STUDY ON STABILIZATION OF SOIL USING INDUSTRIAL WASTES · Stabilization using lime and industrial...
Transcript of STUDY ON STABILIZATION OF SOIL USING INDUSTRIAL WASTES · Stabilization using lime and industrial...
© 2019 JETIR June 2019, Volume 6, Issue 6 www.jetir.org (ISSN-2349-5162)
JETIR1908B18 Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research (JETIR) www.jetir.org 122
STUDY ON STABILIZATION OF SOIL USING
INDUSTRIAL WASTES
Kanav Seth1, Abhishek2
1M.Tech Scholar, ECE Department, Galaxy Global Group of Institutions, Ambala, 2Assistant Professor, ECE Department, Galaxy Global Group of Institutions, Ambala.
Abstract- Soil stabilization is any process which improves the physical properties of soil, such as increasing shear
strength, bearing capacity etc. which can be done by use of controlled compaction or addition of suitable
admixtures like cement, lime and waste materials like fly ash, polypropylene etc. This new technique of soil
stabilization can be effectively used to meet the challenges of society, to reduce the quantities of waste, producing
useful material from non-useful waste materials. The research focuses on three main objectives, the first one is
improving the properties of the soil at the construction site so it doesn’t bend under the pressure from the weight
of the building structure, while the other important part is how to minimize the excessive usage of the cement in
this purpose and try to use other materials which can do the same job, one of these materials is the rice husk ash,
its production is increasing yearly and annually 20 million tons are produced, which quite large amount. Rice husk
ash consist of 85%-90% silica, this is why it is a great replacement for silica in soil stabilization, silica is considered
to be a great binding agent along with cement, however due time its price is increasing, so new materials are used
for the purpose of geotechnical works. There are three objectives of the research; one is to determine the Atterberg
limits, maximum dry density, optimum moisture content and maximum shear strength of the soil without
additives, another is to determine the maximum dry density and optimum moisture content of the soil with 5%,
10%, 15% rice husk ash and 6% cement as additive and lastly compare the results between the sample with
additives and the sample without additives to determine what is the change that occurred. The tests are Atterberg
limits test, grain size analysis, proctor compaction test and shear box test.
Keywords- Soil Stabilization, Maximum Dry Density, Optimum Moisture Content, Direct Shear.
I. INTRODUCTION
In the modern industrial age most of the production work is done in factories and industries, be it clothes or
construction materials everything is manufactured in industries. After or during the production of these
materials or products there are left some unwanted materials. These materials are dumped; they take space and
are hazardous to the environment if left untreated of a long period. But these materials have some properties
that can be utilized for the better and as an advantage they are very cheap, hence their utilization is cost
effective.
The following materials are the most common industrial wastes we find around us: Fly ash, Brick Powder,
Sugar Cane Dust, Rice Husk Ash, Plastic products etc.. Due to the limited scope and time of this project we
have chosen only two of these wastes in our research: Brick Powder and Rice Husk ash.
This dissertation work deals with the complete analysis of the improvement of soil properties and its
Stabilization using lime and industrial wastes; brick powder and rice husk ash by using different concentration
of these additives in the soil, thereby enhancing the soil properties for better stability and durability.
Rice husk is an agricultural waste obtained from rice milling. About 108 tons of rice husks are generated
annually in the world. Meanwhile, the ash has been categorized under pozzolana, with about 67-70% silica and
about 4.9% and 0.95%, Alumina and iron oxides, respectively. Thus, using RHA as an additive seems to be
economical particularly in regions having high production capacity. It has been observed that RHA is a superior
inexpensive material to enhance the geotechnical properties of soils.
Brick Powder is a waste powder generated from the burning of bricks with the soil covered by Surroundings.
Due to burning of soil bricks it hardened and at the time of removal the setup we get the powder form of brick.
It has red color and fine in nature. It has great ability to reduce the swelling potential of soil. The most common
stabilization agent used is lime as it has very good stabilization properties, using waste materials along with
lime enhances the properties of soil more than using lime alone.
