JIMMA UNIVERSITY

POST GRADUATE STUDIES

JIMMA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
SCHOOL OF CIVIL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STREAM

CORRELATION BETWEEN COMPACTION CHARACTERSTICS AND

ATTERBERG LIMITS OF FINE GRAINED SOIL FOUND IN ADDIS ABABA

A RESEARCH SUBMITTED TO JIMMA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, POSTGRADUATE

STUDIES IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTERS OF SCIENCE IN CIVIL ENGINEERING (GEOTHECHNICAL ENGINEERING).

BY

TESFAMICHAEL TSEGAYE

NOVEMBER, 2016
JIMMA, ETHIOPIA
 JIMMA UNIVERSITY
POST GRADUATE STUDIES
JIMMA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
SCHOOL OF CIVIL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STRAEM

CORRELATION BETWEEN COMPACTION CHARACTERSTICS AND

ATTERBERG LIMITS OF FINE GRAINED SOIL FOUND IN ADDIS ABABA

A RESEARCH SUBMITTED TO JIMMA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, POSTGRADUATE

STUDIES IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTERS OF SCIENCE IN CIVIL ENGINEERING (GEOTHECHNICAL ENGINEERING).

BY

TESFAMICHAEL TSEGAYE

ADVISORS:
Dr. HENOK FIKRE (PhD)
Mr. TADESSE ABEBE (MSc)

NOVEMBER, 2016
JIMMA, ETHIOPIA
 JIMMA UNIVERSITY
POST GRADUATE STUDIES
JIMMA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
SCHOOL OF CIVIL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STREAM

CORRELATION BETWEEN COMPACTION CHARACTERSTICS AND ATTERBERG

LIMITS OF FINE GRAINED SOIL FOUND IN ADDIS ABABA

BY
TESFAMICHAEL TSEGAYE

Approved by board of examiners:

1. Dr.Henok Fikre (PhD) ____________________ ____________________

Advisor Signature Date

2. Mr.Tadesse Abebe (MSc) ____________________ ____________________

Co. advisor Signature Date

3. ____________________ ____________________
External examiner Signature Date

4. ____________________ ____________________
Internal examiner Signature Date

5. ____________________ ____________________
Chairman Signature Date
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

First I would like to thank the almighty God for everything that he did for me. Next I would like
to express my deepest gratitude to my advisors Dr. Henok Fikre (PhD) and Mr. Tadesse Abebe
(MSc) for their professional and genuine guidance.

My special thanks go to my beloved family and my dear friends for their support and
encouragement during the whole study.

Last but not least, I would like to thank ERA and Jimma University for giving me this special
opportunity to pursue my MSc. And finally I would like to thank Addis Ababa City Road
Authority for providing me soil data (compaction, atterberg limits and grainsize analysis) and
Gondwana Engineering Plc.‟s staffs especially Ato. Zerihun, for giving me a permission to
conduct the tests in his Laboratory.

I
 ABSTRACT

Compaction is a way of eliminating air out of the voids of a soil by mechanical means.
Compaction is mandatory in different fields of civil engineering such as in highway, airfield,
embankments, and dams; to reduce compressibility and permeability of a soil hence increases
the shear strength and bearing capacity of a soil. A laboratory tests called standard Proctor and
modified proctor tests were advanced to determine the maximum dry density and optimum
moisture content of a soil. In this study standard compaction is used.

However, in huge projects conducting laboratory tests by using proctor tests consume time,
money, a lot of effort or energy and required a large quantity of samples. An effort to make
correlation between compaction characteristics and Atterberg limits of fine grained soil found in
Addis Ababa which allows us to estimate the compaction parameters of fine grained soils from
Atterberg limits is done in this thesis.

To develop the correlation, a total 10 test pits have been excavated and a total of 20 disturbed
samples (primary data) were collected from different places, 2 samples from each test pits at
different depths ranging from 1.00m to 3.00m. And 36 secondary data (laboratory results) were
collected from AACRA. After the samples were collected, they were transported to Gondwana
engineering laboratory and different laboratory tests (Atterberg limits, grain size analysis,
specific gravity and compaction tests) has been conducted. After the tests were conducted, the
recorded data was analyzed using descriptive and analytical methods, and then correlation
between compaction characteristics and Atterberg limits of fine grained soil using regression
analysis has been done. Regression analysis was conducted by using EXCEL and SPSS software.

And from the statistical analysis part one can observe that there is a relatively good correlation
between OMC and PL and similarly a good correlation is observed between MDD and LL, PL
and PI together. The equations found are listed below.

1. OMC = 0.916 * PL - 0.030 * PI - 0.875, R2 = 0.807

2. MDD = - 0.18* PL - 0.027 * PI + 21.182, R2 = 0.835

Key words: Atterberg limits, compaction characteristics, and Fine grained soils.

II
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgement .................................................................................................................................... I
Abstract.................................................................................................................................................. II
Table of contents ................................................................................................................................... III
List of tables ........................................................................................................................................... V
List of figures ........................................................................................................................................ VI
Abbreviations, acronyms and symbols ..................................................................................................VII
CHAPTER ONE.................................................................................................................................... 1
1. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Background ................................................................................................................................... 1
1.2. Statement of the Problem .............................................................................................................. 1
1.3. Research Questions ....................................................................................................................... 1
1.4. Objective ...................................................................................................................................... 2
1.5. Significance of the Study .............................................................................................................. 2
1.6. Scope of Study .............................................................................................................................. 2
1.7. Organization of the Thesis ............................................................................................................ 3
CHAPTER TWO................................................................................................................................... 4
2. LITERATURE REVIEW.................................................................................................................. 4
2.1. General ......................................................................................................................................... 4
2.2. Soil Classification ......................................................................................................................... 5
2.3. Grain Size Distribution ................................................................................................................. 6
2.4. Plasticity ....................................................................................................................................... 7
2.5. Atterberg limits ............................................................................................................................. 9
2.6. Specific Gravity ............................................................................................................................ 9
2.7. Standard compaction test .............................................................................................................. 6
2.8. Existing correlations between atterberg limits and compaction characteristics ............................. 13
2.9. Data analysis methods ................................................................................................................. 13
CHAPTER THREE............................................................................................................................. 18
3. METHODS AND DATA COLLECTION ...................................................................................... 18
3.1. Area of the study ......................................................................................................................... 18
3.2. Study period ............................................................................................................................... 20
3.3. Study design ............................................................................................................................... 20

III
 3.4. Study population ......................................................................................................................... 20
3.5. Sample size and sampling procedures.......................................................................................... 20
3.6. Study variables ........................................................................................................................... 20
3.7. Data collection process ............................................................................................................... 20
3.8. Visual identification .................................................................................................................... 21
3.9. Laboratory tests and results ......................................................................................................... 21
3.10. Summary of laboratory test results ............................................................................................ 25
3.11. Discussion of lab results ............................................................................................................ 25
3.12. Secondary data that are collected from AACRA ........................................................................ 26
CHAPTER FOUR ............................................................................................................................... 29
4. DATA ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSIONS ....................................................................................... 29
4.1. General ....................................................................................................................................... 29
4.2. Assessment of normality of the data ............................................................................................ 29
4.3. Scatter plots ................................................................................................................................ 31
4.4. Regression analysis ..................................................................................................................... 41
4.5. Discussion on the developed equations ........................................................................................ 42
4.6. Validation of the developed equations ......................................................................................... 43
CHAPTER FIVE ................................................................................................................................. 48
5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS........................................................................... 48
5.1 Conclusions ................................................................................................................................. 48
5.2 Recommendation ......................................................................................................................... 49
REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................... 50
APPENDIX A: DETAILS OF VISUAL IDENTIFICATION ............................................................ 53
APPENDIX B: DETAILS OF GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS ................................................................. 56
APPENDIX C: DETAILS OF SPECIFIC GRAVITIES .................................................................... 67
APPENDIX D: DETAILS OF ATTERBERG LIMITS ..................................................................... 71
APPENDIX E: DETAILS OF STANDARD PROCTOR TESTS ...................................................... 85
APPENDIX F: DETAILS OF SPSS OUTPUTS ............................................................................... 112
APPENDIX C: PHOTOS CAPTURED DURING EXCAVATION AND
LABORATORY TESTING .............................................................................................................. 121

IV
 List of Tables

Table 2.1. AASHTO soil classification .................................................................................................... 5

Table 2.2. Typical values of specific gravity ............................................................................................ 9
Table 2.3. Typical MDD and OMC for different soil types using AASHTO classification ...................... 10
Table 2.4. Summary of Kamarudin results ............................................................................................. 14
Table 2.5. Summary of Atbeha‟s results................................................................................................. 15
Table 3.1. Summary of visual identification ........................................................................................... 21
Table 3.2. Summary of specific gravity .................................................................................................. 23
Table 3.3. Summary of Atterberg limits ................................................................................................. 24
Table 3.4. Summary of compaction results............................................................................................. 25
Table 3.5. Summary of laboratory test results ........................................................................................ 26
Table 3.6. Summary of secondary data .................................................................................................. 27
Table 4.1. Summary of Normality of the data......................................................................................... 30
Table 4.2. Summary of simple linear regression analysis........................................................................ 41
Table 4.3. Summary of multiple linear regression analysis .................................................................... 42
Table 4.4. Summary of laboratory results for control test ....................................................................... 43
Table 4.5. Validation of the developed equation by using control test..................................................... 44
Table 4.6. Summary of actual values, predicted values and their variations for total data ....................... 44

V
 List of Figures

Figure 2.1. Phases of soil-water interaction .................................................................................8

Figure 2.2. Effect of increasing compaction efforts on the dry unit weight - water content relation
ship..……………………………………………………………………………………………...10
Figure 3.1. Locations of sampling areas…………………………………………………………19
Figure 3.2. Summary of particle size distribution curves............................................................ 22
Figure 4.1. Scatter plot of OMC vs. LL from primary data ........................................................ 31
Figure 4.2. Scatter plot of OMC vs. PL from primary data......................................................... 32
Figure 4.3. Scatter plot of OMC vs. PI from primary data.......................................................... 32
Figure 4.4. Scatter plot of OMC vs. P200 from primary data ....................................................... 33
Figure 4.5. Scatter plot of OMC vs. P40 from primary data ........................................................ 33
Figure 4.6. Scatter plot of OMC vs. P10 from primary data ........................................................ 34
Figure 4.7. Scatter plot of OMC vs. Gs from primary data ......................................................... 34
Figure 4.8. Scatter plot of MDD vs LL from primary data ........................................................ 35
Figure 4.9. Scatter plot of MDD vs PL from primary data ......................................................... 35
Figure 4.10. Scatter plot of MDD vs. PI from primary data ....................................................... 36
Figure 4.11. Scatter plot of MDD vs. P200 from primary data ..................................................... 36
Figure 4.12. Scatter plot of MDD vs. P40 from primary data ...................................................... 37
Figure 4.13. Scatter plot of MDD vs. P10 from primary data ...................................................... 37
Figure 4.14. Scatter plot of MDD vs. Gs from primary data....................................................... 38
Figure 4.15. Scatter plot of OMC vs. LL From primary plus secondary data .............................. 38
Figure 4.16. Scatter plot of OMC vs. PL From primary plus secondary data .............................. 39
Figure 4.17. Scatter plot of OMC vs. PI From primary plus secondary data ............................... 39
Figure 4.18. Scatter plot of MDD vs. LL From primary plus secondary data ............................. 40
Figure 4.19. Scatter plot of MDD vs. PL From primary plus secondary data .............................. 40
Figure 4.20. Scatter plot of MDD vs. PI From primary plus secondary data ............................... 41
Figure 4.21. Actual OMC vs. Predicted OMC values ................................................................ 46
Figure 4.22. Actual MDD vs. Predicted MDD values ................................................................ 46

VI
Abbreviations and Symbols

AACRA Addis Ababa City Road Authority

AASHTO American association of state highway and transportation officials
ASTM American society for testing of materials
BS British standard
R Coefficient of determination
ERA Ethiopian Road Authority
JIT Jimma Institute of Technology
LL Liquid limit
ɣd,max Maximum dry density
MDD Maximum dry density
MDDpredicted MDD obtained from the developed equations
NMC Natural Moisture Content
N Number of samples
OMC Optimum moisture content
OMCpredicted OMC obtained from the developed equations
P200 Percent finer than number 200 sieve
P40 Percent finer than number 40 sieve
P10 Percent finer than number 10 sieve
PL Plastic limit
PI plasticity index
Sig. Significance
Gs Specific gravity
2
R Square of coefficient of determination
SE Standard error of the estimate
SPSS Statistical Package for the Social Sciences
USCS Unified classification system
vs. Versus

VII
 CORRELATION BETWEEN COMPACTION CHARACTERISTICS AND ATTERBERG LIMITS OF FINE GRAINED SOILS

CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

Most of the time geotechnical engineers are confronted to handle large volumes of soil, where
the soil itself is used as a construction material. The importance of compaction as a practical
means of achieving the desired strength, compressibility and permeability characteristics of soils
has been appreciated since the time early earth structures were built [1].

Compaction of soil has applications in almost every field of civil engineering involving soil.
Thus, for a civil engineer, it is very essential to know the compaction characteristics of natural
soils, and thereby assess their suitability. In such situations, to obtain compaction characteristics
such as maximum dry density and optimum moisture content, one has to carry out a laboratory
compaction tests. But laboratory compaction test requires sufficient time and effort. For
preliminary assessment of the suitability of soils required for large project, it is desirable to
develop correlations of engineering properties with simple physical properties, namely Atterberg
limits, which are obtained through simple tests known as index tests. Correlations making use of
the Atterberg limits are fairly common in soil mechanics literature, and can be quite useful [1].

1.2. Statement of the Problem

Determining maximum dry density (MDD) and Optimum moisture content (OMC), especially
in large scale projects from laboratory tests is time consuming, costly, require large amount of
sample and consume a large amount of energy. Hence, Estimating maximum dry density (MDD)
and optimum moisture content (OMC) from index properties become very essential.

1.3. Research Questions

The research questions that this study will attempt to clarify during the study period are:
1. What are the values of Atterberg limits of the soil?
2. What are the values of compaction characteristics of the soil?

1
 CORRELATION BETWEEN COMPACTION CHARACTERISTICS AND ATTERBERG LIMITS OF FINE GRAINED SOILS

3. What will be the correlation between compaction characteristics and Atterberg limits of fine
grained soil?

1.4. Objective

1.4.1. General objective

The general objective of the thesis work is to make correlation between compaction
characteristics and Atterberg limits of fine grained soil found in Addis Ababa.

1.4.2. Specific objectives

 To determine Atterberg limits of a soil.
 To determine compaction characteristics of the soil.
 To establish correlation between compaction characteristics and Atterberg limits of the soil.
 To validate the developed equations.

1.5. Significance of the study

The developed correlations will be important

 To minimize the time, cost and effort/energy incurred in carrying out laboratory compaction
tests by predicting the compaction characteristics from Atterberg limits.
 The results of this study can serve as a basis for further study of such correlation between
compaction characteristics and index properties of a soil.

1.6. Scope of the study

This research addresses the defined objective and provides correlations between the compaction
characteristics and index properties of fine grained soils of Addis Ababa. Collections of the
disturbed samples are limited to ten representative locations. One test pit was opened at each test
pit and then disturbed samples were collected at a depth ranging from 1.00m to 3.00m.

For the intended purpose, Atterberg limits, grain size analysis, specific gravity and standard
compaction tests were conducted on disturbed samples.

It is required to collect more data in order to get a better correlation between the compaction
parameters and the Atterberg limits; this is to cover wide ranges of Addis Ababa soil.

2
 CORRELATION BETWEEN COMPACTION CHARACTERISTICS AND ATTERBERG LIMITS OF FINE GRAINED SOILS

1.7. Organization of the thesis

The thesis is organized into six parts. The first part presents a general description or an
introduction and major engineering problems associated with determination of compaction
characteristics for large projects, objective and limitation of this research work. A review on soil
classification, different tests like index tests and proctor tests including previous works on their
relationships are discussed in the second part. The third part presents the location of the sampling
pits, methods, data collection, and lab test results. Regression analysis and discussions are done
in chapter four. Finally, conclusions and recommendations are given in fifth chapter. At the end,
details of the regression and laboratory test results enclosed under appendix section.

3
 CORRELATION BETWEEN COMPACTION CHARACTERISTICS AND ATTERBERG LIMITS OF FINE GRAINED SOILS

CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1. General

Soils are natural resources. They are necessary for our existence. They provide food, shelter,
construction materials, etc. They protect the environment and provide support for structures. In
this thesis, we will deal with soils as construction materials and as support for structures and
within them. Soils are the oldest and most complex engineering materials. Our ancestors used
soils as a construction material for flood protection and shelters. Western civilization credits the
Romans for recognizing the importance of soils in the stability of structures [7].

2.1.1. Soil formation and soil deposits

Soils are formed by the process of weathering of the parent rock. The weathering of the rocks
might be by mechanical disintegration, and/or chemical decomposition. The properties of the soil
materials depend upon the properties of the rocks from which they are derived [8].

The variety of soil materials encountered in engineering problems is almost limitless, ranging
from hard, dense, large pieces of rock through to gravel, sand, silt, and clay to organic deposits
of soft compressible peat. To compound the complexity, all of these materials may occur over a
range of densities and water contents. At any given site, a number of different soil types may be
present, and the composition may vary over intervals of a little as a few inches [8].

It has long been appreciated that the engineering classification of soils is greatly facilitated by
taking into account the soil-forming processes by which nature has created the various types of
soil conditions. Similar combinations of soil-forming processes in different parts of the world
have been found to lead to materials of similar index properties and similar engineering
characteristics. The main factors affecting the formations of soil are: Parent materials i.e.
geology of the area, topography and drainage, climate and vegetation cover [8].

4
 CORRELATION BETWEEN COMPACTION CHARACTERISTICS AND ATTERBERG LIMITS OF FINE GRAINED SOILS

2.2. Soil classification

Soils exhibiting similar behavior can be grouped together to form a particular group under
different standardized classification systems. A classification scheme provides a method of
identifying soils in a particular group that would likely exhibit similar characteristics. There are
different classification systems, among those classifications USCS and AASHTO classification
systems are widely used, which are used to specify a certain soil type that is best suitable for a
specific application. These classification systems divide the soil into two groups: cohesive or
fine-grained soils and cohesion-less or coarse-grained soils [16].

Table 2.1.AASHTO soil classification [8]

Silt-clay materials
General Granular materials (35% or less passing (>35% passing the 0.075
Classification 0.075 mm sieve) mm sieve)
A-1 A-2 A-7
A-1- A- A- A- A- A- A-7-5
Description a 1-b A-3 2-4 2-5 2-6 2-7 A-4 A-5 A-6 A-7-6
% passing
50
No. 10 max … … … … … … … … … …
30 50 51
No. 40 max max min … … … … … … … …
15 25 10 35 35 35 35 36 36 36 36
No. 200 max max max max max max max min min min min
Characteristics of
the fraction
passing No.10
40 41 40 41 40 41 40 41
Liquid limit … … max min max min max min max min
10 10 11 11 10 10 11 11
Plasticity index 6 max N.P. max max min min max max min min
Usual types of Stone
significant fragments,
constituent gravel and fine Silty or clayey gravel
materials sand sand and sand Silty soils Clayey soils
General rating as a
subgrade material Excellent to good fair to poor

5
 CORRELATION BETWEEN COMPACTION CHARACTERISTICS AND ATTERBERG LIMITS OF FINE GRAINED SOILS

2.2.1. Group Index

Group index (GI) is an indicator of suitability of subgrade soil for highway construction.
Different soil class under AASHTO classification are generally rated for subgrade suitability
from excellent up to good for coarse graded material and good to poor for fine graded soil. This
parameter used as a general guide to the load bearing capacity of a soil. The group index is a
function of the liquid limit, the plasticity index and the amount of material passing 0.075mm
sieve size [18].

GI = (F-35) [0.2 + 0.005(LL - 40)] + 0.01(F - 15) (PI - 10) (2.10)

Where `F-Percentage passing sieve No. 200 (size 0.075mm)

LL-Liquid Limit, expressed as a whole number
PI-Plasticity Index, expressed as a whole number

While calculating the GI from the above equation, if the computed value is negative, the group
index is reported as zero. In addition, the GI value is rounded off to the nearest whole number.
The smaller the value of the group index, the better is the soil in that category. A group index of
zero indicates a good subgrade, whereas a group index of 20 or greater shows a very poor
subgrade [18].

2.3. Grain size distribution

For coarse grained materials, the grain size distribution is determined by passing soil sample
either by wet or dry shaken through a series of sieves placed in order of decreasing standard
opening sizes and a pan at the bottom of the stock. Then the percent passing on each sieve is
used for further identifying the distribution and gradation of different grain sizes [8].

Particle size analysis tests are carried out in accordance to ASTM D 422-63. Besides, the
distribution of different soil particles in a given soil is determined by a sedimentation process
using hydrometer test for soil passing 0.075mm sieve size. For a given cohesive soil having the
same moisture content, as the percentage of finer material or clay content decreases the shear
strength of the soil possibly increases [8].

6
 CORRELATION BETWEEN COMPACTION CHARACTERISTICS AND ATTERBERG LIMITS OF FINE GRAINED SOILS

2.4. Plasticity
Just as the concept of particle size and grading can be readily appreciated for coarse grained
soils, so it is obvious that clays are somehow fundamentally different from coarse grained sols,
since clays exhibit the property of plasticity whereas sands and gravels do not. Plasticity is the
ability of a material to be molded without fracturing. In soils, it is due to the electrochemical
behavior of the clay minerals and is unique to soil containing clay mineral particles [16].

2.5. Atterberge limits

The notation of soil consistency limits stems from the concept that soil can exist in any of four
stages, depending on its moisture content. This is illustrated in figure 1, where initially the soil
was in the form of viscous liquid with no shear strength. As its moisture content is reduced, it
begins to attain some strength but is still easily molded, this is the plastic phase. Further drying
reduces its ability to be molded so that it tends to crack as molding occurs, this is semi-solid
phase. Eventually, the soil becomes so dry that it is a brittle solid. Early ideas on the consistency
concept and procedures for its measurement were developed by Atterberg [16].

A Swedish chemist and agricultural researcher in about 1910, in his original work he identified
three limits which are shrinkage, plastic and liquid limit, the liquid and the plastic limits
represent the moisture contents at the borderline between plastic and liquid phases and between
semi-solid and solid phases. The shrinkage limit represent the moisture content at which further
drying of the soil causes no further reduction in volume. [18]

7
 CORRELATION BETWEEN COMPACTION CHARACTERISTICS AND ATTERBERG LIMITS OF FINE GRAINED SOILS

Figure 2.1. Phases of soil-water interaction [2]

The liquid and plastic limits are widely used for engineering classification of fine-grained soils. The
liquid limit, plastic limit, plasticity index, and liquidity index of soils are used to develop correlation
with shear strength, compressibility, permeability, shrink-swell etc. [16].

2.5.1. Limitation on the use of Atterberg limits for prediction

Like the Grading, Atterberg limits are potentially related to a wide variety of soil properties.
However, although Atterberg limits are good for predictions of some engineering properties of a
soil, certain limitations must be recognized. The first one is Consistency limits are performed on
the material finer than 425 m, and the degree to which this fraction reflects the properties of the
soil will depend on the proportion of coarse material present and on the precise grading of the
soil. Another limitation is that the limit tests are performed on remolded soils and the
correlations are not generally valid for undisturbed soil unless the soil properties do not change
substantially during remolding [16].

