..-—--— N. I... v . _ .--. ~rA—Ir‘o — J - III—I 7—— ,~"—'v"~7'7.- ‘ €7—vt- ' 0 IO N “'l ‘ ' I 7 7 o _.- l "“u- l . . I . .7’7 . ‘I".' I‘Ifi. :3"?sz " I . . ' ' H-{J f. . '7“er 9‘: f ‘L 7' . ‘ 2". 1-1-“ a” ”1...!“ Ilf. ;‘~ ‘ .70.! ' 7 ‘ . 7 4- ' .r 7. 7 ru-“uw I: 9""? . . 3:2"3 ' Wt ‘ ' 4' H ""-'"7""e""4~+a7' 1 “‘7‘": i =75; '0. Pr-w o .- I _. "‘ . ‘7‘; .13 .7: ' " - . ‘17"-' 777 ~‘>- ' 7'17““ . Rigid» 7777—77-77:? ‘ ' :}‘ ,, 7' I. I_'- i“ : 0.,I7-.A.-oo-:.—t 71 .‘ P” ‘ "t Hu‘ {'7 , 32:5; .- :9 ~- II'L‘KI 1”,“; . ‘ “LLI'L I 'IW'I . i.......- «I: “b K“ 0 .1 : .q. 'I “it . {=7 4 Q : - . I F. ’ D ; ' ‘ a « ~ 2.67 . . \ I . ' ' 3 2 . I -O v-v~ 4 , . - ' ‘,' ‘."n‘. - ' ' , 7 .k 00.1“". I.» - ,. . ‘ > . - ' o - - . . ' J. ' ‘7 .u .4 - .4. .. . I . .7 ' . 7. ' . l .; - .. .—I . '.'-' 7— 3-- I j“ l . -‘ ‘-’.-o~:‘~477 i' :0 ‘ '- 0 - 7 “» Uta- ;._.Z -1 ‘- ‘ ' ”1.;‘9' 77 7 7. 77:57:27 ' .’ :é'Tt: ' ‘ 3 '4 - ‘ - - o , 3.23.37 -7:-:.‘ - . -7 ‘75 :z i;' ‘t‘: . .t _ - -— . 7 fl .. t“! ?;’ - ' f2 2? - _| _. 7 ‘3 z ‘ _‘ ‘ :L:' ;' ' ‘ ' ‘ ‘7 - ‘93-‘99;- 7 -4 . ._ “W7; 45%- . _ 7?. . - - - 7 _ '5‘:'. .r I -'-I:.':T I5: ‘:. ‘ :‘t - ——- r — -C .. . :7 77’: I'-——-_‘ 7 95,6...——' " : - 4 .1 Q; E: 7*“ 1: . . :1" -_’ c. "' ‘L P “7. ’ c a“- 7:99)? ' ' “" '~;;;*~ ‘ 7 -’<‘7f " 5-9-1 ? 12*; f' , V7 '{; 7. . .. . . . .- '0‘. t 7 ~._ ’ ' ‘ '” '39:? _ . as. a. . “. '3 . . 7 i ,7, :- . r - 7 ~ 7 ‘ 0-. ' 7 ’l’: -- I - . _ - r’ - fl: _ - TI ' . :i- ‘7 0....-.“ —~ 0 - — .-. .. W. : '..‘r‘. ‘ 7 - 7‘“.-’.‘_7." .17: ~_ 5%; . .— ' .' - o- '.— - 7. ' .‘-.u...7q:¢.£ ‘7 -1" 3 - T". . 7 ' 7 ' - _: : . : ‘ ' . ' —- -' ' - 0 0 ' ‘ ,4. -ho" . . v' .:.' : -7 _ L " fl. ‘ _ fl ' _ .. - .... _ . _ _— .7. »--“:~9 ~'~,-'~,«. 7f -7.“ ‘ ' " " — 2 I. , “_ --. —7 7. ‘ .;.__.t - 7, '. “ ¥_ _‘ 1’ .i ' 4 an... . _ . - ‘ "L“ ‘1 ““~d-‘— & 5 .2- t ‘. — ' -‘“ "' ‘ - 1P ' “‘- 17" ‘ ‘ ‘ 7’.-. 17;.-- 3-3.2'r‘ - A. - ' ' '—.' 75" "‘ - ‘ ' " ' 7.- -- :L; ‘. ' 7 ‘ -1... - u.¢t.é.-,_—. . —' _ 3‘ c . - 3:31 _I..u.o.x>_~.. P‘ 7 .. . _ 7 . ‘_ I .. - , . - 9 ' V o I --.— - v— : _ _7 ‘ 7 9 7 o»- o . . ' 7 .. . . . -. , 7 .. . : -. .7 - - , , - 33-3 _ .. -d . 7‘" ‘ . —.“No~ - . ’..-.: _ I 7‘_7 '_ '_ ' . .- i 4»- - . ..- ‘-.I...I..’J ‘ . a ' - 7 V? ‘ -- 7" .7- -- -J.‘-- 7 -."°- -- *--—-.¢ 7 .-... .-...757’—‘r -0-7 _ ‘01 .. ...'_..... _ ‘ 7 _ 4_,, _ I; -_ .'7"".:."‘4M~‘_ g 5.. P -_ -3: _ . “ '. - .'- “ _"_; ,1.-- 9”," .1“ ,7: f - a 7 ’7 ' .. ’ - 7 ” . .' a. nu 7'. u1m~b¢um7 ’7 ‘3-.. _ 7 .‘7. 7 7. .— I .' .- 7 - o . " ..- ‘ - - ““7 ‘-" ““7 ’6". s ...«1 . . ' - 77“.; . 77-7- hi7- 7 . 7 . - . ~ --~-----— 0.77.7; _ 7.7 - _7 "a - -.g—4--ee-:’-:.--T-a-«—m .7 _ 7 7 7.-. 7. ~79,» I I _ . - . ._ .‘5. r 7 :I‘- 7 _~. 0- I. j. "7.: .'7 _ -:_7 _ a ‘4 ‘ . .k,' -7 . - ~009— - . o.’ . ._ -7 .I . 7. ;I 7 . * . I I t'“,?“’:.ur 1.7-.4-—:+s:; .'7_. ‘J; I q 7 .—.- - 4‘ 7. ‘.‘ ' "’ ,7.‘ '- . . o -fi-fll7so -—_~ _? 2 . _ _.‘ '. .016‘P“- _' - ; In - <0. .I v - T a- —- . -" " -! " ‘ - Jr’s- _ o J. -. - .-—_ ‘ .2 "2'. “‘4 . z _ -.o|. l I . _ o ‘ ’_"- '_' '_ '7? . T : ' -fh.. :n'ffi' C'J‘ - 7 . .._ Z ‘ ’ I. -7. I rfil;-‘ 3": - .7 _ ,. 1 - O " """"<:-‘ i~.u.l-7.’ ’q ." :" - 1"“? E‘- ' ‘— ..— --c— _ 7 '_‘7 . :77-' - ". _ I u__" ”'37 t: . -'—7""T 1*! . — L-’;""'* -‘ o ' - -" - . .--...J_f.‘- “hub,“ ‘ 7‘ l ' .‘ ‘ Luu-‘voi¢~4 ‘ - .. - 7 _.. -. . . ." r h '- '-‘-- C ‘>‘ 0‘ a.‘ ' - W4 ' i, h ' o :-.3 .4 --.. - 7 _ _ ._- - ‘_ '_ . _ l .A u.‘..f» ..u“.- ' . m ‘ ‘ :- 7- I a ,7." ,- 4 _ ‘ ... _ . _ 1:! . I an .2... -u w...“ - _ .‘:-(‘4I'L L- . - . "fl '- 7.» i ' -O' I..- L.“ ‘ - ’ .. . n . ' .‘ ‘ I, ' . ' I .32. ._ ‘_ _ . _ - . -7 .- -- - --- .‘7 . .._" _ 2J7 -.¢:tu ‘77?“ . 7. . ~. - 77 t»- ‘ L . ‘ . 7“." ‘ 7' "W" f~°< 7-‘ - 7' ‘u"4“’-‘ 7-- ‘7'2'. ' I " - -‘ -‘ '1'? "":"“"": ff _ ”’7‘ ’ 7- -- it”.-. .2“- 15 ‘ . — " - '- -.' ' - ‘ z‘ 7 - 2 .777- n 7. . n-'.~ :- :‘ .* pa '_.c H¢.-.A-- .t H - .7 .771: 7 I» c _ _ 7 7 7: .— -‘f‘?’ 9“. 7 :3 - 3 - _' .4. . ' .. ; ,, 7 a 7 7 . - 7 - - .7 -- --o' 7 6‘“. . ;: . , __ . 7 .4-: ,—.~ 7- 7 I177 . . _ . z « Jana-0.147.457- 7:5 .3 l 7._ 7; "7*. I . ‘ ' .1’ ”1' ‘— 7 - —. - 7 7 . ’ a 7— - -—~ :‘3 l ‘- _ ‘14' " g .. .. .;.-7 7.‘-..... a 7 - 7- «9 —7- -7; 7 . - ,._ 7 7 ' 7 ‘ - .f: " .‘ ; .7'.’ 7= 7 7". try}; 7:77 . 7 .7 - ~— - - . - . 7 w 7 - _ _ 6. - I _ _ _‘ 91;-.. _ '7 .4» 7...- ‘. «mt-t.e7-l.t_w;,.n .I_.... I” -‘. a“ ‘ ' " "‘ ""’ " ~ 0‘ 2‘ E ' - ' 7;...» I _;"‘ - " l ' ‘ '1'" ’t ; :2; :7"; - . “3'“, v .77 . -12: 7 .. . ‘ ' 7" ‘7" " "7"17' : ' ’ ' ' :7 ' . ' " 7 .J' ‘ '43.;2:‘.."1~:_~§;~l‘n . ‘7- 7‘ 0' = 7" ‘ -o . "- z “in 'o-an-‘uoouu‘7 2- 7 7 '7. vd9¢§'.' '2' t'E..e.;'-3 -" " ' ' . - --...7&_ .7.‘" ' _ - . *7 7- ~ .. t7 -. .. 7__ - ‘.. ~77. - :_ v I— '-‘.' -:_ 7.7..; v I 7 g3 . : ' ‘ " “ '“5 “:5 L.‘ h: A 7." ' ' _' " ‘fi‘ "“‘-‘—"-2 ‘gtgfi.fi§‘ia-5’4—lt: .. 7 I .— - * “fl ' 7 *‘_ :zJ‘.t_—.I7 ; . "I . 7| W1 F-V‘L'vdd‘ I‘é-Q‘II-n.l-¢I-I. I»... . 'I 7_ II , . . : '2’; tx‘é‘lh-éL-Eagvvif' ' ) ' ’ . ‘- 7 o ' ‘ " .- -- -"“-L - J": of. h" iv:-: . ._ . :. -’4Al~i&l"k;-.r. 4.;97-"_ } if' u- :3. “P‘. - ; . - . ‘7 -.—-..- - . ‘-7. 7 °.' . 5...; 4 :Inn....;.-.t....¢...l ._ _. "" '4 . :' ' - ‘ ' " ' 7 f“ - “gs _ ‘ '6—';-£ -‘u. , a O _ A 3‘ - _ ._7 ,7 ‘L ”~11". :t‘J. Mugm“ -’ - - 7 . - '.‘ ‘ .' ‘ .' .‘ ‘1 -7;'..--. ' ’ 7. ":J 7 * .7; m — - ' - _‘..Id- Goo-ow“, (é; ‘_ '. ' ' 7 ‘. .: n " . n“ a. I.‘ “J;7-;' . “““'I‘;_‘ 7' 7'7““;- -‘g€- 7 ‘ - ' — _ 'j ' 2f '9'- . " _ 4.4% l-.7;§.,‘ ,_ : ‘ '. ......:I_ __ _ _" "*L'N73'; . 7 _.7. - 7.. -. _.- {ms 7.7..-.77”; ~17 . .. - 7_ 77 79;£~7-s~_«~9-ae4 :7».'-r’:_‘ - ~ 9 _ ’ - - '4: I ”"2 3.. co~ ‘ .*3'¢. . 7 ° ' b“ T ‘ 1" 7- 2 . ' ‘ ‘ " ' " ~ .3’ - ’ ‘1‘ 7 ...7 -7- -0. \ 0.- -- I 7 - . ’ I .‘ “0 _| I . ., 7‘ I . ‘7 .- - _ - - ‘g 1' .7 _ .1 7.. 7. “a ; Tut...u‘.., ' 1:: ‘ 41"“ " '. l. 3 .1 . 7 - J-7—~ _‘,..0.‘_I 9‘9 --a-.. : * ~ 7, " . -‘ 1 _'7-.' 7.: ”II- on - 7. ’.- 4-. ,9. f I - .7 *1-7.~ \;‘I.L~I,7 fifi‘rf ; 3- ‘2”- - ‘ __.. - . .‘J-ao‘ .7 -..._-m . .I..I—...0¢Q._I -.w_"‘.:.. . I‘- '..1 {.xwtz" a: 7 Q -..‘ ‘— ‘. ' _. "7. . ' .- ;;7 ":‘--'-"E_';. ‘ .7. . .. .. L- . 1‘ '. .5; ‘ 7 “. - . - co. - .. ' ‘ .7...” c ‘9. v ' . 7" ' ' :7 _ ' '1' : ;-:_7°'..T':~:-§‘ "-3... . _ A -o 7 « I _ - _ - . - _.- L'. ‘7. -._ ; - ' ' ' — . . 7 - > 7 4“ ' v " : .7 5. m '- «ér' ‘37‘7'31.."7 7 :' . ' """‘" - _ J-‘t..u..-.:—flm_ --- . . 1; ' - l.‘.“= ‘. '7 . "g: ‘9’:- ._5— ‘ .77 - :é... .° : . . 7" -. 7 .2' " . z- > -7 . '7 .7-~ ‘. - 7-.-- _ - .7': :5; . 7. 1‘70?- ~.;7* 7°: Q . - - - .s-’fl: 7....-.” I {~7'g. " .7 7 ’ 7‘ ‘ 7 ' ". ‘7 * ‘ ' - ' ‘ r‘ 7' ' - 7 ~- 7 .- 7 — . 7.777-777.7777 .777 7 7 7 7 .«Mw-bk’e- {7 7,... - --4 --7- .4.-.» .,._ 7 -77. 01'. ' 7. .17 .':. w?'-."‘-.‘ . 33:37fl“ 1 I :"IrL L v‘ 1-H-. " :-':‘;"'Lg ' -‘ ' ‘9‘7- - -.t .. -7 1' I . N '. u... ‘ “ "fl “’ -" e t ‘-.'..“;.:;:7‘1. ‘ "_ ' Z 7‘ : " ~ - ' ‘. Z 7 :‘ - ‘ ‘4 ‘ : ‘;.‘.'.. ..‘ - WF‘ ' .u -. 7- _ .h 0'» h .7 . - .‘ _ -..u~.a.4,7y : 7- - . 'k - ' ' - ' ' - ' : _' -_ 2' ‘2 l 7..-......: .---:' - ; ~ ‘ 7 ' ’7‘ ’ 0’ . J _ v - -4... . - - I .I 5 ' . — -. .7 ’ - '0‘. ‘ n .4 u 7' . -wNmilv-co A, ‘-i I I . ‘ _ ‘. . ' "- 'HL t \.'_ . ‘;.':. ‘7’ 3;, g _ _‘ .