ARBA MINCH UNIVERSITY SCHOOL

OF GRADUATE STUDIES

CORRELATING CBR WITH INDEX PROPERTIES AND CHARACTERIZING

SUBGRADE SOIL OF SODO - SAWLA-MAIN ROAD TO BEKLOSEGNO TOWN,
WOLAITA ZONE, SOUTHERN ETHOPIA

MSc THESIS

By:

TAMIRAT TANGA

APRIL, 2022
ARBA MINCH ETHOPIA
 CHARACTERIZATION AND CORRELATION OF CBR WITH INDEX
PROPERTIES OF SUB GRADE SOIL. A CASE OF SODO - SAWLA-MAIN ROAD
TO BEKLOSEGNO TOWN, WOLAITA ZONE, SOUTHERN ETHOPIA

By:

TAMIRAT TANGA WOCHE

THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

ARBA MINCH UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, SCHOOL OF
GRADUATE STUDIES ARBA MINCH UNIVERSITY

IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE

OF MASTERS OF SCIENCE IN CIVIL ENGINEERING
(GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING)

APRIL, 2022
ARBA MINCH ETHOPIA
 DECLARATION
I hereby declare that the thesis work with the Title; "Characterization and Correlation of CBR
with Index Properties of Sub Grade Soil. A Case Of Sodo - Sawla-Main Road To Beklosegno
Town, Wolaita Zone, Southern Ethopia” is my original work and has not been presented for a
degree in any other university, and all sources of materials used for this thesis have been duly
acknowledged.

Name; Tamirat Tanga

Signature: ____________________ Date; _________________

 ARBA MINCH UNIVERSITY
SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES
ADVISORS’ APPROVAL SHEET
This thesis entitled with “Characterization and Correlation of CBR with Index Properties of
Sub Grade Soil. A Case Of Sodo - Sawla-Main Road to Beklosegno Town, Wolaita Zone, and
Southern Ethopia” is submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Master‟s with specialization in Geotechnical Engineering, the Graduate program of the school of
Graduate Studies, and has been carried out by Tamirat Tanga, under my supervision. Therefore I
recommend that the student has fulfilled the requirement and hence hereby can submit the thesis
to the department for the defense.
Advisors
Dr. VASUDEVA RAO ____________________ _______________________

Name of principal advisor Signature Date

Mr. DEFARU KATISE (MSc.) ____________________ _______________________

Co- advisor Signature Date

 ARBA MINCH UNIVERSITY
SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES
EXAMINERS’ THESIS APPROVAL PAGE
We, the undersigned, certify that we read and here by recommended for the acceptance by the
Arba Minch University School of graduate studies by a thesis entitled “Characterization and
Correlation of CBR with Index Properties of Sub Grade Soil. A Case Of Sodo - Sawla-Main
Road To Beklosegno Town, Wolaita Zone, Southern Ethopia” by Tamirat Tanga in partial
fulfillment of a degree of Masters of Science in Geotechnical engineering.

Approved by:

Dr.__________________________ ______________________ _____/_____/____

External Examiner Signature Date
Dr. __________________________ ______________________ _____/_____/____
Internal Examiner Signature Date
__________________________ ______________________ _____/_____/____
Chair Person Signature Date
____________________________ ______________________ _____/_____/____
PG Coordinator Signature Date
____________________________ ______________________ _____/_____/____
Head of departments Signature Date
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First of all, I would like to thank and praise the Omnipotent God for His marvelous and
wonderful deeds in my life. Then, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my advisor, Dr.
P. VASUDEVA RAO his endless encouragement, valuable and continues Guidance through
the path of this study and for the time in proofing the document and co-advisor Mr. DEFARU
KATISE (MSc) for their close supervision, limitless effort and valuable constructive and timely
guidance at all the stages of the study. Also I would like to express my deepest gratitude to
PROF. R.K.VERMA, MR. DEMOCRACY DILA and WRKALEMAW for their constructive
comments during MOK defense and timely guidance to accomplish this study. I would like to
give my sincere thanks to Arba Minch University for allowing me to pursue my studies to do this
research work. Words of thanks are also extended to AMU staff members of Geotechnical
Engineering Laboratory technician‟s BAHIRU BERISHA, PAWLOS SISAY, MULUGETA
ABERA, and TRUSEW SINTAYEHU for their assistance and cooperation during course of
Sampling, experimentation and support during the whole period of the study. My
acknowledgement goes to ERA for allowing me to study Geotechnical Engineering (full
financial aid) and to do this research work which would be unforgettable throughout my awe
inspiring life times. Lastly, I would like to thank my family and my relatives who knelt down to
Omniscient Lord to let me accomplish the thesis work peacefully.

i
 ABSTRACT
Geotechnical characteristics of the subgrade soils can affect the road quality and serviceability in
the construction of pavement, since all soils are not used as a subgrade material. The existing has
several failurities that weaken the road performance to carry the loads and to give comfortable
services for the people of the area due to its performance is affected by rutting‟s, pothole. The
aim of this paper is correlating CBR with index properties and characterizing subgrade soil of the
road by linear and multi-linear regression analyses. To achieve the objective of this research, ten
pits were selected from different representative parts of the existing road at 2km interval and
twenty soil sample were collected, two from each pit at the depth of 1.2m to 1.5m. The
laboratory test results presented that the NMC ranges from 21.09% – 29.85%, Percentage finer
(silt & clay) ranges from 86.55%– 97.46%), LL ranges from 47.76% – 55.06%, PL ranges from
29.92%-39.55%, PI ranges from 9.98%-19.90%, Gs ranges from 2.56%– 2.70, Gravel ranges
from 0.10%– 1.82%, Sand ranges from 2.26%– 13.13%, Clay ranges from 51.22%– 69.21%, Silt
ranges from 25.69%– 42.69%, OMC ranges from 21.0%-33.00%, MDD ranges from 1.41g/cm3 -
1.56 g/cm3, CBR ranges from 3.28%-12.79%. Based on these results the study area was
characterized as clay soils, and for the soils classification under A-7-5 according to AASHTO
soil classification system. From all soil samples the subgrade strength class is characterized
based on CBR result i.e., 3.28%-12.79%, it shows highly compressible soil and its plastic limit is
very high. Most of the soils of the study area fell under A-7-5, and which indicate that the soils
are highly clay according to the AASHTO classification. The developed correlation entailed a
moderate determination coefficient of Model 21 with R2=0.9 using single regression analysis,
indicates that model equation for CBR, have better strength of association, with CBR values.
That model shows the best strength of association among all others based on relationship of
predicted values and data of various soil properties. The models for CBR are the function of
eight independent variables; i.e., CBR =fn (LL, PL, P200, OMC, MDD,) with recommended
equations:
3 2
CBR = -0.0635(LL ) + 9.6179(LL ) - 486.17(LL) + 8206.7.
But the simplicity of utilization the best model for CBR is the fn (LL).i.e.
Key words: - CBR; Subgrade soil; Geotechnical characterization; Correlation; Linear
Regression.

ii
 Table of Contents
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................................................... i
ABSTRACT .......................................................................................................................................... ii
LIST OF TABLES .............................................................................................................................. vii
LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................................. ix
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ............................................................................................................... x
CHAPTER ONE ................................................................................................................................... 1
1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................ 1
1.1 General ............................................................................................................................................ 1
1.2 Back ground of the of the study ...................................................................................................... 1
1.3 Statement of the problem ................................................................................................................ 1
1.4 Objectives of the study.................................................................................................................... 2
1.4.1 General objective ................................................................................................................. ..2
1.4.2 Specific objectives ............................................................................................................... ..2
1.5 The significance of the study .......................................................................................................... 2
1.6 Scope and limitation of the study.................................................................................................... 2
1.7 Organization of the thesis ............................................................................................................... 3
CHAPTER TWO .................................................................................................................................. 4
2. Literature Review.............................................................................................................................. 4
2.1. General ........................................................................................................................................... 4
2.2 Soil Classification Systems ............................................................................................................. 5
2.2.1. General .................................................................................................................................. 5
2.2.2 Important Soil Classification Systems ................................................................................... 5
2.3. AASHTO Classification System.................................................................................................... 6
2.4 AASHTO Group Index ................................................................................................................... 7
2.5 Subgrade Suitability Indicators ....................................................................................................... 8
2.6 Classification based on activity ...................................................................................................... 9
2.7 California Bearing Ratio (CBR) ................................................................................................... 10
2.8 Comparison of AASHTO and USC System ................................................................................. 13
2.9 Overview of Subgrade Strength Class According to Different countries ..................................... 14

iii
2.10 Sub grade Characterization ......................................................................................................... 16
2.11. Index Properties ......................................................................................................................... 16
2.11.1 Shape and Particle Size of the Soil .................................................................................... 16
2.11.2 Sieve Analysis .......................................................................................................................... 17
2.11.3 Hydrometer Analysis ......................................................................................................... 17
2.11.4 Grain size Distribution Curve ............................................................................................ 18
2.11.5 Particle size classification .................................................................................................. 18
2.11.6 Moisture Content ............................................................................................................... 19
2.11.7 Atterberg limit .................................................................................................................... 20
2.11.8 Moisture - Density Relation (Compaction)...................................................................... 22
2.12 REGRATION ANALYSIS AND CORRELATIONS................................................................ 24
2.13. Existing correlation .................................................................................................................... 25
2.13.1 General correlation............................................................................................................. 25
2.13.4 Previous Correlations ......................................................................................................... 25
2.13.2 Relationships Specific to a Region and Soil Type ............................................................. 26
2.13.3 Simple Linear Regression Analysis (SLRA) and Correlations.......................................... 28
2.13.4 Multiple Linear Regression Analysis (MLRA) ................................................................. 29
2.13.5 Criteria to select the best model from the developed model .............................................. 29
2.13.6 Adjusted Coefficient of Determination .............................................................................. 30
CHAPTER 3 ....................................................................................................................................... 31
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY........................................................................................................ 31
3.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 31
3.2 Design of the Study....................................................................................................................... 31
3.3 Field work ..................................................................................................................................... 32
3.4 Description of the study Area ....................................................................................................... 32
3.5 Map of the Study Area .................................................................................................................. 33
3.6 Topography and Climate............................................................................................................... 34
3.7 Soil laboratory tests....................................................................................................................... 36
3.8 Index properties of soil ................................................................................................................. 36
3.8.1 Sieve Analysis ...................................................................................................................... 36

iv
3.8.2 Specific Gravity (Gs) ........................................................................................................... 36
3.8.3 Precision and Bias for Specific Gravity ............................................................................... 37
3.8.4 Atterberg limit ...................................................................................................................... 38
3.9 Compaction test ............................................................................................................................ 39
3.9.1 The precision statement for Moisture Density Relationship................................................ 40
3.10 California Bearing Ratio ............................................................................................................. 40
3.10.1 Preparation of the specimen ............................................................................................... 41
3.10.2 Equipment‟s and tool required for CBR .................................................................................. 41
3.11. Activity Classifying Procedure .................................................................................................. 42
3.12 Sampling Methods and Sample Preservation ............................................................................. 43
3.13. Regression Analysis ................................................................................................................... 43
3.14. Apparatuses used to do laboratory tests ..................................................................................... 43
CHAPTER FOUR ............................................................................................................................... 45
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ......................................................................................................... 45
4.1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 45
4.2. Natural Moisture Content ............................................................................................................ 45
4.3. Index properties, compaction characteristics and CBR results. ................................................... 45
4.4. Specific Gravity ........................................................................................................................... 48
4.5. Grain Size Distribution Analysis ................................................................................................. 48
4.6. Atterberg Limits ........................................................................................................................... 50
4.4 Liquidity Index (LI) ...................................................................................................................... 51
4.7. Soil Classification ........................................................................................................................ 51
4.7.1 AASHTO Classification Result ........................................................................................... 51
4.3.2 Unified Soil Classification System (ASTM D 2487) .......................................................... 53
4.3.3 Classification based on activity ........................................................................................... 54
4.8. Moisture-Density Relationship .................................................................................................... 56
4.9 California Bearing Ratio (CBR) ................................................................................................... 58
4.10 Sub Grade Strength Class ........................................................................................................... 58
4.5. Geotechnical Characterization of Subgrade Material .................................................................. 58
4.8. Regression Analysis ..................................................................................................................... 59

v
4.9. Simple Linear Regression Analysis (SLRA) & Multi Linear regression Analysis ..................... 59
4.10 Scatter Plot and Best-Fit Curve for independent variables ......................................................... 60
4.10.1 CBR vs. %Passing Sieve No.200 (Fine) ............................................................................ 60
4.10.2 CBR vs. Liquid Limit (LL) ................................................................................................ 61
4.10.3 CBR vs. Plastic Limit (PL) ................................................................................................ 62
4.10.4 CBR vs. Plasticity Index (PI) ............................................................................................. 63
4.10.5 CBR vs. Maximum Dry Density (MDD) ........................................................................... 63
4.10.6 CBR vs. Optimum Moisture Content (OMC) .................................................................... 64
4.10.7 CBR vs. Sand (S) .............................................................................................................. 64
4.10.8 CBR vs. Clay (CL) ............................................................................................................. 65
4.10 Discussion on Correlation Results of regression ........................................................................ 66
CHAPTER 5 ....................................................................................................................................... 68
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................. 68
5.1 CONCLUSIONS........................................................................................................................... 68
5.2 RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................................................................. 69
REFERENCE...................................................................................................................................... 71
APENDIX -A ...................................................................................................................................... 73
(Wet Sieve Analysis) .......................................................................................................................... 73
APENDIX-B ....................................................................................................................................... 75
Specific Gravity Test of Beklosengo road .......................................................................................... 75
APPENDIX-C ..................................................................................................................................... 78
(Compaction Test) .............................................................................................................................. 78
APENIX D .......................................................................................................................................... 79
(Atterberg Limit Test) ......................................................................................................................... 79
APENDIX-C ....................................................................................................................................... 84
(CBR Test Determination) .................................................................................................................. 84
APENDIX –D ..................................................................................................................................... 89
SIEVE ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................................ 89
APENDIX- E ...................................................................................................................................... 93
(SUMMARY OUTPUT OF REGRESSION)..................................................................................... 93

vi
 LIST OF TABLES
Table 2 1: The Frequency and Depth of Investigation for Subgrade Characterization. ................. 9
Table 2 2: Loads adopted for different penetrations ..................................................................... 12
Table 2 3: Typical Design CBR Values, (ERA, Pavement Design Manual Volume I, 2002) ..... 12
Table 2 4: Approximate equivalence between AASHTO and USC system ................................. 14
Table 2 5: subgrade strength class according to ERA-a, 2013 ..................................................... 14
Table 2 6: classification of subgrade soil According to (Bowles, 1992) ...................................... 14
Table 2 7: subgrade strength class Somaliland (RDA) ................................................................. 15
Table 2 8: Sub grade strength classifications by Kenyan design manual ..................................... 15
Table 2 9: The uniformity coefficient (Cu)................................................................................... 18
Table 2 10: Four systems of classifying soils based on particle sizes (M. Budhu, 2000). ........... 19
Table 2 11: Description of Soil Strength Based on Liquidity Index. (M. Budhu, 2000) .............. 21
Table 2 12: Soil classifications according to plasticity index. ...................................................... 22
Table 2 13 : Relationship between swelling potential and PI (Chen F.H 1988) ........................... 22
Table 3 1: Annual temperature and rainfall area in BekloSegno ……………..……………35
Table 3 2: Soil Sample Location of the Study Area ..................................................................... 35
Table 3 3: Specific gravity range for soil solids (K.R.Arora, 2003) ............................................. 37
Table 3 4. The specific gravity test result precision .................................................................... 37
Table 3 5: (AASHTO T 99, 2013). Typical Values of MDD and OMC for Common Types of
soils. .............................................................................................................................................. 40
Table 3 6: Classification of soils based on activity....................................................................... 42
Table 3 7: Soil containing mineral type According to R.K. Arora, 2003 ..................................... 42
Tbale 4 1: Index properties, compaction test and CBR results of Beklosegno soil …..…………46
Tbale 4 2: The range and average values of soil properties tested ............................................... 47
Table 4 3: Grain Size Distribution Analysis results..................................................................... 48
Tbale 4 4: Atterberg limit test results ........................................................................................... 50
Table 4 5: the Liquidity Index of soil sample found in Wolaita Zone Beklosegno road .............. 51
Table 4 6: USCS soil classification of Beklosegno road fine grained soil ................................... 54

vii
Table 4 7: Activity of soils of the study area ................................................................................ 55
Table 4 8: Compaction characteristics .......................................................................................... 57
Tbale 4 9: shows all the subgrade strength class results. .............................................................. 58
Table 4 10: The presentation statistical information‟s of the test results. .................................... 59
Tbale 4 11: developed model equations for %Passing Sieve No.200 (Fine) ............................... 61
Tbale 4 12: developed model equations for liquid limit ............................................................... 62
Table 4 13: developed model equations for liquid limit ............................................................... 62
Table 4 14: developed model equations for plasticity index. ....................................................... 63
Table 4 15: developed model equations for Maximum Dry Density............................................ 64
Table 4 16: developed model equations for Optimum Moisture Content (OMC). ....................... 64
Table 4 17: developed model equations for sand.......................................................................... 65
Table 4 18: developed model equations for Clay (CL)................................................................. 66
Table 4 19: Regression summery report for models ..................................................................... 66
Table 4 20: Absolute mean error and root mean square error ...................................................... 67

viii
 LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 3 1: Map of the study area ............................................................................................................... 33
Figure 3 2: Map of the study area ............................................................................................................... 34
Figure 4 1: Gradation Curves of the Case Area from TP1-A to TP10-A @1.2m ……………………………..49
Figure 4 2: Gradation Curves of the Case Area from TP1-B to TP10-B @1.5m ....................................... 49
Figure 4 3:( AAHITO) soil classification of Soddo to Beklosegno road fine grained soil ......................... 52
Figure 4 4: USCS soil classification of Beklosegno road fine grained soil ................................................ 53
Figure 4 5: Activity chart of soils of the study area. ................................................................................... 56
Figure 4 6: Moisture Density Relations of (from TP-1 to TP-10) .............................................................. 57
Figure 4 7: Scatter Diagram of CBR vs. % passing sieve No.200 of the Study Area. ................................ 61
Figure 4 8: Scatter Diagram of CBR vs. liquid Limit of the Study Area .................................................... 61
Figure 4 9: Scatter Diagram of CBR vs. Plastic Limit of the Study Area .................................................. 62
Figure 4 10: Scatter Diagram of CBR vs. plasticity index of the Study Area ............................................ 63
Figure 4 11: Scatter Diagram of CBR vs. plasticity index of the Study Area ............................................ 64
Figure 4 12: Scatter Diagram of CBR vs. Optimum Moisture Content (OMC) of the Study Area ............ 64
Figure 4 13: Scatter Diagram of CBR vs. Sand (S) of the Study Area. ...................................................... 65
Figure 4 14: Scatter Diagram of CBR vs. Clay (CL) of the Study Area..................................................... 65

ix
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
ASTM American Society of Testing of Material
CBR California Bearing Ratio
CH Highly Plasticity Clay
CL Inorganic Silts of Low to Medium Plasticity
ERA Ethiopia Road Authority
GI Group Index
LL Liquid Limit
LRM Leaner Regression Modeling
MAE Mean Absolute Error
MDD Maximum Dry Density
OMC Optimum Moisture Content
ML Inorganic Silts of Low Plasticity
MLRA Multiple leaner regression analysis
MH Inorganic Silts of High Plasticity
MOFED Ministry of Finance and Economic Development
NCHRP National Cooperative Highway Research Program of USA
P200 Percentage of fine grained soil passing 0.075mm sieve
PI Plasticity Index
PL Plasticity Limit
R2 Correlation Coefficient
RMSE Root Mean Square Error
SPSS Statistical Package for the Social Science
USC Unified Soil Classification System.

x
 CHAPTER ONE
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 General
The soil has a strong relationship with all civil engineering works and the construction of the
pavement. Geotechnical characterization of subgrade material is a vital role to determine the
structural and functional performance of pavement layers during their service life. Pavement
deformation of rutting is one of the keys distresses that affect pavement performance. The
subgrade is a layer of natural soil, and a foundation for pavement, it is prepared to receive the
loads from the layers of pavement. The thickness of pavement depends upon the index properties
of subgrade soil. Sub grade should be strong enough to take up the stresses imposed due to loads
without shear failure and excessive deformation. The subgrade soil strength parameters and
granular layer are correlated with the permanent deformations characteristics of the road.
Geotechnical soils and material characterization is important components for the design and
Construction of road projects. During characterization; visual descriptions, sampling and testing
of natural sub-grade soil and embankment material along the project route are carried out. In the
process of characterization, different techniques and procedures are applied for interpretation of
sub grade soil condition. These interpretation techniques are often site specific and are
influenced by geological, topographic, and climatic conditions. The data collected from the field,
soil samples tested in the laboratory and results obtained, determine the subgrade material
characteristics.

1.2 Back ground of the of the study

Beklosegno town is located in SNNPR Governments in wolaita zone. The town is located at a
distance of 19km far from Wolaita soddo to the west. It is located 349 Km distance from Addis
Ababa the capital city of Ethiopia. The road from Wolaita sodo- sawula main road to Beklosegno
town is a link road that connects the woreda to Woliata sodo. The distance of the road from
Wolaita sodo to Beklosegno town is 19 km. the study covers the road of Bklosengo is crosses the
Sodo Zuria woreda kebele of Wareza Gerera, Waja Kero, Shola Kodo, Kenefa Godera and

1
Amachokodo (Beklosengo). The estimated terrain elevation above sea level is 1800 meters and
annual rain fall is 1600mm up to 1800mm. It is a newly established woreda town.

