Effect of fines content on some engineering properties of lateritic

soil in Ile-Ife
Ayodele A.L., Falade F.A. and Ogedengbe M.O.
Department of Civil Engineering, Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife

ABSTRACT
Effect of fines content on some engineering properties of soil samples obtained from
three selected borrow pits for the construction of roads in Ile-Ife were studied. Laboratory
tests were carried out to assess the compaction characteristics, California Bearing Ratio
(CBR) and the Unconfined Compression Strenght (UCS) of the soil samples with varying
percent of fines content.
The fines contents were separated from the coarse fraction by wet sieving through 75
m BS sieve size. The fines and the coarse fractions were reconstituted in varying
proportions of fines to coarse ratios, from 0:100 to 100:0 in 10% increments. Statistical
models relating fines content to the engineering properties were developed and tested to
ascertain the effects of fines on the strength of the soil samples.
The study showed that as the fines content increased, the compaction characteristics
of the soil samples reduced, with Optimum Moisture Content (OMC) increasing and the
Maximum Dry Density (MDD) decreasing. The study also showed that The CBR (both
soaked and Unsoaked) decreased with increasing fines content, while the UCS however,
increased with increasing fines content to about 60% before it decreased rapidly to zero.
Regression analyses showed linear relationships of MDD and OMC with the fines content,
with coefficient of correlation of 0.937 and 0.946, respectively. The CBR and fines content
exhibited a polynomial relationship of third order with coefficient of correlation of 0.910.

Key words: Fines content, California Bearing Ratio, Sub-base, OMC, MDD

Introduction
The soaked CBR is usually obtained for a sub-base material in the laboratory, by
soaking the compacted soil sample in water. This is because water has been found to
contribute to the reduction of strength of lateritic soil insitu (Ampadu, 2007).
Road pavements consist basically of two different layers; the lower pavement layer which is
intended to provide good support and cover over the in-situ material, whilst the upper layer is
designed to carry the anticipated traffic loading. The lower layer consists of the subgrade
(which is the in-situ soil), sub-base and sometimes capping, while the upper layer consists of
the road base and the wearing course. The location of each layer in a road determines the
amount of strength required of the soil in that layer. The lower the layer, the lower the
strength required. These road layers apart from the wearing course are made of soils. General
requirements for subgrade, sub-base and base course in Nigeria are shown in Table 2.3.
Most soils used for road construction are not completely
granular (i.e. cohesionless); they usually contain varying percentages of fines content. Soil
with particle size smaller than 75 m, is referred to as fines according to the Unified Soil
Classification System (ASTM, 2000) and American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials (AASHTO, 1986) classification systems. The level of fines content
in any soil has been found to affect important properties of the soil including soil
composition, particle friction, compaction, moisture and type of soil (Hveem, 2000). These
properties in turn affect the performance of the soil when used as a sub-base material
although the actual effects vary from soil sample to sample.
Soil with particle size larger than 75 m is referred to as coarse content. The fines content
2


Table 2.3: General Requirements for Subgrade, Sub-base and Base Course in Nigeria
Subgrade Sub-base Base course
Proportion
passing BS
sieve No. 200
(Amount of
fines, %)

35

35

35
Liquid Limit
(%)
80 35 35
Plasticity index
(%)
55 12 12%
Soaked CBR
(24hrs.)
NA 30% 80
Relative
compaction
(%)
100 100 100
Source: Federal Republic of Nigeria highway manual (1992)