© 2019 JETIR June 2019, Volume 6, Issue 6 www.jetir.org (ISSN-2349-5162)
JETIR1908B18 Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research (JETIR) www.jetir.org 123
II. Literature Review
Joel H. Beeghly, 2003, “Recent Experiences with stabilization using fly ash of Pavement Sub-grade Soils, Base, and
reprocessed asphalt" as per author Highway engineers have long recognized remote future benefits of increasing the
strength and durability of pavement sub-grade soil by mixing fly ash with sub-grade soil during new construction.
Federal and state highway engineers have a revived interest in “perpetual pavement” which will befit from “perpetual
foundations”. For a low cohesive, silty soil or for converting full depth asphalt pavement recent investigations and some
recent experiments demonstrated that lime and F class fly ash stabilization can be economically engineered for long-term
performance. For relevant soils, LFA is able to provide cost savings by minimizing material cost by up to 50% as
compared to Portland cement stabilization.
David J. White, Dale Harrington, and Zach Thomas, 2005, “Fly Ash Soil Stabilization for Non-Uniform Sub-grade
Soils" In results it is seen that the soil compaction characteristics, compressive strength, wet/dry durability, freeze/thaw
durability, hydration characteristics, strength gaining speed, and plasticity characteristics are all altered by the mixing of
fly ash. Specifically, Iowa self-cementing fly ashes are effective at stabilizing fine-grained Iowa soils for earthwork and
paving operations; fly ash increases compacted dry density and reduces the optimum moisture content; strength gain in
soil-fly ash mixtures depends on cure time and heat, compaction energy, and compaction delay; sulfur contents can form
expansive minerals in soil–fly ash mixtures, which critically reduces the whole strength and durability; fly ash increases
the California bearing ratio of fine-grained soil–fly ash excellently dries wet soils and provides an early rapid strength
gain; fly ash reduces swelling of expansive soils, soil-fly ash mixtures cured under freezing temperatures and then soaked
in water are highly sensitive to slaking and loss of strength, soil stabilized with fly ash exhibits increased freeze-thaw
activities. Soil strength can be improvised with the mixing of hydrated fly ash and conditioned fly ash, but at greater rates
and not as effectively as self-cementing fly ash. Mohd Ashraf bin mohdhussin (2010), “stabilization of sub-grade by
using fly ash related to road Pavement thickness design at jalanjaya gad1ng”…… This project aims to study the
effectiveness of adding fly ash by percentage to the sub-grade with increasing the California Bearing Ratio (CBR) value.
The fly ash will be added to the plain soil (sub-grade) by using 4% and 8% fly ash and tested by following ASSHTO as
guidance steps. California Bearing Ratio (CBR) is a commonly used directly as to assess the stiffness modulus and shear
strength of sub-grade in pavement design work. If the CBR value is increasing by adding the fly ash to the soils it's shown
its effectiveness in increasing soil strength and vice versa. Overall, when California Bearing Ratio (CBR) value increases,
the thickness of pavement design can be reduced and subsequently the road construction of the affected road section will
be more economically. S. Siva Gowri Prasad, 2014, “stabilization of pavement sub-grade by using fly ash Reinforced
with geotextile”……according to the authors the behavior of a pavement depends very much on the characteristics of the
soil sub-grade, which provides platform for the whole pavement structure. For that reason of sheer significance the
enforcement of pavements is enhanced by adopting proper design and construction methods. Fly ash is produced from
various thermal power plants is low unit weight, non- plastic, very fine and disposed in slurry form into ponds covering
large area. Such materials have a low load carrying capacity, degraded settlement and their proper use in civil engineering
works is quite difficult. In this investigation, samples of fly ash are compacted to its maximum dry density at the finest
moisture content is organized without and with Geotextile layers in the CBR mould. Geotextile sheets equal to the plan
dimensions of CBR mould is placed in distinct preparations of 1st , 2nd , 3rd and 4th layers at different locations (i.e. at
different embedment ratio, z/d)in the CBR mould. Subsequent to each arrangement of Geotextile, the CBR (California
Bearing Ratio) values are evaluated in the laboratory and compared with the results of CBR values earlier than including
geotextile. Based on the tests conducted and discussion the authors concluded that by addition of fly ash, the CBR value
is increased by 27% when compared to unmodified soil. The CBR value is increased by 28.4% where the geotextile is
placed at 1st layer when compared to other three layers. The CBR value is increased by 64% where the geotextile is
placed at 2nd and 4th layers when compared to 1st and 3rd layers. The CBR value is increased by 158.0% by placing the
geotextile at all four layers .
III. EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM & RESULTS
Tests performed
3.1 Specific Gravity Test:-
Purpose: - Specific gravity of soil solids is the ratio of weight, in air of a given volume; of dry soil solids to the weight of
equal volume of water at 4ºC.Specific gravity of soil grains gives the property of the formation of soil mass and is
independent of particle size. Specific gravity of soil grains is used in calculating void ratio, porosity and degree of
saturation, by knowing moisture content and density.
W1= Weight of Empty Pycnometer = 640g
W2= Weight of Soil + Pycnometer = 840g
W3= Weight of Soil + Pycnometer + Water = 1660g
W4= Weight of Pycnometer + Water = 1540g
© 2019 JETIR June 2019, Volume 6, Issue 6 www.jetir.org (ISSN-2349-5162)
JETIR1908B18 Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research (JETIR) www.jetir.org 124
G= (W2-W1) / (W2-W1) – (W3-W4)
G= (840-640) / (840 – 640) – (1660- 1540)
G= 2.5
Figure 3.1 Pycnometer
3.2 Sieve Analysis Test
Grain size analysis is used in the engineering classification of soils. Particularly coarse grained soils. Part of suitability
criteria of soils for road, airfield, levee, dam and other embankment construction is based on the grain size analysis.
Information obtained from the grain size analysis can be used to predict soil water movement. Soils are broadly classified
as coarse grained soils and fine grained soils. Further classification of coarse grained soils depends mainly on grain size
distribution and the fine grained soils are further classified based on their plasticity properties. The grain size distribution
of coarse grained soil is studied by conducting sieve analysis.
Name of the soil is given depending on the maximum percentage of the above components. Soils having less than 5%
particle of size smaller than 0.075mm are designated by the symbols, Example: GP: Poorly Graded Gravel. GW: Well
Graded Gravel. SW: Well Graded Sand. SP: Poorly Graded Sand.
Table 3.1 Sieve Analysis Result
S. No Sieve size Weight of Soil
retained (gm)
% Weight
retained
Cumulative
Parentage retained
Percentage
Passing
1 4.75 7.16 1.43 1.43 98.56
2 2.36 33.33 6.66 8.09 91.90
3 1 80.48 16.09 24.19 75.80
4 600 micron 32.88 6.57 30.77 69.23
5 300 micron 21.08 4.22 34.98 65.01
6 150 micron 200 40 74.98 25.01
7 75 micron 85 17 91.98 8.01
8 < 75 micron 40 8 99.98 0.01
Fig. 3.2 Graph for sieve Analysis
© 2019 JETIR June 2019, Volume 6, Issue 6 www.jetir.org (ISSN-2349-5162)
JETIR1908B18 Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research (JETIR) www.jetir.org 125
From the graph above following are obtained
D10 = 0.08 mm
D30 = 0.17 mm
D60 = 0.45 mm
Coefficient of uniformity Cu = D60/D10 = 0.25/0.08 = 3.12
Coefficient of curvature Cc = D302/ (D10 x D60) = 0.80
Percentage gravel (>4.75) = 1.432%
Percentage of coarse sand (4.75 to 2) = 6.66 %
Percentage of medium sand (2 to 0.425) = 22.672 %
Percentage of fine sand = 57 %
Percentage of fines = 8 %
3.3 Standard Proctor test
Compaction is the process of densification of soil mass, by reducing air voids under dynamic loading. On the other hand
though consolidation is also a process of densification of soil mass but it is due to the expulsion of water under the action
of continuously acting static load over a long period. The degree of compaction of a soil is measured in terms of its dry
density. The degree of compaction mainly depends upon its moisture content during compaction, compaction energy and
the type of soil. For a given compaction energy, every soil attains the maximum dry density at a particular water content
which is known as optimum moisture content (OMC).
Weight of mould = 4Kgs.
