Necessity......................................................................................................................................2

Chapter-2: Literature Review.....................................................................................3


Chapter-3: Methodology.............................................................................................7
3.1 Construction................................................................................................................................7
3.2 Pavement Types...........................................................................................................................8
3.3 Properties of each layer.............................................................................................................11
3.3.1 Original Ground Level:.........................................................................................................................11
3.3.2 Low Embankment:.................................................................................................................................11
3.3.3 High Embankment:................................................................................................................................11
3.3.4 Sub-Grade:............................................................................................................................................11
3.3.5 Granular Sub-base:...............................................................................................................................11
3.3.6 Wet Mix Macadam:...............................................................................................................................12

Chapter-4: Design of Flexible pavement (IRC: 37-2001)........................................13


4.1 Traffic Volume data for Rajahmundry-Visakhapatnam in Jan-2012......................................13
4.2 Computation of design traffic:..................................................................................................14

Chapter-5: Tests on pavement materials..................................................................17


5.1 Tests on soil...............................................................................................................................17
5.1.1 Introduction...........................................................................................................................................17
5.1.2 Free Swell Index (IS 2720 part-40).......................................................................................................18
5.1.3 Grain Size Analysis (IS 2720 part-4)....................................................................................................18
5.1.4 Consistency Limits and Indices (IS 2720 part-5)..................................................................................20

5.1.5 Compaction Test (IS 2720 part-8).........................................................................................................22


5.1.6 Field Density Test by Sand Replacement Method (IS 2720 part-28)....................................................24
5.1.7 California Bearing Ratio Test (IS 2720 part-16)..................................................................................25

5.2 Tests on Road Aggregates..........................................................................................................30


5.2.1 Introduction...........................................................................................................................................30
5.2.2 Aggregate Impact Test (IS 2386 part-4)................................................................................................32
5.2.3 Specific Gravity and Water Absorption Tests (IS 2386 part-3).............................................................34
5.2.4 Shape Test (IS 2386 part-1)..................................................................................................................34

Chapter-6: Test Results.............................................................................................38


6.1 Low Embankment.....................................................................................................................38
6.1.1 Grain Size Analysis:..............................................................................................................................38
6.1.2 Atterberg Limits:...................................................................................................................................40
6.1.3 Modified Proctor:.................................................................................................................................43

6.2 High Embankment:...................................................................................................................46


6.2.1 Grain Size Analysis:..............................................................................................................................46
6.2.2 Atterberg Limits:...................................................................................................................................48
6.2.3 Modified Proctor:.................................................................................................................................51

6.3 Sub-Grade Soil:.........................................................................................................................54


6.3.1 Grain Size Analysis:..............................................................................................................................54
6.3.2 Atterberg Limits:...................................................................................................................................56
6.3.3 Modified Proctor:.................................................................................................................................58
6.3.4 CBR Value:............................................................................................................................................60

6.4 Mix Design for Granular Sub Base (GSB)...............................................................................62


6.4.1 Abstract.................................................................................................................................................62
6.4.2 Specific Gravity and Water Absorption:...............................................................................................65
6.4.3 Individual Gradation............................................................................................................................66
6.4.4 Blending Proportions:...........................................................................................................................72

6.5 Mix-Design for Wet Mix Macadam...........................................................................................78


6.5.1 Gradation..............................................................................................................................................78
6.5.2 Flakiness Index & Elongation Index:...................................................................................................80
6.5.3 Aggregate Impact Value:.......................................................................................................................82
6.5.4 Wet Mix Macadam Abstract..................................................................................................................84
6.5.5 Wet Mix Mecadam Design Summary....................................................................................................85
6.5.6 Laying of Wet Mix Macadam:...............................................................................................................86

Chapter-7: Substitute for Bitumen layer- Foamed Bitumen..................................88


7.1 Introduction...............................................................................................................................88
7.2 Foamed bitumen stabilization:..................................................................................................88
7.3 Recycled Aggregate:..................................................................................................................89
7.4 Technology involved:.................................................................................................................89
7.5 Spraying technology:.................................................................................................................91
7.6 Foamed Bitumen Classification:..............................................................................................91
7.7 Advantages of Foamed Bitumen:..............................................................................................92
7.8 Projects accomplished:..............................................................................................................93
7.9 Case Studies:.............................................................................................................................93

Chapter-8: Conclusions.............................................................................................95
References...................................................................................................................96

ABSTRACT
Transportation contributes to the economic, industrial, social and cultural development
of the country. The oldest mode of travel obviously was on foot paths. After the invention of
wheel, it became a necessity to provide a hard surface for wheeled vehicles. The flexible
pavements are built with number of layers. The design method of flexible pavement is based
on soil strength like California Bearing Ratio.
Gammon India Private Limited has taken up work under the Build, Operate and
Transfer (BOT) model to construct the 2nd road bridge across Godavari River. This structure is
named as

YSR Varadhi. This is an 808-crore rupees mega project, out of which GIPL will

receive a grant of Rs: 207.55-crore from the Central and state governments. GIPL will
maintain this project for 25 years, which includes the construction period of three years. GIPL
has started this project in the year 2009. The 4.2-km-long road bridge includes 9-km approach
road from Diwancheruvu to Katheru and 2-km road in Kovvuru on the West Godavari side.
Once this YSR Varadhi is completed, the distance between Vijayawada-RajahmundryVisakhapatnam will come down by about 30-50 km.
This particular project Correlation studies on lab CBR test on Soil Subgrade for
Flexible Pavement Design is completely focused on the approach roads connecting the
bridge on either side. The project describes the studies and estimations that are considered in
the earlier stages of construction of this project. The project includes various tests on soil and
aggregates. After arriving with the required data, the design of Flexible Pavement is done. The
next part includes the blending proportions and Mix-Designs for GSB and WMM layers. The
final objective of this project work is to introduce a better technology for the regular bitumen
layer. The regular bitumen is replaced with a new concept called Foamed Bitumen. This
material is cost-effective and more durable. Foamed Bitumen Technology is gaining a lot of
popularity in the world wide nations. This project work is an appeal to introduce this
innovative concept in India.

vi

LIST OF TABLES
Table 4.1: Traffic Volume data for Rajahmundry-Visakhapatnam in Jan-2012........................13
Table 4.2: Vehicle damage factors for different traffic volumes...............................................14
Table 4.3 IRC design Chart based on CBR value of 10%........................................................15
Table 5.1: Standard load values................................................................................................26
Table 5.2: Types of compaction................................................................................................26
Table 5.3: Aggregate Impact Values.........................................................................................33
Table 5.4: Maximum Limits for Aggregate Impact Value........................................................33
Table 5.5: Specifications for Thickness and Length gauges.....................................................36
Table 5.6: Maximum limits for Flakiness Index.......................................................................37
Table 7.1: Classification of Foamed Bitumen...........................................................................91
Table 7.2: Projects accomplished by using Foamed Bitumen..................................................93

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 3.1: Types of Pavements....................................................................................... 9
Figure 3.2: Load distribution in different types of pavements...................................................9
Figure 3.3: Layers of flexible pavements..........................................................................10
Figure 5.1: During the CBR Test.................................................................................... 26
Figure 5.2: CBR test................................................................................................... 28
Figure 5.3: Thickness and Length gauges.........................................................................35
Figure 6.1: At the WMM mixing plant............................................................................. 87
Figure 7.1: Compaction of Foamed Bitumen layer..............................................................90
Figure 7.2: Laying of Foamed Bitumen............................................................................91
Gallery .................................................................................................................. viii

vii

Chapter-1

Introduction
1.1 General
A road is a thoroughfare (transportation route connecting one location to another),
route, or way on land between two places, which typically has been paved or otherwise
improved to allow travel by some conveyance, including a horse, cart, or motor vehicle.
Roads consist of one, or sometimes two, carriageways each with one or more lanes. Roads
that are available for use by the public may be referred to as public roads or highways.
India has a network of National Highways connecting all the major cities and state
capitals, forming the economic backbone of the country. As of 2010, India has a total of
70,934 km (44,076 mi) of National Highways, of which 200 km (124 mi) are classified
as expressways.
As per the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI), about 65% of freight and
80% passenger traffic is carried by the roads. The National Highways carry about 40% of total
road traffic, though only about 2% of the road network is covered by these roads. Average
growth of the number of vehicles has been around 10.16% per annum over recent years.
Highways have facilitated development along the route and many towns have sprung up along
major highways.

1.2 Background
This particular project deals with the approach roads connecting the 2 nd road bridge
across Godavari River in Rajahmundry. Gammon India Private Limited has taken up work
under the Build, Operate and Transfer (BOT) model to construct the 2nd road bridge across
Godavari River. This structure is named as YSR Varadhi. This is an 808-crore rupees mega
project, out of which GIPL will receive a grant of Rs: 207.55-crore from the Central and state
governments. GIPL will maintain this project for 25 years, which includes the construction
period of three years. GIPL has started this project in the year 2009. The 4.2-km-long road
bridge includes 9-km approach road from Diwancheruvu to Katheru and 2-km road in
Kovvuru on the West Godavari side. Once this YSR Varadhi is completed, the distance
between Vijayawada-Rajahmundry-Visakhapatnam will come down by about 30-50 km.

1.3 Objectives
The main objective of this project work is to design the pavement thickness by using
the laboratory CBR values of the subgrade soil. There after the project involves the MixDesigns of GSB and WMM layers. The next part of the project work is a research on the
substitute for the regular DBM layer. The concept behind this research is to replace the
regular DBM layer with an innovative technology called Foamed Bitumen.

1.4 Scope of work

The design of flexible pavement is carried out by using the laboratory CBR value of
the subgrade soil and the traffic volume data. This task involves all the necessary soil

tests to determine the index properties of soil.


The next part deals with the aggregate tests. The lab tests are conducted on the
aggregates for determining their basic properties. Based on these parameters, the Mix-

Design for GSB and WMM layers are completed.


The final objective of this project work is to find an alternate material to replace the
regular bitumen layer. The regular bitumen is replaced with a new concept called
Foamed Bitumen. This material is cost-effective and more durable.

1.5 Necessity
This project work involves a proposal to implement a new technique in India. The
main reason behind this proposal is the advantages of using foamed bitumen. In India, most of
the pavements need regular maintenance due to the heavy traffic conditions. The use of
foamed bitumen will reduce the need for regular maintenance of roads. Another advantage
with this new technology is that, it can be done by using the recycled aggregates and hence
reducing the wastage.

Chapter-2

Literature Review
The first road on which there is some authentic record is that of Assyrian empire
constructed by about 1900 B.C. Only during the period of the Roman Empire, roads were
constructed in large scale and the earliest construction techniques known are of Roman
Roads. Many of these roads were built of stone blocks. Hence Romans are considered to be
the pioneers in road construction.
Pierre Tresaguet (1716-1796) developed an improved method of construction in
France by the year 1964 A.D. The main feature of his proposal was that the thickness of
construction needs to be only in the order of 30 cm. Further due consideration was given by
him to subgrade moisture condition and drainage of surface water.
John Metcalfe, a Scot born in 1717, was the founder of the Institution of Civil
Engineers at London. He built about 180 miles of roads in Yorkshire, England (even though
he was blind). His well-drained roads were built with three layers: large stones; excavated
road material; and a layer of gravel.
The first insight into today's modern pavements can be seen in the pavements of
Thomas Telford (Scottish engineer born 1757). Teleford extended his masonry knowledge to
bridge building. During lean times, he carved grave-stones and other ornamental work (about
1780). Eventually, Telford became the "Surveyor of Public Works" for the county of Salop,
thus turning his attention more to roads. Telford attempted, where possible, to build roads on
relatively flat grades (no more than a 1 in 30 slope) in order to reduce the number of horses
needed to haul cargo. Telford's pavement section was about 350 to 450 mm (14 to 18 inches)
in depth and generally specified three layers. The bottom layer was comprised of large stones
100 mm (4 inches) wide and 75 to 180 mm (3 to 7 inches) in depth. It is this specific layer
which makes the Telford design unique. On top of this were placed two layers of stones of 65
mm (2.5 inches) maximum size (about 150 to 250 mm (6 to 9 inches total thickness) followed
by a wearing course of gravel about 40 mm (1.6 inches). It was estimated that this system
would support a load corresponding to about 88 N/mm.
John MacAdam (Scottish engineer born 1756 and sometimes spelled "Macadam")
observed that most of the paved U.K. roads in early the 1800s were composed of rounded
gravel. He knew that angular aggregate over a well-compacted subgrade would perform
substantially better. Macadam pavements introduced the use of angular aggregates. He used a
3

sloped subgrade surface to improve drainage (unlike Telford who used a flat subgrade
surface) on which he placed angular aggregate (hand-broken with a maximum size of 75 mm
(3 inches)) in two layers for a total depth of about 200 mm (8 inches). On top of this, the
wearing course was placed (about 50 mm thick with a maximum aggregate size of 25 mm).
Macadam's reason for the 25 mm (1 inch) maximum aggregate size was to provide a "smooth"
ride for wagon wheels. Thus, the total depth of a typical MacAdam pavement was about 250
mm (10 inches). MacAdam was quoted as saying "no stone larger than will enter a man's
mouth should go into a road" (Gillette, 1906). The largest permissible load for this type of
design has been estimated to be 158 N/mm (900 lb. per in. width). In 1815, Macadam was
appointed "surveyor-general" of the Bristol roads and was then able to use his design on
numerous projects. It proved successful enough that the term "macadamized" became a term
for this type of pavement design and construction. The term "macadam" is also used to
indicate "broken stone" pavement. By 1850, about 2,200 km (1,367 miles) of macadam type
pavements were in use in the urban areas of the UK. MacAdam realized that the layers of
broken stone would eventually become "bound" together by fines generated by traffic. With
the introduction of the rock crusher, large mounds of stone dust and screenings were
generated. The increased use of these fines resulted in the more traditional dense graded base
materials. The first macadam pavement in the U.S. was constructed in Maryland in 1823.
The first tar macadam pavement was placed outside of Nottingham (Lincoln Road)
in 1848. At that time, such pavements were considered suitable only for light traffic (i.e., not
for urban streets). Coal tar, the binder, had been available in the U.K. from about 1800 as a
residue from coal-gas lighting. Possibly this was one of the earlier efforts to recycle waste
materials into a pavement! Soon after the Nottingham project, tar macadam projects were
built in Paris (1854) and Knoxville, Tennessee (1866). In 1871 Washington, D.C. extensively
used a "tar concrete" for road construction. Sulphuric acid was used as a hardening agent and
various materials such as sawdust, ashes, etc. were used in the mixture (Hubbard, 1910).
Over a seven-year period, 630,000 square meters (156 acres) were placed. In part, due to lack
of attention in specifying the tar, most of these streets failed within a few years of
construction. This resulted in tar being discredited, thereby boosting the asphalt industry.
However, some of these tar-bound surface courses in Washington, D.C., survived substantially
longer - about 30 years. For these mixes, the tar binder constituted about 6 percent by weight
of the total mix (air voids of about 17 percent). Further, the aggregate was crushed with about
20 percent passing the 2.00 mm (No. 10) sieve. The wearing course was about 50 mm (2
inches) thick. Hot tar paving products have not been used in the U.S. for many years.
4

The first pavements made from true Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA) were called sheet
asphalt pavements. The HMA layers in this pavement were premixed and laid hot. Sheet
asphalt became popular during the mid-1800s with the first ones being built on the Palais
Royal and on the Rue St. Honore in Paris in 1858 (Abraham, 1929). The first such pavement
placed in the U.S. was in Newark, New Jersey, in 1870. Sheet asphalt pavements are no
longer built today.
The final steps towards modern HMA were taken by Frederick J. Warren. In 1901
and 1903, Warren was issued patents for an early HMA paving material and process, which he
called "bitulithic". A typical bitulithic mix contained about 6 percent "bituminous cement"
and graded aggregate proportioned for low air voids. The concept was to produce a mix
which could use a more "fluid" binder than was used for sheet asphalt.
In 1946, two Iowa highway engineers, James W. Johnson and Bert Myers,
conceptualized the slip form paver. In 1949, the Iowa Highway Department constructed the
first slip formed roadway, a 3 m (9 ft.) wide, 150 mm (6 inch) thick section of county road.
By placing two lanes side-by-side, a typical 6 m (18 ft.) wide county road could be built. The
paver attached to a ready mix concrete truck, which would discharge its load into the paver,
then pull the paver forward.

In 1955, Quad City Construction Company developed an

improved, self-propelled, track-mounted slip form paver capable of placing 8 m (24 ft.) wide
slabs up to 250 mm (10 inches) thick. In just a few years, several equipment manufacturers
were marketing slip form pavers capable of placing concrete up to four lanes wide.
Invention of Foamed Bitumen: More than forty years ago, Dr Ladis Csanyi at the
Bituminous Research Laboratory of the Engineering Experiment Station, Iowa State
University successfully injected steam into bitumen to create a foaming mass. Csanyis
invention was inspired by the abundance of ungraded marginal loess materials in his state of
Iowa, and a shortage of good quality aggregate. Initially, he began experimenting with the
impact process patented by a Swiss. Dr Csanyi discovered that, during its metastable life,
the foamed bitumen could be mixed with a variety of soils to improve their properties and
produce a road building material. Since then the foamed bitumen process experienced only
limited application on a global scale, primarily due to the exclusive rights of the patent
holders on the foam nozzles. Dr Csanyi did attempt water as a foaming agent (as well as air,
gases and other foaming agents).
In 1968 Mobil of Australia acquired the patent rights for the Csanyi process. Within
two years Mobil had modified the process by replacing the steam with 1% to 2% cold water
5

that is combined with the hot bitumen in a suitably designed expansion chamber to produce
the foam, which is discharged under pressure (Lee, 1981). A patent for the expansion
chamber/nozzle system was granted to Mobil in Australia in 1971 and was extended to at least
14 countries. This lead to trials of the foamed bitumen process being carried out in some 16
countries in the 1970's.
By 1982, Australia alone had placed some 2.9 million m2 of foamed bitumen mixtures,
generally as a base or sub-base layer. South Africa, New Zealand, Japan, Germany, etc. had all
laid coverage of foamed materials by 1982; whilst by the same date, the USA had produced
hundreds of kilometres of surface layer mixtures with foamed bitumen.