consists of clay and silt, while the coarse content consists of sand and gravel. These soil types
Most soils used for road construction are not completely
granular (i.e. cohesionless); they usually contain varying percentages of fines content. Soil
with particle size smaller than 75 m, is referred to as fines according to the Unified Soil
Classification System (ASTM, 2000) and American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials (AASHTO, 1986) classification systems. The level of fines content
in any soil has been found to affect important properties of the soil including soil
composition, particle friction, compaction, moisture and type of soil (Hveem, 2000). These
properties in turn affect the performance of the soil when used as a sub-base material
although the actual effects vary from soil sample to sample.
Soil with particle size larger than 75 m is referred to as coarse content. The fines content
consists of clay and silt, while the coarse content consists of sand and gravel. These soil types
resist deformation and support loads by different means or mechanisms, depending on the
basic properties of the soil. These means are interparticle friction and cohesive resistance.
Interparticle friction, which is internal friction among the aggregate particles, is the principal
property which permits coarse soils or granular materials to resist load without deformation
and it is related to aggregate characteristics such as shape and surface texture. Cohesive
resistance is induced almost entirely by the fines content. However, cohesion is mostly
provided by the clay content, because silt, even though is referred to as fines, is relatively non
plastic and non cohesive. However, cohesive soils, which do not normally derive any
significant engineering strength from interparticle bonds or cohesive forces, possess frictional
strength because they exhibit a property known as plasticity. Plasticity which is defined as the
ability of soil to be worked and remoulded in the hand, allows cohesive soil to sustain large
pore water suctions which may result in large effective stresses and hence frictional strength
even if the total stress is zero (Powrie, 1997; Woodward et al., 2002).
A proper degree of both internal friction and cohesion in a soil prevents the aggregate
particles from being moved past each other by the forces exerted by traffic. It is realized that
if the cohesive strength could be made sufficiently high, internal friction would not be
necessary (Woodward et al., 2002). But cohesion of soil is a function of water content and
time (Kemper and Rosenau, 1984), therefore as the water content increases the cohesion
increases. However, natural soils containing appreciable amounts of water are not capable of
3

developing such high cohesive values and therefore the internal friction is the most important
property.

Site Description
The soil samples for this study are borrow materials for the construction of state roads in Ile-
Ife, Osun State, Nigeria. Table 1 gives the general description of the soil samples, co-
ordinates and elevations relative to mean sea level obtained from Geographical Positioning
System (GPS) and the approximate areas of the borrow pits. As shown in Table 1, samples
collected from Ede Road are referred to as ER1 and ER2 while the sample collected from
Mokuro Road is termed MR.

Table 1: Description of Soil Samples from Selected Borrow Pits
Soil Sample
Identification
Location Approx-
imate area
(m
2
)
Geographic
location
GPS
Latitude Longitude Elevations (m)
Above sea level
MR Mokuro
Road
7
0
30.133 004
0
35.662 326 28,800
ER1 Ede Road 7
0
30.851 004
0
39.384 314 21,600
ER2 Ede Road 7
0
31.208 004
0
29.100 316 23,200


Suitability of soil for use as sub-base material
Suitability of soil based on strength
Soil chosen for a particular road work must be suitable for the environment and must have
enough strength to bear the load the road is intended for. The strength of the soil used for
road work is measured in terms of the California bearing ratio (CBR) of the soil and the
bearing capacity (determined from the shear strength of the soil). The Atterberg limits of the
soil are also considered along with the strength parameters. The standard specifications
employed depend on the country and region. Table 2.3 gives the requirements to be employed
in Nigeria.

2.6.1.1 California bearing ratio of soil
The CBR of a soil is the ratio of force per unit area required to penetrate the soil mass
with standard circular piston at the rate of 1.25 mm per minute to that required for the
corresponding penetration of a standard material (well graded crushed stone).
The CBR value is measured by an empirical test devised by the California State Highway
Association and it is obtained by measuring the relationship between force and penetration
when a standard cylindrical plunger of cross-sectional area 1935 mm
2
is made to penetrate
the soil at a given rate. At any value of penetration the ratio of the force to a standard force
(that of crushed stone) is defined as the CBR. The CBR value is calculated at penetrations of
2.5 mm and 5.0 mm, the higher value is taken. The standard forces corresponding to these
penetrations are 13.24 kN and 19.96 kN respectively. The laboratory CBR test is generally
carried out on remoulded samples of the subgrade.
The CBR test is not a direct measurement of a fundamental physical property; rather it
provides an index from which strength can be assessed comparatively. It compares the
strength of the tested soil to that of crushed stone, it is therefore a ratio. The CBR of a soil is
usually used to determine the required thicknesses of the various base courses through its
application to empirically derived design curves. The higher the CBR value of a soil, the
more appropriate is the soil for road work. The higher the position of a layer in road
4