-‘ _ . 7 - - 7~¢Mv -- oocg- of. ”~"- .' ‘J" ' ‘7 d .7 ‘. J ' ‘I‘ ' . ' - . ‘.~ .>w.“45 : -’ ”‘7'é‘jd‘q‘-’ . .M - ‘t- - . ' _ 7- » T _ '7 ' -. . ‘ 7 -- . 7 7. ‘. ' ‘4- ' I - l ' -; —.. g—a';vw.'. .- ‘ .- .7 , ‘i '7' .‘§ ‘Il‘ ‘_._-‘. .TO I‘ I - ‘ )s‘ 7 . ' .2 7 . u - .- ' ' -.o—m--II TF‘Tg?’ “-h _L ‘- 7;- :.o.—‘-E .1: 4"?" .I ,I. I _ . n---—~—.—_ 77»:~.5$9-.7---_3. 'I_ __. i h'.‘; ' ' -7..-£-—att—r7n o.. 4;;‘ I u— . I- 2‘. - "“ ' .' "‘ ' ‘. _' .T - - ' ' ‘ 7 “’00-’- I ‘ . . E . ~+ .1‘ II I k ,aqu—4-..L..cs Omn’- '2- ‘|‘--‘ 7 5.5 7 u- .4 .' ouoaumf. ..--.-r-o-o o "’-"f. '— 6‘ ’ ....‘ . - . -- . ..I - - 7 "I - 2 Q" - v ‘IP— 'bh’a‘. ' - .7 r '; ‘.-‘.-4. - -7 I. «at.» h ' p' I _ ' .’~ -. ¢.- - -—— — m ”dd-:71, . J I g 1 s ' .-- - ' ° . ' 3 t and on... I . p u _ c In. - - o ‘7 U" .7. .- o .0- .1 O .‘C 'r .17... l . . I If T l ‘ n” . nl v-7- -_. .u - - . ‘DUOHO-Owe-r 9y I '- q' 7‘ a & ._ h-h ‘.. -. ‘7‘. 37‘. ‘3- 7- - . 7 .7m;‘.7_t THESIS « 3 ~..\’gt\.% r. 7 . ... 7 \ n... 4. . 7 L 7...! .7. “unfit: .... . . .O.. .... w . x 7 .., F :l... I 1 & F..- maul . 4... A7. an .\ I. 7.! . .. in . a... 7. 71.. 7.. u. twiwvhfifii 7 . ~27 Inn-hi. nil-fina“H .. . xvii... . c n. .. .\ I SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL IN BACK OF BOOK A Problem Study of Soil-Como” A Tho-1. Submitted to The Faculty of IICHIGAR STATE 0 OLLME “ . AGRICULTURE AND APPLIE salmon Dononn 3. 5503 Candida!» for the Degree 01’ Bachelor of 30101100 Jun. 1948 TH ESIS‘ INTRODUCTION. The title of this thesis intimates that it represents a.technical problem. Like1mest engineering problems, the real value to be gained from it lies in the method or procedure of its solution rather than any specific answers obtained. I mention this merely to show the Objectives more clearly. The title also indicates that the subject to be delt 'with concerns soil-cement. a product which is best defined in a ”Portland Cement" publication as. EA staple mixture of soil with measured amounts of Portland Cement and water, compacted to high density.‘' Ithe use of soil-cement in the construction of low cost pavements. airfield runways, parking areas and similar projects, is constantly increasing. as of 1944 there were 40,000,000 sq. yds. of this type surface in use. At that date there were 44 highway departments equipped to investi- gate soil-cement prOblems. It should be pointed out that the advantages of this type of wearing surface are not being fully exploited in this area. The reason for this is not due to the erron- eous idea that soil-cement is not suitable in areas such as .lichigan where a large differential in weather conditions occurs. The reason is due to its lack of promotion by cement producers. This can be explained in this manner: In this area the supplies of gravel are large and convenient and therefore cheap. In areas where course aggregate must be shipped in 206034 the cost of producing concrete becomes much greater. Since the objective is to sell cement and soil-cement is a ment eoonomising measure, from the cement producers stand point the accent in this area is on concrete rather than soil-cement. l.IBhe suitability of using soil-cement in nichigan is limited only by, the type of soil present and the requirements of the project. as given in the previously mentioned ”Port- land Cement" publication, 'a six-inch compacted depth of soil- cement will be adequate generally for roadways carrying up to 1,000 vehicles a day, providing not more than about 50 are trucks having a gross weight of more than two tons." In order to illustrate the methods of procedure OI- ployed in soil-cement design and construction an original project will be presented. The details of design such as laboratory tests, analysis of their results, will be largely those accepted and set forth by such authorities as, ”The Portland Gwent association," "the merican society of Test- ing Materials ," "The American Association of State Highway Officials“, etc. The more general method of procedure is en- tirely a personal one, confirmed by frequent consultations with Ir. 0.0. Blomquist of the department. The consideration of a suitable illustrative project was given a great deal of thought. after much deliberation on such points as, location, size, practicability, it was de- cided to use the campus area bounded on the south by the new Macklin Bowl and the tennis courts union the north by the road running adjacent to the Red Cedar River. A more accurate picture of its actual location and boundaries may be obtained by referring to print no. 1 which show details of a transit tape survey made on the area. This particular piece of ground has been designated by the college as a parking area. Its actual use as a park» ing area has been at best, intermittent, depending on weather conditions. although the slope of the area is adequate for proper drainage, the soil has a comparitively high clay and silt content which makes it extremely unstable during the spring thaw and periods of wet weather. In short it is quite obvious from actual Observations in the past that there is a definite need for stabilization of the soil in this area if it is expected to serve as a satisfactory year-round, all weather parking area. The scope of the work presented here includes all the preliminary investigation necessary before actual construction could be started. a step by step procedure is outlined as follows: 1. Transit tape survey of the area. a. Determine actual size and boundaries of the area. B. Plot and determine location of soil samples. 2. Show'by means of comparative soil tests that the soils to be stabilized can be considered homogeneous and therefore have similar physical and mechanical characteristics. 3. Selection of a soil-cement ratio that will give the most economical, durable surface. 4. Determination from soil-cement tests actual amounts of materials necessary in construction. TRANSIT TAPE SURVEY OF THE aREA. ‘a transit tape survey of the area under considera- tion was made for several reasons. First of all, to establish a definite area from which design data may be computed. Secondly, to determine the size of the area to be designed for. Finally, to aid in the location of the representative soil samples. The distances were taped to the nearest foot and the angles measured to the nearest minute. In explanation of the degree of accuracy used in running the survey it may be said that it is not necessary to find the exact size of the area merely an approximation. The method of computing the area can best be followed by referring to print no. 1. From the survey notes the traverse was plotted to a scale of 1' equals 40‘. The resulting poly- gon was divided into three triangles. Using conventional geo- metric methods, altitudes of these triangles were constructed and scaled. It was then possible to find the total area in- closed by the traverse by taking the sum of the areas of the triangles. It should be stressed again that this figure can not represent the exact area due to the approximate methods used in computing it. However it serves to provide a picture for illustrating the methods used in the design as well as pro- viding a basis for preparing subsequent estimates. Considerable thought was given to the location of the soilfisamples. The object of course, being to locate than so as to obtain a true representation of the soil con- ditions occurring in the area. It was decided to base the i study of these conditions on an analysis of five samples. Therefore the polygon was divided into five triangles and the position of each of the samples was located at the geo- metric center of each triangle. For a better picture of the sample location method refer to print no. 2. Computation of the Traverse area. Scale 1? equals 40' 31d. 1 - z eeeeeeeeeeeeeeee 310. . 