Volume of mould = 990 cm3
Metal rammer weight = 25 N
Height of fall = 300mm
Compaction of soil increases its dry density, shear strength and bearing capacity. The compaction of soil
decreases its void ratio permeability and settlements.
3.3.1 Original Soil Sample
Weight of soil taken = 2.5 kg
Table 3.2 Original Soil Sample Result
Water Added Mass (g) Water Content Density Dry Density
Wet Sample Dry Sample Wt. Content
4% 1860 12.09 11.23 7.11% 1.87 1.74
6% 1880 14.5 13.19 9.03% 1.89 1.741
8% 1930 15.31 13.8 9.86% 1.94 1.774
10% 1975 17.85 15.85 11.2% 1.99 1.794
12% 2000 18.97 16.69 12.01% 2.02 1.803
14% 2030 17.03 14.73 13.5% 2.05 1.806
16% 2025 18.39 15.73 14.4% 2.04 1.787
18% 1990 25.03 21.25 15.10% 2.01 1.746
This test was conducted on the original soil sample. The following results were obtained:-Maximum Dry Density =1.806
g/cm3
Optimum Moisture Content = 13.4 %
© 2019 JETIR June 2019, Volume 6, Issue 6 www.jetir.org (ISSN-2349-5162)
JETIR1908B18 Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research (JETIR) www.jetir.org 126
Water Content Fig 3.3 Graph for Original Soil Sample
3.3.2 10% lime 90% Soil
Wt of soil = 2250 g
Wt of lime = 250
Table 3.3 10% lime 90% Soil result
Water Added Mass (g) Water Content Density Dry Density
Wet Sample Dry Sample Wt. Content
4% 1850 12.12 10.91 9.98% 1.86 1.69
6% 1985 4.81 4.15 13.72% 2.00 1.76
8% 2080 3.99 3.54 14.18% 2.10 1.84
10% 2050 6.14 5.24 14.65% 2.07 1.80
12% 2035 17.2 14.88 15.55% 2.00 1.77
14% 2020 15.14 12.76 15.71% 2.04 1.76
16% 2000 21.25 17.8 16.25% 2.02 1.3
18% 1980 20.63 16.96 17.78% 2.00 1.69
Water Content
Fig. 3.4 Graph For 10% Lime And 90% Soil
This test was conducted on a treated soil sample. The mass thus obtained consists of 10 % Lime and 90% Soil by weight.
The following results were obtained:-
Maximum Dry Density = 1.84 g/cm3
Optimum Moisture content = 8.2 %
Dry Density
Dry Density
Parent
Lime
© 2019 JETIR June 2019, Volume 6, Issue 6 www.jetir.org (ISSN-2349-5162)
JETIR1908B18 Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research (JETIR) www.jetir.org 127
3.3.3 10% lime, 10% brick, 80% soil
Weight of soil = 2000 g
Weight of lime= 250 g
Weight of brick powder = 250 g
Table 3.4 10% lime, 10% Brick, 80% Soil result
Water Added Mass (g) Water Content Density Dry Density
Wet Sample Dry Sample Wt. Content
4% 1850 13.12 11.91 7.3% 1.86 1.74
6% 1970 5.81 5.16 11.3% 1.98 1.78
8% 2060 4.01 4.52 12.4% 2.08 1.85
10% 2045 7.12 6.12 13.2% 2.06 1.82
12% 2020 16.95 15.32 14.1% 2.04 1.78
14% 2010 15.98 13.21 16.3% 2.03 1.74
16% 1985 22.12 16.9 17.2% 2.00 1.71
18% 1970 20.31 17.01 18.1% 1.98 1.68
Water Content
Fig. 3.5 Graph For 10% Lime, 10% Brick, 80% Soil
This test was conducted on a treated soil sample. The mass consists of 10% Lime, 10% Brick Powder and 80%
Soil by weight.