1.3 Statement of the problem

The existing road; from wolaita sodo to Beklosegno town is constructed as a link road to connect
the rural people or urban (small town) with wolaita Soddo. But it has several failures that weaken
the road's performance to carry the loads and give comfortable services for the people of the area
due to its performance being affected by rutting, potholes. The wolaita sodo to Beklosegno town
road is recently used as a gravel road which is constructed by rural road authorities, but its
geotechnical characteristic of the subgrade soil and the road is not studied based on the
prediction of population expansion and the development of the town. Due to this, studying the
geotechnical characterization of subgrade material of the road is needed to minimize the
problems.

1.4 Objectives of the study

1.4.1 General objective
This thesis focuses mainly on geotechnical characterization of subgrade material for road
construction and correlating CBR with index properties.

1.4.2 Specific objectives

The specific objective of this research work is:-
 To determine index properties of soils and to characterize subgrade materials of the road.
 To classify the soil as per AASHTO and USCS.
 To investigate compaction characteristics and CBR values of the study area.
 To develop correlation between California bearing ratio (CBR) with index properties of
soils

1.5 The significance of the study

This thesis is significant to characterize by narrowing the information gaps regarding the relation
between different index properties and engineering properties of soil with California bearing ratio of
natural subgrade material. Thus, the outcome of this study may bring at outlook difference to serve as a
2
source for users of this documents by contributing additional information to get index properties soil as
well as CBR easily. Therefore, the study will provide a better understanding of the California bearing
ratio and its correlation with different index properties of soils in the study area.
1.6 Scope and limitation of the study
The scope of this study is desired to conduct a particularly on sample that will be collected from
natural sub-grade material of the road of Wolaita Sodo – Sawula main road to BekloSegno at 19
kilometers in order to characterize sub-grade material of the road. Test twenty samples were
collected at 2Km interval along the side of route corridor for laboratory test. The sample depth
that takes for the laboratory tests is depending on AASHTO and ERA manual at 1.2 m and 1.5 m
and the site condition. In addition, to conduct the correlation between index properties of the soil
with CBR, laboratory test has been conducted in this thesis work With regard to the regression
analysis depending on the trends of the scattering of test result, the correlation is analyzed using
a single linear regression model (SLRM) and multiple linear regression models (MLRM) by the
aid of statistical package for social science (SPSS) or Microsoft. This research was focused only
on Wolaita Sodo to BekloSegno road soil. This thesis work is limited only to determining index
properties, characterization of subgrade in the soil and correlating CBR with index properties.

1.7 Organization of the thesis

This thesis work is divided into five chapters, each of which covers a specific topic of the
research work. Chapter One discuses general, background of study, statements of problem,
General and specific objective and scope and limitation of the study is stated. Chapter two deals
literature review on geotechnical characterization, correlation and regression analysis of index
properties with CBR of the subgrade soil, classification, and index properties. Chapter Three
deals with methodology used in the research development, with sample description and types of
laboratory test conducted. Chapter Four deals with the results and discussion obtained.
Chapter five is the conclusions and recommendation drawn from the research.

3
 CHAPTER TWO
2. Literature Review
2.1. General
Both roads and a runway consist of two basic parts, the pavement and the subgrade. The
subgrade is the portion of the pavement system that is the layer of natural soil upon which the
pavement or sub base is built. The subgrade is seldom strong enough to carry a wheel load
imposed directly. (Iwan and Smith, 1988). The subgrade provides support for the load of the road
system. The characteristic of the subgrade will greatly influence the pavement design and
construction and the actual useful life of the pavement. That is, geotechnical characteristics of
subgrade soils have a major influence on the performance of a pavement. Sub-grade provides a
platform for construction of pavement structure and its purpose is to support the pavement
structure without deformation that would impact the pavement performance (US Department of
Transport, Federal Highway Administration, May 2006).
The purpose of geotechnical characterization of a subgrade soil is to evaluate the quality and
serviceability of the sub grade soil based on various results of in situ and laboratory test to get
suitable values of strength parameter for design and construction of pavement purposes.
According to Das (2007), prepared subgrade is the top of the soil profile (usually 12 inches) of a
sub-grade on which the roadway and sub-base are constructed. Pavement performance expressed
in terms of pavement materials and thickness. Although pavements starts to fail from the top,
pavement system generally start to deteriorate from the bottom of the road foundation
(subgrade). This is often determines the service life of a road.
All roads, whether they are built above or below the ground surface, use naturally occurring
subgrade soils as the basic foundation and construction materials, the performance of a road is
significantly affected by the geotechnical characteristics of the sub-grade (ERA, design Manual,
2013).

4
2.2 Soil Classification Systems
2.2.1. General
The most widely used of soil classification schemes are those which divide soils into an orderly
and easily remembered system of groups, or classes, which have similar physical and technical
properties and which can be identified by simple and inexpensive tests. Ideally, these groups
provide estimates of soil technical characteristics and performance to design and construction
engineers. Descriptions of soils within groups of a given classification are usually depicted in
alphabetical order. Or alphanumeric symbols for quick identification in written documents,
boring graphic records and technical drawings. The continued use of certain engineering systems
of soil classification is the result of the arrangement in each of the needs of the Civil Engineer, as
well as the adaptability of the classification to the variety of soils encountered in the practice of
engineering. The two most widely used classification systems are the American Association of
Highway and State Transportation Officers (AASHTO) and Unified Land Classification System
and No. 40; USCS and n. 41;. Both systems use the results of particle size analysis and
Atterberg limit determinations to determine the classification of a soil. Soil components can be
described as gravel, sand, silt, or clay (ASTMD2487–98).
Basic requirements for a Soil Classification System to be useful to the geotechnical engineers
should be the followings:
 It should have a limited number of groups.
 It should be based on the engineering properties, which are most relevant for the purpose for
which the classification has been made.
 It should be simple and should use the terms, which are easily understood

2.2.2 Important Soil Classification Systems

Different classification systems have been developed by different organizations having a specific
purpose as an objective. The two classification systems, adopted by U.S. engineering agencies
and state departments, are the Unified Soil Classification (UCCS) and the American Association
of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) system. Other countries, including
India, have mostly uses the USCS with minor modifications. For general engineering purposes,
soils may be classified by the following systems.

5
  Particle size classification
 Textural classification
 Highway Research Board (HRB) classification
 Unified Soil Classification
 Indian Soil Classification
Since there are a wide variety of soils that cover the earth, it is desirable to systematize or
classify soils into large groups of similar behavior. Soils, in general, can be classified as non-
cohesive and cohesive or as coarse-grained and fine-grained. However, these terms are too
general and include a wide range of technical properties. Soils exhibit many different types of
behavior. In fact, soils are often divided into groups based on general behavior characteristics.
The objective of soil classification is to divide the soil into groups so that all the soils of a
particular group have similar characteristics with which they can be identified. In the earliest
times, soils were classified in terms of "Texture System". This system is based on soil grain size
alone; it is still used in the agricultural field. The only systems in use by the geotechnical
engineers at present are the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
(AASHTO) System and the Unified Soil Classification system (USCS), and the USCS has
gradually replaced all others.

2.3. AASHTO Classification System

The AASHTO Soil Particle Classification System, also known as the Public Roads
Administration (PRA) Classification, is based on particle size distribution, liquid limit, and
plasticity index. This system is generally used by road engineers for the classification of
the subgrade material of highway pavement. According to this system; the subgrade soil is
classified into seven main groups, from A1 to A 7. Group A-1, A-2, A-3 are granular materials
with 35% or less passing through a 75micrometer sieve. Soils with more than 35% passing
through a 75micrometer sieve are classified under groups A-4, A-5, A-6 and A-7. These soils are
mainly made up of silty and clayey materials. The AASHTO system, as shown in table 2.1,
classifies soils into seven primary groups, named A-1 through A-7, based on their relative
expected quality for road embankments, sub grades, sub bases, and bases. Some soil groups are
further divided into subgroups, such as A1a and A1b. To determine a soil's classification in

6
the AASHTO system, the relative proportions of gravel, coarse sand, fine sand, and silty clay are
first determined. If, PI≤LL-30, the soil groups will be A-7-5 group, and If, PI≥LL-30, the soil
group will be A-7-6. The AASHTO system is primarily used for the classification of highway
substrates. The system was originally proposed by the Highway Research Commission
Committee for the classification of materials for granular type substrates and pavements (1945).
According to the current form of this system, soils can be classified into eight main groups, from
A1 to A8, according to their particle size distribution, their liquid limit and their plasticity
indices. Soils listed in groups, A-1, A-2, and A-3 are coarse grained materials, and those groups
in A-4, A-5, A-6, and A-7 are fine-grained materials. Peat, mud and other highly organic soils
are classified as A8. They are identified by visual inspection. (BM Das, 2007). To classify a soil
using the AASHTO Soil Classification Chart, proceed from left to right with the required test
data available. With the process of elimination, the first group from the left into which the test
data will fit provides the correct classification.

2.4 AASHTO Group Index

The different soil classes according to the AASHTO classification are generally classified from
excellent to good suitability for the subtype, too good for coarse-grained materials and good to
poor for fine-grained soils. This parameter is used as a general guide to the bearing capacity of a
terrain. The group index is a function of the liquid limit, the plastic limit, the plasticity index and
the amount of material that exceeds the sieve size by 0.075 mm by the use of AASHTO M 145.
Classification of group index is calculated by the following formula:
GI = (F-35) [0.2 + 0.005(LL - 40)] + 0.01(F - 15) (IP - 10) ………………………….2. 1
Where: F, - Percentage passing American sieve No. 200 (size 0.075 mm), whole number.
LL, - Liquid Limit, expressed as a whole number
IP, - Plasticity Index, expressed as a whole number.
While calculating the GI from the above equation, if any term in parentheses becomes negative,
its group index is reported as zero, and it is dropped, and not given a negative value. The
maximum values of (F-35) and (F-15) are taken as 40; and that of (LL-40) and (PI-10) taken as
20. Additionally, the GI value is rounded to the nearest whole number. When the group index for

7
soils belonging to group A-2-6 and A-2-7 is calculated the partial group index for PI should be
used:
GI = 0.01 (F-15) (PI-10) ……….…………..…………………………………………2.2
The smaller the value of the group index, the better is the soil in that category. A group index of
zero indicates a good sub-grade, whereas a group index of 20 or greater shows a very poor sub-
grade. The group index of a soil belonging to group A-1-a, A-1-b, A-2-4 and A-3 will always be
zero.

Figure2 1: (AASHITO) soil classification chart.

2.5 Subgrade Suitability Indicators

The value of the group index (GI) is an indicator of the suitability of the subsoil for the
construction of highways. The group index is a function of the liquid limit, the plasticity index
and the quantity of material which passes through the 0.075 mm sieve. A group index of zero
indicates a good subgrade soil, while a group index of 20 or more indicates a very poor and

8
 unsatisfactory subgrade soil. Otherwise, the increase in the group index value within each basic
soil group reflects the combined effect of increase in the liquid limit and in the plasticity index
and also in a decreasing percentage of coarser material with a consequent decrease in the
carrying capacity of the substrate. In this regard, the idea of the group index is similar to that of
the CBR, so both are an indicator of the suitability of the subgrade soil for the construction of the
pavement.
Table 2 1: The Frequency and Depth of Investigation for Subgrade Characterization.
(ERA, Site Investigation Manual, 2013)
Application Minimum number and location of exploration points. Minimum depth of exploration
Preliminary siteFinal site investigation
investigation
Sub-grade A minimum of one The spacing can be Investigating to a depth 1.5m below the
characteriz exploration point at each wider(up to 5km ) in proposed sub-grade level. In the case of new
ation km of the anticipated relatively uniform alignment, the depth from the natural
alignment conditions ground should not be less than 2m unless a
rock stratum is encountered.
Additional exploration The spacing could be as In some places, the depth should increase to
points are needed at low as 500m when fully penetrate soft highly compressible
significant changes in information is required on soils.
soil types. specific problems.
Representative large Representative large The presence ground water less then 3m
amount of samples for amount of samples for beneath the sub-grade irregular bedrocks or
CBR testing should be CBR testing should be big boulders may all need a limited amount
taken from pits or taken from pits or borings of shallow borings(up to 1.5m)
borings located not more when necessary
than 10km apart.

2.6 Classification based on activity

(SKempton, 1953) classifies the various swelling characteristics of soils based on a number
called as active number, Ac. He coined the term called activity (Ac) to describe the importance
of clay fraction on the plasticity index. Activity is a measure or assessment of the water holding
capacity of clay soils. The activity of clay soil may be expressed as;
9
 ……………………………………………………………..…….2.3

Where, Pi- plasticity index, Percentage of clay fraction less than 0.002 mm.
The activity provides information about the type and effect of the clay mineral in a soil. The
following two points are worth noting:
For a specific soil origin, the activity is constant. The plasticity index increases as the clay
fraction increases.
Highly active minerals, such as montmorillonite, can produce a large increase in the plasticity
index even when present in small quantity.

2.7 California Bearing Ratio (CBR)

The Californian bearing ratio is the ratio of the force per unit area required to penetrate a mass of
soil with a standard circular piston at a speed of 1.25mm/min to measure the subgrade soil
strength. The California Bearing Ratio test is one of the most commonly used methods for
evaluating resistance of a subgrade, sub-base and base material for the design of pavement
thickness of highways and airports run ways. The California Bearing Ratio Test is a penetration
test designed and carried out to measure the strength characteristic of the subgrade of roads and
pavements.
The California Bearing Test was first invented by the California Division of Highways in 1929
as a means of classifying the suitability of soils for use as subgrade soil or base course material
in the construction of highways. During World War II, the US Corps of Engineers adopted the
test for use in the construction of airports. The CBR test (ASTM defines the test simply as a load
ratio test) measures the load resistance of soil under controlled moisture and density conditions.
The test gives the ratio number carrying, but from the above statement it is obvious that this
number is not a constant for a given soil, it only applies to the tested condition of the soil.
The CBR number is obtained as the ratio between the unit load (in KN/m2) necessary to carry
out a certain penetration depth of the penetration piston (with an area of 19. 4 cm2) in a
compacted soil sample with a certain water content and density compared to the standard unit
load required to achieve the same depth of penetration on a standard crushed stone sample. In
equation form.

10
From the equation above, it can be seen that the CBR number is a percentage of the standard unit
load. Basically, the percent symbol is removed, and the ratio is just a number, like 3, 45, and 60.
Values of standard unit loads to use in equation 2.4 are listed in Table 2.3 below (the values are
from ASTM standards, part 19, and test D1883-73). The results obtained from these tests are
used with empirical curves to determine the thickness of the pavement and its constituent layers.
It is the most widely used method for the design of resilient subgrade soil. As required for
corresponding penetration of standard material.
The remolded sample was soaked for 96 hours or for four days with a surcharge load not less
than 4.58 kg that is a representative of the pavement weight in the field. Bulge readings are taken
during this period at arbitrarily chosen times. The soaking requirement need not depend on the
climate of the study area and the requirement of the specifications to be applied in the project.
Typically, if the CBR for soil at 95 % of maximum dry unit is desired, specimens compacted
using 56 blows per layer are satisfactory. So, that the rate of penetration is approximately 1.27
mm/min.
Record the load readings at penetrations of 0.64 mm, 1.27 mm, 1.91 mm, 2.54 mm, 3.18 mm,
3.81 mm, 4.45 mm, 5.08 mm, 7.62 mm, 10.16 mm and 12.70 mm. Note the maximum load and
penetration if it occurs for a penetration of less than 12.70 mm) With manual loading devices, it
may be necessary to take load readings at nearest intervals to check the rate of penetration. Using
corrected stress values taken from the stress penetration curve for 2.54 mm and 5.08 mm
penetrations, calculate the bearing ratios for each by dividing the corrected stresses by the
standard stresses of 6.9 MPa and 10.3 MPa respectively, and multiplying by 100,
(ASTMD1883–99). The penetration of plunger for standard load applied for different
penetrations in order to determine the standard material with a CBR value of 100% used for CBR
calculation is shown in the table 2.3

11
 Table 2 2: Loads adopted for different penetrations
Penetration of plunger(mm) Standard load (kg)
2.54 1370
5.08 2055
7.5 2630
10.3 3180
12.5 3600
Table 2 3: Typical Design CBR Values, (ERA, Pavement Design Manual Volume I, 2002)
Major Symbol Name Value as Typical
Divisions Subgrade Design CBR
value
Coarse Gravel G Well-graded gravels or gravel- sand mixtures, little Excellent 40-80
grained and W or no fines
soil gravely GP Poorly graded gravels or gravel-sand mixtures, Good to 30-60
soils little or no fines excellent
G D Silty gravels, gravel-sand-silt Good to 40-60
M mixtures excellent
U Good 20-30
GC Clayey gravels, gravel-sand-clay mixtures Good 20-40
sand S Well-graded sands or gravelly sands, little or no Good 20-40
and W fines
sandy SP Poorly graded sands or gravelly sands, little or no Fair to 10-40
soil fines good
SM D Silty sands, sand-silt mixtures Fair to 15-40
good
U Fair 10-20
SC Clayey sands, sand-clay mixtures Poor to 5-20
fair
Fine Silts and M Inorganic silts and very fine sands, rock Flour, Poor to 15 or less
grained clays L silty or clayey fine sands or clayey Silts with slight fair
soil LL is plasticity
less than CL Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity, Poor to 15 or less
50 Gravelly clays, sandy clays, silty clays, Lean Clay fair
OL Organic silts and organic silt-clays of low Poor 5 or less
Plasticity
Silts and M Inorganic silts, micaceous or diatomaceous fine Poor 10 or less
clays H sandy or silty soils, elastic silts
LL CH Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat clays Poor to 15 or less
is fair
greater OH Organic clays of medium to high plasticity, Poor to 5 or less
than 50 Organic silts very poor

highly organic soils Pt Peat and other highly organic soils Not
suitable

12
Notice: The division of GM and SM groups into subdivisions of d and u is on basis of Atterberg
limits; suffix d (e.g.GMd) will be used when the liquid limit is less than 0r equal to 25 and the
plasticity index is 5 or less; the suffix u will be used otherwise. According to ERA manual
(2002), Standard Technical Specification of Sub grade, Sub base, Base and Gravel wearing
courses, Standard soil material to use as a sub-grade should fulfill a maximum value of 30% and
60% for PI and LL values, respectively and a minimum CBR value of 5%, a swell of 2% is the
maximum requirement for the standard.

2.8 Comparison of AASHTO and USC System

AASHTO system is for finding out the suitability or otherwise of soils as subgrade for highway
only. While, the USC system is used to determine the suitability of floors for general use;
however both systems have the same basis. AASHTO and USCS classify soils based on particle
size analysis and plasticity characteristics. Both AASHTO and USC systems divide soils into
two main categories, namely coarse-grained and fine-grained soils. The following differences
between the two systems are mentioning;
According to the AASHTO system, a soil is defined as fine-grained soil if more than 35%
exceeds no. 200 (0.075 mm), while in the USC system, if more than 50% exceeds this sieve. In
this respect, the AASHTO system is somewhat better. Because the soil behaves as fine-grained
when the percentage of fines is 35%, and the 50% limit in the USC system is slightly higher.
In the AASHTO system, no. 10 (2.0 mm size) is used to divide the soil into gravel and sand,
whereas in USC system sieve No. 4 (4.75 mm) size is used.
In the USC system, gravel and sand soils are clearly separated, while in the AASHTO system,
the clear demarcation has not defined. The soil A-2 in the latter system contains a large variety of
soils.
The symbols used in the USC system are more descriptive and easier to remember than those of
the AASHTO System. Organic soils are also classified as OL and OH peat (PI) if they are
highly organic in the USC system. In AASHTO, there is no place for organic soils.
The USC system is more comfortable to use than the AASHTO system. In the latter the process
of elimination is required, which is time-consuming.