8
 CORRELATION BETWEEN COMPACTION CHARACTERISTICS AND ATTERBERG LIMITS OF FINE GRAINED SOILS

2.6. Specific gravity

Specific gravity of a soil is defined as the ratio of the mass in air of a given volume of soil solid
to the mass in air of an equal volume of distilled water at stated temperature [18].

G = M𝑠 / M𝑤

Where: GS - Specific gravity of soil particle

MS - Mass in air of a given volume of soil
MW - Mass in air of an equal volume of water

Table 2.2.Typical values of specific gravities [18]

Soil Type Specific gravity
Gravel 2.65 - 2.68
Sand 2.65 - 2.68
Silty sand 2.66 - 2.70
Silt 2.66 - 2.70
Inorganic Clays 2.68 - 2.80
Organic soils Variable, may fall below 2.00

2.7. Standard compaction test

A laboratory test called the standard Proctor test was developed to deliver a standard amount of
mechanical energy (compactive effort) to determine the maximum dry unit weight of a soil and
optimum moisture content of a soil. In the standard Proctor test, a dry soil specimen is mixed
with water and compacted in a cylindrical mold of volume 9.44*10 -4 m3 (standard Proctor mold)
by repeated blows from the mass of a hammer, 2.5 kg, falling freely from a height of 305 mm.
The soil is compacted in three layers, each of which is subjected to 25 blows [8].

The water content at which the maximum dry density (MDD) is achieved is called the optimum
water content (OMC). At water contents below optimum (dry of optimum), air is expelled and
water facilitates the rearrangement of soil grains into a denser configuration. At water contents
just above optimum (wet of optimum), the compactive effort cannot expel more air and
additional water displaces soil grains, thus decreasing the number of soil grains per unit volume
of soil. Consequently, the dry unit weight decreases [8].

9
 CORRELATION BETWEEN COMPACTION CHARACTERISTICS AND ATTERBERG LIMITS OF FINE GRAINED SOILS

Figure2.2.Effect of increasing compaction efforts on the dry unit weight-water content r/n ship
[8]

2.7.1. Typical compacted densities

The compacted density achieved for a soil depends on the soil type, its moisture content and the
compactive effort used. The table below shows typical values of maximum dry density and
optimum moisture content for soil classes, using AASHTO classification system [16].

Table 2.3.Typical MDD and OMC for different soil types using AASHTO classification [16]
Soil description Class MDD (kg/m3) OMC (%)
Well gravel/sand mixtures A-1 1850-2150 5-15
Silty or clayey gravel and sand A-2 1750-2150 9-18
Poorly graded sands A-3 1600-1900 5-12
Silty sand and gravels of low plasticity A-4 1500-2000 10-20
Elastic silts, dialtomaceceous or micaceous A-5 1350-1900 20-35
Plastic clay, sandy clay A-6 1500-1900 10-30
Highly plastic or elastic clay A-7 1300-1850 15-35

2.7.2. Purpose of Soil Compaction

Compaction increases the strength characteristics of soils, which in turn increases the bearing
capacity of foundations, decreases the amount of excessive settlement of structures, and
increases the stability of slopes of embankments [7]. Generally, compaction is used as practical
means of achieving the following characteristics of soils.

10
 CORRELATION BETWEEN COMPACTION CHARACTERISTICS AND ATTERBERG LIMITS OF FINE GRAINED SOILS

Reduce excessive settlement and compressibility

The primary advantage resulting from the compaction of soils used in embankments is that it
reduces settlement that might be caused by consolidation of the soil within the body of the
embankment. This is true because compaction and consolidation both bring about closer
arrangement of soil particles. Densification by compaction prevents later consolidation and
settlement of a structure [8].

Increase shear strength

The increase in density by compaction usually increases shearing resistance. This effect is highly
desirable that it may allow the use of thinner pavement structure over a compacted sub-grade or
the use of steeper side slopes for an embankment. For the same density, the highest strengths are
frequently obtained by using greater compactive efforts. Large-scale experiments have indicated
that the unconfined compressive strength of clayey sand could be doubled by compaction [8].

Reduce permeability and seepage

When soil particles are forced together by compaction, both the number of voids contained in the
soil mass and the size of the individual void spaces are reduced. This change in voids has an
obvious effect on the movement of water through the soil. One effect is to reduce the
permeability, thus reducing the seepage of water in earth dams, road embankments and water
loss in reservoirs through deep percolation [8].

Optimizes swelling and shrinkage characteristics

Swelling characteristics is an important soil property. For expansive clay soils, the greater the
density the greater the potential volume change due to swelling unless the soil is restrained. An
expansive clay soil should be compacted at moisture content at which swelling will not be
excessive. Although the conditions corresponding to a minimum swell and minimum shrinkage
may not be exactly the same, soils generally may be compacted so that these effects are
minimized [8].

11
 CORRELATION BETWEEN COMPACTION CHARACTERISTICS AND ATTERBERG LIMITS OF FINE GRAINED SOILS

2.7.3. Factors affecting compaction

The dry density of the soil is increased by compaction. But the increase in the dry density will be
depends upon the following factors [18]:

Water content: - at low water content the soil is stiff and offers more resistance to compaction.
As the water content is increased, the soil particles get lubricated. The soil mass becomes more
workable and the particles have closer packing. The dry density of the soil increases with an
increase in the water content till the optimum water content is reached. At that stage the air voids
attain approximately a constant volume. With further increase in water content, the air voids do
not decrease, but the total voids ( air plus water)increase and the dry density decreases [18].

Amount of compaction: - the effect of increasing the amount of compactive effort is to increase
the maximum dry density and to decrease the optimum moisture content. At water content less
than the optimum, the effect of increased compaction is predominant. At water content more than
the optimum, the volume of air voids becomes almost constant and the effect of increased
compaction is not significant. The line of optimums which joins the peaks of the compaction
curves of different compactive efforts follows the general trend of the zero-air void line [7].

Type of soil: - the dry density achieved depends upon the type of soil. In general coarse grained
soils can be compacted to higher dry density than fine grained soils. With the addition of even a
small quantity of fines to a coarse grained soil, the soil attains a much higher dry density for the
same compactive effort. However if the quantity of fines is increased to a value more than that
required to fill the voids of the coarse grained soil, the maximum dry density decreases. A well
graded soil attains a much higher dry density than a poorly graded soil [18].

Method of compaction: - the dry density achieved depends not only upon the amount of
compaction effort but also on the method of compaction. For the same amount of compactive
effort, the dry density will depend upon whether the method of compaction utilizes kneading
action, dynamic action or static action [18].

Admixture: - The compaction characteristics of the soils are improved by adding other
materials, known as admixtures. The most commonly used admixtures are lime, cement and
bitumen. The dry density achieved depends upon the type and amount of admixtures [18].

12
 CORRELATION BETWEEN COMPACTION CHARACTERISTICS AND ATTERBERG LIMITS OF FINE GRAINED SOILS

2.8. Existing correlations between Atterberg limits and compaction

characteristics

Correlations making use of the Atterberg limits are fairly common in soil mechanics literature,
and are quite useful. Many attempts have been made to obtain equations that relate OMC and
MDD with index properties [1].

One of the first attempts to relate compaction characteristics with index properties was by
Jumikis (1946). He developed a correlation equation to estimate optimum moisture content with
liquid limit and plasticity index [1]. Later continuous attempts have been made by various
researchers to predict compaction characteristics with simple physical and index properties.

Recently, considerable equations are proposed by different authors to predict the compaction
characteristics from Atterberg limits, of which, some of them are summarized as follows:
Based on both primary and secondary data, Gurtug and Sridharan [11] obtained the following
relationships using 86 data to estimate the standard Proctor compaction characteristics.
OMC = 0.92*PL, R = 0.98
𝛄d,max = 21.61 - 0.26*OMC, R = 0.98

Based on their own study and data from the literature, Sridharan and Nagaraj [10], proposed the
following correlation equations to predict the compaction characteristics from plastic limit and
liquid limit using 64 standard proctor compaction test data.

OMC = 0.92*PL, R=0.99

OMC = 0.37*LL+4.61, R=0.80
𝛄d,max = 21.46-0.23*PL, R=0.93

𝛄d,max =19.62-0.09LL, R=0.80

Sivrikaya, et.al. also developed correlations with standard proctor compaction test data, and
concluded that optimum water content has considerably good correlation with plastic limit in
comparison with liquid limit and plasticity index using 130 samples data [13].

OMC = 0.94*PL, R=0.99

𝛄d,max =21.79-0.27*OMC, R=0.99

13
 CORRELATION BETWEEN COMPACTION CHARACTERISTICS AND ATTERBERG LIMITS OF FINE GRAINED SOILS

Sivrikaya and Soycan gives the following correlations using standard Proctor data with index
properties of fine-grained soils using 156 primary and secondary data [14]

OMC=0.92*PL, R=0.99
𝛄d,max =20.90-0.21*PL, R=0.84
𝛄d,max =21.84-0.27*OMC, R=0.97

Nagaraj. HB, et.al [1] has tried to correlate compaction characteristics of natural soils with
modified plastic limit. They used 10 soils from previous study (Sridharan and Nagaraj) and
collect 15 primary data and found the following equation

OMC = 0.85*PL, R=0.99

𝛄d,max = 20.64-0.19*PL, R=0.95

And Kamarudin has done his MSc on Estimation of soil compaction parameters based on
Atterberg limits and summarized the results as follows [2].

Table2.4.Summary of Kamarudin results [2]

Correlations From the Data Collected From Laboratory Results

MDD VS. LL MDD = 2.089 – 0.006 LL, R2 = 0.559 MDD = -0.006LL + 1.9744

MDD VS. PL MDD = 2.129 – 0.013PL, R2 = 0.535 MDD = -0.0069PL +1.9264

MDD VS. PI MDD = 1.935 – 0.008PI, R2 = 0.347 MDD = -0.0414PI + 2.262

MDD VS. LL + PL MDD = 2.132 - 0.004 LL – 0.006 PL , R2 = 0.588 MDD = 1.926 -0.007PL

OMC VS. LL OMC = 0.203 LL + 5.383, R2 = 0.493 OMC = 0.2816LL + 2.1873

OMC VS. PL OMC = 0.399 PL + 4.157, R2 = 0.469 OMC = 0.3286PL + 4.4686

OMC VS PI. OMC = 0.263PI + 10.111, R2 = 0.313 OMC = 1.9714PI - 11.5
2
OMC VS. LL+PL OMC = 4.065 + 0.125 LL +0.180 PL, R = 0.517 OMC = 0.329PL + 4.469

Additionally, Atsbeha Nerea has also done her MSc thesis on prediction of compaction
characteristics from atterberg limits for fine-grained soils on 2012 and she find the following
results taking 20 primary data [6].

14
 CORRELATION BETWEEN COMPACTION CHARACTERISTICS AND ATTERBERG LIMITS OF FINE GRAINED SOILS

Table2.5.Summary of Atsbeha‟s results [6]

Regression From primary data
OMC from PL,LL and PI OMC = 0.61LL + 0.12PL - 0.59PI + 5.38, R2 = 0.959
OMC from PL and LL OMC = 0.027LL + 0.70PL + 5.38, R2 = 0.952
OMC from PL OMC = 0.075PL + 5.89, R2 = 0.945
OMC from LL OMC = 0.14LL + 20.69, R2 = 0.318
MDD from PL,LL,PI and MDD = 20.8 - 0.02LL - 0.014PL + 0.015PI - 0.19 OMC,
OMC R2 = 0.903
MDD from PL and OMC MDD = 20.84 - 0.033PL - 0.2OMC, R2 = 0.9
MDD from OMC MDD = 21.03 - 0.25 0MC, R2 = 0.894
MDD from PL MDD = 19.67 - 0.186PL R2 = 0.849
MDD from LL and PL MDD = 19.88 - 0.011LL - 0.17PL, R2 = 0.876
MDD from LL MDD = 16.26 - 0.038LL, R2 = 0.389

Generally based on these findings (literature), one can make a deduction that there is a simple
method to predicting compaction parameters, maximum dry density and optimum moisture
content from LL, PL, PI.

From the results of this study the concept of predicting compaction characteristics for natural
soils containing varied proportions of fines less than 425ηm, can be made by using modified
plastic limit. OMC for natural soils can be predicted by relating with the modified plastic limit.
However, maximum dry unit weight can be predicted from either making use of modified plastic
limit or from OMC predicted.

But it has been reported that the estimation of MDD using OMCpredicted (OMC obtained from
plastic limit) is more reliable than directly relating with plastic limit [11] [10].

Thus this study will going to have its own significance for further study. However the success of
correlation depends on the laboratory tests (method of tests, work man ship, accuracy of the
instruments) used the quality of the collected data and method of analysis.

15
 CORRELATION BETWEEN COMPACTION CHARACTERISTICS AND ATTERBERG LIMITS OF FINE GRAINED SOILS

2.9. Data Analysis Methods

There are many methods that we can use to check the validity of the relationships between two
or more variables. However, in this study the two common methods are used, namely: scatter
plot and linear regression analysis [3]. Before the application of the analysis methods some
important terms are discussed below.

1. Level of significance: The probability of making an error to reject a hypothesis while it

happens to be true is called the level of significance. In practice it is customary to use 5% level
of significance. This means that we are 95% confident that we could make the right decision and
we could wrong with probability of 5% [19].

2. One tailed and two tailed Tests: When a hypothesis is tested assuming that one process is
better or worse than the other, then it is called one tailed or one sided test. However, if the
hypothesis is tested assuming that the extreme values of the statistics score on both sides of the
mean in both tails of the distribution, the tests are called two tailed or two sided tests [19].

3. Standard error: standard error is the average measure of error of each sample points about
the best-fit line. Out of all curves, the best-fit curve has the smallest standard error [19].

4. Correlation coefficient(R): the coefficient of correlation (sometimes called coefficient of

regression) is the measures of how well the least-square regression line (best fit line) fits the
sample data. Value of R= 1 or -1 (R2=1) shows that there is a perfect linear correlation and also
perfect linear regression. On the other hand R = 0 or approaches to zero shows no valid
relationship can be obtained between the variables [19].

2.8.1. Scatter Plot

In developing correlations, the first step is creating a scatter plot of the data, to visually assess
the strength and form of some type of relationship [15].

 If the points are very close to each other, a fairly good amount of correlation can be
expected between the two variables. On the other hand if they are widely scattered a poor
correlation can be expected between them.

16
 CORRELATION BETWEEN COMPACTION CHARACTERISTICS AND ATTERBERG LIMITS OF FINE GRAINED SOILS

 If the points are scattered and they reveal no upward or downward trend then we say the
variables are uncorrelated.
 If there is an upward trend rising from the lower left hand corner and going upward to the
upper right hand corner, the correlation obtained from the graph is said to be positive.
Also, if there is a downward trend from the upper left hand corner the correlation
obtained is said to be negative.

However, when determinations of the relationships among more than two variables are required
regression analysis is used and the SPSS software is found to be the most powerful and
descriptive tool [4].

2.8.2. Regression

Regression analysis is a statistical technique that is very useful in the field of engineering and
science in modeling and investigating relationships between two or more variables. The method
of regression analysis is used to develop the line or curve which provides the best fit through a
set of data points. This basic approach is applicable in situations ranging from single linear
regression to more sophisticate nonlinear multiple regressions. The best fit model could be in the
form of linear, parabolic or logarithmic trend. A linear relationship is usually practiced in solving
different engineering problems because of its simplicity [19].

17
 CORRELATION BETWEEN COMPACTION CHARACTERISTICS AND ATTERBERG LIMITS OF FINE GRAINED SOILS

CHAPTER THREE
METHODS AND DATA COLLECTION

3.1. Area of the study

The research is conducted at different places in Addis Ababa city. Addis Ababa is the capital city
of Ethiopia Founded in 1886; it is the largest city in Ethiopia. The city is populated by people
from different regions of Ethiopia with a population of 3,384,469 according to the 2007 census
with annual growth rate of 3.8%. This city is found at the elevation of 2355m and at a coordinate
of 91‟48‟‟N, 3844‟24‟‟E on a well-watered plateau surrounded by hills and mountains. It is a
grassland biome located at the foot of mount “Entoto” and forms part of the watershed for
“Awash” river. It has sub-tropical highland climate with temperature differences up to 10 0C.
Daily maximum temperatures don‟t usually exceed 230C during dry seasons [21].

The selection of sites for excavation were purposive, they are selected based on Addis Ababa‟s
soil classification map, secondary data that are collected from different organizations and from
previous researches that are done on investigation of engineering properties of Addis Ababa
soils. Accordingly soil classified under A-7 is chosen for the study. And to make the sample
representative the researcher takes two samples from each Sub Cities and a total of twenty
samples are collected.

The specific locations of sampling are AKAKI, BOLE, MEGENAGNA, JEMO, LIDETA,
MEXICO, KOLFE, ASKO, MESALEMIA, SHIROMEDA (Fig.3). One test pit was opened at
each site and disturbed samples About 40 kg were collected from each pit at a depth ranging
from 1.00m to 3.00m. After extracting, the samples were transported to at Gondwana eng. plc.
geotechnical laboratory and different laboratory tests are done.

18
CORRELATION BETWEEN COMPACTION CHARACTERISTICS AND ATTERBERG LIMITS OF FINE GRAINED SOILS

Legend
- Sample locations

Figure 3.1.Locations of sampling areas [20]

19
 CORRELATION BETWEEN COMPACTION CHARACTERISTICS AND ATTERBERG LIMITS OF FINE GRAINED SOILS

3.2. Study period

This research is conducted from April 2016 up to October 2016.

3.3. Study design

An experimental study is used during the study period and the data is analyzed and interpreted using
both descriptive and analytical methods of approach.

3.4. Study population

The sample for this study are A-7 soil types found from the 21 primary data (including 1 controlling
test) which was extracted from 10 test pits and 36 secondary data which was obtained from AACRA.
And a total of 57 soil data was used during the whole study.

3.5. Sample size and sampling procedures

The quantity of the material required was determined by laboratory tests that are conducted as well as
the number repetition of the tests. Accordingly one test pit was opened at each site and disturbed
samples about 40kg were collected from each pit at a depth ranging from 1.00m to 3.00m by
using hand tools.

3.6. Study variables

Dependent variables: - the dependent variable for this research is the correlation between
compaction characteristics and Atterberg limits.

Independent variables: - the independent variables for this research are Liquid limit, Plastic limit,
Plasticity index, Specific gravity, Optimum moisture content and maximum dry density, Particle
size.

3.7. Data collection process

The data needed for this research was collected from:-

Primary sources: - samples were collected from each test pits then different laboratory tests
were conducted and the results were recorded.

20
 CORRELATION BETWEEN COMPACTION CHARACTERISTICS AND ATTERBERG LIMITS OF FINE GRAINED SOILS

Secondary sources are AACRA, different journals, previous thesis, books and websites.

3.8. Visual identification (ASTM D-2488)

Visual identification of soil is conducted according to ASTM D-2488 “Standard Practice for
Description and Identification of Soils”. Summary of visual identification is shown below and
details are presented in appendix A.

Table 3.1.Summary of visual identification

No. Sample locations Depth Visual identification

1 1.5m Black cotton
2 Bole 3m Black cotton
3 1.5m Grey to light Brown
4 Akaki 3m Grey
5 1.2m Dark/black
6 Kolfe 2.3m Dark/black
7 1.2m light Brown
8 Lideta 2.6m light Brown
9 1.5m Black/Dark
10 Megenagna 3m light Brown
11 1.5m Red
12 Asko 3m Red
13 1.3m Reddish to light brown
14 Mesalemiya 2.2m dark brown
15 1.5m Light Brown
16 Jemo 2.8m Dark/black
17 1.2m Reddish
18 Mexico 2.1m Reddish to light grey
19 1.5m Brown to light grey
20 Shiromeda 3m Grey

3.9. Laboratory tests and results

Based on the samples retrieved from the sites, laboratory tests on the twenty one samples were
conducted at Gondwana eng. plc. geotechnical laboratory. Accordingly, the following different
kinds of tests have been performed.

21
 CORRELATION BETWEEN COMPACTION CHARACTERISTICS AND ATTERBERG LIMITS OF FINE GRAINED SOILS

3.9.1. Grain size Analysis Test (ASTM D-1140)

The amount of soil materials finer than 0.075mm was determined according to ASTM D-1140
“Standard Test Method for Amount of Material in the Soil Finer than the No. 200 Sieve”.
Summary of particle size distribution is shown below and details are presented on appendix B.

Summary of particle size distribution

100
mexico 1.5 m
mexico 3 m
Akaki 1.5 m
95
Akaki 3 m
lideta 2.6 m
Lideta 1.2 m
Cummulative percentage Pass, %

90
Kolfe 1.2 m
Kolfe 2.3 m
85 Asko 1.5 m
Asko 3 m
Mesalemiya 1.3 m
80 Mesalemiya2.2 m
Megenagna 1.5 m
Megenagna 3 m
75 Bole 1.5 m
Bole 3 m
Jemo 1.5 m
70 Jemo 2.8 m
Shiromeda 1.5 m
Shiromeda 3 m
65
6.000 0.600 0.060
Particle Size, mm
Figure 3.2.Summary of Particle size distribution curve

3.9.2. Specific Gravity of soil (ASTM D-854)

The specific gravity of each type of soil was determined according to ASTM D-854 “Standard
Test Method for Specific Gravity of Soils”. Summary of specific gravity is shown below and
Details are presented on appendix C.

22
 CORRELATION BETWEEN COMPACTION CHARACTERISTICS AND ATTERBERG LIMITS OF FINE GRAINED SOILS

Table 3.2.Summary of specific gravity

No. Sample locations Depth Gs

1 1.5m 2.68
2 Bole 3m 2.72
3 1.5m 2.65
4 Akaki 3m 2.67
5 1.2m 2.71
6 Kolfe 2.3m 2.73
7 1.2m 2.71
8 Lideta 2.6m 2.73
9 1.5m 2.67
10 Megenagna 3m 2.65
11 1.5m 2.74
12 Asko 3m 2.78
13 1.3m 2.72
14 Mesalemiya 2.2m 2.74
15 1.5m 2.75
16 Jemo 2.8m 2.77
17 1.2m 2.70
18 Mexico 2.1m 2.73
19 1.5m 2.69
20 Shiromeda 3m 2.71

3.9.3. Liquid Limit Test (ASTM D 4318)

The liquid limit for each type of soil is determined according to ASTM D-4318 “Standard Test
Method for Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit and Plasticity Index of Soils”.

3.9.4. Plastic Limit Test (ASTM D-4318)

Plastic limit for each type of soil was determined according to ASTM D-4318 “Standard Test
Method for Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit and Plasticity Index of Soils”.

Summary of liquid limits, plastic limits and plasticity index are presented below and Details are
presented on appendix D.

23
 CORRELATION BETWEEN COMPACTION CHARACTERISTICS AND ATTERBERG LIMITS OF FINE GRAINED SOILS

Table 3.3.Summary of Atterberg limits

Atterberg limits
LL PL PI
No Sample locations Depth (%) (%) (%)
1 1.5m 97.00 41.00 56.00
2 Bole 3m 93.00 39.00 54.00
3 1.5m 88.15 35.00 53.15
4 Akaki 3m 93.16 37.00 56.16
5 1.2m 62.35 32.00 30.35
6 Kolfe 2.3m 62.90 33.00 29.90
7 1.2m 55.37 27.00 28.37
8 Lideta 2.6m 60.14 29.00 31.14
9 1.5m 87.36 35.00 52.36
10 Megenagna 3m 84.48 34.00 50.48
11 1.5m 60.00 25.00 35.00
12 Asko 3m 59.00 30.00 29.00
13 1.3m 60.00 31.00 29.00
14 Mesalemiya 2.2m 56.39 26.00 30.39
15 1.5m 63.00 26.00 37.00
16 Jemo 2.8m 64.00 24.00 40.00
17 1.2m 73.70 31.00 42.70
18 Mexico 2.1m 66.62 32.00 34.62
19 1.5m 74.80 29.00 45.80
20 Shiromeda 3m 79.20 32.40 46.80

3.9.5. Standard Proctor Test (ASTM D-698)

Moisture-Density Relationships: Each sample extracted from the different sites was sieved
over a 4.75mm sieve for testing and compacted in a 101.6-mm diameter mold as described in
Procedure “A” of the ASTM D-698. Each sample was immediately tested for water content
according to ASTM D-2166 and the moisture content obtained in this procedure was used for
generation of a compaction curve according to ASTM D-698. Finally the maximum dry unit
weight and corresponding optimum moisture content were computed using spread sheet and
charts.

