Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Ce401 - Group 1-Final Doe PDF
Ce401 - Group 1-Final Doe PDF
Length Coconut Fibers have different sizes, but we use 1cm so that we can
easily put the fibers to the soil.
Diameter Each cell is about 1 mm (0.04 in) long and 10 to 20 μm (0.0004 to
0.0008 in) in diameter.
Percentage We added coconut fibers and Filter paper as mesh, for soil
stabilization and resulted to a percentage of 5%, 10%, 15% and 20%.
Output Responses
California Bearing Ratio (CBR) test was developed by the California
Division of Highway as a method of classifying and evaluating soil-
California Bearing sub grade and base course materials for flexible pavements. CBR test,
Ratio an empirical test, has been used to determine the material properties
for pavement design. Empirical tests measure the strength of the
material and are not a true representation of the resilient modulus. It is
a penetration test wherein a standard piston, having an area of 3 in2 (or
50 mm diameter), is used to penetrate the soil at a standard rate of
1.25 mm/minute. The pressure up to a penetration of
12.5 mm and its ratio to the bearing value of a standard crushed rock
is termed as the CBR.
SOIL MECHANICS
“Utilization of Coconut (Coir) Fiber as admixture and Filter Paper as Mesh as a Soil
Reinforcement”
SUBMITTED BY:
GROUP 1
SUBMITTED TO:
ENGR. JENNIFER L. CAMINO
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
I. BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Experimental Design Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Scope and Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Hypothesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Experimental Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
II. REVIEW OF RELATED STUDIES AND LITERATURE . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
III. METHODOLOGY
Particle Size Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Soil Consistency Limits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Compaction Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
California Bearing Ratio (CBR) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
IV. DATA AND RESULTS
Particle size Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Soil Consistency Limits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Compaction Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Design Statistics
California Bearing Ratio (CBR) Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
ANOVA Statistical Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
V. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
VI. DOCUMENTATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
VII. APPENDIX A: CURRICULUM VITAE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
VIII. APPENDIX B: REFLECTION PAPER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Theoretical Framework
Figure 2: Particle Distribution Curve
Figure 3: Flow Curve for Liquid Limit
Figure 4: Compaction Curve
Figure 5: CBR Value graph
Design of Experiment
ABSTRACT
process is use. In the present study expansive soils are stabilized with Coconut (Coir) fiber and
filter paper as mesh. Coconut (Coir) fiber and filter paper as mesh are used as soil reinforcement.
The effectiveness of Coir fiber, and filter paper are studied in terms of unconfined compressive
strength (UCS), and California Bearing Ratio test (CBR). For the stabilized soil, Unconfined
Compressive Strength (UCS) test, and California Bearing Ratio (CBR) test are also done. From
Unconfined Compressive Strength (UCS) and California Bearing Ratio (CBR) test it is observed
that the soil added with 5% coconut (coir) fiber and filter paper as mesh gave better results. It is
observed that soil mixed with more than five percent (5%) of Coir fiber and interacted with filter
paper as mesh makes the soil delicate and less durable than ordinary soil samples.
Design of Experiment
This project focuses on soft soil or clayey type of soils. Geotechnical engineers will face
many challenges with soft soil foundation as the soft soils present problems related to stability and
settlement. The most problem that they would face is that the properties of soil which are unable
to fulfill the specification requirements. Based on the type of soil, it is expected that the
construction of highways will face challenges in terms of soft soil improvement. With the rapid
development of highway construction, the settlement of soft soil has become the problem for
highway design. When height of a road embankment to be constructed over the soft soil, the stress
in soft soils is increasing, so does the strain or settlement of the soft soils. Highest yielding or
plastic deformation in vertical and lateral direction of soft soil will occur if the traffic load is high
and close to the ultimate bearing capacity of the supporting soft ground, and then followed by
Soil stabilization is the change of one or more soil properties, by mechanical or chemical
means, for creating improvement of soft soil material possessing the desired engineering
properties. There are various categories of soil stabilization methods, such as vibration, surcharge
load, structural reinforcement improvement by structural fill, admixtures, and grouting and other
methods. Methods to stabilize the soft soil such as using floating piles, stone columns, vertical
drains and replacement method are many; however, they are costly and old methods.
