Stabilization of Vertisols Using Bio Enzyme For Pavement Construction

ADAMSON UNIVERSITY i
STABILIZATION OF VERTISOLS USING BIO EN ZYMES FOR

PAVEMENT CONSTRUCTION
A
Thesis
Presented to The Faculty
Of Civil Engineering Department
ADAMSON UNIVERSITY
Manila
In Partial fulfillment
of the requirements for degree of
BACHELOR OF SCIENCE IN CIVIL E NGINEERING
B y:
Jose, Clark Lois M.
Karali, Desmond J.
Ramo, Candice Jan B.
Rivera, Francis Ian L.
Engr. Crispin S. Lictaoa

Faculty Proponent
March 2017
C I V I L E N G I N E E R I N G
ADAMSON UNIVERSITY ii
ADAMSON UNIVERSITY iii
AKNOWLEDGEMENT
First of all, the researchers are forever thankful to God for his countless blessings
through wisdom, strength and support that were received to accomplish this thesis. To God
be the glory!
To our parents for their generosity, understanding, trust, confidence and
unwavering guidance, we will forever indebted. Our special thanks also to the Laboratory
Technician of Adamson University, Mr. Ernesto C. Caguing Jr. and Mr. Allan G. Funa Jr.
for assisting us in using the equipment for our experiments, especially in California
Bearing Ratio Test (CBR).
We would also like to acknowledge our dearest faculty proponent, Engr. Crispin
Lictaoa for his guidance from the start of this thesis and giving us suggestions on how to
do it. And also for believing in our capabilities and understanding whenever we fail to
meet deadlines. Our sincere thanks as well to other faculty members of Civil Engineering
Department for giving pieces of advice to work on our thesis. Without these esteemed
engineers’ guidance, this piece of work will not be accomplished. All their efforts to assist
us will be carved within our hearts until we become professional engineers.
Lastly, we would like to express our sincere appreciation to our classmates and
friends for their assistance for making our life as researchers-student not so difficult and
for providing us bright ideas and suggestions on how to make our thesis more presentable.
ADAMSON UNIVERSITY iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TITLE PAGE i
APPROVAL SHEET ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS iv
LIST OF TABLES viii
LIST OF FIGURES viii
LIST OF EQUATIONS ix
ACRONYMS x
DEFINTIONS OF TERMS xi
ABSTRACT xiii
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1. Background of the Study 1
1.2. General Objective of the Study 4
1.3. Specific Objectives 4
1.4. Statement of the Problem 4
1.5. Significance of the Study 5
1.6. Scope and Delimitation 6
1.7. Conceptual Framework 6
CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND
STUDIES
2.1. Bio Enzymes 8
ADAMSON UNIVERSITY v
2.2. Permazyme 8
2.3. Terrazyme 9
2.4. Soil Stabilizer 9
2.5. Non – Traditional Approach 10
2.6. Consistency Test 11
2.7. California bearing Ratio (CBR) 12
2.8. Soil Classifications 13
2.9. Geotechnical Properties 14
2.10. Mechanism of Stabilization 15
2.11. Benefits of TerraZyme 18
2.12. Lime Soil Stabilization 18
CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.1. Research Framework 19
3.2. Safety Measures of using Bio Enz ymes 20
3.3. Research Design 21
3.3.1. Preparation of Material 21
3.3.1.1. Vertisols 21
3.3.1.2. Bio enzymes 22
3.3.2. Batch Formulation 22
3.3.2.1. Design Mixture 23
3.3.3. ASTM STANDARDS FOR
LABORATORY TEST 24
3.3.3.1 ASTM D6913-04 24
ADAMSON UNIVERSITY vi
3.3.3.2. ASTM D854-14 26
3.3.3.3. ASTM D2216-98 27
3.3.3.4. ASTM D4318-05 29
3.3.3.5. ASTM D2487-06 33
3.3.3.6. ASTM D698 36
3.3.3.7. ASTM D1883-07 38
3.4. Statistical Treatment of the Data 46
3.4.1Measures of Central Tendency, Mean/Average 46
CHAPTER 4: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 47
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION 53
CHAPTER 6: RECOMMENDATION 54
REFERENCES 55
APPENDICES 59
Appendix A. Tables, Figures and Comp utations 60
Appendix B. Pictures 177
Appendix B -1. Gat hering and Preparation of 177
Soil and Bio Enzymes
Appendix B -2. Equi pment used in the Experi ments 178
Appendix B -3. Execution of the Soil Cl assification 180
Appendix B -4. Execution of the Physi cal and 181
Index Prop erties (Moi sture Conten t)
Appendix B -5. Exec ution of the Physi cal and 182
Index Prop erties (Specific Gravi ty)
ADAMSON UNIVERSITY vii
Appendix B -6. Exec ution of the Physi cal and 183
Index Prop erties (Atterberg Li mits)
Appendix B -7. Ex ecution of the California 185
Bearing Ratio (Compaction - Standard Effort)
Appendix C. California Bearing R atio 189
Calibrati on Certificate
Appendix D. Certificate and Receipt 191
CURRICUL UM VITAE
PRO GRESS RE PO RT
JOURNAL
ADAMSON UNIVERSITY viii
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE NAME PAGE
T.3.2.2 Batch Formulation 22
T.4.1.1 S i e v e A n a l ys i s 47
T.4.1.2 P h ys i c a l a n d I n d e x P r o p e r t i e s 48
T.4.3.1 Average Bearing Strength Capacity 50
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE NAME PAGE
F.1.7 Conceptual Framework 7
F.3.1 Research Framework 19
F.3.2.3.7 Correction of Load -Penetration 43
Curves
F.4.1.2 Plasticity Chart 49
F.4.3.1 Variation of California Bearing 51
Ratio for treated and Untreated Soil
ADAMSON UNIVERSITY ix
LIST OF EQUATIONS
EQUATION NAME PAGE
E.3.3.3.1 Particle-Size Distribution (Gradation) 25
o f S o i l u s i n g S i e v e A n a l ys i s
E.3.3.3.2 Specific Gravity 27
E.3.3.3.3 Moisture Content 29
E.3.3.3.4 Atterberg Limits 32
E.3.3.3.5 U n i f i e d S o i l C l a s s i f i c a t i o n S ys t e m 33
E.3.3.3.7a Penetration Stress 43
E.3.3.3.7c California Bearing Ratio 44
E.3.3.3.7d Density 45
E.3.4.1 M e a s u r e s o f C e n t r a l T e n d e n c y, 46
Mean/Average
ADAMSON UNIVERSITY x
ACRONYMS
ASTM-American Society for Testing and Materials
CBR-California Bearing Ratio
MDD-Maximum Dry Density
OMC-Optimum Moisture Content
UCS-Unconfined Compressive strength
U S C S - U n i f i e d S o i l C l a s s i f i c a t i o n S ys t e m
XRD-X-Ray Diffraction
XRF-X-Ray Fluorescence
ADAMSON UNIVERSITY xi
DEFINTIONS OF TERMS
Bio-enzymes - Is composed of fruits and vegetables extraction that
improves the attachment of soil properties.
California Bearing Ratio - A test performed in order to determine
the mechanical strength of the soil.
C o m p a c t i o n - W i t h r e g a r d s t o s o i l , i t i s t h e a p p l yi n g o f e n e r g y t o
loose soil to consolidate it and remove any voids.
D i g e s t i v e E n z y m e s – E n z ym e s f o u n d i n t h e b o d y t h a t h e l p s
breakdown macromolecules to facilitate their absorption by the
b o d y.
Durability – Ability to stand firm against any force or pressure
Fermentation – Chemical breakdown process of a substance
Maximum dry Density – Often related to soil and archived when
the soil is compacted to nearly saturation and all the air is driven
out.
Optimum Moisture Content - Moisture content that eventuall y
leads to the maximum soil density under a particular test
condition.
S o i l S t a b i l i z e r – A g e n e r a l t e r m f o r a n y p h ys i c a l o r c h e m i c a l
method of changing a natural soil to meet an engineering purpose.
S u b b a s e - L a ye r o f a g g r e g a t e s l a i d o n t o p o f t h e
subgrade.
ADAMSON UNIVERSITY xii
Subgrade- Natural soil found below the constructed road or
pavement.
Tri-axial test- A test used for measuring the mechanical
properties of soil.
T e r r a z y m e - A n a t u r a l l i q u i d e n z ym e f o r m u l a t e d f r o m f r u i t s a n d
vegetables extracts that changes the p h ys i c a l and chemical
properties of soil.
V e r t i s o l s - A c l a ye y s o i l w h i c h h a s l i t t l e o r g a n i c m a t t e r
ADAMSON UNIVERSITY xiii
ABSTRACT
Soil Stabilization is becoming expensive to obtain for any civil
engineering practices. Vertisol is one of the soil that needs to be
stabilized. The properties of the soil, classified as Lean Clay (CL)
using the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) we re determined
such as Atterberg’s Limits, Engineering Properties and California
Bearing Ratio (CBR) in Accordance with American Standard for
T e s t i n g a n d M a t e r i a l s ( A S T M ) . T h e s o i l w a s m i x e d w i t h b i o - e n z ym e s
a t d i f f e r e n t d o s a g e s : 1 0 0 m l / m3 ( . 0 6 1 m l / k g ) , 2 0 0 m l / m3 ( . 1 2 2 m l / k g )
a n d , 3 0 0 m l / m3 ( . 1 8 3 m l / k g ) b y w e i g h t o f s o i l . T h e s o i l w a s c o m p a c t e d
with different number of blows (56,25,10) and California Bearing
Ratio (CBR) were conducted on each of these samples to determine
the bearing capacity for treated and untre ated soil. The test results
s h o w e d t h a t t h e b i o e n z ym e s a s a s t a b i l i z e r r e s u l t e d i n a s i g n i f i c a n c e
increase in California Bearing Ratio (CBR) of the soil tested with
v a r yi n g d o s a g e s . A f t e r d o i n g t h e r e s e a r c h , i t i s p r o v e n t h a t B i o
E n z ym e s c a n c o n t r i b u t e t o w a r d s b e t t e r s o i l s t a b i l i z a t i o n a n d e n h a n c e
the quality of soil as subgrade.
K e yw o r d s : Soil Stabilization, Vertisol, Bearing Capacity, Bio -
Enzymes, California Bearing Ratio
ADAMSON UNIVERSITY 1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1. Background of the Study
Soil Stabilization is the modification of soils to improve their
physical properties. Stabilization increases the shear strength of a
soil and controls the shrink-swell properties of a soil, enhancing the
load bearing capacity of a sub -grade to support pavements and
foundations. (Midstate Co mpanies, 2015). Stabilization was being
used for a va riet y of engineering works, most commonl y applied in
the construction of road and airfield paveme nts, where its main
objective was to increase the strength or stabilit y of soil
(StablearthUk, 2013).
Although there are other popular ways to stabilize soil, bio
enz ymes have been introduced recentl y for soil stabilization as well,
especiall y in highway projects. Bio -enz ymes were said to be organic
molecules from either animals or plants that catal yze particular
chemical reactions if conditions are contributive to the reaction the y
facilitate.
When consid ering pavements, by definition, it consists of
layers which incl udes, subgrade course which are the native soil
compacted to withstand the loads above it, the layer under the ba se
known as the sub base course together with the layer directl y below
the surface course that generall y consists of aggregate known as the
base course and the last layer that comes in contact with traffic called
surface course. Hence, the bio enz ymes was used to stabilize soils
found under subgrade course.
On the other hand, there are many different t ypes of soils and
vertisols is one of them. Vertisols is a c l a ye y s o i l w i t h m i n i m a l
organic matter that occurs in regions with distinct wet and dry
s e a s o n s . The shrinking and swelling action lead to damage d
buildings and roads, which is a serious problem for engineers. It can
develop large and deep cracks during dry season and then expands
as it absorbs water, which leads to an increase in volume. According
to N a t i o n a l Research Initiative Competitive Grants CAP ,
vertisols also has an or ganic matter content ranging from 1 - 6%,
which was t ypicall y made up from Calcium (Ca), and Magnesium
(Mg) rich materials such as limestone, basalt or in areas of
topographic depressions.
Enz ymes are more powerful that can help to sustain the
cleanliness of the environment with the use of agro -food, oil, animal
feed, paper, textile, leather and petroleum and could be utilized for
environment purposes. It could also help to maintain the unpo lluted
areas through the use of waste management.
Enz ymes are more useful in many applications and in wide
variet y of forms. It could be used as detergent ingredients, food -
processing, blood components, food additives, fiber processing,
processing in the paper industry, and environmental purification use.
T h e b i o e n z ym e s s t a b i l i z e d s o i l a s t h e r e a c t i o n o f c l a y
and organic cations and accelerate the cation exchange process
t o r e d u c e t h e a d s o r b e d l a ye r t h i c k n e s s . T h e e n z ym e r e p l a c e s
the adsorbed water with organic cations, thus neutralizing the
negative charge on a clay particle. The organic cations also
reduce the thickness of the normal soil particle before reacting
w i t h t h e e n z ym e s . T h i s a l l o w s e n z y m e t r e a t e d s o i l s t o b e
c o m p a c t e d m o r e t i g h t l y t o g e t h e r . ( Lekha, et al. 2013)
According to Nontraditional stabilizers from FHWA Surfacing
Context Sensitive Roadway Surfacing Selection Guide (2005) the
life expectancy of the strength of the soil is 5 to 7 years for
application of stabilizing agent which is bio enz y mes. The viabilit y
of performance of bio -enz ymes as a stabilizer to subgrade or subbase
depended on the influence of the traffic, weather conditions, and
soils classification.
By this, using bio enzymes as a stabilization of soil can help
our environment to reduce the percentage of waste. Moreover, the
use of bio enz ymes in this study will be a major breakthrough in
engineering and construction.
1.2. General Objective of the Study
This study aims to develop and improve the qualit y of the
vertisols for pavement construction using bio -enz ymes as a
stabilizer.
1.3. Specific Objectives
o To determine the soil’s classification using ASTM
Standards for Soil Laboratory Test.
o To determine the California Bearing Ratio (CBR) of
untreated and treated soil as stabilizer for pav ement
construction.
o To determine the effect of bio -enz ymes to vertisols for
pavement construction.
1.4. Statement of the Problem
The researchers will be studying vertisols for pavement
construction using bio -enz ymes as a stabilizer. The researchers will
determine the following:
o What will be the classification of vertisols in ASTM
Standards for Soil Laboratory Test?
o What will be the California Bearing Ratio (CBR) of
untreated and treated soil as stabilizer for pavement
construction?
o What will be the effect of bio -enz ymes to vertisols for
pavement construction?
1.5. Significance of the Study
Practical roads are very important for economic growth in an y
country. In improving soil stabilit y, there is an urgent need to
identify new materials and t echniques. H e n c e , t h e d e s i r e t o c o l l a t e
new materials and improved techniques to process the local
m a t e r i a l s h a s i n c r e a s e d . When onl y poor qualit y soil are available
at the construction site, the best option was to change the properties
of the soil so that it meets the pavement design requirements. This
therefore led to the development of soil stabilization techniques and
with regards to this research was through the use of bio -enz yme.
T h i s s t u d y, h a s a l s o g i v e n f u r t h e r i n f o r m a t i o n t o t h e c i v i l
engineering community regarding the stabilization of subgrade
soil, and in lessening the maintenance cost of the pavement
construction, which also provides as an alternative solution for
different unsealed roads. It was a good contribution in
extending and maintaining the serviceability of the road.
The decrease or eliminate formation of obstructions on
the road for future usage because having obstructions on the
road may result inconveniency to the road users because traffic
jams or heavy traffics may occur on the roa ds.
Determination of the different t ypes of bio -enz ymes applicable
for soil stabilizing could be a ground for future researchers for
development or improvement.
1.6. Scope and Delimitation
The study focuses on stabilization of v ertisols from V. Fugoso
St. Sta Cruz Manila as a subgrade s oil. Bio enz ymes which was
produced locall y from fruits and vegetables extracts in Laguna,
Philippines, was used as stabilizer. The bio enz ymes was added to
the vertisols with varying dosages of 100 ml/m3 (0.061 ml/kg), 200 ml/
m3 (0.122 ml/kg) and 300 ml/m3 (0.183ml/kg ) b a s e d f r o m t h e s t u d y
o f Bund W (2014). Designated ASTM Standards was used namel y,
ASTM D854 -14, ASTM D6913 -04, ASTM D2216 -98, ASTM D4318 -
05, ASTM D2487 -06. Moreover, ASTM D698 was also performed
under the Californi a Bearing Ratio, D1883 -07 which will serve as
the basis of the test for untreated and treated soil.
1.7. Conceptual Framework
This illustrates the summary of the study of the Stabilization of
Vertisols using Bio Enz ymes for Pavement Construction.
Figure 1.7 shows the general flow of the research process. The
materials (vertisol) used in this research were gathered and separated
to two grou ps which one group of soil contains bio-enz ymes (treated)
while the other was without bio-enz ymes (untreated) which went
through series of tests and processes. T he mechanical propert y,
which was the California Bearing Ratio (CBR), was obtained from
the samples. Then the results w ere anal yzed for interpretation of the
research.
CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND STU DIES
2.1. Bio Enzymes
Enz yme has been in existence since French Chemist Anselme
Payen who discovered it in 1833. The French Chemist learned how
to manufacture enz yme. He classified enzyme into two forms of
natural enz yme: (1) S ystemic Enz ymes which provide supp ort
throughout the body. (2) Digestive Enz ymes which aid the digestive
process directl y. (Jayathileka and Adikari, 2012)
During our time, different discoveries, developments and
studies were made that greatl y contributed to the nation building in
terms of road infrastructures. In line with this, many research and
studies have been conducted on using bio enz ymes as a soil
stabilizer. Many used bio enz ymes that are already being
manufactured.
By definition, bio enzyme was said to be a naturalenz yme that
improves the engineering qualities of soil by facilitating higher soil
compaction densities that brings about increases in stabilit y.
2.2. Permazyme
Enz ymes role was listed as that of a catalyst and catal yzes the
reactions between the clay and the organic cat -ions and accelerates
the cat-ionic exchange process to reduce adsorbed layer thickness.
In accordance with literature from permazyme manufacturers, soil -
stabilizing bio -enz ymes are similar to proteins and act like catal ysts
for chemical reactions. (Argawal and Kaur, 2014)
2.3. Terrazyme
The manufacturers of terraz yme nature p lus insist that these
soil-stabilizing enz ymes accelerate the cationic exchange without
becoming part of the end product and by u tilizing fermentation
processes, specific micro-organisms can produce stabilizing
enz ymes in large quantities. These fermentation processes,
formulated products are non -toxic and environmentall y harm -less.
Furthermore, t erraz yme soil stabilization products was said also to
be designed to improve soil strength by incr easing the densit y of
initial compaction and facilitating the removal of pore water, which
minimizes the destructive impact of wate r under conditions of
loading. (KOMConsult Ltd. Consulting Engineers and Planners,
2014)
2.4. Soil Stabilizer
Stabilizers were categorized as either traditional or non -
traditional stabilizers. Traditional stabilizers were commonl y used
everywhere in the world, however when high soluble sulfate contents
limit their applicabilit y as calcium based traditional stabilizers, the
use of non-traditional stabilizers such as enz ymes have a role in
modification on stabilization. (Little and Nair, 2011)
According to a technical report of KOMConsult Ltd.
Consulting Engineers and Planners, (2014), they used terraz yme and
permaz yme for improving the performance of different unsealed
roads, which they recommended that the two liquid chemicals
improved the atterberg limits of highl y plastic clays, thus thes e
chemicals were applicable to be used on lower pavements such as
sub base and subgrade.
2.5. Non - Traditional Approach
The initial cost of using terraz yme was high as compared to
traditional method but the benefit of using terraz yme was that the
cost for maintenance is zero , making this approach economicall y
practical. The dosage of terraz yme were decided on the basis of t ype
of soil. To study the variation of geotechnical properties of local
soil, they have taken 3m^3per 200ml, 2.5m^3per 200ml, 2.0m^3per
200ml and 1.5m^3per 200ml. The prefatory tests were performed on
the local soil with and without terraz ym e. California Bearing Ratio
test was used for soaked and unsoaked conditions . (Saini and
Vaishanava, 2015). On the same note, Shankar, et. Al (2009) found
out that lateritic soil properties have been much improved b y
stabilizing with enz yme dosage of 200ml/ 2m^3 of soil.
Different tests could be conducted on the soil when using bio
enz ymes like, Strength Compaction Test, California Bearing Ratio
(CBR), Permeabilit y Test and Durabilit y test. According to Lekha,
et al. (2013), compaction test results for enzyme treated soil samples
were clear that there were not many changes in Maximum Dry
Densit y (MDD) of the treated soil, but Optimum Moisture Content
(OMC) was observed to be decreasing with increase in curing pe riod.
Similarl y, Venkatasubramanian and Dhinakaran (2011) discovered
from their study that for two weeks after application of bio -enzyme
the rate of increase varies from 100 -200%, 70-160%, 58-152% for
soil.
2.6. Consistency Test
In addition, Thomas, et.al (2016 ) identified that liquid limit
decreases and plastic limit increases, which results in decrease in
plasticit y index by addition of terrazyme. Also, reduction of
plasticit y index causes reduction in the swelling potential of soil.
The maximum dry densit y in creases as the dosage of terraz yme was
increased while the optimum moisture content decreases.
Shett y, et.al, (2016) used tri -axial strength tests of lateritic
soil which were evaluated for stabilization with varying dosages of
enz yme for one, two and fou r curing weeks. The specimens were
prepared and kept in cooler box to retain moisture of the sample s o
that reaction betwee n soil particle and terraz yme was continuing.
This test of the soil gave the cohesion increased by four times after
four weeks of curing for a dosage of 300ml/ 2m3 of soil.
Furthermore, according to Eujine, et.al (2014), different
dosages applied to soil with dosage 1 -100ml/m3 , dosage 2 -200 ml/m3
and dosage 3 -300ml/m3 and based from the results, dosage 2 had a
high Unconfined Compressiv e Strength(UCS).
A c c o r d i n g t o B u n d W ( 2 0 1 4 ) , t h r e e d o s a g e s o f v a r yi n g
v o l u m e o f 1 0 0 m l / k g , 2 0 0 m l / k g a n d 3 0 0 m l / k g o f b i o e n z ym e
were applied to each soil sample which when converted was
e q u i v a l e n t t o 0 . 0 6 1 m l o f b i o e n z ym e p e r k i l o g r a m f o r t h e f i r s t
d o s a g e , 0 . 1 2 2 m l o f b i o e n z ym e p e r k i l o g r a m f o r t h e s e c o n d
d o s a g e a n d 0 . 1 8 3 m l o f b i o e n z ym e p e r k i l o g r a m f o r t h e t h i r d
dosage.
2.7. California bearing Ratio (CBR)
Kumar et.al (2015) used t erraz yme as a stabilizer of red soil
which the results indicate d that the maximum reduction in thickness
of adsorbed water layer occurred when terraz yme was added to soil
was compacted using properties corresponding to 95% of Optimum
Moisture Content (OMC) and properties towards dry side of
Optimum Moisture Content (OMC). R ajoria and Kaur, (2014)
determined the advantages of using terrazyme which it increased the
durabilit y of pavement and reduced the swelling properties of soil.
Not onl y that, it also reduced construction cost by 20 -40% due to
reduction in the transportatio n of materials and reuse of in sit u
materials.
Kumar et.al (2015) used t erraz yme as a stabilizer of red soil
which the results indicate d that the maximum reduction in thickness
of adsorbed water layer occurred when terraz yme was added to soil
was compacted using properties corresponding to 95% of Optimum
Moisture Content (OMC) and properties towards dry side of
Optimum Moisture Content (OMC). Rajoria and Kaur, (2014)
determined the advantages of using terrazyme which it increased the
durabilit y of pavement and reduced the swelling properties of soil.
Not onl y that, it also reduced construction cost by 20 -40% due to
reduction in the transportation of materials and reuse of in sit u
materials.
2.8. Soil Classifications
Many tests were performed on soil to know its properties as
part of the process of soil stabilization. According to Solomon
(2011), two sub -grade soils samples were collected for laborator y
testing. Prior to conducting stabilization on the natural soil samples,
the researchers performed and obtained results of the following
which included: X-Ray Diffraction (XRD), X -Ray Fluorescence
(XRF), Hydrometer anal ysis, Specific gravit y, PH, Atterberg limits,
Liquid limit, Plastic limit, Plasticit y index, Linear Shrinkage,
California Bearing Ratio (CBR ), Proctor test, Optimum Moisture
Content (OMC), Maximum Dry Densit y (MDD) and Percent swell of
CBR. The results, however, have b een evaluated on the effects it had
on the engineering properties of sub -grades soils and the two samples
were then compared with the natural unstablized and stabilized soils.
Moreover, Anjaneyappa and Amamath, (2011) performed a test
in which the chemical composition of the stabilizer was Lime and
Portland cement in the stabilizing the clayey soil sample. Th e test
methods used were sieve anal ysis, Atterberg Limits, Compaction,
California Bearing Ratio and Unconfined compression tests. The
repeated load tests were carried out on 38 mm x 76 mm cylindrical
specimens at the frequency of 1 hertz and rest period of 1 second.
They compared the results in effect of stabili zer on Plasticity and
Densit y, effect of percentage stabilizer on California bearing ratio
(CBR) value, effect of percentage stabilizer on unconfined
compressive test (UCS), effect of Wetting and Dry ing, effect of
Curing Period on UCS and the e ffect of Soaking on UCS.
2.9. Geotechnical Properties
Similarl y, Dhanesh and Mohands, (2016) identified the initial
properties of thonnakkal soil in getting the Field water content,
specific gravit y, liquid limit, plastic limit, plastic limit, shrinkage
limit, plasticit y index, optimum moisture content, maximum dr y
densit y, percentage of sand, percentage of silt, percentage of clay,
IS classification, unconfined compressive strength and permeabilit y.
The specimens were prepared in different dosages and cured to 45
days.
According to Gautam et.al, (2016), the soil was gathered in
Rajkot Cit y, India where the soil was mixed with terraz yme and the
properties identified include the specific gravit y, ph value,
appearance or odour, total dissolved solids, cation exchange
capacit y, hazardous content, boiling point, evaporation rate,
solubilit y in water, melting point, reactivit y data and materials to
avoid. The tests performed were liquid limit, plastic limit, free swell
index, water content -dry densit y relation using heavy compaction
and California bearing ratio test with and without additive.
However, due to the proprietary rights of the manufacturers of
bio-enz ymes for road stabilization, no literature is available to verif y
the claims of the manufacturers on the constituents of thes e
chemicals.
2.10. Mechanism of Stabilization
Terraz yme reacted with absorbed water layer of clay particle
and caused reduction in the thickness around particle of soil, this
resulted in the reduction of voids between the particles of soil,
thereby giving soil particle a closer orientation with low com paction.
This ultimatel y resulted in the decrease in swelling capacit y of soil
and it also reduces permeabilit y of soil. (Saini, and Vaishnava,2015)
The mechanism of lime stabilization was a pozzolanic reaction
in nature which resulted in the production of calcium silicate
hydrates and calcium aluminate hydrates. The calcium from th e lime
reacted with the aluminates and silicates solubilized from the clay.
(KOMConsult Ltd. Consulting Engineers and Planners, 2014)
The mechanism of Bio -enz yme, in clay water mixture
positivel y charged ion cat -ions were present around the clay
particles, creating a film of water around the clay particle that
remains attached or absorbed on the clay surface. The consumed
water or double layer gave clay particles their plasticit y. In some
cases, the clay can bulge and the size of double layer increases, but
it could be reduced by drying. Hence, to trul y improve the properties
of the soil, its essential to permanentl y lessen the thickness of doubl e
layer. Cation exchange processes would accomplish this. By utilizing
fermentation proces ses, specific microorgan isms produced huge
quantit y of stabilizing enz yme . These soil -stabilizing enzymes
catal yze the reactions between th e clay and the organic cat -ions,
accelerating the cat-ionic exchange without becom ing a fragment of
the end product. (Shankar, 2016)
Permaz ym e lowered the surface tension of wa ter, which
promoted fast and tho rough penetration, including moisture
dispersion. This action caused hydrated clay particles to be pressed
into and to fill the voids throughout the soil, thus forming a tight,
dense permanent stratum. Strictl y speaking, Permaz yme joined with
vast organic molecules in the soil to form a reactant intermediary,
exchanged with the clay lattice, breaking down the clay structure and
causing the cover-up effect which then prevents any additional
absorption of water or swelling that results to loss of densit y. This
was accomplished by changing the substrate molecules of the clay.
The index properties and engineering of soil such as liquid limit,
plaslicit y, shear strength, shrinkage and swelling were altered b y
releasing pore water in the clay molecule to provide denser, cohesive
and stable binding properties. The high amount of densit y lowers
water permeabilit y and discourages the migration of moisture
through the soil. (Rajoria and Kaur, 2014)
Renolith stabilizer covered soil particles also made a physical
bond between the soil particles, t he point when the emulsion water
evaporates, abandoning a soil pol ymer matrix. This soil polymer
matrix has high tensile strength and flexibilit y, these properties can
also lessen the probabilit y of any ceme nt-stabilized pavement
cracking, caused by the shrinkage of the cement or road base on
compaction further improving permeabilit y characteristics. The
improvement in strength depends on the abilit y to coat the soil
particles sufficiently on the physical properties of the pol ymer.
Thus, stabilization with renolith was suitable for granular soils. It
can give satisfactory result in a fine grained soil and if used in higher
proportion. (Rajoria and Kaur, 2014)
2.11. Benefits of TerraZyme
As the strength an d stiffness of the soil were increased by
adding TerraZyme to soil , maintenance cost gets reduced by 30 to 50
%. It also decreased the plastic characteristi c of soil. Pavement
thickness was reduced by 30 to 50%. Construction time was reduced
by 50 %. TerraZyme improves load bearing capacit y of soil. (Saini,
and Vaishnava, 2015)
2.12. Lime Soil Stabilization
Lime was generall y produced from limestone deposits through
heating and slaking. There are vari -ous types of lime but the main
lime used in road stabilization wa s either quick lime or hydrated
lime. Many roads in Uganda are constructed using lime stabilized
subbases and bases in sealed road pavements. It has not been used in
the stabilization of unsealed roads surfaces. Hydrated lime was the
most popular lime used in comparison with quicklime. It was said
that lime reacts better with soils with adequate clay particles.
(KOMConsult Ltd. Consulting Engineers and Planners, 2014).
CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY
3.1. Research Framework
The study aimed to develop and improve the quality of the
v e r t i s o l s f o r p a v e m e n t c o n s t r u c t i o n u s i n g b i o - e n z ym e s a s a
stabilizer
Figure 3.1 The materials like soil were gathered from V.
Fugoso St. Sta Cruz Manila while the materials for the enzymes
which include the fruits and vegetables were obtained in
Laguna.
Furthermore, the components were under quality control for
the researchers to have a reliable basis in the mix design. This
m e a n s t h a t t h e s o i l , e n z ym e s a n d w a t e r w e r e a l l o f g o o d q u a l i t y.
In the research, the proportion of the mix was b y dosages,
w h i c h t h e w e i g h t o f s o i l w a s a t c o n s t a n t v a l u e w i t h v a r yi n g
v o l u m e o f B i o E n z ym e s p e r k i l o g r a m . T h i s s e r v e d a s t h e
i n d e p e n d e n t v a r i a b l e o f t h e s t u d y. T h e c o n t r o l m i x w i t h
e n z ym e s a d d i t i v e s w a s t h e n m i x e d . T h e r e w e r e 3 s a m p l e s t e s t e d
f o r e a c h p r o p o r t i o n a n d u n t r e a t e d s o i l . L a s t l y, t h e d a t a a n d
results were gathered through the California Bearing Ratio
(CBR.)
3.2. Safety Measures of using Bio Enzymes
According to Total Nature’s Great Value, Incorporated who is
the manufacturer of bio enz ymes stated that the latter can be diluted
with water or taken pure. Its ingredient s consist of natural fruit
extracts from pineapple, papaya, apple, grapes, guava and sugar
cane. However, the bio enz yme cannot be cooked or subjected to high
temperatures or even shaken as this will destroy the enz ymes and
also the bottles must be closed at all times and stored in a cool and
dry place.
3.3. Research Design
3.3.1. Preparation of Material
3.3.1.1. Vertisols
The vertisols was identified through these
c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , d a r k b r o w n , c l a ye y, w e l l d r a i n e d , a n d o f
m o d e r a t e f e r t i l i t y. D u r i n g t h e d r y s e a s o n , t h e s o i l s c r a c k .
The vertisols was obtained from one of the following
topographical positions; alluvial plains, and alluvial
terraces. The vertisols that was used for this study was
located in V. Fugoso St. Sta Cruz Manila. Below are the
steps for preparing the vertisols that was used.
1. The vertisols was obtained from V. Fugoso St.
Sta Cruz Manila. Then the soil obtained was
tested for ASTM D6913-04 particle-size
d i s t r i b u t i o n a n a l ys i s t e s t ( s i e v e a n a l ys i s ) .
2. The sieved soil undergone test for specific
gravity following ASTM standard D854 -14.
3. After test for specific g r a v i t y, the soil`s
Atterberg’s limit was obtained using ASTM
standard D4318-05.
4. The soil’s moisture content was then determined
through ASTM standard D2216 -98.
5. Lastl y, the soil was classified according to its
engineering purpose using ASTM standard D698
and ASTM standard and D2487 -06.
3.3.1.2. Bio-Enzymes
The Bio e n z ym e s were obtained in Laguna,
Philippines.
3.3.2. Batch Formulation
I n t h i s s t u d y, t h e f o l l o w i n g n u m b e r o f s a m p l e s , d o s a g e s
and specimens was used:
Table No. 3.3.2 – B atch Formulation
UNTREATED SOIL NO. OF SPECIMEN
Vertisol
1 Different Compaction
9
Effort (56,25,10)
TREATED SOIL
1 0 0 m l / m3 ( . 0 6 1 m l / k g )
9
Effort (56,25,10)
2 0 0 m l / m3 ( . 1 2 2 m l / k g )
9
Effort (56,25,10)
3 0 0 m l / m3 ( . 1 8 3 m l / k g )
9
Effort (56,25,10)
TOTAL 36
Table no. 3.3.2 shows the following: nos. of sample; an
untreated soil, a dosage of 100 ml per m3 (.061ml/kg), 200 ml
per m3(.122ml/kg) and 300 ml per m3(.183ml/kg) that was used,
and three (3) samples was tested per mix with different blows.
It was estimated to cover a total of thirt y-six (36) specimen
overall wherein the CBR value was determined.
3.3.1.1. Design Mixture
1. Mix the batch formulation from a clean
uncontaminated container thoroughly until
homogeneous mixture was present.
2. Test the mixed samples in California Bearing
Ratio.
3.3.3. ASTM STANDARDS FOR LABORATORY TEST
To accurately obtain reliable results, tests done in
the study complied with the proc edure of ASTM
standards.
3.3.3.1. ASTM D6913-04: Standard Test Methods for
Particle-Size Distribution (Gradation) of Soils Using
Sieve Analysis
A. Grain Size Distribution: Sieve Analysis
Materials:
o Sieve Nos. 4, 8, 10, 16, 30, 50, 50, 100, 200, pan
and cover
o Mechanical Sieve Shaker
o Electronic Scale
Procedures:
1. Prepare 1 kg soil sample on a pan.
2. Prepare a stack of sieve. Sieve Nos. 4, 8, 10, 16,
30, 40, 50, 100, 200 and pan which will be used for
s i e v e a n a l ys i s .
3. Weigh each sieve to determine its mass which will
be needed to compute for the weight of the soil.
4. Place the soil in the No. 4 sieve and prepare the
other sieve underneath each other.
5. Using the Sieve Shaker, sieve the soil for 10
minutes until the soil passes through each sieve.
6. Weigh each sieve as well as the pan in order to
record the weight of the aggr egate and the percent
passing for each sieve.
7. Record the following data.
Computations:
𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑑(𝑔) = 𝑊𝑡. 𝑜𝑓 𝑆𝑖𝑒𝑣𝑒 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ 𝑎𝑔𝑔𝑟𝑒𝑔𝑎𝑡𝑒 − 𝑊𝑡. 𝑜𝑓 𝑆𝑖𝑒𝑣𝑒 ( 3.3.3.1. 𝑎)
Mass of soil retained