Chapter-3

Methodology
3.1 Construction
Road construction requires the creation of a continuous right-of-way, overcoming
geographic obstacles and having grades low enough to permit vehicle or foot travel and
required to meet standards set by law or official guidelines. The process is often begun with
the

removal

of

earth

and

rock

by

digging

or

blasting,

construction

of embankments, bridges and tunnels, and removal of vegetation (this may involve
deforestation) and followed by the laying of pavement material. A variety of road building
equipment is employed in road building.
After design, approval, planning, legal and environmental considerations have been
addressed alignment of the road is set out by a surveyor. The Radii and gradient are designed
and staked out to best suit the natural ground levels and minimize the amount of cut and
fill. Great care is taken to preserve reference Benchmarks Roads are designed and built for
primary

use

by vehicular and pedestrian traffic. Storm

drainage and

environmental

considerations are a major concern. Erosion and sediment controls are constructed to prevent
detrimental effects. Drainage lines are laid with sealed joints in the road basement with
runoff coefficients and characteristics adequate for the land zoning and storm water system.
Drainage systems must be capable of carrying the ultimate design flow from the upstream
catchment with approval for the outfall from the appropriate authority to a
watercourse, creek, river or the sea for drainage discharge.
A borrow pit (source for obtaining fill, gravel, and rock) and a water source should be
located near or in reasonable distance to the road construction site. Approval from local
authorities may be required to draw water or for working (crushing and screening) of
materials for construction needs. The top soil and vegetation is removed from the borrow pit
and stockpiled for subsequent rehabilitation of the extraction area. Side slopes in the
excavation area not steeper than one vertical to two horizontal for safety reasons.
Old road surfaces, fences, and buildings may need to be removed before construction
can begin. Trees in the road construction area may be marked for retention. These protected
trees should not have the topsoil within the area of the tree's drip line removed and the area
should be kept clear of construction material and equipment. Compensation or replacement

may be required if a protected tree is damaged. Much of the vegetation may be mulched and
put aside for use during reinstatement. The topsoil is usually stripped and stockpiled nearby
for rehabilitation of newly constructed embankments along the road. Stumps and roots are
removed and holes filled as required before the earthwork begins. Final rehabilitation after
road construction is completed will include seeding, planting, watering and other activities to
reinstate the area to be consistent with the untouched surrounding areas.
Processes during earthwork include excavation, removal of material, filling,
compacting, construction and trimming. If rock or other unsuitable material is discovered it is
removed, moisture content is managed and replaced with standard fill compacted to 90%
relative compaction. Generally blasting of rock is discouraged in the road bed. When a
depression must be filled to come up to the road grade the native bed is compacted after the
topsoil has been removed. The fill is made by the "compacted layer method" where a layer of
fill is spread then compacted to specifications; the process is repeated until the desired grade
is reached.
General fill material should be free of organics, meet minimum California bearing
ratio (CBR) results and have a low plasticity index. The lower fill generally comprises sand or
a sand-rich mixture with fine gravel, which acts as an inhibitor to the growth of plants or other
vegetable matter. The compacted fill also serves as lower-stratum drainage. Select second fill
(sieved) should be composed of gravel, decomposed rock or broken rock below a
specified Particle size and be free of large lumps of clay. Sand clay fill may also be used. The
road bed must be "proof rolled" after each layer of fill is compacted. If a roller passes over an
area without creating visible deformation or spring the section is deemed to comply.
The completed road way is finished by paving or left with a gravel or
other natural surface. The type of road surface is dependent on economic factors and expected
usage. Safety improvements like Traffic signs, Crash barriers, Raised pavement markers, and
other forms of Road surface marking are installed.

3.2 Pavement Types


Basically, all hard surfaced pavement types can be categorized into two groups,

Flexible Pavements and


Rigid Pavements

Flexible pavements are those which are surfaced with bituminous (or asphalt)
materials. These types of pavements are called "flexible" since the total pavement structure
"bends" or "deflects" due to traffic loads. A flexible pavement structure is generally
composed of several layers of materials which can accommodate this "flexing".

Figure 3.1: Types of Pavements.


On the other hand, rigid pavements are composed of a PCC surface course. Such
pavements are substantially "stiffer" than flexible pavements due to the high modulus of
elasticity of the PCC material. Further, these pavements can have reinforcing steel, which is
generally used to reduce or eliminate joints.
Flexible pavements generally require some sort of maintenance or rehabilitation every
10 to 15 years. Rigid pavements, on the other hand, can often serve 20 to 40 years with little
or no maintenance or rehabilitation.

Figure 3.2: Load distribution in different types of pavements.

Each of these pavement types distributes load over the subgrade in a different fashion.
Rigid pavement, because of PCC's high elastic modulus (stiffness), tends to distribute the load
over a relatively wide area of subgrade. The concrete slab itself supplies most of a rigid
pavement's structural capacity. Flexible pavement uses more flexible surface course and
distributes loads over a smaller area. It relies on a combination of layers for transmitting load
to the subgrade.
This project completely deals with Flexible Pavements. Almost all the highways and
expressways are flexible. Hence, the analysis in this project only refers to flexible pavements.
The typical cross-section of a flexible pavement consists of several layers. They are as
follows:

Figure 3.3: Layers of flexible pavements.

Original Ground Level (OGL)


Low Embankment
High Embankment
Sub-Grade
Granular Sub-Base (GSB)
Wet Mix Macadam (WMM)
Dense Bitumen Macadam (DBM)
Bitumen Concrete (BC)

3.3 Properties of each layer


3.3.1 Original Ground Level: It is the original ground surface before any work starts.
3.3.2 Low Embankment: Embankment consists of a number of soil layers. It is used to
increase the level of pavement. Low embankment is the one which has a maximum height of
3m. Low embankment should have the following properties:

Minimum compaction of 95%


Minimum Dry Density of 1.55gm/cc
Maximum Free swell index of 50%
Minimum CBR of 10%
Maximum Liquid limit of 40%
Maximum Plasticity index of 18%

3.3.3 High Embankment: High embankment is the one in which height is above 3m. High
embankment should have the following properties:

Minimum compaction of 97%


Minimum Dry Density of 1.63gm/cc
Maximum Free swell index of 50%
Minimum CBR of 10%
Maximum Liquid limit of 40%
Maximum Plasticity index of 18%

3.3.4 Sub-Grade: Sub-grade or Soil Sub-grade is a soil layer above embankment. The
thickness of this layer is 0.25m.
3.3.5 Granular Sub-base: GSB is a layer of mixed aggregates. It consists of dust, 40mm
aggregates and 10mm aggregates. The thickness of this layer is 0.2m. GSB should have the
following requirements:

Minimum Compaction of 98%


Maximum Water Absorption of 2%
Minimum CBR of 30%
Maximum Liquid limit of 25%
Maximum Plasticity index of 6%
Minimum 10% fines of 50KN

3.3.6 Wet Mix Macadam: WMM is a mixture of 40mm, 20mm, 10mm aggregates, dust and
water. It is constructed in 2 layers. The thickness of each layer is about 0.125m. The total
thickness is 0.25m. WMM should have the following properties:

Minimum Compaction of 98%


Maximum Water Absorption of 2%
Maximum AIV of 30%
Maximum Liquid limit of 25%
Maximum Plasticity index of 6%
Maximum FI&EI of 30%

3.3.7 Dense Bitumen Macadam: DBM is constructed in 2 layers. The 1st layer should have
minimum bitumen content of 4 to 4.5%. The 2nd layer should have minimum bitumen content
of 4.5 to 5%. The aggregates used for this layer are 40mm, 20mm, 10mm and dust, lime or
cement. Other requirements of DBM are:

Minimum Compaction of 98%


Maximum Water Absorption of 2%
Maximum AIV of 27%
Maximum Plasticity index of 4%
Maximum FI&EI of 30%

Chapter-4

Design of Flexible pavement (IRC: 37-2001)


4.1 Traffic Volume data for Rajahmundry-Visakhapatnam in Jan-2012

Table 4.1: Traffic Volume data for Rajahmundry-Visakhapatnam in Jan-2012


From the above data, the average daily traffic for 7 days is 6060 vehicles per day.

4.2 Computation of design traffic:


The design traffic is considered in terms of the cumulative number of standard axles to
be carried during the design life of the road. This can be computed using the following
equation:

Where,
N= the number of standard axles in msa.
A= initial traffic in the year of completion of construction in terms of number of
commercial vehicles per day.
D= lane distribution factor = 0.4 for four-lane roads (as per IRC: 37-2001).
F= vehicle damage factor.
N= design life in years = 15 years.
r = annual growth rate of commercial vehicles = 8%

The Vehicle damage factor is obtained from the table shown below (Table 1. as per IRC: 37-2001)
Initial traffic volume in terms of number of
commercial vehicles per day

Vehicle damage factor (VDF)

0-150

1.5

150-1500

3.5

More than 1500

4.5

Table 4.2: Vehicle damage factors for different traffic volumes.


As the traffic volume in this case is 6060 commercial vehicles per day, VDF is taken as 4.5.
Now,
Where,
P= Number of commercial vehicles as per last count= 6060 (as per traffic volume data)
X=Number of years between last count and year of completion of construction= 3.
Hence,

= 7630.

Therefore,

From calculations, N = 136.1 msa (Say 135 msa).


The CBR value for the soil subgrade is 10%.
Hence use the design chart corresponding to CBR of 10% and traffic of 150msa as shown
below:

Table 4.3 IRC design Chart based on CBR value of 10%

The chart contains the data for 100 and 150 msa of traffic. We can get the required data for
135 msa, by using the interpolation formula as shown here:

Where,
x0, x1 = 100, 150.
y0, y1 = 630, 650.
x = 135
Therefore,

Hence, Total pavement thickness = 645mm.


Let us provide a total pavement thickness of 650mm.
From the graph shown in design chart (corresponding to 150 msa), the following details of
each layer can be obtained:
Granular Sub Base (GSB) = 200mm.
Wet Mix Macadam (WMM) = 250mm.
Dense Bitumen Macadam (DBM) = 150mm.
Base Course (BC) = 50mm.
Total Pavement Thickness = 650mm.

Note: The pavement design mentioned here is based on the basic parameters and values at the
construction site. It is designed according to the IRC method and is done as a part of this
project report. This design is not a resemblance of the original pavement which is under
construction by Gammon India Ltd.

Chapter-5

Tests on pavement materials


Various tests for soil and aggregates are conducted in the laboratory to determine the
properties of the materials. The next part of this project explains the procedures and
calculations involved for these lab tests. The values obtained for each differ layer is presented
after this part.

5.1 Tests on soil


5.1.1 Introduction
Soil is very essential highway material because of the under mentioned reasons:
(i)

Soil subgrade is part of the pavement structure; further the design and behavior of
pavement, especially the flexible pavements, depend to a great extent on the

(ii)

subgrade soil.
Soil is one of the principal materials of construction in soil embankments and in
stabilized soil base and sub-base courses.
In view of the wide diversity in soil type, it is desirable to classify the subgrade soil

into groups possessing similar physical properties. Many methods have been in use for this
purpose. Soils are normally classified on the basis of simple laboratory tests such as grain size
analysis and consistency tests.
Soil compaction is important phenomenon in highway construction as compacted
subgrade improves the load supporting ability of pavement; in turn resulting in decreased
pavement thickness requirement. Compaction of earth embankments would result in
decreased settlement. Thus the behavior of soil sub-grade material could be considerably
improved by adequate compaction under controlled conditions. The laboratory compaction
test results are useful in specifying the optimum moisture content at which a soil should be
compacted and the dry density that should be aimed at the construction site. The in-situ
density of prepared subgrade as well as other pavement layers has to be determined by a field
density test, for checking the compaction requirements and as a field control test for
compaction.
There are a number of tests for measuring soil strength; some of them give the strength
parameters of the soil, other methods are empirical and give only arbitrary strength values.
The types of the strength tests may be classified as shear test, bearing and penetration tests.
The triaxial test results are useful to find the strength parameters, viz; cohesion and angle of

internal friction and modulus deformation of soils. The California Bearing Ratio test is
essentially a penetration test which is carried out either in the laboratory or in the field. This
test is suitable for the evaluation of strength of soil and aggregates. The method has an
important place among highway material testing programme, as it has been extensively
correlated with flexible pavement design and performance. North Dakota Cone Test is another
penetration test which may also be carried out either in the laboratory or on in-situ soil in the
field, but its use is restricted to fine grained soils free from coarse particles. Plate bearing test
is carried out either on subgrade to find the modulus of subgrade reaction or on a pavement
component layer for pavement evaluation.
There are several soils which are unsuitable as highway material, since they cannot be
used as such in the base course, sub-base or the subgrade. The strength and durability
characteristics of these soils can be improved to the desired extent by adopting a stabilization
technique. One of the widely used methods of stabilization is soil-cement which is applicable
to a fairly wide range of soil types. The cement stabilized soil can be used in sub-base and
base course layers of pavements.
5.1.2 Free Swell Index (IS 2720 part-40)
Free swell index of soil is determined as per IS: 2720 (Part 40). Free swell or
differential free swell, also termed as free swell index, and is the increase in volume of soil
without any external constraint when subjected to submergence in water.
5.1.3 Grain Size Analysis (IS 2720 part-4)
Most of the methods for soil identification and classification are based on certain
physical properties of the soils. The commonly used properties for the classification are the
grain size distribution, liquid limit and plasticity index. These properties have also been used
in empirical design methods for flexible pavements and in deciding the suitability of subgrade
soils.
Grain size analysis also known as mechanical analysis of soils is the determination of
the percent of individual grain sizes present in the sample. The results of the test are of great
value in soil classification. In mechanical stabilization of soil and for designing soil-aggregate
mixtures the results of gradation tests are used. Correlations have also been made between the
grain size distribution of soil and the general soil behavior as a subgrade material and the
performance such as susceptibility to frost action, pumping of rigid pavements etc. Also

permeability characteristics, bearing capacity and some other properties, are approximately
estimated based on grain size distribution of the soil.
The soil is generally divided into four parts based on the particle size. The fraction of
soil which is larger than 2.00 mm size is called gravel and that between 2.00 and 0.06 mm is
sand, between 0.06 and 0.002 mm is silt and that which is smaller than 0.002 mm size is clay.
Two types of sieves are available, one type with square perforations on plates to sieve coarse
aggregates and gravel, the other type being mesh sieves made of woven wire mesh to sieve
finer particles such as fine aggregates and soil fraction consisting of sand silt and clay.
However the sieve opening of the smallest mesh sieve commonly available is about 0.075
mm, which is commonly known as 200-mesh sieve or sieve no. 200 as per the British and
American specifications. Therefore all soil particles consisting of silt and clay which are
smaller than 0.06 mm size will pass through the fine mesh sieve with 0.075 mm opening.
Therefore the grain size analysis of the coarser fraction
of soil is carried out using sieves and that of finer
fraction passing 0.075 mm sieve is carried out using
the principle of sedimentation in water.
The mechanical analysis consists of two parts:
a)

The determination of the amount and


proportion of coarse material by the use of

b)

sieves; and
The analysis for the line grained fraction by
sedimentation method.
The sieve analysis is a simple test consisting of

sieving a measured quantity of material through


successively smaller sieves. The weight retained on
each sieve is expressed as a percentage of the total
sample. The sedimentation principle has been used for
finding the grain size distribution of fine soil fraction;
two methods are commonly used viz: Pipette method
and the Hydrometer method. In this project only the
sieve analysis has been used.
The grain size distribution of soil particles of
size greater than 63 micron is determined by sieving

the soil on a set of sieves 01 decreasing sieve opening placed one below the other and
separating out the different size ranges.
Two methods of sieve analysis are as follows:
a) Wet sieving applicable to all soils and
b) Dry sieving applicable only to soils which have negligible proportion of clay and silt.
The soil received from the field is divided into two parts: one, the fraction retained on
2 mm sieve and the other passing 2 mm sieve. The sieve analysis also may be carried out
separately for these two fractions. The fraction retained on 2 mm sieve may be subjected to
dry sieving using bigger sieves and that passing 2 mm sieve may be subjected to wet sieving,
however if this fraction consists of single grained soil with negligible fines passing 0.075 mm
size, dry sieving may be carried out.
Application of Grain Size Analysis
(a) Soil classification
In most of the soil classification systems the percentage of material passing 200-mesh
and 40-mesh sieve (75 and 420 microns aperture) have been considered from the grain size
analysis, though some classification systems use percentage of silt and clay present for
classifying the soils. Hence ordinarily the sieve analysis (dry or wet) will be quite sufficient
along with tests for consistency limits, for identifying and classifying soils.
The two widely accepted soil classification systems for highway engineering purposes are
(i) The Highway Research Board (HRB) classification, also known as American Association
of State
Highway Officials (AASHO) classification or revised Public Roads Administration (PRA)
classification and
(ii) The Unified classification system, also known as revised Casagrande classification. Both
these systems of classification have based their classification on the grain size analysis by
sieve analysis, the liquid limit and plasticity index of the soils.
However for knowing the grain size distribution of soils finer than 75 or 63 micron
size and to determine the percentage of silt and clay, the sedimentation methods namely the
pipette or hydrometer method of test may be adopted.
(b) Grain size distribution
The grain size distribution curve gives the exact idea regarding the gradation of the
soils. It is possible to identify whether a soil is well graded, uniformly graded, or poorly
graded. Uniformity coefficient is also useful to indicate the gradation.
5.1.4 Consistency Limits and Indices (IS 2720 part-5)

The physical properties of fine grained soils, especially of clay differ much at different
water contents. Clay may he almost in liquid state, or it may show plastic behavior or may be
very stiff depending on the moisture content. Plasticity is a property of outstanding
importance for clayey soils, which may be explained as the ability to undergo changes in
shape without rupture.
Atterberg in 1911 proposed a series of tests mostly empirical for the determination of
the consistency and plastic properties of fine soils. These are now known as Atterberg limits
and indices.
Liquid Limit it may he defined as the minimum water content at which the soil will
flow under the application of a very small shearing force. The liquid limit is usually
determined in the laboratory using a mechanical device. An alternate method using a cone
penetrometer is also sometimes used for determining the liquid limit of soils.
Plastic Limit may be defined in general terms, as the minimum moisture content at
which the soil remains in a plastic state. The lower limit is arbitrarily defined and determined
in the laboratory by a prescribed test procedure.