2 - 3 eeseeeeeeeeeeeee ‘64. ' - eeeeeeeeeeeeeeee ‘50, 3 4 I 4 - 5 eeeeeeeeeeeeeeee 248. 5 6 a - eeeeeeeeeeeeeeee 662. Triangle 1’2’5: Altitude e e e 160. Baa. e e e 662' area e e 160 I 662 g 80 x 662 = 52.960 BQe ft. ~7— Triangle 5-2-4: Altitfld. e e e 133' B880 e e e 634' area . . 122 x 634 : 168 x 61 : 38,674 sq. ft. Triangle 2-3-4: Altitude . . . 336' Base . . . 634' area e e 356 g 63‘ 3 168 x 634 ’ 106,518 sq. ft. 106,512 sq. ft. 38,674 ” " 58,960 " ' Total: 197,146 sq. ft. -- Total area of Polygon fflote: Sides and altitudes scaled. THE SOIL.KNAB!SIS The first consideration is: Is the soil suitable for stabilization? This depends on gradation and position in the soil profile. The latter consideration does not affect the suitability of the soil to a depth of about 9' will be used. That is all the soil to be stabilized will come from the same horizon. another factor contributing to the favorability of the problem is that the area has recent- ly been filled and graded. The backfill material originating from the excavation on the construction of the women's dorms itories. 0n the subject of gradation, there are three general classifications of soil with respect to its suitability for stabilization: 1. Sandy and Gravelly Soils. These soils are most ideal and present no unusual construction problems. 8. Sandy Soils without fines. These types have equally good characteristics except for packing and finishing. Because of poor gradation and absence of fines, heavy rubber-tired equipment, may have trouble pulling through the mixtures during construction. The extreme cases of this type may require improvement of gradation. However usually addition of cement corrects this. also, without a final bituminous wearing coat, the surface may not have as high wearing characteristics as unsurfaced soil-cement made from group l. 3. Silty and Clayey Soils. These soils make satisfactory soil-cement but sometimes require the added difficulty of pulverising. Soils that are difficult to pulverize at dry moisture content, many times can be broken down, that is dissed and narrowed, more easily if water is added and permitted to soak in. also if the soil of this type is too wet pulverizing may be accomplish- ed more easily if it is allowed to dry out a little. This means that stabilization of this type of soil requires close attention to the prevailing weather conditions. also if it is desireable to ignore weather conditions and the available equipment is not satisfactory for pulverizing, it may be necessary to change the gradation by borrowing and backfilling. Soils which have been tested and used successfully on a major portion of the soil-cement construction in the U. 8., have the following limits for gradation and physical test constants: Sieve Size h by wt. passing Liquid Plastic Limit Index 3' . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100% . . . . . . . . . . . . . . No.4 . . . . . . . . . . . . 50$~lOO$ . . . . . . . . . . . . £0.40 . . . . . . . . . . . 15$-100$ . . . not over 40 . . . NO.200........... 05-151 ......notoverlB In applying the above considerations to the prOblsn at hand, the suitability of the soil was determined by a foot reconnaissance. When Obtaining soil samples it became apparent that the general tentitive soil classification of the area would be, sandy clay. The samples were taken at the locations determined previously in the ”survey“. The manner of Obtaining them was as follows: about sales of soil was taken from a sec- tion approximately a foot square by 9' in depth.- 8' Sand 7' Hanging fro-.8andy Clay to Clay General Soil Profile of area. It was suspected that due to the previously mention- ed origin of the soil, it would have fairly consistent charac- teristics. In order to prove this, certain laboratory tests were run on each sample to discover and compare these charac- teristics. The ultimate purpose of these tests was to establish the treatment requirements of the soil such as trial soil- cmment ratios. The range of treatment requirements of course depends on the number of soil types encountered. For instance, if tests prove only one type to be present, a single range of treatment requirements may be set up and a single set of dur- ability tests run. However this will be considered in greater detail later. The physical constants or soil characteristics which can best be used to establish a soil type are the following: 1. Test for Specific Gravity. 4. Test for Liquid Limit. 2. Mechanical analysis. 5. Test for Plastic Limit. 3. Test for Hydrogen-ion Concentration. Test No. 1: Test for Specific Gravity of Soils apparatus: Volumetric Flask; Glass Graduate, Balance, Pipette, Kerosene. Procedure: The object or this test is to determine the apparent specific gravity of a soil. Weigh out approximately 30 grams or soil and place in a 100 ml volumetric flask noting the exact weight or the flash when empty. Add 50 mls or Kerosene. attach flask to vacuum pump and draw out all trapped air in soil. Continue to fill the flash with Kerosene up to the loo ml mark. Note Just how much Kerosene was added. The volume of the soil sample will be equal to the amount of Kerosene add 6d e Test For Specific Gravity Sample "a? - First Trial Wt. of Flask----~-------~-------- 44.45 grams fit. of Soil Sample and Flask ----- 74.5 " ------...--.."35:55 a Total volume of Flask----------- 100 ml Volume of Kerosene added------ Bl ' 5% Specific Gravity- --------------- 50.05 é ll 3 2.752 Sample "AP - Second Trial Wt. of Flask---------e---------¢ 41.825 grams Wt. of Soil Sample and Flask---- 71.997 ' Wt. of Soi1--~ ----------------- .357172' ' Total volume of F1ask~~-~~~~-- 100 ml Volume of Kerosene added------ 88.5 ml Volume of Soil-------------n---- "1123—“ Specific Gravity- -------------- -- 30.173 § 11.5 : 2.6a4 Final Specific Gravity of Sample FA" - 2.732 58.624 3 2.678 Sample ”B" - First Trial Wt. 0f Flask-------------—------ 39.883 grams Wt. of Sample and Flask-------- 69.91 ' Wt. or soil---~- ------------- oé‘BUTUEV' , Sample ”B” -- First Trial con' t. Volume of Kerosene added-«~«------—--— 88.75 ml Total Volume of Flask-- Volume of Soil-om-ou------- ....... ..-- m e Specific Gravity-m- -------------------- -- 30.027 {- 11.25 : 2.669 Sample "B” - Second Trial Wt. of flask-«mu ----------- ---------«-- 43.047 grams Wt. of Sample and Flask-o-«u-«un-o-u 70.23 ' wt. of soil---- ------- ----- --------- - ‘27:!53 " Total Volume of Ilaskm-«o-u ------- - 100 ml Volume of Kerosene addod-..