Rn(%) = × 100 ( 3.3.3.1. 𝑏)
Wt.of oven dry sample
∑ 𝑅𝑛 (%) = Rnth (%) ( 3.3.3.1. 𝑐)
%finer = 100 − ∑ Rn or 100 − ∑𝑖=𝑛 𝑡ℎ

𝑖=1 𝑅𝑛 (%) ( 3.3.3.1. 𝑑)
Wt.of sample− ∑ mass of soil retained W− W1

loss(g) = × 100= x100(%)( 3.3.3.1. 𝑒)
Wt.of sample w
(Ok if less than 2%)
Where:
Mass of soil retained on each sieve, retained (g)
Percent mass of soil retained on each sieve, R n (%)
Cumulative percent of soil retained on the n th sieve,
∑ Rn (%)
Cumulative percent of soil passing through the n th
sieve (% finer),
Mass of loss of soil during sieve analysis, Loss (g)
3.3.3.2. ASTM D854-14: Standard Test Methods for Specific
Gravity of Soil Solids by Water Pycnometer
A. Determination of Specific Gravity of Soil
Materials:
o P yc n o m e t e r
o Electronic Scale
o Vacuum Pump with Distilled Water
o Funnel
Procedures:
1. Using the empty clean and dry p yc n o m e t e r
d e t e r m i n e a n d r e c o r d t h e w e i g h t . ( 𝑊𝑝 ).
2 . Determine and take note of the weight of the pycnometer
containing the dry soil, ( 𝑊𝑃𝑆 )after placing 10g of dr y
soil sample passing sieve No. 10 in it.
3. Add distilled water to fill about half to three -fourth
o f t h e p yc n o m e t e r . S o a k t h e s a m p l e f o r 1 0 m i n u t e s .
4. In order to remove the entrapped air, appl y a partial
vacuum to the contents for 10 minutes.
5. Stop the vacuum and carefully remove the vacuum
l i n e f r o m p yc n o m e t e r .
6 . I n d e t e r m i n i n g t h e w e i g h t o f t h e p yc n o m e t e r a n d
distilled w a t e r , 𝑊𝐵 . Fill the p yc n o m e t e r with
distilled water (to the mark) clean the exterior
s u r f a c e o f t h e p yc n o m e t e r w i t h a c l e a n , d r y c l o t h .
7 . E m p t y t h e p yc n o m e t e r a n d c l e a n i t . F i l l i t w i t h
distilled water only (to the mark). Clean the
e x t e r i o r s u r f a c e o f t h e p yc n o m e t e r w i t h a c l e a n , d r y
c l o t h . D e t e r m i n e t h e w e i g h t o f t h e p yc n o m e t e r a n d
d i s t i l l e d w a t e r , 𝑊𝐴 .
8 . E m p t y t h e p yc n o m e t e r a n d c l e a n i t
Computations:
𝑊𝑜
S p e c i f i c G r a v i t y, 𝐺𝑠 = 𝑊 ( 3.3.3.2. 𝑎)
𝑂 +(𝑊𝐴− 𝑊𝐵 )
Where:
𝑊𝑂 = w e i g h t o f o v e n - d r i e d s o i l s a m p l e , 𝑔 = 𝑊𝑃𝑆− 𝑊𝑝
𝑊𝐴 = w e i g h t o f p yc n o m e t e r f i l l e d w i t h w a t e r a n d s o i l
3.3.3.3. ASTM D2216 – 98: Standard Test Method for
Laboratory Determination of Water (Moisture) Content
of Soil and Rock by Mass
A. Determination of Water Content of Soil
Materials:
o Specimen Containers
o Electronic Scale
o D r yi n g O v e n
Procedures:
1 . R e c o r d t h e m a s s (𝑊1) , a f t e r l a b e l i n g a n d w e i g h i n g
the empty moisture cans.
2. Place a sample of moist soil into a can and weigh
a n d r e c o r d t h e m a s s (𝑊2) .
3 . P u t t h e c a n c o n t a i n i n g t h e m o i s t s o i l i n t o t h e d r yi n g
oven.
4. Repeat these steps for the two other ca ns as well.
There should be three moisture cans in the oven.
Dry the specimen to a constant weight. The
t e m p e r a t u r e o f t h e d r yi n g o v e n s h o u l d b e k e p t
between 105˚C and 110˚C.
5 . The needed time to obtain constant mass will var y
depending on the type of materi al, specimen size,
capacit y and oven type and other factors. In our case,
the cans should remain in the oven for at least 24 hours.
6. After 24 hours, weigh a nd record the can with dried
s o i l (𝑊3) t h e m a s s d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n W 3 a n d W 2 i s
the weight of the water that was evaporated from
the soil. The weight loss will be then used to
calculate the percentage of water (or moisture)
content in the soil.
Computations:
Ww = (Weight of can + Moist soil) − (Weight of can + Dry soil) (3.3.3.3. 𝑎)
Ww = W2 – W3 (g)
Ws = (Weight of can + dry soil) − (Weight of can) (3.3.3.3. 𝑏)
Ww = W3 – W1 (g)
Ww
W= × 100 (3.3.3.3. 𝑐)
Ws
Where:
Weight of water (W W)
Weight of dry soil (WS)
Water content (w)
3.3.3.4. ASTM D4318 – 05 Standard Test Methods for
Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, and Plasticity Index of Soils
A. Determination of Atterberg Limits
Materials:
o Casagrande Liquid Limit Device Dish
o Plastic Squeeze Bottle
o Evaporating Dish
o Spatula
o Temperature Controlled Oven
o Electronic Scale
Procedures:
1. Determine the weight of each seven moisture cans
(W1)
2. Place approximately 300g of air -dry soil, passed
through no. 40 sieve, into an evaporating dish. Add
water from plastic squeeze bottle and mix the soil
into the form of a uniform paste.
3. Place a portion of the paste in the brass cup of the
liquid limit device. Using the spatula smooth the
surface of the soil in the cup such that the maximum
depth of the soil is about 8 mm.
4. Using the grooving tool, cut a clearly defined
groove along the centerline of the soil pla ced in the
cup.
5. Turn the crank of the liquid limit device at the rate
of about 2 revolutions per second. The liquid limit
device cup will rise and drop through vertical
distance of 10 mm. once for each revolution. The
soil on either side of the groove will begin to move
towards the center of the groove. Count the number
of blows, N, for the groove in the soil to close the
gap.
6. Collect a moisture sample from the soil in the cup
and place in a moisture can. Close the cover of the
can, and find the mass of the can plus the moist soil,
W2.
7. Remove the remainder of the soil paste from the cup
and place in the evaporating dish. Use paper towels
to thoroughly clean the cup.
8. Repeat steps 3, 4, and 5 times for values of N
ranging from 35 to 10. To obtain a soil consis tency
that will give these values, mix the soil in the
evaporating dish with more water to obtain a lower
N value. For a higher N value, knead the soil paste
longer or stir the soil paste with the spatula for
some time so that more moisture is removed, and
the soil is drier. Do not add dry soil to the wet soil
paste to reduce the moisture content to bring it to
t h e p r o p e r c o n s i s t e n c y.
9. To determine the plastic limit of the soil sample,
roll some of the last sample used in the liquid limit
test until cracks appear along its length and the
sample breaks. This should take place at about a 1/8
in.
10. Place a sample of this soil into the sixth and
seventh moisture cans.
11. Place the seven moisture cans in the oven to
dry overnight to constant masses and weight to
obtain the dry mass of the soil plus the can, W 3.
(The caps of the moisture cans should be removed
from the top and place at the bottom of the
respective cans in the oven.
Computations:
0.121
N
LL  WN %  (3.3.3.4. 𝑎)
 25 
PI = LL − PL (3.3.3.4. 𝑏)
Where:
LL = liquid limit
N = number of blows causing closure of the groove for
given trial,
Wn = water content for given trial, %, and
PL = Plastic Limit
PI= Plasticit y Index
Chart the relativit y of the water content, Wn , and the corresponding
number of drops, N, of the cup on a semi logarithmic graph with the
water content as ordinates on the arithmetical scale, and the number
of drops as abscissas on a logarithmic scale. Draw a straight line
through the three or more plotted points.
Have the amount of water corresponds to the intersection of the line
with the 25-drop abscissa as the liquid limit of the soil and round it
off to the nearest whole number. You may use Graphical method
instead of computational for fitting a straight line t o the data and
determining the liquid limit.
3.2.3.5. ASTM D2487 – 06 Standard Practices for
Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes (Unified
Soil Classification System)
Procedure for Classification of Coarse -Grained
Soils (more than 50 % retai ned on the No. 200 (75-
µm) sieve)
1. If more than 50% of the coarse fraction [plus
No. 200 (75-µm) sieve] of the soil is retained on the
No. 4 (4.75-mm) sieve, classify the soil as gravel.
2. If 50% or more of the coarse fraction [plus
No. 200 (75-µm) sieve] passes the No. 4 (4.75 -mm)
sieve, classify the soil as sand.
3. Plot the cumulative particle -size distribution,
(Shown in figure 5), and compute the coefficient of
u n i f o r m i t y, C u , a n d c o e f f i c i e n t o f c u r v a t u r e , I f 1 2
% or less of the test specimen pass es the No. 200
(75-µm) sieve.
D60
Cu = D10 (3.3.3.5. 𝑎)
D30^2
Cc = D10xD60 (3.3.3.5. 𝑏)
Where:
D10, D30, and D60 = the particle -size diameters
c o r r e s p o n d i n g t o 1 0 , 3 0 , a n d 6 0 % , r e s p e c t i v e l y, p a s s i n g
on the cumulative particle -size distribution curve,
4. Classify the soil as well-graded gravel(GW) or
well-graded sand(SW) If less than 5 % of the test
specimen passes the No. 200 (75 -µm) sieve. If
Cu is greater than or equal to 4.0 for gravel or
greater than 6.0 for sand, and Cc is at least 1.0
but not more than 3.0.
5. Classify the soil as poorly graded gravel (GP) or
poorly graded sand (SP) if either the Cu or the
Cc criteria for well -graded soils are not
satisfied, If less than 5 % of the test specimen
passes the No. 200 (75 -µm) sieve.
6. If more th an 12 % of the test specimen passes
the No. 200 (75-µm) sieve, the soil shall be
considered a coarse-grained soil with fines. The
fines are determined to be either clayey or silty
based on the plasticity index versus liquid limit.
7 . C l a s s i f y t h e s o i l a s a c l a ye y g r a v e l ( G C ) o r
c l a ye y s a n d ( S C ) i f t h e f i n e s a r e c l a ye y , t h a t i s ,
the position of the plasticity index versus liquid
limit plot falls on or above the “A” line and the
plasticity index is greater than 7.
8. Classify the soil as a silty gravel (GM) or silty
s a n d ( S M ) i f t h e f i n e s a r e s i l t y, t h a t i s , t h e
position of the plasticity index versus liquid
limit plot (shown in figure 4) falls below the “A”
line or the plasticity index is less than 4.
9. If the fines plot as a silt y clay (CL-ML) classify
t h e s o i l a s a s i l t y, c l a ye y g r a v e l ( G C - G M ) i f i t i s
a g r a v e l o r a s i l t y, c l a ye y s a n d ( S C - S M ) i f i t i s
a sand.
10. Give the soil a dual classification using two
g r o u p s ym b o l s I f 5 t o 1 2 % o f t h e t e s t s p e c i m e n
passes the No. 200 (75-µm) sieve.
11. The first group symbol shall correspond to
that for a gravel or sand having less than 5 %
f i n e s ( G W , G P , S W , S P ) , a n d t h e s e c o n d s ym b o l
shall correspond to a gravel or sand having more
than 12 % fines (GC, GM, SC, SM).
12. The group name shall correspond to the first
g r o u p s ym b o l p l u s “ w i t h c l a y” o r “ w i t h s i l t ” t o
indicate the plasticity characteristics of the
fines. For example, well -graded gravel with clay
(GW-GC); poorly graded sand with silt (SP -SM).
NOTE: If the fines plot as a silty clay (C L-M L)
the second group symbol should be either GC or
SC. For example, poorly graded sand with 10 %
fines, a liquid limit of 20, and a plasticity index
of 6 would be classified as poorly graded sand
with silty clay3 (SP-SC).
3.3.3.6. ASTM D698: Standard Test Method for
Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of Soil Using
Standard Effort (12,400 ft-lb/ft3 (600 kN-m/m3))
Materials:
o Soil passing the #4 sieve (5 lbs per compacted
specimen);
o Standard proctor compaction hammer;
o 4.0-in. diameter compacti on mold, collar, and stand;
o large screwdriver;
o spray lubricant;
o ruler;
o cutting bar;
o scale capable of measuring to the nearest 0.01 g;
o d r yi n g o v e n ;
o 3 soil moisture containers; and
permanent marker
Procedures:
To develop an entire compaction curve, at least five
soil specimens should be compacted, with at least two
specimens’ dry of wopt and two specimens wet of
wopt. The following procedure, which describes how
to compact one specimen, would be repeated for eac h
specimen.
1. Obtain a 5 - lb sample of moist soil that has been
prepared by the instructor.
2. Assemble the compaction mold, stand, and collar.
Measure and record the height and diameter of the
mold. Tighten the wingnuts and seat all the pieces
t o g e t h e r p r o p e r l y, a n d s p r a y t h e i n s i d e o f t h e a s s e m b l y
with an aerosol spray lubricant.
3. Compact the soil in lifts (3 for standard, 5 for
modified). Use 25 blows/lift and scarify the compacted
surface between lifts with the screwdriver. Place
enough loose soil into the m old prior to compaction of
each lift such that the compacted material will occupy
approximately one-third or one-fifth of the mold
(depending on the compaction effort). The top of the
final lift should be just above the top of the mold such
that it will need to be trimmed slightly.
4. Remove the collar and trim the exce ss soil off the top
of the mold.
5. Extrude the specimen and obtain the net mass of the
compacted soil in pounds (Note: 1.00 lb = 454 grams).
6. Obtain samples from the top, middle, and bottom of
the specimen, and perform water content measurements
on the samples to obtain the average water content,
wavg, for the specimen.
7. Calculate the dry unit weight of the soil, γ d, in pcf:
(3.3.3.6. 𝑎)
where M is in kilograms and g is equal to 9.81 m/s2.
3.3.3.7. ASTM D1883-07 Standard Test Method for
California Bearing Ratio (CBR) of Laboratory -
Compacted Soils
Materials:
o Loading Machine
o Mold
o Spacer Disk
o Rammer
o Expansion-Measuring Apparatus
o Weights
o Penetration Piston
o Swell Measurement Device
o Balance
o D r yi n g O v e n
o Sieves
o Filter Paper
o Straightedge
o Soaking Tank or Pan
o Mixing Tool
Procedures:
Bearing Test
1. Place a surcharge of weights on the specimen
sufficient to produce an intensity of the loading
specified; if no pavement weight is specified, use
10-lbf (4.54 kg) mass. If the specimen has been
s o a k e d p r e v i o u s l y, t h e s u r c h a r g e s h a l l b e e q u a l t o
that used during the soaking period. To prevent
upheaval of soil into the hole of the surcharge
weights, place the 5-lbf (2.27-kg) annular weight on
the soil surface prior to seating the penetration
piston, after which place the remainder of the
surcharge weights.
2. Seat the penetration piston with the smallest
possible load, but in no case in excess of 10 lbf (44
N). Either set both the load and penetration gauges
to zero or make provisions to sub tract any initial
values from all subsequently collected data. This
initial load is required to ens ure satisfactory
seating of the piston and shall be considered as the
zero load when determining the load penetration
relation. Attach the penetrating measuring device in
accordance with 6.1.2. Penetration measuring
device (such as a mechanical dial indicator or
electronic displacement transducer) that can be read
to the nearest 0.001 in. (0.025 mm) and associated
mounting hardware. A mounting assembly that
connects the deformation measuring device to the
penetrating piston and the edge of the mold will
give accurate penetration measurements. However,
mounting the deformation holder assembly to a
stressed component of the load fra me (such as tie
rods) will introduce inaccuracies of penetration
measurements.
NOTE - At high loads the supports may torque
and affect the reading of the penetration gauge.
Checking the depth of piston penetration is one
means of checking for erroneous str ain indications.
3. Apply the load on the penetration piston so that the
rate of penetration is approximately 0.05 in. (1.27
mm)/min. Record the load readings at penetrations
of 0.025 in. (0.64 mm), 0.050 in. (1.27 mm), 0.075
in. (1.91 mm), 0.100 in. (2.54 mm), 0.125 in. (3.18
mm), 0.150 in. (3.81 mm), 0.175 in. (4.45 mm),
0.200 in. (5.08 mm), 0.300 in. (7.62 mm), 0.400 in.
(10.16 mm) and 0.500 in. (12.70 mm). Note the
maximum load and penetration if it occurs for a
penetration of less than 0.500 in. (12.70 mm). With
manually operated loading devices, it may be
necessary to take load readings at closer intervals
to control the rate of penetration. Measure the depth
of piston penetration into the soil by putting a ruler
into the indentation and measuring the d ifference
from the top of the soil to the bottom of the
indentation. If the depth does not closel y match the
depth of penetration gauge, determine the cause and
test a new sample.
4. If the test specimen was previously soaked, remove
the soil from the mold and determine the water
content of the top 1 -in. (25.4-mm) layer. Take the
water content sample in accordance with Test
Methods D698 or D1557. Each water content sample
shall weigh not less than 100 g for fine -grained soils
nor less than 500 g for granular so ils. NOTE - The
load readings at penetrations of over 0.300 in. (7.6
mm) may be omitted if the testing machine’s
capacity has been reached.
Computations:
1. Load-Penetration Curve
Calculate the penetration stress in pounds per
square inch or mega pascals and plot the stress
penetration curve. In some instances, the stress
p e n e t r a t i o n c u r v e m a y b e c o n c a v e u p w a r d i n i t i a l l y,
because of surface irregularities or other causes,
and in such cases the zero point shall be adjusted as
shown in Figure No. 2, NOTE 7 - Figure No.2 should
be used as an example of correction of load -
p e n e t r a t i o n c u r v e s o n l y. I t i s n o t m e a n t t o i m p l y
t h a t t h e 0 . 2 - i n . p e n e t r a t i o n i s a l w a ys m o r e t h a n t h e
0.1-in. penetration
PISTON LOAD
Penetration Stress = (3.3.3.7. 𝑎)
AREA OF PISTON
Figure No. 3.2.3.7 Correction of Load - Penetration Curves

