BIRLA VISHVAKARMA MAHAVIDYALAYA (ENGINEERING

APPRAISING RESPONSE OF ADDITIVES IN SOIL

STABILIZATION FOR PAVEMENT

A PROJECT REPORT

Submitted by

CHAKSHU KOUL 16CE202

MAKADIA DHRUV 17CE317

PATEL BHAVIN 17CE319

AGARIYA HARDIK 17CE326

VOHRA ALMAS 17CE332

VHORA ABRAR 17CE333

in fully fulfilment for the award of the degree of

B. TECH. (CIVIL ENGINEERING)

Under the subject of

CE444: PROJECT-II

BIRLA VISHVAKARMA MAHAVIDYALAYA

(ENGINEERING COLLEGE)

(An Autonomous Institution)

VALLABH VIDYANAGAR

Affiliated to

GUJARAT TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY, AHMEDABAD

Academic Year: 2019 – 2020

Birla Vishwakarma Mahavidyalaya College of Engg., Anand

2

APPROVAL SHEET

This project report “Appraising response of additives in soil stabilization for pavement”

is carried out by:





VOHRA ALMAS 17CE332

VHORA ABRAR 17CE333

is approved for the submission as a project report under the subject CE444: Project-II for

the submission for the award of the degree of B. Tech. (Civil Engineering).

Name and Signature of Supervisor

Date:

Place:

Name and Signature of Examiner

Date:

Place:


3

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

B. V. M. ENGINEERING COLLEGE, VALLABH VIDYANAGAR-

388120

BONAFIDE CERTIFICATE

Certified that this project report “Appraising Response of Additives in Soil Stabilization

for Pavement” is the bonafide and original work of





VOHRA ALMAS 17CE332

VHORA ABRAR 17CE333

who carried out the project work under my supervision.

Prof. C. B Mishra

(Associate Professor of Civil Engg. Department)

BVM Engg. College, Vallabh Vidyanagar

Dr. L. B. Zala

(Head of Civil Engg. Department)

BVM Engg. College, Vallabh Vidyanagar


4

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Sometime word falls short to show gratitude the same is happening with us during his project. The

immense help and support received from the faculties and friend overwhelmed us during the project.

The project work has been the most exciting part of our learning experience, which would be assert us

for our future carrier.

We earnestly express our sincere thanks and sense of gratitude to Dr. Indrajit N. Patel, Principle of

Birla Vishwakarma Mahavidyalaya and Dr. L.B. Zala, HOD of Civil engineering department who has

given us an opportunity to work on such project development by providing all facilities that were

required.

We are highly indebted to Prof. C.B. Mishra (internal project guide) who has provided us with the

necessary information and his valuable suggestions on bringing out this project in the best possible

way.

5

Birla Vishvakarma Mahavidyalaya College of Engg., Anand

ABSTRACT

Stability of underlying soil affects the short term and long-term performance of pavement structure.

In situ sub grades often do not provide the support required to achieve acceptable performance

under traffic loading and environmental demands. However, construction of roads in rural areas is

always restrained by geographic limitation and often can be costly and energy inefficient. Hence it

causes more adverse impact on the environment.

The amount of waste generated from varied sources has increased in recent years due to increase

in population, industrialization, social as well as economic activities. It has become the need of the

hour to utilize this waste in the best manner yet to encourage the concept of reusing in waste

management and thus reduce the cost of waste disposal. One such method of reusing is that by using

it in the process of soil stabilization.

Roadways designed for low-volume traffic are constructed of local soils containing high

percentages of fines and high indices of plasticity. These soils may not have characteristics

appropriate for use in soil road construction, but can often be upgraded with soil stabilization

technology to successfully recondition and strengthen existing road base and sub-base materials

for extended life and heavier traffic duty.

In this thesis, an effort has been made to decrease the thickness of pavement by utilizing innovative

materials like Waste marble powder and wooden dust for sub-grade soil stabilization. The tests

such as Grain size analysis, Atterberg’s limits, CBR and UCS values along with Free swell index

which is performed to analysis the engineering properties of soil such as classification of soil, OMC,

and MDD, the strength of soil and properties.

The CBR and UCS tests are studied for untreated and treated soils with optimum dosages and the

readings are recorded for 3 days, 7 days, 14 days, and 21 days. Comparison of soil treated with

Marble powder, wooden dust and combine (marble powder + wooden dust) are evaluated and also

the flexible pavement thickness based on IRC 37-2012 is carried out based on CBR values and the

cost saving is also computed.

Also, utilizing field emission microscopy (FESEM) and an energy dispersive x-beam spectrometry

(EDAX) strategy on ordinary soil balanced out with an optimum dosage of marble powder and

wooden dust to have a superior comprehension of changes in atomic structure contributing towards

upgraded quality.

