Recycled Glass + PKS As Sustainable Alternative Updated Final-2 PDF

USING PALM KERNEL SHELL AND RECYCLED GLASS AS
SUSTAINABLE ALTERNATIVES TO CONSTRUCTION
AGGREGATES
By
Collins Wayebila Nyaaba
Iddrisu Issaka
Joseph Atinganeriba Aduko
Samuel Nana Kwabena Adibrosu
A Thesis Submitted to the Department of Civil Engineering, In Partial Fulfilment of the
Requirement for the Award of
HIGHER NATIONAL DIPLOMA (HND)
Civil Engineering
© July 2017
DECLARATION
We hereby declare that this submission is our own work towards the Higher National
Diploma (HND) and that, to the best of our knowledge, it contains neither a material
previously published by another person nor material which has been accepted for the
award of any other degree or diploma of the university, except where due
acknowledgement has been made in the text.
Nyaaba Collins Wayebila ……………... …………….
(Student No. 06140542) Signature Date
Aduko Atinganeriba Joseph ……………... …………….
Adibruso Samuel Nana Kwabena ……………… …………….
Iddrisu Issaka ………………. …………….
Supervised by:
Eng. Stephen Agyeman ………………. …………….
(Supervisor) Signature Date
Certified by:
Mr. Samuel Wiafe ……………...... …………….
(Head of Department) Signature Date
ii
ABSTRACT
Natural gravels are the most economical material for road construction within an
economic haulage distance in Ghana. However, there has been a gradual shift to the use
of blends of natural gravel and agricultural as well as industrial wastes such as palm kernel
shell (PKS), recycled glass (RG), rice husk ash, sugarcane bagasse ash, cow dung ash
among others as stabibization agents in road pavement applications to full-scale success
in developed countries and partial usages in developing countries. Their use in this
particular way has helped in the maintenances of environment sanity and also added more
value to these wastes by using them to stabilize unsuitable road construction materials
and rendering them most of the time suitable. This study therefore evaluated material
properties such as California bearing ratio (CBR), moisture-density relationship,
gradation and plasticity of various composite of RG and PKS, and their suitability for
used in road construction as subbase, base and fill material. Each property was compared
with G30, G40, G60 and G80 properties in the Ministry of Roads and Highway
Specifications and decisions arrived at whether the material was suitable or not. The
blending of PKS, RG and NG improved the classification of the lateritic gravel from A-
2-7 (1) soil to A-2-6 (0) soil. The addition of varied percentages of RG up to 20%
increased the MDD from 2015 to 2136 kg/m3 while the OMC decreased from 10.2 to
9.5%. The addition of RG to lateritic material improved both the plasicity and strength
(CBR) properties of the material. However, there were reductions in the MDD and CBR
values but subsequent increment in the OMC values when PKS was blended with NG
though it made the it non-plastic. At 20% partial replacement of lateritic gravel with RG
and fine RG, the results met all the G30 material requirements for used as road subbase
construction material. The plasticity indices may further be reduced if the percentages of
the substitute mixes are increased from the current 20% up to say 50%.
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DECLARATION .............................................................................................................. ii
ABSTRACT..................................................................................................................... iii
LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................... vi
LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................................... viii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS .......................................................................................... ix
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .............................................................................................. x
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................... 1
1.1 Background of the Study ............................................................................................ 1
1.2 Problem Statement ...................................................................................................... 2
1.3 Aim and Objectives .................................................................................................... 3
1.4 Significance of the Study ............................................................................................ 3
1.5 Scope of the Study ...................................................................................................... 4
1.6 Organization of Study Report ..................................................................................... 4
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW .......................................................................... 5
2.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 5
2.2 Natural Aggregate ....................................................................................................... 5
2.2.1 Engineering Characteristics of Natural Gravel .................................................... 7
2.2.2 Particle Size Distribution ..................................................................................... 7
2.2.3 Plasticity Index .................................................................................................... 8
2.2.4 California Bearing Ratio (CBR) .......................................................................... 8
2.2.5 Ten Percent Fines Value ...................................................................................... 9
2.3 Palm Kernel Shell ..................................................................................................... 10
2.4 Waste Recycled Glass ............................................................................................... 13
2.4.1 Production Procedure ......................................................................................... 14
2.4.2 Geometrical Properties ...................................................................................... 14
2.4.3 Shear Strength Behaviour of Recycled Glass .................................................... 15
2.4.4 California Bearing Ratio of Recycled Glass ...................................................... 15
2.4.5 Compaction Test ................................................................................................ 15
2.4.6 Physical and Durability Properties of Recycled Glass ...................................... 16
CHAPTER 3: MATERIALS AND METHODS ............................................................ 18
3.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 18
3.2 Field Sampling .......................................................................................................... 18
iv
3.3. Laboratory Testing ................................................................................................... 19
3.4 Analysis of Data........................................................................................................ 22
CHAPTER 4: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION.............................................................. 23
4.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 23
4.2 General Description of Test Results ......................................................................... 23
4.2.1 Natural Gravel and Recycled Glass ................................................................... 24
4.2.2 Natural Gravel and Palm Kernel Shells ............................................................. 25
4.2.3 Composite Mix Material .................................................................................... 26
4.3 Evaluation of the Blended Material as Subbase Material ......................................... 28
4.4 Evaluation of the Blended Material as Base Material .............................................. 28
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................. 29
5.1 Conclusions ............................................................................................................... 29
5.2 Recommendation ...................................................................................................... 30
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................... 31
APPENDICES ................................................................................................................ 36
Appendix A: CBR Results .......................................................................................... 37
Appendix B: Compaction Results............................................................................... 48
Appendix C: Atterberg Limits Results ....................................................................... 60
Appendix D: Grading Analysis Results and Lab Pictures .......................................... 68
v
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1. Rating of gravel aggregates ........................................................................... 10

Table 2.2. Physical properties of PKS ............................................................................ 12
Table 2.3. Physical and shear strength properties of RG ................................................ 17
Table 3.1. Laboratory testing standards for evaluating samples ..................................... 21
Table 3.2. Materials and their mixed ratios .................................................................... 21
Table 4.1. Summary of the laboratory test results and MRT spec thresholds ................ 23
Table A-1. CBR test results of 100% NG ....................................................................... 37
Table A-2. CBR test results of 90% NG + 10% RG....................................................... 38
Table A-5. CBR test results of 90% NG + 10% PKS ..................................................... 41
Table A-8. CBR test results of 90% NG + 5% RG + 5% PKS ....................................... 44
Table A-9. CBR test results of 85% NG + 7.5% RG + 7.5% PKS ................................. 45
Table A-10. CBR test results of 80% NG + 10% RG + 10% PKS ................................. 46
Table A-11. CBR test results of 85% NG + 15% FRG .................................................. 47
Table B-1. Compaction results of 100% NG .................................................................. 49
Table B-2. Compaction results of 90% NG + 10% RG .................................................. 50
Table B-5. Compaction results of 90% NG + 10% PKS ................................................ 53
Table B-8. Compaction results of 90% NG + 5% RG + 5% PKS .................................. 56
Table B-9. Compaction results of 85% NG + 7.5% + 7.5% PKS .................................. 57
Table B-10. Compaction results of 80% NG + 10% + 10% PKS .................................. 58
Table B-11. Compaction results of 85% NG + 15% FRG ............................................. 59
Table C-1. Atterberg limit test results for 100% NG ...................................................... 60
Table C-2. Atterberg limit test results for 90% NG + 10% RG...................................... 61
vi
Table C-5. Atterberg limit test results for 90% NG + 5% RG + 5% PKS ...................... 64
Table C-6. Atterberg limit test results for 85% NG + 7.5% RG + 7.5% PKS ................ 65
Table C-7. Atterberg limit test results for 80% NG + 10% RG + 10% PKS .................. 66
Table C-8. Atterberg limit test results for 85% NG + 15% FRG ................................... 67
Table D-1. Grading analysis results ................................................................................ 68
vii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 3.1. Samples of RG, PKS and NG materials ....................................................... 19