pavement, the higher the expected CBR value, thus, the CBR of road base material should be
higher than that of sub-base material, while the CBR of sub-base material should be higher
than that of subgrade material. Table 2.4 gives the typical CBR range for different soil types.
Capping layers are introduced to help solve the problem of sub-grades wetting up and losing
strength during construction by protecting the subgrade from the worst of the damage caused
by site traffic. Capping layers are laid on top of the subgrade, such that the top of the capping
layer becomes the formation level.
Madu (1980) noticed a positive correlation between iron sesquioxide content (a measure of
the degree of laterization) and the CBR values of some Eastern Nigeria laterite soils. The
CBR characteristics of some Western Nigeria residual laterite soils were found to be affected
by geological factors of parent material and degree of weathering. The values of the CBR
increase with the degree of laterization.
The duration of soaking is usually between 24 and 48 hours. A shorter soaking period is
permissible for A-1-a and A-3 soils if tests show that a shorter period does not affect the test
results, but in no case shall the soaking period be less than 24 hours (AASHTO, 1993).
Surcharge weights, in the form of annular discs with a mass of 2 kg are placed on top of the
soil test sample before the sample is soaked. Each 2 kg disc is roughly equivalent to 75 mm
of surcharge material. The surcharge weights allow for the increase in strength due to road
construction material placed above the subgrade or the sub-base. The plunger penetrates
through a hole in the disc to reach the soil.
2.6.1.2 Shear strength of soil
The shear strength of a soil mass is the internal resistance per unit area that the soil
mass can offer to resist failure along any plane inside it (Das, 1990). When this resistance is
exceeded failure occurs. The shear strength is usually made up of:
(a) Internal friction or the resistance due to interlocking of the particles, represented by an
angle .
(b) Cohesion or the resistance due to the forces tending to hold the particles together in a
solid mass. The cohesion of a soil is generally symbolized by the letter C.
The law governing the shear failure of soils was first put forward by Coulomb and it is given
in Equation 2.4:
S = C + tan (2.4)
Where:
S is the shear strength and is the normal stress
Soil composition (mineralogy, grain size distribution, and pore water
content), initial state (defined by initial void ratio and stress history), structure (arrangement
of particle within soil mass) and Loading conditions (stress path, type of loading and time
history) are found to affect the shear strength of soil (Poulos, 1989; Nishimura and Fredlund,
1999; Sridharan and Prakash, 1999). It was found out that the shear strength characteristics of
sandy soil are affected by textural and grain size characteristics (Charles, 1992) and soil
plasticity (Lambe and Whitman, 1979). When the soil is loaded to failure without pore water
dissipation (i.e. drainage is prevented) the shear strength obtained is referred to as undrained
shear strength (S
u
) otherwise drained shear strength is obtained. The unconfined compressive
strength (UCS) of soil is usually measured in the laboratory by the Unconfined Compressive
Test (UCT) and it is related to the undrained shear strength by Equation 2.5.
S
u
=
UCS
2
(2.5)
Soil strength and stiffness behaviour are related to the range of plastic
consistency. The consistency of most soils in the ground will be plastic or semi-solid. The
shear strength and unconfined compressive strength of soil are related to the consistency of
5

the soil as shown in Tables 2.5 and 2.6. The tables show that the harder the soil the higher the
value of the shear strength and the UCS.


Table 2.3: General Requirements for Subgrade, Sub-base and Base Course in Nigeria
Subgrade Sub-base Base course
Proportion
passing BS
sieve No. 200
(Amount of
fines, %)

35

35

35
Liquid Limit
(%)
80 35 35
Plasticity index
(%)
55 12 12%
Soaked CBR
(24hrs.)
NA 30% 80
Relative
compaction
(%)
100 100 100
Source: Federal Republic of Nigeria highway manual (1992)

Materials and Methods
Samples of lateritic soil were collected from three selected lateritic soil deposits (one on
Mokuro road and two on Ede road in IleIfe) with descriptions as given in Table 1.