Summary of compaction results are shown below and Details are presented on appendix E.

24
 CORRELATION BETWEEN COMPACTION CHARACTERISTICS AND ATTERBERG LIMITS OF FINE GRAINED SOILS

Table 3.4.Summary of OMC and MDD results

Sample OMC MDD
No. Depth
locations (%) (g/cc)
1 1.5m 37.00 1.25
Bole
2 3m 35.00 1.26
3 1.5m 30.00 1.33
Akaki
4 3m 31.00 1.31
5 1.2m 23.50 1.55
Kolfe
6 2.3m 26.00 1.52
7 1.2m 25.00 1.46
Lideta
8 2.6m 25.50 1.46
9 1.5m 32.00 1.27
Megenagna
10 3m 30.00 1.27
11 1.5m 22.00 1.64
Asko
12 3m 25.50 1.54
13 1.3m 28.00 1.50
Mesalemiya
14 2.2m 23.20 1.64
15 1.5m 22.00 1.63
Jemo
16 2.8m 23.00 1.62
17 1.2m 25.80 1.44
Mexico
18 2.1m 26.50 1.46
19 1.5m 25.10 1.51
Shiromeda
20 3m 26.40 1.47

25
 CORRELATION BETWEEN COMPACTION CHARACTERISTICS AND ATTERBERG LIMITS OF FINE GRAINED SOILS

3.10. Summary of laboratory test results

Table 3.5.Summary of laboratory results
Compaction
Sample Soil Atterberg limits characteristics
No. Depth
locations classification LL PL PI OMC MDD
(%) (%) (%) (%) (Kg/m3) Gs
1 1.5m A-7-5(64) 97.00 41.00 56.00 37.00 12.26 2.68
Bole
2 3m A-7-5(63) 93.00 39.00 54.00 35.00 12.36 2.72
3 1.5m A-7-5(59) 88.15 35.00 53.15 30.00 13.04 2.65
Akaki
4 3m A-7-5(66) 93.16 37.00 56.16 31.00 12.85 2.67
5 1.2m A-7-5(27) 62.35 32.00 30.35 23.50 15.20 2.71
Kolfe
6 2.3m A-7-5(31) 62.90 33.00 29.90 26.00 14.91 2.73
7 1.2m A-7-6(19) 55.37 27.00 28.37 25.00 14.36 2.72
Lideta
8 2.6m A-7-6(31) 60.14 29.00 31.14 25.50 14.35 2.70
9 1.5m A-7-5(57) 87.36 35.00 52.36 32.00 12.45 2.67
Megenagna
10 3m A-7-5(53) 84.48 34.00 50.48 30.00 12.45 2.65
11 1.5m A-7-6(32) 60.00 25.00 35.00 22.00 16.08 2.74
Asko
12 3m A-7-6(25) 59.00 30.00 29.00 25.50 15.10 2.78
13 1.3m A-7-5(23) 60.00 31.00 29.00 28.00 14.71 2.72
Mesalemiya
14 2.2m A-7-6(26) 56.39 26.00 30.39 23.20 16.08 2.74
15 1.5m A-7-6(33) 63.00 26.00 37.00 22.00 15.98 2.75
Jemo
16 2.8m A-7-6(38) 64.00 24.00 40.00 23.00 15.89 2.78
17 1.2m A-7-5(43) 73.70 31.00 42.70 25.80 14.12 2.71
Mexico
18 2.1m A-7-5(40) 66.62 32.00 34.62 26.50 14.32 2.73
19 1.5m A-7-6(41) 74.80 29.00 45.80 25.10 14.80 2.69
Shiromeda
20 3m A-7-5(46) 79.20 32.40 46.80 26.40 14.50 2.71

26
 CORRELATION BETWEEN COMPACTION CHARACTERISTICS AND ATTERBERG LIMITS OF FINE GRAINED SOILS

Table3.10. continued…

Sample locations Depth P200 P40 P10

1.5m 92.98 94.11 95.79
Bole
3m 94.9 96 97.5
1.5m 93.32 94.36 94.78
Akaki
3m 96.69 99.35 99.71
1.2m 79.62 90.43 99.2
Kolfe
2.3m 86.7 93.4 97.17
1.2m 68.73 86 96.1
Lideta
2.6m 86.58 89.14 98.5
1.5m 91.3 92.8 94.3
Megenagna
3m 89.3 90.66 92.96
1.5m 85 88.13 95.01
Asko
3m 79.73 91.14 95.22
1.3m 74.42 85.74 96.18
Mesalemiya
2.2m 87.11 92.06 97.88
1.5m 83.28 86.9 92.11
Jemo
2.8m 86.17 89.68 94.87
1.2m 86.54 88.78 90.65
Mexico
2.1m 96.26 96.66 96.86
1.5m 81.1 86.64 93.34
Shiromeda
3m 86 88.5 93.1

3.11. Discussion of lab results

As we see from the above table all the soils are categorized under A-7 soil type according to
AASHTO soil classification. And most of them are A-7-5 and the rest are A-7-6 soil types. And
their specific gravity ranges from 2.65 up to 2.78.

According to different books, these soils are clayey soils, but with high values of both liquid
limit and plasticity index, (LL greater than 40% and PI greater than 10%). These soils also have
low permeability and high volume change properties with changes in moisture content and they
are very week when we see their strength [7] [8].

27
 CORRELATION BETWEEN COMPACTION CHARACTERISTICS AND ATTERBERG LIMITS OF FINE GRAINED SOILS

3.12. Secondary data that are collected from AACRA

Table 3.6.Summary of secondary data

Sample Soil Atterberg limits Compaction characteristics

No LL PL PI
locations classification
(%) (%) (%) OMC (%) MDD (Kg/m3)
1 AACRA 1 A-7-6 (40) 48.00 24.00 24.00 17.60 16.57
2 AACRA 2 A-7-6 (40) 62.00 25.00 37.00 23.00 15.59
3 AACRA 3 A-7-5(40) 79.00 29.00 50.00 18.70 15.49
4 AACRA 4 A-7-5(29) 69.00 28.00 41.00 18.70 15.49
5 AACRA 5 A-7-5 (6) 52.00 24.00 28.00 19.00 16.38
6 AACRA 6 A-7-5 (12) 53.00 23.00 30.00 20.00 15.40
7 AACRA 7 A-7-5 (20) 57.00 29.00 28.00 25.00 14.71
8 AACRA 8 A-7-5 (26) 57.00 30.00 27.00 26.00 15.00
9 AACRA 9 A-7-5 (21) 55.00 32.00 23.00 28.30 15.20
10 AACRA 10 A-7-5 (21) 55.00 30.00 25.00 29.00 13.53
11 AACRA 11 A-7-5 (23) 61.00 28.00 33.00 23.00 15.69
12 AACRA 12 A-7-6 (20) 54.00 26.00 28.00 22.30 16.77
13 AACRA 13 A-7-6(30) 77.00 29.00 48.00 24.20 14.81
14 AACRA 14 A-7-6(40) 83.00 25.00 58.00 21.00 14.42
15 AACRA 15 A-7-5 47.00 22.00 25.00 15.50 17.26
16 AACRA 16 A-7-5 (28) 63.00 30.00 33.00 25.00 15.00
17 AACRA 17 A-7-5 67.00 37.00 30.00 33.00 13.83
18 AACRA 18 A-7-5 (41) 73.00 28.00 45.00 23.50 15.20
19 AACRA 19 A-7-6 (21) 45.00 23.00 22.00 21.00 15.69
20 AACRA 20 A-7-6 (24) 52.00 25.00 27.00 22.00 15.40
21 AACRA 21 A-7-6(28) 69.00 22.00 47.00 19.60 14.91
22 AACRA 22 A-7-5(11) 73.00 23.00 50.00 18.50 15.59
23 AACRA 23 A-7-5(21) 72.00 26.00 46.00 21.00 15.10
24 AACRA 24 A-7-5(28) 73.00 27.00 46.00 21.00 15.10
25 AACRA 25 A-7-5(11) 67.00 24.00 43.00 21.00 15.49
26 AACRA 26 A-7-5(17) 74.00 23.00 51.00 21.00 15.49
27 AACRA 27 A-7-5 (31) 54.00 26.00 28.00 24.00 15.79
28 AACRA 28 A-7-6 (31) 57.00 27.00 30.00 24.50 15.49
29 AACRA 29 A-7-5 (28) 66.00 29.00 37.00 26.50 15.00
30 AACRA 30 A-7-5 54.00 25.00 29.00 20.50 15.30
31 AACRA 31 A-7-5(8) 49.00 24.00 25.00 21.00 16.18
32 AACRA 32 A-7-5 (36) 79.00 28.00 51.00 25.00 15.00
33 AACRA 33 A-7-6(27) 73.00 32.00 41.00 28.00 14.61
34 AACRA 34 A-7-6(28) 73.00 29.00 44.00 24.00 15.10
35 AACRA 35 A-7-5 (23) 77.00 28.00 49.00 20.00 16.77
36 AACRA 36 A-7-6(25) 69.00 24.00 45.00 17.20 15.79

28
 CORRELATION BETWEEN COMPACTION CHARACTERISTICS AND ATTERBERG LIMITS OF FINE GRAINED SOILS

CHAPTER FOUR
DATA ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSIONS

4.1. General
The concept of „correlation‟ is a statistical tool which studies the relationship between two
variables. Correlation Analysis involves various methods and techniques used for studying and
measuring the extent of the relationship between the two variables. “Two variables are said to be
in correlation if the change in one of the variables results in a change in the other variable”.
There are two important types of correlation. They are Positive and Negative correlation, And
Linear and Non – Linear correlation [15].

Regression analysis is concerned with how the values of Y depend on the corresponding values
of X. Y, whose value is to be predicted, is known as dependent variable or response and X,
which is used in predicting the value of dependent variable, is called independent or regressor
variable. A regression model that contains more than one regressor variable is called multiple
regression models. Alternatively, Regression model containing one independent variable or
regressor is termed as simple regression model [15].

In carrying out the statistical analysis, both the statistical software program called SPSS and MS
excel spreadsheet are used to analyze the Normality of the data, Scatter plot, Best fit curve and
Regression.

4.2. Assessment of normality of a data

Statistical methods are based on various underlying assumptions. One common assumption is
that a random variable is normally distributed. In many statistical analyses, normality is often
conveniently assumed without any empirical evidence or test. But normality is critical in many
statistical methods. When this assumption is violated, interpretation and inference may not be
reliable or valid [19].

Researchers may draw a histogram, stem-and-leaf plot, or box plot to see how a variable is
distributed. There are two ways of testing normality. These are Graphical methods to visualize

29
 CORRELATION BETWEEN COMPACTION CHARACTERISTICS AND ATTERBERG LIMITS OF FINE GRAINED SOILS

the distributions of random variables and Numerical methods which present summary of
statistics such as skewness and kurtosis [19].

Graphical interpretation has the advantage of allowing good judgment to assess normality in
situations when numerical tests might be over or under sensitive but graphical methods do lack
objectivity. If you do not have a great deal of experience interpreting normality graphically then
it is probably best to rely on the numerical methods [22]. In this research numerical method is
used to check the normality of the data.

SPSS outputs many table and graphs. One of the reasons for this is that the Explore... command
is not used solely for the testing of normality but in describing data in many different ways.
When testing for normality, the researcher is mainly interested in the Tests of Normality table
and the Normal Q-Q Plots, the numerical and graphical methods to test for the normality of data,
respectively [22].

The output table presents the results from two well-known tests of normality, namely the
Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test and the Shapiro-Wilk Test. Shapiro-Wilk Test is more appropriate
for small sample sizes (< 50 samples) but can also handle sample sizes as large as 2000 [22]. For
this reason, the researcher uses the Shapiro-Wilk test as numerical means of assessing normality
for the study. And from the output table if the Sig. value of the Shapiro-Wilk Test is greater the
0.05 then the data is normal. If it is below 0.05 then the data significantly deviate from a normal
distribution. Summary of Normality assessment are presented below and Details are presented on
appendix F1.

Table 4.1.Summary of Normality of the data

Variable Number of samples Test method Sig. value Distribution
Liquid limit 56 Shapiro-Wilk 0.139 Normal
Plastic limit 56 Shapiro-Wilk 0.063 Normal
Plasticity index 56 Shapiro-Wilk 0.076 Normal
Optimum moisture content 56 Shapiro-Wilk 0.128 Normal
Maximum dry density 56 Shapiro-Wilk 0.061 Normal
P200 20 Shapiro-Wilk 0.204 Normal
P40 20 Shapiro-Wilk 0.598 Normal
P10 20 Shapiro-Wilk 0.071 Normal
Gs 20 Shapiro-Wilk 0.611 Normal

30
 CORRELATION BETWEEN COMPACTION CHARACTERISTICS AND ATTERBERG LIMITS OF FINE GRAINED SOILS

4.3. Scatter plot

In developing correlations, the first step is creating a scatter plot of the data, to visually assess
the strength and form of some type of relationship [15].

 If the points are very close to each other, a fairly good amount of correlation can be
expected between the two variables. On the other hand if they are widely scattered a poor
correlation can be expected between them.
 If the points are scattered and they reveal no upward or downward trend then we say the
variables are uncorrelated.
 If there is an upward trend rising from the lower left hand corner and going upward to the
upper right hand corner, the correlation obtained from the graph is said to be positive.
Also, if there is a downward trend from the upper left hand corner the correlation
obtained is said to be negative.

4.3.1. Scatter plot for the primary data

The scatter plot of OMC with LL, PL, and PI, And MDD with LL, PL and PI for the 20 primary
data were done by using Ms. Excel and the plots are presented below.

OMC Vs LL
40.00
Optimum moisture content (%)

35.00
30.00
25.00
20.00
15.00
10.00
5.00
0.00 N = 20
40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 80.00 90.00 100.00
Liquid limit (%)

Figure 4.1.Scatter plot of OMC vs. LL

31
CORRELATION BETWEEN COMPACTION CHARACTERISTICS AND ATTERBERG LIMITS OF FINE GRAINED SOILS

OMC Vs PL
40.00

Optimum moisture content (%)

35.00
30.00
25.00
20.00
15.00
10.00
5.00
0.00 N = 20
20.00 25.00 30.00 35.00 40.00 45.00
Plastic Limit (%)

Figure 4.2.Scatter plot of OMC vs. PL

OMC Vs PI
40.00
Optimum moisture content (%)

35.00
30.00
25.00
20.00
15.00
10.00
5.00
N = 20
0.00
20.00 25.00 30.00 35.00 40.00 45.00 50.00 55.00 60.00
Plasticity index (%)

Figure 4.3.Scatter plot of OMC vs. PI

32
CORRELATION BETWEEN COMPACTION CHARACTERISTICS AND ATTERBERG LIMITS OF FINE GRAINED SOILS

OMC Vs P200
40.00

Optimum moisture content (%)

35.00
30.00
25.00
20.00
15.00
10.00
5.00
0.00
70 75 80 85 90 95 100
P200 (%)

Figure 4.4.Scatter plot of OMC vs. P200

OMC Vs P40
Optimum moisture content (%)

40.00
35.00
30.00
25.00
20.00
15.00
10.00
5.00
0.00
85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99

P40 (%)

Figure 4.5.Scatter plot of OMC vs. P40

33
CORRELATION BETWEEN COMPACTION CHARACTERISTICS AND ATTERBERG LIMITS OF FINE GRAINED SOILS

OMC Vs P10

Optimum moisture content (%)

40.00
35.00
30.00
25.00
20.00
15.00
10.00
5.00
0.00
75 80 85 90 95 100 105
P10 (%)

Figure 4.6.Scatter plot of OMC vs. P10

OMC Vs Gs
40.00
Optimum moisture content (%)

35.00
30.00
25.00
20.00
15.00
10.00
5.00
N = 20
0.00
2.60 2.65 2.70 2.75 2.80
Gs
Figure 4.7.Scatter plot of OMC vs. specific gravity

34
CORRELATION BETWEEN COMPACTION CHARACTERISTICS AND ATTERBERG LIMITS OF FINE GRAINED SOILS

MDD Vs LL

Maximum dry density (kg/m3)

18.00

16.00

14.00

12.00

10.00

8.00
N = 20
6.00
50.00 60.00 70.00 80.00 90.00 100.00
Liquid limit (%)

Figure 4.8.Scatter plot of MDD vs. LL

MDD Vs PL
18.00
Maximum dry density (kg/m3)

16.00

14.00

12.00

10.00

8.00
N = 20
6.00
20.00 25.00 30.00 35.00 40.00 45.00
Plastic limit (%)

Figure 4.9.Scatter plot of MDD vs. PL

35
CORRELATION BETWEEN COMPACTION CHARACTERISTICS AND ATTERBERG LIMITS OF FINE GRAINED SOILS

MDD Vs PI
18.00

Maximum dry density (kg/m3)

16.00

14.00

12.00

10.00

8.00
N = 20
6.00
20.00 25.00 30.00 35.00 40.00 45.00 50.00 55.00 60.00
Plasticity index (%)

Figure 4.10.Scatter plot of MDD vs. PI

MDD Vs P200
18.00
Maximum dry density (kg/m3)

16.00

14.00

12.00

10.00

8.00

6.00
70 75 80 85 90 95 100

P200 (%)
Figure 4.11.Scatter plot of MDD vs. P200

36
CORRELATION BETWEEN COMPACTION CHARACTERISTICS AND ATTERBERG LIMITS OF FINE GRAINED SOILS

MDD Vs P40
18.00

Maximum dry density (kg/m3 16.00

14.00

12.00

10.00

8.00

6.00
85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99

P40 (%)
Figure 4.12.Scatter plot of MDD vs. P40

MDD Vs P10
18.00
Maximum dry density (kg/m3)

16.00

14.00

12.00

10.00

8.00

6.00
90 92 94 96 98 100
P10 (%)

Figure 4.13.Scatter plot of MDD vs. P10

37
 CORRELATION BETWEEN COMPACTION CHARACTERISTICS AND ATTERBERG LIMITS OF FINE GRAINED SOILS

MDD Vs Gs
18.00

Optimum moisture content (%)

16.00
14.00
12.00
10.00
8.00
6.00
4.00
2.00 N = 20
0.00
2.64 2.66 2.68 2.70 2.72 2.74 2.76 2.78 2.80
Gs

Figure 4.14.Scatter plot of MDD vs. specific gravity

4.3.2. Scatter plots for the primary plus secondary data

The scatter plot of OMC with LL, PL, and PI, And MDD with LL, PL and PI for the 56 primary
plus secondary data were done by using Excel and the plots are presented below.

OMC Vs LL
40.00
Optimum moisture content (%)

35.00
30.00
25.00
20.00
15.00
10.00
5.00
N = 56
0.00
20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00 120.00
Liquid limit(%)

Figure 4.15.Scatter plot of OMC vs. LL

38
CORRELATION BETWEEN COMPACTION CHARACTERISTICS AND ATTERBERG LIMITS OF FINE GRAINED SOILS

OMC Vs PL
40.00

Optimum moisture content(%)

35.00
30.00
25.00
20.00
15.00
10.00
5.00
N = 56
0.00
20.00 25.00 30.00 35.00 40.00 45.00
Plastic limit(%)

Figure 4.16.Scatter plot of OMC vs. PL

OMC Vs PI
40.00
Optimum moisture content (%)

35.00
30.00
25.00
20.00
15.00
10.00
5.00
N = 56
0.00
10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00
Plasticity index (%)

Figure 4.17.Scatter plot of OMC vs. PI

39
CORRELATION BETWEEN COMPACTION CHARACTERISTICS AND ATTERBERG LIMITS OF FINE GRAINED SOILS

MDD Vs LL
20

Maximum dry density (kg/m3)

18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0 N = 56
20 40 60 80 100 120
Liquid limit (%)

Figure 4.18.Scatter plot of MDD vs. LL

MDD Vs PL
20
Maximum dry density (kg/m3)

18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
N = 56
0
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Plastic limit (%)

Figure 4.19.Scatter plot and best fit curve of MDD vs. PL

40
 CORRELATION BETWEEN COMPACTION CHARACTERISTICS AND ATTERBERG LIMITS OF FINE GRAINED SOILS

MDD Vs PI
20

Maximum dry density (kg/m3)

18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
N = 56
0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Plasticity index (%)

Figure 4.20.Scatter plot of MDD vs. PI

4.4. Regression analysis

4.4.1. Simple Linear Regression

Table 4.2.Summary of simple linear regression analysis

Regression From primary data From primary plus secondary data
OMC from LL OMC = 0.258*LL + 8.535, R2 = 0.74 OMC = 0.178*LL – 12.246, R2 = 0.25
OMC from PL OMC = 0.838*PL + 0.689, R2 = 0.85 OMC = 0.894*PL – 1.384, R2 = 0.803
OMC from PI OMC = 0.307*PI + 14.684, R2 = 0.57 OMC =0.0944*PI + 20.53, R2 = 0.05
OMC from P200 OMC = 0.332*P200 – 1.42, R2 = 0.33 -
2
OMC from P40 OMC = 0.645*P40 + 1.88, R = 0.34 -
2
OMC from P10 OMC = 0.2193*P10 + 6.169, R = 0.016 -
2
OMC from Gs OMC = -68.61*Gs + 213.24, R = 0.37 -
2
MDD from LL MDD = -0.081*LL + 20.14, R = 0.75 MDD = -0.061*LL + 19.059, R2 = 0.47
MDD from PL MDD = -0.25*PL + 22.146, R2 = 0.78 MDD = -0.2*PL + 20.713, R2 = 0.64
MDD from PI MDD = -0.098*PI + 18.25, R2 = 0.59 MDD = -0.052*PI + 16.968, R2 = 0.23
MDD from P200 MDD = -0.104*P200 + 23.261, R2 = 0.34 -
MDD from P40 MDD = -0.187* P40 + 31.37, R2 = 0.29 -
MDD from P10 MDD = -0.0194* P10 + 16.15, R2 = 0.001 -
OMC from Gs MDD = 27.29*Gs – 59.75, 2
R = 0.59 -

41
 CORRELATION BETWEEN COMPACTION CHARACTERISTICS AND ATTERBERG LIMITS OF FINE GRAINED SOILS

4.4.2. Multiple Linear Regressions

Here, we deal with two sets of data where interest lies in either examining how one variable
relates to a number of others or in predicting one variable from others. The analysis is conducted
by using SPSS statistical analysis software. Summary of multiple linear regression analysis is
listed below and details are presented in Appendix F.