---..--....--- 89.5 ml Volume of Soil----—-------- ----------- - ‘IU'JS" " Specific Gravity --------- ------- - 27.183 $110.5 «.- 2.579 final Specific Gravity of Sample "B” 2.669 - 2.579 : 2.624 ‘r Sample ”C” - Firet Trial Wt. of Ilaskm-u-«m --------- ~--------- 46.17 grams Wt. of Soil and near-m-«u-m-«u» 74.11 - m. of Sample-mmM-------m - Total volume of Ilask-------------- 100 I]. Volume of Kerosene added----------- 89.5 ml Volume of Soil-~«----------------- ”I575" Specific Gravity-n-o- ------------------ - 27.94 {-10.5 . 2.662 Smmple ”C” - Second Trial Wt. of Flask-----¢-------------- 45.59 grams Wt. of Soil and Flask~-¢----- ------- 75.565 ' 'wt. or soil---- --------------------- '1fifififlfl5 ' Total Volume of Flask-------------- 100 ml Volume of Kerosene added----~ ------ -- 89 ' ‘Volume of Soil--- ----- ------—------ .117“ rinal Specific Gravity of Sample '0' Shmple "D" -- First Trial Wt. of IlasK--.-.-..------..-----... Wt. of Sample and Plast~~--~ ------- .. Volume of Kerosene added---o-------- V01“. Of 8011- ......... --m-------” Specific Gravity-------—.... ..... .. Sample "D” ~¢ Second Trial Wt. Of Sample and Flask-----.-----.... Wt . or mp1. 00..---- ..... - ........ “. Volume of Kerosene added------------ valm. of 3011... .o.....«... ........ .- 29.975 i 11 g 2.720 8.662 - 2.720 g 2.691 *‘2 46 e 17 grams 75.805 ' 29335- 7 100 ml 88.25 ml I I‘VE U 290635 . 11.75 C 2.522 47.802 grams 78.915 ' 'BI:7I5' ' 100 ml 87 ' '13-- Test No. 2: .lechanical Analysis of Soils Apparatus: Balance, Stirring apparatus, Glass Graduate, Glass Beaker, Wash bottle and Distilled Water, Thermometer, Sieves No.'s 10.20-40-60-100-200, Clock, Soil.Hydrometer. Procedure:- The object of the test is to determine the gradation or percentages of various partical sizes contained in a soil sample. Weigh out a sample of soil, approximately 50 grams. Alix distilled water and sodium.hydroxide, 25 grams, and let stand for 24 hours. ‘Hix thoroughly for 6 minutes and pour into a glass graduate, filling it full. Place the hydrcmeter in solution along with the thermometer and record both: hydrometer and thermometer readings for intervals noted in the tables. Wash the sample through a No. 200 sieve. Dry and weigh the soil failing to pass the No. 200 sieve. Run a siefe analysis using the Bo.'s 10-20.40-60-lOO-200. Deter- mine the percentages retained and passed the individual sieves. Data Record: Mechanical Analysis of Sample "A" Hydrometer No. 381030 Sp. Gr.2.624 Warsaw“ *m seesaw cone» Tm: TEN? can. M? R boom-i K. Kc Ks. Dm- 01a- 1 79 20.0 0.2 20.2 40.5 .478 1.02 .92 .078 .035 2 79 19.2 0.2 19.; 38,. .524 1.02 .92 .055 -027 5 79 17.0 0.9 17.2 34.5'.528 1.00 .92 .055 ~017 10 79 16.0 0.2 16.2 3;, -531 1,02 .92 .025 .012 15 79 15.5 0-2 15.7 31.4 .551 1.02 492 -020 .010 30 79 14.5 0.2 14.7 (9.4 .533 1.02 .92 .014 .007 60 79 1 .5 0,2 13.7 27.4 .535 1.02 .92 .010 .005 120 80 13.0 0.2 13.2 25.0 .537 1.02 .92 .007 .004 Sieve Analysis of material passing a No. 10 sieve. Summary: Therefor sample ::EIWMam'% L*HGSCMMUJWNB%q ' "EM‘L Rum Preeml r10 0.5 0.9 99.17 0.9 99.4 20 0.5 0-9 99.1 1.8 98.2 40 4.7 9.2A90.8 11.0 89.0 60 5.2 10-0 90.0 21.0 79.0 100 11.3 22.2 77.8 45.2 56,8 200 4.6 9.0 91.0 52.2 47, Sand--- 52.4w Silt--- 20.4% '01ay--- 27.4% "A" is a "sandy clay loam". Data Record: Mechanical Analysis of Sample "8" Hydrometer No. 381032 Sp; Gr. 2.579 emanate 9...... 988515.828; We “ms: was? ores. R W V“. Kr. Om 0w. 1 79 20.0 0,2 20,2 40.5.478 1.02 2 .078 .035 2 79 19.0 0.2 19.2 58.5 .524 1.02 .92 .05 .027 *F5 79 17.5 0.2 17.7 35.4 .526 1-02 -92 -035 leZ. 10 79 16.5 0.2 16.7 33.4 .528 1.02 .92 .025 .017 15 79 16.0 0.2 16.2 32.4 .531 1.02 .92 .020 .010 30 79 15.5 0.2 15.7 31.4 .531 1.02 .92 .014 007 60 79 14.0 0.2 14.2 28.4 .535 1.02 .92 .010 .005 120 79 13.5 0.2 13.7 26,4 -535 1.02 . 2 .007 .004 Sieve Analysis of material passing a No. Summary: Silt--- 9am: bl 'qflmskmnmmcumyx 3‘75 man sees 10 0.9 99.] 0.9 99.1 20 2.9 97.1 3.8 96.2 40 9.5 90.4 13.8 86.6 60 13.0 87.0 26.9 73.6 100 23.0 76.6 49.8 50.2 200 15.0 85.0 04.8 35.2 Sand--- 64.8% Clay-—— 28.4% §-B% Therefore sample "B" is a "sandy Clay loam" 10 sieve. Data Record: Mechanical Analysis of Sample "0" Hydrometer No. 344270 Sp. Gr. 2.720 . 23:293.? 2.... 882922-2222 97"” 1m; 1w one. AR 1? Lama; K. «a K... om. ow. #1 80 18.0 0.2 18.2 34.9 .510 -98 -92 .078 ~037 . 80 15.0 0.2 15.2 29.2 .515 .98 .92 .055 .026 5 79 15.0 0.2 15.2 29.2 .516 .98 .92 .035 .016 10 79 15.0 0.2 15,2 29,2 .515 .98 .92 .02= .012 15 79 13.5 0.2 13- 26.3 .519 .98 .92 .020 .00 30 79 13-0 0.2 13.2 25,4 .531 .98 .92 .014 .00 6O 80 12-5 0.2 12- 24.0 .52 ~98 .92 -01C .005 120 79 12.0 0.2 12.: 23. .52 .98 -92 .007 .002 Sieve Analysis of material passing a No. 10 sieve. cunnnmma?’ ::::::::;zhmwaf%Pns “unfinpmgae 10 0-5 0.9 99.1 0:9 99.1 20 0.8 1.6 98.4 2.5 97.5 40 3.4 6.7 93.3 9.2 90.8 50 8.0 15-7 84-5 24.9 75.1 100 18.3 36.0 64.0 60.9 39.1 200 7.5 14.7 85.3 75.6 24.4 Summary: Sand--- 75.6% Silt--- 0.4% Clay--- 24.0% Therefore sample "C" is a "sandy clay loam". Data Report: 'Mechanical Analysis of Sample Hydrometer No. 378178 Sp. H '\ ll 19 Gr. 2.481 mm 1...... 28228823.“. we 'TW‘E. TEN? ORV: AR R WW. KL. Kg K9 D\F\. 0‘91. 1 79 21.0 0.2 21.2243.7 .520 1.05 ~92 .078 .039 2 79 17.5 0.2 17.7 36.4 .527 1.05 .92 ~055 .028 5 79 15-5 0-2 16~7 33.6 -529 1.05 .92 .035 .018 10 79 16.0 0.2 16.2 33.4 .531 1.05 .92 .025 .013 15 79 15.0 0.2 15.2 31.3 .533 1.05 .92 .020 .010 30 79 14.0 0.2 14.2 29,3 .536 1.05 -92 .014 .007 50 79 13.0 0-2 13.2 27.2 .538 1.05 .92 .010 .005 120 79 12.5 0.2 12.7 26.2 .538 1.05 .92 .007 .004 Sieve Analysis of material passing a No. 10 sieve. Summary: Therefore sample "D" is a "sandy clay loam" QaaEbuaewhx *fihfi CUMMLHVNEZ EazslfimNHJ “D Fmss 10 005 009 990] 0.9 99']- 20 1.1 3.1 97.9 3.0 97.0 40 2,9 5.7 94.3 8.7 91.3 60 4.1 8.0 92.0 16.7 83.3 100 8.2 16.1 83.9 32.8 71.2 200 11.2 22.0 78.0 54.8 45.2 Sand--- 54.8% Clay--- 27.2% Data Record: Mechanical Analysis of Sample "E" Hydrometer No. 205707 5p. Gr. 2.569 “3.228123“ has 28288-8282 40585 TME TEMP 0680. AP. R 1008M“ K1. He. KN Dm- 0m. 1 80 26.c 0.2 26.2 51.4 .510 1.03 .92 .078 .038 2 so 22.0 0.2 22.2 43,5 .518 1.03 .92 .055 ~027 5 80 20.0 0.2 20.2 39.6 .522 1.03 .92 .035 .017 10 80 18,5 0.2 18.7 36.8 .524 1.03 .92 .025 .012 15 80 17.5 0.2 17.7 34.7 .526 1.03 '92 .020 .010 30 80 16.5 0.2 16.7 32. .528 1.03 .92 .014 .007 60 80 14.5 0.2 14.7 29.7 .531 1.03 .92 .010 .005 120 80 14.0 0.2 14.2 28.7 .535 1.03 .92 .007 .004 Siéve Analysis of material passing a No. 10 sieve. Dummary: Therefore Sample "E" is a"sandy clay loam". commh‘nmz 313’: £333 ”mums mm mg, 10 §.5 9&9; 99.10.9- 99.1 20 112 32.5 97.5 3.3 96.1 40 5.4 96.