Classification and identification tests which include natural moisture content (w),
specific gravity (G), sieve analysis, hydrometer analysis of particles passing sieve No.
200, atterberg limits tests (plastic and liquid limit) of particles passing sieve size 425 m
were carried out on the soil samples in their natural states.
Laboratory compaction tests using standard proctor method, Unconfined Compressive
Strength (UCS) test, California bearing ratio (CBR) test were also carried out on the soil
samples both in their natural states and after reconstitution.
The fines contents were separated from the coarse contents by soaking the soil samples
in water containing 4% sodium hexametaphosphate, a dispersing agent (commercially named
Calgon) in the laboratory for between 12 and 24 hours. The soil was then washed through
sieve No. 200 with 75 m opening. The soil passing 75 m sieve size was oven dried and
referred to as 100% fines. The soil sample retained on sieve 75 m opening was also oven
dried and referred to as 100% coarse. In order to avoid non homogeneity of specimen, it was
ensured that the fines content were thoroughly mixed together before oven drying and after
pulverization according to Lade and Yamamuro (1997).

The pulverized fines and the coarse fractions were added together in varying ratios (fines:
coarse) from 10:100 to 100:0 in 10% increment. The ratio started with 10: 100 and not 0:100
because, laboratory compaction test could not be carried out on the sample containing 0%
fines (i.e. 100% coarse) and thus cohesionless (put source). This is because the process of
lubrication which aids compaction is limited to soils containing fines and cohesionless soils
are compacted or densified by vibration and not by impact which laboratory compaction
utilizes.

6

Results and Discussions
Table 4.2 gives the summary of the results of preliminary tests on the three soil
samples. Based on these results, the AASHTO classifications and the group indices of the
samples indicate that the rating of the samples as subgrade material is fair to poor for samples
ER1 and ER2 and good to excellent for sample MR according to source .
The values of the specific gravities conform to the specific gravities of lateritic soils which
are usually between 2.6 and 3.4 (De Graft-Johnson and Bhatia, 1969).

Table 4.2: Index Properties of the Soil Samples
MR ER1 ER2
Natural Moisture Content (%) 16.23 18.15 20.64
Specific Gravity (G
S
) 2.60 2.88 2.69
Liquid Limit LL (%) 38 39 50
Plastic Limit PL (%) 20 24 29
Plasticity Index PI (%) 18 15 21
Percentage passing sieve
No. 200 (Fines content)

32.60

39.90

48.10
% clay sized particles 10 9 27
% silt sized particles 4 11 10
AASHTO Classification A-2-6 A-6 A-7-5
USCS Classification CL ML or OL OH or MH
Colour Reddish brown Brown Yellowish brown
Group Index 1 3 7
Effect of Fines Content on the Compaction Characteristics of the Soil Samples.
The summary of the compaction characteristics of the soil samples in their natural states are
presented in Table 4.3. The compaction curve with the zero air void (ZAV) curve is also
shown in Figure 4.3. The compaction curves indicate that sample MR exhibits best
compaction characteristics i.e. it has the highest Maximum Dry Density (MDD) and lowest
Optimum Moisture Content (OMC), while sample ER2 has the lowest MDD value and
highest OMC value.
These results imply that when subjected to the same compaction method (i.e. same
compactive effort and number of passes) on the field, sample MR would have the highest dry
density while sample ER2 would have the lowest dry density.