13
 Table 2 4: Approximate equivalence between AASHTO and USC system
AASHTO system USC system (most Probable) AASHTO system USC system (most Probable)
A-1-a GW, GP A-3 SP
A-1-b SW, SM, GM, SP A-4 ML, OL, MH, OH
A-2-4 GM, SM A-5 MH, OH, ML, OH
A-2-5 GM, SM A-6 CL
A-2-6 GC, SC A-7-5 OH, MH, CL, OL
A-2-7 GM, GC, SM, SC A-7-6 CH, CL, OH
2.9 Overview of Subgrade Strength Class According to Different countries
ERA pavement design manual, (ERA, 2013), subgrade soil based on their design CBR value and
construction of pavement, the subgrade strength class for the design is assigned to one of six
strength classes reflecting the sensitivity of thickness design to subgrade strength. Depending on
CBR value, Ethiopian road authority categorizes the sub-grade materials into six different
strength (ERA, 2013), classes are defined as the following table below.
Table 2 5: subgrade strength class according to ERA-a, 2013
S/N Class CBR range (%)
1 S1 <3
2 S2 3,4
3 S3 5,6,7
4 S4 8-14
5 S5 15-30
6 S6 >30

According to ERA 2013, typical design CBR vales are one of the most useful correlations for
asserting quality of the subgrade strength. However, pavement design, a material with CBR less
than 3 are challenging to work and subgrade would lead to uneconomical pavement structures.
According to Bowles, (1992), also establish a general relationship between ERA values and the
quality of the subgrade soils used in pavement applications. It is indicated the following table.
Table 2 6: classification of subgrade soil According to (Bowles, 1992)
S/N CBR range (%) Quality of subgrade
1 0–3 Very poor subgrade
2 3–7 Poor to fair subgrade
3 7 - 20, Fair subgrade
4 20 – 50 Good subgrade
5 >50 Excellent subgrade

14
Similarly, Road Development Agency (RDA) of the republic of Somaliland, pavement design
manual 2014 classifies the subgrade strength for design to be assigned to one of six strength
classes reflecting the sensitivity of thickness design to subgrade strength. The classes are defined
in Table 3-1. For subgrades with CBRs less than 2, will require placement of an improved
subgrade i.e. stabilization or removal and replacement with better quality material. Class S5
(CBR 15 to 29) and S6 (CBR 30 or greater) soils will not require an improved subsoil.
Table 2 7: subgrade strength class Somaliland (RDA)
S/N Class CBR range (%)
1 S1 2
2 S2 3,4
3 S3 5,6,7
4 S4 8-14
5 S5 15-29
6 S6 >30
(Source; Somaliland Road design manual, 2014)
According to Road Design Manual of Ministry of Transport and Communication Roads
Department, Republic of Kenya (1987), has raised Subgrade strength class. The standard manual
also gives specification to be fulfilled by a material to be used as subgrade material. Accordingly
the subgrade materials should have the following criteria.
 CBR at 100% MDD (modified proctor) and 4 days soaking should be greater than 5.
 Swelling at 100% MDD (modified proctor) and 4 days soaking should be less than 2.
 Organic content (percentage by weight) should be less than 3%.
These show that, no pavement is constructed directly on such subgrade soil (class S1), without
improvement of subgrade materials. The below table shows Kenyan design manual stats Sub
grade strength class.
Table 2 8: Sub grade strength classifications by Kenyan design manual
Subgrade CBR Range (%) Stiffness Modulus (Mpa)
S1 2-5 20
S2 5-10 50
S3 10-15 80
S4 15-20 100
S5 20-25 120
S6 30 150
(Source; Kenyan pavement design manual, 1987)

15
2.10 Sub grade Characterization
The efficiency of a road is strongly influenced by the characteristics of the substrate material
during its service life. Desirable subgrade properties include strength, stiffness, drainage, ease of
compaction, and low compressibility. These characteristics can have a significant influence on
road performance and long-term serviceability. The substrates must be strong enough to resist
applied load and shear failure having adequate stiffness to minimize vertical deflection. It must
also form a suitable platform to obtain the required compaction of the pavement layers above the
level of the subgrade. Stronger and stiffer materials provide a more effective efficient road
foundation for the riding surface and will be more resistance to stresses from repeated loadings
and environmental conditions (ERA, 2013). Gradation, or the grain size distribution in a soil, is
an essential descriptive characteristic of soils. Textural and engineering classifications of soils
are largely based on gradation and many engineering properties like relative compaction,
strength, swelling potential, and susceptibility to frost action are closely correlated with
gradation parameters. On the other hand, Plasticity is the response of a soil to changes in
moisture content. When adding water to a soil changes its consistency from hard and rigid to soft
and pliable, the soil is said to exhibit plasticity. Clays can be very plastic, silts are only slightly
plastic, and sands and Gravels are non-plastic. For fine-grained soils, engineering behavior is
often more closely correlated with plasticity than gradation. Plasticity is a key component of
soils classification. A sub-grade characteristic mainly depends on the factors Load Bearing
Capacity, Moisture Content and Shrinkage or swelling of soils (ERA, 2013).
2.11. Index Properties

2.11.1 Shape and Particle Size of the Soil

These are the properties of soil, which are used to characterize soil and determine their basic
properties such as moisture content, particle size distribution, specific gravity, and consistency
and moisture-density relationships. The sizes of particles may range from gravel to the finest
possible. Their characteristics vary with size. Common descriptive terms based on grain size,
such as gravels, sands, silts and clays, are used to identify specific textures in soils. These soil
structures refer to soil types; that is, sand is one type of soil, clay is another. Texture refers to the
appearance of roughness or feel of roughness of a soil. Sands and gravels are grouped into
16
coarse-grained soils, whereas Clays and silts are fine-grained soils. Coarse-grained soils appear
grainy and hard. Fine-grained soils are feel smooth. Soil coarseness of soil is determined by
knowing the grain size distribution, which is the primary means of classifying coarse-grained
soils. To characterize fine-grained soils, additional information on the types of minerals present
and their content would be needed. The response of fine-grained soils to loads, known as the
mechanical characteristics, depends on the type of predominant minerals present (M. Budhu,
2000). Grains with a diameter of 4.75 to 76.2 mm are called gravel. If the soil grains are visible
to the naked eye, but are less than about 4.75 mm in size, the soil is described as sand. The lower
limit of grain visibility to the naked eye is about 0.075 mm. Soil grains ranging from 0.075 to
0.002 mm are termed as silt, and those that are finer than 0.002 mm are clay. This classification
is purely based on size, which does not indicate the properties of fine-grained materials (V.N.S
Murthy, 2007). There are four main systems to classify soils based on particle sizes. These are
the Unification Soil Classification System (USCS), the American Society for Testing and
Materials (ASTM) (a modification of the USCS system), the American Association of State
Highway and Transportation officials (AASHTO) and the British Standards (BS).

2.11.2 Sieve Analysis

Sieving and mechanical analysis give an idea of particle size and shape. The Sieve analysis is
normally carried out on cohessionless soils and wet mechanical analysis (normally hydrometry
analysis) on clay soil. The Sieve analysis is done to determine the percentage of various grain
sizes. The grain size distribution makes it possible to determine the textural classification of
soils, whether they are gravelly, sandy, loamy, clayey, etc. which is then useful in evaluating the
engineering characteristics such as permeability, strength, swelling potential and susceptibility to
frost action. In order to meet the objectives of the study, detailed analyses were carried out on the
collected sample. The wetted sieve analysis is worked out for all soil samples. A hydrometer test
is worked for all soil samples, in which the soil sample is fine-grained soil. The laboratory test is
conducted as per (AASHTO T 88, 2019).

2.11.3 Hydrometer Analysis

Hydrometer analysis is used to determine the grain size distribution of fine grain soil having
particles sizes smaller than 75 microns. Hydrometer analysis is based on the principle of
17
sedimentation of soil particles in water. This test involves the use of 50 grams of dry, pulverized
soil. A deflocculating agent is always added to the soil. The most common deflocculating agent
used for hydrometer analysis is 125cc of 4% solution of sodium hexametaphosphate. The soil is
allowed to soak for at least 16 hours in the deflocculating agent. The sample is then transferred to
1000ml glass cylinder. More distilled water is added to the cylinder to fill it to the 1000ml mark,
and then the mixture is again thoroughly agitated. A hydrometer is placed in the cylinder to
measure the specific gravity of the soil-water suspension. (B.M. Das, 2007).

2.11.4 Grain size Distribution Curve

According to v.n.s Murthy (2007), the shape of the grain size distribution curves indicate the
nature of the soil tested. On the basis of the shapes, the soil may be classified as;
 Uniformly graded or poorly graded
 Well graded
 Gap graded
The uniformity coefficient (Cu), which is a ratio of D60 to D10, gives an idea of the grading of
the soil as shown in table below.
Table 2 9: The uniformity coefficient (Cu)
uniformity coefficient Cu Type o soil
<5 Uniform size particles
5-10 Medium graded soil
>15 Well graded soil
2.11.5 Particle size classification
The coarse grained soils can be identified by primarily on the basis of grain size since these soils
are non-plastic. The classification of the soil on the basis of As per I.S. Classification (IS, 1498:
1970). The soil is divided into six groups:

18
 Table 2 10: Four systems of classifying soils based on particle sizes (M. Budhu, 2000).
Grain size according to AASTHO,1998 Grain size according to USCS (Budhu,2000)
Particle size Diameter, mm Particle size Diameter, mm
Gravel 76.2mm – 4.75mm Gravel 75mm – 4.75mm
Sand 4.75mm – 0.075mm Sand 4.75mm – 0.075mm
Course sand 4.75mm – 2mm Silt 0.075mm – 0.002mm
Medium sand 2mm – 0.425mm Clay <0.002mm
Fine sand 0.425mm – 0.075mm
Silt o.o74mm – 0.005mm
Clay <0.005mm
Colloids <0.001mm
Grain size according to ASTM, Grain size according to BS, Budhu, 3rd ed.
Gravel >2mm Gravel 60mm – 2mm
Sand 2mm – 0.05mm Sand 2mm – 0.06mm
Silt 0.05mm – 0.002mm Silt 0.06mm – 0.002mm
Clay <0.002mm Clay <0.002mm

2.11.6 Moisture Content

The variation in moisture content is the most influential parameter affecting soil properties.
Moisture content is defined as the ratio expressed as a percentage of the mass of water to the
mass of soil solids. Soil moisture content describes the amount of water present in a quantity of
soil in terms of dry weight. In equation from:
) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------2.5

Where: Mw = Mass of water contained in soil.

Ms = Mass of dry soil
The conventional test for the determination of moisture content is based on the loss of water
when a soil is dried to a constant mass at a temperature between 105 and 110 ºC. The purpose of
moisture content test is to determine the amount of water present in a quantity of soil in terms of
its dry weight and to provide general correlations with strength, settlement, workability and other
properties.
The moisture content of soils, when combined with data obtained from other tests, produces
significant information about the characteristics of the subgrade soil. For example, when the in
situ moisture content of a sample retrieved from below the phreatic surface approaches its liquid
limit, it is an indication that the soil in its natural state is susceptible to larger consolidation

19
settlement. The moisture content test is carried out in the laboratory as per the procedure of
AASHTO T 265 or ASTM D 2216 and in the field according to AASHTO T-217.

2.11.7 Atterberg limit

This Atterberg limit test is performed to determine the Liquid limit, Plastic limit, and often
employed in the classification of a fine-grained soil. It describes the plasticity and consistency of
fine-grained soils with varying degrees of water content. Atterberg proposed four popularity of
soil consistency as stable, semi-stable, plastic and liquid states; they're arbitrary barriers through
which a soil passes. They are used to decide the consistency of fine-grained soils. For the portion
of soil passing the No. 40 (0.425 mm) sieve, the moisture content is varied to determine the three
stages of soil behavior in terms of consistency. These stages are generally known as liquid limit
(LL), plastic limit (PL) and shrinkage limit (SL) of soils.
The Liquid Limit (LL): Is the water content, expressed as a percentage, at which the soil
changes from a liquid state to a plastic state, and principally it is defined as the water content at
which 25 blows of the liquid limit machine (Cassagrande cup) closes a standard groove cut in the
soil pat for a distance of 12.7 The liquid limit of a soil strongly depends on the clay mineral
present. The conventional test method is carried out as per the procedure of AASHTO T 89 or
ASTM D 4318.
The plastic limit (PL):- A plastic limit of a soil is the water content, expressed as a percentage,
when tolled down, at which a thread of soil stops behaving as a plastic material, and it begins to
crumble when rolled into a thread of soil of 3.2 mm diameter. The plastic limit is the lower limit
of the plastic stage of the soil. The moisture content at which any increase will cause a semi-solid
soil to become plastic. The limit is defined as the moisture content at which a thread of soil
crumbles as soon as it is carefully spread out to 1/8th inch in diameter. The test is carried out as
per the procedure of AASHTO T 90 or ASTM D 4318.
The shrinkage limit (SL):- is defined as that water content below which no further soil volume
change occurs with further drying. The test is carried out as per the procedure of AASHTO T 92
or ASTM D 427. Atterberg limits provide general indices of moisture content related to the
consistency and behavior of soils. The Liquid limit defines a liquid/semi-solid change, while the
Plastic limit is a solid boundary. The difference is termed as the plasticity index (PI = LL - PL).

20
Liquidity Index (LI):- is a measure of soil strength using the Atterberg limits, is known as the
liquidity index. The liquidity index is the ratio of the difference in water content between the
natural or in situ water content of a soil and its plastic limit to its plastic index. It is an indicator
of how the natural water content of a soil is in relation to the soil‟s liquid and plastic limit, as
described below.
LI >1, indicates that the soil is in the liquid state
LI = 1, indicates that the soil is at the liquid limit.
LI = 0, indicates that the soil is in a plastic state.
LI= ………………………………………………………………………………2.6

Where, NMC= natural water content (%)

PL= plastic limit (%)
PI= plastic index
Table 2 11: Description of Soil Strength Based on Liquidity Index. (M. Budhu, 2000)
Values of LI Description of soil strength
LI<0 Semisolid state-high strength, brittle (sudden) fracture is expected
0< LI<1 Plastic state-intermediate strength, soil deforms like a plastic material
LI>1 Liquid state-low strength, soil deforms like a viscous fluid
LI=0 The soil is at its plastic limit
LI=1 The soil is at its liquid limit

Mostly, these are approximate and empirical values. They were originally developed for
agronomic purposes. Their widespread use by engineers has resulted in the development of a
large number of rough empirical relationships for characterizing soils (Paul W. M. and et.al, May
2002).
PLASTICITY Index (PI): The degree of plasticity is measured by the PI, which is the
numerical difference between the liquid limit (LL) and the plastic limit (PL) and, i.e. PI=LL –
PL. Soils with a high PI tend to be predominantly clay and the soil is more plastic, compressible
and the greater volume change characteristic of the soil. While those with a lower PI tend to be
predominantly silted, this limit describes the plasticity and consistency of fine-grained soils with
varying degrees of water content. The plasticity index can range exceeds from 70 to 80 for very
plastic clays. However, most clay has a PI of 20 - 40 and silts have a PI of 10 - 20. (AASHTO T
90, 2016).
21
 Table 2 12: Soil classifications according to plasticity index.
Plasticity index, IP Plasticity
0 Non- plastic
<7 Low- plastic
7 - 17 Medium- plastic
>17 Highly Plastic
Chen F.H, (1988) demonstrated that the plasticity indexes and the liquid limits are useful indices for
determining the swelling characteristics of clays. The larger the plasticity index implies more problems
associated with the use of the soil as an engineering material, such as road sub-grade.
Table 2 13 : Relationship between swelling potential and PI (Chen F.H 1988)
Plasticity index, PI % Swelling potential
0-15 Low
10-35 Medium
20-55 High
35 and above Very high

Figure2 2: Plasticity chart

2.11.8 Moisture - Density Relation (Compaction)

Compaction tests are carried out on disturbed. Air dried and prepared soils with or without
admixtures. Soil compaction improves the engineering properties of a soil, e.g.due to compaction
22
increases the shear strength and the bearing capacity of the soil increases, thus increase stiffness
and reduces future settlement, void ratio and permeability. At minimum water content in the soil
than the optimum the soil, is quite stiff and has a lot of free spaces, and therefore the dry density
is low. On the other hand, at water content more than the optimum water holding capacity of the
soil the additional water reduces the dry density as it occupies the space that might have been
occupied by solid particles (Arora. K. R, 2004). The tests are performed on disturbed samples of
soil particles passing sieve sizes No.4 (4.75 mm) or 19 mm, mixed with water to form samples
with various moisture contents ranging from dry to wet. The samples are compacted in three or
five layers at 25 blows per layer in accordance with the specified nominal compaction energy of
the standard or modified proctor test, respectively. Dry density is determined based on the
moisture content and the unit weight of compacted soil. A curve of dry density versus moisture
content is plotted on Figure 2.2 and the maximum ordinate on this curve is referred to as the
maximum dry density (γdmax). The corresponding water content at which the maximum dry
density occurs is termed as the optimum moisture content (OMC). The test is done in the
laboratory according to AASHTO T 99 (Standard Proctor), T 180 (Modified Proctor) or ASTM
D 698 (Standard Proctor), D 1557 (Modified Proctor). Grain size distribution and Atterberg
limits alone are not sufficient to qualify the performance of road construction materials because
the variation in moisture content and density plays a considerable role. Different researches show
that moisture content and density conditions have a greater influence on the value of the load
bearing capacity of a soil, on coarser materials than on fine-grained materials. In general, most
engineering properties, such as the strength, stiffness, resistance to shrinkage, and
imperviousness of the soil, will be improved by increasing the soil density. The optimum water

23
 content is the water content that results in the greatest density for a specified compactive effort.

Figure2 3: Moisture-Density relationships from a Standard Compaction Test. (Paul W. M. and

et.al, May 2002).

2.12 REGRATION ANALYSIS AND CORRELATIONS

Regression analysis is a very useful statistical technique in engineering and science fields and
involves to achieving the best fitting model between two or more dependent and independent
variables. The regression analysis method is used to develop the line or curve that provides the
best fit over a series of data points. This basic approach is applicable in situations ranging from
simple linear regression to more sophisticated nonlinear multiple regressions. The best fit model
could be presented in the form of linear, parabolic or logarithmic, exponential, polynomial trend.
A linear relationship is usually practiced to solve several engineering problems due to its
simplicity. The best fitting of a regression model requires several assumptions. Therefore,
equations developed for soils in one place may not work at all if tested on soils of other place of
the same region. Hence, specific models have to be developed for specific areas in order to give
fair evaluations. These models include different soil parameters in different combinations. Index
properties are the widely used parameters in these models because these properties have
significance in indicating the CBR value of a soil. In general, previously developed empirical
equations and equations to be developed in the future are not to be expected to determine CBR
value precisely and accurately for all soils.

24
2.13. Existing correlation
2.13.1 General correlation
Some correlation methods do exist to estimate the California bearing ratio of a soil, based on soil
classification, other index test values, and/or physical property measurements of the soil. A few
of these methods take a general approach and attempt to encompass many or all possible soil
types, however most attempts have been limited to a specific soil and apply only to a specialized
region, soil type, or material. Many researchers and agencies have developed relationships
between CBR and soil index parameters based on samples obtained from a specific region and
soil type. General relationships are also developed using universally accepted soil classification
systems, fundamentally based on the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) and American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) systems. These
correlation methods take a general approach and attempt to encompass many or all possible soil
types.However, the validity and applicability of such correlations need to be established for their
acceptances in general practice. The predicted and experimental values of CBR of various soils
have been used to check the applicability and limitations of available methods. The models
developed from Simple Multiple Regression Analysis are given by different investigators as;
CBRs = fn (F, S, G, LL, PL, PI, MDD and OMC) and a typical Model equation are as follows:
CBRs=0.064F+0.082S+0.033G-0.069LL+0.157PL-1.810MDD-0.061OMC………………. 2.7

2.13.4 Previous Correlations

Many correlations have been performed over the years for bearing parameters for different soil
types. Most correlations have been applied on the basis of the special circumstances of the soil as
the soil type, the water content, dry density and other soil properties. Field CBR testing is a time-
consuming and requires skilled operator, and can be tedious operation for evaluation teams in
hostile environments. Engineers still encounter difficulties in obtaining representative CBR
values for design. On the other hand, CBR testing in the laboratory is not only laborious and
takes time, but sometimes the results are not accurate due to sample disturbance and poor quality
laboratory test conditions.

25
2.13.2 Relationships Specific to a Region and Soil Type
Currently, several attempts for predicting the California Bearing Ratio of soils for a specific soil
or geographic location can be found in different literature. The correlations published below are
intended to correlate the CBR value with soil index properties specific to a given region and soil
type. Aggarwal and Ghanekar (1970) carried out their correlation analysis on fine-grained soils
on 48 samples found in India; tobased on their analysis, they had tried to develop a correlation
between the values of CBR and Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit / Plasticity Index. However, their
analysis failed to determine any strong correlation between them. Instead, a much better fitting
correlation was found when they included the liquid limit and the optimum moisture content
(OMC). The significant results notified can be described below:
CBR=2-log (OMC) +0.07LL……………………………………………..….………………….2.8
Where: - OMC- Optimum Moisture Content of the soils.
LL - Liquid Limit of the soil.
Vinod and Cletus (2008) had proposed a correlation based on the liquid limit and the
granulometric characteristics of the soils. Based on the result obtained from the experimental
study on lateritic soils, they suggested a correlation as defined below.
CBR=889WLM+45.616…………………………………………………………………….2.9
Where WLM; - is modified liquid limit and given by
CBR=LL (1-C/100)…………………………………………………….…………………..…2.10
Where, LL; - is liquid limit on soil passing through 425 μm sieve (in percentage) and
C; - is the fraction of soil coarser than 425 μm (percent).
Patel and Desai had proposed some correlations for alluvial soils to get the CBR value from the
liquid and plastic boundary. The equation of CBR as a function of different soil properties was
established using the method of regression analysis. The correlations were tested using basic soil
properties for the number of samples at 100 m intervals and were verified by some test results
obtained with CBR values. The correlations are defined below.
CBR=4.745-0.044LL+0.1508PL………………………………………………………………2.11
CBR=5.176-0.028LLL+0.047PL………………………………………………………………2.12
Where, CBR - is the bearing ratio of California, LL -is the liquid limit and
PL - is the plastic limit.
26
The National Co-operative Highway Research Program (NCHRP), 2001) of the United States of
America (USA) through the “Guide for Mechanical - Empirical Design new paving structures
rehabilitated “certain correlations have been developed which clearly describe the relationship
between soil index properties and CBR values. An equation was established for soils containing
12% fines and exhibiting some plasticity. For fine-grained plastic soils, the soil index properties
chosen to correlate to CBR are the percentage passing 0.075 mm US standard sieve and plasticity
index. The equation suggested by the NCHRP is shown below.
…………………………………………………….…………………….2.13

Where, P200 - is percentage passing 75μm US sieve (in decimal) and PI is Plasticity Index.
Yildirim & Gunaydin (2011) proposed following correlation of CBR soaked value with index
properties of fine-grained soils.
CBR=0.62OMC+58.9MDD+0.11LL+0.53PL-126.18……………………………..…………2.14
Currently, several attempts at predicting the California Bearing Ratio of soils for a specific soil
or geographic location can be found in different literature. A correlation of CBR with plasticity
and particle size using the suitability index concept appropriately was developed by Graft
Johnson and Bhatia (1969) on the lateritic soil of Ghana. In this case, the relationship between
the CBR and the eligibility index is presented as follows:
CBR = (35 * SI) 8 (2.4) ……………………………………………………………………...2.15
………………………………………..................................................................2.16

Where: - SI Suitability Index value of De Graft-Johnson and Bhatia

- A Percentage passing 2.0 mm sieve size
- LL Liquid Limit
- PI Plasticity Index.
It was noted that the soil samples were compacted to the maximum dry density and optimum
moisture content and soaked for 4 days according to the Ghana standard of compaction. This
specifies the use of a standard CBR mold and a 4.5 kg pestle with a drop height of 450 mm to
compact the soil in 5 layers with 25 strokes per layer. The developed relationship is presented in
Zohib Shahzad Janjua (2016) has collected eleven different soil samples from completely
different locations among a radius of 50 km of Gharuan, Punjab and uses different soil
27
parameters of tests were performed to obtained and analyzed to make a correlation between
experimental values and predicted values. Soil samples taken from these locations were mostly
well graded sand containing silt. Linear regression analysis was done to correlate CBR and soil
properties and developed three models and determined the following equations.
CBR (soaked) = 0.062(%fines) + 0.088(L L) + 2.19 …………………………………………2. 17
Residual sum of squares (RSS) = 15.74, Coefficient of determination (R2) = 0.082
CBR (soaked)=0.142(%fines)+0.0262(LL)+0.0283(OMC)+1.043(M.D.D) -17.0……………2.18
Residual sum of squares (RSS) = 2.812, Coefficient of determination (R2) = 0.836
CBR (soaked) = 0.157 (%fines) + 0.0878 (L. L) - 0.185 (O.M.C) + 3.79 …………………….2.19
Residual sum of squares (RSS) = 14.62, Coefficient of determination (R2) = 0.147
Vishal Chandrakar (2016) As the main purpose of this study was to develop a correlation
between the CBR value of the coarse grained soil and soil properties such as particle size
distribution, OMC, MDD, for this multiple regression model are developed using Microsoft
Excel data analysis tools package. The mathematical equation developed is as follows: -
CBR=198.68-3.78OMC-73.37MDD+0.34D60+1.64D30 ………………………….…………2.20
R2 was found to be 0.9728; this shows good at correlating CBR value with in soil properties.
Suitable correlation between CBR values and index properties of subgrade soils in Northern,
north-east and north-west parts of Addis Ababa was carried by Leliso Y. The previous researcher
performed his research on 42 samples of fine-grained soils found in Addis Ababa, on the basis of
which he has developed a correlation between CBR values and index properties (liquid limit,
plastic limit, plasticity index, grain size).