} 93.3 10.0 90.0 60 4.3 ;8.5 91.5 18.5 82.5 100 58.1 16.0 84-0 34.5 65.5 .200 -78.]; $6.0 84.0 50.5149.5 Sand--- 50.5% Silt--- 19.8% Clay--- 290770 Triaxial Chart For Textuml Classification 0! Soils ° AA ' ' O 3 fl 3 8 ‘9 J 97 62 9’ 81L Sample "A" Sample "B" Sample "C" Sample "D" Sample "E" Test Ho. 3: Test roriflydrogenpion Concentration of Soils Apparatus: Indicator Solution, Color’Chart, Waxed Paper. Procedure: Place a few grams of the soil sample to be tested on a piece of waxed paper and add to it six or seven drape of indicator solution. Watch the sample, compare its color with that or the color chart. This will indicate the relative acidity or alkalinity of the soil according to the following scale: 6.5 Very Slightly Acid . 7.0 Neutral 7.6 Indium.Alkaline 8.0 Strongly alkaline 9.0 very Strongly.alkaline Test Results: Sample "A” e .3. a ecu I up. u 'E' mmmco m¢-.------- 8.0 8.0 8.0 7.5 8.0 Test No. 4: Test for the Liquid Limit of Soils Apparatus: .lechanical Liquid Limit Device, Grooving Tool, Spatual, Balance, 60cc weighing Bottles with Ground Glass Tops. Procedure: The Liquid meit of a soil is defined as the moisture content, expressed as a percentage of oven dried weight, at which the soil will Just begin to flow when light- ly Jarred ten times. Take a 30 gram.sample, oven dried to a constant weight, place in brass dish of Liquid Limit.machine. Mix with distilled water until it becomes a thick past. Level off with spatula until thickness at center is about 3/8". The layer or soil so formed shall be separated into two parts by means of the grooving tool and the machine crank turned so that the dish will be Jarred lightly at the rate or ten times in 5 seconds. When the edges or the two sections meet and flow together Just at the 10th turn, the soil is said to have reached its liquid limit. Take a small portion of the sample adjacent to the groove and place in the weighing Jar. Use two samples. Weigh the samples on the balance and place in oven at 110 degrees C. until dried to a constant weight. Weigh again to obtain loss or moisture during drying. Test for Liquid Limit Sample RAP Trial.Ho. 1 Trial No. 8 It. or wet soil and weighing bottleo-o------50.85 grame-----47.714 grams Wt. or weighing bottle§~o¢43.327 ' -----3?.09 ' wt. of wet soil---~¢--e-- 7.538 ” ------ 4.624 " Wt. or dry soil and weighing bottle---«---49.875 " ------4l.ll " Wt. of dry soil---—------. 6.548 " ~—----—- 4.02 9 Wt. of water in soil----- .975 ' ~------- .604 ” Liquid Limit--------o14.92 ' -----15.05 " Final Liquid Limit of Sample ”a“ --- 14.985 Sample "B” Trial no. l Trial.No. z Wt. or wet soil and weighing bottle--~--o-45.045 grams -~~~~49.85 grams Wt. or weighing bottle--ld.ne ' ---40.953 ' Wt. of wet soil-ooooo-.o-,9.965 * ...... 3.397 a Wt. of dry soil and “Cighing bOttlom,“”‘.‘30589 I! m--48.63 " Wt. or dry soil------- 8.499 ' ~---- 7.67? " Wt. or water in soil- 1.466 " ---- 1.22 " Liquid Limit---~------17.25 " ~----15.92 ' Final Liquid Limit of Sample "B" -- 16.585 Sample “C” Trial 30. 1 Trial Ho. 8 ‘Wt. or net soil and weighing bottle--------57.95 grams -----52.025 grams Wt. of weighing bottleoeu-45.135 * ..45,435 a Sample '0' can't. Trial No. l Wt. or dry soil and weighing bottle-----—-----56.205 grams Wt. of dry soil--—------ll.07 ' Trial No. 2 ----50.777 grams ..-... 7,432 I Wt. of water in 8011- - 1.725 8 ~----- 1.248 ~ Liquid Limit -- -----l$.5 " --o--16.99 " Final Liquid Limit of Sample "0" mm 15.245 Sample "D" Trial.No. 1 Trial N0. 2 Wt. of wet soil and weighing bottle- ------46.07 grams Wt. of weighing bottle----36.68 ” Wt. of wet soil—- ----- ----~- 9.39 " Wt. 01 dry soil and weighing bottle-o--------44.81 " Wt. or dry soil--«~c----- 8.13 " Wt. of water in soil------- 1.26 ” Liquid Limit- -----47.375 grams m--"37036 ' -----10.015 ' -----45.945 ' 8.585 ' muons-.16 . 65 I Final Liquid Limit------- Sample ”D” -- 16.02 Sample “E” Trial No. l Wt. of wet soil and weighing hottle—-----—----47.68 grams Wt. or weighing bottle---435.98 v Wt. of wet soil---~----4ll.64 ' Wt. of dry soil and weighing bottle--- ------- --45.945 “ Wt. or dry soil--—--~---- 9.965 " Wt. or water in soil--e--é 1.670 " “Quid Limit- ------16.8 ' Trial No. 8 -----44.615 grams man-34.63 I. -- ..... 9.935 e "’"""""430 335 ' -«m- 8 .605 I! elem-oeel6 .02 II Final Liquid Limit of Sample "E” --- 16.41 Test No. 5: Test for Plastic Limit of Soils Apparatus: Spatula, Glass Plate about 12" x 6', Weighing Bottles, Balance. Procedure: The plastic Limit of a soil may be defined as the lowest moisture content, expressed as a precentage of weight of oven dried soil, at which the soil can be rolled into 1/8' threads without breaking. Take about 25 grams or soil mixed with enough water to become easily worked. Form the sample into a ball and place on the glass plate. Roll to tone thread which if the Plastic Limit has been reached, will begin to break at- about 1/8' in diameter. . Place a few grams of the sample in the weighing bottle, weigh, dry and weigh to determine moisture content. From the above data compute the Plastic Limit of the soil. . Test for Plastic Limit Sample "A” Trial No. 1 Trial No. 2 It. of wet soil and weighing bottlem-«------ d9.64 grams-ou- 40.498 grams Wt. of weighing bottle-nun“- 43.35 " m 37.085 " It. 01' wet soil--—--—------ 6.29 " ----- 3.415 " It. or dry soil and weighing bottle-e It. of dry Boilm--------~ 5.545 " ..... 3.02 " “o"... ‘8 .8 95 U .o... 40 C 105 ” Wt. or water in soil-«W .745 " ........ .393 " Plastic Lilit- 13.45 ---- 13.0 final Plastic Limit of Sample 'A' «- 13.223 Sample '13" Trial no. 1 Trial no. 2 It. of wet soil and weighing bottleo-«u-u-ou-oo- 43.36 grams----- 47.1? grams “to or Wishing b0tth‘““‘" 35.07 ' “m 40e945 ' fit. or Wet soil- Wt. 01' dry soil and weighing bottleu-m-m-m d2.39 " ---- 46.41 " men-o--- 8 . 52 . ...m 6 g 285 II It. or dry soil--------- 7.32 ' ---- 5.465 " Wt. of water in soil Plastic Limit--—-- ...... 13.32 ~----- 13.9 Final Plastic Limit Of Smple 'B' --- 13.575 “O... .9? u m .76 . Sample ”0" Trial Ho. 1 Trial No. 2 Wt. of wet soil and weighing bottle----------—- 50.274 grams-«- 46.322 grams Wt. of weighing bottle-«mu 37.35 " “m 43.425 " Wt. of wet soil------------ 12.924 " ~----- 2.89? " Shmple “G“ can't. Wt. or dry soil and weighing bottle-------..--....- Wt. or water in 3011..-“..-«a Phatic mitmuommm-g Trial No. 1 Trial Ho. 8 11.875 1.149 " 9.68 Final Plastic Limit of Sample “0" - 18.540 Sample 'D" Tri Wt. or wet soil and at. of weighing bottle-“oom- Wte or wet .011 Vt. of dry soil and weighing bottle-“mm”..- W Plastic Limit-«uo-«uu- 81 NOe 43.87 36.68 6.19 42.82 5.54 .65 11.75 Final Plastic Limit of Sample 'D" «- Sample '3” Tri It. of wet soil and 31 NOe "16111118 batt10m~--‘”--m 41.425 Wt. 0f "5 BOilWOM-oc Wt. of weighing bottle "to or dry 8011 and 5.44 35.985 Wt. of dry soil-m--......- Wt. 01‘ water in soil Plastic Limit-mu 4e... 5.54 .59 12 .15 1 11.50 45.935 2.51 .38? 15.4 Trial NOe “Q.-- 9 51.657 45.13 6.527 50.996 5.866 .661 11. 368 Trial No. rinal Plastic Limit of Sample "E“ .... 