6


Index

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 13

1.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................................... 13

1.2 General ................................................................................................................................................................. 13

1.3 Problem identification .......................................................................................................................................... 15

1.4 Aims and Objectives .............................................................................................................................................. 15

1.5 Scope of work ....................................................................................................................................................... 16

1.6 Methodology Framework...................................................................................................................................... 16

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW...................................................................................................... 17

2.1 Soil Stabilization.................................................................................................................................................... 17

2.2 Basic Soil Stabilization Process .............................................................................................................................. 22

2.3 Industrial waste .................................................................................................................................................... 23

2.4 Materials............................................................................................................................................................... 33

2.5 Review of research paper on Waste Marble powder ............................................................................................ 39

2.6 Review of research paper on Saw dust.................................................................................................................. 42

CHAPTER 3 LABORATORY TESTS AND RESULTS ................................................................................. 45

3.1 Laboratory Tests for Soil (As Per Indian Standards) ............................................................................................... 45

CHAPTER 4 THICKNESS OF PAVEMENT DESIGN .............................................................................. 109

4.1 Pavement design................................................................................................................................................. 109

4.2 Different layer thickness by referring IRC: 37-2012 ............................................................................................. 109

4.3 Summary of cost analysis .................................................................................................................................... 115

CHAPTER 5 LABORATORY TEST BY USING SAW DUST ..................................................................... 116

5.1 Laboratory Tests for Soil (As Per Indian Standards) ............................................................................................. 116

CHAPTER 6 PAVEMENT DESIGN USING SAW DUST ......................................................................... 173

6.1 Pavement design ............................................................................................................................................. 173

6.2 Different layer thickness by referring IRC: 37-2012 .......................................................................................... 173

7


6.3 Summary of cost analysis ................................................................................................................................. 179

CHAPTER 7 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................... 180

7.1 Conclusion based on Saw Dust ............................................................................................................................ 180

7.2 Conclusion based on Marble Powder .................................................................................................................. 180

7.3 Conclusion based on both the additives .............................................................................................................. 180

# REFRENCES ................................................................................................................................. 181

8


LISTS OF FIGURES

FIGURE 1.1 SOIL STABILIZATION (SOURCE WWW.WIRTGEN.DE) ................................................................................... 14 FIGURE 1.2 CRACK PATTERNS IN BLACK COTTON SOIL (SOURCE CIVILBLOG.ORG) ......................................................... 15 FIGURE 2.1 MECHANICAL STABILIZATION (SOURCE – SLIDESHARE.NET) ....................................................................... 17 FIGURE 2.2 CHEMICAL STABILIZATION (SOURCE- PROJECTTUNNEL.COM) ..................................................................... 18 FIGURE 2.3 LIME STABILIZATION (SOURCE-HAPPHO.COM) ........................................................................................... 20 FIGURE 2.4 TOTAL WASTE GENERATIONS (SOURCE-RESEARCHGATE.COM) .................................................................. 24 FIGURE 2.5 COLLECTION VS DUMPED STATISTICS (NUMBERS IN MILLION MT PER ANNUM) ......................................... 24 FIGURE 2.6 COLLECTION OF SOIL SAMPLE (SOURCE –GOOGLE MAPS .COM)................................................................. 34 FIGURE 2.7 MARBLE DUST (SOURCE –INDIAMART.COM) .............................................................................................. 34 FIGURE 2.7 SAWDUST (SOURCE –SCIALERT.COM) ........................................................................................................ 38 FIGURE 3.1 PLASTICITY CHART (I.S. SOIL CLASSIFICATION) ............................................................................................ 