2.13.3 Simple Linear Regression Analysis (SLRA) and Correlations

Regression analysis is a very useful statistical technique in engineering and
modeling science, and in the establishment and in the study of relationships between two or more
dependent and independent variables. The regression analysis method is used to develop the line
or curve that provides the best fit over a series of data points. This basic approach is applicable in
situations ranging from simple linear regression to more sophisticate nonlinear multiple
regressions. The most appropriate pattern could be in the form of a linear, parabolic or
logarithmic trend. A linear relationship is usually practiced to solve several engineering

28
problems due to its simplicity. The best fit to a regression model requires several assumptions.
The method of the least squares is used to choose the best line of fit for a data set. To establish a
relationship between CBR and soil index properties, multiple linear regression analysis was
developed by using SPSS Software 16.0 to predict the CBR value. Correlation quantifies the
degree to which dependent and independent variables are related.

2.13.4 Multiple Linear Regression Analysis (MLRA)

The MLRA model will be carried out by considering the value of the impregnated CBR as the
dependent variable and the rest of the soil properties as the independent variables. MLRA can be
carried out using standard statistical software like data analysis toolbar of Microsoft Excel or
SPSS in order to derive the relationship statistically.
CBRs = f (F, S, G, LL, PL, PI, MDD, OMC)
The objective function for this research study will be formulated as follows:
Y is directly proportional to the variables X1, X2, X3, X4… and XN so, the equation created
will be
Y = b0 + b1x1 +b2x2 +b3x3 +b4x4 + ……..bnxn
Where, Y = California Bearing Ratio (%), b1, b2, b3, b4…... and bn are constants,
X1, X2, X3, X4 ………and Xn are a soil property that will be considered for the analysis.
The constant values above will be solved using MLRA in the data analysis toolbar built-in add-in
for Microsoft Excel or by statistical package for social science software (SPSS). Then by
inserting the values of the constants from the laboratory results such as: CBR, liquid limit,
plasticity index and optimal humidity, the constant values will be obtained.

2.13.5 Criteria to select the best model from the developed model
To select the best model that provides a very good result depends on several factors, but the most
important one that governs the selection is that, the number of parameters/variables included in
the model must be minimum in this study. It is limited to three; the value of R2 and AdjR2
should be maximum i.e. approached to one. The accuracy of results was based on the coefficient
of correlation (Adj R2), coefficient of determination R2 and p-values. The value of coefficient of
determination R2 indicates the representativeness of the model. The model is more

29
representative of R2, which is closer to one. The linear coefficient of correlation „‟Adj R2‟ is a
measure of correlation strength between variables x and y. According to (Doković K., 2013)
 if Adj R2 < 0.30 there was no significant correlation,
 if 0.5 < Adj R2 < 0.7 correlation is significant,
 when 0.7 < Adj R2 < 0.9 correlation is strong,
 In the case where Adj R2 > 0.9 very strong correlation.
So, if the correlation coefficient is closer to one, the correlation became stronger.

2.13.6 Adjusted Coefficient of Determination

The adjusted coefficient of determination (R2 adj) became used as a relative measure of
goodness-of-suit among anticipated statistics and discovered data that is a better criterion than
the coefficient of dedication. The corrected R-squared only increases if the new term improves
the version greater than anticipated with the aid of using chance. It decreases, while a predictor
improves the version much less than anticipated with the aid of using chance. The adjusted R-
squared may be negative, however it commonly isn't.

30
 CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.1 Introduction
All laboratory tests were carried out in the laboratory of Arba Minch University Institute of
technology in order to have satisfactory data for utilizing the geotechnical characterization of
subgrade materials. All tests were performed by according to the procedure specified in the
AASTHO and ASTM standards manuals. CBR test was conducted to obtain the bearing ratio of
the soil. In this study the material was fine-grained soil, As a result, combined wet sieve and
hydrometer analysis were conducted to determine particle size distribution. Atterberg limits were
conducted to obtain liquid limit, plastic limit and plasticity index. Likewise, moisture-density
relationships (compaction) tests were conducted to obtain optimum moisture content and
maximum dry density. Related tests like specific gravity were also conducted, and then
discussions on sample collection and summary of laboratory test results were presented.
Prediction of existing CBR by correlating index properties was performed. The aim of this paper
is to characterize sub grade soil of the study area road and to correlate the obtained index
properties of the soil with laboratory CBR result of the subgrade soils by single linear regression
and multilinear regression in comparison with the tested results of index properties of the soil to
fit theobjective. Hence, this paper presents the geotechnical characteristics of subgrade soils and
the correlation between soaked California Bearing Ratio (CBR) and index properties of soils
found in Sodo Sawula Main Road to Beklo Segno town, Wolaita Zone, Ethiopia. To achieve the
objective of this research, ten pits were selected from different representative parts of the
existing road at 2 km interval and twenty soil sample were collected, two from each pit at the
depth of 1.2 to 1.5 m. The methodology of soil classification has been done by AASTHO soil
classification and ASTM.

3.2 Design of the Study

For this study, the analytical, applied, descriptive, quantitative and qualitative technique was
adopted directly or indirectly. It is a quantitative and qualitative approach due to the fact the
conclusion of the consequences depends on the manipulation of those data. It is likewise

31
analytical, applied and descriptive because it systematically identifies numerical analysis and
addresses the realistic case, trouble and their solution. It describes the input data, the process, the
output and the methodology.

3.3 Field work

Field work was conducted by using field survey, field observation, taking samples and GPS to
overview the geotechnical setup of the study area. Aerial photos and topographic maps will use
in order to locate the exact position of sampling points, and to get some inputs for the
description of the local geotechnical soils conditions. The representative soil samples for the
investigation should be collected from 2Km intervals of the road alignment and the depth of
the pits should be 1.2 m up to 1.5 m depending on the condition of the soil.

3.4 Description of the study Area

Wolaita zone is located in area of the Southern Nations, Nationalities and Peoples Regional State
(SNNPRS). It is also located south west of Addis Ababa capital of Ethiopia at about a distance of
390 km through Shashamane and also 329 Km far through Butajira-Hossana. Its altitude lies
between 1784 to 2346masl whereas the climatic condition is cold with mean annual rainfall is
1512mm and temperature varying between 16.49 ℃ in winter and 21.24 ℃ in summer and. The
location of the study area is shown in Figure 3-2.Its weather condition is semi hummed.

32
3.5 Map of the Study Area

Figure2 4: Map of the study area

33
Figure2 5: Map of the study area

3.6 Topography and Climate

The Beklosegno is located at a distance of 19 km from Wolaita sodo town in the direction of
southwest. It is bounded in the north kindo koysha woreda, in the south offa woreda, in the
northeast sodo zuria woreda and in the west kawo koysha woreda. Geographically the woreda is
located lies between latitude in 6°55‟00‟‟N and longitude in 37°39‟00‟‟E. The woreda is located
between at an elevation of 1828.8-1907 meters above sea level. The terrain type of the road
alignment is flat and some where it is undulated. The road crosses two rivers in sodo zuria
woreda and two small rivers in Bayrakoysha. The mean annual temperature and rainfall obtained
from year 2020 shown in Table 3.1.
34
 Table 3 1: Annual temperature and rainfall area in BekloSegno
Mean annual Climate and rainfall data for BekloSegno and sodo zuria in year 2020
Month Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Mean
annual
Max 28 28 30 26 23 22 18 21 21 23 25 27 24
tempº C (82) (82) (86) (79) (73) (72) (64) (70) (70) (73) (77) (81) (76)
(º F)
Daily 23 23 25 22 20 19 16 19 19 20 21 23 21
mean C º (73) (73) (77) (72) (68) (66) (61) (66) (66) (68) (70) (73) (69)
(º F)
Min temp 17 17 19 17 15 15 12 15 16 16 16 16 16
º C (º F) (63) (63) (66) (63) (59) (59) (54) (59) (61) (61) (61) (61) (61)
Average 19.4 37.2 108. 218. 189. 148. 174. 175.2 189. 127. 63.96 23.52 1476.7
rainfall, 8 8 6 9 23 77 74 3 11 8 2
mm
Table 3 2: Soil Sample Location of the Study Area
Test pit No. sample Place Depth Northing Easting Elevation Color of
(m) the soil
Test pit -1 A BekuloSegno 1.2 6 º 50 ' 0.17 37 º 37 ' 23 " 1836.9 Read
B BekuloSegno 1.5 "

Test pit -2 A BekuloSegno 1.2 6 º 49 ' 58 " 37 º 37 ' 38 " 1828.8 Read
B BekuloSegno 1.5
Test pit -3 A Amachomesena 1.2 6 º 49 ' 52 " 37 º 37 ' 20 " 1837.5 Read
B Amachomesena 1.5
Test pit -4 A Kenefa godera 1.2 6 º 49 ' 50 " 37 º 38 ' 49 " 1870.8 Read
B Kenefa godera 1.5
Test pit -5 A Kenefa godera 1.2 6 º 50 ' 12 " 37 º 39 ' 41 " 1879.2 Read
B Kenefa godera 1.5
Test pit -6 A Shola kodo 1.2 6 º 50 ' 19 " 37 º 40 ' 46 " 1907 Read
B Shola kodo 1.5
Test pit -7 A Shola kodo 1.2 6 º 49 ' 58 " 37 º 44 ' 21 " 1871 Read
B Shola kodo 1.5
Test pit -8 A Shola kodo 1.2 6 º 49 ' 49 " 37 º 44 ' 24 " 1887 Read
B Shola kodo 1.5
Test pit -9 A Waja kero 1.2 6 º 49 ' 03 " 37 º 44 ' 20 " 1891 Read
B Waja kero 1.5
Test pit -10 A Wareza gerera 1.2 6 º 50 ' 38 " 37 º 44 ' 07 " 1888 Read
B Wareza gerera) 1.5
Source, field survey
35
3.7 Soil laboratory tests
Based on the samples retrieved from the sites, laboratory tests on the twenty samples were
conducted in the soil laboratory of Arba Minch university institute of technology. Accordingly,
the following different kinds of tests were performed:
 Grain size analysis(hydrometer test for fine grained soils) -Test (AASHTO T 88, 2019)
 Atterberg limits - Test (AASHTO T 89, AASHTO T 90, 2016 & ASTM D 4318)
 specific Gravity-(AASHTO T 100, 2019)
 Modified Proctor Test (Compaction Test) (AASHTO T180, 2019 & ASTM D 1557
(OMC, MDD, Natural Moisture Content (NMC)
 California Bearing Ratio (CBR) Test -(AASHTO T 193, 2013)
 Classification of the subgrade soil material based on laboratory test result by using
AASHTO M145 standard

3.8 Index properties of soil

These are the properties of soil, which are used to characterize soil and determine their basic
properties such as moisture content, particle size distribution, specific gravity, and consistency
and moisture-density relationships.

3.8.1 Sieve Analysis

A sieve analysis is carried out to determine the percentage of different grain sizes of the subgrade
soil of the study area. The grain size distribution makes it possible to determine the textural
classification of soils, whether they are gravelly, sandy, loamy, clayey, etc. which is then useful
in evaluating the engineering characteristics such as permeability, strength, swelling potential
and susceptibility to frost action. The sieves for soil tests used were wet sieve analysis by using
sieve size of 4.75 mm to 75 microns. The test is performed as per AASHTO T 88, 2019.

3.8.2 Specific Gravity (Gs)

The specific gravity of solid particles is defined as the ratio of the mass of a given volume of
solids to the mass of an equal volume of water at 40c (Gs=ρs/ρw) to calibrate the weight of the
pycnometer. The specific gravity test was performed to the clean sand in accordance with

36
(AASHTO T 100, 2019) (Standard Test Method for Specific of Soils Solids by Water
Pycnometer).
Table 3 3: Specific gravity range for soil solids (Arora, 2003)
Soil type Specific gravity Soil type Specific gravity
Gravel 2.65 - 2.68 Silt 2.66 - 2.70
Sand 2.65 - 2.68 Inorganic Clay 2.68 - 2.80
Silty Sands 2.66 - 2.70 Organic soil Variable, may fall below 2.00
Therefor the study results are also in agreement with the specified standard. The formulas have been used
is:

………………………………………………………………………..3.1

3.8.3 Precision and Bias for Specific Gravity

The obtained result was performed according to AASHTO T 100-95 Precision Criteria for
judging the acceptability of specific gravity test results obtained by this test method on material
passing the No. 4.75mm (No.4) or 2.00mm (No.10) sieve are given in the table below.
Table 3 4. The specific gravity test result precision
Material and type of index Standard deviation Acceptable range of two
results (percent mean)
ASTMB AASHTOC ASTMB AASHTOC
passing Passing passing Passing
4.75mm 2.00mm 4.75mm 2.00mm
(NO.4) sieve(NO.10) (NO.4) sieve(NO.10)
Single Cohesive soil 0.021 0.02 0.06 0.05
operator Non cohesive D D D D
precision soil
Multi Cohesive soil 0.056 0.04 0.16 0.11
laboratory Non cohesive D D D D
precision soil
Where ,these numbers represent, respectively the (IS) and (D25) limits as specified in ASTM
Recommended practice, c-670, for precision statement s for test method for construction
material.
B - Represents standard deviation values assigned by ASTM committee on material.
C - Represents standard deviation values assigned by AASHTO subcommittee on material.

37
 D- Criteria for assigning standard deviation values for noncohesive soils are not available at the
present time.

3.8.4 Atterberg limit

To determine this limit AASHTO T 89, AASHTO T 90, 2016 & ASTM D 4318 Method has
been used. It describes the plasticity and consistency of fine-grained soils with varying degrees
of water content. The moisture content is varied to determine the three stages of soil behavior in
terms of consistency. These stages are generally known as liquid limit (LL), plastic limit (PL)
and shrinkage limit (SL) and plasticity index of soils.
3.8.4.1 Liquid limit test
The liquid limit is defined as the water content at which a portion of soil, cut by a standard-sized
groove, flows a distance of 1.25 cm under impact of 25 blows in a standard liquid limit
apparatus. The soil at that water content has some strength, which is about 0.17 N/cm2
(17.6gm/cm2). At this water content, soil just passes from liquid state to plastic state.
The calculation was done by the formula:

…………………………………………..3.2

3.8.4.1.1The precision statement for liquid limit

I have used the precision for liquid limit test according to AASHTO T-89, which describes this
precision statement, applies to soils having a liquid limit ranged from 21 to 67.
1. Repeatability: - (single operator)
Two results obtained by the same operator on the same sample in the same laboratory with
the same apparatus, and different days should be considered suspect if they differ by more than
7% of their mean
2. Reproducibility: - (multi laboratory operator)
Two results obtained by different operators in different laboratories should be considered suspect
if they differ from each other by more than 13% of their mean.
3.8.4.2 Plastic limit test
The moisture at which soil has the smallest plasticity is known as the plastic limit. Just after
plastic limit, the soil displays the properties of a semi-solid. For determination purpose, the

38
plastic limit is defined as the water content at which soil will just begin to crumble when rolled
into a thread of 3 mm in diameter. The difference in moisture content or interval between the
liquid and plastic limits is termed as the plasticity index. The values of liquid limit and plastic
limit are directly used for classifying the fine-grained cohesive soil according to AASHTO T-90
on soil classification.

…………………………………………..3.3

3.8.4.1.1The precision statement for plastic limit

The precision for plastic limit test according to AASHTO T-90 have been used, which describes
this precision statement, applies to soils having a liquid limit ranged from15 to 32.
1. Repeatability: - (single operator)
Two results obtained by the same operator on the same sample in the same laboratory with the
same apparatus, and different days should be considered suspect if they differ by more than 10%
of their mean.
2. Reproducibility: - (multi laboratory operator)
Two results obtained by different operators in different laboratories should be considered suspect
if they differ from each other by more than 18% of their mean.

3.9 Compaction test

Compaction is the application of mechanical energy to densify a soil in order to reorganize its
particles and reduce the void ratio. Modified compaction test was performed to determine OMC
and MDD of the soil by using AASHTO T 180, 2019, AASHTO T 99, 2013 & ASTM D 1557. It
is called the process of densification of soils. The formula for calculating:

………………………………………………………………………………3.4

Where, W=% of moisture in soil specimen based on dry mass of soil.

A= Mass of container with wet soil
B= Mass of container with dry soil
C= Mass of container
W= Dry mass in Kg/m3 (g/cm3) of compacted soil.

39
Table 3 5: Typical Values of MDD and OMC for Common Types of soils. (AASHTO T 99,
2013).
Soil Class Description Range of MDD g/cm3 Range of OMC (%)
Highly plastic clays 1.20-1.68 19-36
Silty clays 1.52-1.92 12-24
Silts and clayey silts 1.52-1.92 12-24
Clayey sands 1.68-2.00 11-19
Silty sands 1.76-2.00 11-16
Poorly-graded sands 1.60-1.92 12-21
Well-graded sands 1.76-2.08 9-16
Gravel, sand, clay mixes 1.84-2.08 9-14
Poorly-graded gravels 1.84-2.00 11-14
Well-graded gravels 2.00-2.16 8-11
3.9.1 The precision statement for Moisture Density Relationship
I have used the precision for Moisture Density Relationship test according to AASHTO T-99-95, which
describes this precision statement, applies to soils having Moisture Density Relationship.
1. Repeatability: - (single operator)
Two results obtained by the same operator on the same sample in the same laboratory with the
same apparatus, and different days should be considered suspect if they differ by more than 10%
of their mean for optimum moisture content and 35Kg/m3 (0.035g/cm3) for Maximum Dry
Density.
2. Reproducibility: - (multi laboratory operator)
Two results obtained by different operators in different laboratories should be considered suspect
if they differ from each other by more than 15% of their mean for OMC and 75Kg/m 3
(0.075g/cm3) for MDD.

3.10 California Bearing Ratio

Laboratory California Bearing Ratio (CBR) Test has been performed by using - (AASHTO T
193-63, 2013) and ASTM D 1883-73 procedure ERA Design manual, 2002.This test method is
helps to determine the CBR of a soil material with optimum water content or a range of water
content from a specified dry unit weight of specified compaction test and. The weight of the dry
unit is generally provided as a percentage of the maximum dry density of the compaction tests of
either standard proctor test or modified proctor test as specified in ASTM D 698 and ASTM D
1557 respectively. This thesis deals with the laboratory method to determine the C.B.R. of
40
undisturbed and reshaped/compacted soil samples, both wet and non-wet, to that required for the
corresponding penetration of a standard material. The California Bearing Ratio (CBR) is an
important soil parameter in the design of flexible pavements, as it is considered the strength
measurement parameter. The determination of the CBR is very complex and time-consuming.
Simplified method based on liquid limit, plastic limit, plasticity index, optimum moisture content
and maximum dry soil density were used to estimate the CBR value.

3.10.1 Preparation of the specimen

Prepare the remolded soil sample to maximum dry density or some other density wherein the
CBR test is performed. Maintain the specimen at optimum moisture content material or the field
moisture as required. Take approximately 4.5 to 5.5 kg of soil and blend it very well with the
specified water. Compact the sample with the mold using heavy compaction. In modified
compaction test, we compact the soil in five equal layers, wherein each layer is given 56 blows
with the aid of using 4.5 kg rammer and in heavy compaction we compact the soil in 5 layers, 56
blows to each layer with the aid of using the 4.89 kg rammer. Remove the collar and trim off
soil. Turn the mold upside down and then remove the base plate and displacer disc. Weigh the
mold with compacted soil and then determine the bulk density and dry density. Place filter paper
on top of the compacted soil (collar side) and clamp the perforated base plate on to it.
3.10.2 Equipment’s and tool required for CBR
 Cylindrical mould having inside diameter 150 mm and height 175 mm, provided with a
detachable extension collar 50 mm height and a detachable perforated base plate 10 mm
thick.
 . Spacer disc with diameter 148 mm and 47.7 mm in height along with handle.
 Metal rammers weighing 2.6 kg with a drop of 310 mm (or) weight 4.89 kg a drop 450
mm.
 Weights. One annular metal weight and several slotted weights each weighing 2.5 kg,
147 mm in diameter, with a central hole of 53 mm in diameter.
 Loading machine shall have a capacity of 5000 kg and equipped with a movable base or
head that travels at a uniform rate of 1.25 mm/min. Complete with load indicating device.