Soil reinforcement technique is one of the most popular techniques used for improvement
of poor soils. Further, the soil reinforcement causes significant improvement in tensile strength,
shear strength, other properties, bearing capacity as well as economy. Use of natural fiber in civil
Design of Experiment
engineering for improving soil properties is advantageous because they are cheap, locally
available, biodegradable and environmental friendly. Coconut coir is a natural fiber belonging to
the group of hard structural fibers (Maurya etal. [4]). It can be extracted from the husk of coconut,
which is easily and locally available, cheap, biodegradable and eco-friendly. It is waste by product
of the coir manufacturing industry and for every ton of fiber extracted, about two tons of coir waste
is produced (Jayasree et al. [5]). Durability of natural fiber can be improved by chemical treatment
and by coating the fiber with Phenol, Bitumen and polymer (Abhijith [6]). As coconut fiber has
high lignin content and low cellulose content, it is resilient, strong and highly durable (Enokela
and Alada [7]). Compared to jute fiber, service life of coir is more up to 10 years because of its
high lignin content (Rowell et al. [8]). According to Goyal et al. [9], degradation of coir depends
on the medium of embedment and the climatic conditions and is found to retain 80% of its tensile
strength even after six months. Coir has low tenacity, but the elongation is much higher (Babu and
Vasudevan [10]) and it shows better resilient response against synthetic fibers by higher coefficient
of friction (Chouhan et al. [11]). Coir retains much of its tensile strength when wet and shows
To evaluate its capability when mixed with soil, four tests are to be performed namely:
Sieve analysis to determine the grain size distribution of the soil, consisting of shaking
the soil sample through a set of sieves that has progressively small openings and
computation of percent passing in a cumulative procedure;
Consistency limit in soil identification including liquid limit and plastic limit for strength
co-relation, consolidation, and settlement of the soil, undergoing groove closure and
observation of rolled soil crumbles;
Compaction test to improve the engineering properties of soil wherein soil solids are
forced to a tighter state in order to achieve a higher unit weight and reduce the air voids;
and
Design of Experiment
California Bearing Ratio (CBR) to determine the mechanical strength of natural ground
and load-bearing capacity by measuring the pressure required to penetrate the soil\
The experimentation will be analyzed with the existing study of a natural fiber, comparing its
properties and characteristics graphically and numerically.
1. Conduct a various tests that will be needed in determining the effectiveness of coconut
2. Identify and discuss the compressive strength difference between soil with coconut (coir)
fiber admixture, with coconut (coir) fiber admixture and filter paper as mesh, and without
coconut (coir) fiber admixture nor filter paper as mesh using California Bearing Ratio
(CBR).
The study is for clients who wants to have a land-based structure where the clayey soil
around the foundation has a low hear and soil bearing capacity around. A series of laboratory
experiments like sieve analysis, compaction test, consistency limits of soil or the Atterberg’s
limits, and California Bearing Ratio (CBR) test were carried out to investigate the behavior of
soil treated with Coconut (coir) fiber and filter paper as mesh.
Determination of maximum dry density (MDD) and the corresponding optimum moisture
Preparation of soil samples reinforced with Coconut (coir) Fiber and Filter paper as mesh
HYPOTHESIS
EXPERIMENTAL FRAMEWORK
PROCESS OUTPUT
INPUT
Utilization of
Sieve Analysis Coconut (Coir) Fiber
Materials (Coconut
Consistency Limit as admixture and
(coir) fiber, Filter
Compaction
paper and water)
California Bearing
Filter Paper as Mesh
Ratio (CBR) as a Soil
Reinforcement
There are various categories of soil stabilization methods, such as vibration, surcharge
load, structural reinforcement improvement by structural fill, admixtures, and grouting and other
methods. Methods to stabilize the soft soil such as using floating piles, stone columns, vertical
drains and replacement method are many; however, they are costly and old methods.