Table 4.3.Summary of multiple linear regression analysis

Regression From primary data From primary + secondary

OMC from PL and LL OMC = 1.496 + 0.084LL + 0.624 PL OMC = - 0.03 LL + 0.946 PL - 0.875
R2 = 0.879 R2 = 0.807
OMC from PL and PI OMC = 1.496 + 0.708PL + 0.084PI OMC = - 0.875 – 0.03PI + 0.916
R2 = 0.879 R2 = 0.807
OMC from LL and PI OMC = 1.496 + 0.708LL – 0.624 PI OMC = - 0.875 - 0.946PI + 0.916LL
R2 = 0.879 R2 = 0.807
MDD from PL and LL MDD = 21.829 - 0.039LL - 0.15 PL MDD = 21.182 - 0.153 PL - 0.027 LL
R2 = 0.831 R2 = 0.698
MDD from PL and PI MDD = 21.829 - 0.189 PL - 0.039 PI MDD = 21.182 - 0.027 PI - 0.18 PL
R2 = 0.831 R2 = 0.835
MDD from LL and PI MDD = 21.829 + 0.15PI - 0.189 LL MDD = 21.182 - 0.18 LL + 0.153 PI
R2 = 0.831 R2 = 0.698

4.5. Discussions on the developed equations

4.5.1. Discussion on single linear regression

After carefully studying the data on the scatter plot and different models, this analysis discovered
that OMC is highly influenced by PL by achieving a coefficient of determination value (R2) of
0.85 and 0.803 in primary and primary plus secondary data respectively. And MDD have a good
correlation with PL with a coefficient of determination of 0.78 and 0.48 in primary and primary
plus secondary data respectively.

This category also shows that correlation of OMC and MDD with plasticity index, liquid limit
and specific gravity in this group gave fair to poor result. The summery of the correlations is
presented in Tables 4.2.

42
 CORRELATION BETWEEN COMPACTION CHARACTERISTICS AND ATTERBERG LIMITS OF FINE GRAINED SOILS

4.5.2. Discussion on multiple linear regressions

From summary of multiple linear regressions one can say there is a good correlation between
OMC and MDD with LL, PL and PI together rather than correlating with each of them.

Generally, the difference in the equation and on the values of coefficient of determination that
are obtained from primary and from primary plus secondary data is because of the number of
samples, the factors that affect compaction efforts and workmanship.

This study however, indicates the existence of a relatively good correlation between index
properties (LL, PL and PI) and compaction characteristics (OMC and MDD).

4.6. Validation of the developed equations

In this section the researcher tries to validate the developed equations by using one control test.
The data that is used as a control test is found by conducting different tests such as compaction,
atterberg limits and sieve analysis tests on Akaki soil sample that is found from Gondwana
engineering plc. laboratory. Summary of laboratory results are as follows.

Table 4.4.Summary of laboratory results for control test

Soil Atterberg limits Compaction characteristics
No. Sample name
classification LL PL PI OMC (%) MDD (Kg/m3)
1 Akaki for validation A-7-5 95 37 59 33 12.552

And among the developed equations the following equations are selected for validation by their
value of coefficient of correlation (R2), i.e. equations with high value of coefficient of correlation
are selected for each dependent variable.

1. OMC = 0.916 * PL - 0.030 * PI - 0.875, R2 = 0.807

2. MDD = - 0.18* PL - 0.027 * PI + 21.182, R2 = 0.835

Substituting the values of the PL and PI in the above equations OMCpredicted and MDDpredicted can
be found.

43
 CORRELATION BETWEEN COMPACTION CHARACTERISTICS AND ATTERBERG LIMITS OF FINE GRAINED SOILS

Table 4.5.Validation of the developed equation

OMC OMC MDD

actual predicted Variation MDD pridicted Variation
(%) (%) /((A-B)/A)*100/ (Kg/m3) (kg/m3) /((C-D)/C)*100/
Sample location A B (%) C D (%)

Akaki (control test) 33.00 32.22 2.35 12.55 12.80 2.00

By seeing the above result one can say that the exact values of OMC and MDD from the
developed equation cannot be found but a good approximation can be produced.

For further justification the actual (laboratory) results and the predicted values can be plotted in
the same chart to analyze graphically.

To plot the graph, predicted values and their variations are first calculated and summary of the
results is listed in the table below.

Table 4.6.Summary of actual values, predicted values and their variations for total data
OMC OMC MDD
actual predicted Variation MDD predicted Variation
(%) (%) /((A-B)/A)*100/ (Kg/m3) (kg/m3) /((C-D)/C)*100/
Sample location A B (%) C D (%)
Akaki (control test) 33.00 32.22 2.35 12.55 12.80 2.00
AACRA 1 17.60 20.39 15.85 16.57 16.21 2.15
AACRA 2 23.00 20.92 9.07 15.59 15.68 0.60
AACRA 3 18.70 24.19 29.35 15.49 14.61 5.67
AACRA 4 18.70 23.54 25.90 15.49 15.04 2.94
AACRA 5 19.00 20.27 6.68 16.38 16.11 1.67
AACRA 6 20.00 19.29 3.53 15.40 16.23 5.40
AACRA 7 25.00 24.85 0.60 14.71 15.21 3.37
AACRA 8 26.00 25.80 0.79 15.00 15.05 0.35
AACRA 9 28.30 27.75 1.95 15.20 14.80 2.63
AACRA 10 29.00 25.86 10.84 13.53 15.11 11.66
AACRA 11 23.00 23.78 3.40 15.69 15.25 2.80
AACRA 12 22.30 22.10 0.89 16.77 15.75 6.11
AACRA 13 24.20 24.25 0.20 14.81 14.67 0.97
AACRA 14 21.00 20.29 3.40 14.42 15.12 4.83
AACRA 15 15.50 18.53 19.53 17.26 16.55 4.13
AACRA 16 25.00 25.62 2.46 15.00 14.89 0.73
AACRA 17 33.00 32.12 2.68 13.83 13.71 0.85
AACRA 18 23.50 23.42 0.33 15.20 14.93 1.80

44
 CORRELATION BETWEEN COMPACTION CHARACTERISTICS AND ATTERBERG LIMITS OF FINE GRAINED SOILS

AACRA 19 21.00 19.53 6.99 15.69 16.45 4.83

AACRA 20 22.00 21.22 3.57 15.40 15.95 3.59
AACRA 21 19.60 17.87 8.84 14.91 15.95 7.00
AACRA 22 18.50 18.69 1.04 15.59 15.69 0.65
AACRA 23 21.00 21.56 2.67 15.10 15.26 1.06
AACRA 24 21.00 22.48 7.03 15.10 15.08 0.13
AACRA 25 21.00 19.82 5.62 15.49 15.70 1.36
AACRA 26 21.00 18.66 11.13 15.49 15.67 1.13
AACRA 27 24.00 22.10 7.91 15.79 15.75 0.28
AACRA 28 24.50 22.96 6.30 15.49 15.51 0.14
AACRA 29 26.50 24.58 7.25 15.00 14.96 0.25
AACRA 30 20.50 21.16 3.20 15.30 15.90 3.92
AACRA 31 21.00 20.36 3.05 16.18 16.19 0.04
AACRA 32 25.00 23.24 7.03 15.00 14.77 1.57
AACRA 33 28.00 27.21 2.83 14.61 14.32 2.02
AACRA 34 24.00 24.37 1.54 15.10 14.77 2.16
AACRA 35 20.00 23.30 16.52 16.77 14.82 11.63
AACRA 36 17.20 19.76 14.88 15.79 15.65 0.91
Bole 1.5m 37.00 35.00 5.40 12.26 12.29 0.24
Bole 3m 35.00 33.23 5.06 12.36 12.70 2.78
Akaki 1.5m 30.00 29.59 1.36 13.04 13.45 3.12
Akaki 3m 31.00 31.33 1.07 12.85 13.01 1.21
Kolfe 1.2m 23.50 27.53 17.13 15.20 14.60 3.93
Kolfe 2.3m 26.00 28.46 9.45 14.91 14.43 3.19
Lideta 1.2m 25.00 23.01 7.98 14.36 15.56 8.33
Lideta 2.6m 25.50 24.75 2.92 14.35 15.12 5.37
Megenagna 1.5m 32.00 29.61 7.46 12.45 13.47 8.18
Megenagna 3m 30.00 28.75 4.15 12.45 13.70 10.03
Asko 1.5m 22.00 20.98 4.66 16.08 15.74 2.13
Asko 3m 25.50 25.74 0.92 15.10 15.00 0.67
Mesalemiya 1.3m 28.00 26.65 4.82 14.71 14.82 0.74
Mesalemiya 2.2m 23.20 22.03 5.05 16.08 15.68 2.48
Jemo 1.5m 22.00 21.83 0.77 15.98 15.50 2.98
Jemo 2.8m 23.00 19.91 13.44 15.89 15.78 0.68
Mexico 1.2m 25.80 26.24 1.71 14.12 14.45 2.33
Mexico 2.1m 26.50 27.40 3.39 14.32 14.49 1.17
Shiromeda 1.5m 25.10 29.05 15.72 14.80 13.96 5.67
Shiromeda 3m 26.40 27.40 3.79 14.50 14.09 2.85

If the Actual and predicted values of OMC and MDD are plotted together, the following graphs
will be produced.

45
 CORRELATION BETWEEN COMPACTION CHARACTERISTICS AND ATTERBERG LIMITS OF FINE GRAINED SOILS

OMCactual Vs. OMCpridicted

40
35
30
OMCpridicted

25
20
15
10
5
0
0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 35.00 40.00
OMCactual

Figure 4.21.Actual OMC Vs. predicted OMC values

From the above graph one can see that the points are scattered near the OMCactual = OMCpridicted
line by deviated with a value which ranges from 0.2 % up to 29 %. This indicates that there is a
good prediction of the values.

MDDactual Vs. MDDpridicted

20
MDDpridicted

15

10

5
5.00 7.00 9.00 11.00 13.00 15.00 17.00 19.00
MDDactual

Figure 4.22.Actual MDD Vs. predicted MDD values

46
 CORRELATION BETWEEN COMPACTION CHARACTERISTICS AND ATTERBERG LIMITS OF FINE GRAINED SOILS

From the above graph one can see that the points are scattered near the MDDactual = MDDpridicted
line by deviated with a value which ranges from 0.0 % up to 11.7 %. This indicates that there is a
very good prediction of the values.

47
 CORRELATION BETWEEN COMPACTION CHARACTERISTICS AND ATTERBERG LIMITS OF FINE GRAINED SOILS

CHAPTER FIVE
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1. Conclusions
From the results of this study the concept of predicting compaction characteristics for fine
grained soils containing varied proportions of fines has been made.

From the statistical analysis and the discussion part one can observe that there is a relatively
good correlation between OMC and PL, similarly a good correlation observed between MDD
and LL, PL and PI together.

And generally from the regression analysis the following equations were found satisfactory.

1. OMC = 0.916 * PL - 0.030 * PI - 0.875, R2 = 0.807

2. MDD = - 0.18* PL - 0.027 * PI + 21.182, R2 = 0.835

The proposed correlation equations between the compaction characteristics of soils with their
Atterberg limits are going to be a manageable tool in rapidly assessing the suitability of fine
grained soils for compaction related purposes at the study locations.

From the developed correlations one would be in a situation to predict compaction characteristics
from the index properties for some locations of Addis Ababa.

48
 CORRELATION BETWEEN COMPACTION CHARACTERISTICS AND ATTERBERG LIMITS OF FINE GRAINED SOILS

5.2. Recommendations
In this research it is observed that there is a correlation between compaction characteristics and
Atterberg limits of fine grained soils of Addis Ababa. To get reliable correlation in the future:

 It is recommended to collect more data in order to get a better correlation between the
compaction parameters and the Atterberg limits; this is to cover wide ranges of Addis
Ababa soil.
 And it is recommended that the collected data to be grouped into different ranges of
variables such as particle size, Liquid limit or alternatively by separating types of soils
into various categories. Hence charts can be produced for different types of soils.
 Other suggestion is that to account other variables to combine with the Atterberg limits in
the multiple regressions such as clay fraction.

49
 CORRELATION BETWEEN COMPACTION CHARACTERISTICS AND ATTERBERG LIMITS OF FINE GRAINED SOILS

REFERENCES

[1] Nagaraj HB, Reesha B, Sravan MV And Suresh MR. Correlation of compaction
characterisitics of natural soils with modified plastic limit. Journal of transportation
geotechnics. 2015; 2:65-77.

[2] Kamarudin FB. Estimation of soil compaction parameters based on Atterberg limits. A
Thesis submitted to faculty of civil engineering, technology university of Malaysia; 2005.

[3] Dokovic K, Rakic D And Ljubojev M. Estimation of soil compaction parameters based on
Atterberg limits. Journal of mining and metallurgy institute. 2013; bor ISSN:2334-8836
UDK:622.

[4] Jyothirmayi KH, Gnanananda T and Suresh K. Prediction of compaction characterisitics of a

soil using plastic limit. international journal of research in engineering and technology. 2015;
4(6).

[5] Raju NV, Srimurali M And Prasad KN. Functional correlations between compaction
characteristics, undrained shear strength and Atterberg limits. IOSR Journal of mechanical
and civil engineering. 2014; 11(3), pp 109-115.

[6] Atsbeha N. (2012). Prediction of compaction characteristics from Atterberg limits for fine
grained soils. A thesis presented to School of Graduate Studies. Addis Ababa: Addis Ababa
University; 2012.

[7] Budhu M. Soil Mechanics & Foundations. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.; 2000.

[8] Murthy VNS. Geotechnical Engineering, Principles and Practice of Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engineering. New York: Marcel Dekker, INC; 2007.

[9] ASTM. Standard Test Method for Soil and Rock. Annual Book of ASTM Standards.
Philadelphia, U.S.A; 2004.

[10] Sridharan A, Nagaraj HB. Plastic limit and compaction characteristics of fine-grained soils.
Ground Improvement 2005; 9(1):17–22.

50
 CORRELATION BETWEEN COMPACTION CHARACTERISTICS AND ATTERBERG LIMITS OF FINE GRAINED SOILS

[11] Gurtug Y. and Sridharan A. Prediction of compaction characteristics of finegrained soils.

Geotechnique 2002; 54(10):761.

[12] Nagaraj HB. Prediction of engineering properties of fine-grained soils from their index
properties [PhD. thesis]. Bangalore, India: Faculty of Engineering, Indian Institute of
Science; 2000.

[13] Sivrikaya O, Togrol E. and Kayadelen C. Estimating compaction behavior of fine-grained

soils based on compaction energy. Canadian Geotechnical Journal. 2008.

[14] Sivrikaya O. and Soycan YT. Estimation of compaction parameters of fine-grained soils
using Artificial Neural Networks. 2nd International Conference on New Developments in
Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering. 2009.

[15] Kothari CR. Research Methodology Methods and Techniques. 2nd edition. New Delhi: New
age international publishers; 2004.

[16] Carter M and Bentley SP. Correlations of soil properties. London: Pentech press; 1991.

[17] AASHTO. Standard specifications for transportation materials and methods of sampling
and testing. 26th edition. Washington; 2006.

[18] Arrora KR. Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Delhi: Standard publishers and
distributors; 1997.

[19] Douglas CM. and George CR. Applied Statistics and Probability for Engineers. 3rd ed.
USA: John Wiley & Sons; 2003.

[20] Source of map: Addis Ababa City road Authority

[21] https://en.m.Wikipedia.org/Wiki/Addis_Ababa.

[22] Park HM. Univariate analysis and normality test using SAS, Stata, and SPSS. Indiana
University; 2008.

51
CORRELATION BETWEEN COMPACTION CHARACTERISTICS AND ATTERBERG LIMITS OF FINE GRAINED SOILS

APPENDICES: DETAILS OF LABORATORY RESULTS

52
 CORRELATION BETWEEN COMPACTION CHARACTERISTICS AND ATTERBERG LIMITS OF FINE GRAINED SOILS

APPENDIX A: DETAILS OF VISUAL IDENTIFICATION

Table A.1. Visual identification for AKAKI soil
Date 5/6/2016 5/6/2016
Site(Soil No.) Akaki 1.5 m Akaki 3 m
Classified by Tesfamichael Tsegaye Tesfamichael Tsegaye
Colour Grey to light Brown Grey
Major soil constituent fines fines
Minor soil constituent little coarser none
Moisture condition wet wet

Table A.2. Visual identification for KOLFE soil

Date 12/7/2016 12/7/2016
Site(Soil No.) kolfe 1.2 m kolfe 2.3 m
Classified by Tesfamichael Tsegaye Tesfamichael Tsegaye
Colour Dark/black Dark/black
Major soil constituent fines fines
Minor soil constituent little coarser little coarser
Moisture condition wet wet

Table A.3. Visual identification for LIDETA soil

Date 25/06/2016 25/06/2016
Site(Soil No.) Lideta 1.2 m Lideta 2.6 m
Classified by Tesfamichael Tsegaye Tesfamichael Tsegaye
Colour Light Brown Dark grey
Major soil constituent fines fines
Minor soil constituent little coarser little coarser
Moisture condition wet wet

Table A.4. Visual identification for JEMO soil

Date 17/07/2016 17/07/2016
Site(Soil No.) Jemo 1.5 m Jemo 2.8 m
Classified by Tesfamichael Tsegaye Tesfamichael Tsegaye
Colour Light Brown Dark/black
Major soil constituent fines fines
Minor soil constituent little coarser little coarser
Moisture condition wet wet

53
 CORRELATION BETWEEN COMPACTION CHARACTERISTICS AND ATTERBERG LIMITS OF FINE GRAINED SOILS

Table A.5. Visual identification for BOLE soil

Date 11/6/2016 11/6/2016
Site(Soil No.) Bole 1.5 m Bole 3 m
Classified by Tesfamichael Tsegaye Tesfamichael Tsegaye
Colour Black cotton Black cotton
Major soil constituent fines fines
Minor soil constituent none none
Moisture condition wet wet

Table A.6. Visual identification for MEGENAGNA soil

Date 15/06/2016 15/06/2016
Site(Soil No.) Megenagna 1.5 m Megenagna 3 m
Classified by Tesfamichael Tsegaye Tesfamichael Tsegaye
Colour Black/Dark light Brown
Major soil constituent fines fines
Minor soil constituent little coarser none
Moisture condition wet wet

Table A.7. Visual identification for ASKO soil

Date 3/8/2016 3/8/2016
Site(Soil No.) Asko 1.5 m Asko 3 m
Classified by Tesfamichael Tsegaye Tesfamichael Tsegaye
Colour Red Red
Major soil constituent fines fines
Minor soil constituent little coarser little coarser
Moisture condition wet wet

Table A.8. Visual identification for MEXICO soil

Date 19/06/2016 19/06/2016
Site(Soil No.) Mexico 1.5 m Mexico 3 m
Classified by Tesfamichael Tsegaye Tesfamichael Tsegaye
Colour Reddish Reddish to light grey
Major soil constituent fines fines
Minor soil constituent little coarser none
Moisture condition wet wet

54
 CORRELATION BETWEEN COMPACTION CHARACTERISTICS AND ATTERBERG LIMITS OF FINE GRAINED SOILS

Table A.9. Visual identification for MESALEMIYA soil

Date 4/7/2016 4/7/2016
Site(Soil No.) Mesalemiya 1.3 m Mesalemiya 2.2 m
Classified by Tesfamichael Tsegaye Tesfamichael Tsegaye
Colour Reddish to light brown dark brown
Major soil constituent fines fines
Minor soil constituent little coarser little coarser
Moisture condition wet wet

Table A.10. Visual identification for SHIROMEDA soil

Date 26/07/2016 26/07/2016
Site(Soil No.) Shiromeda 1.5 m Shiromeda 3 m
Classified by Tesfamichael Tsegaye Tesfamichael Tsegaye
Colour Brown to light grey Grey
Major soil constituent fines fines
Minor soil constituent little coarser little coarser
Moisture condition wet wet

55
 CORRELATION BETWEEN COMPACTION CHARACTERISTICS AND ATTERBERG LIMITS OF FINE GRAINED SOILS

APPENDIX B: DETAILS OF GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS RESULTS

Table B.1. Sieve analysis of AKAKI 1.5 m soil Table B.2. Sieve analysis of AKAKI 3 m soil
ASTM, Cumulative Cumulati Cumulat ASTM, Cumulative Cumulati Cumulat
Sieve mass ve % ive % Sieve mass ve % ive %
Opening retained, retained, pass, Opening retained, retained, pass,
(mm) (g) (%) (%) (mm) (g) (%) (%)
19.000 0.0 0.00 100.000 19.000 0 0.00 100.000
12.500 19.5 2.42 97.583 12.500 0 0.00 100.000
9.500 26.4 3.27 96.728 9.500 0 0.00 100.000
6.300 36.6 4.54 95.464 6.300 0.8 0.10 99.898
4.750 38.7 4.80 95.203 4.750 0.9 0.11 99.885
2.360 41.2 5.11 94.893 2.360 1.9 0.24 99.758
2.000 42.1 5.22 94.782 2.000 2.3 0.29 99.707
1.180 43.0 5.33 94.670 1.180 2.7 0.34 99.656
0.850 43.8 5.43 94.571 0.850 3.1 0.40 99.605
0.600 44.6 5.53 94.472 0.600 3.8 0.48 99.515
0.425 45.5 5.64 94.360 0.425 5.1 0.65 99.350
0.300 46.4 5.75 94.249 0.300 7.3 0.93 99.069
0.150 49.9 6.18 93.815 0.150 16.2 2.07 97.934
0.075 53.9 6.68 93.319 0.075 26 3.32 96.685
total mass before wet sieve(g) = 806.8 total mass before wet sieve(g) = 784.2

Akaki 1.5 m particle size distribution Akaki 3 m particle size distribution

100.0
Cummulative % Pass, %

100.0
Cummulative % Pass, %

95.0
95.0
90.0
85.0 90.0
80.0
85.0
75.0
70.0 80.0
100.000 1.000 0.010 100.000 1.000 0.010
Particle Size, mm Particle Size, mm

Figure B.1. Particle size distribution curve Figure B.2. Particle size distribution curve
for Akaki 1.5M soil for Akaki 3M soil

56
 CORRELATION BETWEEN COMPACTION CHARACTERISTICS AND ATTERBERG LIMITS OF FINE GRAINED SOILS

Table B.3. Sieve analysis of Megenagna 1.5 m Table B.4. Sieve analysis of Megenagna 3 m
soil soil
ASTM, Cumulativ Cumulati Cumulat ASTM, Cumulativ Cumulati Cumulat
Sieve e mass ve % ive % Sieve e mass ve % ive %
Opening retained, retained, pass, Opening retained, retained, pass,
(mm) (g) (%) (%) (mm) (g) (%) (%)
19.000 0 0.00 100.0 19.000 0.0 0.00 100.000
12.500 0 0.00 100.0 12.500 19.5 2.54 97.463
9.500 18.2 2.56 97.4 9.500 31.0 4.03 95.966
6.300 25.3 3.55 96.4 6.300 40.1 5.22 94.782
4.750 35.4 4.97 95.0 4.750 43.9 5.71 94.288
2.360 39.6 5.56 94.4 2.360 48.2 6.27 93.728
2.000 40.5 5.69 94.3 2.000 54.1 7.04 92.960
1.180 42.7 5.99 94.0 1.180 56.4 7.34 92.661
0.850 46.3 6.50 93.5 0.850 62.8 8.17 91.828
0.600 47.2 6.63 93.4 0.600 65.7 8.55 91.451
0.425 51.6 7.24 92.8 0.425 71.8 9.34 90.657
0.300 54.8 7.69 92.3 0.300 74.6 9.71 90.293
0.150 59.2 8.31 91.7 0.150 79.7 10.37 89.629
0.075 62.3 8.75 91.3 0.075 82.3 10.71 89.291
total mass before wet sieve(g) = 712.3 total mass before wet sieve(g) = 768.5