4.3.1 Correlations between the optimum moisture content and the fines content
The summary of the result of compaction tests on the different percentage of fines to coarse
content are given in Table 4.4. The OMC increases with increasing fines content which
agrees with the findings of Bloomfield and Jermy (2003) for all the soil samples. The
increments in OMC are more pronounced in sample ER2 with OMC of 10% at 10% fines and
OMC of 40.5% at 100% fines (42.5% increment). The high plasticity of sample ER2 explains
the more pronounced increments in OMC when compared to any of the other two samples
(Raymond, 1997). The results show that sample ER2 has the strongest affinity for water and
that the lowest OMC of sample MR (Table 4.3) in its natural state is due to the fact that it
possesses the lowest fines content (32.6%) while the highest OMC in sample ER2 is due to
the fact that it possesses the highest fines content (48.1%).
The regular increase in OMC with increase in fines content is shown in Figure 4.4. A
linear representation of the data is used rather than using a polynomial which gives a better
coefficient of determination (R
2
) value, because most correlation of compaction properties
are done linearly in literature e.g. Croft, (1968). Regression analyses of the data give
equations 4.3 - 4.6. Equations 4.3 - 4.5 represent the relationship between the OMC and fines
7



Figure 4.3: Compaction curves of soil samples in their natural states
content for samples MR, ER1 and ER2 respectively.
The R
2
values obtained from linear regression are as shown on Figure 4.4 while the
correlation coefficient (r) are 0.996, 0.981 and 0.967 for samples MR, ER1 and ER2
respectively. Correlation coefficient of the three data sets obtained from multiple regressions
is 0.946. Based on the R
2
values, the models generated (Equations 4.3 - 4.5) give good
representations of the relationship between the OMC and the fines content. The general
equation which is the addition of Equations 4.3, 4.4 and 4.5 is given in Equation 4.6
y = 0.228x + 7.333 (4.3)
y = 0.232x + 8.006 (4.4)
y = 0.329x + 4.406 (4.5)
OMC = 0.253f + 6.866 (4.6)
f is fines content in %

Table 4.3: Compaction Parameters of the Soil Samples in their Natural States
Compaction Parameters MR ER1 ER2
Maximum dry Density, MDD (Mg/m
3
) 1.95 1.83 1.76
Optimum Moisture Content, OMC (%) 16.5 18.0 20.2

Table 4.4: OMC of the Samples at Different Fines Contents
Fines
Content
(%)
Sample
MR ER1 ER2
OMC* MDD** OMC* MDD** OMC* MDD**
10 10.0 2.02 12.0 2.12 10.0 2.07
20 12.0 1.95 12.5 2.06 12.0 1.99
30 14.0 1.94 15.0 2.00 14.2 1.93
40 17.0 1.90 16.8 1.84 17.8 1.79
50 18.5 1.89 17.0 1.82 20.5 1.73
60 19.5 1.87 20.5 1.67 20.4 1.63
70 23.5 1.84 26.0 1.61 22.8 1.53
80 26.0 1.73 28.1 1.56 30.0 1.44
90 28.0 1.70 28.8 1.51 37.0 1.37
100 30.5 1.62 31.2 1.38 40.5 1.19
* OMC in % ** MDD in Mg/m
3
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
2
2.1
0 5 10 15 20 25
M
D
D

(
M
g
/
m
3
)

Water content (%)
Sample ER2
Sample MR
zero air void line
Sample ER1
1



Figure 4.4: Relationship between the optimum moisture content and fines content

4.3.2 Correlations between the maximum dry density and the fines content
The variations in MDD with fines content are summarized in Table 4.5, while graphical
representation of the data set is given in Figure 4.5. It can be observed from the figure that the
MDD generally reduces as the fines content increases. The changes in the MDD values are
more pronounced in samples ER1 and ER2. Figure 4.5 also shows that the values dropped
steadily with increase in fines content from a value of 2.02Mg/m
3
and 2.07Mg/m
3
for 10%
fines to 1.62Mg/m
3
and 1.19Mg/m
3
at 100% fines for samples ER1 and ER2 respectively. It
is inferred from this that the changes in fines content have more effect on the two samples.
Sample MRs MDDs change rather gently as seen in Figure 4.5.
However this result is contrary to that obtained by Bloomfield and Jermy (2003) which
showed that the MDD increased with increase in fines content from 10% fines content to
30% fines content before it started reducing based on the fact that as the fines content
increases the gaps between the sand grains are filled, until a point where the percentage of
fines begins to push the sand grains apart. These opposing results can be attributed to the type
of samples used in both studies.