12.019 42.097 7 .483 34.615 41.502 6 .687 .795 11.888 grams grams ANALYSIS OF SOIL TEST RESULTS. One of the primary objectives in running the soil tests was to show by means of the comparative data that the five soil samples taken from the area were of a similar type. Beginning with the very simple HydrOgen-ion Concen- tration test, results show that all samples are on the alka- line side. Next. the Specific Gravity test showed a varia~ tion of from 2.481 to 8.691. a.difference of only 2 tenths with an average sp. gr. of 2.608. The differences in specific gravities is Just enough to support the small differences in the physical constants of each soil sample. For instance the maximum.liquid limit of any sample was 16.584while the minimum was 14.980. The highest plastic limit was 13.575 as compared with the lowest of 11.509. The most conclusive proof however is found in a study of the results from the mechanical analysis. This test shows a textural comparison and classification of each sample. although, again there are variations in the different perccn- tages of sand, silt and clay of each sample, when located on the triaxial chart each representative soil sample and there- fore the entire area.may be classified as sandy clay loam. another important application of the soil test data makes possible a classification of the soil according to the U. 3. Public Roads Administration as type a-Z. This becomes important when estimating cement requirements. SOILPCEMENT TSSTIEG There are three basic control factors which must be investigated before successful soil-cement construction may be expected. They are: l. Adequate Cement Content. 2. Preper.Mcisture Content. 3. Proper Density. The quantities of cement and water to add and the density to which the mixture should be compacted were deter- mined by four fundamental soil-cement tests. 1. Optimum Moisture-Maximum Density Test. 2. Freese~Thaw Test. 3. Wet-Dry Test 4. Compressive Strength Test. Before any of the above tests can be run a range of soil-cement ratios must be selected. The range, that is the maximum.and minimum.percentages by volume of soil and cement, to be investigated depends on the type of soil under consid- eration. With reference to a Portland Cement publication. “Soil-cement Laboratory Handbook", a range of from 6 to 10 per cent was selected. Previous investigation has shown this range to be adequate for an Ape soil. .111 soil-cement testing procedures were those as outlined by the a.S.T.I. The first test, "Standard Method of Test for Moisture-Density Relations of Soil-Cement.Mixtures", A.S.T.M. designation D-588-44.may be outlined as follows: Title: Test for Optimumenoisture.maximum.Density ' A.S.T.M. Desig. mess-44 Object: This method of test is intended for determining the relationship between the moisture content of the soil-cement mixtures and the resulting densities, oven dry weights per cubic foot, when the soil-cement mixture is compacted in the laboratory, before hydration takes place. apparatus: ‘Rold-A.cylindrical.metal mold having a capacity of 1/30 cu. ft. with an internal diameter of 4' and a height of approximately 4.6“ which has a volume of l/SO cu. ft. The mold and collar shall be fastened to a detachable base. Rammer~A.metal rammer having a 2” diameter circular face and weighing 5.5 lbs. The rammer shall be equipped with a suit- able arrangement to control the specified drop. Balances-a.balance or scale of £5 1b. capacity sensitive to .01 lb; and a 100 gram capacity balance sensitive to .1 gram. Drying Oven-A.thermostatically controlled drying oven capable of maintaining temperatures of about 110 degrees C. for dry- ing moisture samples. Procedure: The air dry soil first shall be pulverized to pass a No. 4 sieve so as to separate the soil particles without red- using the particle size. The required cement shall be added to the soil. 4 A.quantity of water sufficient to produce slight co— hesion shall then be thoroughly mixed with the soil-cemtn sample to permit ready compaction. The thoroughly mixed soil- cement sample shall be immediately compacted in the mold in three equal layers to give a total compacted depth of about 5"; each layer being compacted by 15 blows of the rammer dropping from a height of 12” above the elevation of the soil when a sleeve type rammer is used. During compaction, the mold shall rest on a uniform, rigid foundation weighing 200 lb. or its equivalent. The blows shall be uniformly distributed over the surface of the layer being compacted. after compact- ing, the collar shall be removed and the tOp carefully trimmed to the exact height of the mold with a steel straight edge to produce a speciment approximately 4.6“ in height and having a volume of 1/30 cu. ft. The weight of the compacted soil-cement mixture shall _ be determined, the material removed from the cylinder, sliced vertically?in the center and a 100 gram sample taken from the center, weighed immediately, dried in an oven at 110 degrees C. for at least 12 hrs. or to a constant weight. This proce- dureestablishes the moisture-density relation of the initial soil-cement mixture. The soil-cement mixture shall be again finely pul- verized, so as to separate the soil particles without reduc- ing the particle size, to pass a.No. 4 sieve and a small increment of moisture carefully added and thoroughly mixed to insure uniform distribution. The mixture is then compact- ed as previously mentioned and.a moisture density determining is made. This procedure is repeated until the moisture content appraaches the Liquid Limit. This procedure will establish the moisture density relations of a soil-cement mixture for the moisture contents practicable to handle in the field. The calculations are made to determine the mois- ture content and corresponding compacted oven dry weight of the compacted soil-cement for each test made on the mixture. The oven dry weights per cubic foot shall be plotted as or- dinates and the corresponding moisture contents as abscissas. When the moisture-density relations have been de- termined for a soil-cement mixture and the results plotted, the connected plotted points will produce a curve which is parabolic in form. The moisture content producing the peak of the curve is termed the "Optimum.moisture content" or the soil-cement mixture under the above compaction. ' The oven dried weight per cubic foot or the moist soil-cement mixture at "Optimum.moisture content” shall be termed "maximum density" under the above compaction. Determination of Optimum—Moisture Maximum-Density For Estimation of soil-Cement Ratio Data for 63 by volume of Portland Cement: WET 051' 8 ORV m. 0 “ET VJ?- Ofly “\— ‘m M Y “3" no- "N. “t... com .22. mm. em... "“3 1 35.7 2.8 8.9 2119 1931 127 2 25.7 23.0 11.7 2189 1932 128 3 33.8 37.7 13.2 2184 1898 125 Sample Calculations: wt. of weighing Jar and wet soil . . . . . . 80.2 grams “ft N H N H dry " o 0 Q 0 e o 77 O 3 * 1»th " N " e e e e e e e e e e e o e 44 O 5 " Wt e O f 7'581'. 50 1 1 e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e 35 o 7 28 :qt 0 " Dry '. O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O 32 O 8 " Wt. " moisture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.9 " Therefore flfioisture Content 2 7‘ $0 = 8091'}; 2.3 ”at weight of sample . . . . . . . 2119 grams Computed dry weight of sample. . 