Figure 4.1. Compaction curves of the NG and composites of the waste materials ........ 25
Figure 4.2. PSD curves of tested specimens compared with MRT spec envelop........... 27
Figure A-1. CBR penetration curves for 100% NG........................................................ 37
Figure A-2. CBR penetration curves for 90% NG + 10% RG ....................................... 38
Figure A-5. CBR penetration curves for 90% NG + 10% PKS ...................................... 41
Figure A-8. CBR penetration curves for 90% NG + 5% RG + 5% PKS ....................... 44
Figure A-9. CBR penetration curves for 85% NG + 7.5% RG + 7.5% PKS ................. 45
Figure A-10. CBR penetration curves for 80% NG + 10% RG + 10% PKS ................. 46
Figure A-11. CBR penetration curves for 85% NG + 15% FRG ................................... 47
Figure B-1. Compaction curves of blends of NG + PKS................................................ 48
Figure B-2. Compaction curves of blends of NG + RG + PKS ...................................... 48
Figure C-1. LL using Casangrande method for 100% NG ............................................. 60
Figure C-2. LL using Casangrande method for 90% NG + 10% RG ............................. 61
Figure C-5. LL using Casangrande method for 90% NG + 5% RG + 5% PKS ............. 64
Figure C-6. LL using Casangrande method for 85% NG + 7.5% RG + 7.5% PKS ....... 65
Figure C-7. LL using Casangrande method for 80% NG + 10% RG + 10% PKS ......... 66
Figure C.8. LL using Casangrande method for 85% NG + 15% FRG ........................... 67
Figure D-1. Compaction works at lab…………….. ....................................................... 69
Figure D-2. Weighing of samples at lab …………….. ................................................. .69
Figure D-3. CBR readings at lab .................................................................................... 69
viii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
ASTM America Society for Testing and Materials
BAR Brong Ahafo Region
BS British Standards
CBR California Bearing Ratio
DFR Department of Feeder Roads
GHA Ghana Highway Authority
LL Liquid Limit
MDD Maximum Dry Density
MRT Ministry Roads and Highways
NG Natural Gravel
OMC Optimum Moisture Content
PI Plasticity Index
PKS Palm Kernel Shell
PL Plastic Limit
RG Recycled Glass
SG Specific Gravity
ix
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We wish to express our appreciation to our supervisor Engr. Stephen Agyeman for his
immense support, advice and direction towards the accomplishment of this project work
and also the Head of Civil Engineering Department, Mr. Samuel Wiafe for his assistance.
Our further recognition goes to others who helped in diverse ways to make this work a
success, most especially the lab Technician of Department of Feeder Roads, Mr. Alex
Boateng and Ghana Highway Authority (GHA) Materials Engineer, Ms. Andani Fushata
for their support during experimental phase of this project.
x
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of the Study
Suitable natural materials (aggregates) for construction works is difficult to come by, in
most part of Ghana and world all over. Construction works made up of materials that
are not suitable gets destroyed momentarily and due to this, road contractors have to
drive extra mile to source for suitable road construction materials. There are several
researches carried out on how to use waste materials such as, recycled glass (Ali,
Arulrajah, Disfani, & Piratheepan, 2011; Arulrajah, Ali, Disfani, & Horpibulsuk, 2014;
Arulrajah, Ali, Disfani, Piratheepan, & Bo, 2013; Disfani, 2011; Disfani, Arulrajah, Ali,
& Bo, 2011), palm kernel shells and their derivatives as viable alternative to these
natural rock aggregates (Adewale, Segun, & Ariyo, 2017; Ali et al., 2011; Edeh,
Manasseh, & Ibanga, 2012; Ezekiel & Jonathan, 2015; Ndoke, 2006b; Oyedepo,
Olanitori, & Olukanni, 2015).
Waste material is simply define as any type of material that is a by-product of human and
industrial activity that does not have any lasting value (Tam & Tam, 2006). However, the
safe disposal of these waste materials (domestic, agricultural and industrial) produced
every day and in bulky quantities are progressively becoming a major concern around the
world (Edeh et al., 2012). Therefore recycling can help reduce the demand for natural
resources while reducing the spaces required to damp them (landfill sites) (FHWA, 2016).
How to introduce the use of recycled glass (RG) and palm kernel shells (PKS) in the
construction industries has been an urgent subject in national and global cycles. Glass is
a non-metallic inorganic made by sintering selected raw materials comprising silicate and
other minor oxides that cannot be burned or easily decomposed (Wu, Yang, & Xue,
2004). Palm kernel shell on the other hand, is derivative from oil palm fruits processing.
1
These are hard, carbonaceous, organic wastes obtained after processing the palm oil fruits.
The palm oil industry produces wastes for example PKS and palm oil fibers which are
frequently dumped in the open in so doing impacting the environment negatively without
any economic benefits (Osei & Jackson, 2012; Oyedepo et al., 2015). Palm kernel shells
are not common in the construction industries (Edeh et al., 2012). This is not because they
are unavailable in very large quantities as gravel or sand but because their uses in the
construction industry have not been greatly encouraged (Ndoke, 2006). Effectively
utilization of large amount of RG and PKS in the construction industries will reduce the
demand for the space required to damp them (landfill site), reduce construction cost and
reduce the high demand of natural resources (Osei & Jackson, 2012).
Halstead (1993), conducted a research on the feasibility of using RG as supplemental
aggregates in asphalt using 15% of crushed RG, gradation control of 100% passing 9.5
mm sieve size and maximum of 8% passing 200 mm sieve size. This practically shows
that large quantity of RG will be needed as a material for road construction. There is the
need for good flexible pavement material accentuated by design guidelines, therefore
aggregate is an important ingredient in pavement structure (CWC, 1998; Edeh et al.,
2012; FDOT, 1995). This unyielding demands for these pavement materials at mostly
lead to increasingly unbalance supply for these products in constructional activities in the
road sector and thus, increasing the need for more borrow pits (Edeh et al., 2012) while
dealing with their attended environmental encumbrances (Osei & Jackson, 2012).
1.2 Problem Statement
There are numerous of solid waste generated in the Sunyani municipality, in which most
of them are RG with minimum yet substantial quantities of PKS. The situation place
worry on the people due to the negative impact imposed on the environment by these very
wastes. Again, there are rampant problems with their road network, partly due to lack of
2
suitable road construction materials (conventional ggregates) in certain parts of the
municipality. Due to this, road contractors in the municipality have to go long haulage
distances that not only uneconomical but highly unsustainable in the long run in other to
obtain suitable borrow pits for mining their road construction materials. This is simply
because roads made of unsuitable material get destroyed transitorily. Therefore, this study
sought to evaluate these unsuitable materials (wastes) to improve upon their ability to be
used as road construction material as partial replacement for natural material.
1.3 Aim and Objectives
The main aim of the study is to explore the possibilities of using RG and PKS as viable
alternatives to natural rock aggregate in road construction. The specific objectives are:
1. To identify practical technique for recycling waste glass and waste palm kernel
shells for road works.
2. To improve upon the natural gravel properties using waste RG and PKS, such that
their composite products would serve as substitute for natural gravel in road
construction.
3. To evaluate the engineering properties of natural gravel blended with RG and PKS
for use as base and subbase materials using battery of laboratory tests.
1.4 Significance of the Study
The study will minimize the environmental challenges posed by indiscriminate handling
of waste glass and waste palm kernel shells in the municipality. The study will also serve
as an assurance that, apart from the natural aggregates such as lateritic gravel, there is a
substitute to these continuously depleting material in the system. Ensure that wastes that
do not have lasting value, have value place on them, which in a long way will bring to
sustenance in Ghana, the world policy of the 3R’s (Recycle, Reduce and Reuse).
3
1.5 Scope of the Study
In this research, only laboratory tests were carried out. Validation of the lab results in a
field testing and environmental assessment tests are outside the scope of this study. The
use of partial replacement using percent increment up to 20% of RG and PKS for natural
lateritic material used as “control” in road pavement application as base course and
subbase course materials were therefore considered in this study.
1.6 Organization of Study Report
The project report is organized into of five chapters, the remaining of the chapters are
described as follows:
Chapter 2 entails the important literature associated with the study which is according to
the established objectives. The details include materials allocation, sources, quantities and
properties of the materials (natural aggregates, RG and PKS) used in research. The
sources of these secondary data included journals, books, reports and conferences
proceedings relating the area of study.
Chapter 3 consists of the materials, methods and laboratory procedures used to conduct
the experiments to achieve the objectives of the research. A review of laboratory works
conducted in accordance with practical standards, is fully discussed also in this part of
the report.
Chapter 4 is the dominant part of the study, which takes into account the presentation and
discussion of the laboratory results in line with other studies to draw comparisons and
explain deviations were applicable.
Chapter 5, which is the final chapter of the study report, encompasses the conclusions and
recommendations of the study based on the research findings.
4
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Introduction
This chapter entails the important literature associated with the study which is according
to the established objectives. The specifics include materials allocation, uses, sources,
quantities and properties of the materials (natural aggregates, RG and PKS) in line with
previous studies. The sources of these information included journals, books, working
documents, reports and conferences proceedings relating the area of study.
2.2 Natural Aggregate
The term “natural material” according to MRT (2007) specifications comprises lateritic
gravel, quarzitic gravel, calcareous gravel, soft stone, conglomerate, sand or clayey sand
or a combination of any of these materials. Natural aggregates are usually a mixture of
quartz and laterite particles in a medium of fines (Gidigasu, 1972; MRT, 2007).
Depending on the major proportion of particles of quartz and laterite, the gravel can either
be quarzitic gravel (with over 80% quartz particles), lateritic gravel (with over 80%
laterite particles) or lateritic quartic gravels (De Graft-Johnson, Bhatia, & Gidigasu, 1969;
Gidigasu, 1976, 1991; Klohn, 1977). The term “natural material” in this study report
refers always to lateritic gravel.
Laterite is a surface formation in hot and wet tropical areas, which is enriched in iron and
aluminum and develops by intensive and long lasting weathering of the underlying parent
rock. Laterites may also be defined as a “highly weathered, red subsoil material rich in
secondary oxides of iron, aluminum or both, low in bases and primary silicates, but may
contain large amounts of quartz and kaolinite. It develops in a tropical or forested warm
to temperate climate, and is a results of residual or end product of weathering” (Ampadu,
Ackah, Nimo, & Boadu, 2017; De Graft-Johnson, Bhatia, & Yeboa, 1972). Parent rock
5
is broken down in to soil through the process of physical and chemical weathering which
takes place simultaneously (Gidigasu, 1972, 1974, 1991; Giresse, 2008).
In physical weathering the rock is broken down by chemical process such as abrasion,
expansion and construction without change in the crystal structure of the product from
the parent rock. The end product includes gravel, silt sand and clay. During chemical
weathering, the minerals are attacked by water, oxygen, carbon dioxide, alkaline and acid
materials dissolve in water. The various chemical processes that take place include;
hydration, hydrolysis, oxidation, solution and carbonation. The end products are clay
minerals with a completely different crystalline structure from the parent rock (Ampadu
et al., 2017). Gravel is an essential commercial product with numerous uses. Most of our
roadways are surfaced with gravel mostly in rural areas, where traffic is low. Globally,
most roadways are surfaced with gravel than with concrete or tarmac. Russia alone has
more than 400,000 km of roads surfaced with gravel. Also, gravel is also important in
concrete production. Large gravel deposits are a common geological feature, being
formed as a result of weathering and erosion of rocks. The action of rivers and waves tend
to pile up gravel in large accumulations (Hogan, 2010).
Gravel is formed by unconsolidated rock fragment that have a general particle size range
and include size classes from granular to boulder sized fragments. Gravel can be sub-
categorized into granule (>2 to 64 mm) and boulder (>64 to 256 mm). One cubic yard of
gravel typically weighs about 3000 lb (or a m3 is about 1,800 kg) (Gbeve, 2013; Hogan,
2010; Klohn, 1977).
6
De Graft-Johnson, Bhatia, and Gidigasu (1969), classified gravel in the country according
to their physical and mechanical characteristics follows:
 Nodular or concretionary laterites.
 Iron stone hard pans or cap rock.
 Ground water laterites with detrital quartz.
 Colluvial and terrace laterites.
2.2.1 Engineering Characteristics of Natural Gravel
The geotechnical engineering behavior of laterite material depend mainly on the genesis
and degree of weathering (Gidigasu, 1974). And again, the quality and type of soil
depends also on the parent material from which the soils are derived (Giresse, 2008).
Usually quarzitic gravels show better engineering characteristics than lateritic gravel. The
best soils are found at high altitudes (Guinea Mountains, Ghana-Togo and Atkora
Mountains, Cameroon Mountains, and Adamawa block). They are deep loamy soils
derived from basalts and other Tertiary volcanic rocks. They are generally well drained
but liable to erosion by gullies (as along the Mbam River, Cameroon). These soils are
highly variable (Giresse, 2008).
2.2.2 Particle Size Distribution
In Ghana, generally quarzitic gravel are well graded with fines content of between 5 and
25%, whereas, lateritic gravels are poorly graded with deficiency in the sand fraction
content and that may be as much as 40% (Gidigasu, 1972). According to this researcher,
particle size distribution (PSD) envelopes typically of concretionary laterite and quarzitic
gravel identified in West Africa superimposed on Ministry of Roads and Highway (MRT)
grading curves for subbase and base, lie within the lower limits of the envelopes for
subbase and base for sieves ranging from 0.075 mm to 3 mm. This is the same for the
7
upper limit of the base and subbase envelopes but more extensive for the entire sieve sizes
for the base envelope. This means they will have more natural gravel material meeting
the requirement for concretionary laterite and quarzitic gravel but falling for that of base
and subbase. Asserted by Arm (2003), stiffness, stability and load bearing capacity
properties etc., are dependent on the compaction results, which is in turn dependent on
the PSD and the particle shape.
2.2.3 Plasticity Index
Studies on lateritic by Gidigasu (1976), have revealed that there is a correlation between
the clay content and plasticity index (PI) for laterite soils. The average curves between
the clay content and the PI of a number of residual soils shows that the higher the degree
of leaching and laterization, the less the influence of the amount of clay content on the
PI. This may be explained in terms of the clay mineral coating by sesquioxides, which
tend to suppress the surface activity of the clay minerals (Ampadu & Fiadjoe, 2015;
Gidigasu, 1976).
It would appear from the discussion that the PI for laterite soils can be interpreted in the
light of the genesis, the degree of weathering and the clay mineralogy as well as the clay
size content. From the inter-relationships between the PI on one hand, and the above
factor on the other hand, several geotechnical characteristics can be evaluated for residual
laterite and non-laterite soils using the PI (Ampadu et al., 2017; Gidigasu, 1976).
2.2.4 California Bearing Ratio (CBR)
The extensive evaluation of California Bearing Ratio (CBR) values for laterite soils by
Gidigasu (1976) has shown that, the stability characteristics of laterite soils may be
reliably evaluated for highway and airfield-construction purposes using the CBR test.
Various periods of soaking the soil specimen before testing has been suggested depending
8
on the nature of the local climate conditions. For instance, under semi-arid conditions 24
to 28 hours soaking has been found to quite adequately depict the field-moisture
conditions (Ampadu et al., 2017; Ampadu & Fiadjoe, 2015; Toll, 2015). Gidigasu (1976)
found that CBR values of some compacted laterite gravels and quarzitic soils which were
soaked 4 days depend on the degree of compaction and mainly the content of
concretionary particles as well as the plasticity of the fines. Lateritic gravel which contain
about 75% of the concretionary pisoliths, about 25% fines, and with a PI of about 7%,
generally provide the most satisfactory base course material for roads pavements
(Ampadu et al., 2017; Ampadu & Fiadjoe, 2015).
These materials give fairly high CBR values of about 80% or more when soaked for 96
hours (Gidigasu, 1976). It was also noted that gravely laterite soils with either too much
or too little content of fines to act as binders are dusty in the dry season and slippery in
the wet season when used as a base course for gravel roads (Gidigasu, 1976). Most
concretionary gravels appear to have a wide range of CBR values in relation to their
genetic origin and PSD characteristics as well as the degree of compaction and molding
moisture contents.
2.2.5 Ten Percent Fines Value
The strength of laterite gravel aggregates express in terms of 10% fines value is known
to increase with the sesquioxide (Fe2 O3 ) content and also increase with the age of the
aggregates (Gidigasu, 1972). The high content of the sesquioxide in manifested by high
specific gravity values of the order of 2.9 to 3.5 of the gravel aggregate depends on the
parent rock and the degree of laterisation. De Graft-Johnson et al. (1969) indicated that,
the strength of lateritic gravel aggregates is the best basis for predicting the behavior of
the material in the field. They also established that, there is positive correlation between
9
iron- silicate oxide ratio and the strength of lateritic gravel aggregates. Laterite aggregates
gain strength when subjected to heat treatment. Laterite aggregates loses strength with
water absorption.
The study of the engineering characteristics of natural gravels in the country by De Graft-
Johnson et al. (1969) indicated that, a gravel material suitable for road pavement
construction must have a maximum aggregate impact value of 40% for such a material to
be less susceptible to weathering and mechanical degradation. Bhatia and Hammond
(1970) reviewed the rating of gravels for weathering characteristics and mechanical
strength as presented in Table 2.1. Quartz gravels generally show adequate strength
making them good road subbase, base and surfacing material.
Table 2.1. Rating of gravel aggregates
Quality Rating Aggregate Impact Value (AIV) (%)