Megenagna 1.5 m particle size distribution Megenagna 3 m particle size distribution

Cummulative % Pass, %

100.0 100.0
Cummulative % Pass, %

95.0 95.0
90.0 90.0
85.0 85.0
80.0 80.0
75.0 75.0
70.0 70.0
65.0 65.0
60.0 60.0
100.000 1.000 0.010 100.000 1.000 0.010
Particle Size, mm Particle Size, mm

Figure B.3. Particle size distribution curve Figure B.4. Particle size distribution curve
for Megenagna 1.5 m soil for Megenagna 3m soil

57
 CORRELATION BETWEEN COMPACTION CHARACTERISTICS AND ATTERBERG LIMITS OF FINE GRAINED SOILS

Table B.5. Sieve analysis of Mexico 1.5 m soil Table B.6. Sieve analysis of Mexico 3 m soil
ASTM, Cumulativ Cumulati Cumulat ASTM, Cumulativ Cumulati Cumulat
Sieve e mass ve % ive % Sieve e mass ve % ive %
Opening retained, retained, pass, Opening retained, retained, pass,
(mm) (g) (%) (%) (mm) (g) (%) (%)
19.000 0.00 0.00 100.000 19.000 0 0.00 100.0
12.500 46.00 6.15 93.849 12.500 17.9 2.43 97.6
9.500 50.10 6.70 93.301 9.500 22.1 3.00 97.0
6.300 55.00 7.35 92.646 6.300 22.5 3.05 96.9
4.750 60.20 8.05 91.951 4.750 22.6 3.06 96.9
2.360 66.90 8.95 91.055 2.360 23 3.12 96.9
2.000 69.90 9.35 90.654 2.000 23.15 3.14 96.9
1.180 72.90 9.75 90.253 1.180 23.3 3.16 96.8
0.850 76.40 10.22 89.785 0.850 23.7 3.21 96.8
0.600 79.70 10.66 89.343 0.600 24.1 3.27 96.7
0.425 83.90 11.22 88.782 0.425 24.6 3.34 96.7
0.300 87.70 11.73 88.274 0.300 25.1 3.40 96.6
0.150 93.20 12.46 87.538 0.150 26.3 3.57 96.4
0.075 98.00 13.10 86.897 0.075 27.6 3.74 96.3
total mass before wet sieve(g) = 747.9 total mass before wet sieve(g) = 737.6

Mexico 1.5 m particle size distribution Mexico 3 m particle size distribution

Cumulative % Pass, %

100.0
Cummulative % Pass, %

99.0
95.0 97.0
90.0 95.0
85.0 93.0
91.0
80.0
89.0
75.0 87.0
70.0 85.0
100.000 1.000 0.010 100.000 1.000 0.010
Particle Size, mm Particle Size, mm

Figure B.5. Particle size distribution curve Figure B.6. Particle size distribution curve
for Mexico 1.5 m soil for Mexico 3 m soil

58
 CORRELATION BETWEEN COMPACTION CHARACTERISTICS AND ATTERBERG LIMITS OF FINE GRAINED SOILS

Table B.7. Sieve analysis of Bole 1.5 m soil Table B.8. Sieve analysis of Bole 3 m soil
ASTM, Cumulativ Cumulati Cumulat ASTM, Cumulativ Cumulati Cumulat
Sieve e mass ve % ive % Sieve e mass ve % ive %
Opening retained, retained, pass, Opening retained, retained, pass,
(mm) (g) (%) (%) (mm) (g) (%) (%)
19.000 0.00 0.00 100.000 19.000 0 0.00 100.0
12.500 0.00 0.00 100.000 12.500 0 0.00 100.0
9.500 19.70 2.61 97.390 9.500 0 0.00 100.0
6.300 22.50 2.98 97.019 6.300 0 0.00 100.0
4.750 24.30 3.22 96.781 4.750 18.2 2.33 97.7
2.360 27.90 3.70 96.304 2.360 21.9 2.80 97.2
2.000 31.80 4.21 95.788 2.000 23.15 2.96 97.1
1.180 35.30 4.68 95.324 1.180 24.11 2.57 97.0
0.850 38.60 5.11 94.887 0.850 24.6 3.14 96.9
0.600 41.70 5.52 94.476 0.600 28.7 3.67 96.3
0.425 44.50 5.89 94.105 0.425 31.1 3.97 96.0
0.300 48.10 6.37 93.628 0.300 35.8 4.57 95.4
0.150 51.20 6.78 93.218 0.150 38.5 4.92 95.1
0.075 53.00 7.02 92.979 0.075 40.2 5.14 94.9
total mass before wet sieve(g) = 754.90 total mass before wet sieve(g) = 782.6

Bole 1.5 m particle size distribution Bole 3 m particle size distribution

Cummulative % Pass, %

Cummulative % Pass, %

100.0 100.0
95.0 95.0
90.0 90.0
85.0 85.0
80.0 80.0
75.0 75.0
70.0 70.0
65.0 65.0
60.0 60.0
100.000 1.000 0.010 100.000 1.000 0.010
Particle Size, mm Particle Size, mm

Figure B.7. Particle size distribution curve Figure B.8. Particle size distribution curve
for Bole 1.5 m soil for Bole 3 m soil

59
 CORRELATION BETWEEN COMPACTION CHARACTERISTICS AND ATTERBERG LIMITS OF FINE GRAINED SOILS

Table B.9.Sieve analysis of Lideta 1.2 m soil Table B.10.Sieve analysis of Lideta 2.6 m soil
ASTM, Cumulativ Cumulati Cumulat ASTM, Cumulativ Cumulati Cumulat
Sieve e mass ve % ive % Sieve e mass ve % ive %
Opening retained, retained, pass, Opening retained, retained, pass,
(mm) (g) (%) (%) (mm) (g) (%) (%)
19.000 0.00 0.00 100.000 19.000 0 0.00 100.000
12.500 0.00 0.00 100.000 12.500 0 0.00 100.000
9.500 0.00 0.00 100.000 9.500 0 0.00 100.000
6.300 0.00 0.00 100.000 6.300 0 0.00 100.000
4.750 3.80 0.53 99.469 4.750 0 0.00 100.000
2.360 9.30 1.30 98.699 2.360 9.3 1.13 98.875
2.000 27.90 3.90 96.098 2.000 12.4 1.50 98.499
1.180 74.20 10.38 89.622 1.180 32.34 3.91 96.086
0.850 87.60 12.25 87.748 0.850 67.8 8.21 91.795
0.600 96.81 13.54 86.460 0.600 71.9 8.70 91.299
0.425 100.12 14.00 85.997 0.425 89.7 10.86 89.144
0.300 118.79 16.61 83.386 0.300 96.1 11.63 88.370
0.150 141.52 19.79 80.207 0.150 103.8 12.56 87.438
0.075 223.60 31.27 68.727 0.075 110.9 13.42 86.579
total mass before wet sieve(g) = 715 total mass before wet sieve(g) = 826.3

Lideta 1.2 m particle size distribution Lideta 2.6 m particle size distribution
100.0 100.0
Cummulative % Pass, %
Cummulative % Pass, %

95.0 95.0
90.0 90.0
85.0 85.0
80.0 80.0
75.0 75.0
70.0 70.0
65.0 65.0
60.0 60.0
100.000 1.000 0.010 100.000 1.000 0.010
Particle Size, mm Particle Size, mm

Figure B.9. Particle size distribution curve Figure B.10. Particle size distribution curve
for Lideta 1.2 m soil for Lideta 2.6 m soil

60
 CORRELATION BETWEEN COMPACTION CHARACTERISTICS AND ATTERBERG LIMITS OF FINE GRAINED SOILS

Table B.11. Sieve analysis of Mesalemiya 1.3 m Table B.12. Sieve analysis of Mesalemiya 3 m
soil soil
ASTM, Cumulativ Cumulati Cumulat ASTM, Cumulativ Cumulati Cumulat
Sieve e mass ve % ive % Sieve e mass ve % ive %
Opening retained, retained, pass, Opening retained, retained, pass,
(mm) (g) (%) (%) (mm) (g) (%) (%)
19.000 0 0.00 100.000 19.000 0 0.00 100.000
12.500 0 0.00 100.000 12.500 0 0.00 100.000
9.500 0 0.00 100.000 9.500 0 0.00 100.000
6.300 0 0.00 100.000 6.300 0 0.00 100.000
4.750 0 0.00 100.000 4.750 0 0.00 100.000
2.360 28.72 3.17 96.831 2.360 0 0.00 100.000
2.000 34.6 3.82 96.182 2.000 18.2 2.12 97.882
1.180 41.82 4.61 95.385 1.180 27.5 3.20 96.800
0.850 76.51 8.44 91.557 0.850 53.6 6.24 93.762
0.600 94.8 10.46 89.539 0.600 61.3 7.13 92.866
0.425 129.2 14.26 85.743 0.425 68.19 7.94 92.064
0.300 154.6 17.06 82.940 0.300 94.8 11.03 88.968
0.150 181.7 20.05 79.949 0.150 148.5 17.28 82.718
0.075 231.8 25.58 74.421 0.075 162.3 18.89 81.113
total mass before wet sieve(g) = 906.2 total mass before wet sieve(g) = 859.3

Mesalemiya 1.3 m particle size distribution Mesalemiya 2.2 m particle size distribution
100.0 100.0
Cummulative % Pass, %

Cummulative % Pass, %

95.0 95.0
90.0 90.0
85.0 85.0
80.0 80.0
75.0 75.0
70.0 70.0
65.0 65.0
60.0 60.0
100.000 1.000 0.010 100.000 1.000 0.010
Particle Size, mm Particle Size, mm

Figure B.11. Particle size distribution curve Figure B.12. Particle size distribution curve
for Mesalemiya1.3 m soil for Mesalemiya 2.2 m soil

61
 CORRELATION BETWEEN COMPACTION CHARACTERISTICS AND ATTERBERG LIMITS OF FINE GRAINED SOILS

Table B.13. Sieve analysis of Kolfe 1.2 m soil Table B.14. Sieve analysis of Kolfe 2.3 m soil
ASTM, Cumulativ Cumulati Cumulat ASTM, Cumulativ Cumulati Cumulat
Sieve e mass ve % ive % Sieve e mass ve % ive %
Opening retained, retained, pass, Opening retained, retained, pass,
(mm) (g) (%) (%) (mm) (g) (%) (%)
19.000 0.00 0.00 100.000 19.000 0.00 0.00 100.000
12.500 0.00 0.00 100.000 12.500 0.00 0.00 100.000
9.500 0.00 0.00 100.000 9.500 0.00 0.00 100.000
6.300 0.00 0.00 100.000 6.300 0.00 0.00 100.000
4.750 0.00 0.00 100.000 4.750 0.00 0.00 100.000
2.360 0.00 0.00 100.000 2.360 0.00 0.00 100.000
2.000 7.48 0.80 99.201 2.000 23.28 2.83 97.170
1.180 21.44 2.29 97.709 1.180 33.81 4.11 95.890
0.850 35.41 3.78 96.217 0.850 46.40 5.64 94.359
0.600 51.34 5.49 94.515 0.600 48.25 5.87 94.134
0.425 89.54 9.57 90.434 0.425 54.32 6.60 93.397
0.300 118.60 12.67 87.329 0.300 71.53 8.70 91.304
0.150 156.30 16.70 83.301 0.150 84.80 10.31 89.691
0.075 190.78 20.38 79.618 0.075 109.32 13.29 86.710
total mass before wet sieve(g) = 936.00 total mass before wet sieve(g) = 822.6

Kolfe 1.2 m particle size distribution Kolfe 2.3 m particle size distribution
100.0 100.0
Cummulative % Pass, %

Cummulative % Pass, %

95.0 95.0
90.0 90.0
85.0 85.0
80.0 80.0
75.0 75.0
70.0 70.0
65.0 65.0
60.0 60.0
100.000 1.000 0.010 100.000 1.000 0.010
Particle Size, mm Particle Size, mm

Figure B.13. Particle size distribution curve Figure B.14. Particle size distribution curve
for Kolfe 1.2 m soil for Kolfe 2.3 m soil

62
 CORRELATION BETWEEN COMPACTION CHARACTERISTICS AND ATTERBERG LIMITS OF FINE GRAINED SOILS

Table B.15. Sieve analysis of Jemo 1.5m soil Table B.16. Sieve analysis of Jemo 2.8m soil
ASTM, Cumulativ Cumulati Cumulat ASTM, Cumulativ Cumulati Cumulat
Sieve e mass ve % ive % Sieve e mass ve % ive %
Opening retained, retained, pass, Opening retained, retained, pass,
(mm) (g) (%) (%) (mm) (g) (%) (%)
19.000 0.00 0.00 100.000 19.000 0.00 0.00 100.000
12.500 0.00 0.00 100.000 12.500 0.00 0.00 100.000
9.500 22.60 2.80 97.203 9.500 0.00 0.00 100.000
6.300 38.90 4.81 95.185 6.300 0.00 0.00 100.000
4.750 44.70 5.53 94.467 4.750 20.40 2.45 97.550
2.360 55.60 6.88 93.118 2.360 36.80 4.42 95.581
2.000 63.70 7.88 92.115 2.000 42.70 5.13 94.873
1.180 81.60 10.10 89.900 1.180 53.40 6.41 93.588
0.850 98.40 12.18 87.820 0.850 61.80 7.42 92.579
0.600 102.90 12.74 87.263 0.600 77.60 9.32 90.682
0.425 105.80 13.10 86.904 0.425 85.90 10.31 89.685
0.300 118.60 14.68 85.320 0.300 94.80 11.38 88.617
0.150 120.40 14.90 85.097 0.150 104.30 12.52 87.476
0.075 135.10 16.72 83.278 0.075 115.20 13.83 86.167
total mass before wet sieve(g) = 807.9 total mass before wet sieve(g) = 832.8

Jemo 1.5 m particle size distribution Jemo 2.8 m particle size distribution
Cummulative % Pass, %

100.0 100.0
Cummulative % Pass, %

95.0 95.0
90.0 90.0
85.0 85.0
80.0 80.0
75.0 75.0
70.0 70.0
65.0 65.0
60.0 60.0
100.000 1.000 0.010 100.000 1.000 0.010
Particle Size, mm Particle Size, mm

Figure B.15. Particle size distribution curve Figure B.16. Particle size distribution curve
for Jemo 1.5 m soil for Jemo 2.8 m soil

63
 CORRELATION BETWEEN COMPACTION CHARACTERISTICS AND ATTERBERG LIMITS OF FINE GRAINED SOILS

Table B.17. Sieve analysis of Shiromeda 1.5 m Table B.18. Sieve analysis of Shiromeda 3 m
soil soil
ASTM, Cumulativ Cumulati Cumulat ASTM, Cumulativ Cumulati Cumulat
Sieve e mass ve % ive % Sieve e mass ve % ive %
Opening retained, retained, pass, Opening retained, retained, pass,
(mm) (g) (%) (%) (mm) (g) (%) (%)
19.000 0.00 0.00 100.000 19.000 0 0.00 100.0
12.500 0.00 0.00 100.000 12.500 0 0.00 100.0
9.500 21.10 2.57 97.428 9.500 0 0.00 100.0
6.300 24.80 3.02 96.977 6.300 0 0.00 100.0
4.750 37.90 4.62 95.380 4.750 29.6 3.68 96.3
2.360 44.30 5.40 94.600 2.360 46.3 5.76 94.2
2.000 54.60 6.66 93.344 2.000 55.2 6.87 93.1
1.180 62.70 7.64 92.356 1.180 61.7 7.68 92.3
0.850 76.40 9.31 90.686 0.850 76.3 9.49 90.5
0.600 84.30 10.28 89.723 0.600 81.4 10.13 89.9
0.425 109.60 13.36 86.639 0.425 92.8 11.55 88.5
0.300 123.10 15.01 84.993 0.300 98.6 12.27 87.7
0.150 144.20 17.58 82.421 0.150 104.2 12.97 87.0
0.075 155.00 18.90 81.104 0.075 112.3 13.97 86.0
total mass before wet sieve(g) = 820.3 total mass before wet sieve(g) = 803.7

Shiromeda 1.5 m particle size distribution Shiromeda 3 m particle size distribution

100.0 100.0
Cummulative % Pass, %
Cummulative % Pass, %

95.0 95.0
90.0 90.0
85.0 85.0
80.0 80.0
75.0 75.0
70.0 70.0
65.0 65.0
60.0 60.0
100.000 1.000 0.010 100.000 1.000 0.010
Particle Size, mm Particle Size, mm

Figure A.2.17. Particle size distribution curve Figure A.2.18. Particle size distribution curve
for Shiromeda 1.5m soil for Shiromeda 3m soil

64
 CORRELATION BETWEEN COMPACTION CHARACTERISTICS AND ATTERBERG LIMITS OF FINE GRAINED SOILS

Table B.19. Sieve analysis of Asko 1.5m soil Table B.20. Sieve analysis of Asko 3m soil
ASTM, Cumulativ Cumulati Cumulat ASTM, Cumulativ Cumulati Cumulat
Sieve e mass ve % ive % Sieve e mass ve % ive %
Opening retained, retained, pass, Opening retained, retained, pass,
(mm) (g) (%) (%) (mm) (g) (%) (%)
19.000 0.00 0.00 100.000 19.000 0.00 0.00 100.000
12.500 0.00 0.00 100.000 12.500 0.00 0.00 100.000
9.500 0.00 0.00 100.000 9.500 0.00 0.00 100.000
6.300 0.00 0.00 100.000 6.300 0.00 0.00 100.000
4.750 0.00 0.00 100.000 4.750 0.00 0.00 100.000
2.360 26.83 3.38 96.622 2.360 0.00 0.00 100.000
2.000 39.62 4.99 95.011 2.000 39.62 4.78 95.216
1.180 57.30 7.21 92.785 1.180 57.30 6.92 93.081
0.850 62.45 7.86 92.137 0.850 62.45 7.54 92.459
0.600 69.74 8.78 91.219 0.600 69.74 8.42 91.578
0.425 94.31 11.87 88.125 0.425 73.40 8.86 91.136
0.300 102.30 12.88 87.119 0.300 102.30 12.35 87.646
0.150 107.94 13.59 86.409 0.150 121.36 14.66 85.345
0.075 119.27 15.02 84.982 0.075 167.82 20.27 79.734
total mass before wet sieve(g) = 794.2 total mass before wet sieve(g) = 828.1

Asko 1.5 m particle size distribution Asko 3 m particle size distribution

Cummulative % Pass, %

100.0 100.0
Cummulative % Pass, %

95.0 95.0
90.0 90.0
85.0 85.0
80.0 80.0
75.0 75.0
70.0 70.0
65.0 65.0
60.0 60.0
100.000 1.000 0.010 100.000 1.000 0.010
Particle Size, mm Particle Size, mm

Figure B.19. Particle size distribution curve Figure B.20. Particle size distribution curve
for Asko 1.5 m soil for Asko 2.8 m soil

65
 CORRELATION BETWEEN COMPACTION CHARACTERISTICS AND ATTERBERG LIMITS OF FINE GRAINED SOILS

Table B.21. Sieve analysis of control test

ASTM, Sieve Opening Cumulative mass Cumulative % retained, Cumulative % pass,

(mm) retained, (g) (%) (%)
19.000 0.00 0.00 100.00
12.500 0.00 0.00 100.00
9.500 0.00 0.00 100.00
6.300 0.00 0.00 100.00
4.750 7.60 0.87 99.13
2.360 12.30 1.41 98.59
2.000 11.80 1.35 98.65
1.180 23.20 2.65 97.35
0.850 38.90 4.45 95.55
0.600 49.20 5.62 94.38
0.425 79.30 9.06 90.94
0.300 124.80 14.27 85.73
0.150 162.60 18.59 81.41
0.075 178.90 20.45 79.55
total mass before wet sieve(g) = 874.8

Control test particle size distribution

100.00
Cummulative % Pass, %

95.00
90.00
85.00
80.00
75.00
70.00
65.00
60.00
100 10 1 0.1 0.01
Particle Size, mm

66
 CORRELATION BETWEEN COMPACTION CHARACTERISTICS AND ATTERBERG LIMITS OF FINE GRAINED SOILS

APPENDIX C: DETAILS OF SPECIFIC GRAVITY RESULTS

Table C.1.Specific gravity for Bole soil

Description Specific gravity
Depth 1.5 m 3m
Pycnometer no. P1 P2
Mass of pycnometer, gm 29.42 30.14
Mass of pycnometer + dry sample, gm 54.42 55.14
Mass of pycnometer + dry sample + water, gm 147.90 149.60
Mass of pycnometer + water, gm 132.24 133.80
Mass of dry soil, gm 25.00 25.00
Specific gravity, Gs 2.68 2.72

Table C.2.Specific gravity for Akaki soil

Description Specific gravity
Depth 1.5M 3M
Pycnometer no. P1 P2
Mass of pycnometer, gm 29.42 30.14
Mass of pycnometer + dry sample, gm 54.42 55.14
Mass of pycnometer + dry sample + water, gm 147.80 149.45
Mass of pycnometer + water, gm 132.24 133.80
Mass of dry soil. gm 25.00 25.00
Specific gravity, Gs 2.65 2.67

Table C.3.Specific gravity for Lideta soil

Description Specific gravity
Depth 1.2 m 2.6 m
Pycnometer no. P1 P2
Mass of pycnometer, gm 29.42 30.14
Mass of pycnometer + dry sample, gm 54.42 55.14
Mass of pycnometer + dry sample + water, gm 148.00 149.65
Mass of pycnometer + water, gm 132.24 133.80
Mass of dry soil. gm 25.00 25.00
Specific gravity, Gs 2.71 2.73

67
 CORRELATION BETWEEN COMPACTION CHARACTERISTICS AND ATTERBERG LIMITS OF FINE GRAINED SOILS

Table C.4.Specific gravity for Kolfe soil

Description Specific gravity
Depth 1.2 m 2.3 m
Pycnometer no. P1 P2
Mass of pycnometer, gm 29.42 30.14
Mass of pycnometer + dry sample, gm 54.42 55.14
Mass of pycnometer + dry sample + water, gm 148.00 149.65
Mass of pycnometer + water, gm 132.24 133.80
Mass of dry soil. gm 25.00 25.00
Specific gravity, Gs 2.71 2.73

Table C.5.Specific gravity for Mexico soil

Description Specific gravity
Depth 1.5M 3M
Pycnometer no. P1 P2
Mass of pycnometer, gm 29.42 30.14
Mass of pycnometer + dry sample, gm 54.42 55.14
Mass of pycnometer + dry sample + water, gm 147.99 149.65
Mass of pycnometer + water, gm 132.24 133.80
Mass of dry soil. gm 25.00 25.00
Specific gravity, Gs 2.70 2.73

Table C.6.Specific gravity for Megenagna soil

Description Specific gravity
Depth 1.5 m 3m
Pycnometer no. P1 P2
Mass of pycnometer, gm 29.42 30.14
Mass of pycnometer + dry sample, gm 54.42 55.14
Mass of pycnometer + dry sample + water, gm 147.87 149.35
Mass of pycnometer + water, gm 132.24 133.80
Mass of dry soil. gm 25.00 25.00
Specific gravity, Gs 2.67 2.65

68
 CORRELATION BETWEEN COMPACTION CHARACTERISTICS AND ATTERBERG LIMITS OF FINE GRAINED SOILS

Table C.7.Specific gravity for Asko soil

Description Specific gravity
Depth 1.5 m 3m
Pycnometer no. P1 P2
Mass of pycnometer, gm 29.42 30.14
Mass of pycnometer + dry sample, gm 54.42 55.14
Mass of pycnometer + dry sample + water, gm 148.10 149.80
Mass of pycnometer + water, gm 132.24 133.80
Mass of dry soil. gm 25.00 25.00
Specific gravity, Gs 2.74 2.78