2119 - (.0892t2ll9)==1931 1221:30 =12? lbs. per cubic foot 5 Dry density OVEN DRY DENSVTV ‘37s» =1: \3Q \ Z3 ‘16 ‘1'? \LS' \2+ \13 ' Moisture Density Curve For 6% Soil-Cement Ratio \ZS i a. 3 4- 5' 6 7 8 q ‘Q \ \ \‘L "3 ‘4- Mcnsn‘uaa coN‘remT 7.0? OVEN Dav \MEtGH'T OPT\MUM MOBTURE —- ”3% MAMMUM DENSH’Y -- mace/mm. Determination of Optimum~MOisture maximum-Density For Estimation of Soil-Cement Ratio Data for 8; by volume of Bortland Cement: . ._ arr . m sea-Anew as: were: see 1 43.9 41.3 6.} 2041 1912.5 125.0 2 47.0 43.4 8.3 2100 1926.0 127.0 3 29.7 26.7 11.3 2213 1963.0 129.5 4 31.5 27.8 12.7 2234 1951.0 129.0 5 10.2 . 9.5 13.6 2149 1836.0 123.0 aample Calculitions: Wt. of weighing Jar and wet soil . . . . . 84.1 grams Wt. " " ” ” dry " . . . . . 80.5 " Wt. " ” " . . . . . . . . . . . . 37.1 ” ht. of wet soil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47.0 ' wt. " dry " . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43.4 " Wt. " Moisture. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.6 ” Therefore % moisture content A§.67‘100;;6.3fi Net weight of sample. . . . . . .A?.f . . . 2041 " Computed dry weight of sample 2041 - {2041>*.063)==1912.5 5x30 =126 lbsper cubic foot Dry density 1912. 4 454 Q/EN ORV DENsTv 33/0).th \aA- ioisture Density Curve For 8% Soil-Cement Ratio \30 ‘Zfi \ / \Z? N t 1234567$%\ou\e.u\4 ‘23 M01 STORE CONT ENT 92. 0F OVEN DRY WEGHT OPTtMUM MCnSTuRE; - H.332. MNMMW OENsrrY -— \aa.s%cx=-r Determination of Optimum-Moisture Kaximum-Density For Estimation of Soil-Cement Ratio Data for 10% by volume of Portland Cement:‘ m “Wot-smut: Fm WM.“ OEMTI’Y ' Remus fifimflm ‘3‘“‘“‘ qnnmm i? “6 “figywm 1 38.2 ‘35.8 6.3 1974 1850 123.0 V 46.7_H342.9 8.9 2098 1903 129.0 f0 45.9 41.4 11.0 2204 1959 '129.5 3 4 40.8 36.0 15.3 2179 1890 125.0 Sample Calculations: Wt. of weighing Jar and wet soil . . . . 83.3 grams Wt. " ” “ 3 dry " . . . . . 80.9 7" Wt. " " " . . . . . . . . . . . 45.1 i Wt. of wet soil . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38.2 1" Wt. " dry " . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35.8 " Wt. " moisture . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4 lherefore % moisture content. . . . 6.3% Wet weight of sample . . . . . . . . . . . 1974 " Computed dry weight of sample 1974 - (i974:¢.063)==1850 grms Dry density 18§0>¢§O-=l23 lbs. per cubic foot 5 OVEN DRy DENSWV $611!: 12!. :21 02.3 may use I“ Moisture Density Curve For 10% Soil-Cement Ratio Ilfi | 23 ‘ 23486769\°\|'\Z\3H- rams-r029: CONTENT % OF' CHEN DkaEIGt-fl‘ OPTIMUM VKMSVURE —— \\,Q,°/o NM\MUW\ DENSWY -' \Eq-5%.m SOIL-CWT TEST FOR DURABILITY In order to determine an adequate cement content, thatis the most economical cement content that will produce strong, durable soil-cement, samples representing the de- sired testing range were mixed and compacted to maximum.den- city at optimum.moisture. These samples were then subject- ed to the 'Freese-Thaw', "Weir-Dry"I and “Compressive Strength" test. The procedures and apparatus used in these tests were for the most part these as given by the Alerican society for Testing Materials. The durability and compressive tests are outlined in the following section. Title: standard.nethod of wetting and Drying Test of.00mpact- ed Soil-Cement.uixtures. Object: This method of test is intended for determining the soil-cement losses produced by repeated wetting and drying of compacted mixtures of known composition and of known uniform density and moisture content. 4 Apparatus: Same equipment used for construction of samples for A.8.TJI. desig. n-sss-ee. Drying Oven-A.thermostatically controlled drying oven capable of maintaining temperatures of about 110 degrees 0. for dryé ing moisture samples and compacted soil-cement specimens. Hoist Room-A moist room capable of maintaining a temperature of 21 plus of minus 1.7 degrees c. and a relative humidity of not less than 901 for seven day storage of specimens. Water Bath-Suitable tank for submerging compacted specimens in water at about 31 degrees C. , sh - Afibrueh.made of 2" by l/lc" flat Ho. 26 A.Wire Scratch Bruc gage wire bristles assembled in 50 groups of lo bristles each and mounted to form rive longitudinal rows and ten transverse rows or bristles on a ’I.!§'l by 2.5'I hardwood block. Procedure: at the end of storage in the moist room, the speci- mens shall be submerged in tap water at roan temperature for a period or five hours, and removed. The specimen shall be . placed in an oven at about 71 degrees C. for 4k hours and re- moved. The specimen shall then be weighed, given two tins strokes on all areas with the wire brush to remove all mater» ial loosened during wetting and drying. The specimen shall then be weighed again arter‘brushing. This completes one cycle, 48 hours, of wetting and drying. The procedure whall be continued for 12 cycles or discontinued prior to 12 cycles should the measurements be- come inaccurate due to distortion or soil-cement loss or the specimen. The soil-cement loss of the specimen shall be calcu- lated as a percentage of the original oven-dry weight or the ' specimen. Title: Standard Method of Test for Freezing-and-Thawing of Compacted Soil-Cement mixtures. Object: This method or test is intended for determining the soil-cement losses produced by repeated freezing and thawing or compacted specimens of soil-cement mixtures of known com- position and known density. ‘Apparatus: Same as used in.a.S.T.l. desig. D-558-44 with the I addition or a freezing cabinet capable of maintaining tempera- tures or minus 23 degrees C. or lower. Procedure: At the end of the storage period in the moist room, water saturated felt pads, blotters or similar ab- sorptive material shall be placed between the specimens and the holders, and the assembly placed in a refrigerator having a constant tenmperature not warmer than 23 degrees 0. for 82 hours and removed. Free water should be made available to the absor- bent pads under the specbmens to permit absorbtion of water by the specimens by capillarity. after 22 hours in the moist room, the specimen shall be weighed, brushed and reweighed. The oven-dry weight of the material brushed from the specimen shall then be calculated. This constitutes a cycle of freezing and thawing. The specimen shall then be placed in the refriger- ator and the procedure continued for la cycles or discontin- ued prior to 12 cycles should the measurements become inac- curate due to distortion or soil-cement losses. The soil- cement loss of the specimen shall be calculated as a percen~ tags of the original oven-dried weight of the sample. The compressive strength test consists of breaking specimens which have been allowed to cure for periods of 7, l? and 28 days. Data from a 17 day curing period compressive strength test is as follows: 6% Cement Content. . . . . 500 lbs per sq. in. 8% " " .....650" " " " 10% " " . . . . . 