41
  The metal penetration piston shall be 50 mm in diameter and minimum of 100 mm in
length.
 I.S. sieves 4.75mm and 20mm.
 Miscellaneous apparatus such as a mixing bowl, straight edge, scales soaking tank or pan,
drying oven, containers and filter paper.

3.11. Activity Classifying Procedure

The activity (A) of a soil is the ratio of the plasticity index and the percent of clay-sized particles
(less than 2 μm) present. From the activity, one can predict the dominant clay mineral present in
a soil sample. Activity indicates big extent extrude while wetted and big shrinkage while dried.
Activity is measure of the water-holding capacity of clayey soils. The activity of clay
between, 0.75 - 1.25, in this range, clay is normal, if plasticity index is approximately equal to
the clay fraction (A=1). When activity is less than 0.75, it considered inactive. When activity it is
greater than 1.25, it considered active, in this condition soil contains clay, montmorillonit has
very high actively which A ˃4, kaolinite are less active as A˂1 and illite are moderately as A=1
to2 (Lyon, 1971). Depending upon the activity the soils are classified into three types.
Table 3 6: Classification of soils based on activity
S/N Activity Soil type
1 <0.75 In active
2 0.75-1.25 Normal
3 >1.25 Active
Similarly, According to R.K. Arora, 2003 Soils containing the mineral montmrillonit have a very
high activity (A > 4). The soil containing the mineral Kaolinite are the least active (A<1),
whereas the soil containing the mineral illite are moderately active (A= 1 to 2).
Table 3 7: Soil containing mineral type According to R.K. Arora, 2003
Activity Soil type activity Soil containing mineral type
very high actively Montmorillonit
less actively Kaolinite
moderately actively Illite

42
3.12 Sampling Methods and Sample Preservation
According to ERA site investigation manual, 2013 test pits were therefore selected on either side
of soddo – sawula highway to Beklosegn road at 2 km interval of the carriage way. Collection of
representative soil samples as the road is in operation and therefore test pits could not be dug
along the center line of the road. Totally twenty soil samples were taken from ten pits at the
depth of 1.2 m for the sample –A and 1.5 m deep for the sample –B below the proposed sub-
grade level. The name of the sampling area and the depth of sampling were written on each
sampling container with waterproof permanent marker, packing of samples. Representative,
large amount of samples for index property and CBR testing has been taken from pits.

3.13. Regression Analysis

In this research work, an attempt is made to apply single linear regression analysis and multiple
linear regression analysis to characterize the soil strength of the subgrade from the soil index
parameters using a statistical approach. The general representation of a probabilistic single and
multiple linear regression models are presented in the following forms:
Y = β0+ β1x + ε (4.1) Y = αo+ α1x1 + α2x2…+ αnxn + ε………………………………… (4.2)
where; the slope (β1) and intercept (β0) of the single linear regression model are called
regression coefficients. Similarly, coefficients αo, α1, and α2 and αn are termed multiple
regression coefficients. The appropriate way to generalize this to a probabilistic linear model is
to assume that the actual value of Y is determined by the mean value function (the linear model)
plus the random error term, ε. The basic assumption for estimating the regression coefficients of
the simple and multiple regression models is based on the method of the least squares. Specific
to this research, a statistical package for social science software (SPSS) and MS-Excels is
employed to investigate the significance of individual repressors variables. Out of these
equations, equations with higher R2 values were selected and CBR of the study area was
calculated.

3.14. Apparatuses used to do laboratory tests

 Water content determination: - Drying oven, Balance, Moisture can, Gloves, Spatula.
 Specific gravity determination: - Pycnometer, Balance, Funnel, and Spoon.

43
 Grain size analysis (sieve and hydrometer analysis):- Balance, Set of sieves, Sieve shaker, Mixer
(blender), 152H Hydrometer, Sedimentation cylinder, Control cylinder, Thermometer, Timing
device.
 Atterberg limits:- Cassagrande cup device, Glass plate, Drying oven set at 105°C, Flat grooving
tool with gage, moisture cans, Balance, Spatula, Wash bottle filled with distilled water.
 Compaction test:- Moulds, Manual rammer, Drying oven, Extruder, Balance, Mixing pan,
Trowel, #4 sieve, Moisture cans.
 CBR test:- Mould , Spacer Disc , Surcharge weight ,Steel Cutting collar, Dial gauges ,IS Sieves,
Penetration Plunger, Loading Machine, Miscellaneous Apparatus.
 Swelling pressure test: - Odometer cell and CBR mould.
 Correlation and Regression: - Carried Out to obtain the relationship between index properties and
laboratories CBR and to develop new model of equation by using SPSS software and MS-excel
has been used.

44
 CHAPTER FOUR
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1. Introduction
In this study, the analysis was carried out on the results of the experimental tests in order to
characterize the index properties of the subgrade soil of the study area. The most important
parameters to understand and identify the subgrade soil are grain size analysis and classification,
natural moisture content, specific gravity, Atterberg limits, compaction characteristics, and
soaked California Bearing Ratio results analyzed and interpreted while using the statistical
description method. Also simple linear regression, multiple linear regressions models were
developed using the data obtained from the soil properties. These properties used include liquid
limit (LL), plastic limit (PL), optimum moisture content (OMC), maximum dry density (MDD),
Clay(CL), Sand (S)and Finer soil (Percent passing the number 200 sieve size) (P200).

4.2. Natural Moisture Content

The natural moisture content of the soil samples was determined from the undisturbed samples
using ASTM D 4643-00, and Table 4.1 presents the results. Natural moisture content of soil of
the study area ranges from (21.09-29.85%). Natural moisture content is a key parameter to
understand the characteristics and the performance of soil and its degree of compaction at the
site. The results in Table 4. 1 shows that these soils can hold a significant level of moisture. As
stated by Terzaghi (1996) most typical values for the natural moisture content of clay soils are
between 22 and 70%. The results of the study also conform to the specified standard.

4.3. Index properties, compaction characteristics and CBR results.

The results of index properties, compaction characteristics and Californian Bearing Ratio from
the experiment conducted in the laboratory. The soil properties include index properties of the
soil such as the liquid limit, the plastic limit, grain size distribution analysis such as gravel, sand,
silt & clay, and specific gravity. While compaction characteristics used were maximum dry
density & optimum moisture content.

45
Tbale 4 1: Index properties, compaction test and CBR results of Beklosegno soil.
Pit No. Atterberg Limit Sp. NMC Soil Type Compaction CBR
gravi (%) characteristics (%)
LL PL PI ty Grave Sand Clay (%) Silt & Silt OMC MDD
(%) (%) (%) l (%) (%) clay (%) (%) (%) (g/cc3)
Tp-1A 50.77 37.55 13.22 2.58 29.70 1.10 5.61 63.07 93.29 30.22 27.49 1.49 10.66
Tp-1B 49.60 35.75 13.85 2.56 27.84 0.10 7.03 58.52 92.87 34.35 25 1.56 11.15
Tp-2A 49.17 29.92 19.25 2.56 30.86 0.10 3.3 60.87 96.60 35.73 28.00 1.464 11.48
Tp-2B 50.82 31.15 19.67 2.56 29.38 0.20 5.89 51.22 93.91 42.69 24.83 1.56 12.79
Tp-3A 49.71 32.39 17.32 2.57 25.61 0.10 2.49 69.21 97.41 28.20 34.43 1.41 11.48
Tp-3B 51.33 33.57 17.76 2.58 21.09 0.20 10.56 51.59 89.24 37.65 21.09 1.508 11.31
Tp-4A 55.06 34.00 21.06 2.58 26.10 0.10 2.49 65.85 97.41 31.56 27.50 1.45 10.66
Tp-4B 47.89 33.33 14.56 2.61 26.46 0.28 2.26 68.57 97.46 28.89 33 1.419 11.48
Tp-5A 49.04 36.11 12.93 2.56 29.85 0.00 7.66 65.76 92.34 26.58 24.04 1.476 10.66
Tp-5B 51.52 33.66 17.86 2.56 29.42 0.08 4.79 61.51 95.13 33.62 27.52 1.49 9.84
Tp-6A 53.96 34.06 19.90 2.62 25.76 0.00 7.41 56.00 92.59 36.59 22.72 1.562 3.28
Tp-6B 47.76 36.36 11.40 2.56 28.62 0.00 3.61 68.65 96.39 27.74 24. 77 1.56 12.13
Tp-7A 51.51 37.67 13.84 2.56 26.81 0.32 13.13 61.64 86.55 24.91 23.79 1.547 11.48
Tp-7B 48.77 36.64 12.13 2.56 28.42 0.20 11.63 62.48 88.17 25.69 23.68 1.559 10.98
Tp-8A 50.91 34.98 15.93 2.57 27.34 0.56 6.75 64.33 92.69 28.33 28.57 1.515 11.48
Tp-8B 51.10 36.49 14.61 2.60 28.08 0.10 6.43 57.72 93.47 35.75 28.89 1.517 10.66
Tp-9A 49.07 35.13 13.94 2.60 27.67 0.96 6.82 63.54 92.22 28.68 30.07 1.475 12.46
Tp-9B 51.69 36.36 15.33 2.62 27.79 1.82 7.89 63.37 90.29 26.92 29.23 1.447 10.21
Tp-10A 51.63 39.55 12.08 2.68 28.86 0.28 5.93 61.94 93.79 31.85 29.19 1.511 12.46
Tp-10B 49.03 39.05 9.98 2.70 27.32 1.08 8.67 53.61 90.25 36.64 29.74 1.504 11.97

The range of soil properties studied in this investigation was found to be for NMC 21.09 – 29.85, for LL 47.76 – 55.06%, for PL 29.92-
39.55%, for PI 9.98-19.90%, for Gs 2.56– 2.70, for Gravel 0.10– 1.82% for Sand 2.26– 13.13%, for clay 51.22– 69.21%, for silt 25.69– 42.
69%, for fines (silt & clay) 86.55– 97.46%), for OMC 21.0-33.00%, for MDD 1.41 - 1.56 g/cc, and for CBR 3.28-12.79%. Most of the soil
samples have shown fine-grained soils. Table 4.2 shows the range and average values of the soil properties tested.

46
The CBR value of the subgrade soil is ranging from the poorest 3.28 to very good 12.70 of CBR
value. The test result for CBR is ranged from 3.28%-12.79%. The value shows that it is poor to
fair. Symbolically it represented as OH, MH, CH. Generally the soil is categorized inorganic clay
high plasticity, fat clays compressible soil. The characterization of the subgrade soil of the study
area result shows that fine grain is the dominant subgrade soil type. Therefor it has a very low
bearing capacity, which makes the soil unsuitable to use as a road subgrade, which requires the
stabilization of the soil to be used as a roadway subgrade is recommended.
Tbale 4 2: The range and average values of soil properties tested
Test Type Range of soil Average value
Specific Gravity 2.56– 2.70 2.59
LL (%) 47.76 – 55.06 50.52
PL (%) 29.92-39.55 35.19
PI (%) 9.98-19.90 15.33
P200 (%)silt & clay 86.55– 97.46 93.10
Clay Content (%) 51.22– 69.21 61.47
Silt content (%) 25.69– 42.69 31.63
Gravel (%) 0.10– 1.82 0.38
Sand (%) 2.26– 13.13 6.52
OMC (%) 21.0-33.00 27.18
MDD (%) 1.41 - 1.56 g/cc 1.50
CBR (%) 3.28-12.79% 10.93
NMC 21.09 – 29.85 27.65
The data indicates the average value of LL is 50.52% which indicates greater than 50%, high
swelling potential according to (O‟Neill & Poor moayed, 1980), the average value of PL is
35.19% and PI is 15.33 % which indicates high expansive soil according to (Chen F. H, 1988).
The specific gravity of the study area ranges from 2.56– 2.70, it tells the absence of organic
matter according to (Arora, 2003), the average value of percent passing the 75μm sieve size soil
is 93.10% which is greater than 35%, OMC is 27.18% which is greater than 19,it indicates that
the soil is high plastic clay and the maximum dry density of 1.50g/cc between (1.2-1.68g/cc) also
shows the soil is high plastic clay and the average value of CBR is 10.93% which is greater than
5% which indicates that the characteristics of the studying sub grade soil is fine Grained Soil
(high plastic clay soil) according to ERA design manual,2002 and (AASHTO, 2013).
47
4.4. Specific Gravity
The specific gravity is an important parameter to identify the type of soil and its characteristics,
the classification and its suitability as a building material. K.R. Arora (2003) suggested that the
specific gravity of inorganic clay soil is in the range from 2.68–2.80 and the range of silt is 2.66-
2.70. The result of the specific gravity of the soil indicated in Table 4.1. The specific gravity of
the soil samples was determined by using the specification of ASTM D 854-02. The specific
gravity of all the samples lies between (2.56 to 2.70).Therefor the result falls in silt.

4.5. Grain Size Distribution Analysis

Particle size analysis was performed by using the wet sieve analysis and hydrometer method in
accordance with AASHTO T 88, 2019 and ASTM D42298. The results of the hydrometer and
particle size distribution methods were combined using accepted standards and the particle size
distribution curves were obtained. The test result for Sand 2.26%-13.13%, Silt 25.69%-42.69%,
and Clay 51.22%-69.21%. The percentage of soil passed through sieve No. 200 (0.75 mm) was
ranging from 86.55% to 97.46% which indicated that the soil in the study area was fine-grained
(clay) soil.
Table 4 3: Grain Size Distribution Analysis results
Pit Sp. Sieve analysis result (Soil Type) Sp. Sieve analysis result (Soil Type)
No. grav Gra San Clay Silt Silt Pit No. grav Gra Sand Cla Silt Silt
ity vel d (%) & (%) ity vel (%) y & (%)
(%) (%) clay (%) (%) clay
(%) (%)
Tp-1A 2.58 1.10 5.61 63.07 93.29 30.22 Tp-6A 2.62 0.00 7.41 56.0 92.59 36.6
Tp-1B 2.56 0.10 7.03 58.52 92.87 34.35 Tp-6B 2.56 0.00 3.61 68.6 96.39 27.7
Tp-2A 2.56 0.10 3.3 60.87 96.60 35.73 Tp-7A 2.56 0.32 13.13 61.6 86.55 24.9
Tp-2B 2.56 0.20 5.89 51.22 93.91 42.69 Tp-7B 2.56 0.20 11.63 62.5 88.17 25.7
Tp-3A 2.57 0.10 2.49 69.21 97.41 28.20 Tp-8A 2.57 0.56 6.75 64.3 92.69 28.3
Tp-3B 2.58 0.20 10.6 51.59 89.24 37.65 Tp-8B 2.60 0.10 6.43 57.7 93.47 35.8
Tp-4A 2.58 0.10 2.49 65.85 97.41 31.56 Tp-9A 2.60 0.96 6.82 63.5 92.22 28.7
Tp-4B 2.61 0.28 2.26 68.57 97.46 28.89 Tp-9B 2.62 1.82 7.89 63.4 90.29 26.9
Tp-5A 2.56 0.00 7.66 65.76 92.34 26.58 Tp-10A 2.68 0.28 5.93 62.0 93.79 32.0
Tp-5B 2.56 0.08 4.79 61.51 95.13 33.62 Tp10B 2.70 1.08 8.67 53.6 90.25 36.6
The range of soil properties studied in this investigation was found to be for Gs 2.56– 2.70, for
Gravel 0.10– 1.82% for Sand 2.26– 13.13%, for clay 51.22– 69.21%, for silt 25.69– 42. 69%,
for fines (silt & clay) 86.55– 97.46%), Most of the soil samples have shown fine-grained soils.
Table 4.2 shows the range and average values of the soil properties tested.

48
 Gradation Graph For Sieve And Hydrometer Test

(4.75mm-0.075mm) (0.075mm-0.002mm) <0.002mm TP1 A@1.2m

Sand Silt Clay TP2 A@1.2m
TP3 A@1.2m
100
TP4 A@1.2m

75 TP5 A@1.2m
% of finer

TP6 A@1.2m
50 TP7 A@1.2m
TP8 A@1.2m
25
TP9 A@1.2m
0 TP10 A@1.2m
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001

sieve size(mm)

Figure 4 1: Gradation Curves of the Case Area from TP1-A to TP10-A @1.2m

Gradation Graph For Sieve And Hydrometer Test

(0.075mm-0.002mm) <0.002mm TP1 B@1.5m

(4.75mm-0.075mm)
Sand Silt Clay TP2 B@1.5m
TP3 B@1.5m
100
TP4 B@1.5m

75 TP5 B@1.5m
% of finer

TP6 B@1.5m
50
TP7 B@1.5m

25 TP8 B@1.5m
TP9 B@1.5m
0
TP10 B@1.5m
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
sieve size(mm)

Figure 4 2: Gradation Curves of the Case Area from TP1-B to TP10-B @1.5

49
4.6. Atterberg Limits
Soil index property tests involves determining Atterberg limits, such as the plastic limit (PL),
liquid limit (LL) and plasticity index (PI) of the soil. The liquid limit and the plastic limit are
moisture contents which correspond respectively to the liquid and plastic state thresholds of the
soil. The test was performed in accordance with AASHTO T 89 and ASTMD 4318 for Liqiud
limit and AASHTO T 90,2O16 and ASTMD 4318 for plastic limit.
Tbale 4 4: Atterberg limit test results
Atterberg Limit test result
Pit No. LL PL PI pit No. LL PL PI
(%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)
`Tp-1A 50.77 37.55 13.22 Tp-6A 53.96 34.06 19.90
Tp-1B 49.60 35.75 13.85 Tp-6B 47.76 36.36 11.40
Tp-2A 49.17 29.92 19.25 Tp-7A 51.51 37.67 13.84
Tp-2B 50.82 31.15 19.67 Tp-7B 48.77 36.64 12.13
Tp-3A 49.71 32.39 17.32 Tp-8A 50.91 34.98 15.93
Tp-3B 51.33 33.57 17.76 Tp-8B 51.10 36.49 14.61
Tp-4A 55.06 34.00 21.06 Tp-9A 49.07 35.13 13.94
Tp-4B 47.89 33.33 14.56 Tp-9B 51.69 36.36 15.33
Tp-5A 49.04 36.11 12.93 Tp-10A 51.63 39.55 12.08
Tp-5B 51.52 33.66 17.86 Tp-10B 49.03 39.05 9.98
The range of Atterberg limit test in this investigation was found to be for LL 47.76 – 55.06%, for
PL 29.92-39.55%, for PI 9.98-19.90%, Table 4.3 shows the range and average values of the soil
properties tested. From this test results I can observe that liquid limit 47.76 to 55.06%, plastic
limit 29.92 to 39.55% and plastic index 9.98 to 19.90%. Therefore, due to its LL is greater than
50%, the soil is high swelling potential. The word plasticity is synonymous with the ability to
shape soil and also indicates the cohesive nature of soil. Different agencies have different ways
of classifying soil plasticity.
Wagner (2013) suggests that if PI ≥ 20 for the soil type, it can be classified as a cohesive clay
soil with high plasticity characteristics. The Plastic Index (PI) is also used as an indicator of the
degree of soil cohesion, with a high value of PI indicating a high degree of cohesion. The results
in Table 4. 3 The liquid limits and plasticity index of the studied soils are both greater than the
values recommended by ERA, Pavement Design Manual Volume I, 2002, which is suggests that
the liquid limit should be less than or equal to 30% and the plasticity index should be less than or
equal to 10% for suitable materials for subgrade. AASHTO26th, ed. (2006) also suggested that

50
fine-grained soil are not suitable for sub-grade material. This implies that these soils are not
suitable for subgrade without improvement.

4.4 Liquidity Index (LI)

According to AASHTO T 90, 2016 and M. Budhu, 2000; its values were less than zero; thus, the
soil samples were in the semisolid state, high strength, brittle (sudden) fracture is expected.
Table 4 5: the Liquidity Index of soil sample found in Wolaita Zone Beklosegno road
Test pits No. Natural moisture content PL (%) PI (%) Liquidity Index
(LI)
Test pit-1 A 29.70 37.55 13.22 -0.59
B 27.84 35.75 13.85 -0.57
Test pit-2 A 30.86 29.92 19.25 0.05
B 29.38 31.15 19.67 -0.09
Test pit-3 A 25.61 32.39 17.32 -0.39
B 21.09 33.57 17.76 -0.70
Test pit-4 A 26.10 34.00 21.06 -0.38
B 26.46 33.33 14.56 -0.47
Test pit-5 A 29.85 36.11 12.93 -0.48
B 29.42 33.66 17.86 -0.24
Test pit-6 A 25.76 34.06 19.90 -0.42
B 28.62 36.36 11.40 -0.68
Test pit-7 A 26.81 37.67 13.84 -0.78
B 28.42 36.64 12.13 -0.68
Test pit-8 A 27.34 34.98 15.93 -0.48
B 28.08 36.49 14.61 -0.58
Test pit-9 A 27.67 35.13 13.94 -0.54
B 27.79 36.36 15.33 -0.56
Test pit-10 A 28.86 39.55 12.08 -0.88
B 27.32 39.05 9.98 -1.18

For all soil samples the liquidity index values were less than zero; thus, the soil samples were in the
semisolid state, high strength, brittle (sudden) fracture is expected as indicated in the table.