47 FIGURE 3.2 OMC AND MDD FOR NATURAL SOIL........................................................................................................... 54 FIGURE 3.3 OMC AND MDD FOR NATURAL SOIL + 5% MP ............................................................................................ 55 FIGURE 3.3 OMC AND MDD FOR NATURAL SOIL + 5% MP ............................................................................................ 56 FIGURE 3.4 OMC AND MDD FOR NATURAL SOIL + 10% MP .......................................................................................... 57 FIGURE 3.4 OMC AND MDD FOR NATURAL SOIL + 10% MP .......................................................................................... 58 FIGURE 3.6 OMC AND MDD FOR NATURAL SOIL + 20% MP .......................................................................................... 59 FIGURE 3.7 CBR EQUIPMENT ....................................................................................................................................... 61 FIGURE 3.8 CORRECTION LOAD PENETRATION CURVES ................................................................................................ 62 FIGURE 3.9 CBR TESTING SAMPLE ................................................................................................................................ 63 FIGURE 3.10 CBR GRAPH FOR BC SOIL .......................................................................................................................... 64 FIGURE 3.11 CBR GRAPH FOR BC SOIL + 5% MP ........................................................................................................... 65 FIGURE 3.12 CBR GRAPH FOR BC SOIL + 5% MP (7 DAYS) ............................................................................................. 66 FIGURE 3.13 CBR GRAPH FOR BC SOIL + 5% MP (14 DAYS)............................................................................................ 67 FIGURE 3.14 CBR GRAPH FOR BC SOIL + 5% MP (21 DAYS)............................................................................................ 68 FIGURE 3.15 CBR GRAPH FOR BC SOIL + 10% MP.......................................................................................................... 70 FIGURE 3.16 CBR GRAPH FOR BC SOIL + 10% MP (7 DAYS) ........................................................................................... 71 FIGURE 3.17 CBR GRAPH FOR BC SOIL + 10% MP (14 DAYS).......................................................................................... 72 FIGURE 3.18 CBR GRAPH FOR BC SOIL + 10% MP (21 DAYS).......................................................................................... 73 FIGURE 3.19 CBR GRAPH FOR BC SOIL + 15% MP.......................................................................................................... 74 FIGURE 3.20 CBR GRAPH FOR BC SOIL + 15% MP (7 DAYS)............................................................................................ 76 FIGURE 3.21 CBR GRAPH FOR BC SOIL + 15% MP (14 DAYS).......................................................................................... 77 FIGURE 3.22 CBR GRAPH FOR BC SOIL + 15% MP (21 DAYS).......................................................................................... 78 FIGURE 3.23 CBR GRAPH FOR BC SOIL + 20% MP.......................................................................................................... 79 FIGURE 3.24 CBR GRAPH FOR BC SOIL + 20% MP (7 DAYS)............................................................................................ 80 FIGURE 3.25 CBR GRAPH FOR BC SOIL + 20% MP (14 DAYS).......................................................................................... 81 FIGURE 3.26 CBR GRAPH FOR BC SOIL + 20% MP (21 DAYS).......................................................................................... 83 FIGURE 3.27 UCS SOIL TESTING .................................................................................................................................... 84 FIGURE 3.28 STRESS V/S STRAIN FOR BC SOIL .............................................................................................................. 85 FIGURE 3.29 STRESS VS STRAIN FOR CLAY SOIL (3 DAYS) .............................................................................................. 87 FIGURE 3.29 UCS GRAPH FOR BC SOIL (7 DAYS) ............................................................................................................ 88 FIGURE 3.30 UCS GRAPH FOR BC SOIL (14 DAYS) .......................................................................................................... 89 FIGURE 3.31 UCS GRAPH FOR BC SOIL + 5% MP ........................................................................................................... 90 FIGURE 3.32 UCS GRAPH FOR BC SOIL + 5% MP (3 DAYS) ............................................................................................. 91 FIGURE 3.33 UCS GRAPH FOR BC SOIL + 5% MP (7 DAYS) ............................................................................................. 92 FIGURE 3.34 UCS GRAPH FOR BC SOIL + 5% MP (14 DAYS) ........................................................................................... 94 FIGURE 3.35 UCS GRAPH FOR BC SOIL + 10% MP ......................................................................................................... 95 FIGURE 3.36 UCS GRAPH FOR BC SOIL + 10% MP (3 DAYS) ........................................................................................... 96 FIGURE 3.37 UCS GRAPH FOR BC SOIL + 10% MP (7 DAYS) ........................................................................................... 97 FIGURE 3.38 UCS GRAPH FOR BC SOIL + 10% MP (14 DAYS).......................................................................................... 98 FIGURE 3.39 UCS GRAPH FOR BC SOIL + 15% MP ....................................................................................................... 100 FIGURE 3.40 UCS GRAPH FOR BC SOIL + 10% MP ....................................................................................................... 101 FIGURE 3.41 UCS GRAPH FOR BC SOIL + 15% MP (7 DAYS) ......................................................................................... 102