Plasticity Index (P.I.) is defined as the

numerical difference between the liquid and plastic limits. P.I. thus indicates the range of
moisture content over which the soil is in a plastic condition.
Shrinkage Limit is the maximum moisture content at which further reduction in water
content does not cause reduction in volume. It is the minimum water content that can occur in
clayey soil sample which is completely saturated.
Consistency limits and the plasticity index vary for different soil types. Hence these
properties are generally used in the identification and classification of soils.
Liquid Limit Test
Liquid limit is the moisture content at which 25 blows in standard liquid limit
apparatus will just close a groove of standardized dimensions cut in the sample by the
grooving tool by a specified amount.

The above graph represents the liquid limit at 25 blows of a sample.

Plastic Limit Test


Plastic limit in the moisture content at which it soil when rolled into thread of smallest
diameter possible starts crumbling and has a diameter of 3 mm.

5.1.5 Compaction Test (IS 2720 part-8)


Compaction of soil is a mechanical process by which the soil particles are constrained
to be packed more closely together by reducing the air voids; Soil compaction causes decrease
in air voids and consequently an increase in dry density. This may result in increase in
shearing strength. The possibility of future settlement or compressibility decreases and also
the tendency for subsequent changes in moisture content decreases. Degree of compaction is
usually measured quantitatively by dry density.
Increase in dry density of soil due to compaction mainly depends on two factors-(i) the
compacting moisture content and (ii) the amount of compaction. For practically all soils it is
found that with increase in the compaction moisture content; the dry density first increases
and then decreases compacted by any method. This indicates that under a given compactive
effort every soil has optimum moisture content (OMC) at which the soil attains maximum dry
density. This fact was first recorded by R. R. Proctor in 1933.
For a soil at a given moisture content, increasing amounts of compaction result in
closer packing of soil particles and an increase in dry density, until the volume of air voids is
so decreased that further compaction produces no substantial change in the volume. It has
been found that in all soils, with all methods of compaction, increase in compacting energy
applied per unit weight of soil result in an increase in maximum dry density and a decrease in
OMC. In the field, compaction may be carried out by
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)

applying pressure on soil layers by means of rollers


ramming
vibration
Watering depending upon the soil type and nature of the project.

In the laboratory various types of compacting equipment and test methods have been
developed for determining the moisture density relationships of soils. These tests may be
classified as:
(i) Static compaction test, an example of a test method of this type is California static
load compaction developed at California Division of Highway.
(ii) The dynamic compaction tests which are commonly adopted tests in the laboratory
the test methods which are often followed are (a) Proctor Test, later standardized by different
agencies and known as BS compaction IS light compaction and Standard AASHO tests (b)
modified AASHO tests also standardized by ISI and known as IS heavy compaction (c) the
indirect application of impact through a piston as in the Direct tests or Iowa Bearing value
apparatus.

(iii) Kneading compactor in which the compaction is achieved by applying a gradually


increasing stress through rounded end of a piston and releasing it gradually after retaining it
for a small interval of time. This is considered to simulate the type of compacting process as
rolling in the field. It has been found that the stress-strain behavior of a compacted soil by
different methods of compaction is likely to vary even if the compacting moisture content and
dry density values are the same.
The test is divided into two parts (i) light compaction which is similar to the BS or
Standard AASHO compaction test and (ii) heavy compaction which is similar to the modified
AASO compaction test. These two have been standardized by the ISI (I.S. 2720 parts VII and
VIII).

The above graph shows the Optimum moisture content and Maximum dry density.
Applications of Compaction Test
From the compaction test, the maximum dry density and optimum moisture content of
the soil is found for the selected type and amount of compaction. These results have various
uses.
(a) The OMC of the soil indicates the particular moisture content at which the soil should
be compacted to achieve maximum dry density. If the compacting effort applied is
less, the OMC increases and the value can again be found experimentally or estimated.
(b) In field compaction, the compacting moisture content is first controlled at OMC and
the adequacy of rolling or compaction is controlled by checking the dry density
achieved and comparing with the maximum dry density achieved in the laboratory.

Thus compaction test results (OMC and maximum dry density) are used in the field
control test in compaction projects.
Compaction, in general is considered most useful in the preparation of subgrade and
other pavement layers and in construction of embankments in order to increase the stability
and to decrease the settlement. There is also a soil classification method based on the
maximum dry density in the standard (Proctor) compaction test, the lower values indicating
weaker soils. According to the method suggested by K.R.Woods, soils with maximum values
of dry density (in g/cm3) greater than 2.1 are excellent, 1.9 to 2.1 are good, 1.75 to 1.90 are
fair, 1.60 to 1.75 are poor and those less than 1.60 are very poor.

5.1.6 Field Density Test by Sand Replacement Method (IS 2720 part-28)
The dry density of compacted soil or pavement material is a common measure of the
amount of the compaction achieved during the construction. Knowing the field density and
field moisture content, the dry density is calculated. Therefore, field density or in-situ density
test is of importance as a field control test for the compaction of soil or any other pavement
layer. The determination of field density of natural bed or soil has also various other
applications in civil engineering.
There are several methods for the determination of field density of
soils such as core cutter method, sand replacement method, rubber balloon
method, heavy oil method, etc. One of the common methods of determining
field density of fine grained soils is core cutter method; but this method has a
major limitation in the case of soils containing coarse grained particles such as gravel, stones
and aggregates. Under such circumstances, field density test by sand replacement method is
advantageous as the presence of coarse grained particles will adversely affect the test results
and also the method is quite simple.
The basic principle of sand replacement method is to measure the in-situ volume of
whole from which the material was excavated from the weight of sand with known density
filling in the hole. The in-situ density of material is given by the weight of the excavated
material divided by the in-situ volume.
Applications of the field density test
Determination of field density or in-place density, moisture content and dry density of
a compacted layer of soil or pavement layer arc often used to check the amount of compaction
attained in the field and for quality control tests in field compaction.

The determination of in-situ density of soil is useful in calculating the over burden
pressure of a soil deposit, calculation of bearing capacity, analysis of stability slopes and
foundations and in several other problems. The dry density of a compacted soil mass is also
used for assessing soil type and its stability.
The sand replacement method of field density test can be applied for any type of soil
and pavement materials, whereas the core cutter method cannot be used it coarse particles are
present in the compacted layer.

5.1.7 California Bearing Ratio Test (IS 2720 part-16)


The California Bearing Ratio (CBR) test was developed by the California Division of
Highway as a method of classifying and evaluating soil-subgrade and base course materials
for flexible pavements. Just after World War II, the U.S. Corps of Engineers adopted the CBR
test for use in designing base course for airfield pavements. The test is empirical and results
cannot be related accurately with any fundamental property of the material. The method of
test has been standardized by the ISI also.
The CBR is a measure of resistance of a material to penetration of standard plunger
under controlled density and moisture conditions. The test procedure should be strictly
adhered if high degree of reproducibility is desired. The CBR test may be conducted in remoulded or undisturbed specimen in the laboratory. U.S. Corps of Engineers have also
recommended a test procedure for in-situ test. Many methods exist today which utilize mainly
CBR test values for designing pavement structure. The test is simple and has been extensively
investigated for field correlations of flexible pavement thickness requirement.
Briefly, the test consists of causing a cylindrical plunger of 50 mm diameter to
penetrate a pavement component material at 1.25 mm/minute. The loads, for 2.5 mm and 5
mm are recorded. This load is expressed as a percentage of standard load value at a respective
deformation level to obtain CBR value. The standard load values were obtained from the
average of a large number of tests on different crushed stones and are given in table below.
Penetration, mm

Standard Load, Kg

Unit Standard Load,


Kg/cm3

2.5

1370

70

5.0

2055

105

7.5

2630

134

10.0

3180

162

12.5

3600

183

Table 5.1: Standard load values.

Figure 5.1: During the CBR Test


The table below shows the specifications of light compaction and heavy compaction:
Number of

Weight of

layers

hammer, Kg

Light Compaction

2.6

31

56

Heavy Compaction

4.89

45

56

Type of compaction

Fall, cm

Number of
blows

Table 5.2: Types of compaction.


Here is an example of CBR graphs. The graphs below are obtained for subgrade soil
of 10% CBR.

Figure 5.2: CBR test

Now the CBR value is calculated by using the data from the above graphs.
The CBR data for different blows is as follows:
Number of blows
10
30
65

Dry Density (gm/cc)


1.760
1.871
1.994

CBR%
4.49
9.93
13.14

The MDD of the soil is 1.976 gm/cc. If the required compaction is 97%, then the required
MDD is obtained as shown here:

Now the CBR is obtained at 1.917 dry density. The graph is shown below:

Applications of CBR:
Based on the extensive CBR test data collected; empirical design charts were
developed by the California State Highway Department, correlating the CBR value and the
flexible pavement thickness requirement.

5.2 Tests on Road Aggregates


5.2.1 Introduction
Aggregate forms the major part of the pavement structure and it is the prime material
used in pavement construction. Aggregates have to primarily bear load stresses occurring on
the roads and runways and have to resist water due to abrasive action of traffic. Aggregates
are used in construction of pavements using cement concrete, bituminous construction
methods and in water bound macadam. Aggregates often serve as granular base course
underlying the superior pavements. Thus the properties of the aggregates are of considerable
significance to the highway engineers.
Aggregates which are used in the surface course have to withstand the high magnitude
of load stresses and wear and tear due to abrasion. Such aggregates should possess sufficiently
high strength of resistance to crushing. These aggregates further need to be hard enough to
resist the wear due to abrasive action of traffic.
The aggregates in the pavements are also subjected to impact due to the moving
Wheel loads. Severe impact like hammering is quite common when heavily loaded steel tyre
vehicles move on water bound macadam roads where stones protrude out especially in the
monsoon. Jumping of the steel tyre wheels from one stone to another at different levels
causes severe impact on the stones. The resistance to impact or toughness is hence another
desirable property of aggregates. The stones should retain the strength and hardness and
should not disintegrate under adverse weather conditions including alternate wet-dry and
freeze-thaw cycles, or in other words the stones should have enough durability.
The specific gravity of stones is considered to be a measure for finding the suitability
and strength characteristics of aggregates. Higher the specific gravity better is the road stone.
The presence of air voids or pores in stones also may indicate the suitability and strength
characteristics of the stones. More the voids, the lesser are the specific gravity and the
strength of such stones will also be lower. In bituminous road construction to some extent the
presence of pores in aggregates is considered to be good for proper binding.
The size of the aggregate is qualified by the size of square sieve opening through
which the same may pass, and not by the shape. All aggregates which happen to fall in a
particular size range may not have the same strength and durability when compared with
cubical, angular or rounded particles of the same stone. Too flaky and elongated aggregates
should he avoided as far as possible as they can be crushed under the roller and traffic loads.

Rounded aggregate may be preferred in cement concrete mix due to better workability for the
same proportion or cement Paste and same water-cement ratio, whereas rounded particles are
not preferred in granular base course and water bound macadam construction as the stability
due to interlocking is lesser in these aggregates; in such construction angular particles are
preferred.
Heavy moving loads on the surface of flexible pavements may cause some temporary
deformation of the pavement layers resulting in possible relative movement and mutual
rubbing of aggregate particles. This can cause wear on the Points of contacts of the aggregate
in the granular base course of flexible pavements. The mutual rubbing action of the
aggregates is termed as attrition and the resistance to wear due to attrition was earlier assessed
by an attrition test.

However this test was dropped later-on and an aggregate abrasion test

alone is now considered necessary to assess the hardness of coarse aggregates.


Affinity of aggregates to bituminous binders is an important property only for the
bituminous pavements. If the bituminous binder does not have affinity to the aggregates, then
stripping is likely to occur.
The desirable properties or the aggregates may be summarised as follows
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.

Resistance to crushing or strength


Resistance to abrasion or hardness
Resistance to impact or toughness
Good shape factors to avoid too flaky and elongated particles of course

v.
vi.

aggregates
Resistance to weathering or soundness
Good adhesion with bituminous materials in presence of water or less
stripping.

The required properties of aggregates depend on type of pavement construction, traffic


and climatic conditions. All the above mentioned properties need not necessarily be possessed
by aggregates for a particular construction. Engineer-in-charge will use his discretion in
deciding the relative importance of these properties.
Tests which are generally carried out for judging the suitability of stone aggregates are
listed below

Strength

Aggregate crushing test

Los Angeles abrasion test


Deval abrasion test
Dorry abrasion test

Hardness

Toughness
1. Aggregate impact test
Durability
2. Soundness test-accelerated durability test
Shape factors
3. Shape test
Specific gravity and Porosity
4. Specific gravity test and water absorption test

5.2.2 Aggregate Impact Test (IS 2386 part-4)


Toughness is the property of a material to resist impact. Due to traffic loads, the road
stones are subjected to the pounding action or impact and there is possibility of stones
breaking into smaller pieces. The road stones should therefore be tough enough to resist
fracture under impact. A test designed to evaluate the toughness of stones i.e., the resistance of
the stones to fracture under repeated impacts may be called an impact test for road stones.
Impact test may either be carried out on cylindrical stone specimens as in Page Impact
test or on stone aggregates as in Aggregate Impact test. The Page Impact test is not carried out
now-a-days and has also been omitted from the revised British Standards for testing mineral
aggregates. The Aggregate Impact test has been standardised by the British Standard
Institution and the Indian Standard Institution.
The aggregate impact value indicates a relative measure of the resistance of aggregate
to a sudden shock or an impact, which in some aggregates differs from its resistance to a slow
compressive load. The method of test covers the procedure for determining the aggregate
impact value of coarse aggregates.

Aggregate Impact values


Property
<10%
Exceptionally strong
10 to 20%
Strong
20 to 30%
Satisfactory for road surfacing
>35%
Weak for road surfacing
Table 5.3: Aggregate Impact Values

Applications of Aggregate Impact Value


The aggregate impact test is considered to be an important test to assess the suitability
of aggregates as regards the toughness for use in pavement construction. It has been found
that for majority of aggregates, the aggregate crushing and aggregate impact values are
numerically similar within close limits. But in the case of fine grained highly Siliceous
aggregate which are less resistant to impact than to crushing the aggregate impact values are
higher (on the average, by about 5) than the aggregate crushing values.
For deciding the suitability of soft aggregates in base course construction, this test has
been commonly used. A modified impact test is also often carried out in the case of soft
aggregates to find the wet impact value after soaking the test sample

Maximum aggregate impact value, percent


Condition of sample

Sub-base and base

Surface course

Dry

50

32

Wet

60

39

Table 5.4: Maximum Limits for Aggregate Impact Value.

5.2.3 Specific Gravity and Water Absorption Tests (IS 2386 part-3)
The specific gravity of an aggregate is considered to be a measure of strength or
quality of the material. Stones having low specific gravity are generally weaker than those
with higher specific gravity values. The specific gravity test helps in identification of stone.

82

Water absorption gives an idea of strength of rock. Stones having more water
absorption are more porous in nature and are generally considered unsuitable unless they are
found to be acceptable based on strength, impact and hardness tests.
Application of Specific Gravity and Water Absorption Test
The specific gravity of aggregates normally used in road construction ranges from
about 2.5 to 3.0 with an average value of about 2.68. Though high specific gravity of an
aggregate is considered as an indication of high strength, it is not possible to judge the
suitability of a sample of road aggregate without finding the mechanical properties such as
aggregate crushing, impact and abrasion values.
Water absorption of an aggregate is accepted as measure of its porosity.