Soil reinforcement technique is one of the most popular techniques used for improvement
of poor soils. Metal strips, synthetic geotextiles, geo grid sheets, natural geotextiles, randomly
distributed, synthetic and natural fibers are being used as reinforcing materials to soil. Further, the
soil reinforcement causes significant improvement in tensile strength, shear strength, other
properties, bearing capacity as well as economy. Use of natural fiber in civil engineering for
improving soil properties is advantageous because they are cheap, locally available, biodegradable
and environmental friendly. Coconut coir is a natural fiber belonging to the group of hard structural
fibers (Maurya etal. [4]). It can be extracted from the husk of coconut, which is easily and locally
available, cheap, biodegradable and eco-friendly. It is waste by product of the coir manufacturing
industry and for every ton of fiber extracted, about two tons of coir waste is produced (Jayasree et
al. [5]). Durability of natural fiber can be improved by chemical treatment and by coating the fiber
with Phenol, Bitumen and polymer (Abhijith [6]). As coconut fiber has high lignin content and
low cellulose content, it is resilient, strong and highly durable (Enokela and Alada [7]). Compared
to jute fiber, service life of coir is more up to 10 years because of its high lignin content (Rowell
et al. [8]). According to Goyal et al. [9], degradation of coir depends on the medium of embedment
and the climatic conditions and is found to retain 80% of its tensile strength even after six months.
Design of Experiment
Coir has low tenacity, but the elongation is much higher (Babu and Vasudevan [10]) and it shows
better resilient response against synthetic fibers by higher coefficient of friction (Chouhan et al.
[11]). Coir retains much of its tensile strength when wet and shows reduced swelling tendency of
The use of natural fibre for improving soil properties in civil engineering is a result of its
low price, local availability, biodegradability and environmental friendly. The use of coir fibres
and lime-stabilized soil has been studied in order to investigate the geotechnical properties of soft
marine clay collected from the Port Klang coastal region in Malaysia. Unconfined compressive
strength and compaction properties were carried out in this present study. A compaction apparatus
was employed to determine the strength of the stabilised soils. A strength test was carried out on
the specimens, with up to a 28- day curing period. The investigated admixture of lime and coir
fibre was fixed at 5% of lime, with the amount of coir fibre contents varying at 0.5%, 1%, 1.5%
and 2%. The results from the experimental investigation showed that by treating marine clay with
coir fibres and lime, stabilized soils improve. The use of coir fibre and lime gave better strength,
and it may be more economical than traditional methods. The interactions between the fibre surface
and the hydrated products contributed to the strength at the interface of the marine clay soil. It
could be concluded that the coir fibres and limestabilised marine clay soil studied would be suitable
for use in the construction of land-based structures. This research promotes innovativeness in
concrete. A study in National Institute of Technology in Agartala, India states that Coconut fibres
and cement can be easily incorporated into the soil mixture which adds strength and durability to
the wall. Stabilization of soil was done by adding Ordinary Portland Cement (2.5%, 5.0%, 7.5%
and 10.0% by weight of soil) while Coconut Fibre in length about 15mm were added (0.2%, 0.4%,
0.6%, 0.8% and 1.0% by weight of soil) as reinforcement. Thirty types of mixes were created by
adding different proportions of cement and fibre to locally available soil and compacting the mix
at constant compaction energy in three layers with proctor rammer. In their study, Samples were
tested for compressive strength, tensile strength and failure patterns were analyzed. The use of
cement and fibre increases ultimate strengths significantly up to an optimum limit of 0.8% fibre
content, provides a secondary benefit of keeping material bound together after failure and increases
residual strength. Benefits of fibre reinforcement includes both improved ductility in comparison
with raw blocks and inhibition of crack propagation after its initial formation. After analyzing the
results, the researchers recommended to use 0.8% fibre and 5% to 10% cement by weight of soil
to achieve considerable strength. The researchers also have concluded that this research may add
a value in the areas of green and sustainable housing, waste utilization, et cetera.(Raj, Shubham
et.al, 2017)
stabilization is done not just by mechanical process but also by chemical process. According to
Swapna (2017), as stabilization of soil improves its engineering properties, chemical and
mechanical stabilization processes are in use. In the present study expansive soils are stabilized
with Coir fiber and CaCl2. Calcium based alkaline activators and fly ash as an additives and Coir
is used as reinforcement. The effectiveness of Coir fiber, Cacl2 and fly ash are studied in terms of
Design of Experiment
unconfined compressive strength (UCS), Swelling index test(SI) ,Direct Shear tests(DST) and
California Bearing Ratio test(CBR). The swelling index of the soil has been reduced by adding fly
ash and CaCl2. The effectiveness of Coir fiber is studied based on UCS tests on soil at their
moisture content. For the stabilized soil, swelling index test, UCC test, CBR test and Direct Shear
test are also done. From UCS and CBR test it is observed that the soil added with 20% fly ash and
15% solution gave better results. It is observed that soil mixed with various percentages of Coir
fiber, CaCl2 and Fly ash are more durable than ordinary soil samples.