4.7. Soil Classification

The most widely used soil classification systems are the AASHTO and USCS systems. In this thesis
work, classification of the soil of the study area was made based on the most popular engineering soil
classification namely: and AASHTO classification system.

4.7.1 AASHTO Classification Result

The studying areas road of sub grade Soils are classified after conducting index tests such as
liquid limit, plastic limit and grain size analysis. Since the percentage of particles passing 75

51
micrometers sieve for all soil sample is greater than 35%, soils of the study area are found to be
fine-grained soil, as shown in the figure 4.3. The AASHTO soil classification system was used
for this study. Figure 5 shows the floor classification table for fine grain land, with data points
for each indicated soil sample. It shows that all soils samples are fine and fall under AASHTO
A-7-5 materials with group index greater than 4, which means the soils are poor sub grade for the
road construction.

Tp1 A@1.2m
PLASTICITY CHART(AASHTO) Tp1 B@ 1.5m
80.0 Tp2 A@1.2m
Tp2 B@ 1.5m
Tp3 A@ 1.2m
Tp3 B@ 1.5m
60.0 Tp4 A@ 1.2m
Plasticity index
Plasticity index

Tp4 B@1.5m
Tp5 A@1.2m
40.0 Tp5 B@ 1.5m
A-7-6 Tp6 A@1.2m
A-6 A-7-5 Tp6 B@1.5m
Tp7 A@1.2m
20.0 A-2-4 Tp7 B@1.5m
Tp8 A@1.2m
Tp8 B@1.5m
0.0
A-4 & A-2-4 A-5 & A-2-5 Tp9 A@1.2m
Tp9 B@1.5m
0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 Tp10 A@1.2m
LIQUID LIMIT Tp10 B@1.5m

Figure 4 3:( AAHITO) soil classification of Soddo to Beklosegno road fine grained soil

52
 Figure 4 4:( AASHITO) soil classification of Soddo to Beklosegno road fine grained soil.
pits LL % PL PI % Silt & clay Group Type of soil Subgrade
No % (%) Classification strength class
Test pit-1 A 50.77 37.55 13.22 93.29 A-7-5 Clay soil S4
B 49.60 35.75 13.85 92.87 A-7-5 Clay soil S4
Test pit-2 A 49.17 29.92 19.25 96.60 A-7-5 Clay soil S4
B 50.82 31.15 19.67 93.91 A-7-5 Clay soil S4
Test pit-3 A 49.71 32.39 17.32 97.41 A-7-5 Clay soil S4
B 51.33 33.57 17.76 89.24 A-7-5 Clay soil S4
Test pit-4 A 55.06 34.00 21.06 97.41 A-7-5 Clay soil S4
B 47.89 33.33 14.56 97.46 A-7-5 Clay soil S4
Test pit-5 A 49.04 36.11 12.93 92.34 A-7-5 Clay soil S4
B 51.52 33.66 17.86 95.13 A-7-5 Clay soil S4
Test pit-6 A 53.96 34.06 19.90 92.59 A-7-5 Clay soil S2
B 47.76 36.36 11.40 96.39 A-7-5 Clay soil S4
Test pit-7 A 51.51 37.67 13.84 86.55 A-7-5 Clay soil S4
B 48.77 36.64 12.13 88.17 A-7-5 Clay soil S4
Test pit-8 A 50.91 34.98 15.93 92.69 A-7-5 Clay soil S4
B 51.10 36.49 14.61 93.47 A-7-5 Clay soil S4
Test pit-9 A 49.07 35.13 13.94 92.22 A-7-5 Clay soil S4
B 51.69 36.36 15.33 90.29 A-7-5 Clay soil S4
Test pit- A 51.63 39.55 12.08 93.79 A-7-5 Clay soil S4
10 B 49.03 39.05 9.98 90.25 A-7-5 Clay soil S4

Most of the soils of the study area fell under A-7-5, as shown in table 4.4 and figures 4.5, which
indicate that the soils are clay according to the AASHTO classification. In general, A7 materials
are considered the worst performers when it comes to road construction.
Further, more group index values of the samples was calculated and indicated that most samples
are more than 20 which indicates that percentage amount of fine particles 75μm is high, hence,
the soils are highly plastic nature and cannot be used for subgrade material. The larger the
plasticity index implies more problems associated with the use of the soil as an engineering
material, such as road sub-grade.

4.3.2 Unified Soil Classification System (ASTM D 2487)

Experimental results from soils tested from different samples were plotted on a graph of
plasticity index (ordinate) versus liquid limit (abscissa) as shown in fig. 4.6 while classified
results, according to UCSCS, were obtained from PL, LL and PI as shown in table 4.4.

53
Table 4 6: USCS soil classification of Beklosegno road fine grained soil
USCS soil classification USCS Group Symbols
Pits No. LL (%) PL (%) PI (%) (silt clay)(%)
Test pit- A 50.77 37.55 13.22 93.29 High plastic silty MH
1 B 49.60 35.75 13.85 92.87 Low plastic silty ML

Test pit- A 49.17 29.92 19.25 96.60 low plastic silty ML

2
B 50.82 31.15 19.67 93.91 High plastic silty MH

Test pit- A 49.71 32.39 17.32 97.41 Low plastic silty ML

3 B 51.33 33.57 17.76 89.24 High plastic silty MH

Test pit- A 55.06 34.00 21.06 97.41 High plastic silty MH

4
B 47.89 33.33 14.56 97.46 Low plastic silty ML

Test pit- A 49.04 36.11 12.93 92.34 Low plastic silty ML

5 B 51.52 33.66 17.86 95.13 High plastic silty MH
Test pit- A 53.96 34.06 19.90 92.59 High plastic silty MH
6 B 47.76 36.36 11.40 96.39 Low plastic silty ML
Test pit- A 51.51 37.67 13.84 86.55 High plastic silty MH
7 B 48.77 36.64 12.13 88.17 Low plastic silty ML
Test pit- A 50.91 34.98 15.93 92.69 High plastic silty MH
8 B 51.10 36.49 14.61 93.47 High plastic silty MH
Test pit- A 49.07 35.13 13.94 92.22 Low plastic silty ML
9 B 51.69 36.36 15.33 90.29 High plastic silty MH
Test pit- A 51.63 39.55 12.08 93.79 High plastic silty MH
10 B 49.03 39.05 9.98 90.25 Low plastic silty ML
According to USCS as shown in table 4.6 and almost all TP lie below U-Line. Therefore the soils of the
study area fell under MH region which shows that the soils are low compressible inorganic silts of high
plasticity. The samples; Tp1-A, Tp2-B, Tp3-B, Tp4-A, Tp5-B, Tp6-A, Tp7-A, Tp8-A, Tp9-B, Tp10-A
are having LL > 50% and PI below A-line from the plasticity chart are classified as MH, that is highly
plastic silt, and fine grained soil with more than 35% passes No 200 or <15% plus No 200 sieve, therefore
the soil is elastic silt.

4.3.3 Classification based on activity

The soil activities of the study area are calculated on the basis of the results obtained from the analysis of
the hydrometer (% of the clay fraction) and the Atterberg limit (PI). Accordingly soils of the study area
ranges in the active soil. Activity, measure of the water holding capacity of clayey soils is obtained from
clay fraction and plastic index as shown in figure 4.5.

54
 Tp1 A@ 1.2m
80
PLASTICITY CHART(USCS)
Tp1 B@ 1.5m

Tp2 A@ 1.2m
60
Tp2 B@ 1.5m
Plasticity index

40 Tp3 A@ 1.2m
CH
Tp3 B@ 1.5m
20 CL-ML CL MH
Tp4 A@ 1.2m

0 ML OL Tp4 B@1.5m
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
LIQUID LIMIT

Table 4 7: Activity of soils of the study area

Location Depth(m) % PI % Clay Ac Remark
Test pit-1 A 1.2 13.22 63.07 0.21 Inactive
B 1.5 13.85 58.52 0.24 Inactive
Test pit-2 A 1.2 19.25 60.87 0.32 Inactive
B 1.5 19.67 51.22 0.38 Inactive
Test pit-3 A 1.2 17.32 69.21 0.02 Inactive
B 1.5 17.76 51.59 0.34 Inactive
Test pit-4 A 1.2 21.06 65.85 0.32 Inactive
B 1.5 14.56 68.57 0.21 Inactive
Test pit-5 A 1.2 12.93 65.76 0.20 Inactive
B 1.5 17.86 61.51 0.29 Inactive
Test pit-6 A 1.2 19.90 56.00 0.36 Inactive
B 1.5 11.40 68.65 0.17 Inactive
Test pit-7 A 1.2 13.84 61.64 0.22 Inactive
B 1.5 12.13 62.48 0.19 Inactive
Test pit-8 A 1.2 15.93 64.33 0.25 Inactive
B 1.5 14.61 57.72 0.25 Inactive
Test pit-9 A 1.2 13.94 63.54 0.22 Inactive
B 1.5 15.33 63.37 0.24 Inactive
Test pit-10 A 1.2 12.08 61.94 0.20 Inactive
B 1.5 9.98 53.61 0.19 Inactive
From the results under figure 4.7 and table 4.5 it can be seen that the activity of the study area
ranged from 0.02 to 0.38, all fall inactive which signifies that the soils of the study area is
characterized as high clay content.

55
 pit 1 A@1.2m
100 pit 1 B@1.5m
pit 2 A@1.2m
Ac=2 Ac=1.25 pit 2 B@1.5m
80
pit 3 A@1.2m
Active Normal pit 3 B@1.5m
60 pit 4 A@1.2m
plastic index (%)

Ac=0.75 pit 4 B@1.5m

40 pit 5 A@1.2m
In Active pit 5 B@1.5m
20 pit 6 A@1.2m
pit 6 B@1.5m
0 pit 7 A@1.2m
pit 7 B@1.5m
0 20 40 60 80 100
pit 8 A@1.2m
Clay content (%) pit 8@1.5m
pit 9 A@1.2m

Figure 4 5: Activity chart of soils of the study area.

4.8. Moisture-Density Relationship

Moisture-density relationship was determined while using the standard modified compaction
method, as specified in AASHTO T 180, 2019 ASTM D 1557and the results for the maximum
dry density (MDD) and the corresponding optimum moisture content (OMC) are shown in
Figure 4.6.
From the test results the maximum dry density (MDD) of study area ranges from 1.41-1.56
gm/cm3 and the average maximum dry density of 1.50g/cc and it lies between (1.2-1.68g/cc) it
indicates that the soil is fine Grained Soil and has high plastic clay soil.
The optimum moisture content is ranges from 21.00%-33.00% for the soil and the average
OMC is 27.18% which is greater than 19, also shows the soil is fine Grained Soil and has high
plastic clay soil. The maximum dry density can be useful in determining the soil CBR value to
use in pavement design. It is common to achieve a density of 95% of the maximum laboratory
dry density using modern compaction equipment. Compaction results show that all soil samples
reach reasonably close maximum dry densities using the same compaction energy, but with a
different optimum moisture content.

56
Table 4 8: Compaction characteristics
pit No. Compaction characteristics CBR Pit No. Compaction characteristics CBR
OMC (%) MDD (%) OMC (%) MDD (%)
(g/cm3) (g/cm3)
`Tp-1A 27.49 1.49 10.66 Tp-6A 22.72 1.562 3.28
Tp-1B 25 1.56 11.15 Tp-6B 24. 77 1.56 12.13
Tp-2A 28.00 1.464 11.48 Tp-7A 23.79 1.547 11.48
Tp-2B 24.83 1.56 12.79 Tp-7B 23.68 1.559 10.98
Tp-3A 34.43 1.41 11.48 Tp-8A 28.57 1.515 11.48
Tp-3B 21.09 1.508 11.31 Tp-8B 28.89 1.517 10.66
Tp-4A 27.50 1.45 10.66 Tp-9A 30.07 1.475 12.46
Tp-4B 33 1.419 11.48 Tp-9B 29.23 1.447 10.21
Tp-5A 24.04 1.476 10.66 Tp10A 29.19 1.511 12.46
Tp-5B 27.52 1.49 9.84 Tp10B 29.74 1.504 11.97

1.7
MDOFIED COMPACTION TEST TP 1A

TP 1B
1.6 TP 2A
Dry Density g/cm3

TP 2B
1.5
TP 3A

1.4 TP 3B

TP 4A
1.3
TP 4B

1.2 TP 5A

TP 5B
1.1
TP 6A

TP 6B
1
0 10 20 30 40 50 TP 7A
Moisture content %

Figure 4 6: Moisture Density Relations of (from TP-1 to TP-10)

57
4.9 California Bearing Ratio (CBR)
This CBR test was performed according to the AASHTO T193-93 specifications. The CBR
values were determined for a soil sample that was molded at 95% of MDD at the penetration of
2.54 mm and 5.08 mm. The results show that the sampled has a very low load capacity, due to its
high plastic characteristic, which requires improvement to be used as a roadway of subgrade.
The test result for CBR is ranged from 3.28%-12.79%. According to ERA design manual 2002,
the value shows that it is poor to fair. Symbolically it represented as OH, MH, CH. Generally the
soil is categorized inorganic clay high plasticity, fat clays compressible soil.

4.10 Sub Grade Strength Class

Sub grade strength class of the study area is performed according to ERA pavement design
manual, (ERA, 2013). Except Test pit 6 samples A, 95% of the observed result falls under
subgrade strength class 4.
Tbale 4 9: shows all the subgrade strength class results.
Pit No. subgrade strength, CBR % Pit No. subgrade strength, CBR %
ERA, 2013 ERA, 2013
1 A S4 10.66 6 A S2 3.28
B S4 11.15 B S4 12.13
2 A S4 11.48 7 A S4 11.48
B S4 12.79 B S4 10.98
3 A S4 11.48 8 A S4 11.48
B S4 11.31 B S4 10.66
4 A S4 10.66 9 A S4 12.46
B S4 11.48 B S4 10.21
5 A S4 10.66 10 A S4 12.46
B S4 9.84 B S4 11.97
4.5. Geotechnical Characterization of Subgrade Material
From the laboratory results, it was observed that all soil samples are fine-grained soils that are
silt and clay material. because more than 35% passing through the 75 micrometer sieve, as
shown in figure 4.2 and 4.3.
The sub-grade soils were classified as, A-7-5 according to AASHTO classification; thus of the
soil samples were clay soil as shown in table 4.5. Based on the activity value, the soils samples
ranged from 0.02 to 0.38, all fall to inactive which signifies that the soils of the study area is
characterized as highly clay content. While based on plasticity chart for the soil samples results
below the A-line. The soils sample of the study area fell under MH region which shows that the
58
soils are low compressible inorganic silts of high plasticity. All the samples having LL > 50%
and PI below A-line from the plasticity chart are classified as MH, OH, and most dominantly CH
that is inorganic clay of highly plastic, fat clays silt. The CBR values for the soil samples, only
Tp6A is below 5% so it is unsuitable to use as a subgrade soils for pavement construction, and
for the soil samples except Tp-6A all were good to use as a subgrade soils for pavement
construction. The subgrade strength classes were fall under S4 based on ERA design manual.
The test result for CBR is ranged from 3.28%-12.79%. According to ERA design manual 2002,
the value shows that it is poor to fair. Symbolically it represented as OH, MH, CH. Generally the
soil is categorized inorganic clay high plasticity, fat clays compressible soil.
Generally; according to ERA, Pavement Design Manual Volume I, 2002 specification the
subgrade material for the soil samples were poor to fair to use as a subgrade soil for pavement
construction. Therefore improvement of the soils should be important.
Table 4 10: The presentation statistical information‟s of the test results.
Variable Variable Unit of No. of Ranges Mean Standard
Type Name Measurement Samples Min. Max. Deviation
Dependent CBR % 20 3. 28 12.79 10.931 3.84
Independent P200 % 20 86.55 97.46 93.1035 9.717
variable LL % 20 47.76 55.06 50.517 3.461
PL % 20 29.92 39.55 35.186 6.13
PI % 20 9.98 19.90 15.331 9.85
MDD % 20 1.41 1.56 0.092183 0.1192
OMC % 20 21.0 33.00 1.4978 30.009
S % 20 2.26 13.13 6.5175 8.903
CL % 20 51.22 69.21 61.4725 28.256
4.8. Regression Analysis
Single linear regression model and multiple linear regression models were adopted In this
research work to characterize the strength of subgrade soil. With the relationship of soil index
properties as independent variable and CBR as dependent variable using a statistical approach.
The general representation of a simple and multiple linear regression probabilistic model is
presented.

4.9. Simple Linear Regression Analysis (SLRA) & Multi Linear regression Analysis
Simple analysis of linear regression (SLRA) was carried out taking into account the CBR value
as a variable dependent and liquid plastic limit, plasticity index, sand, clay, p200, Maximum Dry
Density (MDD), and Optimum Moisture Content (OMC) are considered as independent
59
variables. It has been carried out to develop the correlation between individual soil property and
CBR value. The relationship between the soil properties and CBR are given in equations 4.10
that are models.
In this study linear regression models are developed for the measured and predicted CBR values
of soil, validation is checked by coefficient of correlation. All the models developed do not
predict the dependent variable equally. This may be depending on the relativity of independent
variables with the dependent variable and the number of variables used to predict the dependent
variable. To find models that better predicts the dependent variable; it is required to analyze the
different models.

4.10 Scatter Plot and Best-Fit Curve for independent variables

The MS Excel spreadsheet is the most powerful and manageable tool for analyzing scatter plots
and determining the correlation between two variables. In the subject study, the California
Bearing Ratio (CBR) is taken as the dependent variable; whereas the liquid limit(LL), plastic
limit(PL), plasticity index(PI), Fine grain size(P200), sand(S), Maximum dry density(MDD),
Optimum Moisture Content(OMD), clay(CL) are independent variables. However, when
determination of the relationships among more than two variables are required (the dependent
variable requires two or more independent variables). Regression analysis was performed by
using MS-Excel instead the SPSS software which is found to be the most powerful and
descriptive tool. The scatter plot of the same is presented for the index property of the study area
soil.

4.10.1 CBR vs. %Passing Sieve No.200 (Fine)

The best fitting trend line for relationship between CBR and % passing sieve No.200 is
CBR = 0.0314x2 - 5.7813x + 276.89 as the strength of this correlation has R2; = 0.033.
There for, the correlation is not significant.

P200 y = 7.1937e0.0042x
15 R² = 0.0021
y = 0.032x + 7.9538
10 R² = 0.0026
CBR (%)

5 y = 0.0314x2 - 5.7813x + 276.89

R² =P200
0.033
0 Expon. (P200)
Linear (P200)
85 90 95 100
Log. (P200)
p200 %

60
Figure 4 7: Scatter Diagram of CBR vs. % passing sieve No.200 of the Study Area.
Table 4 11: developed model equations for %Passing Sieve No.200 (Fine)
Model equations Regressions(R2)
0.0042x
CBR = 7.1937e R² = 0.0021
CBR = 0.032x + 7.9538 R² = 0.0026
CBR = 2.7655ln(x) - 1.6056 R² = 0.0023
2
CBR= 0.0314x - 5.7813x + 276.89 R² = 0.033

4.10.2 CBR vs. Liquid Limit (LL)

The best fitting trend line for relationship between CBR and LL is plotted with logarithm,
exponent, linear and polynomial; the strength of those equations in predicting an outcome for the
liquid limit is strongly significant with polynomial function order 2. The best fitting equation of
3 2
CBR vs. liquid limit is: CBR = -0.0635LL + 9.6179LL - 486.17LL + 8206.7. The strength of this
equation in predicting an outcome from the liqiud Limit is R² = 0.9. Which is 84% is significant.
This Show that the relationship is strongly significant.