Table C.8.Specific gravity for Jemo soil

Description Specific gravity
Depth 1.5 m 2.8 m
Pycnometer no. P1 P2
Mass of pycnometer, gm 29.42 30.14
Mass of pycnometer + dry sample, gm 54.42 55.14
Mass of pycnometer + dry sample + water, gm 148.15 149.79
Mass of pycnometer + water, gm 132.24 133.80
Mass of dry soil. gm 25.00 25.00
Specific gravity, Gs 2.75 2.77

69
 CORRELATION BETWEEN COMPACTION CHARACTERISTICS AND ATTERBERG LIMITS OF FINE GRAINED SOILS

Table C.9.Specific gravity for Mesalemiya soil

Description Specific gravity
Depth 1.3 m 2.2 m
Pycnometer no. P1 P2
Mass of pycnometer, gm 29.42 30.14
Mass of pycnometer + dry sample, gm 54.42 55.14
Mass of pycnometer + dry sample + water, gm 148.06 149.68
Mass of pycnometer + water, gm 132.24 133.80
Mass of dry soil. gm 25.00 25.00
Specific gravity, Gs 2.72 2.74

Table C.10.Specific gravity for Shiromeda soil

Description Specific gravity
Depth 1.5 m 3m
Pycnometer no. P1 P2
Mass of pycnometer, gm 29.42 30.14
Mass of pycnometer + dry sample, gm 54.42 55.14
Mass of pycnometer + dry sample + water, gm 147.95 149.57
Mass of pycnometer + water, gm 132.24 133.80
Mass of dry soil. gm 25.00 25.00
Specific gravity, Gs 2.69 2.71

70
 CORRELATION BETWEEN COMPACTION CHARACTERISTICS AND ATTERBERG LIMITS OF FINE GRAINED SOILS

APPENDIX D: DETAILS OF ATTERBERG LIMIT RESULTS

D.1. AKAKI SITE ATTERBERG LIMITS

Table D.1. Details of Atteberg limits for Akaki 3 m soil

Description Liquid limit Description Plastic limit
Trial no. 1 2 3 Trial no. 1 2
Can no. A7 B2 B7 Can no. H2 F6
Mass of can, g 16.9 15.0 16.1 Mass of can, g 15.9 15.6
Mass of can + wet soil, g 38.7 37.1 33.3 Mass of can +wet soil, g 32.5 31.8
Mass of can + dry soil, g 28.1 26.4 25.2 Mass of can + dry soil, g 28.0 27.4
Mass of water, g 10.6 10.7 8.1 Mass of water, g 4.5 4.4
Mass of dry soil, g 11.2 11.4 9.1 Mass of dry soil, g 12.1 11.8
Water content, % 95 93 89 Water content, % 37.1 37.4
No. Of blows 21 27 32 PL (average), % 37

Liquid limit
y = -0.4571x + 104.59 LL(@ 25 no of blow) = 93.16 %
Moisture content (%)

96
PI = 56 %
94
92
90
88
10 100
Number of blow (Log scale)

Figure D.1. Liquid limit graph for Akaki 3 m soil

71
 CORRELATION BETWEEN COMPACTION CHARACTERISTICS AND ATTERBERG LIMITS OF FINE GRAINED SOILS

D.2. BOLE SITE ATTERBERG LIMITS

Table D.2.1. Details of Atteberg limits for Bole 1.5 m soil

Description Liquid limit Description Plastic limit
Trial no. 1 2 3 Trial no. 1 2
Can no. S1 T5 K2 Can no. R1 E6
Mass of can, g 15.80 15.30 15.70 Mass of can, g 14.20 14.50
Mass of can + wet soil, g 43.10 40.50 45.20 Mass of can +wet soil, g 28.40 29.30
Mass of can + dry soil, g 29.60 28.10 30.80 Mass of can + dry soil, g 24.30 25.00
Mass of water, g 13.50 12.40 14.40 Mass of water, g 4.10 4.30
Mass of dry soil, g 13.80 12.80 15.10 Mass of dry soil, g 10.10 10.50
Water content, % 97.83 96.88 95.36 Water content, % 40.59 40.95
No. Of blows 19 26 32 PL (average), % 41

Liquid limit LL(@ 25 no of blow) = 97 %

y = -0.1879x + 101.51
Moisture content (%)

98.50 PI = 56 %
98.00
97.50
97.00
96.50
96.00
95.50
95.00
10 100
Number of blow (Log scale)

Figure D.2.1. Liquid limit graph for Bole 1.5 m soil

72
 CORRELATION BETWEEN COMPACTION CHARACTERISTICS AND ATTERBERG LIMITS OF FINE GRAINED SOILS

Table D.2.2. Details of Atteberg limits for Bole 3 m soil

Description Liquid limit Description Plastic limit
Trial no. 1 2 3 Trial no. 1 2
Can no. H4 M7 S1 Can no. J4 P2
Mass of can, g 14.2 15.6 13.8 Mass of can, g 13.7 14.7
Mass of can + wet soil, g 51.30 45.70 44.40 Mass of can +wet soil, g 31.50 30.40
Mass of can + dry soil, g 33.30 31.20 29.90 Mass of can + dry soil, g 26.60 25.90
Mass of water, g 18.00 14.50 14.50 Mass of water, g 4.90 4.50
Mass of dry soil, g 19.10 15.60 16.10 Mass of dry soil, g 12.90 11.20
Water content, % 94.24 92.95 90.06 Water content, % 37.98 40.18
No. Of blows 18 27 32 PL (average), % 39

Liquid limit
y = -0.28x + 99.604 LL(@ 25 no of blow) = 93 %
95.00
Moisture content (%)

PI = 54 %
94.00
93.00
92.00
91.00
90.00
89.00
10 100
Number of blow (Log scale)

Figure D.2.2. Liquid limit graph for Bole 3 m soil

73
 CORRELATION BETWEEN COMPACTION CHARACTERISTICS AND ATTERBERG LIMITS OF FINE GRAINED SOILS

D.3.KOLFE SITE ATTERBERG LIMITS

Table D.3.1. Detail of Atteberg limits for KOLFE 1.2 m soil

Description Liquid limit Description Plastic limit
Trial no. 1 2 3 Trial no. 1 2
Can no. T5 T4 G2 Can no. F2 N5
Mass of can, g 15.7 13.9 15.7 Mass of can, g 15.67 14.05
Mass of can + wet soil, g 45.7 43.9 46.0 Mass of can +wet soil, g 29.40 28.60
Mass of can + dry soil, g 34.1 32.4 34.5 Mass of can + dry soil, g 26.10 24.99
Mass of water, g 11.6 11.5 11.6 Mass of water, g 3.30 3.61
Mass of dry soil, g 18.5 18.6 18.8 Mass of dry soil, g 10.43 10.94
Water content, % 62.8 61.9 61.4 Water content, % 31.64 33.00
No. Of blows 22.0 28.0 33.0 PL (average), % 32

Liquid limit LL(@ 25 no of blow) = 62.35 %

y = -0.123x + 65.425
moisture content (%)

63.0 PI = 30 %
62.5
62.0
61.5
61.0
10.0 100.0
Number of blow (Log scale)

Figure D.3.1 liquid limit graph for Kolfe 1.2 m soil

74
 CORRELATION BETWEEN COMPACTION CHARACTERISTICS AND ATTERBERG LIMITS OF FINE GRAINED SOILS

Table D.3.2. Detail of Atteberg limits for KOLFE 2.3 m soil

Description Liquid limit Description Plastic limit
Trial no. 1 2 3 Trial no. 1 2
Can no. M5 M7 K2 Can no. L6 J4
Mass of can, g 15.8 15.6 15.7 Mass of can, g 15.74 15.63
Mass of can + wet soil, g 44.7 48.9 43.2 Mass of can +wet soil, g 28.60 26.30
Mass of can + dry soil, g 33.4 36.0 32.8 Mass of can + dry soil, g 25.40 23.70
Mass of water, g 11.3 12.8 10.4 Mass of water, g 3.20 2.60
Mass of dry soil, g 17.6 20.5 17.1 Mass of dry soil, g 9.66 8.07
Water content, % 64.2 62.7 60.7 Water content, % 33.13 32.22
No. Of blows 20.0 26.0 33.0 Pl (average), % 33
Liquid limit LL(@ 25 no of blow) = 62.90 %
y = -0.2678x + 69.59
65.0
Moisture content (%)

PI = 30 %
64.0
63.0
62.0
61.0
60.0
10.0 100.0
Number of blow (Log scale)

Figure D.3.2 liquid limit graph for Kolfe 2.3 m soil

75
 CORRELATION BETWEEN COMPACTION CHARACTERISTICS AND ATTERBERG LIMITS OF FINE GRAINED SOILS

D.4. MEXICO SITE ATTERBERG LIMITS

Table D.4.1. Detail of Atteberg limits for MEXICO 1.5 m soil

Description Liquid limit Description Plastic limit
Trial no. 1 2 3 Trial no. 2
Can no. Y5 G5 O6 Can no. Z5 R1
Mass of can, g 14.9 15.5 14.6 Mass of can, g 16.2 15.1
Mass of can + wet soil, g 32.7 37.7 33.8 Mass of can +wet soil, g 33.8 32.7
Mass of can + dry soil, g 24.9 28.5 26.1 Mass of can + dry soil, g 29.6 28.5
Mass of water, g 7.8 9.2 7.8 Mass of water, g 4.2 4.2
Mass of dry soil, g 10.1 13.0 11.5 Mass of dry soil, g 13.5 13.4
Water content, % 77.3 71.2 67.2 Water content, % 31.2 31.3
No. Of blows 18 30 37 PL (average), % 31

Liquid limit LL(@ 25 no of blow) = 73.70 %

y = -0.53x + 86.946
Moisture content (%)

80.0 PI = 42 %

75.0

70.0

65.0
10 100
Number of blow (Log scale)

Figure D.4.1 liquid limit graph for Mexico 1.5 m soil

76
 CORRELATION BETWEEN COMPACTION CHARACTERISTICS AND ATTERBERG LIMITS OF FINE GRAINED SOILS

Table D.4.2. Detail of Atteberg limits for MEXICO 3 m soil

Description Liquid limit Description Plastic limit
Trial no. 1 2 3 Trial no. 1 2
Can no. J1 O9 G7 Can no. P3 W2
Mass of can, g 14.6 15.0 15.8 Mass of can, g 16.4 14.9
Mass of can + wet soil, g 35.2 34.2 34.2 Mass of can +wet soil, g 32.8 28.4
Mass of can + dry soil, g 26.9 26.5 27.0 Mass of can + dry soil, g 29.0 25.0
Mass of water, g 8.4 7.7 7.2 Mass of water, g 3.8 3.4
Mass of dry soil, g 12.3 11.5 11.2 Mass of dry soil, g 12.6 10.1
Water content, % 68 67 64 Water content, % 30.2 33.6
No. Of blows 20 27 32 PL (average), % 32

Liquid limit LL(@ 25 no of blow) = 66.62 %

80.0 y = -0.53x + 86.946
moisture content (%)

PI = 35 %

75.0

70.0

65.0
10 100
Number of blow (Log scale)

Figure D.4.2. Liquid limit graph for Mexico 3 m soil

77
 CORRELATION BETWEEN COMPACTION CHARACTERISTICS AND ATTERBERG LIMITS OF FINE GRAINED SOILS

D.5. MEGENAGNA SITE ATTERBERG LIMITS

Table D.5.1. Detail of Atteberg limits for MEGENAGNA 1.5m soil

Description Liquid limit Description Plastic limit
Trial no. 1 2 3 Trial no. 1 2
Can no. H4 M7 S1 Can no. J4 P2
Mass of can, g 14.2 15.6 13.8 Mass of can, g 13.7 14.7
Mass of can + wet soil, g 41.6 45.4 43.9 Mass of can +wet soil, g 28.6 27.2
Mass of can + dry soil, g 27.8 32.2 31.2 Mass of can + dry soil, g 24.6 24.0
Mass of water, g 13.8 13.2 12.7 Mass of water, g 4.0 3.2
Mass of dry soil, g 13.6 16.6 17.4 Mass of dry soil, g 10.9 9.3
Water content, % 101.4 79.7 72.6 Water content, % 36.3 34.5
No. Of blows 19.0 27.0 33.0 PL (average), % 35

Liquid limit LL(@ 25 no of blow) = 87.36 %

y = -0.123x + 65.425
63.0
moisture content (%)

PI = 52 %
62.5
62.0
61.5
61.0
10.0 100.0
Number of blow (Log scale)

Figure D.5.1 liquid limit graph for Megenagna 1.5m so il

78
 CORRELATION BETWEEN COMPACTION CHARACTERISTICS AND ATTERBERG LIMITS OF FINE GRAINED SOILS

Table D.5.2. Detail of Atteberg limits for MEGENAGNA 3 m soil

Description Liquid limit Description Plastic limit
Trial no. 1 2 3 Trial no. 1 2
Can no. T5 K6 Y5 Can no. W2 D7
Mass of can, g 15.3 14.7 15.2 Mass of can, g 14.8 15.0
Mass of can + wet soil, g 38.7 41.3 36.4 Mass of can + wet soil, g 22.7 28.4
Mass of can + dry soil, g 27.6 29.2 27.3 Mass of can + dry soil, g 20.7 25.0
Mass of water, g 11.1 12.1 9.1 Mass of water, g 2.0 3.4
Mass of dry soil, g 12.3 14.5 12.1 Mass of dry soil, g 5.9 10.0
Water content, % 90.2 83.4 75.2 Water content, % 33.9 34.1
No. Of blows 18.0 28.0 34.0 PL (average), % 34

Liquid limit
y = -0.9133x + 107.32 LL(@ 25 no of blow) = 84.49 %
95.0
Moisture content (%)

PI = 50 %
90.0
85.0
80.0
75.0
70.0
10.0 100.0
Number of blow (Log scale)

Figure D.5.2. Liquid limit graph for Megenagna 3 m soil

79
 CORRELATION BETWEEN COMPACTION CHARACTERISTICS AND ATTERBERG LIMITS OF FINE GRAINED SOILS

D.6. LIDETA SITE ATTERBERG LIMITS

Table D.6.1. Detail of Atteberg limits for LIDETA 1.2 m soil

Description Liquid limit Description Plastic limit
Trial no. 1 2 3 Trial no. 1 2
Can no. K4 J5 B2 Can no. X8 D5
Mass of can, g 15.2 14.9 14.8 Mass of can, g 14.9 15.1
Mass of can + wet soil, g 55.0 53.6 51.1 Mass of can +wet soil, g 35.4 32.9
Mass of can + dry soil, g 40.6 39.8 38.4 Mass of can + dry soil, g 30.9 29.2
Mass of water, g 14.4 13.8 12.7 Mass of water, g 4.5 3.7
Mass of dry soil, g 25.4 24.9 23.6 Mass of dry soil, g 16.0 14.1
Water content, % 56.7 55.4 53.8 Water content, % 28.1 26.2
No. Of blows 18 24 34 PL (average), % 27

Liquid limit LL(@ 25 no of blow) = 87.36 %

y = -0.178x + 59.819
PI = 52 %
Moisture content (%)

57.0
56.0
55.0
54.0
53.0
10 100
Number of blow (Log scale)

Figure D.6.1 liquid limit graph for Lideta 1.2 m soil

80
 CORRELATION BETWEEN COMPACTION CHARACTERISTICS AND ATTERBERG LIMITS OF FINE GRAINED SOILS

Table D.6.2. Detail of Atteberg limits for LIDETA 2.6 m soil

Description Liquid limit Description Plastic limit
Trial no. 1 2 3 Trial no. 1 2
Can no. K4 L2 J5 Can no. I4 O1
Mass of can, g 14.6 15.5 14.9 Mass of can, g 15.7 15.2
Mass of can + wet soil, g 63.0 62.1 55.6 Mass of can +wet soil, g 34.5 36.3
Mass of can + dry soil, g 44.5 44.7 40.6 Mass of can + dry soil, g 30.3 31.6
Mass of water, g 18.5 17.4 15.0 Mass of water, g 4.2 4.7
Mass of dry soil, g 29.9 29.2 25.7 Mass of dry soil, g 14.6 16.4
Water content, % 61.9 59.6 58.4 Water content, % 28.8 28.7
No. Of blows 19.0 27.0 31.0 PL (average), % 29

Liquid limit LL(@ 25 no of blow) = 60.14 %

y = -0.2913x + 67.419
63.0
Moisture content (%)

PI = 31 %
62.0
61.0
60.0
59.0
58.0
10.0 100.0
Number of blow (Log scale)

Figure D.6.2. Liquid limit graph for Lideta 2.6 m soil

81
 CORRELATION BETWEEN COMPACTION CHARACTERISTICS AND ATTERBERG LIMITS OF FINE GRAINED SOILS

D.7. ASKO SITE ATTERBERG LIMITS

Table D.7.1. Detail of Atteberg limits for ASKO 1.5 m soil

Description Liquid limit Description Plastic limit
Trial no. 1 2 3 Trial no. 1 2
Can no. F4 J7 U5 Can no. G5 O9
Mass of can, g 54.06 52.05 46.15 Mass of can, g 15.50 15.00
Mass of can + wet soil, g 81.16 75.65 72.71 Mass of can +wet soil, g 34.20 29.60
Mass of can + dry soil, g 70.95 66.80 62.82 Mass of can + dry soil, g 30.40 26.70
Mass of water, g 10.21 8.85 9.89 Mass of water, g 3.80 2.90
Mass of dry soil, g 16.89 14.75 16.67 Mass of dry soil, g 14.90 11.70
Water content, % 60.45 60.00 59.33 Water content, % 25.50 24.79
No. Of blows 21 27 31 PL (average), % 25
Liquid limit
y = -0.1092x + 62.803 LL(@ 25 no of blow) = 60 %
61.00
Moisture content(%)

PI = 35 %
60.50

60.00

59.50

59.00
10 100
Number of blow(log scale)

Figure D.7.1 liquid limit graph for Asko 1.5 m soil

82
 CORRELATION BETWEEN COMPACTION CHARACTERISTICS AND ATTERBERG LIMITS OF FINE GRAINED SOILS

Table D.7.2. Detail of Atteberg limits for ASKO 3 m soil

Description Liquid limit Description Plastic limit
Trial no. 1 2 3 Trial no. 1 2
Can no. S1 E5 K6 Can no. N5 G7
Mass of can, g 15.80 14.70 15.20 Mass of can, g 16.20 15.90
Mass of can + wet soil, g 39.79 42.68 34.84 Mass of can +wet soil, g 33.20 29.40
Mass of can + dry soil, g 30.69 32.27 27.79 Mass of can + dry soil, g 29.30 26.20
Mass of water, g 9.10 10.41 7.05 Mass of water, g 3.90 3.20
Mass of dry soil, g 14.89 17.57 12.59 Mass of dry soil, g 13.10 10.30
Water content, % 61.11 59.25 56.00 Water content, % 29.77 31.07
No. Of blows 18 27 32 PL (average), % 30

Liquid limit
y = -0.3467x + 67.686 LL(@ 25 no of blow) = 59 %
Moisture content (%)

62.00
61.00 PI = 29 %
60.00
59.00
58.00
57.00
56.00
55.00
10 100
Number of blow (Log scale)

Figure D.7.2. Liquid limit graph for Asko 3m so il

83
 CORRELATION BETWEEN COMPACTION CHARACTERISTICS AND ATTERBERG LIMITS OF FINE GRAINED SOILS

D.8. MESALEMIYA SITE ATTERBERG LIMITS

Table D.8.1. Detail of Atteberg limits for MESALEMIYA 1.3 m soil

Description Liquid limit Description Plastic limit
Trial no. 1 2 3 Trial no. 1 2
Can no. Y4 R2 D1 Can no. Z5 R1
Mass of can, g 16.2 15.4 14.9 Mass of can, g 15.20 16.30
Mass of can + wet soil, g 46.7 44.3 48.1 Mass of can +wet soil, g 37.42 38.63
Mass of can + dry soil, g 35.2 33.6 35.9 Mass of can + dry soil, g 32.13 33.33
Mass of water, g 11.6 10.8 12.2 Mass of water, g 5.29 5.30
Mass of dry soil, g 19.0 18.2 21.0 Mass of dry soil, g 16.93 17.03
Water content, % 61.0 59.4 58.0 Water content, % 31.25 31.12
No. Of blows 18.0 28.0 33.0 PL (average), % 31

Liquid limit
y = -0.195x + 64.598 LL(@ 25 no of blow) = 60 %
62.0
moisture content (%)

PI = 29 %
61.0
60.0
59.0
58.0
57.0
10.0 100.0
Number of blow (Log scale)

Figure D.8.1. Liquid limit graph for Mesalemiya 1.3 m so il

84
 CORRELATION BETWEEN COMPACTION CHARACTERISTICS AND ATTERBERG LIMITS OF FINE GRAINED SOILS

Table D.8.2. Detail of Atteberg limits for MESALEMIYA 2.2 m soil

Description Liquid limit Description Plastic limit
Trial no. 1 2 3 Trial no. 1 2
Can no. H9 B6 D7 Can no. F7 Q3
Mass of can, g 14.8 15.8 14.6 Mass of can, g 16.70 14.80
Mass of can + wet soil, g 48.1 37.6 36.7 Mass of can +wet soil, g 35.90 34.28
Mass of can + dry soil, g 35.9 29.8 28.9 Mass of can + dry soil, g 32.10 30.20
Mass of water, g 12.2 7.8 7.8 Mass of water, g 3.80 4.08
Mass of dry soil, g 21.1 14.0 14.3 Mass of dry soil, g 15.40 15.40
Water content, % 57.7 56.0 54.5 Water content, % 24.68 26.49
No. Of blows 19.0 27.0 33.0 PL (average), % 26

Liquid limit
y = -0.224x + 61.992 LL(@ 25 no of blow) = 56.39 %
58.0
Moisture content (%)

PI = 30.39 %
57.0

56.0

55.0

54.0
10.0 100.0
Number of blow (Log scale)

Figure D.8.2. Liquid limit graph for Mesalemiya 2.2 m so il

85
 CORRELATION BETWEEN COMPACTION CHARACTERISTICS AND ATTERBERG LIMITS OF FINE GRAINED SOILS

D.9. JEMO SITE ATTERBERG LIMITS

Table D.9.1. Detail of Atteberg limits for JEMO 1.5 m soil

Description Liquid limit Description Plastic limit
Trial no. 1 2 3 Trial no. 1 2
Can no. W4 H6 S2 Can no. P7 R1
Mass of can, g 16.2 15.7 15.3 Mass of can, g 14.70 15.10
Mass of can + wet soil, g 37.6 42.3 38.7 Mass of can +wet soil, g 36.20 31.30
Mass of can + dry soil, g 29.2 32.1 29.8 Mass of can + dry soil, g 31.70 28.00
Mass of water, g 8.4 10.2 8.9 Mass of water, g 4.50 3.30
Mass of dry soil, g 13.0 16.4 14.5 Mass of dry soil, g 17.00 12.90
Water content, % 64.6 62.2 61.4 Water content, % 26.47 25.58
No. Of blows 20.0 27.0 32.0 PL (average) ,% 26

Liquid limit
y = -0.2746x + 69.96 LL(@ 25 no of blow) = 63 %
65.0
Moisture content (%)

PI = 37 %
64.0

63.0

62.0

61.0
10.0 100.0
Number of blow (Log scale)