(ASTM D1883-07)
2. Bearing Ratio
Using corrected stress values taken from the
stress penetration curve for 0.100 in. (2.54 mm) and
0.200 in. (5.08 mm) penetrations, calculate the
bearing ratios for each by dividing the corrected
stresses by the standard stresses of 1000 psi (6.9
M P a ) a n d 1 5 0 0 p s i ( 1 0 . 3 M P a ) r e s p e c t i v e l y, a n d
m u l t i p l yi n g b y 1 0 0 . A l s o , c a l c u l a t e t h e b e a r i n g
ratios for the maximum stress, if the penetration is
less than 0.200 in. (5.08 mm) by interpolating the
standard stress. The bearing ratio reported for the
soil is normally the one at 0.100 in. (2.54 mm)
penetration. When the ratio at 0.200 in. (5.08 mm)
penetration is greater, rerun the test. If the check
test gives a similar result, use the bearing ratio at
0.200 in. (5.08 mm) penetration.
CBR at 2.54 – mm penetration = (3.3.3.7. 𝑏)
corrected penetration stress for 2.54 mm penetration

(from curve ofpenetration stress versus penetration
x 100
6.9
CBR at 5.08 mm penetration = (3.3.3.7 𝑐)

x 100
10.3
NOTE 8-On occasion the testing agency may
be requested to determine the CBR value for a dry
density not represented by the laboratory
compaction curve. For example, the corrected CBR
value for the dry density at 95 % of maximum dry
density and at optimum water content might be
requested. A recommended method to achieve this
value is to compact two or three CBR test specimens
at the same molded water content but compact each
specimen to different compaction energies to
achieve a density below and above the desired
value. The corrected CBR values were plotted
against the dry density and the desired CBR value
i n t e r p r e t e d a s i l l u s t r a t e d i n F i g . 3 . F o r c o n s i s t e n c y,
the corrected CBR values should be of identical
origin, for example, all either soaked or un -soaked
and all either at 0.1 or 0.2 corrected penetration
values
Dry Density of the compacted specimen

Msac
ρd = (3.3.3.7. 𝑑)
Vm
Mm+ws−Mm
where: Msac = (3.3.3.7 𝑒)
(1+Wac)
Msac = dry mass of soil as compacted, Mg or g,
Mm + ws = wet mass of soil as molded plus mold mass,
Mg or g
Mm = mold mass, Mg or g,
Wac = water content determination of representative
scraps taken duri ng the compaction process, and
Vm = volume of mold (area of mold 3 initial height), a
calibrate value, m3 or cm3.
Conversion of dry density units:
γd = 9.8066x ρd, kN/m^3) (3.2.3.7. 𝑐)
γd = 62.428x ρd, lbf/ft^3 ( 3.2.3.7. 𝑑)
Where:
γd = d r y u n i t w e i g h t , k N / m 3 o r l b f / f t 3 ,
9.8066 = conversion factor, Mg/m3 or g/cm3 to kN/m3,
and
62.428 = conversion factor, Mg/m3 or g/cm3 to lbf/ft3
3.4 Statistical Treatment of the Data
3.4.1 Measures of Central Tendency, Mean/Average
The statistical parameters to obtain the probability of
exceedance values, i .e., mean/average, were computed using
conventional statistical formulas used for ungrouped data. The
f o r m u l a f o r c o m p u t i n g t h e m e a n ( λ) i s g i v e n b y e q u a t i o n
(3.3.1a).
𝑆
A=𝑁 (3.4.1a)
where:
A = average or arithmetic mean
N = the number of terms
S = the sum of the numbers in the set of interests
CHAPTER 4
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
The data presented in this chapter were the results of the
experimental tests conducted by the researchers. The results were
shown in tables, graphs and figures. These were the basis for further
a n a l ys i s , u n d e r s t a n d i n g a n d c o n c l u s i o n s a s w e l l a s r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s
regarding the subject.
4.1. Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) for soil (Control)
Table 4.1.1. Sieve Analysis
Grain Size Distribution Percentage
Gravel 0.435
Sand 29.056
F i n e s ( S i l t / C l a y) 70.509
Table 4.1.1. shows the percentage retained for each soil
p r o p e r t y. The following soil property were gravel, sand and
f i n e s ( s i l t / c l a y) w i t h S i e v e n o . s 4 ( 4 . 7 5 0 m m o p e n i n g ) , 8 - 1 0 0 ( 2 . 3 6 0 -
0.150 mm opening) and 200(0.075mm opening). (See Appendix A for
Grain Size Distribution Table).
Table 4.1.2. Physical and Index Properties
PROPERTY
Moisture Content 45.664 %
Specific Gravity 2.665
PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS
Percent passing the sieve no. 70.509 %
200
Percent retained on the sieve 14.906 %
no. 200
ATTERBERG LIMITS
Liquid Limit 46.005 %
Plastic Limit 24.641 %
Plasticity Index 21.364 %
Plasticity Index (A Line) 18.984 %
T a b l e 4 . 1 . 2 . s h o w s t h e p h ys i c a l a n d i n d e x p r o p e r t i e s o f s o i l
control sample which serves as a basis in order to determine the
classification of the soil. (See Appendix A tabulated data and
results). The result showed the percentage passing the no. 200 siev e,
percentage retained on no.200 sieve, liquid limit, plastic limit,
plasticity index and plasticity index above the A line (Refer to Figure
4.1.2.) with the corresponding values of 70.509 %,14.906%
,46.005%, 24.641 %,21.364% and 18.987 %.
The soil had more than 50% passing o n #200 sieve and
classified as fine -grained soil, with less than 50% liquid limit it was
c a t e g o r i z e d u n d e r i n o r g a n i c c l a y. A l s o w i t h p l a s t i c i t y i n d e x w i t h l e s s
than 73% of liquid l imit minus 20 and with the equation of p lot “A”
l i n e , t h e U n i f i e d S o i l C l a s s i f i c a t i o n S ys t e m ( U S C S ) s y m b o l i s C L ,
and lastly with less than 15% retained on sieve no. 200 classified as
U n i f i e d S o i l C l a s s i f i c a t i o n S ys t e m ( U S C S ) n a m e l e a n c l a y .
Figure 4.1.2. Plasticity Chart
4.3. California Bearing Ratio (CBR)
Table 4.3.1. Average Bearing Strength Capacity
CBR (%)
Control Soil Sample 5.90
1 0 0 m l / 𝐦𝟑 ( 0 . 0 6 1 m l / k g ) of Bio Enzymes 7.90
2 0 0 m l / 𝐦𝟑 ( 0 . 1 2 2 m l / k g ) o f B i o E n z ym e s 8.85
3 0 0 m l / 𝐦𝟑 ( 0 . 1 8 3 m l / k g ) o f B i o E n z ym e s 9.40
Table 4.3.1 shows the average bearing strength capacity of the
s o i l w i t h d i f f e r e n t d o s a g e s o f b i o e n z y m e s o f 1 0 0 m l / m3 ( 0 . 0 6 1 m l / k g ) ,
2 0 0 m l / m3 ( 0 . 1 2 2 m l / k g ) , 3 0 0 m l / m3 ( 0 . 1 8 3 m l / k g ) w i t h c o r r e s p o n d i n g
values of 5.90%, 7.90%, 8.85% and 9.40% . As the dosage of bio
e n z ym e s i n c r e a s e s t h e b e a r i n g s t r e n g t h c a p a c i t y a l s o i n c r e a s e s .
M i t h a n t h a ya e t . a l ( 2 0 0 9 ) s t a t e d t h a t t h e i n c l u s i o n o f b i o - e n z ym e s
makes the soil more compacted and the thickness of t he void reduce,
that makes the California bearing capacity increases. The main
ingredients for b i o - e n z ym e s was natural fruit extracts from
p i n e a p p l e , p a p a ya , a p p l e , g r a p e s , a n d s u g a r c a n e . T h e y a l s o s t a t e d
that e n z ym e promotes development of cementatious compound
s u b s t a n c e b y m i x i n g w a t e r , s o i l a n d e n z ym e s t o p r o d u c e s t h e c a l c i u m
s i l i c a t e h yd r a t e s .
The bearing capacity of the soil increases until the bio enzymes
inclusion reach to 300ml/m^3(0.183ml/kg). The California Bearing
Ratio (CBR) value for vertisol increases when the dosage of bio
e n z ym e s i n c r e a s e s t h u s , i n c r e a s i n g t h e s t r e n g t h o f v e r t i s o l . H i g h
value of California Bearing Ratio (CBR) shows that the strength of
soil is good. According from other study the dosage used for bio
e n z ym e s r a n g e s b e t w e e n 1 0 0 - 3 0 0 m l p e r c u b i c m e t e r .
The result support ed the claim made by Sen and Singh (2015)
t h e i n c l u s i o n o f b i o e n z ym e s i n t h e s o i l i n c r e a s e d t h e b e a r i n g
c a p a c i t y, w h i c h i s a l m o s t s i m i l a r i n o u r s t u d y. A c c o r d i n g t o Y o d e r
and Witczak (1975) “Principles of Paveme nt Design “for clay soil the
value as subgrade is poor to fair and the des ign CBR values is 15
percent or less. (See Apendix A for tabulated Design CBR values )
10 9.4
California Bearing Ratio (CBR)
9 8.85
8 7.9
7
6
5.9
5
4
3
2
1
0
Control Soil 100ml/cu.m or 200ml/cu.m or 300ml/cu.m or
0.061 ml/kg of 0.122 ml/kg of 0.183 ml/kg of
Bio-Enzymes Bio-Enzymes Bio-Enzymes
Treated and Untreated
Figure 4.3.1. Variation of California Bearing Ratio for treated and untreated Soil
Figure 4.3.1. shows the bearing capacity of the controlled and
treated soil. This supports the statement made by SEIC (2015) that
the increasing of dosage of bio enz ymes decreases the void in soil,
when the void in soil decreases, the rate of water flowing th rough the
soil also decreases thus, the soil is improving and is suitable for road
subgrade.
In comparison with other studies that uses fly ash, cement and
lime as a soil stabilizer. According to Kumar et.al (2015) , they used
fly ash as a stabilizer on a s ilty sand soil. The effect resulted on the
fly ash with fifteen (15%) which has an optimum value of California
Bearing Ratio (CBR).
On the other hand, according to Singh (2016) and the study of
Singh and Vasaikar (2013), they used on different stabilizing agent
o n d i f f e r e n t c l a s s i f i c a t i o n o f s o i l n a m e l y c e m e n t w i t h v a r yi n g
renolith on a silty sand soil and lime on a silty clay soil. Both effects
resulted in increased percentage of stabilizers, the value of
California Bearing Ratio (CBR) also increases.
I n c o m p a r i s o n w i t h o u r s t u d y, t h e C a l i f o r n i a B e a r i n g R a t i o
(CBR) value increases depending of the classification of soil and the
t yp e o f s t a b i l i z i n g a g e n t s l i k e f l y a s h , l i m e , c e m e n t a n d b i o e n z ym e s .
CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSION
This chapter aims to present the con clusions and
r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s m a d e f o r t h e s t u d y.
B a s e o n t h e r e s u l t s a n d a n a l ys i s , t h e r e s e a r c h e r s c a m e u p w i t h
the following conclusion :
1. The classification of the soil which is vertisol, that the
r e s e a r c h e r s o b t a i n e d i s L e a n C l a y w i t h a g r o u p s ym b o l o f C L
a c c o r d i n g t o U n i f i e d S o i l C l a s s i f i c a t i o n S ys t e m ( U S C S ) .
2 . T h e b i o e n z ym e s a s a s t a b i l i z e r r e s u l t e d i n a s i g n i f i c a n t
increase in California B earing Ratio (CBR) of the soil tested
w i t h v a r yi n g d o s a g e s . I n u n t r e a t e d s o i l t h e b e a r i n g s t r e n g t h
capacity is 5.90 % and in treated soil; a dosage of 100
ml/m^3(0.061 ml/kg), 200 ml/m^3(0.122 ml /kg) and
300ml/m^3(0.183 ml/kg) with the corresponding values of
7.90%,8.85%,9.40%.
3. T h e e f f e c t o f a d m i x t u r e u s e d w h i c h i s b i o e n z ym e s w a s s u i t a b l e
additives for strengthening of soil and can be used to improve
the quality of weak road subgrade.
CHAPTER 6
RECOMMENDATION
The researchers recommended the following:
1 . T h e b i o e n z ym e s c a n b e t e s t e d w i t h d i f f e r e n t c l a s s i f i c a t i o n o f
s o i l u s i n g U n i f i e d S o i l C l a s s i f i c a t i o n S ys t e m ( U S C S ) .
2. Other test may be performed to prove the effect of bio enzymes
with different dosages which may include for permeability test,
d i r e c t s h e a r t e s t a n d d yn a m i c b e h a v i o r o f s o i l t o i m p r o v e t h e
soil property and Tri-axial Test.
3. Comparative studies may also be done on the samples by mixing
them with conventional stabilizing agents like lime, cement
w i t h v a r yi n g r e n o l i t h d o s a g e s a n d f l y a s h .
REFERENCES
• A m e s h , H . , & R , S . S . ( n . d . ) . E f f e c t o f D r yi n g o n t h e S t r e n g t h
P r o p e r t i e s o f T e r r a z ym e T r e a t e d E x p a n s i v e a n d N o n - E x p a n s i v e
Soils. 50th Indian Geotechnical Conference.
• ASTM Standards for Laboratory Test. ASTM International
• Bajpai, P. (2014, June). Non -conventional soil stabilization
techniques The way forward to an aggregate free pavement And
a Cost effective method of Road Construction. International
Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, 5(6), 5.
• D h a n e s h , I . S . , & M o h a n d a s , T . V . ( 2 0 1 6 ) . E f f e c t o f b i o - e n z ym e
on geotechnical properties of Thonnakkal clay (9th ed., Vol.
36).
• D N , N . , A m a n t e , V . , & K u m a r , D . ( 2 0 1 5 , J u l y) . C o m p a c t i o n a n d
Strength Characteristics of Terra -zyme Stabilized Red Soil.
International Journal of Research Publications in Engineering,
Technology and Managem ent [IJRPETM], 1(1), 2 -3.
• Eujine, G. N., Somervell, L. T., Chandrakan, D., & Sankar, D.
( 2 0 1 4 ) . E n z ym e S t a b i l i z a t i o n o f H i g h L i q u i d L i m i t C l a y. E J G E ,
19, 6990-6994.
• Gautam, S. B., Mishra, C. B., & Umrigar, N. F. (2016). Subgrade
S o i l S t a b i l i z a t i o n U s i n g T e r r a z ym e , 2 ( 3 ) , 2 5 2 3 - 2 5 2 7 .
• Hitam, A., Yusof, A., & Samad, O. (2012). Soil stabilizer for
plantation road.
• Industry and Enz ymes | About Enzymes | AMANO. (n.d.).
Retrieved from https://www.amano -
e n z ym e . c o . j p / e n g / e n z ym e / i n d u s t r y. h t m l
• Khan, T., & Taha, M. (20 15). Effect of Three Bioenz ymes on
Compaction, Consistency Limits, and Strength Characteristics
of a Sedimentary Residual Soil. Advances in Materials Science
and Engineering.
• Lacuoture, A., & Gonzales, H. (2012). Usage of Organic
E n z ym e s f o r t h e S t a b i l i z a t i o n o f N a t u r a l B a s e S o i l s a n d S u b -
Bases [Scholarly project].
• Ltd., K. (2014, November). Consultancy Services for improving
the Performance of Unsealed Roads by the use of Chemical
Stabilization ( E n z ym e s ) . CrossRoads - 5. Research &
Innovation, (1), 2, 14.
• M, L. B., Sarang, G., N, C., & Shankar A., R. (2014). Laboratory
Investigation on Black Cotton Soil Stabilized with Non
Traditional Stabilizer. IOSR Journal of Mechanical and Civil
Engineering (IOSRJMCE), 2, 10 -12.
• MedicalDiscoveries. (n.d.). Retrieved fro m
h t t p : / / w w w . d i s c o v e r i e s i n m e d i c i n e . c o m / E n z - H o / E n z ym e . h t m l
• Rajoria, V., & Kaur, S. (2014, J a n u a r y) . A Review on
Stabilization of Soil Using Bio -Enzyme. IJ RET: International
J o u r n a l o f R e s e a r c h i n E n g i n e e r i n g a n d T e c h n o l o g y, 3 ( 1 ) , 7 5 -
78.
• Saini, V., & Vaishnava, P. (2015, August). Soil Stabilization by
u s i n g T e r r a z ym e . I J A E T I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o u r n a l o f A d v a n c e s i n
E n g i n e e r i n g & T e c h n o l o g y, 8 ( 4 ) , 5 5 6 - 5 7 3 .
• Sen, J., & Singh, J. (2015, December). Stabilization of Black
Cotton Soil using B i o E n z ym e for a Highway Materi al.
International Journal of Innovative Research in Science,
E n g i n e e r i n g a n d T e c h n o l o g y, 4 ( 1 2 ) , 1 2 4 5 6 - 1 2 4 5 9 .
• S h a n k a r , A . , R a i , H . , & I . , R . ( 2 0 0 9 , J u l y) . B i o - E n z ym e
Stabilized Lateritic Soil as a Highway Material †. Journal of the
Indian Roads Congress.
• S h e t t y, S . , V , D . , P a i , A . , & P r a h a s t h a . ( 2 0 1 6 , A u g u s t ) .
Q u a l i t a t i v e S t u d y o n P h ys i c a l a n d B i o e n z ym a t i c S t a b i l i s a t i o n o f
lateritic Soil. JETIR, 3(8), 12 -15.
• Soil Stabilization. (2015). Retrieved from
http://www.midstatecompanies.com/…/servi…/soil -
stabilization
• T h o m a s , A . , T r i p a t h i , R . , & Y a d u , L . ( 2 0 1 6 ) . E f f e c t o f E n z ym e s
on the Unconfined Compressive Strength of Soil. International
Journal of Applied Engineering Research, 11(10), 6940 -6942.
• Venkatasubramanian, C., & Dhinakaran, G. (2011). Effect of
B i o - e n z ym a t i c S o i l S t a b i l i s a t i o n o n U n c o n f i n e d C o m p r e s s i v e
Strength and California Bearing Ration. Journal of Engineering
and Applied Sciences, 6(5), 295 -297.
• Solomon, H. (2011). Chemical Stabilization of Expensive Sub -
gradve Soil Performance Evaluation on Selected Road Section
on Northeastern Addis Ababa (Unpublished master's thesis).
Addis Ababa University
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
(TABLES, FIGURES AND COMPUTATIONS )
4.1 Soil Classification
Table 4.1.1: Grain Size Distribution of Soil Sample (Control)
SIEV SIEVE MAS MASS MASS % CUMULAT %FIN

E OPENING( S OF OF RETAIN RETAIN IVE MASS ER
NO. mm) SIE SIEVE ED ON ED RETAINED
VE W/ EACH (g)
(g) SOIL SIEVE
(g) (g)
4 4.750 520. 524.70 4.608 0.435 4.608 99.565
1 8
8 2.360 476. 483.03 6.136 0.579 10.744 98.986
9 6
10 2.000 491. 499.55 8.354 0.789 19.098 98.197
2 4
16 1.180 412. 423.59 10.897 1.029 29.995 97.168
7 7
30 0.600 403. 415.8 12.300 1.161 42.295 96.007
5
40 0.425 349. 364.8 15.400 1.454 57.695 94.553
4
50 0.300 377. 409.9 32.4 3.059 90.095 91.494
5
100 0.150 317. 381.9 64.4 6.079 154.495 85.415
5
200 0.075 322. 480.4 157.9 14.906 312.395 70.509
5
PAN - 374. 1149.7 746.905 70.509 1059.30 0
2 13
TOT 1059.3
AL
Working Formulas:
𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑑(𝑔) = 𝑊𝑡. 𝑜𝑓 𝑆𝑖𝑒𝑣𝑒 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ 𝑎𝑔𝑔𝑟𝑒𝑔𝑎𝑡𝑒 − 𝑊𝑡. 𝑜𝑓 𝑆𝑖𝑒𝑣𝑒
Mass of soil retained

Rn(%) = × 100
Wt.of oven dry sample
∑ 𝑅𝑛 (%) = Rnth (%)
%finer = 100 − ∑ Rn or 100 − ∑𝑖=𝑛 𝑡ℎ

𝑖=1 𝑅𝑛 (%)
Wt.of sample− ∑ mass of soil retained W− W1

loss(g) = × 100= x100(%)
Wt.of sample w
(Ok if less than 2%)
Sieve Percent Mass of soil retained on each sieve,