Some times

this value is even considered as a measure of its resistance to frost action, though this has not
yet been confirmed by adequate research.
Water absorption value ranges from 0.1 to about 2.0 percent for aggregate normally
used in road surfacing. Stones with water absorption upto 4.0 percent have been used in base
courses. Generally a value of less than 0.6 percent is considered desirable for surface course
through slightly higher values are allowed in bituminous constructions. Indian Road Congress
has specified the maximum water absorption value as 10 percent for aggregates used in
bituminous surface dressing.
5.2.4 Shape Test (IS 2386 part-1)
The particle shape of aggregates is determined by the percentages of flaky and
elongated particles contained in it. In the case of gravel it is determined by its angularity
number. For base course and construction of bituminous and cement concrete types, the
presence of flaky and elongated particles are considered undesirable as they may cause
inherent weakness with possibilities of breaking down under heavy loads. Rounded
aggregates are preferred in cement concrete road construction as the workability of concrete
improves. Angular shape of particles is desirable for granular base course due to increased
stability derived from the better interlocking. When the shape of aggregates deviates more
from the spherical shape, as in the case of angular, flaky and elongated aggregate, the void
content in an aggregate of any specified size increases and hence the grain size distribution of
a graded aggregate has to be suitably altered in order to obtain minimum voids in the dry mix
or the highest dry density. The angularity number denotes the void content of single sized
aggregates in excess of that obtained with spherical aggregates of the same size. Thus

angularity number has considerable importance in the gradation requirements of various types
of mixes such as bituminous concrete and soil-aggregate mixes.
Thus evaluation of shape of the particles, particularly with reference to flakiness,
elongation and angularity is necessary.

Flakiness Index
The flakiness index of aggregates is the percentages by weight of particles whose least
dimension (thickness) is less than three-fifths (0.6) of their mean dimension. The test is not
applicable to sizes smaller than 6.3 mm.

Figure 5.3: Thickness and Length gauges.

Elongation Index
The elongation index of an aggregate is the percentage by weight of particles whose
greatest dimension (length) is greater than one and four fifth times (1.8 times) their mean
dimension. The elongation test is not applicable to sizes smaller than 6.3 mm.

Size of aggregate

(a) Thickness gauge

(b) Length gauge

(0.6 times the mean

(1.8 times the mean

sieve), mm

sieve), mm

Passing through IS

Retained on IS

sieve, mm

sieve, mm

63.0

50.0

33.90

--

50.0

40.0

27.00

81.0

40.0

25.0

19.50

58.5

31.5

25.0

16.95

--

25.0

20.0

13.50

40.5

20.0

16.0

10.80

32.4

16.0

12.5

8.55

25.6

12.5

10.0

6.75

20.2

10.0

6.3

4.89

14.7

Table 5.5: Specifications for Thickness and Length gauges.


Applications of Shape Tests
In the pavement construction flaky and elongated particles are to be avoided,
particularly in surface course. If flaky and elongated aggregates are present in appreciable
proportions, the strength of the pavement layer would be adversely affected due to possibility
of breaking down under loads. In cement in strength in cement concrete depends concrete the
workability is also reduced. However, the reduction in strength in cement depends on the
cement content and water-cement ratio.
Indian Road Congress recommended the maximum allowable limits of flakiness index
values for various types of construction, as given in Table below.

Types of pavement construction

Maximum limits of
Flakiness Index, %

1.

Bituminous Carpet

30

2.

Bituminous/ Asphaltic concrete

25

Bituminous penetration macadam


Bituminous surface dressing (single costs, two coats and
precoated)
Built-up spray grout
3.

Bituminous macadam

15

Water bound macadam, base and surfacing courses


Table 5.6: Maximum limits for Flakiness Index.

Through elongated shape of the aggregates also effects the compaction and the
construction of pavements, there are no specified limits of elongation index values as in the
case of flakiness index for different methods of pavement construction.

Chapter-6

Test Results
6.1 Low Embankment
6.1.1 Grain Size Analysis:
Sample Number : 1
Type of material : Soil

Use
Weight

Sieve size

Weight
retained
g.

Cumulative
weight
retained g.

% Retained

% Passing

19 mm

100

4.75 mm

101

101

10.1

89.9

2 mm

134

235

23.56

76.44

425 microns

81

316

31.69

68.31

75 microns

382

698

69.8

30.3

Gravel (4.75 mm retaining) :


Sand (4.75 mm passing & 75 micron
retaining) :
Silt & Clay (75 micron passing) :

Remarks

10.1 %
59.7%
30.2%

Sample Number : 2
Type of material : Soil

Use
Weight

Sieve size

Weight
retained
g.

Cumulative
weight
retained g.

% Retained

% Passing

19 mm

100

4.75 mm

107

107

10.7

89.3

2 mm

102

209

20.9

79.10

425 microns

139

348

34.89

65.11

75 microns

364

712

71.2

28.8

Gravel (4.75 mm retaining) :


Sand (4.75 mm passing & 75 micron
retaining) :
Silt & Clay (75 micron passing) :

: Embankment
: 1000gms

10.7%
60.5%
28.8%

: Embankment
: 1000gms

Remarks

Grain Size Analysis (Continued):


Sample Number : 3
Type of material : Soil

Use
Weight

Sieve size

Weight
retained
g.

Cumulative
weight
retained g.

% Retained

% Passing

19 mm

100

4.75 mm

95

95

9.5

90.5

2 mm

200

295

29.56

70.44

425 microns

17

312

31.29

68.71

75 microns

363

675

67.5

32.5

Gravel (4.75 mm retaining) :


Sand (4.75 mm passing & 75 micron
retaining) :
Silt & Clay (75 micron passing) :

Remarks

9.5%
58.0%
32.5%

Sample Number : 4
Type of material : Soil

Use
Weight

Sieve size

Weight
retained
g.

Cumulative
weight
retained g.

% Retained

% Passing

19 mm

100

4.75 mm

85

85

8.5

91.5

2 mm

229

314

31.45

68.55

425 microns

91

405

40.58

59.45

75 microns

300

705

70.5

29.5

Gravel (4.75 mm retaining) :


Sand (4.75 mm passing & 75 micron
retaining) :
Silt & Clay (75 micron passing) :

: Embankment
: 1000gms

8.5%
62.0%
29.5%

: Embankment
: 1000gms

Remarks

Grain Size Analysis (Continued):


Sample Number : 5
Type of material : Soil

Use
Weight

: Embankment
: 1000gms

Sieve size

Weight
retained
g.

Cumulative
weight
retained g.

% Retained

% Passing

19 mm

100

4.75 mm

109

109

10.9

89.1

2 mm

193

302

30.29

69.71

425 microns

114

416

41.68

58.32

75 microns

325

741

74.1

25.9

Gravel (4.75 mm retaining) :


Sand (4.75 mm passing & 75 micron
retaining) :
Silt & Clay (75 micron passing) :

Remarks

10.9%
63.2%
25.9%

6.1.2 Atterberg Limits:


Type of Material

Soil

Sampled No

Proposed Use

Embankment

Liquid Limit

Plastic Limit

Determination No.

Container No.

15

16

17

18

19

20

Empty weight container W1

6.4

6.8

6.9

6.6

8.8

8.4

Wt. of container and wet soil W2

27.1

27.7

27.8

26.9

13.5

13.2

Wt. of container and dry soil W3

21.72

22.37

22.63

21.89

12.76

12.43

Wt. of moisture W4=W2-W3

5.38

5.33

5.17

4.51

0.74

0.77

Wt. of dry soil W5=W3-W1

15.32

15.57

15.73

15.39

3.96

4.03

35.11

34.23

32.86

31.80

18.68

19.10

19

22

26

32

Moisture Content w = 100*W4/W5


%

No. of Blows

Average = 33.36

Average

= 18.89

Plasticity Index = 14.47

Atterberg Limits (Continued):


Type of Material

Soil

Sampled No

Proposed Use

Embankment

Liquid Limit

Plastic Limit

Determination No.

Container No.

21

22

23

24

25

26

Empty weight container W1

7.0

7.2

7.8

6.4

6.4

7.4

Wt. of container and wet soil W2

28.1

28.3

28.5

27.3

13.9

14.8

Wt. of container and dry soil W3

22.71

23.03

23.46

22.30

12.72

13.62

Wt. of moisture W4=W2-W3

5.39

5.27

5.04

5.0

1.18

1.18

Wt. of dry soil W5=W3-W1

15.71

15.83

15.66

15.9

6.32

6.22

34.30

33.29

32.18

31.44

18.67

19.97

19

22

26

32

Moisture Content w = 100*W4/W5


%

No. of Blows

Average

Average = 32.56

Type of Material

Soil

Proposed Use

Embankment

= 19.32

Plasticity Index = 13.24

Sampled No

Liquid Limit

Plastic Limit

Determination No.

Container No.

Empty weight container W1

6.6

9.0

8.0

8.6

8.8

6.8

Wt. of container and wet soil W2

26.9

28.0

27.8

27.9

13.90

12.4

Wt. of container and dry soil W3

21.72

23.24

22.98

23.27

13.10

11.50

Wt. of moisture W4=W2-W3

5.18

4.76

4.82

4.63

0.80

0.90

Wt. of dry soil W5=W3-W1

15.12

14.24

14.98

14.67

4.3

4.7

34.25

33.42

32.17

31.51

18.60

19.14

19

22

26

29

Moisture Content w = 100*W4/W5


%

No. of Blows

Average = 32.72

Atterberg Limits (Continued):

Average

= 18.87

Plasticity Index = 13.85

Type of Material

Soil

Sampled No

Proposed Use

Embankment

Liquid Limit

Plastic Limit

Determination No.

Container No.

11

20

30

34

8.0

6.8

8.6

8.4

6.6

7.8

Wt. of container and wet soil W2

39.28

37.21

45.24

42.42

23.02

21.42

Wt. of container and dry soil W3

31.47

28.77

36.51

34.57

20.63

19.28

Wt. of moisture W4=W2-W3

7.81

7.44

8.73

7.85

2.39

2.14

Wt. of dry soil W5=W3-W1

23.47

22.97

27.91

26.17

14.03

11.48

33.28

32.39

31.28

30.01

17.03

18.64

19

22

27

31

Empty weight container W1

Moisture Content w = 100*W4/W5


%
No. of Blows

Average

Average = 31.84

Type of Material

Soil

Proposed Use

Embankment

= 17.84

Plasticity Index = 14.00

Sampled No

Liquid Limit

Plastic Limit

Determination No.

Container No.

13

19

21

25

27

34

Empty weight container W1

6.8

8.9

7.0

6.4

7.2

7.8

Wt. of container and wet soil W2

37.46

46.32

40.24

34.72

23.02

20.10

Wt. of container and dry soil W3

29.23

36.46

31.84

27.73

20.50

17.98

Wt. of moisture W4=W2-W3

8.23

9.36

8.40

6.99

2.52

2.12

Wt. of dry soil W5=W3-W1

22.43

27.66

24.84

21.33

13.30

10.18

36.49

35.65

33.82

32.77

18.95

20.83

18

27

28

32

Moisture Content w = 100*W4/W5


%
No. of Blows

Average = 34.22

Soil
Embankment

Sample Number

= 19.89

Plasticity Index = 14.33

6.1.3 Modified Proctor:


Type of Material
Proposed Use

Average

wt. of Mould, W1 (g) :


2320

Mould No : 3
Trial No

Volume of mould, V (cc) : 2250

II

III

IV

VI

240

360

480

600

720

840

Wt. of wet soil + mould, W2

10457

10721

10998

11076

10870

10722

Wt. of wet soil, W3=(W2-W1)

4137

4401

4678

4756

4550

4402

Wet density, Yb = W3/V

1.839

1.956

2.079

2.114

2.022

1.956

10

29

32

35

6.4

8.8

6.8

7.2

8.8

7.4

Wt. of wet soil + cont., W6

31.82

44.24

34.24

38.04

43.82

40.02

Wt. of dry soil + cont.,W7

30.75

42.17

32.30

35.43

40.23

36.11

1.07

2.07

1.94

2.61

3.59

3.91

24.05

33.37

25.5

28.23

31.43

28.71

4.41

6.20

7.62

9.24

11.42

13.61

1.761

1.842

1.932

1.935

1.815

1.722

Wt. of water

Container No.
Wt. of container,W5

Wt. of water, W8=(W6-W7)

(g)

Wt. of dry soil, W9=(W7-W5)


Water content w =W8/W9

(g)
%

Dry density Yd = 100x (Yb/100+w)

(g/cc)

MDD: 1.945 gm/cc

OMC: 8.41 %

Soil
Embankment

Type of Material
Proposed Use

Sample Number

wt. of Mould, W1 (g) :


2320

Mould No : 3
Trial No :

Volume of mould, V (cc) : 2250

II

III

IV

VI

240

360

480

600

720

840

Wt. of wet soil + mould, W2

10444

10704

10915

11014

10843

10721

Wt. of wet soil, W3=(W2-W1)

4124

4383

4595

4694

4523

4401

Wet density, Yb = W3/V

1.833

1.949

2.042

2.086

2.010

1.956

10

21

28

32

35

8.8

6.8

7.0

8.2

8.8

7.4

Wt. of wet soil + cont., W6

44.04

30.02

33.24

40.04

46.21

36.04

Wt. of dry soil + cont.,W7

42.55

28.67

31.48

37.35

42.21

32.59

1.49

1.35

1.76

2.69

4.00

3.45

33.75

21.87

24.48

40.04

33.41

25.19

4.43

6.19

7.20

9.22

11.98

13.71

1.755

1.835

1.905

1.910

1.795

1.720

Wt. of water

Container No.
Wt. of container,W5

Wt. of water, W8=(W6-W7)

(g)

Wt. of dry soil, W9=(W7-W5)


Water content w =W8/W9

(g)
%

Dry density Yd = 100x (Yb/100+w)

(g/cc)

MDD: 1.921gm/cc

OMC: 8.34%

Modified Proctor (Continued):


Type of Material
Proposed Use

Soil
Embankment

Sample Number

wt. of Mould, W1 (g) :


2320

Mould No : 3
Trial No

Volume of mould, V (cc) : 2250

II

III

IV

VI

240

360

480

600

720

840

Wt. of wet soil + mould, W2

10308

10616

10919

11043

10776

10632

Wt. of wet soil, W3=(W2-W1)

3988

4296

4599

4723

4456

4317

Wet density, Yb = W3/V

1.773

1.909

2.044

2.099

1.908

1.919

Container No.

19

22

26

28

33

35

Wt. of container,W5

8.8

7.2

7.4

8.2

9.8

7.4

Wt. of wet soil + cont., W6

45.21

30.42

33.21

40.24

46.24

36.24

Wt. of dry soil + cont.,W7

43.74

29.06

31.30

37.36

42.28

32.61

1.47

1.36

1.91

2.88

3.96

3.56

34.94

21.86

23.90

21.16

32.48

25.30

4.21

6.20

8.01

9.89

12.2

14.01

1.701

1.798

1.892

1.910

1.765

1.683

Wt. of water

Wt. of water, W8=(W6-W7)

(g)

Wt. of dry soil, W9=(W7-W5)


Water content w =W8/W9

(g)
%

Dry density Yd = 100x (Yb/100+w)

(g/cc)

MDD: 1.912 gm/cc

Type of Material
Proposed Use

OMC: 9.16%

Soil
Embankment

Sample Number

wt. of Mould, W1 (g) :


2320

Mould No : 3
Trial No :

Volume of mould, V (cc) : 2250

II

III

IV

VI

240

360

480

600

720

840

Wt. of wet soil + mould, W2

10501

10720

10972

11062

10872

10749

Wt. of wet soil, W3=(W2-W1)

4181

4400

4652

4742

4552

4429

Wet density, Yb = W3/V

1.858

1.956

2.067

2.108

2.023

1.969

Container No.

22

26

28

33

35

Wt. of container,W5

7.2

7.4

8.2

9.8

7.4

9.0

Wt. of wet soil + cont., W6

35.24

38.24

44.24

50.02

40.21

48.24

Wt. of dry soil + cont.,W7

33.99

36.43

41.67

46.63

36.79

43.58

1.25

1.81

2.57

3.39

3.42

4.66

26.79

29.03

33.43

36.83

29.39

34.58

4.67

6.23

7.68

9.21

11.64

13.46

1.775

1.841

1.920

1.930

1.812

1.735

Wt. of water

Wt. of water, W8=(W6-W7)

(g)

Wt. of dry soil, W9=(W7-W5)


Water content w =W8/W9

(g)
%

Dry density Yd = 100x (Yb/100+w)

(g/cc)

MDD: 1.934 gm/cc

OMC: 8.46%

Modified Proctor (Continued):


Type of Material
Proposed Use

Soil
Embankment

Sample Number

wt. of Mould, W1 (g) :


2320

Mould No : 3
Trial No

Volume of mould, V (cc) : 2250

II

III

IV

VI

240

360

480

600

720

840

Wt. of wet soil + mould, W2

10377

10666

10982

11097

10822

10673

Wt. of wet soil, W3=(W2-W1)

4057

4846

4662

4777

4502

4353

Wet density, Yb = W3/V

1.803

1.932

2.072

2.123

2.000

1.975

Container No.

20

23

27

32

35

Wt. of container,W5

8.4

7.8

7.2

8.8

7.4

6.4

Wt. of wet soil + cont., W6

37.44

36.24

34.22

40.24

32.42

30.14

Wt. of dry soil + cont.,W7

36.18

34.52

32.17

37.38

29.66

27.22

1.26

1.72

2.05

2.86

2.76

2.92

27.78

26.72

24.97

28.58

22.26

20.82

4.54

6.42

8.21

10.01

12.41

14.01

1.725

1.815

1.915

1.930

1.780

1.697

Wt. of water

Wt. of water, W8=(W6-W7)

(g)

Wt. of dry soil, W9=(W7-W5)


Water content w =W8/W9

(g)
%

Dry density Yd = 100x (Yb/100+w)

(g/cc)

MDD: 1.935 gm/cc

OMC: 9.38%

6.2 High Embankment:


6.2.1 Grain Size Analysis:
Sample Number: 1
Type of material : Soil

Use
Weight

Sieve size

Weight
retained
g.

Cumulative
weight
retained g.

