“IMPROVING OF SUB-GRADE SOIL BY STABILIZATION ”

(Second
Seminar)

Ma Mon Myat Aung

PhD.CGE-2
(Geotechnical Engineering)
Batch (Plan-B)
Department of Civil Engineering
Yangon Technological University
.9.2024
 Outline of Presentation

1. Objectives of Study

2. Location of the Study

3. Data about the Study area

4. Problem Statement

5. Methodology

6. Selection of Stabilizer

7. Testing Parameter

8. Equations and tables

9. Presentation of Laboratory Results

10. Graphical Presentation of Result Data

11. Discussion and Recommendation

 1. Objectives of The Study

 To decide the most suitable lime content to get the best results for

treated soil samples

 To improve the CBR value in order to reduce the thickness of

pavement

 To compare the results of natural and treated soil samples

 To compare a cost analysis of pavement using untreated and

treated subgrade soils

 2. Location of the Study

 The location of study is on the road of “ I Wine - Lattpan Kone - Thaike

Kone – Shwe Taung Hmaw”

 This road is located in Maubin Township, Maubin District, Ayarwaddy

Region.

 The study area is located in soft ground area of Myanmar Country.

 Materials needed for road construction such as “Laterites” are rare in

this area.

 This area is essential for the development of its surrounding region

because this road is connected to the main arterial road.

Photos of the Study Area
Photos of the Study Area
 3. Data about the Study Area

1. Length of Road = From (0/0)mile to (17/6)mile

(17)miles and (6) furlong

2. Road Class = Class A

3. Depending Village = (91) Villages

4. Depending Households = About (7500) households

5. Depending Populations = About (45000) person

6. Right of Way = (18 to 24 ) ft

7. Embankment Width = Average 12 ft

8. Embankment Height = 3 ft
 4. Problem Statement

 Subgrade is the most important part in road construction because it provides

the foundation for the overlying road layers.

 In Ayarwaddy region and also in our study area, subgrade materials are very

poor in their properties and cannot be used without any treatment.

 Thus borrowed-materials from other region, used for subgrade, have

increased significantly in price.

 Failure related to subgrade is one of the most common problems faced in this

area.
 STANDARD FOR TESTING

• Particle Size Distribution ( ASTM D-422 )

• Soil Classification ( ASTM-2487, AASHTO M 145)
• Atterberg’s Limit ( ASTM D-4318 )
• Compaction Test ( ASTM D-698)
• CBR ( ASTM D-1883)
• Free Swell Index ( IS-2720)
5. Methodology Collection of Sample
First
Laboratory Test Seminar

Soil improvement by Adding Lime with varying

portions
( i-e 4%,6%,8%....)
(Atterberg, OMC, MDD, and CBR)

UCS Value of Lime Stabilized

Soil Specimens at 28 days

Wet and Dry Cycle Test

Cost analysis of Existing

Pavement and Alternative
Pavement Designs

Results and Recommendation

Research flow chart

 7. Testing Parameters

 EDXRS test

 Specific gravity test

 Grain size analysis test

 Hydrometer analysis test

 Compaction test

 CBR test

 Atterberg’s limits tests

 Free swell test

 AASHTO Soil Classification

 USCS Soil Classification

 9. Presentation of Laboratory Results

Classification of Soil
Summary
USCS AASHTO

Group
No GS F200 OMC MDD CBR LL PL PI Swell Group Name Soil Group Material Type Subgrade Rating
Symbol