9


FIGURE 3.43 UCS GRAPH FOR BC SOIL + 15% MP (14 DAYS)........................................................................................ 103 FIGURE 3.44 UCS GRAPH FOR BC SOIL + 20% MP ....................................................................................................... 104 FIGURE 3.44 UCS GRAPH FOR BC SOIL + 20% MP (3 DAYS) ......................................................................................... 105 FIGURE 3.45 UCS GRAPH FOR BC SOIL + 20% MP (7 DAYS) ......................................................................................... 107 FIGURE 3.46 UCS GRAPH FOR BC SOIL + 20% MP (21 DAYS)........................................................................................ 108 FIGURE 4.1 COMPOSITION OF LAYERS OF BC SOIL ...................................................................................................... 110 FIGURE 4.2 COMPOSITION OF LAYERS OF BC SOIL + 5% MP ....................................................................................... 111 FIGURE 4.3 COMPOSITION OF LAYERS OF BC SOIL + 10% MP...................................................................................... 112 FIGURE 4.4 COMPOSITION OF LAYERS OF BC SOIL + 15% MP...................................................................................... 113 FIGURE 4.5 COMPOSITION OF LAYERS OF BC SOIL + 20% MP...................................................................................... 114 FIGURE 5.1 OMC AND MDD FOR NATURAL SOIL......................................................................................................... 120 FIGURE 5.2 OMC AND MDD FOR NATURAL SOIL + 3 % SAW DUST .............................................................................. 121 FIGURE 5.3 OMC AND MDD FOR NATURAL SOIL + 6 % SAW DUST .............................................................................. 122 FIGURE 5.4 OMC AND MDD FOR NATURAL SOIL + 9 % SAW DUST .............................................................................. 123 FIGURE 5.5 OMC AND MDD FOR NATURAL SOIL + 12 % SAW DUST ............................................................................ 124 FIGURE 5.6 CBR GRAPH FOR BC SOIL .......................................................................................................................... 128 FIGURE 5.7 CBR GRAPH FOR BC SOIL + 3% SD............................................................................................................. 129 FIGURE 5.8 CBR GRAPH FOR BC SOIL + 6% SD............................................................................................................. 130 FIGURE 5.9 CBR GRAPH FOR BC SOIL + 9% SD............................................................................................................. 131 FIGURE 5.10 GRAPH FOR BC SOIL + 12% SD ................................................................................................................ 132 FIGURE 5.11 GRAPH FOR BC SOIL + 3% SD (7 DAY) ..................................................................................................... 133 FIGURE 5.12 GRAPH FOR BC SOIL + 6% SD (7 DAY ...................................................................................................... 134 FIGURE 5.13 GRAPH FOR BC SOIL + 9% SD (7 DAY) ..................................................................................................... 135 FIGURE 5.14 GRAPH FOR BC SOIL + 12% SD (7 DAY) ................................................................................................... 136 FIGURE 5.15 CBR GRAPH FOR BC SOIL + 3% SD (14 DAYS) ........................................................................................... 137 FIGURE 5.16 CBR GRAPH FOR BC SOIL + 6% SD (14 DAYS) ........................................................................................... 138 FIGURE 5.17 CBR GRAPH FOR BC SOIL + 9% SD (14 DAYS) ........................................................................................... 139 FIGURE 5.18 CBR GRAPH FOR BC SOIL + 12% SD (14 DAYS) ......................................................................................... 140 FIGURE 5.19 CBR GRAPH FOR BC SOIL + 3% SD (21 DAYS) ........................................................................................... 141 FIGURE 5.20 CBR GRAPH FOR BC SOIL + 6% SD (21 DAYS) ........................................................................................... 142 FIGURE 5.21 CBR GRAPH FOR BC SOIL + 9% SD(21 DAYS) ........................................................................................... 143 FIGURE 5.22 CBR GRAPH FOR BC SOIL + 12% SD (21 DAYS) ......................................................................................... 144 FIGURE 5.23 UCS SOIL TESTING .................................................................................................................................. 145 FIGURE 5.24 GRAPH OF BC SOIL ................................................................................................................................. 147 FIGURE 5.25 GRAPH OF BC SOIL + 3% SD .................................................................................................................... 148 FIGURE 5.26 GRAPH OF BC SOIL + 6% SD .................................................................................................................... 149 FIGURE 5.27 GRAPH OF BC SOIL + 9% SD .................................................................................................................... 151 FIGURE 5.28 GRAPH OF BC SOIL + 12% SD .................................................................................................................. 152 FIGURE 5.29 GRAPH OF BC SOIL (3 DAY) .................................................................................................................... 153 FIGURE 5.30 BC SOIL +3% SAW DUST (3 DAYS) ........................................................................................................... 154 FIGURE 5.31 GRAPH BC SOIL +6% SAW DUST (3 DAYS) ............................................................................................... 156 FIGURE 5.33 GRAPH BC SOIL + 12% SAW DUST (3 DAYS) ............................................................................................ 159 FIGURE 5.34 GRAPH BC SOIL (7 DAYS) ....................................................................................................................... 160 FIGURE 5.34 GRAPH BC SOIL + 3% SAW DUST (7 DAYS) .............................................................................................. 162 FIGURE 5.35 GRAPH BC SOIL + 6% SAW DUST (7 DAYS) .............................................................................................. 163 FIGURE 5.36 GRAPH BC SOIL + 9% SAW DUST (7 DAYS) .............................................................................................. 164 FIGURE 5.37 GRAPH BC SOIL + 12% SAW DUST (7 DAYS) ............................................................................................ 166 FIGURE 5.38 GRAPH BC SOIL (14 DAYS) ...................................................................................................................... 167 FIGURE 5.39 GRAPH OF BC SOIL +3% SD (14 DAYS)..................................................................................................... 168 FIGURE 5.40 GRAPH OF BC SOIL +6% SD (14 DAYS)..................................................................................................... 170 FIGURE 5.41 GRAPH OF BC SOIL +9% SD (14 DAYS)..................................................................................................... 171 FIGURE 5.42 GRAPH OF BC SOIL +12% SD (14 DAYS) ................................................................................................... 172 FIGURE 6.1 COMPOSITION OF LAYERS OF BC SOIL ...................................................................................................... 174 FIGURE 6.3 COMPOSITION OF LAYERS OF BC SOIL + 6% SD ......................................................................................... 176

10


FIGURE 6.4 COMPOSITION OF LAYERS OF BC SOIL + 9% SD ......................................................................................... 177 FIGURE 6.5 COMPOSITION OF LAYERS OF BC SOIL + 12% SD ....................................................................................... 178