Rn
𝑴𝒂𝒔𝒔 𝒐𝒇 𝑺𝒐𝒊𝒍 𝑹𝒆𝒕𝒂𝒊𝒏𝒆𝒅 𝒐𝒏 𝒆𝒂𝒄𝒉 𝑺𝒊𝒆𝒗𝒆(𝒈)
𝒙 𝟏𝟎𝟎
𝑻𝒐𝒕𝒂𝒍 𝑴𝒂𝒔𝒔 𝒐𝒇 𝑺𝒐𝒊𝒍 𝑹𝒆𝒕𝒂𝒊𝒏𝒆𝒅 (𝒈)
4.608
#4 x 100 = 0.435 %
1059.3
6.136
#8 x 100 = 0.579 %
1059.3
8.354
#10 x 100 = 0.789 %
1059.3
10.897
#16 x 100 = 1.029 %
1059.3
12.300
#30 x 100 = 1.161 %
1059.3
15.400
#40 x 100 = 1.454 %
1059.3
32.400
#50 x 100 = 3.059 %
1059.3
64.400
#100 x 100 = 6.079 %
1059.3
157.900
#200 x 100 = 14.906 %
1059.3
746.905
Pan x 100 = 70.509 %
1059.3
Sieve Cumulative Percent Retained, ∑Rn
#4 4.608
#8 4.6080 + 6.1360 = 10.744
#10 10.744 + 8.3540 = 19.098
#16 19.098 + 10.897 = 29.995
#30 29.995 + 12.300 = 42.295
#40 42.295 + 15.400 = 57.695
#50 57.695 + 32.400 = 90.095
#100 90.095 + 64.400 = 154.495
#200 154.495+ 157.900 = 312.395
Pan 312.395+ 746.905 = 1059.30
Sieve Percent Finer
#4 100 – 0.435 = 99.565

#8 99.565 – 0.579 = 98.986
#10 98.986 – 0.789 = 98.197
#16 98.197 – 1.029 = 97.168

#30 97.168 – 1.161 = 96.007
#40 96.007 – 1.454 = 94.553
#50 94.553 – 3.059 = 91.494
#100 91.494 – 6.079 = 85.415
#200 85.415 – 14.906 = 70.509
Pan 70.509 – 70.509 = 0
1060− 1059.3
%Loss = 𝑥100 = 0.06
1060
Table 4.1.2: Specific Gravity of Soil Sample (Control)
Container ID 1 2 3
Mass of flask filled with 338.3 340.6 342.4
water (Ma)
Mass of flask filled with 365.3 367.7 371.1
soil & water (Mb)
Mass of dry soil (M o) 43.2 44.7 46.1
Specific Gravity of Soil 2.667 2.693 2.649
Solids (Gs)
Water Temperature 26.2 26.7 25.6
Correction Factor (K) 0.9986 0.9983 0.9986
Specific Gravity of Soil 2.765 2.688 2.721
Solids at 20˚C (Gs20)
Average Specific
Gravity of Soil Solids at 2.665
20˚C (Gs20)
𝑀𝑜
W o r k i n g F o r m u l a s : 𝐺𝑠 = 𝑀 Gs20 = GsK
𝑜 +(𝑀𝑎 − 𝑀𝑏 )
Trial 1
43.2
𝐺𝑠 = 43.2+(338.3−365.3) = 2 . 6 6 7 𝐺𝑠20 = 2.667(0.9986) = 2.663
Trial 2
44.7
𝐺𝑠 = 44.7+(340.6−368.7) = 2 . 6 9 3 𝐺𝑠20 = 2.693(0.9983) = 2.688
Trial 3
46.1
𝐺𝑠 = 46.1+(342.4−371.1) = 2 . 6 4 9 𝐺𝑠20 = 2.649(0.9986) = 2.645
Average Specific Gravity (Gs)

2.663+2.688+2.645
𝐺𝑠20 = = 2.665
3
Table 4.1.3: Liquid Limit of Soil Sample (Control)
TRIAL 1 2 3
Mass of container, Mc (g) 27.800 24.500 29.800
Mass of container and moist 54.200 56.790 52.500

specimen, Mc + Moist Soil(g)
( M1)
Mass of container and oven 45.800 46.800 45.600

dried specimen, Mc + Dry Soil
( g ) ( M2 )
Mass of moist soil specimen, 26.400 27.800 25.600

Mw (g)
Mass of oven dried specimen, M s 18 19.200 17.900

(g)
Moisture Content 46.667% 44.798% 43.671%
Number of Blows 26 23 20
Liquid Limit (LL) 46.005 %
(𝑀1−𝑀2)
Working Formulas: 𝜔 = 𝑥 100%
𝑀2−𝑀𝑐
Trial 1(26 Blows):
(54.200−45.800)
𝜔= 𝑥 100% = 4 6 . 6 6 7 %
45.800−27.800
Trial 2(23 Blows):
(56.790−46.800)
𝜔= 𝑥 100% = 4 4 . 7 9 8 %
46.800−24.500
Trial 3(20 Blows):
(52.500−45.600)
𝜔= 𝑥 100% = 4 3 . 6 7 1 %
45.600−29.800
Equation of graph Linear trendline shown in figure 4.1.3
y = 0.7199x + 28.007
= 0.7199(25) + 24.8
y = 46.005 %
DETERMINATION OF LIQUID LIMIT OF SOIL

47
Moisture Content (%)
46.5 y = 0.7199x + 28.007 46.667

46
45.5
45
44.798
44.5
44
43.5 43.671
21.5 22 22.5 23 23.5 24 24.5 25 25.5 26 26.5
No. of Blows
Figure 4.1.3. Liquid Limit of Control Soil Sample
In Fugure 4.1.3, it show that the liquid limit of soil increased
as the number of blows increased.
Table 4.1.4: Plastic Limit of Control Soil Sample
TRIAL 1 2 3
Mass of container, Mc (g) 23.600 27.700 28.700
Mass of container and moist 30.200 33.400 31.400

specimen, Mc + Moist Soil (g)
Mass of container and oven 28.900 32.200 30.900

dried specimen, Mc + Dry Soil
(g)
Mass of moist soil specimen, 6.600 5.700 2.700

Mw (g)
Mass of oven dried specimen, 5.300 4.500 2.200

Mods (g)
Moisture Content 24.528% 26.667% 22.727%
Average Plastic Limit (PL) 24.641%
Liquid Limit (LL) 46.005%
Plasticity Index (PI) 21.364%
(𝑀1−𝑀2)
Working Formulas: 𝜔 = 𝑥 100% ; P I = L L – P L
𝑀2−𝑀𝑐
Trial 1:
(30.200−28.900)
𝜔= 𝑥 100% = 2 4 . 5 2 8 %
28.900−23.600
Trial 2:
(33.400−32.200)
𝜔= 𝑥 100% = 2 6 . 6 6 7 %
32.200−27.700
Trial 3:
(31.400−30.900)
𝜔= 𝑥 100% = 2 2 . 7 2 7 %
30.900−28.700
Average Plastic Limit (PL)
24.528+26.667+22.727
𝜔= = 24.641 %
3
PI = 46.005 – 24.641 = 21.364 %
Table 4.1.5: Moisture Content of Soil Sample (Control)
Trial 1 2 3
Weight of can 27.700 25.500 24.800
(W1)
(g)
Weight of can + 127.800 116.400 129.100
Moist soil
(W2)
(g)
Weight of can + 98.500 85.800 96.800
Dry soil
(W3)
(g)
Weight of water 29.300 30.600 32.300
(WW)
(g)
Weight of Dry 70.800 60.300 71.2
soil
(WS)
(g)
Water content 41.384 % 50.746 % 44.861 %
(w)
(g)
Average Water 45.664 %
Content
Ww
W o r k i n g F o r m u l a s : Ww = W2 – W3 ; Ws = W3 – W1 (g) ; W = × 100
Ws
Trial 1:
Ww = 127.800 − 98.500 = 2 9 . 3 0 0
Ws = 98.500 – 27.700 = 70.800
29.300
W= × 100 = 41.384 %
70.800
Trial 2:
Ww = 116.400 − 85.800 = 3 0 . 6 0 0
Ws = 85.800 – 25.500 = 60.300
30.600
W= × 100 = 50.746 %
60.300
Trial 3:
Ww = 129.100 − 96.800 = 3 2 . 3 0 0
Ws = 96.800 – 24.800 = 71.200
32.300
W= × 100 = 44.861 %
71.200
Average Moisture Content (%)
41.384 + 50.746 + 44.861

W= = 45.664 %
3
4.3. California Bearing Ratio (CBR)
Table 4.3.1: Standard Compaction Effort
Trial 1 2 3 4 5 6
Weight of 27.7 25.5 24.8 24.6 24.36 28.62

Can
( g ) (MC )
Weight of 116.5 136 127.2 114.1 135.8 109.2
Can + wet
soil
( g ) (M1 )
Weight of 108.4 123.7 112.6 98.9 113.6 92
Can + dry
soil
( g ) (M2 )
Weight of 80.7 98.2 87.8 74.3 89.24 63.38
dry soil
( g ) (Md )
Weight of 88.8 110.5 102.9 89.5 111.44 80.58

moisture
( g ) (Ms )
Moisture 10.04 12.53 16.63 20.46 24.88 27.14
Content
(%)
Weight of 2697.3 2697.3 2697.3 2.697.3 2697.3 2697.3
mold (g)
(Wm)
Weight of 4.218 4.311 4.449 4.568 4.551 4.475
mold +
compacte
d soil
(kg)(Wcs)
Weight of 1.5207 1.6137 1.7517 1.8707 1.8537 1.7777
compacte
d soil
(kg)(Ws)
Wet 1577.1 1673.6 1816.7 1940.1 1881.0 1843.6
Density
( k g / m3 ) 4 0 2 4 2 8
Dry 1433.2 1487.2 1557.6 1610.6 1506.2 1450.1

Density
( k g / m3 ) 5 4 8 1 6 2
(M1−M2)
Working Formulas: ω = x 100 ; Md = M2 − Mc ; Ms = M1 − Mc
M2−Mc
Wcs−Wm ρw
ρw = Vm
; ρd = MC%+100
x100
𝜋
Volume of Mold = (. 102)2 ( . 1 1 8 ) = 0 . 0 0 0 9 6 4 2 1 1 𝑚3
4
Trial 1:
(116.5 − 108.4)
ω= x 100 = 10.04 %
108.4 − 27.7
Md = 108.4 − 27.7 = 80.7 g
Ms = 116.5 − 27.7 = 88.8 g
4.218−2.6973 𝑘𝑔
ρw = 0.000964211
= 1577.15 𝑚3
1577.15 𝑘𝑔
ρd = 10.04+100
x100 = 1 4 3 3 . 2 5 𝑚3
Trial 2:
(136 − 123.7)
ω= x 100 = 12.53 %
123.7 − 25.5
Md = 123.7 − 25.5 = 98.2 g
Ms = 136 − 25.5 = 110.5 g
4.311−2.6973 𝑘𝑔
ρw = 0.000964211
= 1673.60 𝑚3
1673.60 𝑘𝑔
ρd = 12.53+100
x100 = 1 4 8 7 . 2 5 𝑚3
Trial 3:
(127.2 − 112.6)
ω= x 100 = 16.63 %
112.6 − 24.8
Md = 112.6 − 24.8 = 87.8 g ;
Ms = 127.7 − 24.8 = 102.9 g
4.449−2.6973 𝑘𝑔
ρw = 0.000964211
= 1816.72 𝑚3
1816.72 𝑘𝑔
ρd = 16.63+100
x100 = 1557.68 𝑚3
Trial 4:
(114.1 − 98.9)
ω= x 100 = 20.46 %
98.9 − 24.6
Md = 98.9 − 24.6 = 74.3 g ;
Ms = 114.1 − 24.6 = 89.5 g
4.568−2.6973 𝑘𝑔
ρw = 0.000964211
= 1940.14 𝑚3
1940.14 𝑘𝑔
ρd = 20.46+100
x100 = 1610.61 𝑚3
Trial 5:
(135.8 − 113.6)
ω= x 100 = 24.88 %
113.6 − 24.36
Md = 113.6 − 24.36 = 89.24 g ;
Ms = 135.8 − 24.36 = 111.44 g
4.551−2.6973 𝑘𝑔
ρw = 0.000964211
= 1881.02 𝑚3
1881.02 𝑘𝑔
ρd = 24.88+100
x100 = 1506.26 𝑚3
Trial 6:
(109.2 − 92)
ω= x 100 = 27.14 %
92 − 28.62
Md = 92 − 25.5 = 63.38 g ;
Ms = 109.2 − 25.5 = 80.58 g
4.475−2.6973 𝑘𝑔
ρw = 0.000964211
= 1843.68 𝑚3
1843.68 𝑘𝑔
ρd = 27.14+100
x100 = 1450.12 𝑚3
Standard Compaction Effort

Dry Density (kg/m^3)
1650
Dry Density (kg/m^3) 1610.61
1600
1557.68
1550
1506.26
1487.24
1500
1450.12
1433.25
1450
1400
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Moisture Content (%)
Figure 4.3.1. Standard Compaction Effort for the Design for
CBR
In Fugure 4.3.1, it show that the maximum dry densit y is 1610.61
kg/m^3 and the optimum moisture content is 20.46 %. In this test
method to determine the CBR of a material at optimum water content
or a range of water content for specified compaction test and a
specified dry unit weight
4.3.2. Computation for Penetration Stress, Correction Penetration

and California Bearing Ratio (CBR)
Table 4.3.2: California Bearing Ratio for Untreated Soil for 56
Blows (Trial 1)
Proving Piston Penetration Corrected California

Penetration
Ring Dial Load Stress Penetration Bearing
(mm)
Reading (N) (Mpa) (Mpa) Ratio (%)
(mm)
0.64 0.5 10.65 0.005
1.27 4.8 102.23 0.053

1.91 16.7 355.67 0.184
2.54 35 745.41 0.385 0.312 4.52
5.08 48.9 1041.45 0.538 0.563 5.47
7.62 54.7 1164.97 0.601

Blows (Trial 2)
Penetration
(mm)
(mm)
0.64 0.45 9.584 0.005

1.27 4.6 97.969 0.051
1.91 16.8 357.798 0.185
2.54 35.4 753.932 0.389 0.308 4.46
5.08 47.9 1020.151 0.527 0.559 5.43
7.62 54.9 1169.233 0.604
Blows (Trial 3)

Penetration
(mm)
(mm)
0.64 0.55 11.717 0.006

1.27 4.8 102.228 0.053
1.91 16.9 359.928 0.186
2.54 35.6 758.191 0.391 0.315 4.57
5.08 49.3 1049.967 0.542 0.569 5.52
7.62 55 1171.363 0.605
Average California Bearing Ratio (%)
2.54 4.52
5.08 5.47
In the table 4.3.2, 4.3.3 and 4.3.4 shows the California Bearing Ratio
for 56 blows at 2.54 mm and 5.08 mm penetration with the average
values of 4.52 % and 5.47 %.
Computations:
LOAD
Working Formulas: Penetration Stress = ;
AREA

CBR at 2.54 – mm penetration = 6.9
x 100

CBR at 5.08 mm penetration = 10.3
x 100
A r e a o f P i s t o n = 1 9 3 6 . 8 8 3 mm2
For Trial 1:
745.41 N
PS at 2.54 mm = = 0.385 Mpa
1936.883 mm2
1041.45 N
PS at 5.08 mm = = 0.538 Mpa
1936.883 mm2
Untreated Soil for 56 blows (Trial 1)

0.7
0.6 y = -0.0171x2 + 0.2295x - 0.1611 0.601
Penetration Stess (mpa)
R² = 0.9677 0.538
0.5
0.4 0.385
0.3
0.2 0.184
0.1
0.053
0 0.005
-0.1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Penetration (mm)
Figure 4.3.2: Correction of Load -Penetration Curve
In figure 4.3.2 it shows the relationship of the penetration (mm)
and penetration stress (Mpa). The corrected penetration (Mpa) values
is from the equation in the fi gure by substituting the 2.54 mm and
5.08 mm penetration.
The following equations was obtained using Microsoft Excel,
b y a d d i n g a 2 n d d e g r e e p o l yn o m i a l t r e n d l i n e a n d t h e r e g r e s s i o n a l s o
k n o w n a s R2 w a s d i r e c t l y c o m p u t e d u s i n g M i c r o s o f t E x c e l .
F r o m t h e e q u a t i o n a b o v e : y = - 0 . 0 1 7 1 𝑥2+ 0 . 2 2 9 5 x - 0 . 1 6 1 1
Corrected Penetration Stress (Mpa)
At 2.54 mm
y = - 0 . 0 1 7 1 (2.54)2 + 0 . 2 2 9 5 ( 2 . 5 4 ) - 0 . 1 6 1 1 = 0 . 3 1 2 M p a
At 5.08 mm
y = - 0 . 0 1 7 1 (5.08)2 + 0 . 2 2 9 5 ( 5 . 0 8 ) - 0 . 1 6 1 1 = 0 . 5 6 3 M p a
0.312
CBR at 2.54 mm = 𝑥 100 = 4 . 5 2 %
6.9
0.563
CBR at 5.08 mm = 𝑥 100 = 5 . 4 7 %
10.3
For Trial 2:
753.932 N
PS at 2.54 mm = = 0.389 Mpa
1936.883 mm2
1020.151 N
PS at 5.08 mm = = 0.527 Mpa
1936.883 mm2

0.7
0.6 y = -0.0166x2 + 0.225x - 0.156 0.604
R² = 0.9629 0.527
0.5
0.4 0.389
0.3
0.2 0.185
0.1
0.051
0 0.005
-0.1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Penetration (mm)
are taken from the equation by substituting the 2.54 mm and 5.08 mm
penetration.
F r o m t h e e q u a t i o n a b o v e : y = - 0 . 0 1 6 6 𝑥2+ 0 . 2 2 5 x - 0 . 1 5 6
At 2.54 mm
y = - 0 . 0 1 6 6 (2.54)2 + 0 . 2 2 5 ( 2 . 5 4 ) - 0 . 1 5 6 = 0 . 3 0 8 M p a
At 5.08 mm
y = - 0 . 0 1 6 6 (5.08)2 + 0 . 2 2 5 ( 5 . 0 8 ) - 0 . 1 5 6 = 0 . 5 5 9 M p a
0.308
CBR at 2.54 mm = 𝑥 100 = 4 . 4 6 %
6.9
0.559
CBR at 5.08 mm = 𝑥 100 = 5 . 4 3 %
10.3
For Trial 3:
758.191 N
PS at 2.54 mm = 1936.883 mm2
= 0.391 Mpa
1049.967 𝑁
PS at 5.08 mm = = 0.542 Mpa
1936.883 mm2

0.7
0.6 y = -0.0173x2 + 0.2319x - 0.1622 0.605

R² = 0.966 0.542
0.5
0.4 0.391
0.3
0.2 0.186
0.1
0.053
0 0.006
-0.1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Penetration (mm)
are taken from the equation by substituting the 2 .54 mm and 5.08 mm
penetration.
At 2.54 mm
y = - 0 . 0 1 7 3 (2.54)2 + 0 . 2 3 1 9 ( 2 . 5 4 ) - 0 . 1 6 2 2 = 0 . 3 1 5 M p a
At 5.08 mm
y = - 0 . 0 1 7 3 (5.08)2 + 0 . 2 3 1 9 ( 5 . 0 8 ) - 0 . 1 6 2 2 = 0 . 5 6 9 M p a
0.315
CBR at 2.54 mm = 𝑥 100 = 4 . 5 7 %
6.9
0.569
CBR at 5.08 mm = 𝑥 100 = 5 . 4 7 %
10.3
4.52+4.63+4.57
AVERAGE CBR @ 2.54 mm = = 4.52 %
3
5.47+5.43+5.52
AVERAGE CBR @ 5.08 mm = = 5.47 %
3
Blows (Trial 1)

Penetration
(mm)
(mm)
0.64 0.3 6.389 0.003

1.27 4 85.19 0.044
1.91 13.1 278.997 0.144
2.54 33.4 711.337 0.367 0.289 4.19
5.08 47.2 1005.242 0.519 0.537 5.21

7.62 53.1 1130.898 0.584
Blows (Trial 2)

Penetration
(mm)
(mm)
0.64 0.4 8.519 0.004

1.27 4.6 97.969 0.051
1.91 13.6 289.646 0.15
2.54 33.8 719.856 0.372 0.291 4.22
5.08 47.6 1013.761 0.523 0.547 5.31
7.62 56.2 1196.92 0.618
Blows (Trial 3)

Penetration
(mm)
(mm)
0.64 0.24 5.111 0.003

1.27 3.4 74.412 0.037
1.91 12.9 274.738 0.142
2.54 33.4 711.337 0.367 0.292 4.23
5.08 48.1 1024.41 0.529 0.539 5.23
7.62 52.1 1109.6 0.573
2.54 4.21
5.08 5.25
In the table 4.3.5, 4.3.6 and 4.3.7 it shows the California Bearing
Ratio for 25 blows at 2.54 mm and 5.08 mm penetration with the
average values of 4.21 % and 5.25 %.
For Trial 1:
711.337 N
PS at 2.54 mm = = 0.367 Mpa
1936.883 mm2
10055.242 N
PS at 5.08 mm = = 0.519 Mpa
1936.883 mm2

0.7
y = -0.0158x2 + 0.2179x - 0.1626
0.6 0.584
R² = 0.9605
0.5 0.519
0.4
0.367
0.3
0.2
0.144
0.1
0.044
0 0.003
-0.1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Penetration (mm)
is from the equation in the figure by substituting the 2 .54 mm and

At 2.54 mm
y = - 0 . 0 1 5 8 (2.54)2 + 0 . 2 1 7 9 ( 2 . 5 4 ) - 0 . 1 6 2 6 = 0 . 2 8 9 M p a
At 5.08 mm
y = - 0 . 0 1 5 8 (5.08)2 + 0 . 2 1 7 9 ( 5 . 0 8 ) - 0 . 1 6 2 6 = 0 . 5 3 7 M p a
0.289
CBR at 2.54 mm = 𝑥 100 = 4 . 1 9 %
6.9
0.537
CBR at 5.08 mm = 𝑥 100 = 5 . 2 1 %
10.3
For Trial 2:
719.856 N
PS at 2.54 mm = = 0.372 Mpa
1936.883 mm2
1013.761 N
PS at 5.08 mm = = 0.523 Mpa
1936.883 mm2

0.8
y = -0.0146x2 + 0.2119x - 0.1529

0.6 0.618
R² = 0.9634 0.523
0.4 0.372
0.2
0.15
0 0.004 0.051
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
-0.2
Penetration (mm)
penetration.
At 2.54 mm
y = - 0 . 0 1 4 6 (2.54)2 + 0 . 2 1 1 9 ( 2 . 5 4 ) - 0 . 1 5 2 9 = 0 . 2 9 1 M p a
At 5.08 mm
y = - 0 . 0 1 4 6 (5.08)2 + 0 . 2 1 1 9 ( 5 . 0 8 ) - 0 . 1 5 2 9 = 0 . 5 4 7 M p a
0.291
CBR at 2.54 mm = 𝑥 100 = 4 . 2 2 %
6.9
0.547
CBR at 5.08 mm = 𝑥 100 = 5 . 3 1 %
10.3
For Trial 3:
711.337 N
PS at 2.54 mm = = 0.367 Mpa
1936.883 mm2
1024.41 N
PS at 5.08 mm = = 0.529 Mpa
1936.883 mm2

0.8

y = -0.0169x2 + 0.2263x - 0.174
0.6 0.573
R² = 0.959 0.529
0.4 0.367
0.2
0.142
0 0.003 0.037
-0.2 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Penetration (mm)
penetration.
F r o m t h e e q u a t i o n a b o v e : y = - 0 . 0 1 6 9 𝑥2+ 0 . 2 2 6 3 x - 0 . 1 7 4
At 2.54 mm
y = - 0 . 0 1 6 9 (2.54)2 + 0 . 2 2 6 3 ( 2 . 5 4 ) - 0 . 1 7 4 = 0 . 2 9 2 M p a
At 5.08 mm
y = - 0 . 0 1 6 9 (5.08)2 + 0 . 2 2 6 3 ( 5 . 0 8 ) - 0 . 1 7 4 = 0 . 5 3 9 M p a
0.292
CBR at 2.54 mm = 𝑥 100 = 4 . 2 3 %
6.9
0.539
CBR at 5.08 mm = 𝑥 100 = 5 . 2 3 %
10.3
4.19+4.22+4.23
AVERAGE CBR @ 2.54 mm = = 4.21 %
3
5.21+5.31+5.23
AVERAGE CBR @ 5.08 mm = = 5.25 %
3
Blows (Trial 1)

Penetration
(mm)
(mm)
0.64 0.1 2.13 0.001

1.27 3.1 66.022 0.034
1.91 13 276.868 0.143
2.54 32.3 687.593 0.355 0.282 4.09
5.08 46.9 998.853 0.516 0.531 5.16
7.62 52.8 1121.509 0.581
Blows (Trial 2)

Penetration
(mm)
(mm)
0.64 0.2 4.26 0.002

1.27 4.3 91.579 0.047
1.91 12.6 268.349 0.139
2.54 33.1 704.948 0.364 0.28 4.06
5.08 46.5 990.334 0.511 0.536 5.20
7.62 57 1213.958 0.627
Blows (Trial 3)

Penetration
(mm)
(mm)
0.64 0.15 3.195 0.002

1.27 3.1 66.022 0.034
1.91 12.8 272.608 0.141
2.54 33.1 704.948 0.364 0.288 4.17
5.08 47.5 1011.632 0.522 0.535 5.19
7.62 52 1107.471 0.572
2.54 4.11
5.08 5.18
For Trial 1:
687.593 N
PS at 2.54 mm = = 0.355 Mpa
1936.883 mm2
998.853 N
PS at 5.08 mm = = 0.516 Mpa
1936.883 mm2