Excellent for road pavement 35
Good for road pavement 35-40
Average, generally unsuitable for Road pavement 40-50
Very poor for road pavement 50
(Source: De Graft-Johnson et al., 1969)
2.3 Palm Kernel Shell
Palm kernel shells refers to the by-product of the oil palm fruits. After removing the fruits
within its inner nuts, the remaining outer cover is regarded as waste (Adetoro & Adam,
2007; Alengaram, Muhit, & Jumaat, 2013; Edeh Joseph et al., 2012; Ezekiel & Jonathan,
2015). In Ghana, the production of palm trees is not widely spread yet experiences an
abysmal increment though not almost every part of the country cultivates them.
According to local statistics, these palm plant species flourish well in southern part of
Ghana comparable to other parts. The Brong Ahafo region forms part when it comes to
10
ranking of percentages of production the palm oil from the oil palm fruits. In the year
2007, there was a percentage rise of 7% as compared to the year 2000 which was 3.1%,
while the year 2015 percentage increase was 14.6% across the country. According to the
processors in Sunyani municipality, after the inner nuts are removed for processing, the
remains outer shells are hipped, in large quantities and used to aid burning and as “filling
materials”.
According to Osei and Jackson (2012), these hard, carbonaceous, organic waste are used
indigenously as fuel by local blacksmiths in their casting and forging operations as fill
material or as palliatives. The PKS are also used as a source of fuel for boilers, where
residual is disposed of as gravel for plantation and roads maintenance (Ekeocha &
Agwuncha, 2014). The PKS are in addition renewable fuel for burning “as received” both
in co-firing with steam coal at biomass power plant, usually blended with other grades of
biomass like wood chips. Furthermore, they can be used as dust control palliative on an
unpaved road (Ndoke, 2006).
Uses of this by-product have been evaluated by various researchers as substitutes to
conventional materials for possible uses as fill material for road works, ordinary concrete
for both road pavement and building construction. Adetoro and Oladapo (2015)
conducted laboratory tests to analyze the effects of PKS and sawdust ashes (SDA) on the
geotechnical properties of the soil samples in Nigeria. One of their research outcomes
was that PKS as stabilizer has more effects on the soil samples than the SDA additive.
Similarly, Adewale et al. (2017) evaluated structurally the effect of pulverized PKS on
cement-modified lateritic soil sample, and concluded that properties of the lateritic soil
improved when stabilized with cement and pulverized PKS.
11
Alengaram et al. (2013) and Osei and Jackson (2012) investigated the feasibilities of
utilizing PKS as lightweight and coarse aggregates in concrete and their study outcomes
were successful. Their respective studies identified possible cost savings in substituting
granite with PKS. The effects of PKS in lateritic soil for asphalt stabilization was also
studied by Amu, Adeyeri, Haastrup, and Eboru (2008), while Edeh Joseph et al. (2012)
evaluated the characteristics of PKS ash when stabilized with reclaimed asphalt pavement
(RAP). Oyedepo et al. (2015) used PKS as partial replacement by weight for fine and
coarse aggregates in asphalt in their research. They concluded that these agro-based
products such as PKS can be used as partial substitute material in asphaltic concrete to
reduce the cost of construction.
Akpe (1997) conducted a research on the physical properties of PKS and derived the
following properties in Table 2.2.
Table 2.2. Physical properties of PKS

Value Akinyosoye (1976) as
Akpe (1997)
Property cited in Amu et al (2008)
Specific gravity 1.62 1.14 (apparent)
Bulk density 0.74 mg/m3 0.545 mg/m3 (loose)
Dry density 0.65 mg/m3 0.595 mg/m3
Void ratio 0.40 NA*
Porosity 9% 37%
Water absorption 14% 21.3%
Los Angeles abrasion value NA* 3.05%
Aggregate crushing value NA* 4.67%
Aggregate impact value 4.5 NA*
Compressive strength NA* 1.98 N/mm2
Thermal conductivity NA* 0.19 W m ~ oC-t
*
Not applicable
(Source: Akpe, 1997)
Some physical, engineering and geometrical properties of PKS that can be tested at the
lab include densities, water absorption, grading size distribution, specific gravities,
strength (CBR, abrasion etc.), porosity among others as presented in Table 2.2.
12
2.4 Waste Recycled Glass
Recycled glass is one of those waste materials that has being used or investigated for used
in varied civil engineering applications most especially for roadworks (Ali et al., 2011;
Arulrajah, Ali, et al., 2014; Arulrajah et al., 2013). As noted early on, RG is the mixture
of different colored glass particles which often comprise debris such as paper, food among
others (Disfani, 2011; Disfani et al., 2011). Their particles are generally angular and
contains some flat and elongated particles (Arulrajah, Ali, et al., 2014). The waste stream
from which the glass bottles have been obtained and the crushing procedure play the most
important roles on the gradation curves and flakiness indices of the RG (Lee, 2007). These
parameters subsequently affect other geotechnical characteristics of RG properties of
which vary from one supplier to the other (Lee, 2007). There are several research works
on the application of recycled glass in geotechnical engineering applications. RG can be
used as drainage material, filter media or drainage blanket (CWC, 1998; Wartman, Grubb,
& Nasim, 2004). It can also be used as a load bearing material in road pavement such as
glass concrete (“glascrete”) or glass asphalt (“glasphalt”) (Ali et al., 2011; Arulrajah,
Piratheepan, & Disfani, 2014; CWC, 1998; Lee, 2007). RG has the potential to replace
natural backfill material in trenches and behind retaining walls (Arulrajah, Ali, et al.,
2014; CWC, 1998).
Insufficient knowledge on the geotechnical engineering characteristics and environmental
suitability of RG is still the problem hindering the substantial use of this material as
sustainable alternative to natural aggregates (Arulrajah, Ali, et al., 2014; Disfani, 2011;
Disfani et al., 2011). To give better insight into the characteristic of RG, there were series
of laboratory tests that were carried out to test its viability in Victoria (Disfani et al.,
2011). Some of this very tests looked at the characterization and others evaluated
properties such as particle density, compaction, abrasion, hydraulic conductivity, CBR,
13
direct shear, and triaxial shear. The results proved that, it possess qualities as the natural
aggregate and was therefore placed in certain range for geotechnical engineering
applications (Arulrajah, Ali, et al., 2014; Disfani, 2011; Disfani et al., 2011). Wartman,
Grubb, and Nasim (2004) worked comprehensively on the engineering characteristics of
crushed glass, whereas, Wu et al. (2004) studied much into the preparation and properties
of glass-asphalt concrete.
2.4.1 Production Procedure
Municipal waste glass comprises mostly food and drinking bottles which are usually
collected at residential drop boxes (Lee, 2007). But in Ghana, majority of the waste glass
are damped at the landfill sites. Most at times, construction industries also generate waste
glass when there is maintenance works at their construction sites, typical examples are
louver blades among others. Usually the glass is crushed into smaller particles which do
not take the shape of their original form. RG is the by-product of crushing mixed color
bottles and other glass products collected from both municipal and industrial waste
streams. Waste glass represents approximately 25% of the total waste generated in Ghana
of which no use has been found for them, thereby, contributing to the cost of collecting
them to the landfill sites and been hazardous to humans’ life. It is therefore vital when it
is used to replenish the depleting natural aggregates just as other international bodies have
done (CWC, 1998; FDOT, 1995; FHWA, 2016; VicRoads, 1998).
2.4.2 Geometrical Properties
Sieve and hydrometer analysis are usually conducted on the RG to determine its PSD,
and classification type. Studies shows that fine recycled glass (FRG) is classified as a
well graded sand mixed with small quantity of silt size particles (SW–SM) while all other
RG sources are under well graded sand (SW) or well graded sand and silt mixture (SW -
SM) (Disfani, 2011; Puppala, Hoyos, & Potturi, 2011). The percentage of flat and
14
elongated particles in the mixture and the degree of angularity of the particles mainly
depends on the process of crushing (FHWA, 2016).
2.4.3 Shear Strength Behaviour of Recycled Glass
Shear strength parameters provide the basis for the prediction of the behavior of the
aggregate material under effect of imposed static or dynamic loads where the aggregate
act as a load supporting medium. Shear strength behavior may be studied through a set of
CBR, direct shear, resistance (R-value), resilient modulus and triaxial shear tests (CWC,
1998). Only CBR was used in the evaluation of the shear strength behaviour of the
composite of NG, RG and PKS.
2.4.4 California Bearing Ratio of Recycled Glass
The CBR value is an indirect measure of shear strength, which is extremely dependent on
water content as while as level of compaction (Disfani, 2011). RG compaction is usually
done using manual compaction energy and then soaked in water for 96 hours (to simulate
the likely worst case in-service scenario for pavement) under the surcharge load of 4.5 kg
(to simulate the confining effect of overlaying pavement layers) as asserted by VicRoads
(1998). Therefore, previous researches suggested that the load bearing capacity of the RG
could be improved by mixing it with aggregates that possess high strength as conventional
aggregates (Ali et al., 2011; Arulrajah, Ali, et al., 2014; Collins & Ciesielski, 1994; Ooi,
Li, Sagario, & Song, 2008; VicRoads, 1998).
2.4.5 Compaction Test
As nearly all engineering fill necessitates compaction during field placement, the
characteristics are important to the practicableness all probable RG applications. These
characteristics of engineering fill include the moisture-density relationship, the effect of
compaction method on this relationship, the potential of gradation change during the
15
compaction process, and the sensitivity of the material to weather (moisture change)
conditions. Compaction test results and curves are usually used to develop a data base for
correlation with other materials while the density results can also be compared with the
densities from the relative density tests (CWC, 1998). One advantage of using glass
aggregates is that they can be placed in the field over a wider range of moisture conditions
than natural aggregates as a results of their insensitivity to moisture content. The fines in
glass aggregate also do not clump and retain water comparable to fines in natural
aggregates. As a result, glass aggregate is unlikely to “wick” and retain water, a cause of
frost susceptibility as posited by CWC (1998). The compaction test results are also used
in the field for quality control purposes (Disfani, 2011; Lee, 2007).
2.4.6 Physical and Durability Properties of Recycled Glass
Specific gravity is a measure of a material’s density. This property is extensively used
parameter in founding the density-volume relationship of a soil mass. Typical values for
fine and coarse cullet glass as asserted by CWC (1998) ranged from 1.96 to 2.52 which
are lower when compared to that of SGs of the crushed rock and gravelly sand which
ranged from 2.60 to 2.83. Meaning more RG can be transported at relatively cheaper cost
compared with natural aggregates. SG is major baseline property since density relates
directly to engineering properties such as compaction and shear strength (CWC, 1998).
Traditionally, the durability of a material has been regarded as indispensable when
looking for good and suitable aggregate for road works. Durability usually depends on
hardness, toughness and abrasion resistance values. These hardness and toughness
properties are however closely linked. Hardness according to CWC (1998) is simply the
abrasion resistance whereas toughness is mostly the power possessed by a material to
resist fracture under impact. Tests performed on an aggregate to measure its durability
include Los Angeles Abrasion value (LAAV) test, aggregate impact value (AIV) test, ten
16
percent fines (TFV) value test and aggregate crushing value (ACV) test (Agyeman &
Ampadu, 2016). Among the above mentioned methods, the Los Angeles abrasion value
(LAAV) test is generally used in highway and materials engineering to evaluate
the abrasion resistance of aggregate materials according to Wartman et al. (2004).
Asserted by CWC (1998), the durability test results along with those of the PSD offer
valuable understanding into the aptness of the material for pavement base course and fill
under fluctuating loads. Selected physical and shear strength properties of RG according
to some prominent researchers are presented in Table 2.3.
Table 2.3. Physical and shear strength properties of RG