1 2.44 98.20 26.17 93.34 1.05 61.04 25.43 35.61 75.00 CH Fat Clay A-7-6 (41) Clayey Soil Fair to Poor
2 2.46 98.08 25.30 94.15 1.44 59.28 24.07 35.21 70.00 CH Fat Clay A-7-6 (40) Clayey Soil Fair to Poor
3 2.56 96.14 24.04 95.71 2.81 56.58 22.46 34.12 55.00 CH Fat Clay A-7-6 (37) Clayey Soil Fair to Poor
4 2.54 97.11 24.35 95.36 2.45 57.25 23.25 34.00 65.00 CH Fat Clay A-7-6 (37) Clayey Soil Fair to Poor
5 2.61 95.42 23.75 96.37 2.97 54.50 21.68 32.82 54.17 CH Fat Clay A-7-6 (35) Clayey Soil Fair to Poor
6 2.51 97.99 24.70 94.87 1.79 58.52 23.95 34.57 62.50 CH Fat Clay A-7-6 (39) Clayey Soil Fair to Poor
7 2.47 98.00 25.08 94.27 1.70 59.17 24.48 34.69 66.67 CH Fat Clay A-7-6 (39) Clayey Soil Fair to Poor
8 2.51 96.11 23.92 96.02 2.61 55.68 22.19 33.49 55.00 CH Fat Clay A-7-6 (36) Clayey Soil Fair to Poor
9 2.50 98.07 24.86 94.70 2.03 59.22 25.24 33.98 66.67 CH Fat Clay A-7-6 (39) Clayey Soil Fair to Poor
10 2.59 95.38 23.47 96.64 3.26 54.26 21.36 32.90 50.00 CH Fat Clay A-7-6 (35) Clayey Soil Fair to Poor
11 2.51 97.93 24.38 95.28 2.16 57.76 23.58 34.18 65.00 CH Fat Clay A-7-6 (38) Clayey Soil Fair to Poor
12 2.45 98.11 26.02 93.45 1.30 59.91 24.37 35.54 70.83 CH Fat Clay A-7-6 (40) Clayey Soil Fair to Poor
13 2.58 96.02 23.84 96.19 3.17 55.16 21.93 33.23 53.13 CH Fat Clay A-7-6 (36) Clayey Soil Fair to Poor
14 2.65 95.03 23.37 96.78 3.51 53.84 21.05 32.79 50.00 CH Fat Clay A-7-6 (34) Clayey Soil Fair to Poor
15 2.45 98.09 25.66 93.94 1.28 59.47 24.12 35.35 71.88 CH Fat Clay A-7-6 (40) Clayey Soil Fair to Poor
16 2.53 96.30 24.02 95.67 2.52 56.82 22.75 34.07 60.00 CH Fat Clay A-7-6 (37) Clayey Soil Fair to Poor

Average 2.52 97.00 24.56 95.17 2.25 57.40 23.24 34.16 61.93
 EDXRF Test Results

Quantitative Results of Soil Samples (Mineral) Quantitative Results of Soil Samples (Oxide)

Analyte Result Analyte Result

ଶ
Si 48.822 ܱܵ݅ 56.171
Al 23.459 ‫݈ܣ‬ଶ ܱ ଷ 28.255
Fe 18.861 ‫݁ܨ‬ଶ ܱ ଷ 10.470
K 5.861 ‫ܭ‬ଶ ܱ 3.186
Ti 1.402 ܱܶ݅ ଶ 0.994
Ca 1.087 ‫ܱܽܥ‬ 0.659
Mn 0.151 ‫ܱ݊ܯ‬ 0.078
Cr 0.074 ܸଶ ܱ ହ 0.053
V 0.07 ‫ܥ ݎ‬ଶ ܱ ଷ 0.045
Ni 0.062 ܱܰ݅ 0.027
Zn 0.051 ܼܱ݊ 0.021
Cu 0.038 ‫ܥ ܱݑ‬ 0.016
Sr 0.038 ܵ ‫ܱݎ‬ 0.015
Y 0.025 ܻଶ ܱ ଷ 0.011
EDXRF Test Results
(Mineral Form)
EDXRF Test Results
(Oxide Form)
 Specific Gravity Test Results
Summary
Specific Gravity Sample No.1
Sample No.
(Gs)
1 2.44 No Determination
2 2.46 1 Bottle number 1 2 3
3 2.56
2 Mass of density bottle(M1) g 28.84 28.84 28.84
4 2.54
5 2.61 3 Mass of bottle and soil (M2) g 38.84 38.83 38.83

6 2.51 4 Mass of bottle, soil and water (M3) g 134.24 134.18 134.36
7 2.47
5 Mass of bottle and water (M4) g 128.36 128.36 128.36
8 2.51
SG 2.43 2.40 2.50
9 2.50
10 2.59 2.44

11 2.51
12 2.45
13 2.58
14 2.65
15 2.45
16 2.53
 Grain Size Distribution Test Results
(Summary)