LISTS OF TABLES

TABLE 2.1 TYPES OF WASTES AND THEIR IMPACTS (SOURCE –SLIDESHARE.COM) ......................................................... 33 TABLE 2.2 CHEMICAL PROPERTIES OF MARBLE DUST (SOURCE –SLIDESHARE.COM) ..................................................... 36 TABLE 2.3 PHYSICAL PROPERTIES OF MARBLE DUST (SOURCE –SLIDESHARE.COM) ....................................................... 36 TABLE 2.4 PROPERTIES OF WOODEN DUST (SOURCE –CHEGG.COM) ............................................................................ 38 TABLE 3.1 GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS .................................................................................................................................. 46 TABLE 3.2 SOIL CLASSIFICATION, FSI AND ATTERBERG’S LIMIT...................................................................................... 46 TABLE 3.3 LIQUID LIMIT FOR RAW SOIL ........................................................................................................................ 48 TABLE 3.4 LIQUID LIMIT WITH 5% MP .......................................................................................................................... 48 TABLE 3.5 LIQUID LIMIT WITH 10% MP ........................................................................................................................ 49 TABLE 3.6 LIQUID LIMIT WITH 15% MP ........................................................................................................................ 49 TABLE 3.7 LIQUID LIMIT WITH 20% MP ........................................................................................................................ 49 TABLE 3.8 PLASTIC LIMIT FOR RAW SOIL ...................................................................................................................... 50 TABLE 3.9 PLASTIC LIMIT WITH 5% MP......................................................................................................................... 50 TABLE 3.10 PLASTIC LIMIT WITH 10% MP ..................................................................................................................... 50 TABLE 3.11 PLASTIC LIMIT WITH 15% MP ..................................................................................................................... 51 TABLE 3.12 LL, PL AND FREE SWELL INDEX WITH 20% MP ............................................................................................ 51 TABLE 3.13 FREE SWELL INDEX .................................................................................................................................... 51 TABLE 3.14 RESULTS OF OMC AND MDD FOR NATURAL SOIL ....................................................................................... 54 TABLE 3.15 RESULTS OF OMC AND MDD WITH 5% MP ................................................................................................. 55 TABLE 3.15 RESULTS OF OMC AND MDD WITH 5% MP ................................................................................................. 56 TABLE 3.16 RESULTS OF OMC AND MDD WITH 10% MP ............................................................................................... 57 TABLE 3.17 RESULTS OF OMC AND MDD WITH 15% MP ............................................................................................... 58 TABLE 3.18 RESULTS OF OMC AND MDD WITH 20% MP ............................................................................................... 59 TABLE 3.19 CORRECTION LOAD PENETRATION VALUE .................................................................................................. 62 TABLE 3.20 RESULT FOR CBR TEST FOR CLAY SOIL ........................................................................................................ 63 TABLE 3.21 RESULT FOR CBR TEST FOR BC SOIL + 5% MP ............................................................................................. 65 TABLE 3.22 RESULT FOR CBR TEST FOR BC SOIL + 5% MP (7 DAYS) ............................................................................... 66 TABLE 3.23 RESULT FOR CBR TEST FOR BC SOIL + 5% MP (14 DAYS).............................................................................. 67 TABLE 3.24 RESULT FOR CBR TEST FOR BC SOIL + 5% MP (21 DAYS).............................................................................. 68 TABLE 3.25 RESULT FOR CBR TEST FOR BC SOIL + 10% MP............................................................................................ 69 TABLE 3.26 RESULT FOR CBR TEST FOR BC SOIL + 10% MP (7 DAYS).............................................................................. 71 TABLE 3.27 RESULT FOR CBR TEST FOR BC SOIL + 10% MP (14 DAYS) ............................................................................ 72 TABLE 3.28 RESULT FOR CBR TEST FOR BC SOIL + 10% MP (21 DAYS) ............................................................................ 73 TABLE 3.29 RESULT FOR CBR TEST FOR BC SOIL + 15% MP............................................................................................ 74 TABLE 3.30 RESULT FOR CBR TEST FOR BC SOIL + 15% MP (7 DAYS).............................................................................. 75 TABLE 3.31 RESULT FOR CBR TEST FOR BC SOIL + 15% MP (14 DAYS) ............................................................................ 77 TABLE 3.32 RESULT FOR CBR TEST FOR BC SOIL + 15% MP (21 DAYS) ............................................................................ 78 TABLE 3.33 RESULT FOR CBR TEST FOR BC SOIL + 20% MP............................................................................................ 79 TABLE 3.34 RESULT FOR CBR TEST FOR BC SOIL + 20% MP (7 DAYS).............................................................................. 80 TABLE 3.35 RESULT FOR CBR TEST FOR BC SOIL + 20% MP (14 DAYS) ............................................................................ 81 TABLE 3.36 RESULT FOR CBR TEST FOR BC SOIL + 20% MP (21 DAYS) ............................................................................ 82 TABLE 3.37 RESULT FOR UCS TEST FOR BC SOIL ............................................................................................................ 85 TABLE 3.38 RESULT FOR UCS TEST FOR CLAY SOIL (3 DAYS) .......................................................................................... 86 TABLE 3.39 RESULT FOR UCS TEST FOR CLAY SOIL (7 DAYS) .......................................................................................... 88 TABLE 3.40 RESULT FOR UCS TEST FOR CLAY SOIL (14 DAYS) ........................................................................................ 89 TABLE 3.41 RESULT FOR UCS TEST FOR CLAY SOIL + 5% MP .......................................................................................... 90 TABLE 3.42 RESULT FOR UCS TEST FOR CLAY SOIL + 5% MP (3 DAYS) ............................................................................ 91 TABLE 3.43 RESULT FOR UCS TEST FOR CLAY SOIL + 5% MP (7 DAYS) ............................................................................ 92