LL
16
14
12 LL
10
8 Linear (LL)
6
Expon. (LL)
4
2 Log. (LL)
0
46 48 50 52 54 56 Poly. (LL)

Poly. (LL)

Figure 4 8: Scatter Diagram of CBR vs. liquid Limit of the Study Area

61
Table 4 12: developed model equations for liquid limit
Model equations Regressions(R2)
CBR = -45.56ln(LL) + 189.65 R² = 0.6967
-0.116LL
CBR = 3728.5e R² = 0.5612

CBR = -0.9018LL + 56.522 R² = 0.7114

2
CBR = y = -0.1552LL + 14.971LL- 348.74 R² = 0.8409
3 2
CBR = -0.0635LL + 9.6179LL - 486.17LL + 8206.7 R² = 0.9

4.10.3 CBR vs. Plastic Limit (PL)

The relationship between CBR and the plastic limit for the tested samples is shown in figure 5.2.
The best fitting trend line for this relationship is CBR = 0.0861PL2 - 5.9334PL + 112.61 the
strength of this equation in predicting an outcome from the plastic Limit R² = 0.1169. This Show
that the relationship is weak.
y = 7.0858e0.0115x
PL R² = 0.01
15 y = 2.1039ln(x) + 3.4447
R² = 0.0059
10 2
y = 0.0861x - 5.9334x + 112.61
R² = 0.1169
5
PL
CBR%

0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Expon.
(PL)

Plastic Limit (%)

Figure 4 9: Scatter Diagram of CBR vs. Plastic Limit of the Study Area
Table 4 13: developed model equations for liquid limit
Model equations Regressions(R2)
CBR = 2.1039ln(x) + 3.4447 R² = 0.0059
0.0115x
CBR=7.0858e R² = 0.01
2
CBR = 0.0861x - 5.9334x + 112.61 R² = 0.1169

62
4.10.4 CBR vs. Plasticity Index (PI)
2
The best fitting trend line for relationship between CBR and PI is y = -0.015x + 0.236x +
10.989, the strength of this equation in predicting an outcome from the Plasticity index has R² =
0.1496.
y = 17.888e-0.034x
15 PI R² = 0.1398
y = -3.533ln(x) + 20.506
10 R² = 0.138
y = -0.015x2 + 0.236x + 10.989 y = -0.2372x + 14.568
CBR (%)

5 R² = 0.1496 R² = 0.1445
PI
0 Expon. (PI)
0 5 10 15 20 25 Log. (PI)
Poly. (PI)
Plastic Limit (%)
.
Figure 4 10: Scatter Diagram of CBR vs. plasticity index of the Study Area.
Table 4 14: developed model equations for plasticity index.
Model equations Regressions(R2)
-0.034x
CBR = 17.888e R² = 0.1398

CBR = -3.533ln(x) + 20.506 R² = 0.138

2
CBR = -0.015x + 0.236x + 10.989 R² = 0.1496

4.10.5 CBR vs. Maximum Dry Density (MDD)

2
The best fitting trend line for relationship between CBR and Maximum Dry Density is CBR= 490.59x -
772.14x + 22.386, as the strength of this correlation has R² = 0.0317 or 3.17% only and also it is not
significant.
y = 490.59x2 - 772.14x + 22.386 y = 10.608e0.0219x
R² = 0.0317 R² = 0.0007
100 y = 0.0321x + 10.928
R² = 3E-05
0
CBR (%)

y = 0.0013ln(x) + 10.936
0.00% 50.00% 100.00% 150.00% 200.00%
-100 R² = 5E-07
-200
MDD
-300 Expon. (MDD)
Linear (MDD)
MDD (%) Log. (MDD)
Poly. (MDD)

63
Figure 4 11: Scatter Diagram of CBR vs. plasticity index of the Study Area
Table 4 15: developed model equations for Maximum Dry Density.
Model equations Regressions(R2)
0.0219x
CBR = 10.608e R² = 0.0007

CBR = 0.0321x + 10.928 R² = 3E-05

CBR = 0.0013ln(x) + 10.936 R² = 5E-07
2
CBR= 490.59x - 772.14x + 22.386 R² = 0.0317

4.10.6 CBR vs. Optimum Moisture Content (OMC)

The best fitting trend line for relationship between CBR and Optimum Moisture Content (OMC)
2
is CBR =0.0218x - 0.4399x + 12.441, as the strength of this correlation is only 0.9 % or has R²
= 0.09. There for it is not significant.

14 OMC
12
10
8
CBR, %

6
4
2 OMC
0 Expon. (OMC)
0 5 10 15 20 Linear (OMC)
Log. (OMC)
% of OMC Poly. (OMC)

Figure 4 12: Scatter Diagram of CBR vs. Optimum Moisture Content (OMC) of the Study Area
Table 4 16: developed model equations for Optimum Moisture Content (OMC).
Model equations Regressions(R2)
-0.001x
CBR = 10.709e R² = 0.0007

CBR = -0.0038x + 10.915 R² = 0.0001

CBR = -0.153ln(x) + 11.192 R² = 0.0038
2
CBR= 0.0218x - 0.4399x + 12.441 R² = 0.09

4.10.7 CBR vs. Sand (S)

2
The best fitting trend line for relationship between CBR and Sand (S) is CBR= 0.0312x -
0.4998x + 12.597 as the strength of this correlation is only 3.5% or has R² = 0.035. So it is weak.

64
 14
12
10
8
6
4
2 S
0 Expon. (S)
0 5 10 15 Linear (S)
Log. (S)
% of sand Poly. (S)

Figure 4 13: Scatter Diagram of CBR vs. Sand (S) of the Study Area.
Table 4 17: developed model equations for sand.
Model equations Regressions(R2)
-0.007x
CBR= 11.127e R² = 0.0054

CBR = -0.0496x + 11.254 R² = 0.0057

CBR = -0.418ln(x) + 11.668 R² = 0.0118
2
CBR = 0.0312x - 0.4998x + 12.597 R² = 0.035

4.10.8 CBR vs. Clay (CL)

0.0102x
The best fitting trend line for relationship between CBR and Clay (CL) is CBR= 5.6621e ,
as the strength of this correlation is only 3.65% or has R² = 0.0365. So the correlation has no
significant strength.
14
12 CL
10
CBR(%)

8
6
4
2
0 Linear (CL)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Expon. (CL)
Clay (%)
Poly. (CL)

Figure 4 14: Scatter Diagram of CBR vs. Clay (CL) of the Study Area

65
 Table 4 18: developed model equations for Clay (CL).
Model equations Regressions(R2)
0.0102x
CBR=5.6621e R² = 0.0365

CBR = 0.0542x + 7.6011 R² = 0.0216

CBR = 2.9755ln(x) - 1.3128 R² = 0.0182
CBR= 2.9755ln(x) - 1.3128 R² = 0.0182

4.10 Discussion on Correlation Results of regression

The results of various tests conducted on soil were analyzed and correlated with CBR value by
using simple and multi linear regression analysis. The software used in this linear regression
analysis is SPSS or excel. After the results obtained from the laboratory, linear regression
analysis was done to correlate CBR and soil properties. A total of twelve models are developed
for CBR value and the following equations are determined. The results are shown in the
following tables.
Table 4 19: Regression summery report for models
Model Model Equation for CBR Coefficient of
No. correlation(R2)
1 CBR=-0.54716LL+38.57716 R2=0.27
2 CBR=-0.237PI+14.568 R2=0.145
3 CBR=0.0542CL+7.601 R2=0.022
4 CBR=-6.899MDD+21.288 R2=0.028
5 CBR=0.061PL-0.45LL+36.321 R2=0.28
6 CBR=0.22OMC-0.094P200+13.716 R2=0.11
7 CBR=-0.0482PL-0.542PI+0.004CL+35.93 R2=0.28
8 CBR=11.047PL-0.018 R2=0.003
9 CBR=-0.066Ln(PL)+11.071 R2=0.002
10 CBR= -0.93183(LL)+56.52214 R2=0.711
11 CBR = -0.9042(LL)-0.0037(MDD)+56.60721 R2=0.7156
12 CBR = -0.8882(LL)+0.053688(p200)+0.005479(MDD)+50.78189 R2=0.72
13 CBR = -0.92183(LL)-0.10379(0MC)+0.001247(MDD)+60.34351 R2 =0.746
14 CBR=-0.89114(LL)-0.13615(PL)-0.10443(OMC)+0.002529(MDD)+63.58538 R2=0.774
15 CBR=-0.88916(LL)+0.142652(P200)-0.16178(OMC)+0.004604(MDD)+46.95294 R2=0.78
16 CBR=-0.88062(LL)+0.101296(P200)-0.0799(PL)-0.14534(OMC) +0.004384(MDD)
+52.73754 R2=0.79
2)
17 CBR = -0.1552(LL + 14.971(LL)- 348.74 R² = 0.8409
3 2
18 CBR = -0.0635LL + 9.6179LL - 486.17LL + 8206.7 R² = 0.9

66
Coefficient of the Correlation, Table 4.15, indicates that models equation for CBR, Model 18
(R2=0.9) have high strength of association with CBR values. That model shows the best strength
of association among all others based on relationship of predicted values and data of various soil
properties.
The models for CBR is the function of (LL, PL, PI, P200, OMC, MDD) i.e. CBR =fn (LL, PL,
P200, OMC, MDD) with recommended equations are the followings;
CBR=-0.688767(LL)-0.20016(PL)-0.06615(P200)-0.0267(OMC) +0.000505(MDD)-10.4933.
But the simplicity of utilization the best model for CBR is the fn (LL).i.e.
3 2
CBR = -0.0635LL + 9.6179LL - 486.17LL + 8206.7
Table 4 20: Absolute mean error and root mean square error
LL PL PI Actual CBR Predicted CBR MAE RMSE
50.77 37.55 13.22 10.66 11.29525 0.635252 0.403545
49.6 35.75 13.85 11.15 12.00477 0.854768 0.730628
49.17 29.92 19.25 11.48 12.15875 0.678753 0.460705
50.82 31.15 19.67 12.79 11.25546 1.534536 2.354802
49.71 32.39 17.32 11.48 11.95616 0.476158 0.226726
51.33 33.57 17.76 11.31 10.8053 0.504703 0.254725
55.06 34 21.06 10.66 5.058381 5.601619 31.37813
47.89 33.33 14.56 11.48 12.27742 0.797424 0.635885
49.04 36.11 12.93 10.66 12.19401 1.534008 2.35318
51.52 33.66 17.86 9.84 10.61695 0.776946 0.603645
53.96 34.06 19.9 3.28 7.202176 3.922176 15.38346
47.76 36.36 11.4 12.13 12.26103 0.131028 0.017168
51.51 37.67 13.84 11.48 10.62714 0.852862 0.727373
48.77 36.64 12.13 10.98 12.25047 1.270468 1.614089
50.91 34.98 15.93 11.48 11.18189 0.298111 0.08887
51.1 36.49 14.61 10.66 11.01831 0.358308 0.128385
49.07 35.13 13.94 12.46 12.18634 0.273662 0.074891
51.69 36.36 15.33 10.21 10.43892 0.228923 0.052406
51.63 39.55 12.08 12.46 10.50278 1.957221 3.830714
49.03 39.05 9.98 11.97 12.1965 0.226502 0.051303
Average 10.931 1.145671 1.751723

67
 CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 CONCLUSIONS
The research was conducted to find a localized geotechnical characterization of the sub grade
soil of the road section of the study area. Accordingly, the required laboratory tests were
conducted on samples retrieved from different geographical area of the Beklosegno road section.
To conduct this research, totally twenty samples were collected from ten pits at 1.2 m and at 1.5
m depth from each, and it resulted to highly clay soil (fine-grained soils). Using the obtained
twenty test results, a single and multiple linear regressions were analyzed and a relationship has
been established between CBR and other properties of soil as predict the CBR value in terms of
P200, LL, PL, PI, MDD and OMC. The test procedures were based on AASHTO and ASTM test
standards. From the study, the following findings are deduced:
 Most of the soils of the study area fell under A-7-5, which indicate that the soils are clay
according to the AASHTO classification with high clay content. Since the percentage of
particles passing 75 micrometers sieve for all soil sample is greater than 35%, soils of the
study area are found to be fine-grained soil hence, the soils are highly plastic nature and
generally A-7 materials considered poorest performance with regard to roadway
construction. While based on plasticity chart for the soil samples results below the A-
line.
 The soils sample of the study area fell under MH, OH, and most dominantly CH that is
inorganic clay of highly plastic, fat clays silt. Moreover, as per USCS soil classification
system all of the soils are grouped as MH (inorganic silt with high plasticity). It is
unsuitable subgrade soil. Thus, the soil of the road cannot be used for subgrade material.
 The activity of the study area ranged from 0.02 to 0.38, all fall inactive which signifies
that the soils of the study area is characterized as high clay content with the mineral of
kaolinite.
 Atterberg limits test results show that the soft soils have a high degree of cohesion and
highly compressible.

68
  The test result for CBR is ranged from 3.28%-12.79%. According to ERA design manual
2002, the value shows that it is poor to fair sub grade strength property of depending on
location of the soil with in the study area and with GI value. Symbolically it represented
as OH, MH, CH. Generally the soil is categorized inorganic high plasticity clay, fat clays,
and compressible soil.CBR value decreases with the increase in plasticity index and
optimum moisture content of soil but increases with the increase in the maximum dry
density.
 Natural moisture content and the specific gravity of the soil are vital parameters to
understand the characteristics of the soil. The conclusions from this study indicated that
the soil is soft poor-quality inorganic clay.
 The subgrade strength classes were fall under S4 based on ERA design manual.
 Thus, from practical point of view it is easier and feasible to use index and compaction
properties to evaluate the subgrade strength characterization for road design purpose
within short time and less cost than the CBR test, as a result this model can have a vital
role in doing so. It is concluded that the models for CBR is the function of Liquid limit
(LL) by simple linear regression i.e. CBR=fn (LL) is resulted as; R² = 0.9 with
recommended equations;
3 2
CBR = -0.0635LL + 9.6179LL - 486.17LL + 8206.7 and But the simplicity of utilization the
best model for CBR is the fn (LL).i.e
 In general, the subgrade soils that were considered for this study had a very low load-
bearing capacity and high compressibility; due to this the soil of the study area is
unsuitable for the use of highway substrate without improvement allowing the
construction of structural engineering works. Based on the results of this study, it is
recommended to consider stabilization for the improvement of soil properties.

5.2 RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the present study results the following recommendations were forwarded:
 In this research the extent of soil type is finer soil. Therefore, further work can be done
for the case of coarser soil.
 It is advisable to conduct comparative correlations between soaked and Unsoaked CBR
value with soil index properties.

69
 The equation developed may be further improved by increasing the number of sampling
pits by narrowing the intervals.
 It is highly recommended to estimate CBR using as soil properties as obtained to have
better prediction by single linear regression.

70
 REFERENCE

1. A. Aysen (2002), Soil mechanics, Basic concepts and engineering application, The University of
Southern Queensland, Australia.
2. AASHTO. Soils and Stabilization. Standard Specifications for Transportation Materials and
Methods of Sampling and Testing: Part 1A Specifications, 26th ed.; AASHTO: Washington D.C.,
WA, USA, 2006
3. American Journal of Civil Engineering and Architecture.
4. James K.M., (1976), Fundamentals of soil behavior, University of California. Berkeley, John
Wily& sons, Inc.
5. Arora, K.R., 1997: Soil mechanics and foundation engineering. Bhargave printers, New Delhi.
ASTM, 2004, Special Procedures for Testing Soil and Rock for Civil Engineering Purpose, U.S.
America.
6. Arora, K.R., Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Re-print Standard Publishers
Distributer, Nai Sarak, Delhi, 2004.
7. Ayodele, A.L. (2008). “A Study of the Effect of Fines Content on the Performance of Soil as
Sub-base Material for Road Construction”. Unpublished M. Sc. Thesis. Obafemi Awolowo
University, Ile-Ife, Nigeria.
8. Bowles, J.E., (1996), Foundation Analysis and Design, 5th ed, McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
New York.
9. Bowls, J.K., (1978), „Engineering properties of soil and their measurements‟, McGraw Hill Book
Company, U.S. America.
10. Budhu, M. (2000), Soil Mechanics and Foundations, John Wiley and Sons, U.S America.
11. Das, B.M., (1997), Advanced Soil Mechanics, Taylor & Francis, Washington DC.
12. Das, B.M., (2007), Principle of Geotechnical Engineering,5thedition, California state University.
13. Das, B.M., (2008), Advanced Soil Mechanics, 3 rd. edition. Taylor & Francis, London and New
york Washington DC
14. G.N Smith and Iowan G.N Smith, (1988), Elements of Soil Mechanics 7th edition.
15. Huang, Y.H., 2003. Pavement Analysis and Design. 2nd Edn. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs,
New Jersey, USA, ISBN-10:0131424734, pp: 762.

71
16. IRC 37:2012, “Tentative guidelines for the design of flexible pavements”. Indian road congress,
New Delhi.
17. Jiménez, L. A. and Mrawira, D.2012, “Bayesian Regression in Pavement Deterioration Modeling:
Revisiting the AASHO Road Test Rut Depth Model”. Infrastructural volume, November 2012,
N-25.
18. Jumikis A.R., (1984), Soil Mechanics, Robert E. Krieger Publishing Company, Florida.
19. Murthy, V. N. S., (1990), Geotechnical Engineering: Principles and Practices of Soil Mechanics
and Foundation Engineering, Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York.
20. Paul W. M. and et.al, “Subsurface Investigations (Geotechnical Site Characterization)”,
FHWANHI-01-031, technical report, National Highway Institute Federal Highway
Administration U.S. Department of Transportation, Ryan R. Berg & Associates Inc., Woodbury,
USA, May 2002.
21. Robert D.H. and William D. K., (1981), an Introduction to Geotechnical Engineering,
PRENTICE HALL, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.
22. Stat of Florida Department of Transport, (2000), Soils and Foundation Handbook, State Materials
Office, Gainesville, Florida.
23. Taylor R.M., (1990), Tropical Residual soils, The Quaternary Journal of Engineering Geology,
London.
24. Teferra A. and M.Leikun. (1999), Soil Mechanics, Faculty of Technology Addis Ababa
University, Addis Ababa.
25. Teferra A., (1984), Estimation of settlement of rigid footing, Zede, Journal of the Ethiopian
Association of Engineers and Architects (EAEA), Vol.6.
26. Wagner, J. Mechanical Properties of Clays and Clay Minerals. In Developments in Clay Science;
Elsevier Ltd: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2013; pp. 347–381.
27. Zelalem Worku Ferede, (2010). “Prediction of California Bearing Ratio (CBR) value from index
properties of soil”-Addis Ababa University, April (2010).

72
 APENDIX -A
(Wet Sieve Analysis)
Wet Sieve Analysis (Test Method AASHTO T- 88)
Depth 1.2m Test date 08/07/2013 pit No. 1-A
Plac Wareza gere ra
e
seive seive seive weight weight of %Retained Cum %Passing
opening weight + retained retained soil .Retained
(mm) (gm.) soil(gm.)
19 431 431 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00
9.5 416.5 420 3.50 0.70 0.70 99.30
4.75 448.5 450.5 2.00 0.40 1.10 98.90
2.36 409.9 410 0.10 0.02 1.12 98.88
2 393.9 399 5.10 1.02 2.14 97.86
1.18 359.1 360.5 1.40 0.28 2.42 97.58
0.6 320 322 2.00 0.40 2.82 97.18
0.425 299.5 301.1 1.60 0.32 3.15 96.85
0.3 285.2 292.2 7.00 1.40 4.55 95.45
0.15 271.7 279.2 7.50 1.50 6.05 93.95
0.075 370.7 374 3.30 0.66 6.71 93.29
pan 241.1 706.8 465.70 93.29 100.00 0.00
499.20

GRADATION GRAPH FOR SIEVE AND HYDROMETER TEST

TP1 A@1.2m
(0.075mm-0.002mm) <0.002mm
(4.75mm-0.075mm) TP2 A@1.2m
Sand Silt
TP3 A@1.2m
100 TP4 A@1.2m

75 TP5 A@1.2m
% of finer

TP6 A@1.2m
50
TP7 A@1.2m
25 TP8 A@1.2m
TP9 A@1.2m
0
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 TP10 A@1.2m

sieve size(mm)

73
 GRADATION GRAPH FOR SIEVE AND HYDROMETER TEST

(0.075mm-0.002mm) <0.002mm TP1 B@1.5m

(4.75mm-0.075mm)
Sand Silt Clay TP2 B@1.5m
TP3 B@1.5m
100
TP4 B@1.5m

75 TP5 B@1.5m
% of finer

TP6 B@1.5m
50
TP7 B@1.5m

25 TP8 B@1.5m
TP9 B@1.5m
0
TP10 B@1.5m
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
sieve size(mm)

(HYDROMETER TEST)
Hydrometer Analysis Test date 08/07/2013 Pit 1-A
No.
Hydrometer type =151H Place Wareza gerera
Specific Gravity of 2.58
soil
Elapsed Actual Composite Corrected Effective Coefficient Temp Grain Perk. Perk.
Time Hydrometer Correctio Hydrometer Depth K erasur Size Fine Finer
(min) Reading n Reading (cm) e deck (mm) r Comb
(%) ined
(%)
0.5 1.0295 0.0013 1.0282 8.525 0.012716 28 0.053 92.10 85.92
1 1.028 0.0013 1.0267 8.9 0.012716 28 0.038 87.20 81.35
2 1.027 0.0013 1.0257 9.2 0.012716 28 0.027 83.93 78.30
5 1.0265 0.0013 1.0252 9.3 0.012716 28 0.017 82.30 76.78
15 1.025 0.0013 1.0237 9.7 0.012716 28 0.010 77.40 72.21
30 1.024 0.0013 1.0227 10 0.012716 28 0.007 74.13 69.16
60 1.0235 0.0013 1.0222 10.199 0.012716 28 0.005 72.50 67.64
360 1.022 0.0013 1.0207 10.5 0.012716 28 0.002 67.60 63.07
1440 1.019 0.0013 1.0177 11.3 0.012716 28 0.001 57.81 53.93

74
 GRADATION GRAPH FOR SIEVE AND HYDROMETER TEST OF
TP 1A
(0.075mm-0.002mm) <0.002mm
(4.75mm-0.075mm)
Sand
100.00
% of finer

75.00

50.00

25.00

0.00
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 0.0001

sieve size(mm)

APENDIX-B
Specific Gravity Test of Beklosengo road
Test Pit 1A
Determination No. 1 2
Weight of dry, clean pycnometer, W1(g) 70.1 70
Weight of pycnometer + Oven dry soil, W2 (g) 90.1 90.1
Weight of oven dried soil,Ws=(W2-W1)(g) 20 20.1
Weight of pycnometer + soil + water, W3(g) 181.3 181.3
Weight of pycnometer + water filling to the mark,W4(g) 169 169
Mass of water filling pycnometer up to the mark =(W4-W1),gm 98.9 99
Mass of water in the pycnometer over and above dry soil=(W3-W2),gm 91.2 91.2
Mass of water having the same volume of dry soil=(W4-W1)-(W3-W2),gm 7.7 7.8
Specific gravity of soil GS=(WS/(WS+W4-W3)) 2.5974 2.57692
Temperature, Tx(oc) 26 26
Conversion factor , K 0.9986 0.9986
Specific gravity of soil at 20°c. 2.59 2.57
Average specific gravity of soil . 2.58