% Retained

% Passing

19 mm

100

4.75 mm

97

97

9.7

90.3

2 mm

212

309

30.9

69.10

425 microns

110

419

41.95

58.05

75 microns

330

749

74.95

25.05

Gravel (4.75 mm retaining) :


Sand (4.75 mm passing & 75 micron
retaining) :
Silt & Clay (75 micron passing) :

: High Embankment
: 1000 g

Remarks

9.7%
65.25%
25.05%

Sample Number: 2
Type of material : Soil

Use
Weight

Sieve size

Weight
retained
g.

Cumulative
weight
retained g.

% Retained

% Passing

19 mm

100

4.75 mm

88

88

8.8

91.2

2 mm

120

208

20.85

79.15

425 microns

111

319

31.96

68.94

75 microns

420

739

73.9

26.1

Gravel (4.75 mm retaining) :


Sand (4.75 mm passing & 75 micron
retaining) :
Silt & Clay (75 micron passing) :

Grain Size Analysis (Continued):

8.8%
65.1%
26.1%

: High Embankment
: 1000 g

Remarks

Sample Number: 3
Type of material : Soil

Use
Weight

Sieve size

Weight
retained
g.

Cumulative
weight
retained g.

% Retained

% Passing

19 mm

100

4.75 mm

75

75

7.5

92.5

2 mm

163

238

23.78

76.22

425 microns

71

309

30.96

69.04

75 microns

461

770

77.0

23.0

Gravel (4.75 mm retaining) :


Sand (4.75 mm passing & 75 micron
retaining) :
Silt & Clay (75 micron passing) :

: High Embankment
: 1000 g

Remarks

7.5%
69.5%
23.0%

Sample Number: 4

Use

: High Embankment

Type of material : Soil

Weight

Sieve size

Weight
retained
g.

Cumulative
weight
retained g.

% Retained

% Passing

19 mm

100

4.75 mm

95

95

9.5

90.5

2 mm

134

229

22.91

77.01

425 microns

120

349

34.96

65.04

75 microns

339

738

73.77

26.23

Gravel (4.75 mm retaining) :


Sand (4.75 mm passing & 75 micron
retaining) :
Silt & Clay (75 micron passing) :

: 1000 g

Remarks

9.5%
64.27%
26.23%

Grain Size Analysis (Continued):


Sample Number: 5

Use

: High Embankment

Type of material : Soil

Weight

: 1000 g

Sieve size

Weight
retained
g.

Cumulative
weight
retained g.

% Retained

% Passing

19 mm

100

4.75 mm

84

84

8.4

91.6

2 mm

152

236

23.59

76.41

425 microns

73

309

30.95

69.05

75 microns

470

779

77.89

22.02

Gravel (4.75 mm retaining) :


Sand (4.75 mm passing & 75 micron
retaining) :
Silt & Clay (75 micron passing) :

Remarks

8.4%
69.58%
22.02%

6.2.2 Atterberg Limits:


Type of Material

Soil

Sampled

Proposed Use

High Embankment

Liquid Limit

Plastic Limit

Determination No.

Container No.

14

15

16

17

18

19

Empty weight container W1

9.4

6.4

6.8

6.9

6.6

8.8

Wt. of container and wet soil W2

28.8

27.1

27.2

27.5

13.6

13.9

Wt. of container and dry soil W3

23.74

21.82

22.16

22.49

12.47

13.07

Wt. of moisture W4=W2-W3

5.06

5.28

5.04

5.01

1.13

0.83

Wt. of dry soil W5=W3-W1

14.34

15.42

15.36

15.59

5.87

4.27

35.28

34.24

32.81

32.13

19.25

20.37

18

21

24

28

Moisture Content w = 100*W4/W5


%
No. of Blows

Average

Average = 33.28

Plasticity Index = 13.47

Atterberg Limits (Continued):


Type of Material

Soil

Sampled

= 19.81

Proposed Use

High Embankment

Liquid Limit

Plastic Limit

Determination No.

Container No.

33

34

35

Empty weight container W1

9.8

7.8

7.4

9.0

6.4

6.6

Wt. of container and wet soil W2

29.0

28.1

28.0

28.9

13.9

14.1

Wt. of container and dry soil W3

24.03

22.94

22.86

24.04

12.74

12.92

Wt. of moisture W4=W2-W3

4.97

5.16

5.14

4.86

1.16

1.18

Wt. of dry soil W5=W3-W1

14.23

15.14

15.46

15.04

6.34

6.32

Moisture Content w = 100*W4/W5 %

34.92

34.08

33.24

32.31

18.29

18.67

18

21

24

27

No. of Blows

Average

Average = 32.9

Type of Material

Soil

Proposed Use

High Embankment

= 18.48

Plasticity Index = 14.42

Sampled

Liquid Limit

Plastic Limit

Determination No.

Container No.

10

11

12

13

14

Empty weight container W1

6.6

6.8

8.6

6.6

6.8

9.4

Wt. of container and wet soil W2

27.1

27.5

28.8

27.2

13.9

14.6

Wt. of container and dry soil W3

21.87

22.33

23.84

22.27

12.79

13.77

Wt. of moisture W4=W2-W3

5.23

5.17

4.96

4.93

1.11

0.83

Wt. of dry soil W5=W3-W1

15.27

15.53

15.24

15.67

5.99

4.37

34.25

33.29

32.54

31.46

18.53

18.99

18

21

24

28

Moisture Content w = 100*W4/W5


%
No. of Blows

Average

Average = 32.2

Plasticity Index = 13.44

Atterberg Limits (Continued):


Type of Material

Soil

Proposed Use

High Embankment

Sampled

= 18.76

Liquid Limit

Plastic Limit

Determination No.

Container No.

21

22

23

24

25

26

Empty weight container W1

7.0

7.2

7.8

6.4

6.4

7.4

Wt. of container and wet soil W2

28.1

28.3

28.5

27.3

13.9

14.8

Wt. of container and dry soil W3

22.71

23.03

23.46

22.30

12.72

13.62

Wt. of moisture W4=W2-W3

5.39

5.27

5.04

5.0

1.18

1.18

Wt. of dry soil W5=W3-W1

15.71

15.83

15.66

15.9

6.32

6.22

34.30

33.29

32.18

31.44

18.67

19.97

19

22

26

29

Moisture Content w = 100*W4/W5


%
No. of Blows

Average

Average = 32.6

Type of Material

Soil

Proposed Use

High Embankment

= 19.32

Plasticity Index = 13.28

Sampled

Liquid Limit

Plastic Limit

Determination No.

Container No.

27

28

29

30

31

32

Empty weight container W1

7.2

8.2

7.2

6.6

7.2

8.8

Wt. of container and wet soil W2

27.8

28.5

27.5

26.9

13.9

14.7

Wt. of container and dry soil W3

22.49

23.38

22.47

21.99

12.86

13.77

Wt. of moisture W4=W2-W3

5.31

5.12

5.03

4.91

1.04

0.93

Wt. of dry soil W5=W3-W1

15.29

15.18

15.27

15.39

5.66

4.97

34.72

33.72

32.94

31.90

18.37

18.71

18

21

24

28

Moisture Content w = 100*W4/W5


%
No. of Blows

Average

Average = 32.6

= 18.54

Plasticity Index = 14.06

6.2.3 Modified Proctor:


Type of Material
Proposed Use
Mould No : 3
Trial No

Soil
High Embankment

Sample

wt. of Mould, W1 (g) :


2320
I

II

Volume of mould, V (cc) : 2250


III

IV

VI

Wt. of water

180

300

420

540

660

780

Wt. of wet soil + mould, W2

10497

10766

11047

11243

11108

10848

Wt. of wet soil, W3=(W2-W1)

4117

4386

4667

4863

4728

4468

Wet density, Yb = W3/V

1.830

1.949

2.074

2.161

2.101

1.986

Container No.

21

22

23

24

25

26

Wt. of container,W5

7.0

7.2

7.6

6.4

6.4

7.4

Wt. of wet soil + cont., W6

66.34

65.89

65.78

57.77

58.21

57.69

Wt. of dry soil + cont.,W7

63.63

62.78

61.80

53.18

52.40

51.60

2.71

3.11

3.98

4.59

5.81

6.09

56.63

55.58

54.00

46.78

46.00

44.20

4.79

5.60

7.37

9.82

12.62

13.79

1.746

1.546

1.932

1.968

1.866

1.745

Wt. of water, W8=(W6-W7)

(g)

Wt. of dry soil, W9=(W7-W5)


Water content w =W8/W9

(g)
%

Dry density Yd = 100x (Yb/100+w)

(g/cc)

Result from graph

Type of Material
Proposed Use

MDD: 1.977 gm/cc

Soil
High Embankment

Sample

wt. of Mould, W1 (g) :


2320

Mould No : 3
Trial No :

OMC: 9.59%

Volume of mould, V (cc) : 2250

II

III

IV

VI

120

240

360

480

600

720

Wt. of wet soil + mould, W2

10487

10732

11000

11223

10986

10889

Wt. of wet soil, W3=(W2-W1)

4107

4352

4620

4843

4606

4509

Wet density, Yb = W3/V

1.825

1.934

2.053

2.152

2.047

2.004

17

18

19

20

21

22

Wt. of container,W5

6.90

6.60

8.80

8.40

7.00

7.20

Wt. of wet soil + cont., W6

56.87

57.37

61.69

62.49

66.49

67.32

Wt. of dry soil + cont.,W7

54.67

54.27

58.00

57.53

60.35

59.84

2.20

3.10

3.69

4.96

6.14

7.48

47.77

47.67

49.2.

49.13

53.35

52.64

4.61

6.51

7.51

10.10

11.50

14.20

1.745

1.816

1.910

1.955

1.836

1.755

Wt. of water

Container No.

Wt. of water, W8=(W6-W7)

(g)

Wt. of dry soil, W9=(W7-W5)


Water content w =W8/W9

(g)
%

Dry density Yd = 100x (Yb/100+w)

(g/cc)

Result from graph

MDD: 1.957 gm/cc

OMC: 9.60%

Modified Proctor (Continued):


Type of Material
Proposed Use
Mould No : 3
Trial No :

Soil
High Embankment

Sample

wt. of Mould, W1 (g) :


2320
I

II

Volume of mould, V (cc) : 2250


III

IV

VI

Wt. of water

120

240

360

480

600

720

Wt. of wet soil + mould, W2

10536

10817

11109

11249

11086

10856

Wt. of wet soil, W3=(W2-W1)

4156

4437

4729

4869

4706

4476

Wet density, Yb = W3/V

1.847

1.972

2.102

2.164

2.092

1.989

11

12

13

14

15

16

Wt. of container,W5

6.80

6.60

6.80

9.40

6.40

6.80

Wt. of wet soil + cont., W6

57.32

56.14

52.03

58.89

51.66

50.58

Wt. of dry soil + cont.,W7

55.10

54.14

52.03

58.89

51.66

56.58

2.22

2.57

3.79

4.60

5.61

6.21

48.30

47.54

45.23

49.49

45.26

43.78

4.59

5.40

8.39

9.30

12.39

14.19

1.766

1.871

1.939

1.980

1.861

1.792

Container No.

Wt. of water, W8=(W6-W7)

(g)

Wt. of dry soil, W9=(W7-W5)


Water content w =W8/W9

(g)
%

Dry density Yd = 100x (Yb/100+w)

(g/cc)

Result from graph

MDD: 1.980 gm/cc

Soil
High Embankment

Type of Material
Proposed Use

Trial No

Sample

wt. of Mould, W1 (g) :


2320

Mould No : 3
:

OMC: 8.61%

Volume of mould, V (cc) : 2250

II

III

IV

VI

180

300

420

540

660

780

Wt. of wet soil + mould, W2

10445

10795

11083

11218

10969

10786

Wt. of wet soil, W3=(W2-W1)

4125

4475

4763

4898

4649

4466

Wet density, Yb = W3/V

1.833

1.989

2.117

2.117

2.066

1.985

14

20

23

25

6.6

8.8

9.4

8.4

7.8

6.4

Wt. of wet soil + cont., W6

32.21

40.21

44.21

38.21

35.24

30.02

Wt. of dry soil + cont.,W7

31.13

38.32

41.63

35.44

32.25

27.12

1.08

1.89

2.58

2.77

2.99

2.90

24.53

29.52

32.23

27.04

24.45

20.72

4.41

6.42

8.01

10.23

12.24

14.01

1.756

1.869

1.960

1.975

1.841

1.741

Wt. of water

Container No.
Wt. of container,W5

Wt. of water, W8=(W6-W7)

(g)

Wt. of dry soil, W9=(W7-W5)


Water content w =W8/W9

(g)
%

Dry density Yd = 100x (Yb/100+w)

(g/cc)

Result from graph

MDD: 1.988 gm/cc

OMC: 9.51%

Modified Proctor (Continued):


Type of Material
Proposed Use
Mould No : 3
Trial No

Wt. of water

Soil
High Embankment

Date Tested
Tested By
wt. of Mould, W1 (g) :
2320

Volume of mould, V (cc) : 2250

II

III

IV

VI

210

330

450

570

690

810

Wt. of wet soil + mould, W2

10381

10750

11033

11121

10900

10696

Wt. of wet soil, W3=(W2-W1)

4061

4430

4713

4801

4580

4376

Wet density, Yb = W3/V

1.805

1.969

2.095

2.134

2.036

1.945

Container No.

20

24

27

30

33

34

Wt. of container,W5

8.4

6.4

7.2

6.6

9.8

7.8

Wt. of wet soil + cont., W6

42.42

32.42

38.24

36.21

46.24

40.42

Wt. of dry soil + cont.,W7

41.05

30.90

36.10

33.73

42.51

36.51

1.37

1.52

2.14

2.48

3.73

3.91

32.65

24.50

28.90

27.13

32.71

28.71

4.21

6.20

7.42

9.14

11.42

13.61

1.732

1.854

1.950

1.955

1.827

1.712

Wt. of water, W8=(W6-W7)

(g)

Wt. of dry soil, W9=(W7-W5)


Water content w =W8/W9

(g)
%

Dry density Yd = 100x (Yb/100+w)

(g/cc)

Result from graph

MDD: 1.966 gm/cc

OMC: 8.40%

6.3 Sub-Grade Soil:


6.3.1 Grain Size Analysis:
Sample: 1
Type of material : Soil

Use
Weight

Sieve size

Weight
retained
g.

Cumulative
weight
retained g.

% Retained

% Passing

19 mm

100

4.75 mm

408

408

13.6

86.4

2 mm

447

855

28.5

71.5

425 microns

564

1419

47.3

52.7

75 microns

930

2349

78.3

21.7

Gravel (4.75 mm retaining) :


Sand (4.75 mm passing & 75 micron
retaining) :
Silt & Clay (75 micron passing) :

: Subgrade
: 3000gm

Remarks

13.6%
64.7%
21.7%

Sample: 2
Type of material : Soil

Use
Weight

Sieve size

Weight
retained
g.

Cumulative
weight
retained g.

% Retained

% Passing

19 mm

100

4.75 mm

429

429

14.3

85.7

2 mm

693

1122

37.4

62.6

425 microns

384

1506

50.2

49.8

75 microns

882

2388

79.6

20.4

Gravel (4.75 mm retaining) :


Sand (4.75 mm passing & 75 micron
retaining) :
Silt & Clay (75 micron passing) :

Grain Size Analysis (Continued):

14.3%
65.3%
20.4%

: Subgrade
:3000gm

Remarks

Sample: 3

Use

: Subgrade

Type of material : Soil

Weight

:3000gm

Sieve size

Weight
retained
g.

Cumulative
weight
retained g.

% Retained

% Passing

19 mm

100

4.75 mm

381

381

12.7

87.3

2 mm

417

798

26.6

73.4

425 microns

480

1278

42.6

57.4

75 microns

1053

2331

77.7

22.3

Gravel (4.75 mm retaining) :


Sand (4.75 mm passing & 75 micron
retaining) :
Silt & Clay (75 micron passing) :

Remarks

12.7%
65.0%
22.3%

Sample: 4

Use

: Subgrade

Type of material : Soil

Weight

:3000gm

Sieve size

Weight
retained
g.

Cumulative
weight
retained g.

% Retained

% Passing

19 mm

100

4.75 mm

411

411

13.7

86.3

2 mm

477

888

29.6

70.4

425 microns

363

1251

41.7

58.3

75 microns

1125

2376

79.2

20.8

Gravel (4.75 mm retaining) :


Sand (4.75 mm passing & 75 micron
retaining) :
Silt & Clay (75 micron passing) :

6.3.2 Atterberg Limits:

13.7%
65.5%
20.8%

Remarks

Type of Material

Soil

Proposed Use

Subgrade

Sample

Liquid Limit
Determination No.

Plastic Limit

No. of Blows

18

22

26

32

Container No.

Empty weight container W1

9.00

6.40

6.60

9.00

8.00

8.60

Wt. of container and wet soil W2

59.49

57.78

58.79

63.15

60.27

58.49

Wt. of container and dry soil W3

46.31

44.68

45.72

50.04

51.77

50.26

Wt. of moisture W4=W2-W3

13.08

13.10

1307

13.11

8.50

8.23

Wt. of dry soil W5=W3-W1

37.31

38.28

39.12

41.04

43.77

41.66

Moisture Content w = 100*W4/W5


%

35.32

34.21

33.40

31.93

19.42

19.75

Plasticity Index = 14.08

Average = 33.67

Type of Material

Soil

Proposed Use

Subgrade

Average = 19.59

Sample

Liquid Limit
Determination No.

Plastic Limit

No. of Blows

18

23

29

35

Container No.