In addition, it is stated that the chemical stabilization method produces a better quality of
soft soil with higher strength and durability than using mechanical stabilization method. The
chemical stabilization method also depends on the chemical additives and the soil particles which
III. METHODOLOGY
Procedure:
1. Each group will obtain exactly 500g of oven-dry soil from the bag of stock material. Use
sampling or sampling splitter.
2. If the samples contain appreciable gravel, very few fines or if at the discretion of the
instructor, washing is to be omitted. Otherwise place the test sample on the no. 200 sieve
and wash the material through the sieve using the tap water until the water is clear.
3. Carefully pour the residue, using the back-washing, into a large weighed dish and let it sit
for a short period of time until the top of the suspension becomes clear. Then, place the
dish and remaining soil-water suspension in the oven for drying.
4. On the following day, weigh the oven-dry residue. (Omit this step if you do not wash).
Then run your sample through a stack of sieves from top down.
5. Place the stacks of sieves in a mechanical sieves shaker (if available) and sieve for 5 to 10
minutes until the top few sieves can be removed from the stack. If there is no mechanical
shaker, shake by hand for about 10 minutes. Do not shake in a defined pattern.
6. Remove the stack of sieves from the shaker and obtain the weight of material remaining
on each sieve. Sum these weights and compare with original. Loss of weights should not
exceed 2%, otherwise repeat the sieve test.
7. Compute the percent retained on each sieve by dividing the weight on each sieve to the
original sample weight Ws.
Design of Experiment
8. Compute the percent passing or percent finer by starting with 100 percent and subtracting
the percent retained on each sieve as a cumulative procedure.
9. Prepare a logarithmic log of percent finer versus grain size.
Note:
• If less than 12% of the soil sample passes the number 200 sieve, compute Cc and Cu
and show in the logarithmic graph.
• If more than 12% of the soil sample passes the number 200 sieve, conduct a hydrometer
analysis.
Calculation:
Cum. % retained = Total mass retained from largest sieve to current sieve/ Total mass of sample
% finer = 100% - Cum. Mass retained
2. Prepare at least 3 moisture tin cans. Mix the prepared sample with a small amount of
water. Mix the sample of soil thoroughly until it becomes uniform and consistent in
appearance (no lumps). A major source of error is poor mixing.
3. On the liquid limit device cup, place an amount of sol. Smooth the pat surface. Using the
grooving tool, cut a groove at the middle.
4. Fasten the brass cup to the hinge of the liquid limit device.
5. Using the 1cm. block at the end of the grooving tool, adjust the height of the fall to
exactly 1 centimeter. Height of fall is very critical and as little as 0.1cm can affect the
liquid limit by several percent.
6. Prepare 3 different consistencies of soil based on the number of blows in the liquid limit
device: 25-35, 20-30 and 15-25 blows. This is done carefully by adding water to the soil.
7. Mix the soil sample until the consistency would require 25-35 blows to close the groove
for about 12.5 mm. Take moisture content near the groove using 30g of soil to determine
the moisture content by placing in the oven. Keep the temperature at 105 oC.
8. Add additional water to test the remaining consistencies of soil. Repeat procedure 7.
9. Draw the flow curve wherein the data is recorded with the water content in the domain
and the log N in the abscissa. The water content that would require 25 blows to close the
groove is the liquid limit of the sample.
5. After determining the moisture content, determine its average. The result is the plastic
limit of the soil.