Figure D.9.1. Liquid limit graph for Jemo 1.5 m soil

86
 CORRELATION BETWEEN COMPACTION CHARACTERISTICS AND ATTERBERG LIMITS OF FINE GRAINED SOILS

Table D.9.2. Detail of Atteberg limits for JEMO 2.8 m soil

Description Liquid limit Description Plastic limit
Trial no. 1 2 3 Trial no. 1 2
Can no. K4 B6 D1 Can no. S7 A3
Mass of can, g 15.3 14.8 16.1 Mass of can, g 15.20 15.80
Mass of can + wet soil, g 34.3 35.2 37.5 Mass of can +wet soil, g 31.50 32.40
Mass of can + dry soil, g 26.8 27.4 29.5 Mass of can + dry soil, g 28.30 29.20
Mass of water, g 7.5 7.8 8.0 Mass of water, g 3.20 3.20
Mass of dry soil, g 11.5 12.6 13.4 Mass of dry soil, g 13.10 13.40
Water content, % 65.2 61.9 59.7 Water content, % 24.43 23.88
No. Of blows 20.0 27.0 34.0 PL (average), % 24

Liquid limit
y = -0.394x + 72.912 LL(@ 25 no of blow) = 64 %
66.0
Moisture content (%)

PI = 40 %
64.0

62.0

60.0

58.0
10.0 100.0
Number of blow (Log scale)

Figure D.9.2. Liquid limit graph for Jemo 2.8 m soil

87
 CORRELATION BETWEEN COMPACTION CHARACTERISTICS AND ATTERBERG LIMITS OF FINE GRAINED SOILS

D.10. SHIROMEDA SITE ATTERBERG LIMITS

Table D.10.1. Detail of Atteberg limits for Shiromeda 1.5 m soil

Description Liquid limit Description Plastic limit
Trial no. 1 2 3 Trial no. 1 2
Can no. Y4 R2 D1 Can no. Z5 R1
Mass of can, g 16.2 15.4 14.9 Mass of can, g 15.20 16.30
Mass of can + wet soil, g 52.3 47.6 43.2 Mass of can +wet soil, g 38.40 39.20
Mass of can + dry soil, g 36.8 33.9 31.3 Mass of can + dry soil, g 33.20 34.10
Mass of water, g 15.5 13.7 11.9 Mass of water, g 5.20 5.10
Mass of dry soil, g 20.6 18.5 16.4 Mass of dry soil, g 18.00 17.80
Water content, % 75.2 74.1 72.6 Water content, % 28.89 28.65
No. Of blows 19.0 27.0 30.0 PL (average),% 29

Liquid limit
y = -0.221x + 79.565 LL(@ 25 no of blow) = 75 %
76.0
Moisture content (%)

PI = 46 %
75.0

74.0

73.0

72.0
10.0 100.0
Number of blow (Log scale)

Figure D.10.1 liquid limit graph for Shiromeda 1.5 m so il

88
 CORRELATION BETWEEN COMPACTION CHARACTERISTICS AND ATTERBERG LIMITS OF FINE GRAINED SOILS

Table D.10.2. Detail of Atteberg limits for Shiromeda 3 m soil

Description Liquid limit Description Plastic limit
Trial no. 1 2 3 Trial no. 1 2
Can no. Y4 R2 D1 Can no. Z5 R1
Mass of can, g 16.2 15.4 14.9 Mass of can, g 15.20 16.30
Mass of can + wet soil, g 48.9 49.2 47.4 Mass of can +wet soil, g 38.40 39.20
Mass of can + dry soil, g 34.3 34.2 33.1 Mass of can + dry soil, g 32.80 33.50
Mass of water, g 14.6 15.0 14.3 Mass of water, g 5.60 5.70
Mass of dry soil, g 18.1 18.8 18.2 Mass of dry soil, g 17.60 17.20
Water content, % 80.7 79.8 78.6 Water content, % 31.82 33.14
No. Of blows 18.0 27.0 31.0 PL (average), % 32

Liquid limit
y = -0.1474x + 83.422 LL(@ 25 no of blow) = 79 %
81.0
Moisture content (%)

80.5 PI = 47 %
80.0
79.5
79.0
78.5
78.0
10.0 100.0
Number of blow (Log scale)

Figure D.10.2. Liquid limit graph for Shiromeda 3 m so il

89
 CORRELATION BETWEEN COMPACTION CHARACTERISTICS AND ATTERBERG LIMITS OF FINE GRAINED SOILS

Table D.11. Detail of Atteberg limits for Akaki for validation soil
Description Liquid limit Description Plastic limit
Trial no. 1 2 3 Trial no. 1 2
Can no. G2 J5 E1 Can no. D8 S4
Mass of can, g 15.30 14.90 14.60 Mass of can, g 14.30 14.50
Mass of can + wet soil, g 43.20 39.60 42.30 Mass of can + wet soil, g 32.00 29.60
Mass of can + dry soil, g 29.40 27.62 29.10 Mass of can + dry soil, g 27.30 25.50
Mass of water, g 13.80 11.98 13.20 Mass of water, g 4.70 4.10
Mass of dry soil, g 14.10 12.72 14.50 Mass of dry soil, g 13.00 11.00
Water content, % 97.87 94.18 91.03 Water content, % 36.15 37.27
No. Of blows 20 28 33 PL (average), % 37

Liquid limit LL(@ 25 no of blow) = 95%

y = -0.52x + 108.4 PI = 59%
100.00
Moisture content(%)

98.00

96.00
94.00

92.00
90.00
10 100
Number of blow(log scale)

Figure D.11. Liquid limit graph for control test

90
 CORRELATION BETWEEN COMPACTION CHARACTERISTICS AND ATTERBERG LIMITS OF FINE GRAINED SOILS

APPENDIX E: DETAILS OF STANDARD PROCTOR TEST RESULTS

E.1.MEXICO SITE PROCTOR RESULT

Table E.1.1 Detail of STANDARD COMPACTION for MEXICO 1.5 m soil

Description Moisture content determination
Trial no. 1 2 3 4
Can no. B4 F7 H4 H3
Mass of can, g 15 15 15 15
Mass of can + wet soil, g 279 235 341 289
Mass of can + dry soil, g 237 193 273 226
Mass of water, g 42 42 69 63
Mass of dry soil, g 222 178 258 211
Water content, % 19 23 27 30
Description Dry density determination
Trial no. 1 2 3 4
Mass of mold, g 3006 3006 3006 3006
Mass of mold + compacted soil, g 4455 4660 4725 4670
Mass of compacted soil, g 1449 1654 1719 1664
Volume of mold, cm3 948 948 948 948
Bulk density, g/cm3 1.53 1.74 1.81 1.76
Dry density, g/cm3 1.28 1.41 1.43 1.35

Compaction curve
1.46
1.44
Dry density (g/cm3)

1.42
1.40
1.38
1.36
1.34
1.32
1.30
1.28
1.26
15 20 25 30 35
Moisture content (%)

Figure E.1.1. Compaction curve for Mexico 1.5 m soil

From the graph

OMC 25.8 %
MDD 1.44 g/cm3

91
 CORRELATION BETWEEN COMPACTION CHARACTERISTICS AND ATTERBERG LIMITS OF FINE GRAINED SOILS

Table E.1.2. Detail of STANDARD COMPACTION for MEXICO 3 m soil

Description Moisture content determination
Trial no. 1 2 3 4
Can no. B4 F7 H4 H3
Mass of can, g 15 15 15 15
Mass of can + wet soil, g 278 266 256 269
Mass of can + dry soil, g 239 220 203 208
Mass of water, g 39 46 53 61
Mass of dry soil, g 224 205 188 193
Water content, % 17 22 28 32
Description Dry density determination
Trial no. 1 2 3 4
Mass of mold, g 3006 3006 3006 3006
Mass of mold + compacted soil, g 4450 4665 4773 4670
Mass of compacted soil, g 1444 1659 1767 1664
Volume of mold, cm3 948 948 948 948
Bulk density, g/cm3 1.52 1.75 1.86 1.76
Dry density, g/cm3 1.30 1.43 1.45 1.33

Compaction curve
1.48
1.46
Dry density (g/cm3)

1.44
1.42
1.40
1.38
1.36
1.34
1.32
1.30
1.28
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Moisture content (%)

Figure E.1.2. Compaction curve for Mexico 3 m soil

From the graph

OMC 26.5%
MDD 1.46 g/cm3

92
 CORRELATION BETWEEN COMPACTION CHARACTERISTICS AND ATTERBERG LIMITS OF FINE GRAINED SOILS

E.2. AKAKI SITE PROCTOR RESULT

Table E.2.1 Detail of STANDARD COMPACTION for Akaki 1.5 m soil

Description Moisture content determination
Trial no. 1 2 3 4
Can no. L2 B5 K9
Mass of can, g 52.4 39.0 44.3 42.1
Mass of can + wet soil, g 177.1 107.1 142.4 152.7
Mass of can + dry soil, g 158.4 92.4 119.2 124.9
Mass of water, g 18.7 14.7 23.2 27.8
Mass of dry soil, g 106.0 53.4 75.0 82.8
Water content, % 21.0 27.4 31.0 33.6
Description Dry density determination
Trial no. 1 2 3 4
Mass of mold, g 3006 3006 3006 3006
Mass of mold + compacted soil, g 4380 4515 4650 4595
Mass of compacted soil, g 1374 1509 1644 1589
Volume of mold, cm3 944 944 944 945
Bulk density, g/cm3 1.46 1.60 1.74 1.68
Dry density, g/cm3 1.26 1.32 1.33 1.26

Compaction curve
1.34
1.33
Dry density (g/cm3

1.32
1.31
1.30
1.29
1.28
1.27
1.26
1.25
10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0
Moisture content (%)
Figure E.2.1. compaction curve for Akaki 1.5 m soil

From the graph

OMC 30%
MDD 1.33 g/cm3

93
 CORRELATION BETWEEN COMPACTION CHARACTERISTICS AND ATTERBERG LIMITS OF FINE GRAINED SOILS

Table E.2.2 Detail of STANDARD COMPACTION for Akaki 3 m soil

Description Moisture content determination
Trial no. 1 2 3 4
Can no. A3 S2 F5 K4
Mass of can, g 43 37 32 34
Mass of can + wet soil, g 221 191 218 279
Mass of can + dry soil, g 187 155 166 203
Mass of water, g 33 36 53 76
Mass of dry soil, g 144 118 133 168
Water content, % 23 31 40 45
Description Dry density determination
Trial no. 1 2 3 4
Mass of mold, g 3006 3006 3006 3006
Mass of mold + compacted soil, g 4385 4625 4680 4595
Mass of compacted soil, g 1379 1619 1674 1589
Volume of mold, cm3 944 944 944 944
Bulk density, g/cm3 1.46 1.72 1.77 1.68
Dry density, g/cm3 1.19 1.31 1.27 1.16

Compaction curve
1.34
1.32
1.30
Dry density (g/cm3)

1.28
1.26
1.24
1.22
1.20
1.18
1.16
1.14
0 10 20 30 40 50
Moisture content (%)

Figure E.2.2 compaction curve for Akaki 3 m soil

From the graph

OMC 31%
MDD 1.31 g/cm3

94
 CORRELATION BETWEEN COMPACTION CHARACTERISTICS AND ATTERBERG LIMITS OF FINE GRAINED SOILS

E.3. KOLFE SITE PROCTOR RESULT

Table E.3.1 Detail of STANDARD COMPACTION for Kolfe 1.2 m soil

Description Moisture content determination
Trial no. 1 2 3 4
Can no. H5 L2 B5 K9
Mass of can, g 15 15 15 15
Mass of can + wet soil, g 225 216 230 215
Mass of can + dry soil, g 192 181 188 165
Mass of water, g 33 35 42 50
Mass of dry soil, g 177 166 173 150
Water content, % 19 21 24 33
Description Dry density determination
Trial no. 1 2 3 4
Mass of mold, g 5630 5630 5630 5630
Mass of mold + compacted soil, g 7169 7223 7450 7418
Mass of compacted soil, g 1539 1593 1820 1788
Volume of mold, cm3 944 944 944 944
Bulk density, g/cm3 1.63 1.69 1.93 1.89
Dry density, g/cm3 1.37 1.50 1.55 1.42

Compaction curve
1.58
1.56
1.54
Dry density (g/cm3)

1.52
1.50
1.48
1.46
1.44
1.42
1.40
1.38
1.36
10 15 20 25 30 35
Moiture content (%)
Figure E.3.1 compaction curve for Kolfe 1.2 m soil

From the graph

OMC 23.5%
MDD 1.55 g/cm3

95
 CORRELATION BETWEEN COMPACTION CHARACTERISTICS AND ATTERBERG LIMITS OF FINE GRAINED SOILS

Table E.3.2. Detail of STANDARD COMPACTION for Kolfe 2.3 m soil

Description Moisture content determination
Trial no. 1 2 3 4
Can no. K5 N4 V7 F3
Mass of can, g 15 15 15 15
Mass of can + wet soil, g 217 208 212 210
Mass of can + dry soil, g 198 172 166 158
Mass of water, g 19 36 46 52
Mass of dry soil, g 183 157 151 143
Water content, % 10 23 30 36
Description Dry density determination
Trial no. 1 2 3 4
Mass of mold, g 5630 5630 5630 5630
Mass of mold + compacted soil, g 7055 7380 7461 7369
Mass of compacted soil, g 1425 1750 1831 1739
Volume of mold, cm3 944 944 944 944
Bulk density, g/cm3 1.51 1.85 1.94 1.84
Dry density, g/cm3 1.37 1.51 1.49 1.35

Compaction curve
1.55
Dry density (g/cm3)

1.50

1.45

1.40

1.35

1.30
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Moisture content (%)

Figure E.3.2 compaction curve for Kolfe 2.3 m soil

From the graph

OMC 26%
MDD 1.52 g/cm3

96
 CORRELATION BETWEEN COMPACTION CHARACTERISTICS AND ATTERBERG LIMITS OF FINE GRAINED SOILS

A.5.4. LIDETA SITE PROCTOR RESULT

Table A.5.4.1 Detail of STANDARD COMPACTION for Lideta 1.2 m soil

Description Moisture content determination
Trial no. 1 2 3 4
Can no. Q7 J9 G3 Y5
Mass of can, g 14.9 15.5 14.6 15.0
Mass of can + wet soil, g 244.0 240.6 229.0 217.5
Mass of can + dry soil, g 209.9 200.3 183.8 166.3
Mass of water, g 34.1 40.3 45.2 51.2
Mass of dry soil, g 195.0 184.8 169.2 151.3
Water content, % 17.5 21.8 26.7 33.8
Description Dry density determination
Trial no. 1 2 3 4
Mass of mold, g 3006 3006 3006 3006
Mass of mold + compacted soil, g 4540 4675 4755 4695
Mass of compacted soil, g 1534 1669 1749 1689
Volume of mold, cm3 948 948 948 948
Bulk density, g/cm3 1.62 1.76 1.84 1.78
Dry density, g/cm3 1.38 1.45 1.46 1.33

Compaction curve
1.48
1.46
Dry density (g/cm3)

1.44
1.42
1.40
1.38
1.36
1.34
1.32
15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0
Moisture content (%)

Figure E.4.1 compaction curve for Lideta 1.2 m soil

From the graph

OMC 25%
MDD 1.464 g/cm3

97
 CORRELATION BETWEEN COMPACTION CHARACTERISTICS AND ATTERBERG LIMITS OF FINE GRAINED SOILS

Table E.4.2. Detail of STANDARD COMPACTION for Lideta 2.6 m soil

Description Moisture content determination
Trial no. 1 2 3 4
Can no. Q7 J9 G3 Y5
Mass of can, g 14.9 15.5 14.6 15.0
Mass of can + wet soil, g 231.6 243.7 209.6 236.8
Mass of can + dry soil, g 195.2 202.2 169.0 186.3
Mass of water, g 36.4 41.5 40.6 50.5
Mass of dry soil, g 180.3 186.7 154.4 171.3
Water content, % 20.2 23.5 26.3 29.5
Description Dry density determination
Trial no. 1 2 3 4
Mass of mold, g 3006 3006 3006 3006
Mass of mold + compacted soil, g 4615 4705 4755 4675
Mass of compacted soil, g 1609 1699 1749 1669
Volume of mold, cm3 948 948 948 948
Bulk density, g/cm3 1.70 1.79 1.84 1.76
Dry density, g/cm3 1.41 1.45 1.46 1.36

Compaction curve
1.48
1.46
Dry density (g/cm3)

1.44
1.42
1.40
1.38
1.36
1.34
15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0
Moisture content (%)

Figure E.4.2 compaction curve for Lideta 2.6 m soil

From the graph

OMC 25.5%
MDD 1.463 g/cm3

98
 CORRELATION BETWEEN COMPACTION CHARACTERISTICS AND ATTERBERG LIMITS OF FINE GRAINED SOILS

E.5. MEGENAGNA SITE PROCTOR RESULT

Table E.5.1 Detail of STANDARD COMPACTION for Megenagna 1.5 m soil

Description Moisture content determination
Trial no. 1 2 3 4
Can no. K7 T4 E5 W2
Mass of can, g 15.2 15.5 14.8 15.4
Mass of can + wet soil, g 186.4 217.4 211.0 230.0
Mass of can + dry soil, g 159.7 177.8 161.1 166.0
Mass of water, g 26.7 39.6 49.9 64.0
Mass of dry soil, g 144.5 162.3 146.3 150.6
Water content, % 18.5 24.4 34.1 42.5
Description Dry density determination
Trial no. 1 2 3 4
Mass of mold, g 3006 3006 3006 3006
Mass of mold + compacted soil, g 4375 4470 4615 4675
Mass of compacted soil, g 1369 1464 1609 1669
Volume of mold, cm3 944 944 944 944
Bulk density, g/cm3 1.45 1.55 1.70 1.77
Dry density, g/cm3 1.22 1.25 1.27 1.24

Compaction curve
1.28

1.27
Dry density (g/cm3)

1.26

1.25

1.24

1.23

1.22
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0
Moisture content (%)

Figure E.5.1 compaction curve for Megenagna 1.5 m soil

From the graph

OMC 32%
MDD 1.27 g/cm3

99
 CORRELATION BETWEEN COMPACTION CHARACTERISTICS AND ATTERBERG LIMITS OF FINE GRAINED SOILS

Table E.5.2. Detail of STANDARD COMPACTION for Megenagna 1.5 m soil

Description Moisture content determination
Trial no. 1 2 3 4
Can no. K7 T4 E5 W2
Mass of can, g 15.4 15.1 15.5 14.9
Mass of can + wet soil, g 194.6 182.4 203.1 198.3
Mass of can + dry soil, g 165.4 148.4 159.7 149.6
Mass of water, g 29.2 34.0 43.4 48.7
Mass of dry soil, g 150.0 133.3 144.2 134.7
Water content, % 19.5 25.5 30.1 36.2
Description Dry density determination
Trial no. 1 2 3 4
Mass of mold, g 3006 3006 3006 3006
Mass of mold + compacted soil, g 4370 4485 4560 4605
Mass of compacted soil, g 1364 1479 1554 1599
Volume of mold, cm3 944 944 944 944
Bulk density, g/cm3 1.44 1.57 1.65 1.69
Dry density, g/cm3 1.21 1.25 1.27 1.24

Compaction curve
1.27
1.26
Dry density (g/cm3)

1.25
1.24
1.23
1.22
1.21
1.20
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0
Moisture content (%)

Figure E.5.2. Compaction curve for Megenagna 1.5 m so il

From the graph

OMC 30%
MDD 1.266 g/cm3

100
 CORRELATION BETWEEN COMPACTION CHARACTERISTICS AND ATTERBERG LIMITS OF FINE GRAINED SOILS

E.6. ASKO SITE PROCTOR RESULT

Table E.6.1 Detail of STANDARD COMPACTION for Asko 1.5 m soil

Description Moisture content determination
Trial no. 1 2 3 4
Can no. B4 F7 H4 H3
Mass of can, g 15.4 15.8 14.7 15.3
Mass of can + wet soil, g 306.2 288.7 331.7 324.8
Mass of can + dry soil, g 266.5 245.6 273.8 260.3
Mass of water, g 39.7 43.1 57.9 64.5
Mass of dry soil, g 251.1 229.8 259.1 245.0
Water content, % 15.8 18.8 22.3 26.3
Description Dry density determination
Trial no. 1 2 3 4
Mass of mold, g 3006 3006 3006 3006
Mass of mold + compacted soil, g 4606 4755 4895 4850
Mass of compacted soil, g 1600 1749 1889 1844
Volume of mold, cm3 944 944 944 944
Bulk density, g/cm3 1.69 1.85 2.00 1.95
Dry density, g/cm3 1.46 1.56 1.64 1.55

Compaction curve
1.66
1.64
1.62
Dry density (g/cm3)

1.60
1.58
1.56
1.54
1.52
1.50
1.48
1.46
1.44
15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0
Moisture content (%)

Figure E.6.1.Compaction curve for Asko 1.5 m soil

From the graph

OMC 22%
MDD 1.64 g/cm3

101
 CORRELATION BETWEEN COMPACTION CHARACTERISTICS AND ATTERBERG LIMITS OF FINE GRAINED SOILS

Table E.6.2. Detail of STANDARD COMPACTION for Asko 3 m soil

Description Moisture content determination
Trial no. 1 2 3 4
Can no. B4 F7 H4 H3
Mass of can, g 15.4 15.8 14.7 15.3
Mass of can + wet soil, g 318.8 321.0 298.0 314.7
Mass of can + dry soil, g 268.0 263.1 239.0 244.6
Mass of water, g 50.8 57.9 59.0 70.1
Mass of dry soil, g 252.6 247.3 224.3 229.3
Water content, % 20.1 23.4 26.3 30.6
Description Dry density determination
Trial no. 1 2 3 4
Mass of mold, g 3006 3006 3006 3006
Mass of mold + compacted soil, g 4520 4765 4845 4785
Mass of compacted soil, g 1514 1759 1839 1779
Volume of mold, cm3 944 944 944 944
Bulk density, g/cm3 1.60 1.86 1.95 1.88
Dry density, g/cm3 1.34 1.51 1.54 1.44

Compaction curve
1.60

1.55
Dry density (g/cm3)

1.50

1.45

1.40

1.35

1.30
15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0
Moisture content (%)

Figure E.6.2. Compaction curve for Asko 3 m soil

From the graph

OMC 25.5%
MDD 1.54 g/cm3

102
 CORRELATION BETWEEN COMPACTION CHARACTERISTICS AND ATTERBERG LIMITS OF FINE GRAINED SOILS

E.7. MESALEMIA SITE PROCTOR RESULT

Table E.7.1 Detail of STANDARD COMPACTION for MESALEMIYA 1.3 m soil

Description Moisture content determination
Trial no. 1 2 3 4
Can no. A8 D4 U7 N4
Mass of can, g 16.4 15.7 14.8 15.6
Mass of can + wet soil, g 278.2 228.6 286.4 254.2
Mass of can + dry soil, g 230.0 186.3 226.8 198.0
Mass of water, g 48.2 42.3 59.6 56.2
Mass of dry soil, g 213.6 170.6 212.0 182.4
Water content, % 23 25 28 31
Description Dry density determination
Trial no. 1 2 3 4
Mass of mold, g 3008 3008 3008 3008
Mass of mold + compacted soil, g 4635 4725 4820 4795
Mass of compacted soil, g 1627 1717 1812 1787
Volume of mold, cm3 944 944 944 944
Bulk density, g/cm3 1.72 1.82 1.92 1.89
Dry density, g/cm3 1.41 1.46 1.50 1.45