10

11

12

Empty weight container W1

8.80

6.80

6.60

6.80

8.60

6.60

Wt. of container and wet soil W2

67.39

67.43

65.52

65.83

53.83

51.55

Wt. of container and dry soil W3

51.75

51.61

49.11

51.22

46.72

44.27

Wt. of moisture W4=W2-W3

15.64

15.82

16.41

14.61

01.11

7.18

Wt. of dry soil W5=W3-W1

42.95

44.81

42.51

44.42

38.12

37.77

Moisture Content w = 100*W4/W5


%

36.42

35.29

33.95

32.90

18.64

19.02

Plasticity Index = 15.92

Atterberg Limits (Continued):

Average = 33.75

Average = 18.83

Type of Material

Soil

Proposed Use

Subgrade

Sample

Liquid Limit
Determination No.

Plastic Limit

No. of Blows

17

22

28

36

Container No.

13

14

15

16

18

17

Empty weight container W1

34.15

35.36

34.21

33.73

34.73

35.78

Wt. of container and wet soil W2

65.80

63.11

57.58

64.55

41.38

43.67

Wt. of container and dry soil W3

56.63

55.31

51.00

53.39

40.16

42.13

Wt. of moisture W4=W2-W3

9.17

7.81

6.58

8.16

1.22

1.54

Wt. of dry soil W5=W3-W1

22.98

19.95

16.99

22.66

5.52

6.35

Moisture Content w = 100*W4/W5


%

40.82

39.13

37.54

36.06

22.13

24.26

Plasticity Index = 15.22

Average = 38.42

Type of Material

Soil

Proposed Use

Subgrade

Average = 23.20

Sample

Liquid Limit
Determination No.

Plastic Limit

No. of Blows

17

20

25

28

Container No.

18

21

22

24

10

14

Empty weight container W1

10.95

11.36

11.42

10.13

11.92

11.04

Wt. of container and wet soil W2

33.71

34.70

31.85

33.50

30.53

29.48

Wt. of container and dry soil W3

28.29

29.32

27.16

29.29

27.41

26.83

Wt. of moisture W4=W2-W3

5.42

5.38

11.69

5.11

3.12

2.65

Wt. of dry soil W5=W3-W1

17.34

17.96

15.74

18.26

15.49

15.79

Moisture Content w = 100*W4/W5


%

31.26

30.01

29.81

28.03

20.20

19.79

Plasticity Index = 9.77

6.3.3 Modified Proctor:

Average = 29.77

Average = 20.00

Type of Material
Proposed Use

Soil
Subgrade

Sample

wt. of Mould, W1 (g) :


2320

Mould No : 3
Trial No :

Volume of mould, V (cc) : 2250

II

III

IV

VI

180

300

420

540

600

720

Wt. of wet soil + mould, W2

10418

10624

11012

11198

11005

10733

Wt. of wet soil, W3=(W2-W1)

4098

4304

4692

4878

4685

4413

Wet density, Yb = W3/V

1.821

1.913

2.085

2.168

2.082

1.962

Wt. of container,W5

9.00

6.40

6.60

9.00

8.00

8.60

Wt. of wet soil + cont., W6

71.42

67.32

66.84

69.95

68.79

68.56

Wt. of dry soil + cont.,W7

68.63

64.20

62.18

64.30

61.89

61.14

2.79

3.12

4.66

5.65

6.90

7.72

59.63

57.80

55.58

55.30

53.89

52.54

4.68

5.40

8.39

10.21

12.80

14.69

1.740

1.815

1.924

1.967
1.846
OMC = 9.55%

1.710

Wt. of water

Container No.

Wt. of water, W8=(W6-W7)

(g)

Wt. of dry soil, W9=(W7-W5)


Water content w =W8/W9

(g)
%

Dry density Yd = 100x (Yb/100+w) (g/cc)


MDD = 1.970 gm/cc

Type of Material
Proposed Use

Soil
Subgrade

wt. of Mould, W1 (g) :


2320

Mould No : 3
Trial No

Sample

Volume of mould, V (cc) : 2250

II

III

IV

VI

180

300

420

540

660

780

Wt. of wet soil + mould, W2

10424

10743

11010

11192

10973

10807

Wt. of wet soil, W3=(W2-W1)

4104

4423

4690

4872

4653

9417

Wet density, Yb = W3/V

1.824

1.966

2.084

2.165

2.068

1.944

10

11

12

Wt. of container,W5

8.80

6.80

6.60

6.80

8.60

6.60

Wt. of wet soil + cont., W6

69.41

67.79

68.48

67.79

68.74

65.69

Wt. of dry soil + cont.,W7

66.62

64.04

64.17

62.03

62.11

58.15

2.79

3.75

4.31

5.76

6.63

7.54

57.82

57.24

57.57

55.23

53.51

51.55

4.82

6.55

7.49

10.42

12.38

14.62

1.740

1.845

1.939

1.961

1.840

1.740

Wt. of water

Container No.

Wt. of water, W8=(W6-W7)

(g)

Wt. of dry soil, W9=(W7-W5)


Water content w =W8/W9

(g)
%

Dry density Yd = 100x (Yb/100+w)

(g/cc)

Result from graph

MDD

1.981gm/cc

OMC

Modified Proctor (Continued):


Type of Material

Soil

Sample

9.20%

Proposed Use

Subgrade

Tested By
wt. of Mould, W1 (g) :
2320

Mould No : 3
Trial No :

Volume of mould, V (cc) : 2250

II

III

IV

VI

120

240

360

480

600

720

Wt. of wet soil + mould, W2

10393

10751

11045

11187

10940

10807

Wt. of wet soil, W3=(W2-W1)

4073

4431

4725

4867

4620

4487

Wet density, Yb = W3/V

1.810

1.969

2.100

2.163

2.053

1.994

15

16

17

18

19

20

Wt. of container,W5

6.40

6.80

6.40

6.60

8.80

8.40

Wt. of wet soil + cont., W6

67.45

66.39

67.15

68.27

69.89

70.22

Wt. of dry soil + cont.,W7

65.22

63.11

62.38

62.53

63.55

62.81

2.23

3.28

4.77

5.74

6.34

7.41

58.82

56.31

55.98

55.93

54.75

54.41

3.80

5.82

8.53

10.26

11.59

13.62

1.861
1.935
1.972gm/cc

1.962

Wt. of water

Container No.

Wt. of water, W8=(W6-W7)

(g)

Wt. of dry soil, W9=(W7-W5)


Water content w =W8/W9

(g)
%

Dry density Yd = 100x (Yb/100+w) (g/cc)


Result from graph

Type of Material
Proposed Use

1.744
MDD

Soil
Subgrade

Sample

wt. of Mould, W1 (g) :


2320

Mould No : 3
Trial No :

Wt. of water

180

1.840
1.755
OMC
9.45%

Volume of mould, V (cc) : 2250

II

III

IV

VI

300

420

540

660

780

Wt. of wet soil + mould, W2

10449

10916

10912

11181

10980

10758

Wt. of wet soil, W3=(W2-W1)

4129

4396

4592

4862

4660

4438

Wet density, Yb = W3/V

1.835

1.954

2.041

2.160

2.071

1.972

21

22

23

24

25

26

Wt. of container,W5

7.00

7.20

7.80

6.40

6.40

7.40

Wt. of wet soil + cont., W6

71.40

70.32

68.49

67.27

69.70

68.24

Wt. of dry soil + cont.,W7

68.79

66.65

64.15

61.54

62.33

60.49

2.61

3.67

4.34

5.73

7.37

7.75

61.79

59.45

56.35

55.14

55.93

53.09

4.22

6.18

7.70

10.39

13.18

14.60

1.840
1.895
MDD = 1.969gm/cc

1.957

Container No.

Wt. of water, W8=(W6-W7)

(g)

Wt. of dry soil, W9=(W7-W5)


Water content w =W8/W9

(g)
%

Dry density Yd = 100x (Yb/100+w) (g/cc)


Result from graph

6.3.4 CBR Value:

1.761

1.830
1.721
OMC = 9.45%

Sample 1
Penetration
mm

CBR Test for soil subgrade

Proving Ring Correction factor: 7.136

MDD=1.961 gm/cc

10 Blows

30 Blows

65 Blows

Mould No.4

Mould No.5

Mould No.6

Load

Load
2

Load
Reading

Kg/cm2

42.82

12

85.63

64.22

16

114.18

42.95

12

71.86

20

142.72

49.95

15

107.04

22

156.99

2.5

57.09

17

121.31

27

192.67

3.0

64.22

19

135.58

29

206.99

4.0

11

78.50

23

164.13

34

247.67

5.0

14

99.90

27

192.67

39

278.30

7.5

18

128.45

35

249.76

48

348.53

10.0

21

149.86

41

292.58

53

378.31

12.5

24

131.36

45

331.17

55

397.41

Reading

Kg/cm

Reading

Kg/cm

0.5

21.42

1.0

28.54

1.5

2.0

CBR CALCULATIONS
Mould No.

Blows

Corrected Unit Load

CBR (%)

Dry Density

2.5 mm

5.0 mm

2.5 mm

5.0 mm

10

59.00

95.00

4.31

4.62

1.765

30

122

192

8.91

9.34

1.860

65

192

278.5

14.01

13.55

1.980

Required Compaction at 97%, Hence, MDD @ 97% =

6.3.4 CBR Value (Continued):

Sample 2
Penetration
mm

CBR Test for soil subgrade

Proving Ring Correction factor: 7.136

MDD=1.976 gm/cc

10 Blows

30 Blows

65 Blows

Mould No.1

Mould No.2

Mould No.3

Load

Load
2

Load
Reading

Kg/cm2

42.82

11

78.50

64.22

14

99.90

42.82

13

92.77

18

128.45

49.95

16

114.18

21

149.86

2.5

57.09

19

135.58

25

178.40

3.0

10

71.36

21

149.86

27

192.67

4.0

11

78.50

24

171.26

30

214.08

5.0

13

92.77

27

192.68

33

235.49

7.5

15

107.04

32

228.35

35

249.36

10.0

17

121.31

35

249.76

37

264.03

12.5

19

135.58

37

264.03

39

298.30

Reading

Kg/cm

Reading

Kg/cm

0.5

21.41

1.0

28.54

1.5

2.0

CBR CALCULATIONS
Mould No.

Blows

Corrected Unit Load

CBR (%)

Dry Density

2.5 mm

5.0 mm

2.5 mm

5.0 mm

10

57.10

92.30

4.17

4.49

1.760

30

136

192

9.93

9.34

1.871

65

180

235.5

13.14

11.46

1.994

Required Compaction at 97%, Hence, MDD @ 97% =

6.4 Mix Design for Granular Sub Base (GSB)


6.4.1 Abstract
6.4.1.1 Abstract for Blend 1:
Serial
Number

Type of test

Result

Specification
limits

Remarks

Proportion

17:51:32

40mm:10mm:
Dust

Liquid Limit (%)

20.80

< 25 %

Plastic Limit (%)

Non Plastic

<6%

MDD (g/cc)

2.286

OMC (%)

5.90

CBR (%)

50.50

> 30 %

10% fines value


KN

130.75

> 50 KN

Water Absorption
(40 mm) (%)

1.23

< 2.0 %

Water Absorption
(10 mm) (%)

1.2

< 2.0 %

10

Water Absorption
(Dust) (%)

1.77

< 2.0 %

6.4.1.2 Abstract for Blend 2:


Serial
Number

Type of test

Result

Specification
limits

Remarks

Proportion

17:49:34

40mm:10mm:
Dust

Liquid Limit (%)

20.80

< 25 %

Plastic Limit (%)

Non Plastic

<6%

MDD (g/cc)

2.301

OMC (%)

5.60

CBR (%)

48.30

> 30 %

10% fines value


KN

130.75

> 50 KN

1.23

< 2.0 %

1.2

< 2.0 %

1.77

< 2.0 %

8
9
10

Water
Absorption
(40 mm) (%)
Water
Absorption
(10 mm) (%)
Water
Absorption
(Dust) (%)

6.4.1.3 Abstract for Blend 3:


Serial
Number

Type of test

Result

Specification
limits

Remarks

Proportion

15:51:34

40mm:10mm:
Dust

Liquid Limit (%)

20.80

< 25 %

Plastic Limit (%)

Non Plastic

<6%

MDD (g/cc)

2.306

OMC (%)

5.90

CBR (%)

47.00

> 30 %

10% fines value


KN

130.75

> 50 KN

Water Absorption
(40 mm) (%)

1.23

< 2.0 %

Water Absorption
(10 mm) (%)

1.2

< 2.0 %

10

Water Absorption
(Dust) (%)

1.77

< 2.0 %

6.4.2 Specific Gravity and Water Absorption:

6.4.2.1 For 40mm:


S.No:

Description

Sample-1

Sample-2

Sample-3

Weight of SSD aggregate in air (W1)

6600

6657

6678

Weight of SSD aggregate in water (W2)

3950

4300

4228

Weight of oven dried aggregate in air (W3)

6525

6575

6592

Mean

Bulk Specific Gravity =

2.46

2.79

2.69

Apparent Specific Gravity =

2.53

2.89

2.79

Water Absorption =

1.15

1.25

1.30

1.23

Mean

6.4.2.2 For 10mm:


S.No:

Description

Sample-1

Sample-2

Sample-3

Weight of SSD aggregate in air (W1)

6757

6755

6652

Weight of SSD aggregate in water (W2)

4369

4355

4228

Weight of oven dried aggregate in air (W3)

6675

6668

6582

Bulk Specific Gravity =

2.80

2.78

2.72

Apparent Specific Gravity =

2.89

2.88

2.80

Water Absorption =

1.23

1.30

1.06

6.4.2.3 For Dust:

1.20

S.No:

Description

Sample-1

Sample-2

Sample-3

Weight of Pycnometer (W1)

500

500

500

Weight of Pycnometer + Material (W2)

1120

1120

1125

Weight of Pycnometer + Material + Water


(W3)

1680

1680

1685

Weight of Pycnometer + Water (W4)

1280

1280

1280

Weight of SSD sample (W5)

630

633

632

Weight of oven dried sample (W6)

628

624

622

Specific Gravity

Mean

Water Absorption =

6.4.3 Individual Gradation


6.4.3.1 For Dust:
Trail 1:

IS Sieve Size
(mm)

Weight
Retained in
gms

Cumulative
weight
Retained (mm)

Cumulative %
retained

% Passing

75

100

53

100

26.5

100

9.5

100

4.5

100

2.36

40

40

1.74

98.26

0.475

900

940

40.87

59.13

0.075

1020

1960

85.22

24.78

Trail 2:

IS Sieve Size
(mm)

Weight
Retained in
gms

Cumulative
weight
Retained
(mm)

Cumulative %
retained

% Passing

75

100

53

100

26.5

100

9.5

100

4.75

100

2.36

33

33

1.17

98.83

0.475

1120

1153

40.74

59.26

0.075

1024

2393

84.56

15.44

Trail 3:

IS Sieve Size
(mm)

Weight
Retained in
gms

Cumulative
weight
Retained
(mm)

75

100

53

100

26.5

100

9.5

100

4.75

100

2.36

45

45

2.19

97.81

0.475

1041

1086

51.73

48.27

0.075

710

1096

85.52

14.48

Cumulative %
retained

% Passing

6.4.3.2 For 40mm Coarse Aggregate:


Trail 1:

Weight of Dry Material: 20000 gms


IS Sieve Size
(mm)

Weight
Retained in
gms

Cumulative
weight
Retained
(mm)

Cumulative %
retained

% Passing

75

100

53

460

460

2.30

97.70

26.5

19540

20000

100

9.5

20000

100

4.5

20000

100

2.36

20000

100

0.475

20000

100

0.075

20000

100

IS Sieve Size
(mm)

Weight
Retained in
gms

Cumulative
weight
Retained
(mm)

Cumulative %
retained

% Passing

75

100

53

850

850

4.25

95.75

26.5

19150

20000

100

9.5

20000

100

4.75

20000

100

2.36

20000

100

0.475

20000

100

0.075

20000

100

Trail 2:

Weight of Dry Material: 20000 gms

Trail 3:

Weight of Dry Material: 20000 gms

IS Sieve Size
(mm)

Weight
Retained in
gms

Cumulative
weight
Retained
(mm)

75

100

53

450

450

2.25

97.75

26.5

19550

20000

100

9.5

20000

100

4.75

20000

100

2.36

20000

100

0.475

20000

100

0.075

20000

100

IS Sieve Size
(mm)

Weight
Retained in
gms

Cumulative
weight
Retained
(mm)

Cumulative %
retained

% Passing

75

53

26.5

9.5

6160

6160

62

38.00

4.5

3510

9670

97

3.000

2.36

280

9950

99.50

0.50

0.475

50

10000

100

0.075

10000

100

Cumulative %
retained

% Passing

6.4.3.3 For 10mm Coarse Aggregate:


Trail 1:

Weight of Dry Material: 10000 gms

Trail 2:

Weight of Dry Material: 10000 gms

IS Sieve Size
(mm)

Weight
Retained in
gms

Cumulative
weight
Retained
(mm)

Cumulative
% retained

% Passing

75

100

53

100

26.5

100

9.5

3890

3890

71

29.27

4.75

1510

5400

98

2.00

2.36

89

5489

99.80

0.20

0.475

11

5500

100

0.075

5500

100

Trail 3:

Weight of Dry Material: 10000 gms

IS Sieve Size
(mm)

Weight
Retained in
gms

Cumulative
weight
Retained
(mm)