Value Wartman et al. Ooi et al. Disfani et al.
CWC (1998)
Property (2004) (2008) (2013)
Specific gravity 2.49 2.48-2.49 2.51-2.52 2.48
Dry density (kN/m3) 17.4-18.5 17.5-18.3 18.5 17.5
Water absorption (%) 5.2-7.5 9.7-11.2 9.7 10
Los Angeles abrasion value (%) 29.9-41.7 24-25 27-33 24.8
*
Thermal conductivity (m/sec) 6-26 E-4 1.36-6.64 E-6 NA 1.7 E-5
California bearing ratio 30-60 47-48 75-80 42-46
*
Not applicable
17
CHAPTER 3: MATERIALS AND METHODS
3.1 Introduction
The aim of this chapter is to explain how the data for the research was collected and
analysed to achieve the objectives of the study. The proceeding sections described the
field sampling techniques, sample preparation and laboratory testing standards. The lab
tests were carried out in line with the applicable British Standards Institute (BSI)
standards and American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) standards.
3.2 Field Sampling
Bulk sample of natural gravel (NG) were obtained from an old borrow pit at Wawasoa in
Sunyani by digging the test pit up to depth of about 0.3 m. The field sampling was done
in accordance with ASTM D420 - 98 (2003). The samples were taken out of the borrow
pit using shovel and pickaxe, and then bagged for transport to the lab.
Also, the RG was taken at a construction site in Techiman, while the PKS were taken
from a processing and heaped waste disposal site at Night Market in the Sunyani
municipality. Sampling was carried out in accordance with European Standard BS EN
932-1 (CEN, 1997) procedures, which require, among other things, that when sampling
from a heap of aggregates, in this case deposit of PKS, a number of increases is to be
taken from positions evenly distributed over the whole surface of the heap. In this study,
two to four locations, equally spread over the surface of the heap were selected. Then at
each sampling location, the top 0.2 m of the material was removed to make bare the
aggregates. Figure 3.1 shows the wastes of RG and PKS as well as the lateritic gravel
used for the experimentations.
18
RG
PKS
NG
Figure 3.1. Samples of RG, PKS and NG materials
3.3. Laboratory Testing
The lab testing is described under sample preparation and testing standards. This bulk
samples of the NG were air-dried at least for three days at the laboratory. After the air-
drying of the samples, they were bulked together and riffled using European Standard EN
BS EN 932-2 (CEN, 1999) so that the particles could be well distributed. Bulk NG
samples passing the sieve size 19 mm weighing about 60 kg was used for all the tests.
The PKS samples were also clean and air-dried before using them for the various tests.
Similarly, the RG was cleaned, manually broken down into required particle sizes using
a pestle and mortar and air-dried. Figure 3.2 shows the preparation of the RG at the
laboratory.
19
Figure 3.2. Laboratory preparation of RG
The raffling process of the composite samples and the weighing of the PKS samples are
given in Figures 3.3 (a) and (b).
a) b)
Figure 3.3 (a). Refilling of samples and (b) weighing of samples
Geotechnical properties tests were done using BS 1377 : Part 2 (BS, 1990) for liquid limit
(LL) and plastic limit (PL), compaction using BS EN 13286-2 (CEN, 2010) and
California bearing ratio (CBR) using BS EN 13286-2 (CEN, 2010). The specific gravity
(SG) test was carried out using ASTM C128-15 (ASTM, 2015) and particle size
20
distribution (PSD) using BS EN 933-1 (CEN, 2012). The above properties were evaluated
in accordance with procedures defined in ASTM and BS standards as given in Table 3.1.
Table 3.1. Laboratory testing standards for evaluating samples

Engineering Grading
Testing Standard
Property Passing Retained on
SG ASTM C128 19 mm 0.075 mm
LL & PL BS 1377 : Part 2 0.425 mm -
Compaction EN 13286-2 19 mm -
CBR EN 13286-2 19 mm -
PSD EN 933-1 19 mm 0.075 mm
Initially, all relevant tests were done on the NG used as control specimen. Subsequently,
the PKS and RG were then used as partial replacement for the NG and subjected to a
battery of similar laboratory tests and results compared with the Ministry of Roads and
Transport Standard Specification for Roads and Bridge Works (MRT, 2007) for
judgements. Table 3.2 shows the mixed ratios of the various tests specimens.
Table 3.2. Materials and their mixed ratios
Sample NG (%) RG (%) PKS (%) FRG (%) Total (%)

NG (Control) 100 - - - 100
NG + RG 90 10 - - 100
NG + RG 85 15 - - 100
NG + RG 80 20 - - 100
NG + PKS 90 10 - - 100
NG + PKS 85 15 - - 100
NG + PKS 80 20 - - 100
NG + RG + PKS 90 5 5 - 100
NG + RG + PKS 85 7.5 7.5 - 100
NG + RG + PKS 80 10 10 - 100
NG + FRG 85 - - 15 100
21
3.4 Analysis of Data
Microsoft Excel and ORIGIN Pro 2017 softwares were used for the data analysis and
results presented in using Tables and Figures. The tests results were evaluated using MRT
Standard Specification for Road and Bridge Works (SSRBW) as the required spec
standards. The individual results were compared with the thresholds in the MRT
specification and decisions made to whether it passed or failed the required spec. Each of
the specimen property tested was likewise compared with the MRT specs for material
classes G30, G40, G60 and G80 and evaluated whether it may be suitable as a base or
subbase material for road construction.
22
CHAPTER 4: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1 Introduction
This chapter describes the laboratory test results. Tested engineering properties of the
specimens were evaluated by comparing results with SSRBW standards (MRT, 2007)
and relevant conclusions reached.
4.2 General Description of Test Results
After series of laboratory tests by partially replacing NG using PKS and RG, the results
are presented in Table 4.1
Table 4.1. Summary of the laboratory test results and MRT spec thresholds
Grading
Mixed ratio OMC MDD LL PL PI CBR
Sample Sieve Size (mm) Classification
(%) (%) (kg/𝒎𝟑 ) (%) (%) (%) @ 95
2.000 0.425 0.075
NG 100 10.3 2092 42 22 20 62 40 31 23 A-2-7 (1)
RG + NG 10 : 90 10.2 2100 39 20 19 58 34 25 19 A-2-6 (0)
RG + NG 15 : 85 9.0 2115 37 20 17 62 34 24 18 A-2-6 (0)
RG + NG 20 : 80 9.5 2136 35 20 15 75 42 29 21 A-2-6 (1)
PKS + NG 10 : 90 11.5 1930 NP NP NP 56 41 29 21 A-2-6 (0)
PKS + NG 15 : 85 11.9 1820 NP NP NP 51 38 24 14 A-2-6 (0)
PKS + NG 20 : 80 12.9 1680 NP NP NP 50 45 21 7 A-2-6 (0)
RG + PSK + NG 5 : 5 : 90 10.0 2005 40 21 20 50 34 24 18 A-2-6 (0)
RG + PSK + NG 7.5 : 7.5 : 85 10.2 1975 40 20 20 61 36 25 18 A-2-6 (0)
RG + NG + PKS 10 : 10 :80 8.1 2061 40 22 18 64 34 23 10 A-2-6 (0)
FRG + NG 15: 85 10.3 2083 32 17 15 58 51 33 22 A-2-6 (0)
MRT Specification Thresholds for Atterberg Limits and Particle Size Distribution Tests
Tested Property G80 G60 G40 G30
Grading Modulus 2.15 1.95 1.50 1.25
Liquid Limit (%) (max) 25 30 30 35
Plasticity Index (%) (max) 10 12 14 16
Plasticity Modulus 200 250 250 250
23
4.2.1 Natural Gravel and Recycled Glass
The PI for the natural gravel used as a control before replacing partially with RG and PKS
using varied percentages was 20%, optimum moisture content (OMC) was 10%, CBR at
95% relative compaction of 62% while the maximum dry density (MDD) was 2092 kg/m3
as shown in the Table 4.1. The classification for instance A-2-7 (1) indicates silty or
clayey gravel and sand lateritic soil as per the classification of the American Association
of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) soil classification system. The
general rating these class of soils as subgrade ranges from excellent to good and contains
less than 35% fines. Usually, the A-2-7 (1) soils which are subgroups of the transitional
A-2 group exhibit the characteristics of both granular and silt-clay soils with group indices
up to 4. They are mostly frost susceptible especially where the water table is in proximity
to the zone of yearly frost depth. The blending of PKS, RG and NG improved the
classification slightly from A-2-7 (1) to A-2-6 (0) soil.
The addition of 10 to 20% of RG by weight to the NG reduced its PI from 20 to 15%. The
further decreases in plasticity with upward adjustment of the RG may be as a results of
minimum water absorption properties of the RG which made the soil’s plasticity to
decrease, thus, decreasing its LL.
The addition of varied percentages of RG up to 20% increased the MDD from 2015 to
2136 kg/m3 while the OMC decreased from 10.2 to 9.5% as shown in Figure 4.1. The rest
of the curves at different mix ratios are given in Appendix A, Figures A-1 and A-2. The
increment in the MDD and subsequent reductions in the OMC of the NG when partially
replaced with RG could be attributed to the high specific gravity value (2.49) and low
water absorption abilities of the waste material.
24
Figure 4.1. Compaction curves of the NG and composites of the waste materials
The results showed that RG in the NG probably caused the inability of the soil to absorb
moisture (reduction in the OMC) but caused an increase in the MDD because of it high
specific gravity value and low porosity. The 96 hours soaking of the specimens at the lab
was to simulate the worst case a road surface may be inundated by runoff water recorded
a CBR value at 95% relative compaction of 62%, which subsequently increased to 75%
when 20% by wright of RG was added to lateritic material. The gain in strength which
may be attributed to addition of RG was 10% higher than the control experimental value.
4.2.2 Natural Gravel and Palm Kernel Shells
The compaction test results of the mixed ratios of NG and PKS with respective to MDDs
and OMCs as well as CBR is summarized in the Table 4.1. The 10% partial substitution
of NG with PKS recorded MDD of 1930 kg/m3 and OMC of 11.5%. Increment in percent
of PKS up 20% increased the OMC to 12.9% and decreased the MMD to 1680 kg/m3.
25
The reduction in the MDD and subsequent increment in the OMC of PKS and NG blend
could be ascribed to the lower specific gravity value (1.23) of the PSK, high voids ratio
and its high water absorption capabilities which agreed with conclusion of Amu et al.
(2008). Significantly, the increased in OMC is intolerable for road construction (Amu et
al., 2008). Similarly, the decreased in the MDDs and increased OMCs affected the four
days soaked CBR value at 95 relative compactions to reduce by about 20%.
4.2.3 Composite Material
The LL and PL of the NG sample were 42% and 22% respectively. The addition of 5%
of RG and 5% PSK by weight to the NG sample maintained the PI of the control sample
at 20%. The partial substitution of the NG with blend of 10% of PKS and 10% of RG
however, reduced the PI from 20% to 18%. That is, when RG and PKS are added to NG,
they improve the PI of lateritic material.
Compaction test were carried out on all the mixed ratios to estimate the MDD and OMC.
The summarised compaction test results given in Table 4.1 showed that the MDD and
OMC upon adding 5% of RG and 5% of PKS were 2005 kg/m3 and of 10% respectively.
With 10% of RG and 10% of PSK added, the MDD and OMC decreased to 2061 kg/m3
and 8.1% respectively. This means that the MDD increased with respect to percentage
increase of the composite material which led to subsequent reduction in the OMC of the
NG. simply shows an effect provided the (RG + PSK), keeps increasing to a higher % say
50, this could be as a result of the interrelationship between their specific gravities values
and also their lower water absorption capacity of optimum additions of (RG + PSK), the
MDD was increased and OMC also decreased. The results show that the substantial
increment of RG and PSK as partial substitutes caused the inability of the control to
26
absorb moisture but therefore resulted in an increase in the MDD because of probably
high specific gravity and low porosity values (CWC, 1998; FHWA, 2016).
From Table 4.1, it can further be deduced that, the addition of 20% blend of RG and PSK
to the NG, similarly affected CBR values by increasing the 95% relative compaction
value from 61% to 64%. This implies that PKS and RG can be used as substitutes to
improve the strength of NG.
The PSD curves in Figure 4.2 show that, natural material (control) though parallel to the
upper limits was outside the MRT specification envelope for base and subbase material
for road construction works. However, upon blending with RG and PKS, the material fell
into the envelop and passed the grading requirements for base and subbase material for
road construction. The grading results of the composite comprising NG, PKS and RG
look better compare with the other blending specimens’ curves.
110
10% Composit
100 15% Composite
20% Composite
100% Natural Material
90 10% Glass + Gravel
15% Glass + Gravel
80 20% Glass + Gravel
Percent Passing (%)
10% PKS + Gravel