11


TABLE 3.44 RESULT FOR UCS TEST FOR CLAY SOIL + 5% MP (14 DAYS) .......................................................................... 93 TABLE 3.45 RESULT FOR UCS TEST FOR CLAY SOIL + 10% MP ........................................................................................ 95 TABLE 3.46 RESULT FOR UCS TEST FOR CLAY SOIL + 10% MP (3 DAYS) .......................................................................... 96 TABLE 3.47 RESULT FOR UCS TEST FOR CLAY SOIL + 10% MP (7 DAYS) .......................................................................... 97 TABLE 3.48 RESULT FOR UCS TEST FOR CLAY SOIL + 10 % MP (14 DAYS) ....................................................................... 98 TABLE 3.49 RESULT FOR UCS TEST FOR CLAY SOIL + 15% MP ........................................................................................ 99 TABLE 3.50 RESULT FOR UCS TEST FOR CLAY SOIL + 15% MP (3 DAYS) ........................................................................ 101 TABLE 3.51 RESULT FOR UCS TEST FOR CLAY SOIL + 15% MP (7 DAYS) ....................................................................... 102 TABLE 3.52 RESULT FOR UCS TEST FOR CLAY SOIL + 15% MP (14 DAYS) ...................................................................... 103 TABLE 3.53 RESULT FOR UCS TEST FOR CLAY SOIL + 20% MP ...................................................................................... 104 TABLE 3.54 RESULT FOR UCS TEST FOR CLAY SOIL + 20% MP (3 DAYS) ........................................................................ 105 TABLE 3.55 RESULT FOR UCS TEST FOR CLAY SOIL + 20% MP (7 DAYS) ........................................................................ 106 TABLE 3.56 RESULT FOR UCS TEST FOR CLAY SOIL + 20% MP (14 DAYS) ...................................................................... 108 TABLE 4.1 RESULT FOR CBR TEST ............................................................................................................................... 109 TABLE 4.2 DIFFERENT LAYER THICKNESS .................................................................................................................... 109 TABLE 4.3 COST ESTIMATION FOR RAW SOIL ............................................................................................................. 110 TABLE 4.4 COST ESTIMATION FOR RAW SOIL +5% MP ................................................................................................ 111 TABLE 4.5 COST ESTIMATION FOR RAW SOIL +10% MP .............................................................................................. 112 TABLE 4.6 COST ESTIMATION FOR RAW SOIL +15% MP .............................................................................................. 113 TABLE 4.7 COST ESTIMATION FOR RAW SOIL +20% MP .............................................................................................. 114 TABLE 5.1 LIQUID LIMIT FOR RAW SOIL ...................................................................................................................... 117 TABLE 5.2 LIQUID LIMIT BC SOIL + 3% SD ................................................................................................................... 117 TABLE 5.3 LIQUID LIMIT BC SOIL + 6% SD ................................................................................................................... 117 TABLE 5.4 LIQUID LIMIT BC SOIL + 9% SD ................................................................................................................... 118 TABLE 5.5 LIQUID LIMIT BC SOIL + 12% SD ................................................................................................................. 118 TABLE 5.6 PLASTIC LIMIT FOR RAW SOIL .................................................................................................................... 118 TABLE 5.7 PLASTIC LIMIT OF BLACK COTTON SOIL + 3% SD ...................................................................................... 119 TABLE 5.8 PLASTIC LIMIT OF BLACK COTTON SOIL +6% SD ....................................................................................... 119 TABLE 5.9 PLASTIC LIMIT OF BLACK COTTON SOIL + 9% SD ...................................................................................... 119 TABLE 5.10 PLASTIC LIMIT OF BLACK COTTON SOIL + 12% SD .................................................................................. 119 TABLE 5.11 RESULTS OF OMC AND MDD FOR NATURAL SOIL ..................................................................................... 120 TABLE 5.12 RESULT OF OMC & MDD FOR NATURAL SOIL + 3% SAW DUST .................................................................. 121 TABLE 5.13 RESULT OF OMC & MDD FOR NATURAL SOIL + 6% SAW DUST .................................................................. 122 TABLE 5.14 RESULT OF OMC & MDD FOR NATURAL SOIL + 9% SAW DUST .................................................................. 123 TABLE 5.15 RESULT OF OMC & MDD FOR NATURAL SOIL + 12% SAW DUST ................................................................ 124 TABLE 5.16 RESULT FOR CBR TEST FOR BC SOIL .......................................................................................................... 128 TABLE 5.17 RESULT FOR CBR TEST FOR BC SOIL + 3% SAW DUST ................................................................................ 129 TABLE 5.18 RESULT FOR CBR TEST FOR BC SOIL + 6% SAW DUST ................................................................................ 130 TABLE 5.19 RESULT FOR CBR TEST FOR BC SOIL + 9% SAW DUST ................................................................................ 131 TABLE 5.20 RESULT FOR CBR TEST FOR BC SOIL + 12% SAW DUST .............................................................................. 132 TABLE 5.21 RESULT FOR CBR TEST FOR BC SOIL + 3% SD (7 DAYS)............................................................................... 133 TABLE 5.22 RESULT FOR CBR TEST FOR BC SOIL + 6% SD (7 DAYS)............................................................................... 134 TABLE 5.23 RESULT FOR CBR TEST FOR BC SOIL + 9% SD (7 DAYS)............................................................................... 135 TABLE 5.24 RESULT FOR CBR TEST FOR BC SOIL + 12% SD (7 DAYS) ............................................................................. 136 TABLE 5.25 RESULT FOR CBR TEST FOR BC SOIL + 3% SD (14 DAYS) ............................................................................. 137 TABLE 5.26 RESULT FOR CBR TEST FOR BC SOIL + 6% SD (14 DAYS) ............................................................................. 138 TABLE 5.27 RESULT FOR CBR TEST FOR BC SOIL + 9% SD (14 DAYS) ............................................................................. 139 TABLE 5.28 RESULT FOR CBR TEST FOR BC SOIL + 12% SD (14 DAYS) ........................................................................... 140 TABLE 5.29 RESULT FOR CBR TEST FOR BC SOIL + 3% SD (21 DAYS) ............................................................................. 141 TABLE 5.30 RESULT FOR CBR TEST FOR BC SOIL + 6% SD (21 DAYS) ............................................................................. 142 TABLE 5.31 RESULT FOR CBR TEST FOR BC SOIL + 9% SD (21 DAYS) ............................................................................. 143 TABLE 5.32 RESULT FOR CBR TEST FOR BC SOIL + 12% SD (21 DAYS) ........................................................................... 144 TABLE 5.33 RESULT FOR UCS TEST FOR BC SOIL ......................................................................................................... 146 TABLE 5.34 RESULT FOR UCS TEST FOR CLAY SOIL + 3% SD ......................................................................................... 148