75

100

53

100

26.5

100

9.5

4070

4070

74

26

4.75

1390

5460

99.29

0.71

2.36

40

5500

100

0.475

5500

100

0.075

5500

100

Cumulative %
retained

% Passing

6.4.3.4 Summary of Individual Aggregate Gradation for Granular Sub Base:

40 mm% of passing

10mm % of passing

Dust % of passing

IS Sieve
Size (mm)

Trail 1

Trail 2

Trail 3

Avg

Trail 1

Trail 2

Trail 3

Avg

Trail 1

Trail 2

Trail3

Avg

75

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

53

98

96

98

97

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

26.5

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

9.5

38

29.27

26.00

31

100

100

100

100

4.75

1.82

0.73

100

100

100

100

2.36

0.20

98.26

98.83

97.81

98.30

0.475

59.13

59.26

48.29

55.56

0.075

14.78

15.44

14.48

14.90

71

Individual Gradation

Blending percentage

IS Sieve
Size
40 mm

10 mm

Dust

Morth Limits

40
mm

10 mm

Dust

17%

51%

32%

Design
Gradation

Lower
limit

Upper
limit

75

100

100

100

17

51

32

100

100

100

53

97.07

100

100

16.50

51

32

99.50

80

100

26.5

100

100

51

32

83.00

55

90

9.5

31.22

100

16

32

47.92

35

65

4.75

1.95

100

0.99

32

32.99

25

55

2.36

98.30

31.46

31.58

20

40

0.425

55.56

17.76

17.78

10

25

0.075

14.90

4.77

4.77

10

6.4.4 Blending Proportions: 6.4.4.1 Blend 1:

Sieve Analysis:
Sample 1:
Weight of Sample = 30000 gms

IS Sieve Size

Weight
Retained
(gm)

Cumulative
Weight
Retained
(gm)

Cumulative
% Retained

% Passing

Lower limit

Upper limit

75

100

100

100

53

420

420

1.40

98.60

80

100

26.5

4260

4680

15.60

84.40

55

90

9.5

9910

14590

48.63

51.37

35

65

4.75

4890

19480

64.93

35.05

25

55

72

2.36

610

20090

66.97

33.0

20

40

0.425

4790

24880

82.93

17.07

10

25

0.075

3000

27880

92.93

7.07

10

Sample 2:
Weight of Sample = 30000 gms

IS Sieve
Size

Weight
Retained
(gm)

Cumulative
Weight
Retained
(gm)

Cumulative
% Retained

% Passing

Lower limit

Upper limit

75

100

100

100

53

564

564

1.88

98.12

80

100

26.5

5280

5844

19.48

80.52

55

90

9.5

8146

19992

46.64

53.36

35

65

4.75

6262

20274

67.58

32.42

25

55

2.36

690

20964

69.88

30.12

20

40

0.425

3831

24795

82.65

17.35

10

25

0.075

3630

28425

94.75

5.25

10

Sample 3:
Weight of Sample = 27000 gms

IS Sieve Size

Weight
Retained
(gm)

Cumulative
Weight
Retained
(gm)

Cumulative
% Retained

% Passing

Lower limit

Upper limit

75

100

100

100

53

410

410

1.52

98.48

80

100

26.5

4030

4440

16.4

83.56

55

90

9.5

9605

14045

52.0

48.0

35

65

4.75

3850

17895

66.3

33.70

25

55

73

2.36

585

18480

68.04

31.56

20

40

0.425

4355

22835

84.6

15.43

10

25

0.075

1950

24785

91.8

8.20

10

IS
Sieve
Size

Individual Gradation

40 mm

10 mm

Blending percentage

Dust

Morth Limits
Design
Gradation

40
mm

10
mm

Dust

17%

40%

34%

Lower
limit

Upper
Limit

75

100

100

100

17

40

34

100

100

100

53

91.17

100

100

15.50

40

34

99.50

80

100

26.5

100

100

40

34

83.00

55

90

9.5

91.32

100

15.30

34

49.30

35

65

4.75

1.96

100

4.95

34

34.95

25

55

2.36

96.30

33.42

33.54

20

40

0.425

53.56

18.05

18.89

10

25

0.075

14.37

5.07

5.07

10

6.4.4.2 Blend 2:

Sieve Analysis:
Sample 1:
Weight of Sample = 30000 gms

IS Sieve
Size

Weight
Retained
(gm)

Cumulative
Weight
Retained
(gm)

Cumulative
% Retained

% Passing

Lower limit

Upper limit

75

100

100

100

53

750

750

2.50

97.50

80

100

26.5

4230

4980

16.60

83.40

55

90

9.5

9372

14352

47.84

52.16

35

65

4.75

5199

19551

65.17

34.83

25

55

2.36

795

20346

67.82

32.18

20

40

0.425

4191

24537

81.79

18.21

10

25

0.075

3588

28125

93.75

6.25

10

74

Sample 2:
Weight of Sample = 30000 gms

IS Sieve
Size

Weight
Retained
(gm)

Cumulative
Weight
Retained
(gm)

Cumulative
% Retained

% Passing

Lower limit

Upper limit

75

100

100

100

53

750

750

2.50

97.50

80

100

26.5

4230

4980

16.60

83.40

55

90

9.5

9372

14352

47.84

52.16

35

65

4.75

5199

19551

65.17

34.83

25

55

2.36

795

20346

67.82

32.18

20

40

0.425

4191

24537

81.79

18.21

10

25

0.075

3588

28125

93.75

6.25

10

Sample 3:
Weight of Sample = 30000 gms

IS Sieve
Size

Weight
Retained
(gm)

Cumulative
Weight
Retained
(gm)

Cumulative
% Retained

% Passing

Lower limit

Upper limit

75

100

100

100

53

750

750

2.50

97.50

80

100

26.5

4230

4980

16.60

83.40

55

90

9.5

9372

14352

47.84

52.16

35

65

4.75

5199

19551

65.17

34.83

25

55

2.36

795

20346

67.82

32.18

20

40

0.425

4191

24537

81.79

18.21

10

25

0.075

3588

28125

93.75

6.25

10

75

IS
Sieve
Size

Individual Gradation

40 mm

10 mm

Blending percentage

Dust

Morth Limits

40
mm

10 mm

Dust

15%

51%

34%

Design
Gradation
Lower
limit

Upper
limit

75

100

100

100

15.00

51.00

34.00

100

100

100

53

97.07

100

100

14.56

51.00

34.00

99.56

80

100

26.5

100

100

51.00

34.00

85.00

55

90

9.5

31.22

100

15.92

34.00

49.92

35

65

4.75

1.95

100

0.99

34.00

34.99

25

55

2.36

98.30

0.12

33.42

33.54

20

40

0.425

55.56

0.00

18.89

18.89

10

25

0.075y

14.90

0.00

5.07

5.07

10

6.4.4.3 Blend 3:

Sieve Analysis:
Sample 1:
Weight of Sample = 35000 gms

IS Sieve
Size

Weight
Retained
(gm)

Cumulative
Weight
Retained
(gm)

Cumulative
% Retained

% Passing

Lower limit

Upper limit

75

100

100

100

53

1284

1284

4.28

95.72

80

100

26.5

4266

5550

18.50

81.50

55

90

9.5

8505

14055

46.85

53.15

35

65

4.75

5067

19122

63.76

36.24

25

55

2.36

2094

21216

70.72

29.28

20

40

0.425

2739

23955

79.85

20.15

10

25

0.075

4320

28275

94.25

5.75

10

76

Sample 2:
Weight of Sample = 25000 gms

IS Sieve
Size

Weight
Retained
(gm)

Cumulative
Weight
Retained
(gm)

Cumulative
% Retained

% Passing

Lower limit

Upper limit

75

100

100

100

53

1095

1095

3.65

96.35

80

100

26.5

3540

4635

15.45

84.55

55

90

9.5

8970

13605

45.35

54.65

35

65

4.75

6417

20022

66.74

33.26

25

55

2.36

633

20655

68.85

31.15

20

40

0.425

3582

24237

80.79

19.21

10

25

0.075

3627

27864

92.88

7.12

10

Sample 3:
Weight of Sample = 33000 gms

IS Sieve
Size

Weight
Retained
(gm)

Cumulative
Weight
Retained
(gm)

Cumulative
% Retained

% Passing

Lower limit

Upper limit

75

100

100

100

53

1425

1425

4.75

95.25

80

100

26.5

3927

5352

17.84

82.16

55

90

9.5

9543

14895

49.65

50.35

35

65

4.75

4431

19326

64.42

35.58

25

55

2.36

606

19932

66.44

33.56

20

40

0.425

3912

23844

79.48

20.52

10

25

0.075

4461

28305

94.35

5.65

10

77

6.5 Mix-Design for Wet Mix Macadam


6.5.1 Gradation
6.5.1.1 Sample 1:
Proportion of Mix
(%)

40 mm=33%

20 mm=16%

10 mm=18%

Dust=33%

I.S. Sieve (mm)

Weight
Retained (gm)

Cumulative
Wt. Retained

% Retained

% Passing

Specified
Limits as per
MoRTH
Table.400-11

53

100

100

45

100

95-100

22.4

5690

5690

29.90

70.10

60-80

11.2

3339

9029

47.45

52.55

40-60

4.75

3440

12469

65.52

34.48

25-40

2.36

1003

13472

70.79

29.21

15-30

0.600

1848

15320

80.50

19.50

08-22

0.075

3199

18519

97.31

2.69

0-8

Pan

511

6.5.1.2 Sample 2:
Proportion of Mix
(%)

40 mm=33%

20 mm=16%

10 mm=18%

Dust=33%

I.S. Sieve (mm)

Weight
Retained (gm)

Cumulative
Wt. Retained

% Retained

% Passing

Specified
Limits as per
MoRTH
Table.400-11

53

100

100

45

100

95-100

22.4

5666

5666

29.85

70.15

60-80

11.2

3729

9395

49.50

50.50

40-60

4.75

3232

12627

66.53

33.47

25-40

2.36

1323

13950

73.50

26.50

15-30

0.600

2525

16475

86.80

13.20

08-22

0.075

1651

18126

95.50

95.50

0-8

Pan

854

78

6.5.1.3 Sample 3:
Proportion of Mix
(%)

40 mm=32%

20 mm=16%

10 mm=19%

Dust=33%

I.S. Sieve (mm)

Weight
Retained (gm)

Cumulative
Wt. Retained

% Retained

% Passing

Specified
Limits as per
MoRTH
Table.400-11

53

100

100

45

100

95-100

22.4

5968

5968

29.33

70.67

60-80

11.2

4309

10276

50.50

49.50

40-60

4.75

3236

13512

66.40

33.60

25-40

2.36

1455

14967

73.55

26.45

15-30

0.600

2412

17379

85.40

14.60

08-22

0.075

2360

19740

97.00

3.00

0-8

Pan

610

12

79

6.5.2 Flakiness Index & Elongation Index:


Sieve Size (mm)
Total Wt. of agg.
ret. on sieves
[A] (gm)

Wt. of agg.
passing from
thickness gauge
[B] (gm)

Wt. of agg.
retained on
thickness
gauge [C]
(gm)

Wt. of agg.
ret. on length
gauge after
ret. on
thickness
gauge
[D] (gm)

Passin
g

Retained

50.0

40.0

40.0

31.5

3368

410

2958

31.5

25.0

2592

380

2212

500
-

25.0

20.0

2290

260

2030

700

20.0

16.0

1925

140

1785

350

16.0

12.5

1641

125

1516

320

12.5

10.0

1038

98

940

190

10.0

6.3

1079

64

1015

47

13933

1477

12456

2107

Wt. of agg.
ret. on length
gauge after
ret. on
thickness
gauge
[D] (gm)

Total

RESULTS :
Flakiness Index = B/A X 100 (%)
Elongation Index = D/C X 100 (%)
Combined FI and EI (%)
Sieve Size (mm)

10.60
16.92
27.52

Total Wt. of agg.


ret. on sieves
[A] (gm)

Wt. of agg.
passing from
thickness gauge
[B] (gm)

Wt. of agg.
retained on
thickness
gauge [C]
(gm)

Passin
g

Retained

63.0

50.0

50.0

40.0

40.0

25.0

2989

388

2601

200

25.0

20.0

2103

189

1914

258

20.0

16.0

1304

137

1167

241

16.0

12.5

998

144

854

188

12.5

10.0

502

88

414

122

10.0

6.3

Total

302

68

234

80

8198

1014

7184

1089

RESULTS :
Flakiness Index = B/A X 100 (%)
Elongation Index = D/C X 100 (%)
Combined FI and EI (%)

12.37
15.16
27.53

6.5.2 Flakiness Index & Elongation Index (Continued):

Total Wt. of agg.


ret. on sieves
[A] (gm)

Wt. of agg.
passing from
thickness gauge
[B] (gm)

Wt. of agg.
retained on
thickness
gauge [C]
(gm)

Wt. of agg.
ret. on length
gauge after
ret. on
thickness
gauge
[D] (gm)

2217
1850
632
465
642
956
6762

252
110
105
98
122
133
820

1965
1740
527
367
520
823
5942

105
247
102
82
87
147
770

Sieve Size (mm)

Passing

Retained

63.0
50.0
40.0
25.0
20.0
16.0
12.5
10.0
Total

50.0
40.0
25.0
20.0
16.0
12.5
10.0
6.3

RESULTS :
Flakiness Index = B/A X 100 (%)
Elongation Index = D/C X 100 (%)
Combined FI and EI (%)

12.13
12.96
25.09

Total Wt. of agg.


ret. on sieves
[A] (gm)

Wt. of agg.
passing from
thickness gauge
[B] (gm)

Wt. of agg.
retained on
thickness
gauge [C]
(gm)

Wt. of agg.
ret. on length
gauge after
ret. on
thickness
gauge
[D] (gm)

3300
2590
2300
1907
1622
1020
1024
13763

380
380
260
125
125
88
64
1422

2920
2210
2040
1782
1497
932
960
12341

450
650
350
320
190
47
2007

RESULTS :
Flakiness Index = B/A X 100 (%)
Elongation Index = D/C X 100 (%)
Combined FI and EI (%)

10.33
16.26
26.59

Sieve Size (mm)

Passing Retained

50.0
40.0
31.5
25.0
20.0
16.0
12.5
10.0
Total

40.0
31.5
25.0
20.0
16.0
12.5
10.0
6.3

6.5.3 Aggregate Impact Value:


Sample 1:
Description

Trial No. 1

Trial No. 2

Trial No. 3

Weight of surface dry sample passing


12.5 mm and retained on 10 mm IS
sieves, W1 (gms)

343.90

350.08

347.85

Weight of fraction passing 2.36 mm IS


sieve, after the test, W2 (gms)

47.21

44.60

43.90

Weight of fraction retained on 2.36 mm


IS sieve after the test, W3 (gms)

296.69

305.48

303.95

A.I.V. = (W2 / W1)X100

13.73

12.74

12.62

Average value of A.I.V. (%)

13.03

Sample 2:
Description

Trial No. 1

Trial No. 2

Trial No. 3

Weight of surface dry sample passing 12.5


mm and retained on 10 mm IS sieves, W1
(gms)

342.60

352.00

346.90

Weight of fraction passing 2.36 mm IS


sieve, after the test, W2 (gms)

41.45

47.50

45.44

Weight of fraction retained on 2.36 mm IS


sieve after the test, W3 (gms)

301.15

304.50

301.46

A.I.V. = (W2 / W1)X100

12.10

13.50

13.10

Average value of A.I.V. (%)

12.90

Sample 3:
Description

Trial No. 1

Trial No. 2

Trial No. 3

Weight of Aggregate, W1 (gms)

342.60

352.00

346.90

Weight of fraction passing 2.36 mm IS


sieve, after the test, W2 (gms)

41.45

47.50

45.44

Weight of fraction retained on 2.36 mm IS


sieve after the test, W3 (gms)

301.15

304.50

301.46

A.I.V. = (W2 / W1)X100

12.96

13.50

13.10

Average value of A.I.V. (%)

13.19

6.5.4 Wet Mix Macadam Abstract


Mix Proportions : 40mm-33% 20mm- 16% 10mm -18% DUST -33%
S.No

Properties

Trial

Standards
1

Average
Result

Within the specified envelope

Acceptance
Criteria As per
MoRTH
As per MoRTH
table 400-11

Gradation

MDD (gm/cc)

IS:2720 (PartVIII)

2.327

2.327

2.327

OMC (%)

IS:2720 (PartVIII)

5.4

5.4

5.4

Liquid Limit

IS:2720 (Part-V)

22.2

22

22.1

Less Than 25%

Plastic Index

IS:2720 (Part-V)

NON-Plastic

Less Than 6%

Flakiness &
Elongation Indices
(%)

IS:2386 (Part-I)

26.59

27.52

27.1

Max .30%

AIV (%)

IS:2386 (Part-IV)

12.9

13.03

13.0

Max .30%

40mm=0.95
8

Water Absorption
(%)

IS:2386 (Part-III)

20 mm =1.0
10mm=1.18
84

Max .2%

6.5.5 Wet Mix Mecadam Design Summary


I.S. Sieve
(mm)
53.00
45.00
22.40
11.20
4.75
2.36
0.600
0.075
Blending
Proportion
I.S. Sieve
(mm)
53.00
45.00
22.40
11.20
4.75
2.36
0.600
0.075

40mm

20mm

10mm

Dust

100.00
100.00
6.50
0.11
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00

100.00
100.00
94.93
0.51
0.15
0.00
0.00
0.00

100.00
100.00
100.00
84.07
0.73
0.37
0.08
0.20

100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
98.35
85.85
47.08
14.34

32.0%

16%

19%

33.0%

40 mm

20 mm

10mm

Dust

32.00
32.00
2.08
0.04
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00

16.00
16.00
15.19
0.08
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00

19.00
19.00
19.00
15.97
0.14
0.07
0.02
0.04

33.00
33.00
33.00
33.00
32.46
28.33
15.54
4.73

85

100%
Blending
results
100.00
100.00
69.27
49.09
32.59
28.40
15.55
4.77

Median
100.0
97.5
70.0
50.0
35.0
22.5
15.0
4.0

Specification
limits
100
95-100
60-80
40-60
25-45
15-30
8-22
0-8

6.5.6 Laying of Wet Mix Macadam:


Wet mix macadam base shall consist of laying and compacting clean, crushed graded
aggregate and granular material, premixed with water to a dense mass on prepared sub base in
accordance with the specifications.
Coarse aggregate proposed to be used in WMM are obtained by crushing the rocks,
obtained from approved quarries. Before removing the rock, the quarry area is stripped of
earth loam, clay and vegetable matter.
Independent tests will be carried out on this material as follows:

Sieve analysis.