0.7
y = -0.0155x2 + 0.2161x - 0.1664
0.6 0.581
R² = 0.9632
0.5 0.516
0.4
0.355
0.3
0.2
0.143
0.1
0 0.001 0.034
-0.1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Penetration (mm)
is from the equation in the figure by substituting the 2.54 mm and
At 2.54 mm
y = - 0 . 0 1 5 5 (2.54)2 + 0 . 2 1 6 1 ( 2 . 5 4 ) - 0 . 1 6 6 4 = 0 . 2 8 2 M p a
At 5.08 mm
y = - 0 . 0 1 5 5 (5.08)2 + 0 . 2 1 6 1 ( 5 . 0 8 ) - 0 . 1 6 6 4 = 0 . 5 3 1 M p a
0.282
CBR at 2.54 mm = 𝑥 100 = 4 . 0 9 %
6.9
0.531
CBR at 5.08 mm = 𝑥 100 = 5 . 1 6 %
10.3
For Trial 2:
704.948 N
PS at 2.54 mm = = 0.364 Mpa
1936.883 mm2
990.334 N
PS at 5.08 mm = = 0.511 Mpa
1936.883 mm2

0.8
y = -0.0133x2 + 0.2022x - 0.148

0.6 0.627
R² = 0.962
0.511
0.4 0.364
0.2
0.139
0 0.047
0.002
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
-0.2
Penetration (mm)
penetration.
At 2.54 mm
y = - 0 . 0 1 3 3 (2.54)2 + 0 . 2 0 2 2 ( 2 . 5 4 ) - 0 . 1 4 8 = 0 . 2 8 0 M p a
At 5.08 mm
y = - 0 . 0 1 3 3 (5.08)2 + 0 . 2 0 2 2 ( 5 . 0 8 ) - 0 . 1 4 8 = 0 . 5 3 6 M p a
0.280
CBR at 2.54 mm = 𝑥 100 = 4 . 0 6 %
6.9
0.536
CBR at 5.08 mm = 𝑥 100 = 5 . 2 0 %
10.3
For Trial 3:
704.948 N
PS at 2.54 mm = = 0.364 Mpa
1936.883 mm2
1011.632 N
PS at 5.08 mm = = 0.522 Mpa
1936.883 mm2

0.7
y = -0.0165x2 + 0.2231x - 0.1724
0.6 R² = 0.9586 0.572

0.5 0.522
0.4
0.364
0.3
0.2
0.141
0.1
0 0.034
0.002
-0.1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Penetration (mm)

In figure 4.3.10 it shows the relationship of the penetration
(mm) and penetration stress (Mpa). T he corrected penetration (Mpa)
values are taken from the equation by substituting the 2.54 mm and
At 2.54 mm
y = - 0 . 0 1 6 5 (2.54)2 + 0 . 2 2 3 1 ( 2 . 5 4 ) - 0 . 1 7 2 4 = 0 . 2 8 8 M p a
At 5.08 mm
y = - 0 . 0 1 6 5 (5.08)2 + 0 . 2 2 3 1 ( 5 . 0 8 ) - 0 . 1 7 2 4 = 0 . 5 3 5 M p a
0.288
CBR at 2.54 mm = 𝑥 100 = 4 . 1 7 %
6.9
0.535
CBR at 5.08 mm = 𝑥 100 = 5 . 1 9 %
10.3
4.09+4.06+4.17
AVERAGE CBR @ 2.54 mm = = 4.11 %
3
5.16+5.20+5.19
AVERAGE CBR @ 5.08 mm = = 5.18 %
3
Table 4.3.11: California Bearing Ratio for Treated Soil with
1 0 0 m l / 𝐦𝟑 o r 0 . 0 6 1 m l / k g o f B i o - E n z y m e s f o r 5 6 b l o w s ( T r i a l 1 )

Penetration
(mm)
(mm)
0.64 1 21.298 0.011

1.27 11.2 238.532 0.123
1.91 26.5 564.384 0.291
2.54 39 830.603 0.429 0.363 5.26
5.08 57.8 1230.996 0.636 0.702 6.82
7.62 86.3 1837.975 0.949

Penetration
(mm)
(mm)
0.64 1.2 25.557 0.013

1.27 12 255.57 0.132
1.91 26.1 555.865 0.287
2.54 39.4 839.122 0.433 0.366 5.30
5.08 58.4 1243.775 0.642 0.707 6.86
7.62 87.3 1859.273 0.96

Penetration
(mm)
(mm)
0.64 1.3 27.687 0.014

1.27 13.2 281.127 0.145
1.91 25.6 545.216 0.281
2.54 39.4 839.122 0.433 0.379 5.49
5.08 58.5 1245.904 0.643 0.69 6.70
7.62 76.4 1627.13 0.84
2.54 5.35
5.08 6.79
For Trial 1:
830.603 N
PS at 2.54 mm = = 0.429 Mpa
1936.883 mm2
1230.996 N
PS at 5.08 mm = = 0.636 Mpa
1936.883 mm2
Treated Soil with 100ml/cu.m or 0.061 ml/kg of

Bio-Enzymes for 56 blows (Trial 1)
1
0.949
Penetration Stress (Mpa)
0.9 y = -0.0088x2 + 0.2007x - 0.0903

0.8 R² = 0.9809
0.7
0.6 0.636
0.5
0.4 0.429
0.3 0.291
0.2
0.1 0.123
0 0.011
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Penetration (mm)
(mm) and penetration stress (Mpa). The corrected penetration (Mpa)
values is from the equation in the figure by substituting the 2.54 mm
and 5.08 mm penetration.
At 2.54 mm
y = - 0 . 0 0 8 8 (2.54)2 + 0 . 2 0 0 7 ( 2 . 5 4 ) - 0 . 0 9 0 3 = 0 . 3 6 3 M p a
At 5.08 mm
y = - 0 . 0 0 8 8 (5.08)2 + 0 . 2 0 0 7 ( 5 . 0 8 ) - 0 . 0 9 0 3 = 0 . 7 0 2 M p a
0.363
CBR at 2.54 mm = 𝑥 100 = 5 . 2 6 %
6.9
0.702
CBR at 5.08 mm = 𝑥 100 = 6 . 8 2 %
10.3
For Trial 2:
839.122 N
PS at 2.54 mm = = 0.433 Mpa
1243.775 mm2
990.334 N
PS at 5.08 mm = = 0.642 Mpa
1936.883 mm2
Treated Soil with 100ml/cu.m or 0.061 ml/kg of Bio-

Enzymes for 56 blows (Trial 2)
1.2
Penetration Stress (Mpa) 1 y = -0.0085x2 + 0.1994x - 0.0861
0.96
R² = 0.9821
0.8
0.6 0.642
0.4 0.433
0.287
0.2
0.132
0 0.013
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Penetration (mm)
At 2.54 mm
y = - 0 . 0 0 8 5 (2.54)2 + 0 . 1 9 9 4 ( 2 . 5 4 ) - 0 . 0 8 6 1 = 0 . 3 6 6 M p a
At 5.08 mm
y = - 0 . 0 0 8 5 (5.08)2 + 0 . 1 9 9 4 ( 5 . 0 8 ) - 0 . 0 8 6 1 = 0 . 7 0 7 M p a
0.366
CBR at 2.54 mm = 𝑥 100 = 5 . 3 0 %
6.9
0.707
CBR at 5.08 mm = 𝑥 100 = 6 . 8 6 %
10.3
For Trial 3:
839.122 N
PS at 2.54 mm = = 0.433 Mpa
1936.883 mm2
1245.904 N
PS at 5.08 mm = = 0.643 Mpa
1936.883 mm2

0.9
0.84
0.8 y = -0.0136x2 + 0.2261x - 0.108
0.7 R² = 0.9879
0.643
0.6
0.5
0.4 0.433
0.3 0.281
0.2
0.145
0.1
0 0.014
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Penetration (mm)
Figure 4.3.13: Correction of Load-Penetration Curve
At 2.54 mm
y = - 0 . 0 1 3 6 (2.54)2 + 0 . 2 2 6 1 ( 2 . 5 4 ) - 0 . 1 0 8 = 0 . 3 7 9 M p a
At 5.08 mm
y = - 0 . 0 1 3 6 (5.08)2 + 0 . 2 2 6 1 ( 5 . 0 8 ) - 0 . 1 0 8 = 0 . 6 9 0 M p a
0.379
CBR at 2.54 mm = 𝑥 100 = 5 . 4 9 %
6.9
0.690
CBR at 5.08 mm = 𝑥 100 = 6 . 7 0 %
10.3
5.26+5.30+5.49
AVERAGE CBR @ 2.54 mm = = 5.35 %
3
6.82+6.86+6.70
AVERAGE CBR @ 5.08 mm = = 6.79 %
3

Penetration
(mm)
(mm)
0.64 0.8 17.038 0.009

1.27 10.4 221.494 0.114
1.91 23.4 498.362 0.257
2.54 37.6 800.786 0.413 0.35 5.07
5.08 54.9 1169.233 0.604 0.654 6.35
7.62 74.3 1582.405 0.817

Penetration
(mm)
(mm)
0.64 0.85 18.103 0.009

1.27 11.35 241.727 0.125
1.91 23.9 509.01 0.263
2.54 36.1 768.840 0.397 0.338 4.90
5.08 53.9 1147.936 0.593 0.652 6.33
7.62 79.4 1691.022 0.873

Penetration
(mm)
(mm)
0.64 0.95 20.233 0.01

1.27 9.65 205.521 0.106
1.91 26.5 564.384 0.291
2.54 38.5 819.954 0.423 0.371 5.38
5.08 57.4 1222.477 0.631 0.678 6.58
7.62 73.2 1558.978 0.805
2.54 5.12
5.08 6.42
For Trial 1:
800.786 N
PS at 2.54 mm = = 0.413 Mpa
1936.883 mm2
1169.233 N
PS at 5.08 mm = = 0.604 Mpa
1936.883 mm2

1
0.8 y = -0.0121x2 + 0.2121x - 0.1108 0.817

0.6 R² = 0.9838 0.604
0.4 0.413
0.2 0.257
0.114
0 0.009
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Penetration (mm)
At 2.54 mm
y = - 0 . 0 1 2 1 (2.54)2 + 0 . 2 1 2 1 ( 2 . 5 4 ) - 0 . 1 1 0 8 = 0 . 3 5 0 M p a
At 5.08 mm
y = - 0 . 0 1 2 1 (5.08)2 + 0 . 2 1 2 1 ( 5 . 0 8 ) - 0 . 1 1 0 8 = 0 . 6 5 4 M p a
0.350
CBR at 2.54 mm = 𝑥 100 = 5 . 0 7 %
6.9
0.654
CBR at 5.08 mm = 𝑥 100 = 6 . 3 5 %
10.3
For Trial 2:
768.840 N
PS at 2.54 mm = = 0.397 Mpa
1243.775 mm2
1147.936 N
PS at 5.08 mm = = 0.593 Mpa
1936.883 mm2

1
y = -0.0084x2 + 0.1874x - 0.0837 0.873

0.8
R² = 0.9835
0.6 0.593
0.4 0.397
0.263
0.2
0.125
0 0.009
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Penetration (mm)
At 2.54 mm
y = - 0 . 0 0 8 4 (2.54)2 + 0 . 1 8 7 4 ( 2 . 5 4 ) - 0 . 0 8 3 7 = 0 . 3 3 8 M p a
At 5.08 mm
y = - 0 . 0 0 8 4 (5.08)2 + 0 . 1 8 7 4 ( 5 . 0 8 ) - 0 . 0 8 3 7 = 0 . 6 5 2 M p a
0.338
CBR at 2.54 mm = 𝑥 100 = 4 . 9 0 %
6.9
0.652
CBR at 5.08 mm = 𝑥 100 = 6 . 3 3 %
10.3
For Trial 3:
819.954 N
PS at 2.54 mm = = 0.423 Mpa
1936.883 mm2
1222.477 N
PS at 5.08 mm = = 0.631 Mpa
1936.883 mm2

1
Penetration Stress (Mpa) y = -0.015x2 + 0.2349x - 0.1286
0.8 0.805
R² = 0.9843
0.6 0.631
0.4 0.423
0.291
0.2
0.106
0 0.01
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Penetration (mm)
F r o m t h e e q u a t i o n a b o v e : y = - 0 . 0 1 5 𝑥2+ 0 . 2 3 4 9 x - 0 . 1 2 8 6
At 2.54 mm
y = - 0 . 0 1 5 (2.54)2 + 0 . 2 3 4 9 ( 2 . 5 4 ) - 0 . 1 2 8 6 = 0 . 3 7 1 M p a
At 5.08 mm
y = - 0 . 0 1 5 (5.08)2 + 0 . 2 3 4 9 ( 5 . 0 8 ) - 0 . 1 2 8 6 = 0 . 6 7 8 M p a
0.371
CBR at 2.54 mm = 𝑥 100 = 5 . 3 8 %
6.9
0.678
CBR at 5.08 mm = 𝑥 100 = 6 . 5 8 %
10.3
5.07+4.90+5.38
AVERAGE CBR @ 2.54 mm = = 5.12 %
3
6.35+6.33+6.58
AVERAGE CBR @ 5.08 mm = = 6.42 %
3

Penetration
(mm)
(mm)
0.64 0.5 10.649 0.005

1.27 9.6 204.456 0.106
1.91 20.9 445.118 0.23
2.54 35.1 747.543 0.386 0.336 4.87
5.08 51.2 1090.433 0.563 0.592 5.75
7.62 58.3 1241.645 0.641

Penetration
(mm)
(mm)
0.64 0.65 13.384 0.007

1.27 10.9 232.143 0.12
1.91 20.6 438.729 0.227
2.54 35.1 747.543 0.386 0.33 4.78
5.08 50.9 1084.043 0.56 0.599 5.82
7.62 64.2 1367.3 0.706

Penetration
(mm)
(mm)
0.64 0.65 13.843 0.007

1.27 9.35 199.132 0.103
1.91 26.4 562.254 0.29
2.54 35.6 758.191 0.391 0.358 5.19
5.08 51.6 1098.952 0.567 0.601 5.83
7.62 54.5 1160.714 0.599
2.54 4.95
5.08 5.80
For Trial 1:
747.543 N
PS at 2.54 mm = = 0.386 Mpa
1936.883 mm2
1090.433 N
PS at 5.08 mm = = 0.563 Mpa
1936.883 mm2

Penetration Stress (Mpa) 0.7
y = -0.0167x2 + 0.2281x - 0.1355 0.641
0.6
R² = 0.9876 0.563
0.5
0.4 0.386
0.3
0.2 0.23
0.1 0.106
0 0.005
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Penetration (mm)
At 2.54 mm
y = - 0 . 0 1 6 7 (2.54)2 + 0 . 2 2 8 1 ( 2 . 5 4 ) - 0 . 1 3 5 5 = 0 . 3 3 6 M p a
At 5.08 mm
y = - 0 . 0 1 6 7 (5.08)2 + 0 . 2 2 8 1 ( 5 . 0 8 ) - 0 . 1 3 5 5 = 0 . 5 9 2 M p a
0.336
CBR at 2.54 mm = 𝑥 100 = 4 . 8 7 %
6.9
0.592
CBR at 5.08 mm = 𝑥 100 = 5 . 7 5 %
10.3
For Trial 2:
747.543 N
PS at 2.54 mm = = 0.386 Mpa
1243.775 mm2
1084.043 N
PS at 5.08 mm = = 0.560 Mpa
1936.883 mm2

0.8
0.7 y = -0.0133x2 + 0.2074x - 0.1109 0.706

0.6 R² = 0.9858 0.56
0.5
0.4 0.386
0.3
0.2 0.227
0.1 0.12
0 0.007
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Penetration (mm)
At 2.54 mm
y = - 0 . 0 1 3 3 (2.54)2 + 0 . 2 0 7 4 ( 2 . 5 4 ) - 0 . 1 1 0 9 = 0 . 3 3 0 M p a
At 5.08 mm
y = - 0 . 0 1 3 3 (5.08)2 + 0 . 2 0 7 4 ( 5 . 0 8 ) - 0 . 1 1 0 9 = 0 . 5 9 9 M p a
0.330
CBR at 2.54 mm = 𝑥 100 = 4 . 7 8 %
6.9
0.599
CBR at 5.08 mm = 𝑥 100 = 5 . 8 2 %
10.3
For Trial 3:
758.191 N
PS at 2.54 mm = = 0.391 Mpa
1936.883 mm2
1098.952 N
PS at 5.08 mm = = 0.567 Mpa
1936.883 mm2

0.7
0.6 y = -0.0199x2 + 0.247x - 0.1407 0.599

0.567
0.5 R² = 0.9835
0.4 0.391
0.3 0.29
0.2
0.1 0.103
0 0.007
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Penetration (mm)
(mm) and penetration stress (Mpa ). The corrected penetration (Mpa)
F r o m t h e e q u a t i o n a b o v e : y = - 0 . 0 1 9 9 𝑥2+ 0 . 2 4 7 x - 0 . 1 4 0 7
At 2.54 mm
y = - 0 . 0 1 9 9 (2.54)2 + 0 . 2 4 7 ( 2 . 5 4 ) - 0 . 1 4 0 7 = 0 . 3 5 8 M p a
At 5.08 mm
y = - 0 . 0 1 9 9 (5.08)2 + 0 . 2 4 7 ( 5 . 0 8 ) - 0 . 1 4 0 7 = 0 . 6 0 1 M p a
0.358
CBR at 2.54 mm = 𝑥 100 = 5 . 1 9 %
6.9
0.601
CBR at 5.08 mm = 𝑥 100 = 6 . 8 3 %
10.3
4.87+4.78+5.19
AVERAGE CBR @ 2.54 mm = = 4.95 %
3
5.75+5.82+6.83
AVERAGE CBR @ 5.08 mm = = 5.80 %
3

Penetration
(mm)
(mm)
0.64 4.9 104.358 0.054

1.27 21 447.248 0.231
1.91 36.1 768.84 0.397
2.54 47.5 1011.632 0.522 0.448 6.49
5.08 68.8 1465.269 0.757 0.855 8.30
7.62 114.5 2438.565 1.259

Penetration
Ring Dial Load Stress Penetration Bearing Ratio
(mm)
Reading (N) (Mpa) (Mpa) (%)
(mm)
0.64 4.3 91.579 0.047

1.27 23.1 491.492 0.254
1.91 35.7 760.321 0.393
2.54 47.5 1011.632 0.522 0.454 6.58
5.08 69.4 1478.047 0.763 0.86 8.35
7.62 113.8 2423.657 1.251

Penetration
Ring Dial Load Stress Penetration Bearing Ratio
(mm)
Reading (N) (Mpa) (Mpa) (%)
(mm)
0.64 4.6 97.969 0.051

1.27 26.4 562.254 0.29
1.91 38.4 817.824 0.422
2.54 49.52 1054.653 0.545 0.471 6.83
5.08 69.5 1480.177 0.764 0.876 8.50
7.62 116.5 2481.16 1.281
2.54 6.63
5.08 8.39
For Trial 1:
1011.632 N
PS at 2.54 mm = = 0.522 Mpa
1936.883 mm2
1465.269 N
PS at 5.08 mm = = 0.757 Mpa
1936.883 mm2

1.4
Penetration Stress (Mpa) 1.2 1.259
y = -0.003x2 + 0.1832x + 0.0021
1 R² = 0.9742
0.8 0.757
0.6
0.522
0.4 0.397
0.2 0.231
0 0.054
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Penetration (mm)
From the equation above: y = -0.003x2 + 0.1832x + 0.0021
At 2.54 mm
y = -0.003(2.54)2 + 0.1832(2.54) + 0.0021 = 0.448 Mpa
At 5.08 mm
y = -0.003(5.08)2 + 0.1832(5.08) + 0.0021 = 0.855 Mpa
0.448
CBR at 2.54 mm = 𝑥 100 = 6 . 4 9 %
6.9
0.855
CBR at 5.08 mm = 𝑥 100 = 8 . 3 0 %
10.3
For Trial 2:
1011.632 𝑁
PS at 2.54 mm = = 0.522 Mpa
1936.883 mm2
1478.047 N
PS at 5.08 mm = = 0.763 Mpa
1936.883 mm2

1.5
y = -0.0036x2 + 0.1873x + 0.0011 1.251

1 R² = 0.9746
0.763
0.5 0.522
0.393
0.254
0 0.047
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Penetration (mm)

At 2.54 mm
y = -0.0036(2.54)2 + 0.1873(2.54) + 0.0011 = 0.454 Mpa
At 5.08 mm
y = -0.0036(5.08)2 + 0.1873(5.08) + 0.0011 = 0.860 Mpa
0.454
CBR at 2.54 mm = 𝑥 100 = 6 . 5 8 %
6.9
0.860
CBR at 5.08 mm = 𝑥 100 = 8 . 3 5 %
10.3
For Trial 3:
1054.653 N
PS at 2.54 mm = = 0.545 Mpa
1936.883 mm2
1480.177 N
PS at 5.08 mm = = 0.764 Mpa
1936.883 mm2

1.5
y = -0.003x2 + 0.1823x + 0.0275 1.281

1 R² = 0.9644
0.764
0.5 0.545
0.422
0.29
0 0.051
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Penetration (mm)

The following equations was obtained using Micros oft Excel,
At 2.54 mm
y = -0.003(2.54)2 + 0.1823(2.54) + 0.0275 = 0.471 Mpa
At 5.08 mm
y = -0.003(5.08)2 + 0.1823(5.08) + 0.0275 = 0.876 Mpa

0.471
CBR at 2.54 mm = 𝑥 100 = 6 . 8 3 %
6.9
0.876
CBR at 5.08 mm = 𝑥 100 = 8 . 5 0 %
10.3
6.49+6.58+6.82
AVERAGE CBR @ 2.54 mm = = 6.63%
3
8.30+8.35+5.50
AVERAGE CBR @ 5.08 mm = = 8.39%
3

Penetration
(mm)
(mm)
0.64 2.1 44.725 0.023

1.27 13.5 287.516 0.148
1.91 33.4 711.337 0.367
2.54 43.6 928.571 0.479 0.41 5.94
5.08 64.6 1375.819 0.71 0.801 7.78
7.62 103.1 2195.773 1.134

Penetration
(mm)
(mm)
0.64 2.3 48.984 0.025

1.27 14.6 310.944 0.161
1.91 33.1 704.948 0.364
2.54 42.9 913.663 0.472 0.406 5.88
5.08 63.2 1346.003 0.695 0.785 7.62
7.62 101.3 2157.438 1.114

Penetration
(mm)
(mm)
0.64 3.5 74.541 0.038

1.27 14 298.165 0.154
1.91 36.1 768.84 0.397
2.54 45.45 967.972 0.5 0.425 6.16
5.08 64.35 1370.495 0.708 0.808 7.84
7.62 103.1 2195.773 1.134
2.54 6.00
5.08 7.75
In the table 4.3.23. 4.3.24 and 4.3.25 it shows the California Bearing
For Trial 1:
928.571 N
PS at 2.54 mm = = 0.479 Mpa
1936.883 mm2
1375.819 N
PS at 5.08 mm = = 0.710 Mpa
1936.883 mm2

1.2
1.134
y = -0.0065x2 + 0.2033x - 0.0642

1
R² = 0.9742
0.8
0.71
0.6
0.479
0.4 0.367
0.2
0.148
0 0.023
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Penetration (mm)
From the equation above: y = -0.0065x2 + 0.2033x - 0.0642
At 2.54 mm
y = -0.0065(2.54)2 + 0.2033(2.54) - 0.0642 = 0.410 Mpa
At 5.08 mm
y = -0.0065(5.08)2 + 0.2033(5.08) - 0.0642 = 0.801 Mpa
0.410
CBR at 2.54 mm = 𝑥 100 = 5 . 9 4 %
6.9
0.801
CBR at 5.08 mm = 𝑥 100 = 7 . 7 8 %
10.3
For Trial 2:
913.663 N
PS at 2.54 mm = = 0.472 Mpa
1936.883 mm2
1346.003 N
PS at 5.08 mm = = 0.695 Mpa
1936.883 mm2

1.2
1.114
1 y = -0.0061x2 + 0.1957x - 0.0522

R² = 0.9738
0.8
0.695
0.6
0.472
0.4 0.364
0.2 0.161
0 0.025
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Penetration (mm)
At 2.54 mm
y = -0.0061(2.54)2 + 0.1957(2.54) - 0.0522 = 0.406 Mpa
At 5.08 mm
y = -0.0061(5.08)2 + 0.1957(5.08) - 0.0522 = 0.785 Mpa
0.406
CBR at 2.54 mm = 𝑥 100 = 5 . 8 8 %
6.9
0.785
CBR at 5.08 mm = 𝑥 100 = 7 . 6 2 %
10.3
For Trial 3:
967.972 N
PS at 2.54 mm = = 0.500 Mpa
1936.883 mm2
1370.495 N
PS at 5.08 mm = = 0.708 Mpa
1936.883 mm2

1.2
Penetration Stress (Mpa) y = -0.0069x2 + 0.2033x - 0.0469
1
0.8 R² = 0.9656
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Penetration (mm)
At 2.54 mm
y = -0.0069(2.54)2 + 0.2033(2.54) - 0.0469 = 0.425 Mpa
At 5.08 mm
y = -0.0069(5.08)2 + 0.2033(5.08) - 0.0469 = 0.808 Mpa
0.425
CBR at 2.54 mm = 𝑥 100 = 6 . 1 6 %
6.9
0.808
CBR at 5.08 mm = 𝑥 100 = 7 . 8 4 %
10.3
5.94+5.88+6.16
AVERAGE CBR @ 2.54 mm = = 6.00%
3
7.78+7.62+7.84
AVERAGE CBR @ 5.08 mm = = 7.75%
3