Figure 4.5: Relationship between the maximum dry densities and the fines content
y = 0.2285x + 7.3333
R = 0.9926
y = 0.2324x + 8.0067
R = 0.9626
y = 0.3293x + 4.4067
R = 0.9355
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
O
M
C


(
%
)

Fines Content (%)
Sample MR
Sample ER1
Sample ER2
General
y = -0.004x + 2.066
R = 0.935
y = -0.008x + 2.209
R = 0.985
y = -0.009x + 2.187
R = 0.992
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
2
2.1
2.2
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
M
a
x
i
m
u
m

D
r
y

D
e
n
s
i
t
y

(
M
g
/
m
3
)

Fines content (%)
Sample MR
Sample ER1
Sample ER2
General
2

Bloomfield and Jermy (2003) employed coastal sand, whereas this study employs lateritic
soil samples which have more tendency of progressive breakdown of particles under the
impact of rammer, thereby making workability of soils easier (Gidigasu, 1976). The
progressive breakdown of particles rules out the effect of fines filling the voids between
coarser particles.
Linear regression analyses of the MDD data give r

values of -0.967, -0.993 and -0.996
for samples MR, ER1, and ER2 respectively. The r

values (which are very close to -1),
indicate that equations 4.7 - 4.9 give good correlations between the fines content and the
MDD. Equations 4.7 - 4.9 give the relationship between the MDD and the fines content for
samples MR, ER1, and ER2 respectively. The correlation coefficient (r) of the three data sets
through multiple regressions is -0.937 and the general equation of line of best fit through
regression is given in equation 4.10.
y = -0.004x + 2.066 (4.7)
y = -0.008x + 2.209 (4.8)
y = -0.009x + 2.187 (4.9)
MDD = -0.007f + 2.152 (4.10)

4.3.3 Correlation between the MDD and OMC
Correlations between the Maximum Dry Density (MDD) and the Optimum Moisture Content
(OMC) for the three soil samples are shown in Figure 4.6, The relationships between the two
parameters are also shown graphically in Figure 4.6. Multiple regression analysis of the data
gives an r value of -0.94 and a general equation given in Equation 4.11.
MDD = 2.312 - 0.026 OMC (4.11)



Figure 4.6: Relationships between MDD and OMC of the soil samples

Equation 4.12 (which is similar to Equation 4.11) was obtained by Acroyd
(1963), who determined the relationships between the OMC and MDD of some tropical soils.
These results show that a good correlation exists between the OMC and MDD of tropical
soils.
MDD = 2.56 0.0445 OMC (4.12)

y = -0.0271x + 2.2762
R = 0.9428
y = -0.034x + 2.4648
R = 0.9506
y = -0.0176x + 2.1961
R = 0.9509
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
2
2.1
1 6 11 16 21 26 31 36 41
M
D
D

(
M
g
/
m
3
)

OMC (%)
Sample ER2
Sample ER1
Sample MR
3

4.4 Effects of Fines Content on the Engineering Properties of the Soil Samples
The results from CBR and UCS tests are summarised in Table 4.6. These results show that
sample MR has a higher CBR value of 12%, than either of samples ER1 and ER2 which have
same CBR value of 5%. The subgrade strength of sample MR is good while that of samples
ER1 and ER2 is normal (source). This shows that the CBR values of the soil samples would
have to be improved before they can be used as sub-base materials.
Table 4.6 also shows that sample MR has the highest Unconfined Compressive
strength (UCS) of 102kN/m
2
, while the UCS of sample ER1 is 63kN/m
2
and sample ER2 has
the lowest UCS of 58kN/m
2
.
Table 4.6: Engineering Properties of the Soil Samples in their Natural States
Engineering Property MR ER1 ER2
California Bearing Ratio,
CBR (%)
12 5