15% PKS + Gravel
70 20% PKS + Gravel
15% Fine Glass + Gravel
60 MRT Upper Spec Limits
MRT Lower Spec Limits
50
40
30
20
10
0
0.1 1 10 100
Sieve Size (mm)
Figure 4.2. PSD curves of tested specimens compared with MRT spec envelop
27
4.3 Evaluation of the Blended Material as Subbase Material
The material types G80, G60, G40 and G30 according to MRT (2007) specs denote the
minimum quality for a particular use in road pavement layer works. Materials meeting
G30 requirements are exclusively used for subbase course construction.
The natural material in its natural state did not meet any of the requirements for used as
a subbase material. However, when blended with RG and PKS the properties improved
steadily. At 20% partial replacement of natural material with RG for instance, the results
met the G30 requirements for subbase construction. This results hold true also for partial
replacement of NG with FRG at 20% blend. Therefore, blending of 20% of RG or more
with NG may be the optimum percentage addition suitable for road subbase construction
since that met also the grading requirements.
4.4 Evaluation of the Blended Material as Base Material
Material with G80 properties are recommended for base course construction while those
meeting G60 properties are used for base course design for low traffic roads. Additionally,
material meeting G40 requirements are used for constructing base course for sealed rural
access roads. The current partial replacements of NG with PKS and RG results when
compared with MRT base material requirement are unsuitable. Nonetheless, when these
percentages are increased higher than 20%, the stabilised material may meet all the G80,
G60 and G40 requirements for used as base material for pavement layer construction. The
obtained results are at 20% blend of RG and PKS with NG improved the PIs and strengths
properties of the control remarkably. The addition of 20% of the FRG to the NG for
instance, brought the LL and PI from initial 42 to 32% and 20 to 15% correspondingly. It
can be inferred that, high percentage additions of the PKS and mainly FRG will drastically
improve the material’s properties to be suitable for various road pavement applications.
28
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 Conclusions
The study explored the possibilities of using RG and PKS as viable alternatives to natural
rock aggregate in road construction by evaluating the engineering properties of a natural
material when partially substituted with these waste materials and subjecting the blends
to battery of laboratory tests. The ensuing specific conclusions can be deduced from the
results:
1. The blending of PKS, RG and NG improved the classification of the lateritic
gravel from A-2-7 (1) soil to A-2-6 (0) soil.
2. The addition of varied percentages of RG up to 20% increased the MDD from
2015 to 2136 kg/m3 while the OMC decreased from 10.2 to 9.5%.
3. The addition of RG to lateritic material improved both the PI and strength (CBR)
properties of the material partly due its high specific gravity and low water
absorption characteristics of this substitute material.
4. There were however reductions in the MDD and CBR values but subsequent
increment in the OMC values when PKS was blended with NG though it made
the material non-plastic.
5. At 20% partial replacement of lateritic gravel with RG and fine RG, the results
met the G30 material requirements for used as road subbase construction material.
6. The partial replacements of NG with PKS and RG results when compared with
MRT base material requirement are unsuitable for used in road base applications.
7. The PSD curves of the experimental control though parallel to the upper limits,
was outside the MRT specification envelope for base and subbase, however, upon
blending with RG and PKS, the material fell into the envelop and passed the
grading requirements for base and subbase material for road construction.
29
5.2 Recommendation
The study recommended the following based on the research findings and conclusions:
1. A blend of 20% RG and 80% of NG of lateritic gravel that meet G30 should be
used for road subbase course construction to help reduce the level of waste glass
in the physical environment.
2. A composite of 10% PKS, 10% RC and 80% NG is recommended for use in the
subbase road pavement layer construction as sustainable alternative.
3. Further research to establish optimum quantities of RG and PKS that can partially
substitute lateritic gravel to meet MRT’s specifications on G80, G60 and G40 as
base and subbase road construction material.
4. Further research should be conducted using partial replacement of the of PKS and
RG up to 50% (higher proportions) for comprehensive evaluation of these
materials for used in road pavement layer construction.
30
REFERENCES
Adetoro, E. A., & Adam, J. O. (2007). Analysis of Influences of Locally Available

Additives on Geotechnical Properties of Ekiti State Soil, Southwestern, Nigeria.
International Journal of Innovative Research in Science, Engineering and
Technology (An ISO Certified Organization), 3297(8).
https://doi.org/10.15680/IJIRSET.2015.0408054
Adetoro, E. A., & Oladapo, S. A. (2015). Effects of Sawdust and Palm Kernel Shell
Ashes on Geotechnical Properties of Emure / Ise-orun Local Government Areas
Soil, Nigeria. Scientific Research Journal, III(VII). Retrieved from www.scirj.org
Adewale, O., Segun, A., & Ariyo, A. (2017). Structural Evaluation of the Effect of
Pulverized Palm Kernel Shell (PPKS) on Cement-Modified Lateritic Soil Sample.
Http://www.sciencepublishinggroup.com, 5(4), 205.
https://doi.org/10.11648/J.AJCE.20170504.12
Agyeman, S., & Ampadu, S. I. K. (2016). Exploring the techno-economic feasibility of

mine rock waste utilisation in road works: The case of a mining deposit in Ghana.
Waste Management and Research, 34(2), 156 –164.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242X15611739
Alengaram, U. J., Muhit, B. A. Al, & Jumaat, M. Z. bin. (2013). Utilization of oil palm
kernel shell as lightweight aggregate in concrete – A review. Construction and
Building Materials, 38, 161–172.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2012.08.026
Ali, M. M. Y., Arulrajah, A., Disfani, M. M., & Piratheepan, J. (2011). Suitability of
Using Recycled Glass-Crushed Rock Blends for Pavement Subbase Applications.
In Geo-Frontiers 2011 (pp. 1325–1334). Reston, VA: American Society of Civil
Engineers. https://doi.org/10.1061/41165(397)136
Ampadu, S. I. K., Ackah, P., Nimo, F. O., & Boadu, F. (2017). A laboratory study of
horizontal confinement effect on the dynamic cone penetration index of a lateritic
soil. Transportation Geotechnics, 10, 47–61.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trgeo.2016.12.002
Ampadu, S. I. K., & Fiadjoe, G. J. Y. (2015). The influence of water content on the
Dynamic Cone Penetration Index of a lateritic soil stabilized with various
percentages of a quarry by-product. Transportation Geotechnics, 5, 68–85.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trgeo.2015.09.007
Amu, O. O., Adeyeri, J. B., Haastrup, A. O., & Eboru, A. A. (2008). Effects of Palm
Kernel Shells in Lateritic Soil for Asphalt Stabilization. Research Journal of
Environmental Sciences, 2(2), 132–138. https://doi.org/10.3923/rjes.2008.132.138
Arm, M. (2003). Mechanical Properties of Residues as Unbound Road Materials (No.

Report No 64). Doctoral Thesis. Swedish Geotechnical Institute, Stockholm,
Sweden.
31
Arulrajah, A., Ali, M. M. Y., Disfani, M. M., & Horpibulsuk, S. (2014). Recycled-Glass
Blends in Pavement Base/Subbase Applications: Laboratory and Field Evaluation.
Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, 26(7), 4014025.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0000966
Arulrajah, A., Ali, M. M. Y., Disfani, M. M., Piratheepan, J., & Bo, M. W. (2013).
Geotechnical Performance of Recycled Glass-Waste Rock Blends in Footpath
Bases. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, 25(5), 653–661.
Arulrajah, A., Piratheepan, J., & Disfani, M. M. (2014). Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement
and Recycled Concrete Aggregate Blends in Pavement Subbases: Laboratory and
Field Evaluation. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, 26(2), 349–357.
ASTM C128-15. (2015). Standard Test Method for Relative Density (Specific Gravity)
and Absorption of Fine Aggregate. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International.
https://doi.org/10.1520/C0128-15
ASTM D420-98. (2003). Standard Guide to Site Characterization for Engineering

Design and Construction Purposes (Withdrawn 2012). West Conshohocken, PA:
ASTM International. https://doi.org/10.1520/D0420-98R03
BS. (1990). BS 1377. Part 2: British Standard methods of test for soils for civil
engineering purposes. London, UK: British Standards Institution. Retrieved from
https://shop.bsigroup.com/ProductDetail/?pid=000000000000793481
BS EN 13286-2. (2010). Unbound and hydraulically bound mixtures. Test methods for
laboratory reference density and water content. Proctor compaction. Brussels,
Belgium: European Committee for Standardization. Retrieved from
https://shop.bsigroup.com/ProductDetail?pid=000000000030276229
BS EN 932-1. (1997). Tests for general properties of aggregates. Part 1, Methods for
sampling (London, UK). Brussels, Belgium: European Committee for
Standardization. Retrieved from
BS EN 932-2. (1999). Tests for general properties of aggregates. Part 2, Methods for
reducing laboratory samples. Brussels, Belgium: European Committee for
Standardization. Retrieved from
BS EN 933-1. (2012). Tests for geometrical properties of aggregates. Determination of

particle size distribution. Sieving method. Brussels, Belgium: European Committee
for Standardization. Retrieved from
https://shop.bsigroup.com/ProductDetail?pid=000000000030241873
Collins, R. J., & Ciesielski, S. K. (1994). Recycling and use of waste materials and by-
products in highway construction. Washington, D.C., USA: National Academy
Press,. Retrieved from http://ezfind.technion.ac.il/vufind/Record/002154533
CWC. (1998). A Tool Kit for the Use of Post-Consumer Glass as a Construction
32
Aggregate, Report No. GL-97-5. Seattle, Washington: Soil and Environmental
Engineers and Re-Sourcing Associates. Retrieved from http://norpass-
sail.com/glass/gl975rpt.pdf
DeGraft-Johnson, J. W. S., Bhatia, H. S., & Gidigasu, D. M. (1969). THE