The following results were obtained:-
Maximum dry density = 1.85 g/cm3
Optimum moisture content = 8.2 %
3.3.4 10% lime, 15% brick, 75% soil
Weight of soil = 1875 g
Weight of brick powder = 375 g
Weight of lime = 250 g
Table 3.5 10% lime, 15% Brick, 75% Soil result
Water Added Mass (g) Water Content Density Dry Density
Wet Sample Dry Sample Wt. Content
4% 1810 5.14 4.84 5.8% 1.82 1.72
6% 1870 7.15 6.63 7.2% 1.88 1.76
8% 1930 13.58 12.45 8.3% 1.95 1.80
10% 2000 12.43 11.23 9.6% 2.02 1.84
Dry Density
Parent
Lime 10 & Brick 10
© 2019 JETIR June 2019, Volume 6, Issue 6 www.jetir.org (ISSN-2349-5162)
JETIR1908B18 Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research (JETIR) www.jetir.org 128
12% 2020 12.83 11.42 10.9% 2.04 1.87
14% 2090 17.13 15.12 11.7% 2.11 1.90
16% 2040 18.73 16.00 14.5% 2.06 1.80
18% 1990 17.49 14.84 15.1% 2.01 1.76
This test was conducted on a treated soil sample. The mass consists of 10% Lime 15% Brick Powder and 75% Soil by
weight.
The following results were obtained:-
Maximum dry density = 1.91 g/cm3
Optimum moisture content = 13.5%
Water Content
Fig. 3.6 Graph For 15% Brick, 10% Lime, And 75% Soil
3.3.5 10% lime, 20% brick, 70% soil
Weight of lime = 250 g
Weight of brick = 500 g
Weight of soil = 1750 g
Table 3.6 10% lime, 20% Brick, 70% Soil result
Water Added Mass (g) Water Content Density Dry Density
Wet Sample Dry Sample Wt. Content
4% 1780 10.33 9.48 8.2% 1.79 1.66
6% 1810 7.95 7.20 9.4% 1.82 1.66
8% 1935 8.94 7.98 10.7% 1.95 1.76
10% 1970 6.21 5.49 11.6% 1.98 1.783
12% 2040 7.79 6.81 12.6% 2.06 1.83
14% 2075 19.94 17.22 13.6% 2.065 1.81
16% 2020 15.17 12.98 14.4% 2.04 1.78
18% 1985 16.18 13.64 15.7% 2.0 1.73
Dry Density
Parent
Lime 10 & Brick 15
© 2019 JETIR June 2019, Volume 6, Issue 6 www.jetir.org (ISSN-2349-5162)
JETIR1908B18 Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research (JETIR) www.jetir.org 129
Water Content
Fig. 3.7 Graph For 20% Brick, 10% Lime, And 70% Soil
This test was conducted on a treated soil sample. The mass consists of 10% Lime 20% Brick powder and 70% Soil by
weight.
The following results were obtained:-
Maximum Dry density = 1.83 g/cm3
Optimum Moisture Content = 13.2 %
3.3.6 10% lime, 10% RHA, 80% soil
Weight of lime = 250 g
Weight of RHA = 250 g
Weight of soil = 2000 g
Table 3.7 10% lime, 10% RHA, 80% Soil result
Water Added Mass (g) Water Content Density Dry Density
Wet Sample Dry Sample Wt. Content
4% 1770 3.10 2.84 8.3% 1.78 1.65
6% 1815 8.80 8.05 8.5% 1.83 1.68
8% 1865 5.23 4.71 9.9% 1.88 1.71
10% 2000 8.55 7.52 12% 2.02 1.8
12% 2065 12.57 11.00 12.5% 2.08 1.85
14% 2030 9.67 8.32 14% 2.05 1.79
16% 1990 8.68 7.32 15.6% 2.01 1.74
18% 1980 8.32 6.98 14.87% 1.98 1.51
This test was conducted on a treated soil sample. The mass consists of 10% Lime 10% RHA and 80% soil by
weight.