12


TABLE 3.35 RESULT FOR UCS TEST FOR CLAY SOIL + 6% SD ......................................................................................... 149 TABLE 5.36 RESULT FOR UCS TEST FOR CLAY SOIL + 9% SD ......................................................................................... 150 TABLE 5.37 RESULT FOR UCS TEST FOR CLAY SOIL +12% SD ........................................................................................ 152 TABLE 5.38 RESULT FOR UCS TEST FOR CLAY SOIL (3 DAYS) ........................................................................................ 153 TABLE 5.39 RESULT FOR UCS TEST FOR CLAY SOIL + 3% SD (3 DAYS) ........................................................................... 154 TABLE 5.40 RESULT FOR UCS TEST FOR CLAY SOIL + 6% SD (3 DAYS) ........................................................................... 155 TABLE 5.41 RESULT FOR UCS TEST FOR CLAY SOIL + 9% SD (3 DAYS) ........................................................................... 157 TABLE 5.43 RESULT FOR UCS TEST FOR CLAY SOIL (7 DAYS) ........................................................................................ 160 TABLE 5.44 RESULT FOR UCS TEST FOR CLAY SOIL + 3% SD (7 DAYS) ........................................................................... 161 TABLE 5.45 RESULT FOR UCS TEST FOR CLAY SOIL + 6% SD (7 DAYS) ........................................................................... 163 TABLE 5.46 RESULT FOR UCS TEST FOR CLAY SOIL + 9% SD (7 DAYS) ........................................................................... 164 TABLE 5.47 RESULT FOR UCS TEST FOR CLAY SOIL + 12% SD (7 DAYS) ......................................................................... 165 TABLE 5.48 RESULT FOR UCS TEST FOR CLAY SOIL (14 DAYS) ...................................................................................... 167 TABLE 5.49 RESULT FOR UCS TEST FOR CLAY SOIL + 3% SD(14 DAYS) .......................................................................... 168 TABLE 5.50 RESULT FOR UCS TEST FOR CLAY SOIL + 6 % SD (14 DAYS) ........................................................................ 169 TABLE 5.51 RESULT FOR UCS TEST FOR CLAY SOIL + 9% SD (14 DAYS) ......................................................................... 171 TABLE 5.52 RESULT FOR UCS TEST FOR CLAY SOIL + 12% SD (14 DAYS) ....................................................................... 172 TABLE 6.1 RESULT FOR CBR TEST ............................................................................................................................... 173 TABLE 6.2 DIFFERENT LAYER THICKNESS .................................................................................................................... 173 TABLE 6.3 COST ESTIMATION FOR RAW SOIL ............................................................................................................. 174 TABLE 6.4 COST ESTIMATION FOR RAW SOIL +3% SD ................................................................................................. 175 TABLE 6.176 COST ESTIMATION FOR RAW SOIL + 6% SD ............................................................................................ 176 TABLE 6.6 COST ESTIMATION FOR RAW SOIL + 9% SD ................................................................................................ 177 TABLE 6.7 COST ESTIMATION FOR RAW SOIL +12% SD ............................................................................................... 178 TABLE 6.8 COST ANALYSIS.......................................................................................................................................... 179

13


CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Introduction

Soil Stabilization is the alteration of soils to enhance their physical properties. Stabilization can

increase the shear strength of a soil and/or control the shrink-swell properties of a soil, thus improving

the load bearing capacity of a sub-grade to support pavements. In this study, industrial wastes like

Marble dust and wooden dust are used to improve engineering properties of a soil.

1.2 General

Before taking any geotechnical projects, site feasibility study is far most beneficial. Before the design

process site survey is usually carry out to understand the characteristics of subsoil upon which the

decision on location of the project can be made. The following geotechnical design criteria have to be

considered during site selection like: Design load and function of the structure, type of foundation to

be used and bearing capacity of subsoil.

From the above stated criteria bearing capacity of soil played an important role in decision making of

site selection. If the bearing capacity of soil was poor then the following option are taken:

• Relocate the construction project

• Remove and replace the in-situ soil.

• Consolidation / Compaction by surcharge load

• Dynamic Compaction of soil

• Vibration of ground surface

However, in most projects, it is not possible to obtain a construction site that will meet the design

requirements without ground modification. So, the current practice is to modify the engineering

properties of the native problematic soils to meet the design specifications.

Nowadays, soils such as, soft clays and organic soils can be improved to the civil engineering

requirements. Therefore, for improvement of the soil one of the methods used is soil stabilization.

Soil stabilization aims at improving soil strength and increasing resistance to softening by water

through bonding the soil particles together, water proofing the particles or combination of the two.

Usually, the technology provides an alternative provision structural solution to a practical problem.

The simplest stabilization processes are compaction and drainage (if water drains out of wet soil it

becomes stronger). The other process is by improving gradation of particle size and further

improvement can be achieved by adding binders to the weak soils.

Soil stabilization can be accomplished by several methods. All these methods fall into two broad

categories namely: -

• Mechanical stabilization

• Chemical stabilization

14


Mechanical stabilization

Under this category, soil stabilization can be achieved through physical process by altering the physical

nature of native soil particles by either induced vibration or compaction or by incorporating other

physical properties such as barriers and nailing.