2. Grease the inside surface of the shrinkage dish. Place a small portion of the soil pat and
carefully tap the dish to allow the soil pat to flow at the edges. Repeat again until the
whole shrinkage dish is filled. Strike of the excess soil using a straight edge. Record the
mass of the soil and dish.
3. Allow the soil to dry into the air until its color turns from dark to light. Oven dry the
sample to the oven kept at 105 oC. Record the mass of the soil and shrinkage dish.
Determine the weight of the dry soil (mdry). Determine its moisture content.
4. Securely tie the soil pat in a sewing thread. Immerse the soil in molten wax. Allow the
wax coating to cool. Determine the mass of the soil with wax (mdry+wax). Determine the
mass of the wax (mwax). Determine its volume by dividing the mass with the unit weight
of the wax (Vwax).
5. Using a spring balance, determine the mass of the soil and wax in air (mswa). Immerse the
soil and wax in water and determine its mass in water (msww). Determine the volume of
the wax and soil using the formula:
Vsoil+wax = (mswa-msww)/ w
6. Determine the dry volume of soil (Vd) by the difference of the Vsoil+wax and Vwax.
7. Calculate the shrinkage limit of the soil using the formula:
SL = w – (V-Vd) w/ms
Design of Experiment
COMPACTION TEST
Resources:
1. Compaction mold and hammer
2. Moisture sprayer
3. No. 4 sieve
4. Rubbed tipped pestle
5. Scoop
6. Spatula
7. Large mixing pan
8. Balance
9. Drying oven
Procedure:
1. Weigh the empty mold.
2. Obtain a 6 lb. representative specimen of the soil sample to be tested. Break sample with
the use of rubber pestle and pass through No. 4 sieve.
3. Form a 2 to 3 inch layer using the soil passing though No. 4 sieve.
4. Press soil until it is smooth and compact it with a specific number of evenly distributed
blows of the hammer, using a one foot drop. Rotate the hammer to ensure a uniform
distribution of blows.
5. Repeat the same procedure for the second and third layers seeing to it that a uniform
distribution of blows.
6. After compaction of the third layer the soil should be slightly above the top rim of the mold.
7. Remove the collar and trim off the soil from the top of the mold. Tart trimming along the
center and work towards end of the mold.
8. After the soil has been made even with the top of the mold and all base soil cleaned from
the outside, weigh the cylinder sample to 10 lb.
9. Remove the soil from cylinder and obtain a representative sample of 50gm for a water
content determination. The water content sample should be made up with specimens from
the top, middle and bottom of the compacted soil.
10. Break up by hand then removed from the cylinder and remix with the original sample and
raise its water content by 3% by adding water to the sample with sprayer. Mix the soil
Design of Experiment
thoroughly. By weighing the sprayer before and after the spraying, the amount of water
added is known.
11. Keep repeating the procedures for 5 to six times until soil is sticky. Use 3% approximate
water content.
12. Compute dry density of each sample and plot the compaction curve. Determine the
Optimum Moisture Content of the sample.
Design of Experiment
Procedure:
1. Take representative sample of soil weighing approximately 6kg and mix thoroughly at OMC.
2. Record the empty weight of the mould with base plate, with extension collar removed (m1).
3. Replace the extension collar of the mould.
4. Insert a spacer disc over the base plate and place a coarse filter paper on the top of the spacer disc.
5. Place the mould on a solid base such as a concrete floor or plinth and compact the wet soil in to the mould in
five layers of approximately equal mass each layer being given 56 blows with 4.90kg hammer equally
distributed and dropped from a height of 450 mm above the soil.
6. The amount of soil used shall be sufficient to fill the mould, leaving not more than about 6mm to be struck
off when the extension collar is removed.
7. Remove the extension collar and carefully level the compacted soil to the top of the mould by means of a
straight edge.