Maximum Dry Density = 1.85 g/cm3
Optimum Moisture Content = 12%
Dry Density
Parent
Lime 10 & Brick 20
© 2019 JETIR June 2019, Volume 6, Issue 6 www.jetir.org (ISSN-2349-5162)
JETIR1908B18 Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research (JETIR) www.jetir.org 130
Water Content
Fig. 3.8 Graph For 10% Lime, 10% RHA, And 80% Soil
3.3.7 10% lime, 15% RHA, 75% soil
Weight of lime = 250 g
Weight of RHA = 375 g
Weight of soil = 1875 g
Table 3.8 10% lime, 15% RHA, 75% Soil result
Water Added Mass (g) Water Content Density Dry Density
Wet Sample Dry Sample Wt. Content
4% 1750 12.28 11.57 5.7% 1.76 1.67
8% 1800 10.75 9.74 9.4% 1.81 1.663
12% 1980 18.11 16.0 11.6% 2.00 1.792
14% 2070 19.32 17.02 11.9% 2.08 1.87
18% 2000 15.95 13.52 15.2% 2.02 1.753
22% 1940 13.98 11.23 19.6% 1.95 1.64
This test was conducted on a treated soil sample. The mass consists of 10% Lime 15% RHA and 75% Soil by weight.
The following results were obtained:-
Maximum Dry Density = 1.87 g/cm3
Optimum Moisture Content = 13.5 %
Water Content
Fig. 3.9 Graph For 15% RHA, 10% Lime, And 75% Soil
3.3.8 Table showing the maximum dry density and OMCs of each sample:-
Maximum values of dry density and OMC was observed from the results. Those values were tabulated as shown in the
table below.
Dry Density
Parent
Lime 10 & Brick 20
Dry Density
Parent
Lime 10 & Brick 20
© 2019 JETIR June 2019, Volume 6, Issue 6 www.jetir.org (ISSN-2349-5162)
JETIR1908B18 Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research (JETIR) www.jetir.org 131
Table 3.9 Table showing the maximum dry density and OMCs of each sample
Sample MDD g/cm3 OMC %
Original Sample 100% soil. 1.806 13.4
10 % Lime 90% Soil 1.84 8.2
10% Lime 10% Brick 80% Soil 1.85 8.2
10% Lime 15% Brick 75% Soil 1.91 13.5
10% Lime 20% Brick 70% Soil 1.83 13.2
10% Lime 10% RHA 80% Soil 1.85 12
10% Lime 15% RHA 75% Soil 1.87 13.5
3.4 Direct Shear Test:-
The shear strength of soil means is its property against sliding along internal planes within itself. The stability of slope in
an earth dam of hills and the foundation of the structure built on different types of soil depend upon the shearing
resistance offered by the soil along the possible slippage surface. Shear parameters are also used in computing the safe
bearing capacity of the foundation soils and the earth pressure behind retaining walls.
Shear strength is determined as below (after Coulomb)
Where S = Shear strength of soil C=Cohesion
The parameters c and ᶲ for a particular soil depend upon its degree of saturation, density and the condition of laboratory
testing. In a direct shear test, the sample is sheared along a horizontal plane. This indicates that the failure plane is
horizontal. The normal stress on this plane is the external vertical load divided by the area of the soil sample. The shear
stress at failure is the external lateral load divided by the corrected area of soil sample. The main advantage of direct shear apparatus is its simplicity and smoothness of operation and the rapidity with which testing programme
can be carried out.
3.4.1 Test for original sample
Table 3.10 Result for 0.5 kg Normal Stress
Proving ring Dial gauge
1 1.8
2 5.4
3 9.8
4 14.4
5 18
6 22.8
7 30
8 37.2
9 48.4
10 70.6
Calculations
Shear box = 60 x 60 mm Area = 60 x (60 – ( 48.4 x 0.002)) = 3594.192 mm2
Thickness of specimen = 40 mm Area = 35.94 cm2
© 2019 JETIR June 2019, Volume 6, Issue 6 www.jetir.org (ISSN-2349-5162)
JETIR1908B18 Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research (JETIR) www.jetir.org 132
Volume of specimen = 1440 mm2 τ = 0.313 Kg/cm2
τ = load / area Load = 112.5 N Therefore τ = 3.13 N/cm2
Table 3.11 Result for 1 kg Normal Stress
Proving ring Dial gauge
1 3.2
2 4.2
3 5.4
4 7.2
5 8.6
6 10.8
7 13.4
8 16
9 19.2
10 22.6
11 27
12 33
13 39.4
14 47.4
15 52.6
16 74.4
Length = 60 mm τ = 5.22 N/cm2
Breadth = 59.89 mm τ = 0.52 Kg/cm2
Area = 35.93 cm2
Table 3.12 Result for 1.5 kg Normal Stress
Proving ring Dial gauge
1 8.4
2 11.4
3 14.2
4 17.4
5 20.6
6 24.2
7 28.2
8 32.2
9 36.4
10 42
© 2019 JETIR June 2019, Volume 6, Issue 6 www.jetir.org (ISSN-2349-5162)
JETIR1908B18 Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research (JETIR) www.jetir.org 133
11 47.4
12 54.8
13 63
14 72.4
15 85.6
Length = 60 mm τ = 6.27 N/cm2
Breadth = 59.89 mm τ = 0.62 Kg/cm2
Area = 35.88 cm2
3.5 California Bearing Ratio
A CBR of less than 3% indicates poor soil; a CBR of 3% to 7% indicates Normal soil. A CBR of 10% to 15% indicates
good soil.