Penetration
(mm)
(mm)
0.64 1.6 34.076 0.018

1.27 12.9 274.738 0.142
1.91 33.1 704.948 0.364
2.54 39 830.603 0.429 0.397 5.75
5.08 56.5 1203.309 0.621 0.68 6.60
7.62 70.3 1497.215 0.773

Penetration
(mm)
(mm)
0.64 1.75 37.271 0.019

1.27 13.4 285.387 0.147
1.91 32.1 683.65 0.353
2.54 40.3 858.29 0.443 0.403 5.84
5.08 57.1 1216.088 0.628 0.688 6.68

7.62 70.1 1492.955 0.771

Penetration
(mm)
(mm)
0.64 2.6 55.374 0.029

1.27 13 276.868 0.143
1.91 34.5 734.764 0.379
2.54 40.6 864.676 0.446 0.408 5.91
5.08 57.6 1226.737 0.633 0.698 6.78
7.62 73 1554.718 0.803
2.54 5.84
5.08 6.69
For Trial 1:
830.603 N
PS at 2.54 mm = = 0.429 Mpa
1936.883 mm2
1203.309 N
PS at 5.08 mm = = 0.621 Mpa
1936.883 mm2

1
0.8 y = -0.0165x2 + 0.2373x - 0.0992 0.773
R² = 0.9705
0.6 0.621
0.4 0.429
0.364
0.2
0.142
0 0.018
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Penetration (mm)
At 2.54 mm
y = -0.0165(2.54)2 + 0.2373(2.54) - 0.0992 = 0.397 Mpa
At 5.08 mm
y = -0.0165(5.08)2 + 0.2373(5.08) - 0.0992 = 0.680 Mpa
0.397
CBR at 2.54 mm = 𝑥 100 = 5 . 7 5 %
6.9
0.680
CBR at 5.08 mm = 𝑥 100 = 6 . 6 0 %
10.3
For Trial 2:
858.290 N
PS at 2.54 mm = = 0.443 Mpa
1936.883 mm2
1216.088 N
PS at 5.08 mm = = 0.628 Mpa
1936.883 mm2

1
0.8 y = -0.0171x2 + 0.2428x - 0.1037

0.771
R² = 0.9747
0.6 0.628
0.4 0.443
0.353
0.2
0.147
0 0.019
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Penetration (mm)
Figure 4.3.27: Corre ction of Load -Penetration Curve
At 2.54 mm
y = -0.0171(2.54)2 + 0.2428(2.54) - 0.1037 = 0.403 Mpa
At 5.08 mm
y = -0.0171(5.08)2 + 0.2428(5.08) - 0.1037 = 0.688 Mpa
0.403
CBR at 2.54 mm = 𝑥 100 = 5 . 8 4 %
6.9
0.688
CBR at 5.08 mm = 𝑥 100 = 6 . 6 8 %
10.3
For Trial 3:
864.676 N
PS at 2.54 mm = = 0.446 Mpa
1936.883 mm2
1226.737 N
PS at 5.08 mm = = 0.633 Mpa
1936.883 mm2

1
0.8 y = -0.0161x2 + 0.2368x - 0.0895 0.803

0.6 R² = 0.9662 0.633
0.4 0.446
0.379
0.2
0.143
0 0.029
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Penetration (mm)
At 2.54 mm
y = -0.0161(2.54)2 + 0.2368(2.54) - 0.0895 = 0.408 Mpa
At 5.08 mm
y = -0.0161(5.08)2 + 0.2368(5.08) - 0.0895 = 0.698 Mpa
0.408
CBR at 2.54 mm = 𝑥 100 = 5 . 9 1 %
6.9
0.698
CBR at 5.08 mm = 𝑥 100 = 6 . 7 8 %
10.3
5.75+5.84+5.91
AVERAGE CBR @ 2.54 mm = = 5.84%
3
6.60+6.68+6.78
AVERAGE CBR @ 5.08 mm = = 6.69%
3

Penetration
(mm)
(mm)
0.64 6.5 138.434 0.071

1.27 32.6 694.299 0.358
1.91 45.2 962.647 0.497
2.54 50.6 1077.654 0.556 0.526 7.62
5.08 75 1597.313 0.825 0.926 8.99

7.62 116.7 2485.419 1.283

Penetration
(mm)
(mm)
0.64 5 106.488 0.055

1.27 24.5 521.789 0.269
1.91 33.9 1133.028 0.373
2.54 53.2 1133.028 0.585 0.511 7.41
5.08 80.4 1712.32 0.884 0.949 9.21
7.62 116.9 2489.679 1.285

Penetration
(mm)
(mm)
0.64 5 106.488 0.055

1.27 27.5 585.682 0.302
1.91 39.4 839.122 0.433
2.54 51.95 1106.406 0.571 0.513 7.43
5.08 76 1618.611 0.836 0.924 8.97
7.62 113.6 2419.397 1.249
2.54 7.49
5.08 9.06
For Trial 1:
1077.654 N
PS at 2.54 mm = = 0.556 Mpa
1936.883 mm2
1597.313 N
PS at 5.08 mm = = 0.825 Mpa
1936.883 mm2

1.4
y = -0.0058x2 + 0.2016x + 0.0515 1.283
1.2 R² = 0.961
0.8 0.825
0.6
0.556
0.497
0.4
0.358
0.2
0.071
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Penetration (mm)
At 2.54 mm
y = -0.0058(2.54)2 + 0.2016(2.54) + 0.0515 = 0.526 Mpa
At 5.08 mm
y = -0.0058(5.08)2 + 0.2016(5.08) + 0.0515 = 0.926 Mpa
0.529
CBR at 2.54 mm = 𝑥 100 = 7 . 6 2 %
6.9
0.926
CBR at 5.08 mm = 𝑥 100 = 8 . 9 9 %
10.3
For Trial 2:
1133.028N
PS at 2.54 mm = = 0.585 Mpa
1936.883 mm2
1712.320 N
PS at 5.08 mm = = 0.949 Mpa
1936.883 mm2

1.4
1.2 y = -0.0098x2 + 0.2474x - 0.0544
R² = 0.987
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Penetration (mm)
In figure 4.3.30 it shows the relationship of the penetration (mm) and
penetration stress (Mpa). The corrected penetration (Mpa) values are
taken from the equation by substituting the 2.54 mm and 5.08 mm
penetration.
At 2.54 mm
y = -0.0098(2.54)2 + 0.2474(2.54) - 0.0544= 0.511 Mpa
At 5.08 mm
y = -0.0098(5.08)2 + 0.2474(5.08) - 0.0544= 0.949 Mpa
0.511
CBR at 2.54 mm = 𝑥 100 = 7 . 4 1 %
6.9
0.949
CBR at 5.08 mm = 𝑥 100 = 9 . 2 1 %
10.3
For Trial 3:
1106.406 N
PS at 2.54 mm = = 0.571 Mpa
1936.883 mm2
1618.611 N
PS at 5.08 mm = = 0.836 Mpa
1936.883 mm2

1.5
y = -0.0089x2 + 0.2296x - 0.0123

1 R² = 0.9768
0.5
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Penetration (mm)

At 2.54 mm
y = -0.0089(2.54)2 + 0.2296(2.54) - 0.0123 = 0.513 Mpa
At 5.08 mm
y = -0.0089(5.08)2 + 0.2296(5.08) - 0.0123 = 0.924 Mpa
0.513
CBR at 2.54 mm = 𝑥 100 = 7 . 4 3 %
6.9
0.924
CBR at 5.08 mm = 𝑥 100 = 8 . 9 7 %
10.3
7.62+7.41+7.43
AVERAGE CBR @ 2.54 mm = = 7.49%
3
8.99+9.21+78.97
AVERAGE CBR @ 5.08 mm = = 9.06%
3

Penetration
(mm)
(mm)
0.64 4.5 95.839 0.049

1.27 30.3 645.315 0.333
1.91 44.3 943.48 0.487
2.54 46.8 996.723 0.515 0.513 7.43
5.08 68.2 1452.49 0.75 0.825 8.01
7.62 86.8 1848.624 0.954

Penetration
(mm)
(mm)
0.64 4.5 95.839 0.049

1.27 23.4 498.362 0.257
1.91 35.4 753.932 0.389
2.54 46.4 988.201 0.51 0.45 6.52
5.08 69 1469.528 0.759 0.847 8.22
7.62 111.3 2370.413 1.224


Penetration
(mm)
(mm)
0.64 4.6 97.969 0.051

1.27 15.4 327.982 0.169
1.91 39.5 841.252 0.434
2.54 48.6 1035.059 0.534 0.481 6.97
5.08 68.3 1454.62 0.751 0.824 8.00
7.62 87.6 1865.662 0.963
2.54 6.98
5.08 8.08
average values of 6.98 % and 8.08 %
For Trial 1:
996.723N
PS at 2.54 mm = = 0.515 Mpa
1936.883 mm2
1452.49 N
PS at 5.08 mm = = 0.750 Mpa
1936.883 mm2

1.2
1 y = -0.0163x2 + 0.2472x - 0.0097

R² = 0.9497
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Penetration (mm)
At 2.54 mm
y = -0.0163(2.54)2 + 0.2472(2.54) - 0.0097 = 0.513 Mpa
At 5.08 mm
y = -0.0163(5.08)2 + 0.2472(5.08) - 0.0097 = 0.825 Mpa

0.513
CBR at 2.54 mm = 𝑥 100 = 7 . 4 3 %
6.9
0.825
CBR at 5.08 mm = 𝑥 100 = 8 . 0 1 %
10.3
For Trial 2:
988.201 N
PS at 2.54 mm = = 0.510 Mpa
1936.883 mm2
1469.528 N
PS at 5.08 mm = = 0.759 Mpa
1936.883 mm2

1.4
1.2 y = -0.004x2 + 0.1868x + 0.0016

1 R² = 0.9768
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Penetration (mm)
At 2.54 mm
y = -0.004(2.54)2 + 0.1868(2.54) + 0.0016 = 0.450 Mpa
At 5.08 mm
y = -0.004(5.07)2 + 0.1868(5.08) + 0.0016 = 0.847 Mpa
0.450
CBR at 2.54 mm = 𝑥 100 = 6 . 5 2 %
6.9
0.847
CBR at 5.08 mm = 𝑥 100 = 8 . 2 2 %
10.3
For Trial 3:
1035.059 N
PS at 2.54 mm = = 0.534 Mpa
1936.883 mm2
1454.62 N
PS at 5.08 mm = = 0.751 Mpa
1936.883 mm2

Penetration Stress (Mpa) 1.2
1 y = -0.0178x2 + 0.2707x - 0.092
0.8 R² = 0.9701
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Penetration (mm)
At 2.54 mm
y = -0.0178(2.54)2 + 0.2707(2.54) - 0.092 = 0.481 Mpa
At 5.08 mm
y = -0.0178(5.08)2 + 0.2707(5.08) - 0.092 = 0.824 Mpa
0.481
CBR at 2.54 mm = 𝑥 100 = 6 . 9 7 %
6.9
0.824
CBR at 5.08 mm = 𝑥 100 = 8 . 0 0 %
10.3
7.43+6.52+6.97
AVERAGE CBR @ 2.54 mm = = 6.98%
3
8.01+8.22+8.00
AVERAGE CBR @ 5.08 mm = = 8.08%
3

Penetration
(mm)
(mm)
0.64 3.6 76.671 0.04

1.27 13.6 289.646 0.15
1.91 42.3 900.885 0.465
2.54 42.7 909.404 0.47 0.433 6.28
5.08 59.1 1258.683 0.65 0.749 7.27
7.62 84.1 1791.121 0.925

Penetration
(mm)
(mm)
0.64 3.2 68.152 0.035

1.27 20.3 432.339 0.223
1.91 33.1 704.948 0.364
2.54 43.1 917.923 0.474 0.417 6.04
5.08 60.3 1284.24 0.663 0.748 7.26
7.62 90.6 1929.554 0.996

Penetration
(mm)
(mm)
0.64 3 63.893 0.033

1.27 4.9 104.358 0.054
1.91 12.8 272.608 0.141
2.54 45.6 971.166 0.501 0.374 5.42
5.08 66.5 1416.284 0.731 0.745 7.23
7.62 84.1 1791.121 0.925
2.54 5.91
5.08 7.26
In the table 4.3.35, 4.3.36 and 4.3.37 it shows the California
Bearing Ratio for 10 blows at 2.54 mm and 5.08 mm penetration
with the average values of 5.91 % and 7.26 %.
For Trial 1:
909.404 N
PS at 2.54 mm = = 0.470 Mpa
1936.883 mm2
1258.683 N
PS at 5.08 mm = = 0.650 Mpa
1936.883 mm2

Penetration Stress (Mpa) 1
0.8 y = -0.0131x2 + 0.224x - 0.0513
R² = 0.9303
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Penetration (mm)
At 2.54 mm
y = -0.0131(2.54)2 + 0.224(2.54) - 0.0513 = 0.433 Mpa
At 5.08 mm
y = -0.0131(5.08)2 + 0.224(5.08) - 0.0513 = 0.749 Mpa

0.433
CBR at 2.54 mm = 𝑥 100 = 6 . 2 8 %
6.9
0.749
CBR at 5.08 mm = 𝑥 100 = 7 . 2 7 %
10.3
For Trial 2:
917.923 N
PS at 2.54 mm = = 0.474 Mpa
1936.883 mm2
1284.24 N
PS at 5.08 mm = = 0.663 Mpa
1936.883 mm2

1.5
1 y = -0.0085x2 + 0.1953x - 0.0247

R² = 0.9697
0.5
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Penetration (mm)
The following equations was obta ined using Microsoft Excel,
At 2.54 mm
y = -0.0085(2.54)2 + 0.1953(2.54) - 0.0247 = 0.417 Mpa
At 5.08 mm
y = -0.0085(5.08)2 + 0.1953(5.08) - 0.0247 = 0.748 Mpa
0.417
CBR at 2.54 mm = 𝑥 100 = 6 . 0 4 %
6.9
0.748
CBR at 5.08 mm = 𝑥 100 = 7 . 2 6 %
10.3
For Trial 3:
971.166 N
PS at 2.54 mm = = 0.501 Mpa
1936.883 mm2
1416.284 N
PS at 5.08 mm = = 0.731 Mpa
1936.883 mm2

1
y = -0.0149x2 + 0.2594x - 0.1885
0.8 R² = 0.9491
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
-0.2
Penetration (mm)
At 2.54 mm
y = -0.0149(2.54)2 + 0.2594(2.54) - 0.1885 = 0.374 Mpa
At 5.08 mm
y = -0.0149(5.08)2 + 0.2594(5.08) - 0.1885 = 0.745 Mpa

0.374
CBR at 2.54 mm = 𝑥 100 = 5 . 4 2 %
6.9
0.745
CBR at 5.08 mm = 𝑥 100 = 7 . 2 3 %
10.3
6.28+6.04+5.42
AVERAGE CBR @ 2.54 mm = = 5.91%
3
7.27+7.26+7.23
AVERAGE CBR @ 5.08 mm = = 7.26%
3
4.4.1: Moisture Content Determination of Different Compaction

Effort
Table 4.4.1: Moisture Content for Untreated Soil (Trial 1)
56 BLOWS 25 BLOWS 10 BLOWS
Can No. 1 2 3
Weight of wet soil + 135.8 89.9 129.7

c a n ( g ) ( M1)
Weight of dry soil + 118.2 77.8 109.7

c a n ( g ) ( M2 )
Weight of can (g) (Mc) 27.7 24.4 34.1
Weight of dry soil (g) 90.5 53.4 75.6
Moisture Content (%) 19.50 22.65 26.45
Table 4.4.2: Moisture Content Untreated Soil (Trial 2)
Can No. 1 2 3
Weight of wet soil + 124 78.5 72.5

c a n ( g ) ( M1)

c a n ( g ) ( M2 )
Weight of can (g) (Mc) 24.4 24.8 27.4
Table 4.4.3: Moisture Content for Untreated Soil (Trial 3)
Can No. 1 2 3

c a n ( g ) ( M1)

c a n ( g ) ( M2 )
Weight of can (g) (Mc) 25.5 28.7 29.1
Average Moisture 18.57 21.98 25.14

Content (%)
(𝑀1−𝑀2)
Working Formulas 𝜔 = 𝑥 100%
𝑀2−𝑀𝑐
Trial 1: For 56 Blows
(135.8 − 118.2)
𝜔= 𝑥 100% = 19.50 %
118.2 − 27.7
(124 − 109.9)
𝜔= 𝑥 100% = 16.49 %
109.9 − 24.4
Trial 3: 56 Blows
(92.9 − 81.8)
𝜔= 𝑥 100% = 18.57 %
81.8 − 25.5
19.50 + 16.49 + 18.57

W= = 18.57 %
3
(89.9 − 77.8)
𝜔= 𝑥 100% = 22.65 %
77.8 − 24.4
(78.5 − 69.3)
𝜔= 𝑥 100% = 20.67 %
69.3 − 24.8
Trial 3: 25 Blows
(98.6 − 85.7)
𝜔= 𝑥 100% = 21.98 %
85.7 − 28.7
22.65 + 20.67 + 21.98

W= = 21.98 %
3
(129.7 − 109.7)
𝜔= 𝑥 100% = 26.45 %
109.7 − 34.1
(72.5 − 63.7)
𝜔= 𝑥 100% = 24.24 %
63.7 − 27.4
Trial 3: 10 Blows
(99.7 − 85.7)
𝜔= 𝑥 100% = 24.73 %
85.7 − 29.1
26.45 + 24.24 + 25.14

W= = 25.14 %
3
T a b l e 4 . 4 . 4 : M o i s t u r e C o n t e n t f o r T r e a t e d S o i l w i t h 1 0 0 m l / 𝒎𝟑 o r
0.061 ml/kg of Bio-Enzymes (Trial 1)
Can No. 1 2 3

c a n ( g ) ( M1)

c a n ( g ) ( M2 )
Weight of can (g) (Mc) 24.4 24.3 24.1
Weight of dry soil (g) 47.8 47.6
Can No. 1 2 3
Weight of wet soil + 82.6 99.9 80

c a n ( g ) ( M1)

c a n ( g ) ( M2 )
Weight of can (g) (Mc) 24.9 24.4 24.5
Can No. 1 2 3

c a n ( g ) ( M1)

c a n ( g ) ( M2 )
Weight of can (g) (Mc) 24.8 24.7 24.6

Content (%)
(𝑀1−𝑀2)
𝑀2−𝑀𝑐
(81.9 − 72.2)
𝜔= 𝑥 100% = 20.29 %
72.2 − 24.4
(82.6 − 73.7)
𝜔= 𝑥 100% = 18.24 %
73.7 − 24.9
Trial 3: 56 Blows
(65.2 − 58.6)
𝜔= 𝑥 100% = 19.53 %
58.6 − 24.8
20.29 + 18.24 + 19.53

W= = 19.35 %
3
(82.8 − 71.9)
𝜔= 𝑥 100% = 22.90 %
71.9 − 24.3
(99.9 − 87.1)
𝜔= 𝑥 100% = 20.41 %
87.1 − 24.4
Trial 3: 25 Blows
(126.2 − 107.2)
𝜔= 𝑥 100% = 23.03 %
107.2 − 24.7
22.90 + 20.41 + 23.03

W= = 22.11 %
3
(78.5 − 68.3)
𝜔= 𝑥 100% = 23.08 %
68.3 − 24.1
(80 − 69.3)
𝜔= 𝑥 100% = 23.88 %
69.3 − 24.5
Trial 3: 10 Blows
(122.5 − 103.8)
𝜔= 𝑥 100% = 23.61 %
103.8 − 24.6
23.08 + 23.88 + 23.61

W= = 23.52 %
3
Can No. 1 2 3

c a n ( g ) ( M1)

c a n ( g ) ( M2 )
Weight of can (g) (Mc) 28.8 24.4 28.3
Can No. 1 2 3

c a n ( g ) ( M1)

c a n ( g ) ( M2 )
Weight of can (g) (Mc) 28.1 24.8 24.8
Can No. 1 2 3

c a n ( g ) ( M1)

c a n ( g ) ( M2 )
Weight of can (g) (Mc) 28.2 24.4 28.6

Content (%)
(𝑀1−𝑀2)
𝑀2−𝑀𝑐
(102.4 − 90.7)
𝜔= 𝑥 100% = 18.66 %
90.7 − 28.8
(99.4 − 89.8)
𝜔= 𝑥 100% = 15.56 %
89.8 − 28.1
Trial 3: 56 Blows
(110.4 − 96.4)
𝜔= 𝑥 100% = 20.53 %
96.4 − 28.2
18.66 + 15.56 + 20.53

W= = 18.25 %
3
(95.6 − 82.5)
𝜔= 𝑥 100% = 22.59 %
82.5 − 24.4
(81.9 − 72.7)
𝜔= 𝑥 100% = 19.21 %
72.7 − 24.8
Trial 3: 25 Blows
(91.4 − 78.7)
𝜔= 𝑥 100% = 23.39 %
78.7 − 24.4
22.59 + 19.21 + 23.39

W= = 21.73 %
3
(125.5 − 106.1)
𝜔= 𝑥 100% = 24.94 %
106.1 − 28.3
(88.9 − 76.6)
𝜔= 𝑥 100% = 23.75 %
76.6 − 24.8
Trial 3: 10 Blows
(100.1 − 85.5)
𝜔= 𝑥 100% = 25.66 %
85.5 − 28.6
24.94 + 23.75 + 25.66

W= = 24.78 %
3
T a b l e 4 . 4 . 1 0 : M o i s t u r e C o n t e n t f o r T r e a t e d S o i l w i t h 3 0 0 m l / 𝒎𝟑
or 0.183 ml/kg of Bio -Enzymes (Trial 1)
Can No. 1 2 3
Weight of wet soil + 104.3 96.5 111

c a n ( g ) ( M1)

c a n ( g ) ( M2 )
Weight of can (g) (Mc) 25.2 24.8 25.1
Can No. 1 2 3

c a n ( g ) ( M1)

c a n ( g ) ( M2 )
Weight of can (g) (Mc) 28.4 27.6 25.4
Can No. 1 2 3

c a n ( g ) ( M1)

c a n ( g ) ( M2 )
Weight of can (g) (Mc) 25.1 23.6 25.2

Content (%)
(𝑀1−𝑀2)
𝑀2−𝑀𝑐
(104.3 − 91.2)
𝜔= 𝑥 100% = 19.85 %
91.2 − 25.2
(135.2 − 120.5)
𝜔= 𝑥 100% = 15.96 %
120.5 − 28.4
Trial 3: 56 Blows
(111.1 − 96.2)
𝜔= 𝑥 100% = 20.96 %
96.2 − 25.1
19.85 + 15.96 + 20.96

W= = 18.90 %
3
(96.5 − 83.9)
𝜔= 𝑥 100% = 21.32 %
83.9 − 24.8
(84.9 − 75.1)
𝜔= 𝑥 100% = 20.63 %
75.1 − 27.6
Trial 3: 25 Blows
(72.9 − 64.1)
𝜔= 𝑥 100% = 21.73 %
64.1 − 23.6
21.32 + 20.63 + 21.73

W= = 21.23 %
3
(111 − 95.2)
𝜔= 𝑥 100% = 22.54 %
95.2 − 25.1

(70.4−62.0)
𝜔= 𝑥 100% = 22.95 %z
62.0−25.4
Trial 3: 10 Blows
(128.8 − 109.9)
𝜔= 𝑥 100% = 22.34 %
109.9 − 25.2
22.54 + 22.95 + 22.34

W= = 21.94 %
3
4.5.1: Density Determination of Different Compaction Effort
Table 4.5.1: Density for Untreated Soil (Trial 1)

No. of Blows 56 25 10
Weight of mold + compacted soil 8.453 8.430 8.350
s p e c i m e n ( k g ) (Wcs )
W e i g h t o f m o l d ( k g ) (Wm ) 4.462 4.462 4.462
Weight of Compacted soil specimen 3.991 3.968 3.888

( k g ) (Ws )
V o l u m e o f s o i l s p e c i m e n (m3 ) (Vm ) 0.00221 0.00221 0.00221
W e t d e n s i t y ( k g / m3 )(γ w ) 1803.67 1793.28 1757.12
M o i s t u r e C o n t e n t ( % ) ( MC) 19.50 22.65 26.45
D r y D e n s i t y ( k g / m2 )( γ d ) 1509.35 1462.11 1389.58


( k g ) (Ws )


( k g ) (Ws )
A v e r a g e W e t d e n s i t y ( k g / m3 ) 1696.64 1702.70 1708.21
A v e r a g e D r y D e n s i t y ( k g / m3 ) 1429.85 1395.50 1364.88
Wcs−Wm ρw
Working Formulas: ρ w = ; ρd = x100
Vm MC+100
Trial 1: 56 Blows
8.453−4.462 𝑘𝑔
ρw = = 1803.67
0.00221271 𝑚3
1803.67 𝑘𝑔
ρd = x100 = 1509.35
19.50+100 𝑚3
Trial 2: 56 Blows
8.214−4.841 𝑘𝑔
ρw = = 1522.22
0.002215848 𝑚3
1522.22 𝑘𝑔
ρd = x100 = 1306.74
16.49+100 𝑚3
Trial 3: 56 Blows
8.446−3.981 𝑘𝑔
ρw = = 1764.04
0.002256755 𝑚3
1764.04 𝑘𝑔
ρd = x100 = 1473.47
19.72+100 𝑚3
Average Wet Density and Dry Density