5
Unconfined Compressive
Strength, UCS (kN/m
2
)
102 63 58


4.4.1 Correlations between the California bearing ratio and the fines content
Table 4.7 gives the results of both soaked CBR (CBRs) and Unsoaked CBR (CBRu) tests of
the soil samples. The results of the CBRu are further presented graphically in Figure 4.9. It
can be observed from the results that both CBRu and CBRs decrease with increase in fines
content for all the samples. These results agree with the findings of Curtis et al. (2004) which
indicate that increased fines content and moisture reduced the mechanical behaviour of
granular materials. The effect is however more pronounced in the CBRs.
At 10% fines content, sample ER2 has a higher CBRu (64%) than sample ER1 (30%) despite
the fact that both samples have a CBR of 5% in their natural states. The higher CBRu in ER2
is probably due to the nature of the coarser particles i.e. the coarser particles in ER2 have
more strength than that of ER1 (Acroyd, 1963). There is a 64%, 51% and 37% decrease in the
CBRu from 10% to 20% fines and 56%, 55% and 37% decrease from 20% to 30% fines for
samples ER2, MR and ER1 respectively. This result shows that the effect of fines on the
CBRu is more pronounced in samples ER2 and MR. the values of the CBRu of sample MR
are consistently higher than any of corresponding CBRu of samples ER1 and ER2 as shown
in Figure 4.9. The CBRu of sample ER2 tends to zero from 40% fines content, while that of
ER1 and MR tends to zero from 70% fines. This shows that the fines content of sample ER2
has more affinity for water which is also reflected in its highest PI. Sample ER2 has more
affinity for water because it contains the highest amount of clay sized particles (Table 4.2).
The CBRu for each of the samples at 40% fines was almost zero. The percentage loss in CBR
due to soaking is also given in Table 4.7. Effect of soaking is more pronounced in sample
ER1; this could be due to the fact that water has a significant effect on the coarser particle
which is reflected to be the weakest among the three samples. The results also show that there
is little loss in CBR for sample ER2 at 10% fines, while samples MR and ER1 have 23% and
27% loss respectively. This implies that even though the fines content of sample ER2 has
more affinity for water, the strength of the coarser contents outweighs the effect of water on
the fines content. However at 20% fines, the effect of soaking on ER2 reflects the nature of
its fines content. The percentage loss in CBR due to soaking is more pronounced in sample
MR from 40% fines. Sample MR can be said to have coarse particles of high strength and
fines content of moderate affinity for water.
4

Table 4.7: Soaked and Unsoaked CBR of the Samples at Different Fines Contents
Fines
Content(%)
MR
Unsoaked Soaked
% loss in
CBR (%)
ER1
Unsoaked Soaked
% loss in
CBR (%)
ER2
Unsoaked Soaked
% loss in
CBR (%)
10 85 65 23 30 22 27 64 57 8
20 42 30 29 19 7 63 23 9 57
30 19 13 32 12 3 75 10 6 25
40 10 4 60 9 1 89 5 1 67
50 8 2 75 8 0 100 3 0 100
60 5 0 100 7 0 100 3 0 100
70 3 0 100 3 0 100 2 0 100
80 3 0 100 3 0 100 2 0 100
90 2 0 100 2 0 100 2 0 100
100 2 0 100 2 0 100 2 0 100
5

Non-linear regression analysis of the data produces equations 4.13 - 4.15, with R
2
values
0.9854, 0.9814 and 0.9616 for samples MR, ER1 and ER2 respectively. Equation 4.16 is the
general equation for the three soil samples. The r value obtained from multiple regressions of
the three sets of data is 0.9096.
y = -0.0004x
3
+ 0.0866x
2
- 5.8798x + 132.2333 (4.13)
y = -0.0001x
3
+ 0.0183x
2
- 1.4044x + 41.3333 (4.14)
y = -0.0004x
3
+ 0.0768x
2
- 4.9412x + 101.4333 (4.15)
CBR = -0.0004f
3
+ 0.0759f
2
- 4.6629f + 97.4206 (4.16)