75
Specific Gravity Test Test pit 2-b

Determination No. 1 2
Weight of dry, clean pycnometer, W1(g) 69 70.1
Weight of pycnometer + Oven dry soil, W2 (g) 89 90.1
Weight of oven dried soil,Ws=(W2-W1)(g) 20 20
Weight of pycnometer + soil + water, W3(g) 181.2 181.2
Weight of pycnometer + water filling to the mark,W4(g) 169 169
Mass of water filling pycnometer up to the mark =(W4-W1),gm 100 98.9
Mass of water in the pycnometer over and above dry soil=(W3-W2),gm 92.2 91.1
Mass of water having the same volume of dry soil=(W4-W1)-(W3-W2),gm 7.8 7.8
Specific gravity of soil GS=(WS/(WS+W4-W3)) 2.5641 2.5641
Temperature, Tx(oc) 26 26
Conversion factor , K 0.9986 0.9986
Specific gravity of soil at 20°c. 2.56 2.56
Average specific gravity of soil . 2.56

Specific Gravity Test PIT 3-B

Determination No. 1 2
Weight of dry, clean pycnometer, W1(g) 69.1 69.3
Weight of pycnometer + Oven dry soil, W2 (g) 89.1 89.4
Weight of oven dried soil,Ws=(W2-W1)(g) 20 20.1
Weight of pycnometer + soil + water, W3(g) 181.3 181.3
Weight of pycnometer + water filling to the mark,W4(g) 169 169
Mass of water filling pycnometer up to the mark =(W4-W1),gm 99.9 99.7
Mass of water in the pycnometer over and above dry soil=(W3-W2),gm 92.2 91.9
Mass of water having the same volume of dry soil=(W4-W1)-(W3-W2),gm 7.7 7.8
Specific gravity of soil GS=(WS/(WS+W4-W3)) 2.5974 2.57692
Temperature, Tx(oc) 26 26
Conversion factor , K 0.9986 0.9986
Specific gravity of soil at 20°c. 2.59 2.57
Average specific gravity of soil . 2.58

76
 Specific Gravity Test Pit 4A

Determination No. 1 2
Weight of dry, clean pycnometer, W1(g) 70.1 70
Weight of pycnometer + Oven dry soil, W2 (g) 90.1 90.1
Weight of oven dried soil,Ws=(W2-W1)(g) 20 20.1
Weight of pycnometer + soil + water, W3(g) 181.3 181.3
Weight of pycnometer + water filling to the mark,W4(g) 169 169
Mass of water filling pycnometer up to the mark =(W4-W1),gm 98.9 99
Mass of water in the pycnometer over and above dry soil=(W3-
W2),gm 91.2 91.2
Mass of water having the same volume of dry soil=(W4-W1)-(W3-
W2),gm 7.7 7.8
Specific gravity of soil GS=(WS/(WS+W4-W3)) 2.5974 2.57692
Temperature, Tx(oc) 26 26
Conversion factor , K 0.9986 0.9986
Specific gravity of soil at 20°c. 2.59 2.57
Average specific gravity of soil . 2.58

Specific Gravity Test Pit 6A

Determination No. 1 2
Weight of dry, clean pycnometer, W1(g) 69 69.4
Weight of pycnometer + Oven dry soil, W2 (g) 89 89.3
Weight of oven dried soil,Ws=(W2-W1)(g) 20 19.9
Weight of pycnometer + soil + water, W3(g) 181.4 181.3
Weight of pycnometer + water filling to the mark,W4(g) 169 169
Mass of water filling pycnometer up to the mark =(W4-W1),gm 100 99.6
Mass of water in the pycnometer over and above dry soil=(W3-W2),gm 92.4 92
Mass of water having the same volume of dry soil=(W4-W1)-(W3-
W2),gm 7.6 7.6
2.6315 2.6184
Specific gravity of soil GS=(WS/(WS+W4-W3)) 8 2
Temperature, Tx(oc) 26 26
Conversion factor , K 0.9986 0.9986
Specific gravity of soil at 20°c. 2.63 2.61
Average specific gravity of soil . 2.62

77
 APPENDIX-C
(Compaction Test)
density test no 1 2 3 4
weight of soil + mold w1 (g) 8298.5 8588 9292.5 9156.5
weight of mold w2 (g) 5199 5199 5199 5199
volume of mold v (cm3 ) 2123 2123 2123 2123
weight of wet soil w3 = w1-w2 (g) 3099.5 3389 4093.5 3957.5
wet density of soil wad = w3/v ( g/cm3 ) 1.46 1.60 1.93 1.86
moisture container number a b c d
wet soil + container (g) a 123 148.5 103.5 163.9
dry soil + container (g) b 112 130.8 87.3 133
weight of container (g) c 27.8 27.5 19.2 25.9
weight of water (g) e = a-b 11 17.7 16.2 30.9
weight of dry soil (g) d =b-c 84.2 103.3 68.1 107.1
moisture content (%) m= (e/d)*100 13.06 17.13 23.79 28.85
dry density of soil ( g/cm3 ) did = wad/(100+m)*100 1.29 1.36 1.56 1.45
mdd : 1.56g/cc
omc : 23.79%

MOISTURE DENSITY RELATIONS

1.58

1.53

1.48
DRY DENSITY, g/cc

1.43

1.38

1.33

1.28

1.23

1.18
8.00 13.00 18.00 23.00 28.00 33.00
MOISTURE COINTENT,%

78
 APENIX D
(Atterberg Limit Test)
SOIL CONSISTENCY TEST RESULT (TEST METHOD：AASHTO T89，T90)
Depth 1.2m Test date 08/07/2013 Pit No 1-A

Place Wareza

PI Specification Limit
Liquid Limit Plastic Limit
No. of Blows 21 28 33
Container Number a B c e F
Wt. of Container + Wet Soil (g) = (W1) 46.5 50 47.8 27.8 33.5
Wt. of Container + Dry Soil (g) = (W2) 40.2 42 41.1 25.3 31.8
Wt. of Container (g) = (W3) 28 26 27.5 19 27
Weight of Moisture (g) = (W1 - W2) = A 6.3 8 6.7 2.5 1.7
Weight of Dry Soil (g) = (W2 - W3) = B 12.2 16 13.6 6.3 4.8
Moisture Content (%) = (A / B )x 100 51.64 50.00 49.26 39.68 35.42
50.77 37.55
LIQIUD LIMIT GRAPH
52.00
y = -0.2002x + 55.774
51.50
Water content %

51.00

50.50

50.00

49.50

49.00
25 5 1
No. blows

LIQUIDLIMIT LL 50.77
PLASTIC LIMIT PL 37.55
PLASTICITY LL - PL 13.22
INDEX =

79
SOIL CONSISTENCY TEST RESULT (TEST METHOD：AASHTO T89，
T90)
AT
Test pit 2-b 1.5m
PI Specification Limit
Liquid Limit Plastic Limit
No. of Blows 22 27 34
Container Number a b c e f
Wt. of Container + Wet Soil (g) = (W1) 52.3 49.2 49.5 33.2 40.3
Wt. of Container + Dry Soil (g) = (W2) 41.2 39.2 39.6 30 35.4
Wt. of Container (g) = (W3) 19.5 19.5 19.5 19.5 20
Weight of Moisture (g) = (W1 - W2) = A 11.1 10 9.9 3.2 4.9
Weight of Dry Soil (g) = (W2 - W3) = B 21.7 19.7 20.1 10.5 15.4
Moisture Content (%) = (A / B )x 100 51.15 50.76 49.25 30.48 31.82
50.82 31.15
51.50 y = -0.1619x + 54.867

51.00
Water content %

50.50

50.00

49.50

49.00
25 5 1
No. blows

LIQUIDLIMIT LL 50.82
PLASTIC LIMIT PL 31.15
PLASTICITY INDEX
= LL - PL 19.67

80
Test pit 3-A At 1.2 m
PI Specification Limit
Liquid Limit Plastic Limit
No. of Blows 22 27 33
Container Number a b c e f
Wt. of Container + Wet Soil (g) = (W1) 50 46.2 40.2 34.5 40.2
Wt. of Container + Dry Soil (g) = (W2) 38 36 32 30 34
Wt. of Container (g) = (W3) 14 15.5 15 16 15
Weight of Moisture (g) = (W1 - W2) = A 12 10.2 8.2 4.5 6.2
Weight of Dry Soil (g) = (W2 - W3) = B 24 20.5 17 14 19
Moisture Content (%) = (A / B )x 100 50.00 49.76 48.24 32.14 32.63
49.71 32.39

50.50 y = -0.1635x + 53.799

Water content %

50.00
49.50
49.00
48.50
48.00
25 5 1
No. blows

LIQUIDLIMIT LL 49.71
PLASTIC LIMIT PL 32.39
PLASTICITY INDEX
= LL - PL 17.32

SOIL CONSISTENCY TEST RESULT (TEST METHOD：AASHTO T89，T90)

Test pit 4-A At 1.5 m
PI Specification Limit
Liquid Limit Plastic Limit
No. of Blows 22 28 33
Container Number a b c e f
Wt. of Container + Wet Soil (g) = (W1) 46.7 52.3 50 36 40
Wt. of Container + Dry Soil (g) = (W2) 38 44 40.6 32 37
Wt. of Container (g) = (W3) 20 26.5 20.5 20 28
Weight of Moisture (g) = (W1 - W2) = A 8.7 8.3 9.4 4 3
Weight of Dry Soil (g) = (W2 - W3) = B 18 17.5 20.1 12 9
Moisture Content (%) = (A / B )x 100 48.33 47.43 46.77 33.33 33.33
47.89 33.33

81
 48.50 y = -0.1427x + 51.459

48.00
Water content %

47.50

47.00

46.50

46.00
25 5 1
No. blows

LIQUIDLIMIT LL 47.89
PLASTIC LIMIT PL 33.33
PLASTICITY INDEX = LL - PL 14.56

SOIL CONSISTENCY TEST RESULT (TEST METHOD：

AASHTO T89，T90)
Test pit 5-A At 1.2m
PI Specification Limit
Liquid Limit Plastic Limit
No. of Blows 20 27 33
Container Number a b c e f
Wt. of Container + Wet Soil (g) = (W1) 49.5 52.3 42.3 39 40
Wt. of Container + Dry Soil (g) = (W2) 40.8 43.5 36.3 34 35
Wt. of Container (g) = (W3) 23.8 25.6 23.8 20 21.3
Weight of Moisture (g) = (W1 - W2) = A 8.7 8.8 6 5 5
Weight of Dry Soil (g) = (W2 - W3) = B 17 17.9 12.5 14 13.7
Moisture Content (%) = (A / B )x 100 51.18 49.16 48.00 35.71 36.50
49.86 36.11

82
 51.50
y = -0.2455x + 55.994
51.00
Water content %

50.50

50.00

49.50

49.00

48.50

48.00
25 5 1
No. blows

LIQUIDLIMIT LL 49.86
PLASTIC LIMIT PL 36.11
PLASTICITY INDEX
= LL - PL 13.75

83
 APENDIX-C
(CBR Test Determination)
Test pit 1-A at 1.2m

Treading calibration Swell

factor, N/Div 21.890
Plunger Area, mm2 1935 No. Of Blows 56
Rate of strain Reading before
,mm/min 1970
1.27 soaking
Rammer wt. (kg) 4.54 Reading after soaking 2160
Swell % 1.47
CBR Computation Table
Swell, % 1.47
CBR Value, % 12.79
Penetration(mm) Ring reading (Div) Load (N) Stress Standard stress CBR (%)
(N/mm2) (N/mm2)
0.00 0.0 0 0.00
0.64 20.0 438 0.23
1.27 30.0 657 0.34
1.91 41.0 897 0.46
2.54 65.0 1423 0.74 6.9 10.66
3.08 68.0 1489 0.77
3.81 75.0 1642 0.85
4.41 84.0 1839 0.95
5.08 90.0 1970 1.02 10.3 9.88
7.62 110.0 2408 1.24
10.16 121.0 2649 1.37
12.70 135.0 2955 1.53

2.5
Stress N/mm2

2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Penetration mm
84
 Test pit 2-b at 1.5m

Treading calibration Swell

factor, N/Div 21.890
Plunger Area, mm2 1935 No. Of Blows 56
Rate of strain ,mm/min Reading before 1067
1.27 soaking
Rammer wt. (kg) Redaing after 1176
4.54 soaking
Swell % 0.94
CBR Computation Table
Swell, % 0.94
CBR Value, % 12.79
Penetration(mm) Ring reading Load (N) Stress (N/mm2) Standard CBR
(Div) stress (%)
(N/mm2)
0.00 0.0 0 0.00
0.64 24.0 525 0.27
1.27 50.0 1095 0.57
1.91 67.0 1467 0.76
2.54 78.0 1707 0.88 6.9 12.79
3.08 81.0 1773 0.92
3.81 86.0 1883 0.97
4.41 90.0 1970 1.02
5.08 100.0 2189 1.13 10.3 10.98
7.62 110.0 2408 1.24
10.16 126.0 2758 1.43
12.70 152.0 3327 1.72

85
 2.5

2
Stress N/mm2

1.5

0.5

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Penetration mm

Test pit 4-A at 1.2m

Treading calibration Swell

factor, N/Div 21.890
Plunger Area, mm2 1935 No. Of Blows 56
Rate of strain Reading before
1560
,mm/min 1.27 soaking
Rammer wt. (kg) Redaing after
1730
4.54 soaking
Swell % 1.47
CBR Computation Table
Swell, % 0.94
CBR Value, % 12.79
Penetration(mm) Ring Load (N) Stress Standard stress CBR (%)
reading (N/mm2) (N/mm2)
(Div)
0.00 0.0 0 0.00
0.64 19.0 416 0.21
1.27 30.0 657 0.34
1.91 46.0 1007 0.52
2.54 65.0 1423 0.74 6.9 10.66
3.08 70.0 1532 0.79
3.81 76.0 1664 0.86
4.41 82.0 1795 0.93
5.08 96.0 2101 1.09 10.3 10.54
7.62 100.0 2189 1.13
10.16 108.0 2364 1.22
12.70 127.0 2780 1.44

86
 2.5

2
Stress N/mm2

1.5

0.5

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Penetration mm
Test pit 7-A at 1.2m
Treading calibration Swell
factor, N/Div 21.890
Plunger Area, mm2 1935 No. Of Blows 56
Rate of strain Reading before
,mm/min 933
1.27 soaking
Rammer wt. (kg) Redaing after
1279
4.54 soaking
Swell % 2.98
CBR Computation Table
Swell, % 2.98
CBR Value, % 11.48
Penetration(mm) Ring Load (N) Stress Standard stress CBR (%)
reading (N/mm2) (N/mm2)
(Div)
0.00 0.0 0 0.00
0.64 25.0 547 0.28
1.27 47.0 1029 0.53
1.91 64.0 1401 0.72
2.54 70.0 1532 0.79 6.9 11.48
3.08 73.0 1598 0.83
3.81 74.0 1620 0.84
4.41 75.0 1642 0.85
5.08 78.0 1707 0.88 10.3 8.57
7.62 83.0 1817 0.94
10.16 92.0 2014 1.04
12.70 98.0 2145 1.11
87
 Test pit 7-B at 1.5m
Treading calibration Swell
factor, N/Div 21.890
Plunger Area, mm2 1935 No. Of Blows 56
Rate of strain ,mm/min Reading before
1189
1.27 soaking
Rammer wt. (kg) Reading after
1247
4.54 soaking
Swell % 0.50
CBR Computation Table
Swell, % 0.50
CBR Value, % 10.98
Penetration(mm) Ring reading Load (N) Stress (N/mm2) Standard CBR
(Div) stress (%)
(N/mm2)
0.00 0.0 0 0.00
0.64 21.0 460 0.24
1.27 36.0 788 0.41
1.91 53.0 1160 0.60
2.54 67.0 1467 0.76 6.9 10.98
3.08 75.0 1642 0.85
3.81 80.0 1751 0.91
4.41 82.0 1795 0.93
5.08 85.0 1861 0.96 10.3 9.34
7.62 90.0 1970 1.02
10.16 97.0 2123 1.10
12.70 105.0 2298 1.19

88
 2.5

2
Stress N/mm2

1.5

0.5

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Penetration mm

APENDIX –D
SIEVE ANALYSIS

89
Test pit-1a at 1.2 m depth
SIEVE Sieve SIEVE Wt +
SIZE Weight SOIL WEIGHT PERCENT COMULATIVE PERCENT
WEIGHT
(mm) (gm) RETAINED(gm) RETAINED RETAINED RETAINED PASSING
19 431 431 0 0 0.000 100.000
9.5 416.5 420 3.5 0.875 0.88 99.13
4.75 448.5 450.5 2 0.5 1.4 98.6
2.36 409.9 410 0.1 0.025 1.4 98.6
2 393.8 399 5.2 1.3 2.7 97.3
1.18 359.1 360.5 1.4 0.35 3.1 97.0
0.6 320 322 2 0.5 3.6 96.5
0.425 299.5 301.1 1.6 0.4 4.0 96.1
0.3 285.2 292.2 7 1.75 5.7 94.3
0.15 271.7 279.2 7.5 1.875 7.6 92.4
0.075 370.7 374 3.3 0.825 8.4 91.6
pan 247.1 250 2.9 0.725 9.1 90.9

Test pit-
4a at 1.2 m depth
SIEVE Sieve SIEVE Wt + COMULATIV PERCEN
SIZE Weight SOIL WEIGHT PERCENT E T
RETAINED(g RETAINE RETAINE WEIGHT
(mm) (gm) m) D D RETAINED PASSING
19 431 431 0 0 0.000 100.000
9.5 416.5 417 0.5 0.125 0.13 99.88
4.75 448.5 448.9 0.4 0.1 0.2 99.8
2.36 409.9 411 1.1 0.275 0.5 99.5
2 393.8 394.7 0.9 0.225 0.7 99.3
1.18 359.1 361.6 2.5 0.625 1.3 98.7
0.6 320 322 2 0.5 1.8 98.2
0.425 299.5 301 1.5 0.375 2.2 97.8
0.3 285.2 286.3 1.1 0.275 2.5 97.5
0.15 271.7 272.3 0.6 0.15 2.7 97.4
0.075 370.7 372.5 1.8 0.45 3.1 96.9
pan 247.1 247.1 0 0 3.1 96.9
12.4

90
 100.000

80.000

% PASS
60.000

40.000

20.000

0.000
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Particle Size(mm)

GRAVEL 0.225
SAND 2.88
FINE 0.00

T/pit-5b at 1.5 m depth

SIEVE Sieve SIEVE Wt +
SIZE Weight SOIL WEIGHT PERCENT
COMULATIVE PERCENT
WEIGHT
(mm) (gm) RETAINED(gm) RETAINED RETAINED RETAINED PASSING
19 431 431 0 0 0.000 100.000
9.5 416.5 416.5 0 0 0.00 100.00
4.75 448.5 448.9 0.4 0.1 0.1 99.9
2.36 409.9 411.9 2 0.5 0.6 99.4
2 393.8 394.5 0.7 0.175 0.8 99.2
1.18 359.1 360.1 1 0.25 1.0 99.0
0.6 320 321.2 1.2 0.3 1.3 98.7
0.425 299.5 301.7 2.2 0.55 1.9 98.1
0.3 285.2 290.1 4.9 1.225 3.1 96.9
0.15 271.7 278.3 6.6 1.65 4.8 95.3
0.075 370.7 376.1 5.4 1.35 6.1 93.9
pan 247.1 247.1 0 0 6.1 93.9
24.4
GRAVEL 0.100
SAND 6.00
FINE 0.00

91
 WEIGHT PERCENT COMULATIVE PERCENT
WEIGHT
RETAINED RETAINED RETAINED PASSING
0 0 0.000 100.000
0 0 0.00 100.00
1.4 0.35 0.3 99.7
4.4 1.1 1.5 98.6
3.8 0.95 2.4 97.6
4.2 1.05 3.5 96.6
8.2 2.05 5.5 94.5
3.2 0.8 6.3 93.7
3.9 0.975 7.3 92.7
13.8 3.45 10.7 89.3
16.5 4.125 14.9 85.2
0.5 0.125 15.0 85.0
59.9

100.000

80.000

% PASS
60.000

40.000

20.000

0.000
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Particle Size(mm)

GRAVEL 0.350
SAND 14.50
FINE 0.13

92
 APENDIX- E
(SUMMARY OUTPUT OF REGRESSION)
Regression Statistics
Multiple R 0.863679
R Square 0.745942
Adjusted R
Square 0.698306
Standard
Error 1.081617
Observatio
ns 20
ANOVA
Significance
df SS MS F F
Regression 54.9591 18.3197 44.3776932 2.99197E-
3 3 1 1 06
Residual 18.7183 1.16989
16 3 6
Total 73.6774
19 6

Coefficient Standar Lower Upper Lower

s d Error t Stat P-value 95% 95% 95.0%
7.34601 8.21445 75.9163 75.9163
Intercept 60.34351 8 1 3.93E-07 44.77064 7 7
0.13541 - - -
LL -0.92183 2 6.80757 4.21E-06 -1.20889 0.63476 0.63476
0.07513 - 0.05547 0.05547
OMC -0.10379 1 1.38149 0.186117 -0.26306 8 8
0.00740 0.16835
MDD 0.001247 7 9 0.868411 -0.01446 0.01695 0.01695

93
SUMMARY OUTPUT
Regression Statistics
Multiple R 0.525325
R Square 0.275966
Adjusted R
0.190786
Square
Standard
1.761948
Error
Observatio
20
ns
ANOVA
Significance
df SS MS F F
Regression 2 20.11556 10.05778 3.239783 0.064261
Residual 17 52.77582 3.10446
Total 19 72.89138

Coefficient Standar Lower Upper Lower

s d Error t Stat P-value 95% 95% 95.0%
Intercept 36.32096 12.5422 2.895901 0.010049 9.859238 62.78268 9.859238
LL -0.54489 0.217365 -2.50681 0.02263 -1.00349 -0.08629 -1.00349
PL 0.060717 0.163362 0.371669 0.714731 -0.28395 0.40538 -0.28395

94
95
96