Los Angeles abrasion.

Aggregate impact value.

Combined flakiness & elongation indices.

Blending (Mix Design).

Modified proctor density.

Liquid limit & plasticity index of portion through 425 micron sieve.

Mixing: Proposed base material will be obtained by mixing various sizes of aggregates
(as per approved mix design) & water in the wet mix macadam plant. The Wet mix macadam
plant consists of 4 chambers, which can carry 40mm, 20mm, 10mm and dust. The mixing is
done according to the design proportions. Each chamber releases required amount of material
so that the exact mix design is obtained. WMM material will be carried to the site in dumpers
of adequate capacity.

86

Laying and compaction: WMM material will be laid in layers on prepared sub base
using mechanical pavers or motor grader to maintain required thickness and slope and to
achieve finished surface in narrow areas, WMM will be spread manually, in layers.

Figure 6.1: At the WMM mixing plant.


Each layer will be compacted with 10 T Vibro Roller, to achieve required degree of
compaction i.e. 98% of modified density. The areas not accessible to roller will be compacted
with plate compactor or mini rollers. Top surface will be checked for its designed levels,
before & after compaction & material will be removed or added as required. Segregated
material will not be allowed to be placed. The tolerance on levels shall not exceed 12 mm and
deviation from 3000mm straight edge shall not exceed 10mm. After final compaction, surface
will be checked for its finish and top levels. Any segregated material like only coarse or only
fine will be removed and the pocket will be filled with premixed material. While checking the
top surface levels it may be necessary to remove excess material or to add material.

87

Chapter-7

Substitute for Bitumen layer- Foamed Bitumen


7.1 Introduction
The topics described so far in this project report are related to the different pavement
layers like Embankment, Soil Subgrade, Granular Sub-base and Wet Mix Macadam. The next
layer for this flexible pavement is Dense Bitumen Macadam (DBM). As on date (of
submission of this report), the construction of DBM layer has not yet started for this approach
road. We had made a lot of research for an alternate, cost-effective and more durable material
to replace the regular Bitumen layer. This material is nothing but, the Foamed Bitumen. This
part of the report is purely an innovative idea and is nowhere used in the present road
construction by Gammon. The Foamed Bitumen Technology is not completely introduced in
India. The proceeding part will explain the concept behind this idea.
As per the present trend, an engineer will look forward for the process that may allow
him to save bitumen, lay strong and durable roads at a lesser cost, re-use the aggregate
scrapped off the worn out road, open the road built by him to traffic immediately on its laying
and continue laying of a road even if a sudden downpour begins! This certainly seems to be a
figment of imagination, a far-fetched idea but has become possible with the advent of a new
technique: foamed bitumen.
Many countries around the world, including Australia, Brazil, Canada, Finland,
Mexico, Norway, South Africa, UK and the USA, are trying the technique in an enthusiastic
manner and the results are encouraging. Foamed bitumen has been successfully used in new
road construction, in strengthening of existing roads, as a base course material and to correct
the subsidence caused in roads due to heavy traffic. Its area of application may further widen
as it is showing full stability even under extreme climatic conditions with successful use in
countries like Saudi Arabia, Iran, Nigeria and South Africa. Next is the turn of India and
whole of Asia.

7.2 Foamed bitumen stabilization:


Foamed bitumen stabilisation is a road construction technique whereby hot bitumen is
used to bind the existing or imported granular material to produce a flexible pavement

material for use in base and sub-base pavement layers, and in particular for road
rehabilitation.
Foam bitumen is a mixture of hot bitumen, water and air. It is produced when cold
water is added to the hot bitumen thus raising a lot of foam. As the bitumen is hot, water
coming in contact with it evaporates causing foaming of bitumen along with. The quantity of
water added is only 2 to 3% of weight of bitumen. The bitumen expands up to 15 to 20 times
its original volume, its extent depending upon the quantity of water added and the temperature
of hot bitumen. In this foamed state, the bitumen has a very large surface area and an
extremely low viscosity. This enables a much less quantity of foamed bitumen to coat the aggregate. The
water is added by the method of injection by use of a specially designed spray-bar and under
controlled conditions. The foamed bitumen is then mixed with the cold and moist aggregate to
produce the ready-mix for laying on roads.

7.3 Recycled Aggregate:


The aggregate used for mixing with foamed bitumen may be the worn out material
milled off the already laid road. In the conventional road building process, this aggregate is
removed and disposed off and new aggregate is used. But while using foamed bitumen, this
aggregate can be put to reuse as there is no reduction in strength or durability of roads on this
account. Thus a lot of saving on account of cost of aggregate can be made. It is however to be
checked that the milled aggregate is well graded. Its sieve analysis may be done to check the
fine material content in it. In foamed bitumen technology, availability of fine material in
aggregate carries importance. Therefore, if required, crushed stone may be needed to be added
to the aggregate at its optimum moisture content. This fine material in fact gets mixed with
foamed bitumen to form a mortar which coats and binds the coarse aggregates.

7.4 Technology involved:


The recycled aggregate acts as the base material for the relaying of roads and the
foamed bitumen acts as the binding material for this aggregate. For the successful production
of foamed bitumen, the most important step is to control the physical conditions of
temperature and pressure. With regard to this, the two important characteristics of foamed
bitumen to be controlled to produce quality material are its expansion and half-life.
Expansion of foamed bitumen is the ratio of new volume to the original volume of
bitumen. As already stated, it ranges from 15 to 20. It means the new volume has to be 15 to
20 times the original volume. Half-life is the time in which foamed bitumen loses 50% of its

expansion. Generally half-life is of about 10-12 seconds; in other words, half of bitumens
expansion is lost in 20 to 25 seconds. Clearly, the best foamed bitumen will be the one with
more expansion and more half-life. The temperature of bitumen, the amount of water added to
the bitumen and the pressure under which the bitumen is injected into the expansion chamber,
all control these two characteristics of foamed bitumen.

Figure 7.1: Compaction of Foamed Bitumen layer.


A highly interesting aspect of foamed bitumen road construction is that the mix of
aggregate and foamed bitumen need not be heated in a hot mix plant but can be laid in a cold
condition itself. Not only this, if the produced mix is not laid by the closure of a working day,
it can continue to lie on the roadside and be laid in position the next day. The mixed material
can even be stockpiled on the roadside and will remain soft till the time it is laid and
compacted. After compaction, the road can immediately be opened to traffic. Thus, the roadclosing hours with road work in progress sign boards which trouble road-users are reduced
to the minimum when foamed bitumen is used. Traffic disruptions are therefore, much less.
And what comes as a big relief to a road- builder is that the laying of foamed bitumen mix can
be continued even if it starts raining. Moreover, the cold process helps in lesser consumption
of fuel, thus bringing in savings.
After the laying the road with foamed bitumen, it is sealed with a thin layer of asphalt.
The result is a high-grade stabilised pavement.

7.5 Spraying technology:


To ensure that the foamed bitumen gets homogeneously distributed in the material to
be recycled, the machines carry high quality spray bars with 16 nozzles for spraying foamed
bitumen over full working width. The spray bars can be controlled by the operator with
respect to the road width under consideration for spraying. The foamed bitumens properties
of Expansion and Half-life can be checked and corrected by taking foam samples from an
external test nozzle provided in the machines and then comparing their parameters with
desired results.

Figure 7.2: Laying of Foamed Bitumen.

7.6 Foamed Bitumen Classification:


The table below shows the classification of Foamed Bitumen based on the Unconfined
Compressive Strength (UTS) and Indirect Tensile Strength (ITS):

Classification

UCS, after 3 days of


accelerated air-dried (kPa)

FB1

1400-2000

ITS, after 3 days of


accelerated air-dried
(kPa)
300-500

FB2

1400-2000

100-300

FB3

700-1400

300-500

Material

FB4

700-1400
100-300
Table 7.1: Classification of Foamed Bitumen.

7.7 Advantages of Foamed Bitumen:


The following advantages of foamed bitumen roads over those with cement or
bitumen emulsion as binding agents can be listed:

Earlier laid aggregate gets reused without compromise on strength or quality. This is a

big advantage. Wastage as well as disposal problems are avoided.


Standard penetration grade bitumen is used. So there is no problem on account of non-

availability of bitumen or any special quality or grade of bitumen is required.


Very small quantities of foamed bitumen as binder are required. Thus the process is

highly cost effective.


Foamed bitumen can be produced directly in the recycler. Additional machinery is thus

avoided.
The foamed bitumen treated material can even be stored.
The work can proceed even on rain-wet roads.
Lower moisture contents are required in comparison to bitumen emulsion stabilisation

and hence wet spots are minimised.


After construction, the pavement can tolerate heavy rainfall with only minor surface

damage under traffic, and hence is less susceptible to the effects of weather than other

methods of stabilisation.
It can be carried out insitu and hence is quicker than other methods of rehabilitation.
The foamed binder increases the shear strength and reduces the moisture susceptibility
of granular materials. The strength characteristics of foamed asphalt approach those of

cemented materials, but foamed asphalt is flexible and fatigue resistant.


Foam treatment can be used with a wider range of aggregate types than other cold mix

processes.
Reduced binder and transportation costs, as foamed asphalt requires less binder and

water than other types of cold mixing.


Saving in time, because foamed asphalt can be compacted immediately and can carry

traffic almost immediately after compaction is completed.


Energy conservation, because only the bitumen needs to be heated while the

aggregates are mixed in while cold and damp (no need for drying).
Environmental side-effects resulting from the evaporation of volatiles from the mix
are avoided since curing does not result in the release of volatiles.

7.8 Projects accomplished:

Some of the projects accomplished around the world using Cold recyclers and foamed
bitumen are tabulated below:
Sr. Country
1. Saudi
Arabia

Job
Heavy traffic

Machinery Used
1.
Wirtgen Cold

desert road of 380


km length

Recyclers WR 2500
2.

2. USA

4.
Rehabilitation of 1.
canal road network

3. Iran

Vibratory Rollers

and 2% cement slurry


were used as binders to do

Pneumatic Tire rollers. 35000 sq. m area daily.


Wirtgen Cold
1.5% Cement and 3%
Recyclers WR 2500

2.

was finished in 180 days

Mobile slurry mixing only. 5% foamed bitumen


Plants WM 400

3.

Remarks
Total length of 380 km

Vibratory Rollers

foamed bitumen were


used as binders.

3.
Pneumatic Tire rollers
Rehabilitation of 1. Wirtgen Cold Recyclers
3.5% foamed bitumen and
Motorway

WR 25002.

1.0% cement slurry were

2. Cement Slurry Mixing Plant used.2.Total area of 8 lac


WM 10003.
sq. m was laid.
3. Vibratory Rollers
4. Pneumatic Tire rollers
Table 7.2: Projects accomplished by using Foamed Bitumen.

7.9 Case Studies:

Using the Wirtgen Cold Recycler WR 2500 with mobile slurry mixing plant WM 400,
a heavy traffic desert road of 380 km length was finished in Saudi Arabia in just six
months. Five per cent foamed bitumen and two per cent cement slurry were used as
binders to cover a 35,000-sq. m area every day. Vibratory rollers and pneumatic tire

rollers were used for compaction.


In the US, the same Wirtgen cold recycler, the WR 2500, was used for rehabilitation of
canal road network. The compaction machinery was the same as the one which
accompanied the recycler in Saudi Arabia. Here, 1.5 per cent cement and three per

cent foamed bitumen acted as binders.


Rehabilitation of a motorway was done in Iran using 3.5 per cent foamed bitumen and
1 per cent cement slurry as binders and using Wirtgen Cold Recycler WR 2500,
cement slurry mixing plant WM 1000 for mixing of slurry and vibratory rollers and

pneumatic tire rollers as compactors. Here, a total area of 8 lakh sq. m was laid

through this process.


In the US again, the road leading to the Hollywood emblem on the slopes of Mount
Lee had become brittle due to repeated use in carrying supply and security vehicles. A
cold recycling machine was considered the most suitable equipment for its repair at a
minimum cost. A Wirtgen cold recycler type WR 2500 was used to recycle its upper
layer to a depth of 150 mm. The milled material of gravel and asphalt was
homogeneously mixed with 3 per cent of foamed bitumen as the binding agent.
Equipped with a powerful 610 HP engine, the WR 2500 had no problem pushing the
bitumen tanker truck uphill through the serpentine bends. Compaction of the recycled
pavement posed a great difficulty on the steep hillside, though. Therefore, a single
drum compactor closely followed the cold recycling machine. A single-drum
compactor 3412 and a double vibratory roller HD 120 worked immediately behind the
WR 2500. A pneumatic tyred roller was also deployed to complete the operation by
sealing the new surface. A road length of 2.3km with working width between 5 to 8

metres was successfully completed.


Australia had run their first foamed bitumen trail for a road of 1.6km of length in

Gladfield, Queensland during the year 1997.


Foamed bitumen was used in the Rainbow Beach Road construction in Gympie,
Queensland. Mix designs of 3, 4, 5% foamed bitumen with 2% lime is used for this

purpose.
The Cunningham Highway, situated to the east of Inglewood, Queensland was

constructed by using 4% foamed bitumen with 1.5% quicklime.


Other successfully completed projects include the Jingshen Expressway project in
China, a motorway in Italy, the second longest highway of USA in California, the Zion
Canyon Drive near Arizona, and many more. These projects have been economical
and revealed wonderful re-use of laid material.

Chapter-8

Conclusions

Flexible pavements can be constructed and maintained quickly hence reduces

congestion.
These pavements are generally dark in colour which offer significant reduction in road
surface glare and assist in making line markings stand out in contrast to the road.

These pavements are durable, safe and long lasting compared to rigid pavements.
These pavements are fully recyclable.
Flexible pavements provide smooth, safe surfaces and minimize fuel consumption.
They can be easily opened and patched.
Foamed bitumen cold mixes are gaining in popularity owing to their good
performance, ease of construction and compatibility with a wide range of aggregate
types. As with all bituminous mixes, it is essential to have a proper mix design
procedure for foamed asphalt mixes in order to optimize the usage of available
materials and to optimize mix properties. Fortunately, for foamed asphalt mixes, the
mix design can be accomplished by relatively simple test procedures and by adhering

to certain restrictions with respect to the materials used.


Rehabilitation using foamed bitumen has proved to be successful because of its ease
and speed of construction, its compatibility with a wide range of aggregate types and
its relative immunity to the effects of weather. There are now well developed
procedures for the design of foamed bitumen stabilisation which should be followed.

Foamed bitumen has the potential to be used throughout.


Foamed asphalt base stabilization produces a stronger, longer-lasting pavement at a
fraction of the cost and time than would be required for conventional reconstruction.
Foamed asphalt is a viable, cost-effective, and environmentally sensitive method to
rehabilitate a roadway or street which has significantly deteriorated from wear, or
which was not originally constructed with a proper structural section.

References

S.K. Khanna & C.E.G. Justo (2001) Highway Engineering 8th edition, New Chand

& Bros publication.


S.K. Khanna & C.E.G. Justo (2002) Highway Material Testing 4th edition, New

Chand & Bros publication.


Martin Rogers (2003) Highway Engineering Blackwell publishing Ltd.
Foamed Asphalt base stabilization, By Don Raffaelli, Technology Transfer Program

Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California Berkeley.


Ministry of Surface transport (MOST), section 400 (Sub-base preparation).

Ministry of Surface transport (MOST), section 900 (Quality control).


Ministry of Surface transport (MOST), section 2400 (Surface & sub surface
exploration).
Ministry of Surface transport (MOST), section 3000 (Maintenance of roads).
http://www.greenmixinc.com/pics/foamasph.pdf
http://asphalt.csir.co.za/FArefs/CAPSA%20'99%20Engelbrecht%20128.pdf
http://www.auststab.com.au/pdf/tp26.pdf
https://www.onlinepublications.austroads.com.au/items/AP-T178-11
https://www.onlinepublications.austroads.com.au/items/AP-T111-08
http://www.fao.org/docrep/T0579E/t0579e06.htm#4.1 introduction
http://nptel.iitm.ac.in/courses/Webcourse-contents/IITKANPUR/transport_e/TransportationII/objective/6-objective.htm

http://training.ce.washington.edu/wsdot/modules/07_construction/07-2_body.htm
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/21795521/Benefits-of-Flexible-Pavements-Brochure-

(Read-Only)
http://www.preservearticles.com/2012020922970/what-are-the-advantages-and-

disadvantages-of-pavements.html
http://www.hiwaystabilizers.co.nz/media/16458/fbr_in_nz.pdf
http://www.alakona.com/pdf/Alakona%20Report.pdf

viii