Sample No. GF (%) SF(%) M & C (%)

1 0 1.80 98.20
2 0 1.92 98.08
3 0 3.86 96.14
4 0 2.89 97.11
5 0 4.58 95.42
6 0 2.01 97.99
7 0 2.00 98.00
8 0 3.89 96.11
9 0 1.93 98.07
10 0 4.62 95.38
11 0 2.07 97.93
12 0 1.89 98.11
13 0 3.98 96.02
14 0 4.97 95.03
15 0 1.91 98.09
16 0 3.70 96.30
Average 0 3.00 97.00
 Grain Size Distribution Test Results

Sample No. 1

% of mass
Sieve Mass of soil retained Cumulative
Sieve no retained % finer
opening on each sieve % retained
on each sieve

4 4.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00

8 2.36 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00
20 0.85 0.40 0.08 0.08 99.92
40 0.425 0.60 0.12 0.20 99.80
60 0.25 1.40 0.28 0.48 99.52
100 0.15 1.70 0.34 0.82 99.18
140 0.106 2.20 0.44 1.26 98.74
200 0.075 2.70 0.54 1.80 98.20
R200 9 1.8
F200 491 98.2
R4 0 0
PAN 491 98.2
GF 0.00%
SF 1.80%
S&C 98.20%
 Hydrometer Analysis Test Result
Sample No.1
Weight of Soil (Ws) 50
zero correction 4
meniscus correction 1
K 0.0143
a 1.06
Ct 0
Hydrometer No. 152 H
Temperature (⁰C) 20
time
Ra Rc % Finer R L L/t D(mm)
(min)

0.5 49.00 45 95.40 50 8.1 4.025 0.058

1 48.00 44 93.28 49 8.3 2.881 0.041
2 48.00 44 93.28 49 8.3 2.037 0.029
4 47.00 43 91.16 48 8.4 1.449 0.021
8 47.00 43 91.16 48 8.4 1.025 0.015
15 45.00 41 86.92 46 8.8 0.766 0.011
30 45.00 41 86.92 46 8.8 0.542 0.008
60 44.00 40 84.80 45 8.9 0.385 0.006
120 42.00 38 80.56 43 9.2 0.277 0.004
240 40.00 36 76.32 41 9.6 0.200 0.003
480 38.00 34 72.08 39 9.9 0.144 0.002
960 36.00 32 67.84 37 10.2 0.103 0.001
1440 32.00 28 59.36 33 10.9 0.087 0.001
2880 28.00 24 50.88 29 11.5 0.063 0.001
5760 25.00 21 44.52 26 12 0.046 0.001
7200 23.00 19 40.28 24 12.4 0.041 0.001
8640 22.50 19 39.22 24 12.4 0.038 0.001
10080 22.00 18 38.16 23 12.5 0.035 0.001
11520 21.00 17 36.04 22 12.7 0.033 0.000
Combined Test Results Graph of Grain Size and Hydrometer
Analysis
Grain Size Distribution Curve (Sample No.1)

120.00

100.00

80.00
Percent Finer (%)

60.00

40.00

20.00

0.00
10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001 0.000
Particle Size (mm)
 Compaction Test Results
(Summary)
Sample No. OMC (%) MDD (lb/cuft)
1 26.17 93.34
2 25.30 94.15
3 24.04 95.71
4 24.35 95.36
5 23.75 96.37
6 24.70 94.87
7 25.08 94.27
8 23.92 96.02
9 24.86 94.70
10 23.47 96.64
11 24.38 95.28
12 26.02 93.45
13 23.84 96.19
14 23.37 96.78
15 25.66 93.94
16 24.02 95.67
Average 24.56 95.17
 Compaction Test Results
Sample No.1
wt of wet sample and mould 5928 6013 6058 6044 6033
wt of mould 4315 4315 4315 4315 4315
wt of wet sample 1613 1698 1743 1729 1718
volume of sample 14.8 14.8 14.8 14.8 14.8
wet unit wt 108.99 114.73 117.77 116.82 116.08
can no X8 A3 Z1 25 47 51 C6 Ka F1 47
wt of wet sample and can 71.87 73.21 60.15 61.22 72.66 59.76 73.44 60.45 73.19 72.33
wt of dry sample and can 63.11 64.37 50.75 51.67 62.35 49.33 62.43 49.51 61.53 60.89
wt of can 21.87 23.21 10.15 11.22 22.66 9.76 23.44 10.45 23.19 22.33
wt of water 8.76 8.84 9.40 9.55 10.31 10.43 11.01 10.94 11.66 11.44
wt of dry sample 41.24 41.16 40.60 40.45 39.69 39.57 38.99 39.06 38.34 38.56
moisture content 21.24 21.48 23.15 23.61 25.98 26.36 28.24 28.01 30.41 29.67
avg moisture content 21.36 23.38 26.17 28.12 30.04
dry unit weight 89.80 92.99 93.34 91.18 89.27