1803.67+1522.22+1764.04 𝑘𝑔
ρw = = 1696.64
3 𝑚3
1509.35+1306.74+1473.47 𝑘𝑔
ρd = = 1429.85
3 𝑚3
Trial 1: 25 Blows
8.430−4.462 𝑘𝑔
ρw = = 1793.28
0.00221271 𝑚3
1793.28 𝑘𝑔
ρd = x100 = 1462.11
22.65+100 𝑚3
Trial 2: 25 Blows
8.401−4.841 𝑘𝑔
ρw = = 1606.61
0.002215848 𝑚3
1606.61 𝑘𝑔
ρd = x100 = 1331.41
20.67+100 𝑚3
Trial 3: 25 Blows
8.320−4.465 𝑘𝑔
ρw = = 1708.20
0.002256755 𝑚3
1708.20 𝑘𝑔
ρd = x100 = 1392.97
22.63+100 𝑚3

1793.28+1606.61+1708.20 𝑘𝑔
ρw = = 1702.70
3 𝑚3
1462.11+1331.41+1392.97 𝑘𝑔
ρd = = 1395.50
3 𝑚3
Trial 1: 10 Blows
8.350−4.462 𝑘𝑔
ρw = = 1757.12
0.00221271 𝑚3
1757.12 𝑘𝑔
ρd = x100 = 1389.58
26.45+100 𝑚3
Trial 2: 10 Blows
8.504−4.841 𝑘𝑔
ρw = = 1653.09 𝑚3
0.002215848
1653.09 𝑘𝑔
ρd = x100 = 1330.56
24.24+100 𝑚3
Trial 3: 10 Blows
8.334−4.465 𝑘𝑔
ρw = = 1714.41
0.002256755 𝑚3
1714.41 𝑘𝑔
ρd = x100 = 1374.50
24.73+100 𝑚3

1757.12+1653.09+1714.41 𝑘𝑔
ρw = = 1708.21
3 𝑚3
1389.58+1330.56+1374.50 𝑘𝑔
ρd = = 1364.88
3 𝑚3
T a b l e 4 . 5 . 4 : D e n s i t y f o r T r e a t e d S o i l w i t h 1 0 0 m l / 𝐦𝟑 o r 0 . 0 6 1
ml/kg of Bio-Enzymes (Trial 1)
W e i g h t o f m o l d ( k g ) (Mm ) 4.462 4.462 4.462
Weight of Compacted soil 4.409 4.200 4.072

s p e c i m e n ( k g ) (Ws )
V o l u m e o f s o i l s p e c i m e n (m3 ) 0.002213 0.002213 0.002213
(Vm )
T a b l e 4 . 5 . 5 : D e n s i t y f o r T r e a t e d S o i l w i t h 1 0 0 m l / 𝒎𝟑 o r 0 . 0 6 1
Weight of mold + compacted 8.534 8.542 8.645
s o i l s p e c i m e n ( k g ) (Wcs )

(Vm )
Weight of mold + compacted 8.243 8.546 8.645
s o i l s p e c i m e n ( k g ) (Wcs )

(Vm )
A v e r a g e W e t d e n s i t y ( k g / m3 ) 1788.87 1804.24 1815.36
A v e r a g e D r y D e n s i t y ( k g / m3 ) 1498.15 1476.89 1469.75
Wcs−Wm ρw
Vm MC+100
Trial 1: 56 Blows
8.871−4.462 𝑘𝑔
ρw = = 1992.58
0.00221271 𝑚3
1992.58 𝑘𝑔
ρd = x100 = 1656.48
20.29+100 𝑚3
Trial 2: 56 Blows
8.534−4.841 𝑘𝑔
ρw = = 1666.63
0.002215848 𝑚3
1666.63 𝑘𝑔
ρd = x100 = 1409.53
18.24+100 𝑚3
Trial 3: 56 Blows
8.243−4.465 𝑘𝑔
ρw = = 1707.41
0.00221271 𝑚3
1707.41 𝑘𝑔
ρd = x100 = 1428.23
19.53+100 𝑚3

1992.58+1666.63+1707.41 𝑘𝑔
ρw = = 1788.87
3 𝑚3
1656.48+1409.53+1428.23 𝑘𝑔
ρd = = 1498.15
3 𝑚3
Trial 1: 25 Blows
8.662−4.462 𝑘𝑔
ρw = = 1898.12
0.00221271 𝑚3
1898.12 𝑘𝑔
ρd = x100 = 1544.45
22.90+100 𝑚3
Trial 2: 25 Blows
8.542−4.841 𝑘𝑔
ρw = = 1670.24
0.002215848 𝑚3
1670.24 𝑘𝑔
ρd = x100 = 1387.13
20.41+100 𝑚3
Trial 3: 25 Blows
8.546−4.465 𝑘𝑔
ρw = = 1844.34
0.00221271 𝑚3
1844.34 𝑘𝑔
ρd = x100 = 1499.10
23.03+100 𝑚3

1898.12+1670.24+1844.34 𝑘𝑔
ρw = = 1804.24
3 𝑚3
1544.45+1670.24+1499.10 𝑘𝑔
ρd = = 1476.89
3 𝑚3
Trial 1: 10 Blows
8.534−4.462 𝑘𝑔
ρw = = 1840.28
0.00221271 𝑚3
1840.28 𝑘𝑔
ρd = x100 = 1495.19
23.08+100 𝑚3
Trial 2: 10 Blows
8.645−4.841 𝑘𝑔
ρw = = 1716.72 𝑚3
0.002215848
1716.72 𝑘𝑔
ρd = x100 = 1385.80
23.88+100 𝑚3
Trial 3: 10 Blows
8.645−4.465 𝑘𝑔
ρw = = 1889.09
0.00221271 𝑚3
1889.09 𝑘𝑔
ρd = x100 = 1528.26
23.61+100 𝑚3

1840.28+1716.72+1889.09 𝑘𝑔
ρw = = 1815.36
3 𝑚3
1495.19+1385.80+1528.26 𝑘𝑔
ρd = = 1469.75
3 𝑚3

V o l u m e o f s o i l s p e c i m e n (m3 ) (Vm ) 0 . 0 0 2 2 1 3 0.002213 0.002213


A v e r a g e W e t d e n s i t y ( k g / 𝑚3 ) 1792.68 1815.25 1822.91
A v e r a g e D r y D e n s i t y ( k g / 𝑚2 ) 1514.91 1490.05 1460.42
Wcs−Wm ρw
Vm MC+100
Trial 1: 56 Blows
8.879−4.462 𝑘𝑔
ρw = = 1996.19
0.00221271 𝑚3
1996.19 𝑘𝑔
ρd = x100 = 1682.28
18.97+100 𝑚3
Trial 2: 56 Blows
8.358−4.841 𝑘𝑔
ρw = = 1587.20
0.002215848 𝑚3
1587.20 𝑘𝑔
ρd = x100 = 1373.49
15.56+100 𝑚3
Trial 3: 56 Blows
8.436−4.465 𝑘𝑔
ρw = = 1794.63
0.00221271 𝑚3
1794.63 𝑘𝑔
ρd = x100 = 1488.95
20.53+100 𝑚3

1996.19+1587.20+1794.63 𝑘𝑔
ρw = = 1792.68
3 𝑚3
1682.28+1373.49+1488.95 𝑘𝑔
ρd = = 1514.91
3 𝑚3
Trial 1: 25 Blows
8.842−4.462 𝑘𝑔
ρw = = 1979.47
0.00221271 𝑚3
1979.47 𝑘𝑔
ρd = x100 = 1614.71
22.55+100 𝑚3
Trial 2: 25 Blows
8.445−4.841 𝑘𝑔
ρw = = 1626.47
0.002215848 𝑚3
1626.47 𝑘𝑔
ρd = x100 = 1364.37
19.21+100 𝑚3
Trial 3: 25 Blows
8.536−4.465 𝑘𝑔
ρw = = 1839.83
0.00221271 𝑚3
1839.83 𝑘𝑔
ρd = x100 = 1491.06
23.39+100 𝑚3

1979.47+1626.47+1839.83 𝑘𝑔
ρw = = 1815.25
3 𝑚3
1614.71+1364.37+1491.06 𝑘𝑔
ρd = = 1490.05
3 𝑚3
Trial 1: 10 Blows
8.649−4.462 𝑘𝑔
ρw = = 1892.25
0.00221271 𝑚3
1892.25 𝑘𝑔
ρd = x100 = 1514.53
24.94+100 𝑚3
Trial 2: 10 Blows
8.549−4.841 𝑘𝑔
ρw = = 1673.4 𝑚3
0.002215848
1673.4 𝑘𝑔
ρd = x100 = 1352.24
23.75+100 𝑚3
Trial 3: 10 Blows
8.676−4.465 𝑘𝑔
ρw = = 1903.10
0.00221271 𝑚3
1903.10 𝑘𝑔
ρd = x100 = 1514.48
25.66+100 𝑚3

1892.25+1673.4+1903.10 𝑘𝑔
ρw = = 1822.91
3 𝑚3
1514.53+1352.24+1514.48 𝑘𝑔
ρd = = 1460.42
3 𝑚3
T a b l e 4 . 5 . 1 0 : D e n s i t y f o r T r e a t e d S o i l w i t h 3 0 0 m l / 𝒎𝟑 o r 0 . 1 8 3



(Vm )
A v e r a g e W e t d e n s i t y ( k g / 𝑚3 )’ 1804.11 1810.77 1782.01
A v e r a g e D r y D e n s i t y ( k g / 𝑚2 ) 1516.01 1493.29 1460.51
Wcs−Wm ρw
Vm MC+100
Trial 1: 56 Blows
8.871−4.462 𝑘𝑔
ρw = = 1992.58 𝑚3
0.00221271
1992.58 𝑘𝑔
ρd = x100 = 1662.56
18.85+100 𝑚3
Trial 2: 56 Blows
8.420−4.841 𝑘𝑔
ρw = = 1615.18
0.002215848 𝑚3
1615.18 𝑘𝑔
ρd = x100 = 1393.60
15.90+100 𝑚3
Trial 3: 56 Blows
8.458−4.465 𝑘𝑔
ρw = = 1804.57
0.00221271 𝑚3
1804.57 𝑘𝑔
ρd = x100 = 1491.88
20.96+100 𝑚3
Average Wet Density and Dry D ensity

1992.58+1615.18+1804.57 𝑘𝑔
ρw = = 1804.11
3 𝑚3
1662.56+1393.60+1491.88 𝑘𝑔
ρd = = 1516.01 𝑚3
3
Trial 1: 25 Blows
8.916−4.462 𝑘𝑔
ρw = = 2012.92
0.00221271 𝑚3
2012.92 𝑘𝑔
ρd = x100 = 1659.18
21.32+100 𝑚3
Trial 2: 25 Blows
8.300−4.841 𝑘𝑔
ρw = = 1561.03
0.002215848 𝑚3
1561.03 𝑘𝑔
ρd = x100 = 1294.06
20.63+100 𝑚3
Trial 3: 25 Blows
8.577−4.465 𝑘𝑔
ρw = = 1858.35
0.00221271 𝑚3
1858.35 𝑘𝑔
ρd = x100 = 1526.62
21.73+100 𝑚3

2012.92+1561.03+1858.35 𝑘𝑔
ρw = = 1810.77
3 𝑚3
1659.18+1294.06+1526.62 𝑘𝑔
ρd = = 1493.287
3 𝑚3
Trial 1: 10 Blows
8.718−4.462 𝑘𝑔
ρw = = 1923.433
0.00221271 𝑚3
1923.433 𝑘𝑔
ρd = x100 = 1569.64
22.54+100 𝑚3
Trial 2: 10 Blows
8.210−4.841 𝑘𝑔
ρw = = 1714.47 𝑚3
0.002215848
1714.47 𝑘𝑔
ρd = x100 = 1257.06
20.95+100 𝑚3
Trial 3: 10 Blows
8.674−4.465 𝑘𝑔
ρw = = 1902.19
0.00221271 𝑚3
1902.19 𝑘𝑔
ρd = x100 = 1554.84
22.34+100 𝑚3

1923.433+1714.47+1902.19 𝑘𝑔
ρw = = 1782.01
3 𝑚3
1569.64+1257.06+1554.84 𝑘𝑔
ρd = = 1460.51
3 𝑚3
4.6.1. Results of California Bearing Ratio at 2.54 mm and 5.08 mm
penetration with Compaction Effort of (56,25,10).
Table 4.6.1: Average California Bearing Ratio and Average Dry
Density for Untreated Soil
No. CBR (%) CBR (%) Dry CBR (%) at CBR (%) at
of at 2.54 at 5.08 Density 95 % of 95 % of
Blow Penetrati Penetrati ( k g / m3 ) Maximum Maximum
s on (mm) on (mm) Dry Dry
Density at Density at
2.54 5.08
Penetration Penetration
(mm) (mm)
56 4.52 5.47 1429.85

25 4.21 5.25 1395.50 5.18 5.90
10 4.11 5.18 1364.88
In table 4.6.1 shows that the increased of compaction efforts, the
CBR and Dry Density also increased. The CBR at 95 % of Maximum
Dry Density at 2.54 Penetration (mm) and CBR (%) at 95 % of
Maximum Dry Density at 5.08 Penetration (mm) with the
corresponding values of 5.18 % and 5.90 %. The Bearing Ratio at
5.08 mm penetration is greater than 2.54 mm penetration. The bearing
ratio at 5.08 mm penetration is used in CBR with the value of 5.90%
Untreated Soil with different Compaction Effort

4.55
4.52
California Bearing Ratio (%)
4.5 y = 0.0064x - 4.6108

4.45 R² = 0.9367
4.4
4.35
4.3
4.25
4.2 4.21
4.15
4.1 4.11
4.05
1360 1370 1380 1390 1400 1410 1420 1430 1440
Figure 4.6.1: Dry Density Versus CBR at 2.54 penetration (mm)
Untreated Soil with different Compaction Effort

5.5
5.47

5.45 y = 0.0045x - 0.9892
R² = 0.9354
5.4
5.35
5.3
5.25 5.25
5.2
5.18
5.15
5.1
1360 1370 1380 1390 1400 1410 1420 1430 1440
Figure 4.6.1.1: Dry Density Versus CBR at 5.08 penetration (mm)
The data obtained from the three specimens of untreated soil with
different compaction effort of 56,25 and 10. The California Bearing
Ratio (CBR) and Dry Density as molded relation as shown in fig.
4.6.1 and 4.6.1.1. The design CBR for one water content on ly
determined at the desired percentage which is 95 percent of the
m a x i m u m d r y d e n s i t y. T h e M a x i m u m D r y D e n s i t y i s 1 6 1 0 . 6 1 k g / m ^ 3
from ASTM D698/Standard Compaction Effort. The equivalent
desired percentage is 1530.080 kg/m^3.
b y a d d i n g a l i n e a r t r e n d l i n e a n d t h e r e g r e s s i o n a l s o k n o w n a s R2 w a s
directly computed using Microsoft Excel.
From the equation on figure 4.6.1: y = 0.0064x -4.64108
CBR at 1530.080 kg/m^3.
At 2.54 mm
y = 0.0064(1530.080)-4.64108= 5.18 %
From the equation on figure 4.6.1.1: y = 0.0045x -0.9892
CBR at 1530.080 kg/m^3.
At 5.08 mm
y = 0.0045(1530.080)-0.9892= 5.90 %
Table 4.6.2 Average California Bearing Ratio for Treated Soil
w i t h 1 0 0 m l / 𝐦𝟑 o r 0 . 0 6 1 m l / k g o f B i o - E n z y m e s
No. CBR % CBR % Dry CBR (%) at CBR (%) at

Blow Penetra Penetrati ( k g / m3 ) Maximum Maximum
s tion on (mm) Dry Density Dry Density
(mm) at 2.54 at 5.08
(mm) (mm)
56 5.35 6.79 1498.15
25 5.12 6.42 1476.89 5.73 7.90
10 4.95 5.80 1469.75
ratio at 5.08 mm penetration is used in CBR with t he value of 7.90%

Enzymes
5.4
y = 0.0133x - 14.618
5.3 R² = 0.9632
5.2
5.1
4.9
1465 1470 1475 1480 1485 1490 1495 1500
Figure 4.6.2: Dry Density Versus CBR at 2.54 penetration (mm )

Enzymes
7
6.8 y = 0.0309x - 39.382

6.79
R² = 0.8305
6.6
6.4 6.42
6.2
6
5.8 5.8
5.6
1465 1470 1475 1480 1485 1490 1495 1500
The data obtained from the three specimens of Treated Soil with
100ml/cu.m or 0.064 ml/kg of B i o - E n z ym e s with different
compaction effort of 56,25 and 10. The California Bearing Ratio
(CBR) and Dry Density as molded relation as shown in fig. 4.6.2 and
4.6.2.2. The design CBR for one water content only determined at the
d e s i r e d p e r c e n t a g e w h i c h i s 9 5 p e r c e n t o f t h e m a x i m u m d r y d e n s i t y.
The Maximum Dry Density is 1610.61 kg/m^3 from ASTM
D698/Standard Compaction Effort. The equivalent desired percentage
is 1530.080 kg/m^3.
CBR at 1530.080 kg/m^3.
At 2.54 mm
y = 0.0133(1530.080)-14.618= 5.73 %
CBR at 1530.080 kg/m^3.
At 5.08 mm
y = 0.0309(1530.080)-39.382= 7.90 %
Table 4.6.3: Average California Bearing Ratio for Treated Soil
No. CBR % CBR % Dry CBR (%) at CBR (%) at

Blow Penetrat Penetrati ( k g / m3 ) Maximum Maximum
s ion on (mm) Dry Density Dry Density
(mm) at 2.54 at 5.08
(mm) (mm)
56 6.63 8.39 1514.91

25 6.00 7.75 1490.05 6.73 8.85
10 5.84 6.69 1460.42

Enzymes
6.8
6.6 y = 0.0142x - 14.994

R² = 0.8615
6.4
6.2
6
5.8
5.6
1450 1460 1470 1480 1490 1500 1510 1520
Figure 4.6.3: Dry Density Versus CBR at 2.54 penetration (mm)

Enzymes
10
California Bearing Ratio (%) y = 0.0313x - 39.043
8 R² = 0.9917
0
1450 1460 1470 1480 1490 1500 1510 1520
200ml/cu.m or 0.122 ml/kg of B i o - E n z ym e s with different
compaction effort of 56,25 and 10. The California Bearing Ratio
(CBR) and Dry Density as molded relation as shown in fig. 4.6.3 and
4.6.3.3. The design CBR for one water content only determined at the
d e s i r e d p e r c e n t a g e w h i c h i s 9 5 p e r c e n t o f t h e m a x i m u m d r y d e n s i t y.
The Maximum Dry Density is 1610.61 kg/m^3 from ASTM
D698/Standard Compaction Effort. The equivalent desired percentage
is 1530.080 kg/m^3.
CBR at 1530.080 kg/m^3.
At 2.54 mm
y = 0.0142(1530.080)-14.994= 6.73 %
CBR at 1530.080 kg/m^3.
At 5.08 mm
y = 0.0313(1530.080)-39.043= 8.85 %
Table 4.6.4: Average California Bearing Ratio for Treated Soil
No. CBR % at CBR % at Dry CBR (%) CBR (%)

of 2.54 5.08 Density for 95 % for 95 %
Blow Penetratio Penetratio ( k g / m3 ) Maximu Maximum
s n (mm) n (mm) m Dry Dry
Density Density at
at 2.54 5.08
Penetrati Penetratio
on (mm) n (mm)
56 7.49 9.06 1516.10
25 6.98 8.08 1493.29 8.00 9.40
10 5.91 7.26 1460.51

Bio-Enzymes
8
y = 0.0288x - 36.062
7 R² = 0.9905
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
1450 1460 1470 1480 1490 1500 1510 1520
Figure 4.6.4: Dry Density Versus CBR at 2.5 4 penetration (mm)

Bio-Enzymes
10
9 y = 0.0319x - 39.409
8 R² = 0.976
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
1450 1460 1470 1480 1490 1500 1510 1520
300ml/cu.m or 0.183 ml/kg of Bio -Enzymes. The California Bearing
Ratio (CBR) and Dry Density as molded r elation as shown in fig.
4.6.4 and 4.6.4.4. The design CBR for one water content only
determined at the desired percentage which is 95 percent of the
m a x i m u m d r y d e n s i t y. T h e M a x i m u m D r y D e n s i t y i s 1 6 1 0 . 6 1 k g / m ^ 3
from ASTM D698/Standard Compaction Effort. The equivalent
desired percentage is 1530.080 kg/m^3.
From the equation on figure 4.6.4: y = 0.0288x-36.062
CBR at 1530.080 kg/m^3.
At 2.54 mm
y = 0.0288(1530.080)-36.062= 8.00 %
CBR at 1530.080 kg/m^3.
At 5.08 mm
y = 0.0319(1530.080)-39.409= 9.40 %
Table 4.7.1. Typical Design California Bearing Ratio (CBR)
Values
APPENDIX B (PICTURES)
APPENDIX B – 1 (GATHERING AND PREPARATION
OF SOIL AND BIO ENZYME)
Figure 1: Verisol from V. F i g u r e 2 : D r yi n g o f V e r t i s o l

Fuguso, Sta. Cruz, Manila under the sun
Figure 3: Bio Enzyme bought in

San Pedro, Laguna
APPENDIX B – 2
EQUIPMENT USED IN THE EXPERIMENTS
Figure 1: Electronic Scale Figure 2: Temperature

Controlled Oven
F i g u r e 3 : Mechanical Sieve Shaker Figure 4: Cassagrande Device
Figure 5:Vernier Caliper Figure 6: Mold
Figure 7:Compaction Hammer Figure 8: California Bearing

Ratio Tester
APPENDIX B – 3
EXECUTION OF THE SOIL CLASSIFICATION
(Sieve Analysis)
Figure 1: Weighing of soil Figure 2: Weighing of sieves

sample
Figure 3: Soil sieved using Figure 4: Measure the weight of

Mechanical Sieve Shaker the soil retained.
APPENDIX B - 4
EXECUTION OF THE PHYSICAL AND INDEX PROPERITES
(Moisture Content)
Figure 1: Weighing the Figure 2: Additon of water to

Moisture Cans the Vertisol
Figure 3: Weighing the Figure 4: Weighing of the

Moisture Cans with Vertisol Vertisol after
24 hours of oven drying
APPENDIX B – 5
(Specific Gravity)
F i g u r e 1 : W e i g h i n g P yc n o m e t e r F i g u r e 2 : W e i g h i n g P yc n o m e t e r
filled with water
F i g u r e 4 : W e i g h i n g o f P yc n o m e t e r
with soil and water
APPENDIX B – 6
(Atterberg Limits)
Figure 1. Weighing of vertisol Figure 2: Addition of water in

vertisol
Figure 3: Moist vertisol was Figure 4: Cleared the centerline

placed on Casagrade Device using a grooving tool and took
number of blows until it meets .
Figure 5: Moist vertisol was Figure 6: The vertisols were

rolled until it broke into transferred in cans and weighed
smaller pieces.
Figure 7: All the cans were Figure 8: The vertisol were weighed after
transferred in the oven and let oven drying.
it dry for 24 hours
APPENDIX B – 7
EXECUTION OF THE CALIFORNIA BEARING RATIO
(Compaction – Standard Effort)
Figure 1: Weighing of vertisol Figure 2: Adding water with an

increment of 150mL and
mixing.
Figure 3: Compacting vertisols Figure 4: Weighing mold with

in the mold, to obtain the vertisols
amount of water needed.
Figure 5: Height of the mold Figure 6: Diameter of the mold
Figure 7: Weighing of vertisol F i g u r e 8 : A d d i n g b i o e n z ym e

per kg in water
Figure 8: Compacting using

Figure 7: Putting in the mold, 3
standard effort on mold with
l a ye r s .
vertisol
Figure 9: Get compacted sample

Figure 10: Weigh and Place the
in order to compute moisture
can on the oven
content and density.
Figure 11: Weighing of F i g u r e 1 2 : S o a k e d f o r 4 d a ys

compacted soil.
Figure 13: Execution of California Bearing Ratio
APPENDIX C
(CALIBRATION CERTIFICATE )
Figure 1: California Bearing Ratio Calibration Certificate
Figure 2: Calibration Data
APPENDIX D
CERTIFICATE AND RECEIPT
ADAMSON UNIVERSITY
CURRICULUM VITAE
Clark Lois M. Jose
7419 M. Rodriguez St. La Huerta
Paranaque City
clarklois0018@gmail.com
09972662438
Fifth Year Student of Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering at Adamson University

looking for an opportunity that will challenge and strengthen my education and
professional skills in Civil Engineering field.
EDUCATION
• Adamson University
Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering
Fifth Year Student
2012~Present
• Paranaque National High School La Huerta (Annex)

La Huerta, Paranaque
Secondary (2012)
• La Huerta Elementary School

La Huerta, Paranaque
Primary (2008)
AFFILIATION
• Adamson University-Association of Civil Engineering Students, AdU-ACES

Member
SKILLS
• AutoCAD • Microsoft Excel

• ETABS • Microsoft Power point
• Microsoft Word • Sketch up
SEMINARS ATTENDED
• 4th Engineering Research Congress (ERC 2016)