8. Remove the spacer disc by inverting the mould and weigh the mould with compacted soil (m2).
9. Place a filter paper between the base plate and the inverted mould.
10. Replace the extension collar of the mould.
11. Prepare two more specimens in the same procedure as described above.
Design of Experiment
FLOW CURVE
16
15.95%
15.93%
Moisture content (%)
15.9%
15.9
15.8
7 20 25 30
No. of Blows
COMPACTION
DESIGN STATISTICS
Table 6: CBR Value for Admixture only and Admixture with Mesh
Design of Experiment
Results of California Bearing Ratio test for clayey soil stabilized with
Coconut fiber only and Coconut fiber with filter paper as mesh
40
35
30
25
CBR Value
20
15
10
0
0% 5% 10% 15% 20%
Varying Percentage of Coconut fiber Varying Percentage of Coconut fiber with mesh
Figure 5 shows that the accepted CBR value for soil stabilized with coconut fiber as
admixture is obtained when 5% of the admixture is added to the clayey soil. It is therefore
concluded that by adding more coconut fiber as soil admixture to the clayey soil, the CBR value
is decreasing. Furthermore, the CBR value for soil stabilized with coconut fiber as admixture and
filter paper as mesh is obtained when 5% of the admixture is added to the clayey soil as well.
Design of Experiment
2000
1500
1000
500
0
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.5 10
PENETRATION (mm)
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.5 10
PENETRATION (mm)
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.5 10
PENETRATION (mm)
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.5 10
PENETRATION (mm)
3000
2000
1000
0
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.5 10
PENETRATION (mm)
Figure 10: Flow curve for 5% Admixture with mesh CBR Test, Trial 1
Design of Experiment
3000
2000
1000
0
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.5 10
PENETRATION (mm)
Figure 11: Flow curve for 5% Admixture with mesh CBR Test, Trial 2
Design of Experiment
3000
2000
1000
0
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.5 10
PENETRATION (mm)
Figure 12: Flow curve for 5% Admixture with mesh CBR Test, Trial 3
Design of Experiment
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.5 10
PENETRATION (mm)
Figure 13: Flow curve for 10% CBR Test Admixture only – Trial 1
Design of Experiment
1000
800
600
400
200
0
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.5 10
PENETRATION (mm)
Figure 14: Flow curve for 10% CBR Test Admixture only – Trial 2
Design of Experiment
1000
800
600
400
200
0
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.5 10
PENETRATION (mm)
Figure 15: Flow curve for 10% CBR Test admixture only
Design of Experiment
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.5 10
PENETRATION (mm)
Figure 16: Flow curve for 10% CBR Test – admixture and mesh (Layer 1-3)
Design of Experiment
800
600
400
200
0
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.5 10
PENETRATION (mm)
Figure 17: Flow curve for 10% CBR Test – admixture and mesh (Layer 2-4)
Design of Experiment
1000
800
600
400
200
0
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.5 10
PENETRATION (mm)
Figure 18: Flow curve for 10% CBR Test – admixture and mesh (Layer 1-2-3-4)
Design of Experiment
620
520
420
320
220
120
20
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.5 10
PENETRATION (MM)
Figure 19: Flow curve for 15% Admixture only CBR Test, Trial 1
Design of Experiment
420
320
220
120
20
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.5 10
PENETRATION (MM)
Figure 20: Flow curve for 15% Admixture only CBR Test, Trial 2
Design of Experiment
625
525
425
325
225
125
25
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.5 10
PENETRATION (MM)
Figure 21: Flow curve for 15% Admixture only CBR Test, Trial 3
Design of Experiment
820
720
620
520
420
320
220
120
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.5 10
PENETRATION (MM)
Figure 22: Flow curve for 15% Admixture with mesh CBR Test, Trial 1
Design of Experiment
780
680
580
480
380
280
180
80
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.5 10
PENETRATION (MM)
Figure 23: Flow curve for 15% Admixture with mesh CBR Test, Trial 2
Design of Experiment
920
820
720
620
520
420
320
220
120
20
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.5 10
PENETRATION (MM)