Compaction Test (Sample No.1)

94.00
93.00
Dry Density (lb/cuft)

92.00
91.00
90.00
89.00
88.00
87.00
15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 35.00
Moisture Content (%)
 CBR Test Results
Summary
Sample No. CBR Value Sample No.1
For CBR Test Specimen (Lower)
1 1.05
2 1.44 2.5 mm penetration 1.16
3 2.81 5 .0 mm penetration 0.78
4 2.45
5 2.97 For CBR Test Specimen (Upper)
6 1.79
2.5 mm penetration 1.16
7 1.70
5 .0 mm penetration 1.08
8 2.61
9 2.03
10 3.26 CBR 1.05
11 2.16
12 1.30
13 3.17
14 3.51
15 1.28
16 2.52
Average 2.25
 Atterberg’s Limit Test Results
Summary
Sample No. Liquid Limit Plastic Limit Plasticty Index Sample No.1 Liquid Limit Test Plastic Limit Test
Dish no 12 14 AB A1 10
1 61.04 25.43 35.61
54.60 50.60 54.00 28.99 30.30
2 59.28 24.07 35.21 Wt of wet soil and dish (gm)
3 56.58 22.46 34.12 Wt of dry soil and dish (gm) 37.70 35.60 37.90 25.21 26.54
4 57.25 23.25 34.00 Wt of water (gm) 16.90 15.00 16.10 3.78 3.76

5 54.50 21.68 32.82 Wt of dish (gm) 11.00 11.10 10.80 10.40 11.70

6 58.52 23.95 34.57 Wt of dry soil (gm) 26.70 24.50 27.10 14.81 14.84

Moisture Content (%) 63.30 61.22 59.41 25.52 25.34

7 59.17 24.48 34.69
No of blows 15 24 34
8 55.68 22.19 33.49

9 59.22 25.24 33.98

ATTERBERG LIMITS TEST
10 54.26 21.36 32.90 (Sample No.1)
11 57.76 23.58 34.18 64.00
Moisture Content(%)

63.00
12 59.91 24.37 35.54
62.00
13 55.16 21.93 33.23 61.00
60.00
14 53.84 21.05 32.79
59.00
15 59.47 24.12 35.35 58.00
57.00
16 56.82 22.75 34.07 1 10 100
No of blow
Average 57.40 23.24 34.16
 Free Swell Test Results

Summary
Sample No. Free Swell Index Sample No.1
1 75.00
2 70.00 21
3 55.00
4 65.00
5 54.17 12
6 62.50
7 66.67
Free Swell Index 75.00
8 55.00
9 66.67
10 50.00
11 65.00
12 70.83
13 53.13
14 50.00
15 71.88
16 60.00

Average 61.93
 AASHTO Soil Classification
AASHTO Soil Classification
Sample F200 Material Type GI Soil Group Material Type Subgrade Rating
1 98.20>35 Fine grained 41 A-7-6 (41) Clayey Soil Fair to Poor