ENGINEERING CHARACTERISTICS OF THE LATERITE GRAVELS OF
GHANA. In 7th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering (Vol. 1, pp. 117–128). Mexica: Road Research Laboratory /UK.
Retrieved from https://trid.trb.org/view.aspx?id=121254
DeGraft-Johnson, J. W. S., Bhatia, H. S., & Yeboa, S. L. (1972). INFLUENCE OF

GEOLOGY AND PHYSICAL PROPERTIES ON STRENGTH
CHARACTERISTICS OF LATERITIC GRAVELS FOR ROAD PAVEMENTS.
In 41st Annual Meeting of the Highway Research Board (pp. 87–104). Washington
DC, United States: Highway Research Board. Retrieved from
https://trid.trb.org/view.aspx?id=120247
Disfani, M. (2011). Sustainable Use of Recycled Glass – Biosolids Blends in Road

Applications. Swinburne University of Technology. Retrieved from
https://researchbank.swinburne.edu.au/file/d7e51325-454a-4935-aea6-
35ad5f5efd06/1/Mahdi Miri Disfani Thesis.pdf
Disfani, M., Arulrajah, A., Ali, M., & Bo, M. (2011). Fine recycled glass: a sustainable
alternative to natural aggregates. International Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering, 5(3), 255–266. https://doi.org/10.3328/IJGE.2011.05.03.255-266
Edeh, J. E., Manasseh, J., & Ibanga, U. (2012). PALM KERNEL SHELL ASH
STABILIZATION OF RECLAIMED ASPHALT PAVEMENTS, AS HIGHWAY
PAVEMENT MATERIALS. Journal of Sustainable Development and
Environmental Protection, 2(1), 1–13. Retrieved from
http://ierdafrica.org.ng/journal4/Palm_Kernel_Shell_Ash_Stabilization_of_Reclai
med.pdf
Ekeocha, N. E., & Agwuncha, F. N. (2014). Evaluation of Palm Kernel Shells for use as
Stabilizing Agents of Lateritic Soils. Asian Transactions on Basic and Applied
Sciences (ATBAS), 4(2), 1–8.
Ezekiel, A. A., & Jonathan, A. S. (2015). Evaluation of Presence of Sawdust and Palm
Kernel Shell Ashes on Geotechnical Properties of Ekiti State Soil. Journal of
Multidisciplinary Engineering Science and Technology, 2(11), 3159–40. Retrieved
from http://www.jmest.org/wp-content/uploads/JMESTN42351186.pdf
FDOT. (1995). Developing Specifications for Waste Glass and Waste-to-Energy Bottom
Ash as Highway Fill Materials (Vol. 2). Melbourne, Florida.
FHWA. (2016). User Guidelines for Waste and Byproduct Materials in Pavement
Construction, Report No. FHWA-RD-97-148. Washington, D.C., USA. Retrieved
from
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/infrastructure/structures/97148/int
ro.cfm
33
Gbeve, B. (2013). Environmental Impacts of Construction Aggregate Mining in the
Greater Accra Region (A Case – Study of Amasaman in the Ga West Municipal).
Unpubloshed of Master Science Degree Thesis in Construction Management.
Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Kumasi, Ghana.
Gidigasu, M. (1972). Mode of formation and geotechnical characteristics of laterite

materials of Ghana in relation to soil forming factors. Engineering Geology, 6(2),
79–150. https://doi.org/10.1016/0013-7952(72)90034-8
Gidigasu, M. (1974). Degree of weathering in the identification of laterite materials for

engineering purposes — a review. Engineering Geology, 8(3), 213–266.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0013-7952(74)90001-5
Gidigasu, M. (1976). Laterite soil engineering: pedogenesis and engineering principles

(9th ed.). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier Scientific Pub. Co.
Gidigasu, M. (1991). Characterization and use of tropical gravels for pavement

construction in West Africa. Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, 9(3–4),
219–260. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00881742
Giresse, P. (2008). Tropical and sub-tropical West Africa: marine and continental
changes during the late Quaternary (1st ed.). Paris, France: Elsevier.
Halstead, W. J. (1993). Use of waste glass in highway construction. Virginia, USA.
Hogan, C. B. (2010). Abiotic factor. In E. Monosson & C. Clevelanc (Eds.),

Encyclopedia of Earth. Washington, D.C., USA: National Council for Science and
the Environment.
Klohn, E. J. (1977). Laterite soil engineering, pedogenesis and engineering principles:

Book review. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 14(3), 442–444.
https://doi.org/10.1139/t77-047
Lee, T. L. J. (2007). Recycled glass and dredged materials, Report No. ERDC TN-
DOER-T8. Vicksburg, Mississippi, USA: U.S. Army Engineer Research and
Development Center. https://doi.org/10.1.1.610.6830
MRT. (2007). Ministry of Roads and Transport (MRT) Standard Specification for Road
and Bridge Works (No. Version 1). Accra, Ghana: MRT under the World Bank
component of the Road Sector Development Programme (RSDP).
Ndoke, P. (2006a). Palm Kernel Shells as a Dust Control Palliative on an Unpaved

Road. Leonardo Electronic Journal Practices And Technologies, 5(9), 137–144.
Ndoke, P. (2006b). Performance of Palm Kernel Shells as a Partial replacement for

Coarse Aggregate in Asphalt Concrete. Leonardo Electronic Journal Practices
And Technologies, 5(9), 145–152.
Ooi, P., Li, M., Sagario, M., & Song, Y. (2008). Shear Strength Characteristics of
Recycled Glass. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation
Research Board, 2059, 52–62. https://doi.org/10.3141/2059-06
34
Osei, D. Y., & Jackson, E. N. (2012). Experimental Study on Palm Kernel Shells as
Coarse Aggregates in Concrete. International Journal of Scientific & Engineering
Research, 3(8). Retrieved from http://www.ijser.org
Oyedepo, J. O., Olanitori, M. L., & Olukanni, O. E. (2015). INVESTIGATION OF

PALM KERNEL SHELL AS PARTIAL REPLACEMENT FOR AGGREGATE
IN ASPHALTIC CONCRETE. Malaysian Journal of Civil Engineering, 27(2),
223–234. Retrieved from http://civil.utm.my/mjce/files/2015/08/Vol-27-No-2-
Paper-5.pdf
Puppala, A. J., Hoyos, L. R., & Potturi, A. (2011). Resilent moduli response of
moderately cemented -treated reclaimed asphalt pavement aggragates. J. Mater.
Civil Eng., 990–998.
Tam, V. W. Y., & Tam, C. M. (2006). A review on the viable technology for
construction waste recycling. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 47(3), 209–
221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2005.12.002
Toll, D. G. (2015). California Bearing Ratio tests on a lateritic gravel from Kenya.
Transportation Geotechnics, 5, 59–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trgeo.2015.09.004
VicRoads. (1998). Guide to general requirements for unbound pavement materials

(39th ed.). Melbourne, Australia: Roads Corporation (VicRoads). Retrieved from
http://catalogue.nla.gov.au/Record/370922
Wartman, J., Grubb, D. G., & Nasim, A. S. M. (2004). Select Engineering

Characteristics of Crushed Glass. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, 16(6),
526–539. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0899-1561(2004)16:6(526)
Wu, S., Yang, W., & Xue, Y. (2004). Preparation and Properties of Glass-asphalt
Concrete. Wuhan, China. Retrieved from
https://www.vegvesen.no/_attachment/110556/binary/192739
35
APPENDICES
36
Appendix A: CBR Results
Table A-1. CBR test results of 100% NG

GHANA HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY Form S2/S Date Compacted: 19/05/2017
Central Materials Laboratory CBR Load - Penetration Data Date Penetrated: 23/05/2017
CBR Load Ring Number: Load Ring Factor: 0.025 (kN/Div.)
Standard Load @ 0.10 in. & Pen. 13.344KN Standard Load @ 0.20 in. & Pen. 20.016 KN
Specimen 56B Specimen 25B Specimen 10B
Plunger Mould NO. : SK Mould NO. : M 30 Mould NO. : M 12
Penetration Load Corrected Load Corrected Load Corrected
CBR CBR CBR
(Inches) ring dial dial ring dial dial ring dial dial
(%) (%) (%)
divisions divisions divisions divisions divisions divisions
0.00 0 0 0
0.02 95 68 65
0.04 200 138 110
0.06 302 200 145
0.08 415 250 175
0.10 498 498 93 300 56 200 37
0.12 573 345 226
0.14 642 383 248
0.16 712 420 273
0.18 760 455 291
0.20 809 800 100 487 61 310 39
0.22 860 521 331
0.24 919 568 350
0.26 973 590 368
0.28 1015 622 400
0.30 1047 652 415
100 61 39
Figure A-1. CBR penetration curves for 100% NG
37
Table A-2. CBR test results of 90% NG + 10% RG
Penetration Load ring Corrected Load ring Corrected Load Corrected
(Inches) CBR CBR CBR
dial dial dial dial ring dial dial
(%) (%) (%)
0.00 0 0 0
0.02 75 59 41
0.04 170 134 85
0.06 215 178 125
0.08 297 211 190
0.10 372 372 70 253 47 225 42
0.12 432 298 259
0.14 489 330 297
0.16 540 378 327
0.18 585 423 363
0.20 629 629 79 453 57 395 49
0.22 670 512 418
0.24 708 536 436
0.26 747 578 458
0.28 785 601 489
0.30 807 628 508
79 57 49
Figure A-2. CBR penetration curves for 90% NG + 10% RG
38
Penetration Load ring Corrected Load Corrected Load ring Corrected
CBR CBR CBR
(Inches) dial dial ring dial dial dial dial
(%) (%) (%)
0.00 0 0 0
0.02 60 56 36
0.04 150 108 89
0.06 212 173 109
0.08 295 223 143
0.100 370 370 69 265 50 180 34
0.12 435 308 215
0.14 495 342 237
0.16 550 383 274
0.18 609 419 298
0.200 662 662 83 470 59 321 40
0.22 710 492 337
0.24 770 518 352
0.26 805 543 369
0.28 863 562 381
0.30 910 587 401
83 59 40
Figure A-3. CBR penetration curves for 85% NG + 15% RG
39
Penetration Load Corrected Load ring Corrected Load ring Corrected
ring dial dial dial dial dial dial
(%) (%) (%)
0.00 0 0 0
0.02 48 70 29
0.04 110 140 56
0.06 183 205 73
0.08 255 270 89
0.10 313 313 59 330 62 104 19
0.12 386 383 115
0.14 452 435 131
0.16 514 484 145
0.18 575 530 155
0.20 634 634 79 570 71 170 21
0.22 690 625 180
0.24 740 671 194
0.26 790 715 204
0.28 835 762 219
0.30 878 805 230
79 71 21
Figure C-4. CBR penetration curves for 80% NG + 20% RG
40
Table A-5. CBR test results of 90% NG + 10% PKS
(%) (%) (%)
0.00 0 0 0
0.02 57 51 24
0.04 107 102 42
0.06 149 147 60
0.08 198 235 76
0.10 240 240 45 279 52 90 17
0.12 280 318 105
0.14 330 349 117
0.16 380 383 129
0.18 423 410 141
0.20 465 465 58 443 55 153 19
0.22 505 476 163
0.24 549 503 172
0.26 585 534 185
0.28 623 563 196
0.30 665 595 205
58 55 19
Figure A-5. CBR penetration curves for 90% NG + 10% PKS
41
Mould NO. : SK Mould NO. : M 30 Mould NO. : M 12
Plunger
(%) (%) (%)
0.00 0 0 0
0.02 90 72 46
0.04 155 123 75
0.06 227 156 95
0.08 314 190 120
0.10 380 380 71 220 41 133 25
0.12 450 253 145
0.14 515 282 153
0.16 573 309 165
0.18 623 334 179
0.20 672 672 84 357 45 186 23
0.22 718 377 196
0.24 770 403 206
0.26 813 447 213
0.28 854 468 223
0.30 894 490 236
84 45 25
42
(%) (%) (%)
0.00 0 0 0
0.02 102 42 27
0.04 168 80 58
0.06 233 107 86
0.08 298 154 104
0.10 358 358 67 187 35 118 22
0.12 415 217 134
0.14 468 251 149
0.16 520 307 163
0.18 571 333 178
0.20 617 617 77 357 45 190 24
0.22 657 379 200
0.24 691 398 212
0.26 726 420 227
0.28 762 441 236
0.30 796 461 246
77 45 24
43
Table A-8. CBR test results of 90% NG + 5% RG + 5% PKS
Plunger
(%) (%) (%)
0.00 0 0 0
0.02 104 51 52
0.04 208 110 65
0.06 325 133 78
0.08 437 184 89
0.10 525 525 98 225 42 101 19
0.12 600 261 113
0.14 654 278 125
0.16 686 289 138
0.18 722 301 153
0.20 758 758 95 314 39 166 21
0.22 790 325 178
0.24 818 334 191
0.26 853 348 208
0.28 862 360 223
0.30 874 368 247
98 42 21
Figure A-8. CBR penetration curves for 90% NG + 5% RG + 5% PKS
44
Table A-9. CBR test results of 85% NG + 7.5% RG + 7.5% PKS
(%) (%) (%)
0.00 0 0 0
0.02 78 60 42
0.04 186 115 80
0.06 269 150 120
0.08 373 201 153
0.10 475 475 89 253 47 198 37
0.12 573 294 225
0.14 670 329 256
0.16 731 368 294
0.18 780 406 319
0.20 807 807 101 448 56 354 44
0.22 832 467 379
0.24 852 482 400
0.26 878 502 415
0.28 890 520 428
0.30 910 539 440
101 56 44
Figure A-9. CBR penetration curves for 85% NG + 7.5% RG + 7.5% PKS
45
Table A-10. CBR test results of 80% NG + 10% RG + 10% PKS
Penetration
Load Corrected Load ring Corrected Load ring Corrected
(%) (%) (%)
0.00 0 0 0
0.02 99 70 56
0.04 191 145 90
0.06 286 198 128
0.08 390 243 163
0.10 478 478 90 289 54 195 37
0.12 568 334 220
0.14 660 377 249
0.16 725 420 286
0.18 780 456 320
0.20 815 815 102 485 61 360 45
0.22 842 509 381
0.24 860 532 397
0.26 887 551 418
0.28 915 570 437
0.30 930 583 450
102 61 45
Figure A-10. CBR penetration curves for 80% NG + 10% RG + 10% PKS
46
Table A-11. CBR test results of 85% NG + 15% FRG
Plunger
Penetration
Load Corrected Load ring Corrected Load ring Corrected
(%) (%) (%)
0.00 0 0 0
0.02 78 54 34
0.04 170 133 70
0.06 268 200 104
0.08 336 259 139
0.10 395 395 74 285 53 156 29
0.12 435 312 170
0.14 480 340 195
0.16 515 350 214
0.18 550 389 230
0.20 590 590 74 412 51 240 30
0.22 625 438 255
0.24 660 463 262
0.26 698 487 275
0.28 736 515 290
0.30 774 544 306
74 53 30
Figure A-11. CBR penetration curves for 85% NG + 15% FRG
47
Appendix B: Compaction Results
Figure B-1. Compaction curves of blends of NG + PKS
Figure B-2. Compaction curves of blends of NG + RG + PKS
48
Table B-1. Compaction results of 100% NG
GHANA HIGHWAY AUTHORITY Form S 2/2 Date: 19/05/2017
Central Materials Laboratory Moisture Density Relationship Total mass:
Mass Minus 19 mm Mass plus 19 mm Expected weight: 9187