Figure 24: Flow curve for 15% Admixture with mesh CBR Test, Trial 3
Design of Experiment
525
425
325
225
125
25
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.5 10
PENETRATION (MM)
Figure 25: Flow curve for 20% Admixture only CBR Test, Trial 1
Design of Experiment
420
320
220
120
20
-80 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.5 10
PENETRATION (MM)
Figure 26: Flow curve for 20% Admixture only CBR Test, Trial 2
Design of Experiment
410
310
210
110
10
-90 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.5 10
PENETRATION (MM)
Figure 27: Flow curve for 20% Admixture only CBR Test, Trial 3
Design of Experiment
655
555
455
355
255
155
55
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.5 10
PENETRATION (MM)
Figure 28: Flow curve for 20% Admixture with mesh CBR Test, Trial 1
Design of Experiment
650
550
450
350
250
150
50
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.5 10
PENETRATION (MM)
Figure 29: Flow curve for 20% Admixture with mesh CBR Test, Trial 2
Design of Experiment
825
725
625
525
425
325
225
125
25
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.5 10
PENETRATION (MM)
Figure 30: Flow curve for 20% Admixture with mesh CBR Test, Trial 3
Design of Experiment
Table 32: CBR Values for Admixture Only and Admixture with Mesh
Results of California Bearing Ratio test for clayey soil stabilized with
Coconut fiber only and Coconut fiber with filter paper as mesh
40
35
30
25
CBR Value
20
15
10
0
0% 5% 10% 15% 20%
Varying Percentage of Coconut fiber Varying Percentage of Coconut fiber with mesh
Figure 31 shows that the accepted CBR value for soil stabilized with coconut fiber as
admixture is obtained when 5% of the admixture is added to the clayey soil. It is therefore
concluded that by adding more coconut fiber as admixture to the clayey soil, the CBR value is
decreasing. Furthermore, the CBR value for soil stabilized with coconut fiber as admixture and
filter paper as mesh is obtained when 5% of the admixture is added to the clayey soil as well.
Hence, throughout this design experiment, we can conclude that adding five percent (5%)
of coconut fiber in the total mass of your soil sample is recommendable to use as soil admixture
for additional compressive stress. On the other hand, although there’s a significant difference in
soil compressive stress in zero percent (0%) admixture with mesh and five percent (5%) admixture
with mesh, it is still not recommendable to use filter paper as mesh for soil stabilization as it has a
Independent Variable:
Soil with coconut (coir) fiber as admixture and filter paper as mesh (5%-20%)
Total 1635.439 14
Table 34.2: ANOVA statistical analysis two-factor without replication
As shown in the statistical analysis table above, the P value in Table 34.2 is greater than our
assigned value of alpha which tells us that our null hypothesis is accepted wherein there’s a great
significant difference in terms of compressive strength in using coconut fiber as admixture and
All throughout the process of this design of experiment, we conclude that there’s a great
significant difference in using coconut fiber as admixture and filter paper as mesh as soil
reinforcement.
Furthermore, our study found that the best result for soil stabilized with coconut fiber as
admixture is obtained when 5% of the admixture is added to the clayey soil. By adding more
coconut fiber as admixture to the clayey soil, the CBR value is decreasing. Furthermore, the CBR
value for soil stabilized with coconut fiber as admixture and filter paper as mesh is obtained when
Hence, throughout this design experiment, we can conclude that adding five percent (5%)
of coconut fiber in the total mass of your soil sample is recommendable to use as soil admixture
for additional compressive stress. On the other hand, although there’s a significant difference in
soil compressive stress in zero percent (0%) admixture with mesh and five percent (5%) admixture
with mesh, it is still not recommendable to use filter paper as mesh for soil stabilization as it has a
low CBR value. Also, the researchers recommend to consider using different material or paper for
the mesh since using filter paper is a bit costly and is not economical in large-scale projects or
earthworks.