2 98.08>35 Fine grained 40 A-7-6 (40) Clayey Soil Fair to Poor

3 96.14>35 Fine grained 37 A-7-6 (37) Clayey Soil Fair to Poor

4 97.11>35 Fine grained 37 A-7-6 (37) Clayey Soil Fair to Poor

5 95.42>35 Fine grained 35 A-7-6 (35) Clayey Soil Fair to Poor

6 97.99>35 Fine grained 39 A-7-6 (35) Clayey Soil Fair to Poor

7 98.00>35 Fine grained 39 A-7-6 (39) Clayey Soil Fair to Poor

8 96.11>35 Fine grained 36 A-7-6 (36) Clayey Soil Fair to Poor

9 98.07>35 Fine grained 39 A-7-6 (39) Clayey Soil Fair to Poor

10 95.38>35 Fine grained 35 A-7-6 (35) Clayey Soil Fair to Poor

11 97.93>35 Fine grained 38 A-7-6 (38) Clayey Soil Fair to Poor

12 98.11>35 Fine grained 40 A-7-6 (40) Clayey Soil Fair to Poor

13 96.02>35 Fine grained 36 A-7-6 (36) Clayey Soil Fair to Poor

14 95.03>35 Fine grained 34 A-7-6 (34) Clayey Soil Fair to Poor

15 98.09>35 Fine grained 40 A-7-6 (40) Clayey Soil Fair to Poor

16 96.30>35 Fine grained 37 A-7-6 (37) Clayey Soil Fair to Poor

 USCS Soil Classification
USCS Soil Classification

Group
No R200 Soil R4 0.5R200 Soil Type LL PI R200 Group Name
Symbol

1 1.80<50 Fine grained soil 0.00 0.90>R4 Fine Grain Inorganic Soil 61.04 35.61 CH 1.80<15 Fat Clay

2 1.92<50 Fine grained soil 0.00 0.96>R4 Fine Grain Inorganic Soil 59.28 35.21 CH 1.92<15 Fat Clay

3 3.86<50 Fine grained soil 0.00 1.93>R4 Fine Grain Inorganic Soil 56.58 34.12 CH 3.86<15 Fat Clay

4 2.89<50 Fine grained soil 0.00 1.45>R4 Fine Grain Inorganic Soil 57.25 34.00 CH 2.89<15 Fat Clay

5 4.58<50 Fine grained soil 0.00 2.29>R4 Fine Grain Inorganic Soil 54.50 32.82 CH 4.58<15 Fat Clay

6 2.01<50 Fine grained soil 0.00 1.01>R4 Fine Grain Inorganic Soil 58.52 34.57 CH 2.01<15 Fat Clay

7 2.00<50 Fine grained soil 0.00 1.00>R4 Fine Grain Inorganic Soil 59.17 34.69 CH 2.00<15 Fat Clay

8 3.89<50 Fine grained soil 0.00 1.95>R4 Fine Grain Inorganic Soil 55.68 33.49 CH 3.89<15 Fat Clay

9 1.93<50 Fine grained soil 0.00 0.96>R4 Fine Grain Inorganic Soil 59.22 33.98 CH 1.93<15 Fat Clay

10 4.62<50 Fine grained soil 0.00 2.31>R4 Fine Grain Inorganic Soil 54.26 32.90 CH 4.62<15 Fat Clay

11 2.07<50 Fine grained soil 0.00 1.04>R4 Fine Grain Inorganic Soil 57.76 34.18 CH 2.07<15 Fat Clay

12 1.89<50 Fine grained soil 0.00 0.95>R4 Fine Grain Inorganic Soil 59.91 35.54 CH 1.89<15 Fat Clay

13 3.98<50 Fine grained soil 0.00 1.99>R4 Fine Grain Inorganic Soil 55.16 33.23 CH 3.98<15 Fat Clay

14 4.97<50 Fine grained soil 0.00 2.49>R4 Fine Grain Inorganic Soil 53.84 32.79 CH 4.97<15 Fat Clay

15 1.91<50 Fine grained soil 0.00 0.95>R4 Fine Grain Inorganic Soil 59.47 35.35 CH 1.91<15 Fat Clay

16 3.70<50 Fine grained soil 0.00 1.85>R4 Fine Grain Inorganic Soil 56.82 34.07 CH 3.70<15 Fat Clay
 10. Graphical Presentation of Result Data

Specific Gravity Test Results

2.70
2.65
2.65
2.61
2.60 2.59 2.58
2.56
2.55 2.54 2.53
2.51 2.51 2.50 2.51
2.50 2.47
2.46 2.45 2.45
Specific Gravity
2.45 2.44

2.40

2.35

2.30
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Sample No.
 Grain Size Distribution Curve (Grain Size + Hydrometer)

120.00

100.00
Sample No.1
Sample No.2
Sample No.3
80.00 Sample No.4
Sample No.5
Sample No.6
Percent Finer (%)

Sample No.7
60.00 Sample No.8
Sample No.9
Sample No.10
Sample No.11
Sample No.12
40.00
Sample No.13
Sample No.14
Sample No.15
Sample No.16
20.00

0.00
10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001 0.000

Particle Size (mm)

 Presentation of OMC and MDD Test
Results
16
15
14
13
12
11
10 MDD (lb/cuft)
Sample No.