Row
Parameter Specimen 1 Specimen 2 Specimen 3 Specimen 4 Specimen 5
1 Container no. A1 A2 A3 A4 A5
2 Mass air-dry sample(g) 6000 6000 6000 6000 6000
3 Mass water added (g) 180 240 300
4 Percent water added (%) 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
5 Estimated air-dry MC (%)
6 Est. Compaction MC (%) (4) + (5) 1 2 3 4 5
7 Mould number PATOO1 PATOO1 PATOO1 PATOO1 PATOO1
8 Mould factor 0.4649 0.4649 0.4649 0.4649 0.4649
9 Mass of mould(g) 4198 4198 4198 4198 4198
10 Mass mould + wet soil. (g) 8889 9077 9186 9189 9178
11 Mass wet soil (g) (10) - (9) 4691 4879 4988 4991 4980
12 Wet density. Kg/m3 (11) * (8) 2181 2268 2319 2320 2315
Approx. Dry density 100
13 2159 2224 2251 2231 2205
*(12)/(100+(6))
Moisture Content Determination
14 Oven-pan number 0-1 0-8 0-9 SS-8 0-5
15 Mass oven-pan (g) 1008.00 1010.00 942.00 1002.00 935.00
16 Mass oven-pan + wet soil (g) 1398.00 1464.00 1378.00 1451.00 1376.00
17 Mass oven-pan + dry soil (g) 1368.00 1425.00 1335.00 1404.00 1327.00
18 Mass of water (g) (16) - (17) 30.00 39.00 43.00 47.00 49.00
19 Mass dry soil (g) (17) - (15) 360.00 415.00 393.00 402.00 392.00
20 Moisture content (%) (18)/(19)*100 8.33 9.40 10.94 11.69 12.50
21 Back calc. Air-dry MC (%) (20) - (4) 7.33 7.40 7.94 7.69 7.50
22 Dry density 100 * (12) / (100 + (20)) 2013 2073 2090 2077 2058
49
Table B-2. Compaction results of 90% NG + 10% RG
Mass minus 19 mm Mass plus 19 mm Expected weight: 9203
Row Parameter Specimen 1 Specimen 2 Specimen 3 Specimen 4 Specimen 5
1 Container no.
6 Est. Compaction MC (%) (4) + (5) 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0
8 Mould factor 0.4649 0.4649 0.4649 0.4649 0.4649
9 Mass of mould(g) 4196 4196 4196 4196 4196
11 Mass wet soil (g) (10) - (9) 4816 4920 4993 4978 4951
12 Wet density. Kg/m3 (11) * (8) 2239 2287 2321 2314 2302
13 2153 2178 2190 2163 2131
*(12)/(100+(6))
14 Oven- pan number 0-1 0-9 7 0-8 B
15 Mass oven-pan. (g) 1008.00 942.00 1008.00 1010.00 1006.00
16 Mass oven-pan + wet soil. (g) 1425.00 1399.00 1445.00 1455.00 1448.00
17 Mass oven-pan + dry soil. (g) 1392.89 1358.63 1403.45 1409.26 1399.49
18 Mass of water (g) (16) - (17) 32.11 40.37 41.55 45.74 48.51
19 Mass dry soil (g) (17) - (15) 384.89 416.63 395.45 399.26 393.49
22 Dry density 100 * (12) / (100 + (20)) 2067 2085 2101 2076 2049
50
Date: 05/06/2017
GHANA HIGHWAY AUTHORITY Form S 2/2
1 Container no.
8 Mould factor 0.4649 0.4649 0.4649 0.4649 0.4649
9 Mass of mould(g) 4195 4195 4195 4195 4195
11 Mass wet soil (g) (10) - (9) 4938 4913 4905 4828 4623
12 Wet density Kg/m3 (11) * (8) 2296 2284 2280 2245 2149
13 2186 2155 2131 2158 2087
*(12)/(100+(6))
14 Oven-pan number 180 P7 P57 P50 P4
15 Mass oven-pan (g) 167.00 165.00 194.00 166.00 167.00
18 Mass of water (g) (16) - (17) 30.00 32.00 34.00 28.00 27.00
19 Mass dry soil (g) (17) - (15) 339.00 319.00 312.00 343.00 371.00
22 Dry density 100 * (12) / (100 + (20)) 2109 2076 2056 2075 2003
51
1 Container no.
8 Mould factor 0.4649 0.4649 0.4649 0.4649 0.4649
9 Mass of mould(g) 4195 4195 4195 4195 4195
11 Mass wet soil (g) (10) - (9) 4815 4905 5024 4981 4933
12 Wet density Kg/m3 (11) * (8) 2238 2280 2336 2316 2293
13 2152 2172 2203 2164 2123
*(12)/(100+(6))
14 Oven-pan number P20 P57 P5 P50 180
15 Mass oven-pan (g) 168.00 194.00 169.00 166.00 167.00
18 Mass of water (g) (16) - (17) 26.00 32.00 45.00 48.00 50.00
19 Mass dry soil (g) (17) - (15) 380.00 390.00 463.00 454.00 432.00
22 Dry density 100 * (12) / (100 + (20)) 2095 2107 2129 2094 2055
52
Table B-5. Compaction results of 90% NG + 10% PKS
1 Container no.
7 Mould number COMMEY COMMEY COMMEY COMMEY COMMEY
8 Mould factor 0.4708 0.4708 0.4708 0.4708 0.4708
9 Mass of mould(g) 4080 4080 4080 4080 4080
11 Mass wet soil (g) (10) - (9) 4374 4435 4545 4555 4432
12 Wet density Kg/m3 (11) * (8) 2059 2088 2140 2144 2087
13 1980 1989 2019 2004 1932
*(12)/(100+(6))
14 Oven- pan number P 52 P3 P 57 P 50 P 20
15 Mass oven-pan (g) 168.00 167.00 194.00 166.00 168.00
18 Mass of water (g) (16) - (17) 28.31 28.18 27.17 39.00 38.00
19 Mass dry soil (g) (17) - (15) 298.69 271.82 241.83 319.00 288.00
53
1 Container no.
8 Mould factor 0.4649 0.4649 0.4649 0.4649 0.4649
9 Mass of mould(g) 4198 4198 4198 4198 4198
10 Mass mould + wet soil (g) 8331 8436 8566 8550 8528
11 Mass wet soil (g) (10) - (9) 4133 4238 4368 4352 4330
12 Wet density. Kg/m3 (11) * (8) 1921 1970 2031 2023 2013
13 1865 1894 1934 1909 1881
*(12)/(100+(6))
14 Oven- pan number 122 P.7 180 P.5 P.4
15 Mass oven-pan. (g) 170.00 165.00 167.00 170.00 167.00
18 Mass of water (g) (16) - (17) 28.32 30.13 31.77 27.51 29.74
19 Mass dry soil (g) (17) - (15) 297.68 285.87 270.23 212.49 223.26
22 Dry density 100 * (12) / (100 + (20)) 1755 1782 1817 1791 1776
54
1 Container no.
8 Mould factor 0.4649 0.4649 0.4649 0.4649 0.4649
9 Mass of mould(g) 4189 4189 4189 4189 4189
11 Mass wet soil (g) (10) - (9) 3871 3976 4069 4067 4050
12 Wet density Kg/m3 (11) * (8) 1800 1848 1892 1891 1883
13 1747 1777 1802 1784 1760
*(12)/(100+(6))
14 Oven-pan number D 10 D6 D2 PT 3 C 10
15 Mass oven-pan (g) 103.00 103.00 103.00 103.00 102.00
18 Mass of water (g) (16) - (17) 21.13 21.48 22.88 22.88 23.94
19 Mass dry soil (g) (17) - (15) 194.87 183.52 181.12 165.12 162.06
22 Dry density 100 * (12) / (100 + (20)) 1624 1655 1680 1661 1641
55
Table B-8. Compaction results of 90% NG + 5% RG + 5% PKS
1 Container no.
8 Mould factor 0.4649 0.4649 0.4649 0.4649 0.4649
9 Mass of mould (g) 4189 4189 4189 4189 4189
11 Mass wet soil (g) (10) - (9) 4563 4651 4741 4695 4556
12 Wet density Kg/m3 (11) * (8) 2121 2162 2204 2183 2118
13 2080 2099 2119 2079 1998
*(12)/(100+(6))
Moisture content determination
14 Oven-pan number 122 P4 P7 P5 P 20
15 Mass oven-pan (g) 170.00 167.00 165.00 168.00 168.00
18 Mass of water (g) (16) - (17) 22.14 19.25 23.21 42.27 29.64
19 Mass dry soil (g) (17) - (15) 273.86 216.75 231.79 372.73 239.36
22 Dry density 100 * (12) / (100 + (20)) 1963 1986 2003 1960 1885
56
Table B-9. Compaction results of 85% NG + 7.5% + 7.5% PKS
1 Container no.
2 Mass air-dry sample (g) 6000 6000 6000 6000 6000
6 Est. Compaction MC (%)(4) + (5) 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0
7 Mould number Patoo1 Patoo1 Patoo1 PATOO1 PATOO1
8 Mould factor 0.4649 0.4649 0.4649 0.4649 0.4649
9 Mass of mould(g) 4189 4189 4189 4189 4189
11 Mass wet soil (g) (10) - (9) 4432 4552 4681 4571 4485
12 Wet density Kg/m3 (11) * (8) 2060 2116 2176 2125 2085
13 2020 2055 2092 2024 1967
*(12)/(100+(6))
14 Oven- pan number P 50 P 52 P3 P 57 180
15 Mass oven-pan (g) 166.00 169.00 167.00 194.00 168.00
18 Mass of water (g) (16) - (17) 19.39 18.44 21.04 27.35 31.62
19 Mass dry soil (g) (17) - (15) 229.61 196.56 205.96 245.65 255.38
22 Dry density 100 * (12) / (100 + (20)) 1900 1935 1974 1912 1855
57
Table B-10. Compaction results of 80% NG + 10% + 10% PKS
1 Container no.
6 Est. Compaction MC (%)(4) + (5) 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0
7 Mould number MP MP MP MP MP
8 Mould factor 0.4836 0.4836 0.4836 0.4836 0.4836
9 Mass of mould(g) 4456 4456 4456 4456 4456
11 Mass wet soil (g) (10) - (9) 4199 4433 4600 4434 4273
12 Wet density Kg/m3 (11) * (8) 2031 2144 2225 2144 2066
13 1991 2081 2139 2042 1949
*(12)/(100+(6))
14 Oven-pan number P10 P7 P19 P 20 P 16
15 Mass oven-pan (g) 170.00 160.00 165.00 168.00 174.00
18 Mass of water (g) (16) - (17) 12.74 15.58 16.22 18.67 21.62
19 Mass dry soil (g) (17) - (15) 207.26 220.42 192.78 199.33 206.38
22 Dry density 100 * (12) / (100 + (20)) 1913 2002 2052 1961 1870
58
Table B-11. Compaction results of 85% NG + 15% FRG
Central materials laboratory Moisture Density Relationship Total mass:
1 Container no.
8 Mould factor 0.4649 0.4649 0.4649 0.4649 0.4649
9 Mass of mould(g) 4195 4195 4195 4195 4195
11 Mass wet soil (g) (10) - (9) 4765 4879 4943 4865 4867
12 Wet density Kg/m3 (11) * (8) 2215 2268 2298 2262 2263
13 2130 2160 2168 2114 2095
*(12)/(100+(6))
14 Oven- pan number C 91 C 38 C 20 C 34 CK
15 Mass oven-pan (g) 64.00 66.00 64.00 74.00 64.00
18 Mass of water (g) (16) - (17) 21.00 27.00 27.00 27.00 29.00
19 Mass dry soil (g) (17) - (15) 257.00 279.00 249.00 228.00 234.00
21 Back calc. Air-dry mc. (%) (20) - (4) 4.17 4.68 4.84 4.84 4.39
22 Dry density 100 * (12) / (100 + (20)) 2048 2068 2073 2022 2013
59
Appendix C: Atterberg Limits Results
Table C-1. Atterberg limit test results for 100% NG
GHANA HIGHWAY AUTHORITY Draft form S6 Date: 19/05/2017