Design of Experiment
VI. DOCUMENTATION:
COMPACTION
Design of Experiment
Design of Experiment
LIQUID LIMIT
Design of Experiment
SHRINKAGE LIMIT
Design of Experiment
PLASTIC LIMIT
Design of Experiment
REFERENCES
https://www.statisticshowto.datasciencecentral.com/probability-and-statistics/hypothesis-
testing/anova/
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324819858_Utilization_of_Coconut_Coir_Fibr
e_For_Improving_Subgrade_Strength_Characteristics_Of_Clayey_Sand
https://www.constructiontest.org/cbr-test-of-soil-procedure-calculation-graph/
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/277774490_Effect_of_coir_fibre_and_lime_on
_geotechnical_properties_of_marine_clay_soil
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/315463042_Coconut_fibre-reinforced_cement-
stabilized_rammed_earth_blocks
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/8ace/c2bb8906a1eff9158bab09eacf30b38dad7e.pdf
Design of Experiment
APPENDIX A
CURRICULUM
VITAE
Design of Experiment
Personal Information
Birthday: January 11, 1997
Birthplace: Caloocan City
Age: 22
Religion: Roman Catholic
Civil Status: Single
Educational Attainment
Tertiary: Technological Institute of the Philippines, Quezon City
Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering
2017-present
Mapua University
Bachelor of Science in Construction Engineering and Management
2014-2017
Secondary: Manuel Luis Quezon High School
2010-2014
Elementary: Gregoria De Jesus Elementary School
2004-2010
Design of Experiment
Personal Information
Birthday: May 17, 1999
Birthplace: San Lorenzo Ruiz, Taytay, Rizal
Age: 20
Religion: Roman Catholic
Civil Status: Single
Educational Attainment
Tertiary: Technological Institute of the Philippines, Quezon City
Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering
2016-present
Polytechnic University of the Philippines, Sta.Mesa, Manila
Bachelor in Advertising and Public Relations
2015-2016
Secondary: Roosevelt College Rodriguez
2011-2015
Elementary: Star of Hope, Christian School
2005-2011
Design of Experiment
Personal Information
Birthday: September 23, 1996
Birthplace: Quezon City, Metro Manila
Age: 23
Religion: Christian
Civil Status: Single
Educational Attainment
Tertiary: Technological Institute of the Philippines, Quezon City
Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering
2015-present
Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Marikina
Bachelor of Science in Information Technology
2013-2014
Secondary: Sta. Elena High School, Marikina City
2009-2013
Elementary: Sto. Nino Elementary School, Marikina City
2003-2009
Design of Experiment
Abraham, Joshua P.
Blk 10 Lot 5j Pigeon Alley Street Batasan Hills Quezon City
0936-824-8450
Joshuaabraham66@gmail.com
Personal Information
Birthday: May 12, 1998
Age: 21
Religion: Roman Catholic
Civil Status: Single
Educational Attainment
Tertiary: Technological Institute of the Philippines, Quezon City
Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering
2014-present
Secondary: Batasan Hills National High School
2010-2014
Elementary: Batasan Hills Elementary School
2004-2010
Design of Experiment
Personal Information
Birthday: June 03, 1996
Birthplace: Baras, Rizal
Age: 23
Religion: Roman Catholic
Civil Status: Single
Educational Attainment
Tertiary: Technological Institute of the Philippines, Quezon City
Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering
2018-present
APPENDIX B
REFLECTION
PAPER
Design of Experiment
The civil engineering structures like building, bridge, highway, tunnel, dam, tower, etc. are
founded below or on the surface of the earth. For their stability, suitable foundation soil is required.
To check the suitability of soil to be used as foundation or as construction materials, its properties
project site is necessary for generating relevant input data for design and construction of
foundations for the proposed structures. Some have stated that proper design and construction of
civil engineering structures prevent an adverse environmental impact or structural failure or post
construction problems.
Soil as defined by wikipedia is a mixture of organic matter minerals, gases, liquids, and
organisms that together support life. Thus, as a reflection in our daily lives as a civil engineering
student for us to become and deserve to be a licensed civil engineer, we need to dedicate a more
than enough effort and time in studying and understanding soil for it will dictate the output of our
In addition, all throughout the semester in the course Soil Mechanics under Engr. Jennifer
Camino, we also have learnt the importance of studying soil as the foundation – most important
factor in building your structure aside from the proper design and construction of civil engineering
structures. When the foundations of any structure are constructed on compressible soil, it leads to
settlement. Knowledge of the rate at which the compression of the soil takes place is essential from
design consideration. The properties of the soil such as plasticity, compressibility or strength of
the soil always affect the design in the construction. Lack of understanding of the properties of the
soil can lead to the construction errors. The suitability of soil for a particular use should be
determined based on its engineering characteristics and not on visual inspection or apparent
similarity to other soils. The loading capability of soil depends upon the type of soil. Furthermore,
as studying soil mechanics is complicated, our professor, Engr. Camino discuss it in a less