700 " " ” ” ANALYSIS OF SOILPCEMENT TESTS. It is regretted that there was not sufficient time to completely investigate the durability and strength char~ acteristics of the soil under study. Three cycles on the "Wet-Dry" and ”Freeze-Thaw" tests were completed. During these tests no appreciable soil loss occurred. The Portland Cement association specifies, in their Soil-Cement Mixtures Laboratory Handbook, a limit of 14% soil loss during the 12 cycles for A92 soils. .al- though no proof is available, there is every reason to be- lieve the compacted samples would meet this specification. The compressive strength specification from the same source reads as follows: FCompressive strengths shall increase with age and with increases in cement content". The extent of the compressive strength tests showed favorable results both with respect to necessary minimum strengths and increased strength with increased cement content. Further tests at different stages during the curing period would have been helpful in analising the stabilized soil. One extremely good reason for anticipating favorable performance from this soil is the extremely high density of the mixture. The data from the moisture-density test is com- plete for the treatment range chosen. coscmsxons. mommuxoas mm can-1013113 The soil-cement tests, although incomplete, answer the fundamental question: Is the soil suitable for stabili- sation? The answer is quite definitely yes. The lack of comparative data makes it difficult to select a final soil- cement ratio, however in order to insure satisfactory results a minimum percentage of 10% cement content is advised. In support of this, the Portland Cement association recommends that for practical reasons, no cement contents less than 7% by volume for field use in the construction of soil-cement. a.summation of the results from the soil-cement tests leads to the following recommendations concerning actual soil-cement construction: Optimum Moisture . . . 11$ by volume Maximum.Density . . . 129.5 lbs. per. cu. ft. Cement Content . . . 10% by volume With a soil-cement ratio of 10%, and a final.comp pasted depth of 6‘, a simple calculation shows the number of bags of cement necessary to stabilize the entire parking area to be 12,068. 129.5 x 1/2 x 197,146 3 12,765,203 lbs. of stabilised soil 11% x 12,765,203 : 1,404,172 lbs. of water 12,765,203 - 1,404,172 3 11,361,031 lbs. of dry soil 11,361,031 x 10% 3 1,136,103 lbs. of cement 1,136,103.l -'94 3 12,068 bags of cement also, in regard to actual construction, due to the high clay content, special equipment will be necessary to pulverise the soil where it has been compacted by traffic. Due to the existing slope of the area, run-off during wet weather would cause detrimental wearing action on the soil- cement surface. Therefore it is recommended that the final surface be treated with a'bituminous and crushed rock cur. face coating. .a criticism of this paper should re-smphasize the lack of soil-cement date. Less time should have been spent on the soil tests. Probably the mechanical analysis alone would have been conclusive enough to show the single soil type existing. This would have allowed more time for the durability tests. If more time had been available the information Obtained could have been used with a bit more on construc- tion costs to establish the materials and costs covering the project. as a final constructive criticism, I would say that this"pr0blem study“ has been both interesting and educational. p. E: . “"‘-’b!,¢. BIBLINRAPHY 3 Portland Cement Publications: 1. "Soil-Cement mixtures Laboratory Handbook" 2. "Smary of Soil-Cement Testing and Construction” 3. ”Soil—Cement Roads Construction Handbook“ 4. 'Preliminary Report - Field and Laboratory Studies of Cement Treated Base" ‘ 5. 'Tentitive Specifications for Cement Treated Base" American Society of Testing materials Standard Tests: 1. Designation no. M58-“ 2. " " D-559-44 3. " " $560.44 Miscellaneous: 1. "Basic Principles of Soil-Cement Mixtures" by P.T. Sheets and M.D. Oatton. 2. "Soil Tests and Their Significance” publication distributed tin G.E. 442 5. "Applied Soil Mechanics - Laboratory Hanual of Soil Testing” by Wm. Housel. 4. "Applied Soil lechenice «- Part 1 Soil as an Engineering Material” by Wm. Housel. I ...-\l.. .PiFI-flnlnil‘l‘ll 1111.. 1 . 1 1 .1111 . \. . J 1.4 l 1 . . . - I 11.11 ?r. r .. u 11.1]- .I. . 11.. .111 11I I. | . 1 1. ’ Jiviilti‘ . . III’I'- . . . 1 I. . l . L I e .1 1 e1 | A. a I1 1 1| 4. .1 \ul - I t! .. . .l .1. . . . . 1..- ,. . .. 1 1‘. 1.1-1. . .. . - I . r. . . 1 ., . I . "l e ,4 . . L. a . . . 1 1 I. IIIOI \. 1.1 I I. - .1 41iillll'r‘tt’. I... . . . . . .. a 1 .I l -. . 1 1| . ' .. . Kr I . r"; €1.11. .. J .‘.."t. “.1 19‘ . . . :1 - ..\.1... e . til} €(4.F. ‘L h.. 1!. t1... . l) .- l 4 r ‘ 4'. I. , 1. .n i . .1 . .11.!1‘! 11 .l' .e .11 I . :1 e (ilelv. .1... 1.. . . ;.¢.1 G o 1.: e l. 1 l1. '31.“.1’5 -.... 1494...] 41 (unfit. , . ., . «\- I a . 1 )1 '1).le . .1 .“vi .. .e v \I 1.1 . , .1 . , I 1.11 . . . .. . . - 1 «.1. 1.11 I! . .1 '11..-- 1 1 .l I} .MJek 1 I . .. . . . 1%}. h. .1 . . . . . .... . . .E.f... I. .1 .. .. - . . ..u........-.:? 3.92.... 3.1-... .1Wm... .3... 1 1.1.1.! ‘Wh' .L.I&Y.v‘fl‘lr~e.1.. .. .. ...-....I.r.-l’ \. . . 1.... 11.1...U1.Au(1 I . , . 4.6.1” 13%; a \ ~vl! "'2‘ g 1 "- r, ’3. gr. ”.3. ‘fi' . 'c". ' - «1.19 a.“ - u. t. .41" ' k . NW" .. . 5:311. . . 1 l {.14 #5 ‘Ii'hm - .' K. 1'“; _ - u . ~ _‘ 15!?4£.-1fi ' -- ' ~7é.‘ _ -~ ' _ " .nl.‘ ‘XV’ ‘ '3“ 1. . ._. _ ,. r .’.‘. . . _ ,- . . "v‘fi.‘\"—‘ . _» .» . . -"‘« ‘7 'r W ‘L ‘1‘” I' ‘ .I .. ' .H. . *l . ._ I" l '- I I". ' “ 1 " ~1~ 9 -' . f” u'" '. , ' . ‘w .e; 1‘ ‘ .. . . ‘ .. . _ ‘2 '- . ; ’ L’a'él'... ' ._..,..' 4.‘ .,.; W _‘ *‘ ' , ‘hs'. o'~.‘-.. -’ ' * ' " . ‘ .1? , 3'" ‘1»...‘2‘q; .- - 1: -‘- . . '1" ",e ‘. v .".,- ‘ . » .. . - . . 5N .‘ - ‘I. _ .) . ‘ . _ ,_ > . . v. ‘ 'l , \h, . _ . , _» e ‘z . .., .7 ‘-‘. . _ . ,. '. . . . : ‘7’“ r...” )fl'ffiJ}. . . ' r. . . ' . _ , 3‘ ' -. . -. .'- .'l .» . x 4 ' . . ‘ I . ' - " '» ‘ ' , _ . -' . ‘. . _ 1- 1K .‘ . a .. ' , ' , - . ' ‘.. . - , '3' fe‘ . ,- . -. _L . '. “ .~ ' .' - I ~ ,_ . . 31:...“ L’ .,‘ .. ~. .- ~' . ' -- .' ", . “A. ~ .. JR. . ' -- -. .- -. r ' .’A€‘u'|wh5 ~ ' _ . . . -. .11 #1... '.~‘ . , "-"'-Qr' " . . , - L. . . er»- ~ .1 . _. ..- .- 5;», . , ., ‘ ‘:.'Z'.r"9. '. . ' .fi. I". - v.5 5 4:. .I - ‘- - \eé' ' ) J. ,1 inf“; .9511“ - . -A' "a. 3. ”'.'~.."‘.'-F ""afi‘thf’, r!'°$-:§<‘ W ‘W . .ml\ '3' .b 3- .‘i ,a . . ..--—- . ;«-*, U ‘- ‘jkg f ‘ ._.‘. vu‘,‘ V‘ \."‘J ' -. . . ".41. . '{r ‘I- ‘,§ .1. . ~ t"- "f . k ‘ 7' I q 1"" ‘5. .331}? — ~ *5; ~ I]. ' . a") ‘ 211 ~ * °‘ F: harm-.31 <' 5.’ Lyman-.14». ~ 3: Key-I- ‘ If , 1e, .‘:.. ._ '0 9.3.19- xgnx; tw’.ures,.. .19.: 4' °‘ . " We ' n a £11"; A l:- v}- 1.‘ . . . < 4 e A",r -' \‘5 1"} \'.. u(-l--e v. ,‘ e2.....— ...- .. w- ‘5'." 5‘-.- “4......" . ... — .-. / m.".~a.-.... ~F'an"' dup- 7 .4- . 53.. v-< -. .-.-4.....Q.~I'\e~.-.~ . "Q... ...-~ a-..re2 ua “fif- m.— ,‘J . “a... <.... ‘-~‘".‘"‘Vn."“ei ‘ - _ ‘ .' ‘,_ - ”WWW. ' . I . ' M‘”".~'- -. ' ~ ‘.I _. . _> ‘ ‘1 '1‘?” y-:. «.5... __ .‘ - *4‘-‘.. ~... _, I - v:- we- - ..‘, m L V. .H s R E W N U E T A T s N A m H m M ""- “.‘JJE STYLBQAYFS 1293 03056 1 3 i i l 1 l 1 1 1