Central materials laboratory Atterberg Limits Test
Sample number: Operator: project members
Mass air-dry sample: Preparation a / preparation b / air-dry
Making bowl number: Pi tub number:
Settlement bowl number: Evaporation pan no.:
Moisture Content Determinations
Type of test Casagrande Cup Liquid Limit Plastic Limit
Test number 1(27-35) 2(23-27) 3(15-23) 1 2
No. Blows - cone penetration 35 27 15
Container number 197 44 444 193 361
Mass of wet soil + container 21.33 23.11 25.44 15.32 15.23
Mass of dry soil + container 16.88 18.01 19.18 13.53 13.45
Mass of container 5.37 5.38 5.39 5.4 5.4
Mass of water 4.45 5.1 6.26 1.79 1.78
Mass of dry soil 11.51 12.63 13.79 8.13 8.05
Moisture content 38.66 40.38 45.40 22.02 22.11
Casangrande cup liquid limit 42
Average plastic limit 22
Plasticity index using Casangrande Method 20
Figure C-1. LL using Casangrande method for 100% NG
60
Table C-2. Atterberg limit test results for 90% NG + 10% RG

Type of Test Casagrande Cup Liquid Limit Plastic Limit
Test number 1(27-35) 2(23-27) 3(15-23) 1 2
Container number 12 30 P 15 193 361
Mass of water 4 4.86 5.69 1.56 1.68
Mass of dry soil 11.48 12.65 13.63 8.29 8.3
Figure C-2. LL using Casangrande method for 90% NG + 10% RG
61
Test number 1(27-35) 2(23-27) 3(15-23) 1 2
Mass of water 4.25 5.12 5.92 1.61 1.68
Mass of dry soil 12.62 13.58 14.94 8.32 8.33
62
Test number 35 27 15
No. Blows - cone penetration 302 C7 79 174 242
Container number 22.31 24.23 26.64 15.05 15.36
Mass of water 12.8 14.12 15.22 7.96 8.41
Mass of dry soil 32.34 33.57 39.68 21.48 18.67
Moisture content 35 27 15
63
Table C-5. Atterberg limit test results for 90% NG + 5% RG + 5% PKS
Test number 35 27 15
No. Blows - cone penetration 150 44 445 193 361
Container number 20.45 22.26 24.55 15.30 15.2
Mass of water 11 12.12 13.28 8.19 8.1
Mass of dry soil 37.09 39.27 44.28 20.88 20.99
Moisture content 35 27 15
Figure C-5. LL using Casangrande method for 90% NG + 5% RG + 5% PKS
64
Table C-6. Atterberg limit test results for 85% NG + 7.5% RG + 7.5% PKS
Test number 1(27-35) 2(23-27) 3(15-23) 1 2
Container number 12 30 P 15 193 361
Mass of water 4.1 4.96 5.79 1.58 1.69
Mass of dry soil 11.43 12.6 13.58 8.28 8.33
65
Table C-7. Atterberg limit test results for 80% NG + 10% RG + 10% PKS
Test number 1(27-35) 2(23-27) 3(15-23) 1 2
Mass of water 3.97 4.63 5.84 1.81 1.72
Mass of dry soil 11.09 12.19 13.26 8.04 8.22
66
Table C-8. Atterberg limit test results for 85% NG + 15% FRG

Test number 1(27-35) 2(23-27) 3(15-23) 1 2
Mass of water 3.41 4.07 4.98 1.43 1.49
Mass of dry soil 11.34 13.2 14.2 8.69 8.38
Figure C-8. LL using Casangrande method for 85% NG + 15% FRG
67
Appendix D: Grading Analysis Results and Lab Pictures
Table D-1. Grading analysis results

90% NG + 85% NG + 80% NG +
90% NG + 85% NG + 80% NG + 90% NG + 85% NG + 80% NG + 85% NG +
Sieve Size 100% NG 5% RG + 7.5% RG + 10% RG +
10% RG 15% RG 20% RG 10% PKS 15% PKS 20% PKS 15% FRG
5% PKS 7.5% PKS 10% PKS
(mm)
% by Weight Passing
75.0 100
53.0 100
37.5 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
26.5 96 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
19.0 92 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
9.50 77 81 79 85 84 82 83 77 84 77 87
4.75 52 48 50 57 54 50 61 46 49 48 63
2.00 40 34 34 42 41 38 45 34 36 34 51
1.00 35 29 28 35 34 30 31 29 30 28 42
0.425 31 25 24 29 29 24 21 24 25 23 33
0.300 29 24 22 27 28 22 17 23 23 18 29
0.150 26 21 20 23 24 18 11 20 20 14 26
0.075 23 19 18 21 21 14 7 18 18 10 22
68
Figure D-1. Compaction works at lab Figure D-2. Weighing of samples at lab
Figure D-3. CBR readings at lab
69

Recycled Glass + PKS As Sustainable Alternative Updated Final-2 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Recycled Glass + PKS As Sustainable Alternative Updated Final-2 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

USING PALM KERNEL SHELL AND RECYCLED GLASS AS

SUSTAINABLE ALTERNATIVES TO CONSTRUCTION

Collins Wayebila Nyaaba

Joseph Atinganeriba Aduko

Samuel Nana Kwabena Adibrosu

A Thesis Submitted to the Department of Civil Engineering, In Partial Fulfilment of the

Requirement for the Award of

HIGHER NATIONAL DIPLOMA (HND)

acknowledgement has been made in the text.

Nyaaba Collins Wayebila ……………... …………….

(Student No. 06140542) Signature Date

Aduko Atinganeriba Joseph ……………... …………….

(Student No. 06140518) Signature Date

Adibruso Samuel Nana Kwabena ……………… …………….

(Student No. 06140514) Signature Date

Iddrisu Issaka ………………. …………….

(Student No. 06140537) Signature Date

Eng. Stephen Agyeman ………………. …………….

(Supervisor) Signature Date

Mr. Samuel Wiafe ……………...... …………….

(Head of Department) Signature Date

among others as stabibization agents in road pavement applications to full-scale success

properties such as California bearing ratio (CBR), moisture-density relationship,

Table 2.1. Rating of gravel aggregates ........................................................................... 10

Figure 3.1. Samples of RG, PKS and NG materials ....................................................... 19

AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials

ASTM America Society for Testing and Materials

BAR Brong Ahafo Region

CBR California Bearing Ratio

DFR Department of Feeder Roads

GHA Ghana Highway Authority

MDD Maximum Dry Density

MRT Ministry Roads and Highways

OMC Optimum Moisture Content

PKS Palm Kernel Shell

for their support during experimental phase of this project.

1.1 Background of the Study

Olanitori, & Olukanni, 2015).

Halstead (1993), conducted a research on the feasibility of using RG as supplemental

aggregate is an important ingredient in pavement structure (CWC, 1998; Edeh et al.,

1.2 Problem Statement

used as road construction material as partial replacement for natural material.

1.3 Aim and Objectives

shells for road works.

1.4 Significance of the Study

subbase course materials were therefore considered in this study.

1.6 Organization of Study Report

proceedings relating the area of study.

explain deviations were applicable.

recommendations of the study based on the research findings.

documents, reports and conferences proceedings relating the area of study.

2.2 Natural Aggregate

or a combination of any of these materials. Natural aggregates are usually a mixture of

refers always to lateritic gravel.

to temperate climate, and is a results of residual or end product of weathering” (Ampadu,

takes place simultaneously (Gidigasu, 1972, 1974, 1991; Giresse, 2008).

to pile up gravel in large accumulations (Hogan, 2010).

2010; Klohn, 1977).

to their physical and mechanical characteristics follows:

 Nodular or concretionary laterites.

 Iron stone hard pans or cap rock.

 Ground water laterites with detrital quartz.

 Colluvial and terrace laterites.