Compute CBR value as follows: CBR = (Pt / Ps) X 100
Where, Pt = corrected unit (or total) test load corresponding to the chosen penetration from the load penetration curve,
and Ps = unit (or total) standard load for the same depth of penetration as for Pt taken from the table.
Generally, the CBR value at 2.5 mm penetration will be greater than that at 5 mm penetration and in such a case; the
former shall be taken as the CBR value for design purposes. If the CBR value corresponding to a penetration of 5 mm
exceeds that for 2.5 mm, the test shall be repeated. If identical results follow, the CBR corresponding to 5 mm penetration
shall be taken for design.
Penetration (mm) Unit Standard load Total Standard Load (N)
2.5 70 13700
5 105 20550
3.5.1 CBR value for original soil sample
Table 3.13 CBR values for original sample
Penetration (mm) Load (N) Load (Kg)
0 0 0
0.5 6.25 0.625
1 12.5 1.25
1.5 25.00 2.5
2 37.51 3.75
2.5 54.18 5.14
4 114.62 11.4
5 189.64 18.96
7.5 158.38 15.83
10 141.7 14.17
Weight of sample = 4.470 Kg
Load corresponding of 5 mm = 190 N
Total standard load corresponding to 5 mm penetration = 20550 N
CBR value at 5 mm penetration = 190/ 20550 x 100 = 0.92 %
© 2019 JETIR June 2019, Volume 6, Issue 6 www.jetir.org (ISSN-2349-5162)
JETIR1908B18 Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research (JETIR) www.jetir.org 134
3.5.2 CBR for treated soil sample:-
Table 3.14 CBR for 10% Lime 15% Brick powder 75% Lime
Penetration (mm) Load (N) Load (Kg)
0 0 0
0.5 20.84 2.08
1 60.43 6.04
1.5 133.37 13.33
2 168.80 16.88
2.5 258.416 25.84
4 575.18 57.51
5 673.70 67.37
7.5 616.86 616.8
10 533.50 53.35
Load corresponding to 5 mm = 637.7 N
CBR Value at 5 mm penetration = 637.7/20550 x 100 = 3.103 %
IV. CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE SCOPE
5.1 Conclusion
After using varying proportions of industrial wastes with a constant 10% proportion of lime the following
results were obtained:-
The combination of 10% Lime 15% Brick and 75 % soil by weight was used. This sample was selected
after performing standard proctor test on various samples and the one with maximum dry density was
chosen for the rest of the project. The maximum dry densitywas improved from 1.8 g/cm3 to 1.91
g/cm3. This has an effect on the bearing capacity and also on the shear strength of the soil. Another
sample that showed good dry density was 10% Lime 15% RHA combination but that sample required a
lot of water content to achievethe maximum dry density i.e 1.87 g/cm3 and was hence not considered
for practical implementations.
After performing the direct shear test on the treated soil sample and comparing the resultsit was
observed that the shear resistance of soil was improved from 0.75 kg/cm2 to 1.01 kg/cm2. Which means
that the soil will perform better under earthquake conditions? And will be less susceptible to foundation
failure due to floods and other calamities.