OMC (%)
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1

0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00

 Graphical Presentation of CBR Test
Results

4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0 CBR Value

1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Sample No.
 Graphical Presentation of Atterberg’s
70.0
Limit Test Results

60.0

50.0

40.0

30.0 Liquid Limit

(%)
Plastic Limit
20.0 (%)

10.0

0.0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Sample No.
 Graphical Presentation of Free Swell
Test Results
80.0

70.0

60.0

50.0

Free Swell (%)

40.0

30.0

20.0

10.0

0.0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Sample No.
 According to the laboratory result data, the average values for each testing
parameter are as follow,

Sr. Testing Parameter Average Result

No. Value

1 Specific gravity 2.52

2 % finer than No.200(F200) 97.00 %
3 Optimum moisture content 24.56 %
4 Maximum dry density 95.17 lb/cuft
5 CBR 2.25
6 Liquid Limit 57.40
7 Plastic Limit 23.24
8 Plasticity index (PI) 34.16
9 Free Swell 61.93%
 According to this data, the properties of soil in this study area are in the range of

clay soil in AASHTO soil classification system and fat clay in USCS soil

classification system.

 This soil types are too poor in subgrade rating.

 Because the soil is clay, lime will be the most suitable stabilizing agent.

 Thus, if this soil is chosen as a subgrade material, they have to be treated and

stabilized by lime with a suitable percent.

 If this embankment soil is well stabilized with lime, it will be a good subgrade for

road construction in this area.

 Thus, transportation fees of borrowed-material used for subgrade will be fairly

reduced.
 4%

Figure Chart for the initial determination of lime content ( US

Corp of Army )
CBR TESTING EQUIPMENTS
LIQUID LIMIT AND LIME CONTENT
LIQUID LIMIT AND LIME CONTENT
PLASTIC LIMIT AND LIME CONTENT
PLASTIC LIMIT AND LIME CONTENT
PLASTIC INDEX AND LIME CONTENT
PLASTIC INDEX AND LIME CONTENT
OMC AND LIME CONTENT
OMC AND LIME CONTENT
MDD(LB/FT3) MDD AND LIME CONTENT
MDD AND LIME CONTENT
CBR AND LIME CONTENT
CBR AND LIME CONTENT
 SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS

Lime % LL PL PI 0MC MDD Soaked CBR %

0 63 18 45 20 101.9 2
4 60 28 32 21.1 98.9 12
6 58 29 29 22.2 97.9 13
8 57 31 26 23.6 95 14
10 55 33 22 24.8 93.2 16
TYPICAL DESIGN FOR WEAK SUBGRADE SOIL USES
IN DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAY
 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

• Before stabilization, CBR value of the untreated soil is about 2

%.
• According the Figure Chart for the initial determination of lime
content ( US Corp of Army ), we can start the treatment by
using lime at 4%.
• At 4%, 6%, 8%, 10% lime content, CBR values of the treated
soil will be 12%, 13%, 14%, 16%, respectively.
• According to the design for weak soil used in DOH (Directorate
of Highway), CBR value of Subgrade is about 15 %, therefore
lime content 10 % should be chosen for this research.
 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

• Before stabilization, CBR value of the untreated soil is

about 2 %.
• According to the figure, the initial lime content
determination is about 4%.
• At 4%, 6%, 8%, 10% of lime content, CBR values of the
treated soil are12%, 13%, 14% and 16%, respectively.
• According to Road Note 31, the CBR value of weak
subgrade soil is about 15 %, therefore lime content 10 %
should be used for this research.
THANK FOR YOUR
KIND ATTENTION!