Figure 4.9: Relationship between the CBR and the fines content


4.4.2 Correlations between the unconfined compressive strength and the fines content
The results of the UCS show a deviation from the norm when compared to those of other
engineering parameters results. These results are shown in Table 4.8 and Figure 4.10. The
UCS increases with increasing fines content to a certain point after which it starts decreasing.
This is because increase in fines content causes increase in the cohesion and therefore the
bonding of the soil increases, thus increasing the UCS (Alao, 1983). However, as the fines
content increases the water content of the soil increases, causing a decrease in the UCS values
after peak strength is reached due to the adverse effect of water on the bonding forces
between particles. Nishimura and Fredlund (1999) found that the unconfined compressive
strength is a



y = -0.0004x
3
+ 0.0866x
2
- 5.8798x + 132.2333
R = 0.9854
y = -0.0001x
3
+ 0.0183x
2
- 1.4044x + 41.3333
R = 0.9814
y = -0.0004x
3
+ 0.0768x
2
- 4.9412x + 101.4333
R = 0.9616
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
C
B
R

(
%
)

Fines content (%)
Sample MR
Sample ER1
Sample ER2
General
6





Table 4.8: UCS of Soil Samples at Different Fines Contents
Fines Content (%) Sample
MR ER1 ER2
UCS (kN/m
2
)
10 15 12 10
20 25 44 19
30 65 48 53
40 79 51 18
50 95 81 63
60 85 144 26
70 110 43 174
80 95 48 139
90 30 26 20
100 2 2 2

7









Figure 4.10: Relationship between the UCS and the fines content


y = -0.0005x
3
+ 0.0336x
2
+ 1.5314x - 6.0667
R = 0.917
y = -0.0001x
3
- 0.0183x
2
+ 3.2851x - 20.767
R = 0.6025
y = -0.0015x
3
+ 0.2116x
2
- 6.9186x + 73.9
R = 0.5234
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
U
C
S

(
k
N
/
m
2
)

Fines content (%)
Sample MR
Sample ER1
Sample ER2
8

function of the water content in the void of the soil. This explains why ER2 at same
fines content (70%) with sample MR has a higher UCS because at 70% fines OMC of ER2 is
22.8% while that of MR is 23.5%. The optimum result is obtained at between
50% and 80% fines content for each of the soil samples.
The results were almost zero at 10% and 100% fines. These can also be explained when one
considers the general equation for determining the shear strength of soil as given in Equation
2.2. As fines content tends to zero, the shear strength tends totan, while as the fines
content tends to 100% the shear strength tends to C. Soil with almost 50% fines has the two
components of shear strength present (i.e. C and ) thus the higher value of the shear
strength. The correlations of UCS for each soil sample are given in Equations 4.17 - 4.19.
The R
2
values are 0.917, 0.602 and
0.523 for samples MR, ER1 and ER2 respectively. The regression is not helpful in predicting
a Y value because of the low values of the R
2
especially for samples ER1 and ER2, thus a
general equation cannot be obtained from the sets of data.
y = -0.000x
3
+ 0.033x
2
+ 1.531x - 6.066 (4.17)
y = -0.000x
3
- 0.018x
2
+ 3.285x - 20.76 (4.18)
y = -0.001x
3
+ 0.211x
2
- 6.918x + 73.9 (4.19)

4.5 Establishment of the optimum fines content
The variations of soil parameters for each soil samples MR, ER1 and ER2 are given in
Tables 4.11, 4.12 and 4.13, while graphical representations on a logarithmic scale are
presented in Figures 4.11, 4.12 and 4.13 respectively. The figures show that the soil
properties reduce as the fines content increase, except for the UCS for which a model cannot
be generated. Though the optimum result for the UCS is obtained at between 60% and 80%
fines content, the result cannot be used because at these fines