• Bridge Assessment
• CONCLAVE: Redefining Global Competency in Today’s Society
• Transportation Engineering: Opportunities of Transportation Engineers in Today’s
Community
• Enhance Competence through Experience: Be an Effective Structural Engineer
• CASCADE: Fill the World with the Essence of Water Resources Engineering
• InterCEction: Crossing Roads in a Multidisciplinary Field
• resourCEs: Blending Structures and Landscapes with the Protection of the
Environment
• enhanCE: Increasing Knowledge for the Future
• CEgnos: Civil Engineering Green Nature Operation & Sanitation
• FoundaCEon: Building Knowledge through Solid Substructure
• edifiCE: Forcsting, Organizing, and controlling a Project from Beginning to End
PERSONAL INFORMATION
Birth Date: May 18, 1994

Birth Place: Paranaque City
Age: 22 Years old
Gender: Male
Civil Status: Single
Height: 5’6
Weight: 99lbs
_______________________
Clark Lois M. Jose
DESMOND KARALI
Balagtas Royal Mansion, 168 Balagtas St., San Isindro, Pasay City
Mobile #: 09208344676
E-mail: desmondkarali@yahoo.com
JOB OBJECTIVE:
To obtain a position as an active employee, involving responsibility, working with others as a

team member, enable to use my leadership skills, and my education background.
EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT:
Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering

2012 – Present Adamson University
900, San Marcelino Street,Ermita,Manila City 1000,Metro Manila
Secondary School Level

2010 – 2011 Mt. Hagen Secondary School
Po Box 380, Mt Hagen WHP Papua New Guinea
High School Level

2008 – 2009 Mt. Hagen Secondary School
Primary School Level

2002 – 2007 Mt. Hagen Primary School
Elementary School Level

1999 – 2001 Mt. Hagen Elementary School
TECHNICAL SKILLS:
• Have good working relation with people

• Background in Structural Analysis and Design.
• Background in Construction Cost Engineering
• Basic Knowledge in AutoCAD
• Basic Knowledge in ETABS
• Proficient in Microsoft Word and Excel
ACCOMPLISHMENTS:
Adamson University Student Government – Member (ACES)

2015 – 2016, Adamson University – Association of Civil Engineering Students
Ermita, Manila
Adamson University International Students – Member (ISSAD)

2015 – 2016 Adamson University - International Students Association of Adamson University
Ermita, Manila
SEMINARS / TRAINING ATTENDED:
• Bridge Assessment
Engr. Leo Ampatin, Associate Director, Bridge Structures Team, AECOM.
Ozanam Building AVR, Adamson University, Ermita, Manila
August 19, 2016
• Geotechnical Engineering
Ozanam Building AVR, Adamsn University, Ermita, Manila
March 14, 2016
PERSONAL INFORMATION:
Nickname: Des
Sex: Male
Age: 21
Date of Birth: August 10 1992
Place of Birth: Mt Hagen, WHP. Papua New Guinea
Civil Status: Single
Citizenship: Papua New Guinean
Height: 5’ 3”
Weight: 80kg
CHARACTER REFERENCE
ENGR. BRIAN EUROLFAN Professor

Department of Civil Engineering
Adamson University, Metro Manila
DR. MARIA CECILIA M. MARCOS Chairperson

Adamson University, Metro Manila
CANDICE JAN B. RAMO
Undergraduate / Civil Engineering Student
OBJECTIVE
To seek for a competitive and challenging

INFO environment wherein I could further enhance
my knowledge and capabilities.
Name
Candice Jan B. Ramo
Address EDUCATION
#43 Juan Luna Avenue,
Chrysanthemum Village, 2012—Present Adamson University
San Pedro, Laguna BS in Civil Engineering
Phone 900, San Marcelino Street, Ermita, Manila
+63-977-097-7312 City 1000, Metro Manila
Email 2008—2012 Casa Del Niño Science High School

ecidnacnanaj@gmail.com
High School Level
Pacita Complex 2, San Pedro, Laguna
SKILLS & QUALIFICATIONS 2002—2008 Casa Del Niño Montessori School

Elementary Level
• Background in Elementary
and Higher Surveying Pacita Complex, San Pedro, Laguna
• Background in Construction
Cost Engineering
SEMINARS ATTENDED
• Background in Structural
Analysis and Design
IntenCEty: Seismic Risk Assessment in the Philip-
• Basic knowledge in Computer
pines through Civil Engineering
Applications such as ETABS,
AutoCAD, and SketchUp July 20, 2013
• Proficient in using Microsoft UP Film Institute, Diliman Quezon City
Office Application
Design Optimization
• Have a good working relation
June 22, 2016
with people
OZ Conference Room, Adamson University
• Able to communicate and
i nterac t p ositively a nd Bridge Assessment
effectively with people August 19, 2016
OZ—AVR, Adamson University
P E R S O N A L I N F O R MA T I O N
Gender : Female
Date of Birth : August 03, 1996
Place of Birth : Biñan, Laguna
Age : 20 years old
Civil Status : Single
Citizenship : Filipino
Height : 5’ 4’’
Weight : 90kg
Religion : Born Again Christian
AFFILIATION
Adamson University Association of Civil Engineering Society (AdU-ACES)
Member, 2012—Present
Adamson University Mathematics Society (AUMS)
Junior Philippine Institute of Civil Engineering Students (JPICE—AdU)
REFERENCES
Engr. Brian G. Eurolfan

Professor at Adamson University
Dr. Maria Cecilia M. Marcos

Chairperson at Adamson University

FRANCIS IAN LAGAZON RIVERA
OBJECTIVE
20-D Matutum St. Sta Mesa Heights, Quezon City

Contact No: +639068083836
Email: francisianrivera@gmail.com
OBJECTIVE
To contribute the success of an organization through in my in-depth knowledge and skills in the field of my
specialization and continuously learn from experience.
EDUCATION
 Tertiary: Adamson University, 900 San Marcelino St. Ermita 1000 Manila
BACHELOR OF SCIENCE IN CIVIL ENGINEERING (Year: 2012 - Present)
 Secondary: The National Teachers College, 629 J. Nepomuceno Street Manila (Year: 2008 - 2012)
 Elementary: Padre Gomez Elementary School, 1224 P. Guevarra Street Manila (Year: 2002 - 2008)
ACHIEVEMENTS
 Reinforced Concrete Design: Design & Computation of Two Storey Reinforced Concrete Building (1st
Semester, S.Y. 2016-2017)
 Computer Applications in Civil Engineering – Structural Design of a Four-Storey Building using ETABS
Software (1st Semester, S.Y. 2016-2017)
 Transportation Engineering: Transportation System Management (2nd Semester, S.Y. 2015-2016)
 Structural Theory 1: Load Analysis Compilation (1st Semester, S.Y. 2015-2016)
 Hydrology: Design of Distribution Network and Water Supply (1st Semester, S.Y. 2015-2016)
 Top 7 among 4th year Civil Engineering students ( 2nd Semester S.Y. 2015-2016)
SEMINARS AND TRAININGS
 Bridge Assessment (Adamson University - Engr. Leo Ampatin - Associate Director, Bridge Structures
Team, AECOM), August 19, 2016
 TURNITIN: Orientation on Anti-Plagiarism Software (Adamson University), July 14, 2016
 Design Optimization (Adamson University - Dr. Vu Truong Vu - Dean, Faculty of Civil Engineering, UT),
June 22 ,2016
 CEGNOS: Civil Engineering Green Nature Operation & Sanitization (Adamson University), March 3,
2016
 CIVILIZE: Preparing for the Enhancement and Improvement of the Better Future (Adamson University),
March 2, 2016
 RESOURCES: Blending Structures and Landscapes with the Protection of the Environment
(Adamson University), February 26, 2016
 SOILIDIFY: Geotechnical Engineering (Adamson University), February 17, 2016
 4th Engineering Research Colloquium, ERC 2016 (Adamson University), February 16, 2016
 EDIFICE: Forecasting, Organizing, and Controlling a Project form Beginning to End (Adamson
University), February 1, 2016
 COVEYANCE: Directing water to benefit to mankind (Adamson University), January 27, 2016
 ENHANCE: Increasing Knowledge for the future (Adamson University), January 20, 2016
 Solid Waste Management (Adamson University), January 13, 2016
 Transportation Engineering: Opportunities of Transportation Engineers in Today’s Community
(Adamson University), January 25, 2016
SKILLS AND INTERESTS
 Knowledge in AutoCAD
 Knowledge in Extended Three-Dimensional Analysis of Building Systems (ETABS)
 Knowledge in Google Sketch up
AFFILIATIONS
 Association of Civil Engineering Students – Adamson University Manila: Member (Year: 2012 - Present)
 Junior Philippine Institute of Civil Engineers – Adamson University Manila: Student Member (Year: 2014 -
Present)
PROFICIENCIES
 Ability to communicate to others

 Ability to prioritize tasks
 Dependable
 Persistent and orderly method of work
 Responsible, trustworthy and hardworking
CHARACTER REFERENCE
 Engr. Brian G. Eurolfan

Civil Engineer, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Adamson University-Manila
Contact no: 09288751090
 Engr. Jerome Jordan F. Famadico

Civil Engineer, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Adamson University-Manila
Contact no: 09272013838
 Engr. Crispin S. Lictaoa

 Civil Engineer, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Adamson University-Manila
Contact no: 09175583488
________________________________________________________________________________________
I hereby certify that the above-mention information is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and ability.
FRANCIS IAN L. RIVERA

Applicant
ADAMSON UNIVERSITY
PROGRESS
REPORT
ADAMSON UNIVERSITY
ADAMSON UNIVERSITY
ADAMSON UNIVERSITY
ADAMSON UNIVERSITY
ADAMSON UNIVERSITY
JOURNAL
Adamson University AdUCOE2017
College of Engineering Journal March 2017, Manila
STABILIZATION OF VERTISOL USING BIO-ENZYME FOR PAVEMENT

CONSTRUCTION
Jose, Clark Lois M.1, Karali Desmond J.2, Ramo, Candice Jan B.3, and
Rivera, Francis Ian L.4
1
Department of Civil Engineering, College of Engineering, Adamson
University, Ermita, Manila, Philippines 1000
clark_lois0018@yahoo.com1- desmondkarali@yahoo.com2
ecidnacnanaj@yahoo.com3- francisianrivera@gmail.com4
Abstract
Soil Stabilization is becoming expensive to obtain for any civil engineering practices. Vertisol is
one of the soil that needs to be stabilized. The properties of the soil, classified as Lean Clay (CL)
using the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) were determined such as Atterberg’s Limits,
Engineering Properties and California Bearing Ratio (CBR) in Accordance with American
Standard for Testing and Materials (ASTM). The soil was mixed with bio-enzymes at different
dosages: 100ml/m3 (.061ml/kg), 200ml/m3 (.122ml/kg) and, 300ml/m3 (.183ml/kg) by weight of
soil. The soil was compacted with different number of blows (56,25,10) and California Bearing
Ratio (CBR) were conducted on each of these samples to determine the bearing capacity for treated
and untreated soil. The test results showed that the bio enzymes as a stabilizer resulted in a
significance increase in California Bearing Ratio (CBR) of the soil tested with varying dosages.
After doing the research, it is proven that Bio Enzymes can contribute towards better soil
stabilization and enhance the quality of soil as subgrade.
Keywords: Soil Stabilization, Vertisol, Bearing Capacity, Bio-Enzymes, California Bearing Ratio
I. Introduction Stabilization was being used for a variety of

engineering works, most commonly applied
Soil Stabilization is the modification of in the construction of road and airfield
soils to improve their physical properties. pavements, where its main objective was to
Stabilization increases the shear strength of a increase the strength or stability of soil
soil and controls the shrink-swell properties (StablearthUk, 2013).
of a soil, enhancing the load bearing capacity
of a sub-grade to support pavements and Although there are other popular ways to
foundations. (Midstate Companies, 2015). stabilize soil, bio enzymes have been
introduced recently for soil stabilization as soils to be compacted more tightly together.
well, especially in highway projects. Bio- (Lekha, et al. 2013)
enzymes were said to be organic molecules
from either animals or plants that catalyze According to Nontraditional stabilizers
particular chemical reactions if conditions are from FHWA Surfacing Context Sensitive
contributive to the reaction they facilitate. Roadway Surfacing Selection Guide (2005)
the life expectancy of the strength of the soil
When considering pavements, by is 5 to 7 years for application of stabilizing
definition, it consists of layers which agent which is bio enzymes. The viability of
includes, subgrade course which are the performance of bio-enzymes as a stabilizer to
native soil compacted to withstand the loads influence of the traffic, weather conditions,
above it, the layer under the base known as and soils classification.
the sub base course together with the layer
directly below the surface course that By this, using bio enzymes as a
generally consists of aggregate known as the stabilization of soil can help our environment
base course and the last layer that comes in to reduce the percentage of waste. Moreover,
contact with traffic called surface course. the use of bio enzymes in this study will be a
Hence, the bio enzymes was used to stabilize major breakthrough in engineering and
soils found under subgrade course. construction.
On the other hand, there are many

different types of soils and vertisols is one of II. Methodology
them. Vertisols is a clayey soil with minimal
organic matter that occurs in regions with 2.1 Materials
distinct wet and dry seasons. The shrinking
and swelling action lead to damaged The materials like soil were gathered
buildings and roads, which is a serious from V. Fugoso St. Sta Cruz Manila. The bio
problem for engineers. It can develop large enzymes were obtained Total Nature’s Great
and deep cracks during dry season and then Value, Incorporated which is a manufacturer
expands as it absorbs water, which leads to an of the bio enzymes in Laguna.
increase in volume. According to National
Research Initiative Competitive Grants CAP,
vertisols also has an organic matter content 2.2 Preparation of Sample
ranging from 1 - 6%, which was typically
Batch Mix Formulation that was used in
made up from Calcium (Ca), and Magnesium
the study is illustrated in Table 1. The
(Mg) rich materials such as limestone, basalt
preparation process started by sieving the soil
or in areas of topographic depressions.
and the soil that passes the 19mm sieve was
The bio enzymes stabilized soil as the used for the California bearing ratio (CBR)
reaction of clay and organic cations and test. The soil was dried at first and then was
accelerate the cation exchange process to compacted using the standard number of
reduce the adsorbed layer thickness. The blows for each specimen. From that, CBR
enzyme replaces the adsorbed water with was performed on both the sample of the
organic cations, thus neutralizing the Treated and Untreated soil.
negative charge on a clay particle. The
organic cations also reduce the thickness of
the normal soil particle before reacting with
the enzymes. This allows enzyme treated
Table 1. Batch Formulation assumed to be 2.65 because this is the

specific gravity of quartz. Since the
UNTREATED SOIL NO. OF mineralogy of clay is more variable, Gs for
SPECIMEN clay is more variable, and is often assumed to
1 Vertisol be somewhere between 2.70 and 2.80
Different Compaction 9 depending on mineralogy.
Effort (56,25,10)
2.5 Grain size Analysis
TREATED SOIL
3
2 100ml/𝑚 (.061ml/kg) Testing methods for Grain Size analysis
Different Compaction 9 is in accordance with ASTM D422. In
Effort (56,25,10) performing the grain size analysis of the soil,
mechanical sieving is used, and the soil is
3 200ml/m3 (.122ml/kg) passed through a stack of sieves. Any number
Different Compaction 9 of sieves was used, but the size of the stack is
Effort (56,25,10) typically limited to six sieves. The coarsest
sieve is at the top of the stack, followed by
4 300ml/m3 (.183ml/kg) increasingly finer sieves below. This
Different Compaction 9 information was then used to classify the soil
Effort (56,25,10) in accordance with the Unified Soil
Classification System (USCS).
TOTAL 36
2.6 Liquid and Plastic Limit Test
2.3 Moisture Content Testing Methods for Liquid and Plastic

limit is in accordance with ASTM D4318.
Testing methods for Moisture Content is The liquid limit and plastic limit tests provide
in accordance with ASTM D2216. The test information regarding the effect of water
was performed to determine moisture content content (ω) on the mechanical properties of
of the soil which will be then used for the soil. Specifically, the effects of water content
classification of the soil. Moisture content is on volume change and soil consistency are
typically expressed as a percentage using two addressed.
significant figures (e.g. 12%, 9.2%, etc.).
Moisture content can range from a few 2.7 California Bearing Ratio (CBR)
percent for “dry” sands to over 100% for Test
highly plastic clays. Even soils that appear to Testing Methods for California Bearing
be “dry” possess some moisture. The mass of Ratio is in accordance with ASTM D1883-
the moist soil was obtained and later the mass 07. The result of this test is used to
of dry soil was obtained after oven dried in determining the bearing capacity of the soil.
105 °C. A total of 36 specimen CBR test were
2.4 Specific Gravity performed to determine which specimen with
specific volume of bio enzyme will give the
Testing methods for Specific Gravity of highest bearing capacity.
soil is in accordance with ASTM D854. The
result was used to classify the soil. Specific
gravity is typically expressed using three
significant figures. For sands, Gs is often
III. Results and Discussion Table 5. Liquid and Plastic Limit Test
Results
3.1 Moisture Content
ATTERBERG LIMITS
Table 2. Moisture Content Test Result Liquid Limit 46.005 %
Plastic Limit 24.641 %
PROPERTY Plasticity Index 21.364 %
Moisture Content 45.664 % Plasticity Index (A 18.984 %
Line)
Table 2 shows the result in which the
moisture content of the soil was 45.664%. Table 5 shows the results obtained for
This can be interpreted as the soil has fair liquid and plastic limit as well as the
amount of moisture or water which will be Plasticity index. The data will be use to
used to classify the soil using USCS. classify the soil using the USCS System.
3.2 Specific Gravity 3.5 Unified Soil Classification System

(USCS) for soil (Control)
Table 3. Specific Gravity Test results
The soil has more than 50% passing on
PROPERTY #200 sieve and classified as fine-grained soil,
Specific Gravity 2.665 with less than 50% liquid limit it is
categorized under inorganic clay. Also with
Table 3 shows a promising result as plasticity index with less than 73% of liquid
expected which will be also used to classify limit minus 20 and with the equation of plot
the soil using the USCS. “A” line, the Unified Soil Classification
System (USCS) symbol is CL, and lastly with
3.3 Grain Size Analysis less than 15% retained on sieve no. 200
classified as Unified Soil Classification
Table 4. Grain Size Analysis System (USCS) name lean clay.
Results
3.6 California Bearing Ration Test
PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS
Percent passing the 70.509 % Table 6 California Bearing Ration Test
sieve no. 200 Results
Percent retained on 14.906 %
the sieve no. 200 CBR (%)
Table 4 shows the corresponding Control Soil Sample 5.90

percent passing and percent retained of the 100ml/𝐦𝟑 (0.061ml/kg) 7.90
amount of soil on no.200 sieve which the data of Bio Enzymes
obtained will be used to classify the soil as
200ml/𝐦𝟑 (0.122ml/kg) 8.85
well. of Bio Enzymes
300ml/𝐦𝟑 (0.183ml/kg) 9.40
3.4 Liquid and Plastic Limit Test
of Bio Enzymes
Table 6 shows the average bearing In Figure 3.6 It shows the bearing
strength capacity of the soil with different capacity of the controlled and treated soil.
dosages of bio enzymes of 100ml/m3 This supports the statement made by SEIC
(0.061ml/kg),200ml/m3 (0.122ml/kg),300ml/ (2015) that the increasing of dosage of bio
m3 (0.183ml/kg) with corresponding values enzymes decreases the void in soil, when the
of 5.90%, 7.90%, 8.85% and 9.40%. As the void in soil decreases, the rate of water
dosage of bio enzymes increases the bearing flowing through the soil also decreases thus,
strength capacity also increases. the soil is improving and is suitable for road
subgrade.
The bearing capacity of the soil
increases until the bio enzymes inclusion IV. CONCLUSION
reach to 300ml/m^3(0.183ml/kg). The
California Bearing Ratio (CBR) value for The classification of the soil which is
vertisol increases when the dosage of bio vertisol that the researchers obtained is Lean
enzymes increases thus, increasing the Clay with a group symbol of CL according to
strength of vertisol. High value of California Unified Soil Classification System (USCS).
Bearing Ratio (CBR) shows that the strength
of soil is good. The bio enzymes as a stabilizer resulted
in a significance increase in California
The result supported the claim made bearing Ratio (CBR) of the soil tested with
by Sen and Singh (2015) the inclusion of bio varying dosages. In untreated soil the bearing
enzymes in the soil increased the bearing strength capacity is 5.90 % and in treated soil;
capacity, which is almost similar in our study. a dosage of 100 ml/m^3(0.061 ml/kg), 200
According to Yoder and Witczak (1975) ml/m^3(0.122 ml /kg) and 300ml/m^3(0.183
“Principles of Pavement Design “for clay soil ml/kg) with the corresponding values of
the value as subgrade is poor to fair and the 7.90% ,8.85%, 9.40%.
design CBR values is 15 percent or less.
The effect of admixture used which is Bio
10 9.4 Enzymes are suitable additives for
8.85 strengthening of soil can be used to improve
9 7.9
8 the quality of weak road subgrade.
7 5.9
6
References:
5
4 1. Amesh, H., & R, S. S. (n.d.). Effect of
3 Drying on the Strength Properties of
2
1
Terrazyme Treated Expansive and
0 Non-Expansive Soils. 50th Indian
Control Soil 100ml/cu.m 200ml/cu.m 300ml/cu.m Geotechnical Conference.
or 0.061 or 0.122 or 0.183
ml/kg of Bio- ml/kg of Bio- ml/kg of Bio- 2. ASTM Standards for Laboratory
Enzymes Enzymes Enzymes Test. ASTM International
Treated and Untreated 3. Bajpai, P. (2014, June). Non-
conventional soil stabilization
techniques The way forward to an
Figure 3.6 Variation of California aggregate free pavement And a Cost
Bearing Ratio (CBR) for treated and effective method of Road
untreated soil Construction. International Journal of
Scientific & Engineering Research,

5(6), 5.
4. Dhanesh, I. S., & Mohandas, T. V.
(2016). Effect of bio-enzyme on
geotechnical properties of
Thonnakkal clay (9th ed., Vol. 36).
5. D N, N., Amante, V., & Kumar, D.
(2015, July). Compaction and
Strength Characteristics of Terra-
zyme Stabilized Red Soil.
International Journal of Research
Publications in Engineering,
Technology and Management
[IJRPETM], 1(1), 2-3.
6. Eujine, G. N., Somervell, L. T.,
Chandrakan, D., & Sankar, D. (2014).
Enzyme Stabilization of High Liquid
Limit Clay. EJGE, 19, 6990-6994.
7. Gautam, S. B., Mishra, C. B., &
Umrigar, N. F. (2016). Subgrade Soil
Stabilization Using Terrazyme, 2(3),
2523-2527.

Stabilization of Vertisols Using Bio Enzyme For Pavement Construction

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Stabilization of Vertisols Using Bio Enzyme For Pavement Construction

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

ADAMSON UNIVERSITY i

STABILIZATION OF VERTISOLS USING BIO EN ZYMES FOR

Engr. Crispin S. Lictaoa

To our parents for their generosity, understanding, trust, confidence and

Bearing Ratio Test (CBR).

us will be carved within our hearts until we become professional engineers.

LIST OF TABLES viii

LIST OF FIGURES viii

1.1. Background of the Study 1

1.2. General Objective of the Study 4

1.3. Specific Objectives 4

1.4. Statement of the Problem 4

1.5. Significance of the Study 5

1.6. Scope and Delimitation 6

1.7. Conceptual Framework 6

CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND

2.1. Bio Enzymes 8

2.4. Soil Stabilizer 9

2.5. Non – Traditional Approach 10

2.6. Consistency Test 11

2.7. California bearing Ratio (CBR) 12

2.8. Soil Classifications 13

2.9. Geotechnical Properties 14

2.10. Mechanism of Stabilization 15

2.11. Benefits of TerraZyme 18

2.12. Lime Soil Stabilization 18

CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.1. Research Framework 19

3.2. Safety Measures of using Bio Enz ymes 20

3.3. Research Design 21

3.3.1. Preparation of Material 21

3.3.1.2. Bio enzymes 22

3.3.2. Batch Formulation 22

3.3.2.1. Design Mixture 23

3.3.3. ASTM STANDARDS FOR

3.3.3.1 ASTM D6913-04 24

3.3.3.2. ASTM D854-14 26

3.3.3.3. ASTM D2216-98 27

3.3.3.4. ASTM D4318-05 29

3.3.3.5. ASTM D2487-06 33

3.3.3.6. ASTM D698 36

3.3.3.7. ASTM D1883-07 38

3.4. Statistical Treatment of the Data 46

3.4.1Measures of Central Tendency, Mean/Average 46

CHAPTER 4: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 47

Appendix A. Tables, Figures and Comp utations 60

Appendix B. Pictures 177

Appendix B -1. Gat hering and Preparation of 177

Soil and Bio Enzymes

Appendix B -2. Equi pment used in the Experi ments 178

Appendix B -3. Execution of the Soil Cl assification 180

Appendix B -4. Execution of the Physi cal and 181

Index Prop erties (Moi sture Conten t)

Appendix B -5. Exec ution of the Physi cal and 182

Index Prop erties (Specific Gravi ty)

Appendix B -6. Exec ution of the Physi cal and 183

Index Prop erties (Atterberg Li mits)

Appendix B -7. Ex ecution of the California 185

Bearing Ratio (Compaction - Standard Effort)

Appendix C. California Bearing R atio 189

Appendix D. Certificate and Receipt 191

TABLE NAME PAGE

T.3.2.2 Batch Formulation 22