Compaction curve
1.52

1.50
Dry density (g/cm3)

1.48

1.46

1.44

1.42

1.40
15 20 25 30 35
Moisture content (%)

Figure E.7.1. Compaction curve for Mesalemiya 1.3 m so il

From the graph

OMC 28.2 %
MDD 1.5 g/cm3

103
 CORRELATION BETWEEN COMPACTION CHARACTERISTICS AND ATTERBERG LIMITS OF FINE GRAINED SOILS

Table E.7.2 Detail of STANDARD COMPACTION for MESALEMIYA 2.2 m soil

Description Moisture content determination
Trial no. 1 2 3 4
Can no. J4 L9 T2 B6
Mass of can, g 15.2 16.2 15.7 14.9
Mass of can + wet soil, g 234.2 216.4 238.7 221.9
Mass of can + dry soil, g 199.6 181.0 196.8 178.0
Mass of water, g 34.6 35.4 41.9 43.9
Mass of dry soil, g 184.4 164.8 181.1 163.1
Water content, % 19 21 23 27
Description Dry density determination
Trial no. 1 2 3 4
Mass of mold, g 3008 3008 3008 3008
Mass of mold + compacted soil, g 4640 4795 4915 4885
Mass of compacted soil, g 1632 1787 1907 1877
Volume of mold, cm3 944 944 944 944
Bulk density, g/cm3 1.73 1.89 2.02 1.99
Dry density, g/cm3 1.46 1.57 1.64 1.57

Compaction curve
1.65
Dry density (g/cm3)

1.60

1.55

1.50

1.45

1.40
15 20 25 30 35
Moisture content (%)
Figure E.7.2. Compaction curve for Mesalemiya 2.2 m so il

From the graph

OMC 23.2%
MDD 1.64 g/cm3

104
 CORRELATION BETWEEN COMPACTION CHARACTERISTICS AND ATTERBERG LIMITS OF FINE GRAINED SOILS

E.8. JEMO SITE PROCTOR RESULT

Table E.8.1. Detail of STANDARD COMPACTION for JEMO 1.5m soil

Description Moisture content determination
Trial no. 1 2 3 4
Can no. J4 L9 T2 B6
Mass of can, g 15.2 16.2 15.7 14.9
Mass of can + wet soil, g 224.6 278.2 245.9 223.8
Mass of can + dry soil, g 195.3 237.0 204.6 181.0
Mass of water, g 29.3 41.2 41.3 42.8
Mass of dry soil, g 180.1 220.8 188.9 166.1
Water content, % 16.3 18.7 21.9 25.8
Description Dry density determination
Trial no. 1 2 3 4
Mass of mold, g 3008 3008 3008 3008
Mass of mold + compacted soil, g 4625 4765 4885 4820
Mass of compacted soil, g 1617 1757 1877 1812
Volume of mold, cm3 944 944 944 944
Bulk density, g/cm3 1.71 1.86 1.99 1.92
Dry density, g/cm3 1.47 1.57 1.63 1.53

Compaction curve
1.64
1.62
Dry density (g/cm3)

1.60
1.58
1.56
1.54
1.52
1.50
1.48
1.46
15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0
Moisture content (%)

Figure E.8.1. Compaction curve for Jemo 1.5 m soil

From the graph

OMC 22 %
MDD 1.63 g/cc

105
 CORRELATION BETWEEN COMPACTION CHARACTERISTICS AND ATTERBERG LIMITS OF FINE GRAINED SOILS

Table E.8.2.Detail of STANDARD COMPACTION for JEMO 2.8 m soil

Description Moisture content determination
Trial no. 1 2 3 4
Can no. K3 D4 V7 C9
Mass of can, g 14.6 15.3 15.8 14.9
Mass of can + wet soil, g 236.3 216.9 232.7 215.4
Mass of can + dry soil, g 202.4 183.6 192.4 175.8
Mass of water, g 33.9 33.3 40.3 39.6
Mass of dry soil, g 187.8 168.3 176.6 160.9
Water content, % 18.1 19.8 22.8 24.6
Description Dry density determination
Trial no. 1 2 3 4
Mass of mold, g 3008 3008 3008 3008
Mass of mold + compacted soil, g 4635 4765 4895 4795
Mass of compacted soil, g 1627 1757 1887 1787
Volume of mold, cm3 944 944 944 944
Bulk density, g/cm3 1.72 1.86 2.00 1.89
Dry density, g/cm3 1.46 1.55 1.63 1.52

Compaction curve
1.64
1.62
Dry density (g/cm3)

1.60
1.58
1.56
1.54
1.52
1.50
1.48
1.46
1.44
10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0
Moisture content (%)
Figure E.8.2. Compaction curve for Jemo 2.8 m soil

From the graph

OMC 23 %
MDD 1.62 g/cc

106
 CORRELATION BETWEEN COMPACTION CHARACTERISTICS AND ATTERBERG LIMITS OF FINE GRAINED SOILS

E.9. BOLE SITE PROCTOR RESULT

Table E.9.1 Detail of STANDARD COMPACTION for Bole 1.5 m soil

Description Moisture content determination
Trial no. 1 2 3 4
Can no. L2 G1 K9 J4
Mass of can, g 52.4 40.8 44.3 42.1
Mass of can + wet soil, g 184.2 125.6 144.1 145.8
Mass of can + dry soil, g 154.1 104.9 117.2 115.3
Mass of water, g 30.1 20.7 26.9 30.5
Mass of dry soil, g 101.7 64.1 72.9 73.2
Water content, % 29.6 32.3 36.9 41.7
Description Dry density determination
Trial no. 1 2 3 4
Mass of mold, g 3006 3006 3006 3006
Mass of mold + compacted soil, g 4355 4505 4625 4565
Mass of compacted soil, g 1349 1499 1619 1559
Volume of mold, cm3 944 944 944 945
Bulk density, g/cm3 1.43 1.59 1.72 1.65
Dry density, g/cm3 1.10 1.20 1.25 1.16

Compaction curve
1.28
1.26
Dry density (g/cm3)

1.24
1.22
1.20
1.18
1.16
1.14
1.12
1.10
1.08
10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0
Moisture content (%)

Figure E.9.1. Compaction curve for Bole 1.5 m soil

From the graph

OMC 37 %
MDD 1.25 g/cc

107
 CORRELATION BETWEEN COMPACTION CHARACTERISTICS AND ATTERBERG LIMITS OF FINE GRAINED SOILS

Table E.9.2. Detail of STANDARD COMPACTION for Bole 3 m soil

Description Moisture content determination
Trial no. 1 2 3 4
Can no. B4 F7 H4 H3
Mass of can, g 15 15 15 15
Mass of can + wet soil, g 152.3 132.6 133.6 112.3
Mass of can + dry soil, g 122.0 104.2 102.0 84.2
Mass of water, g 30.3 28.4 31.6 28.1
Mass of dry soil, g 107.1 89.0 87.2 69.1
Water content, % 28.3 31.9 36.2 40.6
Description Dry density determination
Trial no. 1 2 3 4
Mass of mold, g 3006 3006 3006 3006
Mass of mold + compacted soil, g 4350 4525 4625 4600
Mass of compacted soil, g 1344 1519 1619 1594
Volume of mold, cm3 944 944 944 945
Bulk density, g/cm3 1.42 1.61 1.72 1.69
Dry density, g/cm3 1.11 1.22 1.26 1.20

Compaction curve
1.28
1.26
Dry density (g/cm3)

1.24
1.22
1.20
1.18
1.16
1.14
1.12
1.10
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0
Moisture content (%)
Figure E.9.2 compaction curve for Bole 3 m so il

From the graph

OMC 35 %
MDD 1.26 g/cc

108
 CORRELATION BETWEEN COMPACTION CHARACTERISTICS AND ATTERBERG LIMITS OF FINE GRAINED SOILS

E.10. SHIROMEDA SITE PROCTOR RESULT

Table E.10.1 Detail of STANDARD COMPACTION for Shiromeda 1.5 m soil

Description Moisture content determination
Trial no. 1 2 3 4
Can no. A3 S2 F5 K4
Mass of can, g 43 37 32 34
Mass of can + wet soil, g 184.2 125.6 144.1 145.8
Mass of can + dry soil, g 160.6 109.8 121.3 119.6
Mass of water, g 23.6 15.8 22.8 26.2
Mass of dry soil, g 117.3 73.2 88.9 85.2
Water content, % 20.1 21.6 25.6 30.8
Description Dry density determination
Trial no. 1 2 3 4
Mass of mold, g 3006 3006 3006 3006
Mass of mold + compacted soil, g 4595 4675 4795 4565
Mass of compacted soil, g 1589 1669 1789 1559
Volume of mold, cm3 944 944 944 945
Bulk density, g/cm3 1.68 1.77 1.90 1.65
Dry density, g/cm3 1.40 1.45 1.51 1.26

Compaction curve
1.55
1.50
Dry density (g/cm3)

1.45
1.40
1.35
1.30
1.25
1.20
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0
Moisture content (%)
Figure E.10.1 compaction curve for Shiromeda1.5 m soil

From the graph

OMC 25.1 %
MDD 1.51 g/cc

109
 CORRELATION BETWEEN COMPACTION CHARACTERISTICS AND ATTERBERG LIMITS OF FINE GRAINED SOILS

Table E.10.2 Detail of STANDARD COMPACTION for Shiromeda 3m soil

Description Moisture content determination
Trial no. 1 2 3 4
Can no. Q7 J9 G3 Y5
Mass of can, g 14.9 15.5 14.6 15.0
Mass of can + wet soil, g 123.6 114.8 125.4 109.7
Mass of can + dry soil, g 107.0 96.0 101.8 87.0
Mass of water, g 16.6 18.8 23.6 22.7
Mass of dry soil, g 92.1 80.5 87.2 72.0
Water content, % 18.0 23.3 27.1 31.5
Description Dry density determination
Trial no. 1 2 3 4
Mass of mold, g 3006 3006 3006 3006
Mass of mold + compacted soil, g 4455 4685 4770 4715
Mass of compacted soil, g 1449 1679 1764 1709
Volume of mold, cm3 944 944 944 945
Bulk density, g/cm3 1.53 1.78 1.87 1.81
Dry density, g/cm3 1.30 1.44 1.47 1.37

Compaction curve
1.50
1.48
1.46
Dry density (g/cm3)

1.44
1.42
1.40
1.38
1.36
1.34
1.32
1.30
1.28
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0
Moisture content (%)

Figure E.10.2. Compaction curve for Shiromeda 3 m soil

From the graph

OMC 26.4 %
MDD 1.47 g/cc

110
 CORRELATION BETWEEN COMPACTION CHARACTERISTICS AND ATTERBERG LIMITS OF FINE GRAINED SOILS

Table E.11. Detail of STANDARD COMPACTION for Akaki for validation soil
Description Moisture content determination
Trial no. 1 2 3 4
Can no. B4 F7 H4 H3
Mass of can, g 32.10 37.80 42.30 35.90
Mass of can + wet soil, g 207.30 224.60 216.40 211.90
Mass of can + dry soil, g 172.40 181.20 172.20 161.50
Mass of water, g 34.90 43.40 44.20 50.40
Mass of dry soil, g 140.30 143.40 129.90 125.60
Water content, % 25 30 34 40
Description Dry density determination
Trial no. 1 2 3 4
Mass of mold, g 3006.00 3006.00 3006.00 3006.00
Mass of mold + compacted soil, g 4435.00 4575.00 4635.00 4655.00
Mass of compacted soil, g 1429.00 1569.00 1629.00 1649.00
Volume of mold, cm3 948.00 948.00 948.00 948.00
Bulk density, g/cm3 1.51 1.66 1.72 1.74
Dry density, g/cm3 1.21 1.27 1.28 1.24

Compaction curve

1.29
1.28
Dry density (g/cm3

1.27
1.26
1.25
1.24
1.23
1.22
1.21
1.20
0 10 20 30 40 50
Moisture content (%)
Figure E.11. Compaction curve for Akaki for validation curve so il

From the graph

OMC 33 %
MDD 1.28 g/cc

111
 CORRELATION BETWEEN COMPACTION CHARACTERISTICS AND ATTERBERG LIMITS OF FINE GRAINED SOILS

APPENDIX F: DETAILS OF SPSS REGRESSION ANALYSIS OUTPUTS

112
 CORRELATION BETWEEN COMPACTION CHARACTERISTICS AND ATTERBERG LIMITS OF FINE GRAINED SOILS

F1. Details of SPSS regression analysis outputs

 From primary(20) data
Model 1.OMC from PL and PI

Table F1.Summary of coefficients in predicting OMC from PI & PL

Coefficientsa
Model Standardized
Unstandardized Coefficients Coefficients
B Std. Error Beta t Sig.
1 (Constant) 1.496 2.448 .611 .549
PL .708 .105 .783 6.709 .000
PI .084 .047 .207 1.774 .094
a. Dependent Variable: OMC (%)

OMC = 1.496 + 0.708 PL + 0.084 PI, R2 = 0.879

Model 2.OMC from LL and PL

Table F2.Summary of coefficients in predicting OMC from LL & PL

Coefficientsa
Model Standardized
Unstandardized Coefficients Coefficients
B Std. Error Beta t Sig.
2 (Constant) 1.496 2.448 .611 .549
LL .084 .047 .279 1.774 .094
PL .624 .142 .690 4.390 .000
a. Dependent Variable: OMC (%)
OMC = 1.496 + 0.084 LL + 0.624 PL, R2 = 0.879

Model 3.OMC from LL and PI

Table F3.Summary of coefficients in predicting OMC from LL & PI

Coefficientsa
Model Standardized
Unstandardized Coefficients Coefficients
B Std. Error Beta t Sig.
3 (Constant) 1.496 2.448 .611 .549
LL .708 .105 2.363 6.709 .000
PI -.624 .142 -1.546 -4.390 .000

113
 CORRELATION BETWEEN COMPACTION CHARACTERISTICS AND ATTERBERG LIMITS OF FINE GRAINED SOILS

Coefficientsa
Model Standardized
Unstandardized Coefficients Coefficients
B Std. Error Beta t Sig.
3 (Constant) 1.496 2.448 .611 .549
LL .708 .105 2.363 6.709 .000
PI -.624 .142 -1.546 -4.390 .000
a. Dependent Variable: OMC (%)
OMC = 1.496 + 0.708LL - 0.624 PI, R2 = 0.879
Model 4.MDD from PL and PI

Table F4.Summary of coefficients in predicting MDD from PL & PI

Coefficientsa
Model Standardized
Unstandardized Coefficients Coefficients
B Std. Error Beta t Sig.
4 (Constant) 21.829 .907 24.055 .000
PL -.189 .039 -.669 -4.841 .000
PI -.039 .017 -.310 -2.243 .039
a. Dependent Variable: MDD (Kg/m3)
MDD = 21.829 – 0.189 PL – 0.039 PI, R2 = 0.831

Model 5.MDD from LL and PL

Table F5.Summary of coefficients in predicting MDD from LL & PL

Coefficientsa
Model Standardized
Unstandardized Coefficients Coefficients
B Std. Error Beta t Sig.
5 (Constant) 21.829 .907 24.055 .000
LL -.039 .017 -.418 -2.243 .039
PL -.150 .053 -.531 -2.849 .011
a. Dependent Variable: MDD (Kg/m3)
MDD = 21.829 – 0.039 LL – 0.150 PL, R2 = 0.83

114
 CORRELATION BETWEEN COMPACTION CHARACTERISTICS AND ATTERBERG LIMITS OF FINE GRAINED SOILS

Model 6.MDD from LL and PI

Table F6.Summary of coefficients in predicting MDD from LL & PI

Coefficientsa
Model Standardized
Unstandardized Coefficients Coefficients
B Std. Error Beta t Sig.
6 (Constant) 21.829 .907 24.055 .000
PI .150 .053 1.189 2.849 .011
LL -.189 .039 -2.020 -4.841 .000
a. Dependent Variable: MDD (Kg/m3)
MDD = 21.829 – 0.189 LL + 0.15 PI, R2 = 0.831

 From Primary and Secondary data

Model 7.OMC from PL and LL

Table F7.Summary of coefficients in predicting OMC from LL & PL
Coefficientsa
Model Standardized
Unstandardized Coefficients Coefficients
B Std. Error Beta t Sig.
7 (Constant) -.875 1.799 -.487 .629
LL -.030 .027 -.083 -1.086 .282
PL .946 .077 .948 12.360 .000
a. Dependent Variable: OMC (%)
OMC = -0.875 – 0.030LL + 0.946PL R2 = 0.807

Model 8.OMC from PL and PI

Table F8.Summary of coefficients in predicting OMC from LL & PL

Coefficientsa
Model Standardized
Unstandardized Coefficients Coefficients
B Std. Error Beta t Sig.
8 (Constant) -.875 1.799 -.487 .629
PL .916 .063 .918 14.446 .000
PI -.030 .027 -.069 -1.086 .282
a. Dependent Variable: OMC (%)
OMC = -0.875 + 0.916PL - 0.030PI R2 = 0.807

115
 CORRELATION BETWEEN COMPACTION CHARACTERISTICS AND ATTERBERG LIMITS OF FINE GRAINED SOILS

Model 9.OMC from LL and PI

Table F9.Summary of coefficients in predicting OMC from LL & PI

Coefficientsa
Model Standardized
Unstandardized Coefficients Coefficients
B Std. Error Beta t Sig.
9 (Constant) -.875 1.799 -.487 .629
LL .916 .063 2.576 14.446 .000
PI -.946 .077 -2.204 -12.360 .000
a. Dependent Variable: OMC (%)
OMC = -0.875 + 0.916LL - 0.946PI R2 = 0.807

Model 10.MDD from LL and PL

Table F10.Summary of coefficients in predicting MDD from LL & PL

Coefficientsa
Model Standardized
Unstandardized Coefficients Coefficients
B Std. Error Beta t Sig.
10 (Constant) 21.182 .565 37.461 .000
LL -.027 .009 -.306 -3.188 .002
PL -.153 .024 -.611 -6.362 .000
a. Dependent Variable: MDD (Kg/m3)
MDD = 21.182 – 0.027LL – 0.153PL R2 = 0.698

Model 11.MDD from PL and PI

Table F11.Summary of coefficients in predicting MDD from PI & PL

Coefficientsa
Model Standardized
Unstandardized Coefficients Coefficients
B Std. Error Beta t Sig.
11 (Constant) 21.182 .565 37.461 .000
PL -.180 .020 -.720 -9.047 .000
PI -.027 .009 -.254 -3.188 .002
a. Dependent Variable: MDD (Kg/m3)
MDD = 21.182 – 0.18PL – 0.027PI R2 = 0.835

116
 CORRELATION BETWEEN COMPACTION CHARACTERISTICS AND ATTERBERG LIMITS OF FINE GRAINED SOILS

Model 12.MDD from LL and PI

Table F12.Summary of coefficients in predicting MDD from PI & PL

Coefficientsa
Model Standardized
Unstandardized Coefficients Coefficients
B Std. Error Beta t Sig.
12 (Constant) 21.182 .565 37.461 .000
PI .153 .024 1.421 6.362 .000
LL -.180 .020 -2.020 -9.047 .000
a. Dependent Variable: MDD (Kg/m3)
MDD = 21.182 + 0.153PI – 0.180LL R2 = 0.835

117
 CORRELATION BETWEEN COMPACTION CHARACTERISTICS AND ATTERBERG LIMITS OF FINE GRAINED SOILS

F2. Details of SPSS regression analysis outputs

F.2.1. Normality assessment of Liquid limit
Tests of Normality

a
Kolmogorov-Smirnov Shapiro-Wilk

Statistic df Sig. Statistic df Sig.

LL .095 56 .200* .968 56 .139

a. Lilliefors Significance Correction

*. This is a lower bound of the true significance.

F.2.2. Normality assessment of Plastic limit

Tests of Normality

Kolmogorov-Smirnova Shapiro-Wilk

Statistic df Sig. Statistic df Sig.

PL .107 56 .162 .948 56 .063

a. Lilliefors Significance Correction

F.2.3. Normality assessment of Plasticity index

Tests of Normality

Kolmogorov-Smirnova Shapiro-Wilk

Statistic df Sig. Statistic df Sig.

PI .163 56 .184 .931 56 .076

a. Lilliefors Significance Correction

118
 CORRELATION BETWEEN COMPACTION CHARACTERISTICS AND ATTERBERG LIMITS OF FINE GRAINED SOILS

F.2.4. Normality assessment of Optimum moisture content

Tests of Normality

a
Kolmogorov-Smirnov Shapiro-Wilk

Statistic df Sig. Statistic df Sig.

*
OMC (%) .100 56 .200 .967 56 .128

a. Lilliefors Significance Correction

*. This is a lower bound of the true significance.

F.2.5. Normality assessment of Maximum dry density

Tests of Normality

Kolmogorov-Smirnova Shapiro-Wilk

Statistic df Sig. Statistic df Sig.

MDD (Kg/m3) .130 56 .138 .934 56 .061

a. Lilliefors Significance Correction

F.2.6. Normality assessment of P200

Tests of Normality

Kolmogorov-Smirnova Shapiro-Wilk

Statistic df Sig. Statistic df Sig.

P200 .155 20 .200* .936 20 .204

a. Lilliefors Significance Correction

*. This is a lower bound of the true significance.

119
 CORRELATION BETWEEN COMPACTION CHARACTERISTICS AND ATTERBERG LIMITS OF FINE GRAINED SOILS

F.2.7. Normality assessment of P40

Tests of Normality

a
Kolmogorov-Smirnov Shapiro-Wilk

Statistic df Sig. Statistic df Sig.

*
P40 .091 20 .200 .963 20 .598

a. Lilliefors Significance Correction

*. This is a lower bound of the true significance.

F.2.8. Normality assessment of P10

Tests of Normality

Kolmogorov-Smirnova Shapiro-Wilk

Statistic df Sig. Statistic df Sig.

P10 .294 20 .18 .684 20 .071

a. Lilliefors Significance Correction

F.2.9. Normality assessment of specific gravity

Tests of Normality

Kolmogorov-Smirnova Shapiro-Wilk

Statistic df Sig. Statistic df Sig.

Gs .123 20 .200* .963 20 .611

a. Lilliefors Significance Correction

*. This is a lower bound of the true significance.

120
 CORRELATION BETWEEN COMPACTION CHARACTERISTICS AND ATTERBERG LIMITS OF FINE GRAINED SOILS

APPENDIX G: PHOTOS CAPTURED DURING EXCAVATION AND

LABORATORY TESTING

121
CORRELATION BETWEEN COMPACTION CHARACTERISTICS AND ATTERBERG LIMITS OF FINE GRAINED SOILS

Figure 4.Photo captured during excavation at Akaki site

Figure 4.Photo captured during mixing of Bole 1.5m soil for compaction

122
 CORRELATION BETWEEN COMPACTION CHARACTERISTICS AND ATTERBERG LIMITS OF FINE GRAINED SOILS

Figure 4.Photo captured during conducting Figure 4.Photo captured during compacting of
Liquid limit Asko 1.5m soil Jemo 2.8m soil

Figure 4.Photo captured during trimming of Figure 4.Photo captured during mixing of
Bole 1.5m soil for compaction Asko 1.5m soil for Liquid limit

123
 CORRELATION BETWEEN COMPACTION CHARACTERISTICS AND ATTERBERG LIMITS OF FINE GRAINED SOILS

Declaration

I, the undersigned, hereby declare that this thesis is my original work and has not been presented for
a degree in any other university, and that all sources of material used for this thesis have been duly
acknowledged.

Name: Tesfamichael Tsegaye

Signature: _______________
Date: November 2016

124