The CBR of the soil which indicates its bearing capacity was improved form less than 3% (0.92%) to
3.1%. This result indicates that the soil which was initially unfit for engineering purposes now can be
used for construction or engineering purposes. Soil replacement need not be done on this site now.
All of these results indicated that the soil which was initially unsuitable for construction or engineering
purposes was stabilized and made of suitable quality using lime in combination with industrial wastes. The
wastes which were considered a hazard for environment can now be put to positive use and can benefit the
human kind and also the environment.
5.2 Future Scope
Further research can be carried out on this topic by adding certain other easily available materials like lime,
gypsum etc. in addition to RHA and cement and also by performing other major tests used in pavement design
for future study.
© 2019 JETIR June 2019, Volume 6, Issue 6 www.jetir.org (ISSN-2349-5162)
JETIR1908B18 Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research (JETIR) www.jetir.org 135
V. REFERENCES
[1] International Journal of Application or Innovation in Engineering & Management (IJAIEM) Volume 3,
Issue 11, November 2014 ISSN 2319 – 4847
[2] Musa AL Hassan; Potentials of Rice Husk Ash for Soil Stabilization. AU J.T. 11(4):246-250, Apr.2008.
[3] International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology (IJERT) ISSN: 2278-0181 Vol. 2 Issue 4,
April – 2013
[4] K. R. Arora 2003. Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering. 6th Edition, Standard publishers, Delhi,
India.
[5] Circeo, L.J.Strength-maturityrelations of soil cement mixtures. Unpublished M. S. thesis. Ames, Iowa. Library, Iowa State University of Science and Technology. 1961.
[6] Clare, K. E. and Cruchley, A. E., 1957.Laboratory experiments in the stabilization of clays with hydrated lime.
[7] Agarwal, K.B. and Ghanekar, K.D., (1970). “Prediction of CBR from plasticity characteristics of soil”,
proceedings of 2nd south-east Asian conference on soil engineering, Singapore, June 11-15, pp.571-6.
[8] Patel, R. S., & Desai, M. D. (2010). “CBR predicted by index properties for alluvial soils of South Gujarat.” In
Proceedings of the Indian Geotechnical conference, Mumbai (pp. 79-82).
[9] Venkatasubramanian, C., & Dhinakaran, G. (2011). “ANN model for predicting CBR from index properties of
soils.” International Journal of Civil & Structural Engineering, 2(2), 614-620.
[10] Saklecha, P. P., Katpatal, Y. B., Rathore, S. S., & Agarawal, D. K. (2011). “Correlation of Mechanical Properties
of weathered Basaltic Terrain for strength Characterization of foundation using ANN.” International Journal of
Computer Applications-Nov.
[11] Ramasubbarao, G.V., and Sankar, S., (2013). “Predicting Soaked CBR Value of Fine Grained Soils Using Index
and Compaction Characteristics.” Jordan Journal of Civil Engineering, Volume 7.
[12] Talukdar, (2014) D. K. “A Study of Correlation Between California Bearing Ratio (CBR) Value With Other
Properties of Soil.” International journal of emerging technology and Advanced Engineering. Volume 4.
[13] Harini, H., & Naagesh, S. (2014). “Predicting CBR of Fine Grained Soils by Artificial Neural Network and
Multiple Linear Regressions.” International Journal of Civil Engineering.
[14] IS: 2720-Part V (1985) Determination of Liquid limit & Plastic limit, Bureau of Indian Standard, New Delhi,
India.
[15] Mouratidis, A., (2004). “Correlations for Soil Bearing Capacity Parameters.” Proceedings of International
Seminar on Geotechnics in Pavement and Railway Design and Construction, 143 -148.
[16] Reddy, K.V., “Correlation Between California Bearing Ratio and Shear Strength on Artificially Prepared Soils
with Varying Plasticity Index”, International Journal of Civil Engineering & Technology (IJCIET), Volume 4,
Issue 6, 2013, pp. 61 – 66.
[17] Kaur,S., Boveja, V.B., and Agarwal, A. (2011),”Artificial Neural Network Modeling for Prediction of CBR” ,
Indian Highways, Vol. 39 , No 1, 31-38.