Chemical stabilization

Under this category, soil stabilization depends mainly on chemical reactions between stabilizer

(cementations’ material) and soil minerals (pozzolanic materials) to achieve the desired effect.

The method can be achieved in two ways, namely:

• in situ stabilization

• ex-situ stabilization

Soil stabilization can be achieved by various methods such as mechanical method, soil - fly ash

stabilization, soil - cement stabilization, soil – lime stabilization and chemical stabilization.

Industrial waste

Industrial waste refers to the solid, liquid, and gaseous emissions, residuals and unwanted wastes from

industrial operations. Industrial wastes are hazardous since they are corrosive, reactive, genitive and

toxic hence leading to an extensive pollution. It can be reduced through recycling, treatment before

release and utilizing bio friendly methods of manufacturing.

Presently in India, about 960 million tonnes of solid waste is being generated annually as by-products

during industrial, mining, municipal, agricultural and other processes. Of these 350 million tonnes are

organic wastes from agricultural sources, 290 million tonnes are inorganic waste of industrial and

mining sectors and 4.5 million tonnes are hazardous in nature.

In this thesis we have used industrial waste (marble dust and wooden dust) as an additive for soil

stabilization. India is the largest producer of waste marble dust. India is estimated to have 3,172

thousand tons of marble dust was produced in year 2009-10.

Figure 1.1 Soil Stabilization (Source www.wirtgen.de)

15


1.3 Problem identification

Black cotton soils are weak soils exhibiting high swell and shrinkage characteristics when exposed to

changes in moisture content and hence have been found to be most troublesome from engineering

considerations. It exhibits low bearing capacity, low permeability and high-volume change with

variation in environment.

If the road pavement is constructed on this type of soil, not only the maintenance of roads will be

expansive but also difficult and the pavements show early signs of failures. Following are the problems

with black cotton soil.

• The variation in the volume of the soil is to the extent of 20-30% of the original volume.

• In the rainy season, these soils become very soft by filling up of water in the cracks and fissures.

These soft soils reduce the bearing capacity of the soils.

• In saturated conditions, these soils have high consolidation settlements.

• These soils have high swelling nature which causes structure damages.

• When loads are applied on these soils in wet conditions. This soil gets shrink.

In the field, black cotton soil can be easily recognized in the dry season by the deep cracks, in roughly

polygonal patterns, in the ground surface as shown in figure 2.

Therefore, it is necessary to improve the properties of black cotton soil to avoid damage to the

pavement structures. In India, Black Cotton Soils cover nearly 20% of the landmass and include almost

the entire Deccan plateau, Western Madhya Pradesh, parts of Gujarat, Andhra Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh,

Karnataka, and Maharashtra.

1.4 Aims and Objectives

The main aim of this project is to stabilize the available sub-grade soil by using additives (marble dust

and sawdust) as industrial waste.

The objectives are:

• To study the basic properties of soil before and after addition of the marble dust powder and

wooden dust waste in suitable dosages.

• To carry out a study of the CBR values and to design the flexible pavement thickness using the

optimum value of CBR with and without additives.

• To investigate the changes in the structure of natural soil and with stabilizers utilizing field

emission microscopy (FESEM) and an energy dispersive x-beam spectrometry (EDAX).

Figure 1.2 Crack patterns in Black Cotton Soil (Source civilblog.org)

16


1.5 Scope of work

Our further study is focusing on identifying the soil mixture, laboratory investigations is carried out

for finding the initial engineering property for classification of sub-grade soil. Also, to determine the

engineering characteristics of soil with additives (marble dust powder and wooden dust) to find out

whether it is suitable for use in terms of economically, suitability and environmentally. The main

testing is carried out to compare the strength and characteristic of soft soil before and after treating

with different concentration of additives. Standard Proctor test was applied to determine the maximum

dry unit weight and the optimum moisture content of the soils. CBR value is obtained and

correspondingly thickness design of flexible pavement as per IRC: 37 – 2012 and IRC: 37 – 2018 is

worked out. Also, molecular structure is determined using spectrometry test.

1.6 Methodology Framework

Problem

Identification

Aim and Objectives

Scope of Study

Literature Study

Laboratory

Investigation

Experiment of Soil Black cotton

Soil

Black cotton

Soil (BC) +

Additives

Experiment

Outcome

Soil Classification

Grain Size Analysis

Atterberg’s Limits

Free Swell Index

Compaction Test

CBR Test, UCS, FE-

SEM & EDAX.

Grain Size Analysis

Atterberg’s Limits

Free Swell Index

Compaction Test

CBR Test, UCS, FE-

SEM & EDAX.

Design of Flexible

Pavement Thickness as

per IRC: 37 - 2012

Comparison

Conclusion

17


CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Soil Stabilization

Soil stabilization means the improvement of the stability or bearing capacity of the soil by the

controlled compaction, proportioning and addition of suitable admixtures or stabilizers.

2.1.1 General

Soil stabilization is the process of improving the engineering properties of the soil and thus making it

more stable. In its broadest sense stabilization include compaction pre consolidation drainage and

many other processes.

Soil stabilization is used to reduce the permeability and compressibility of the soil mass in earth

structure and to increase the shear strength.

However, the main use of stabilization is to improve the natural soil for the construction of highways

and make an area trafficable within a short period of time for military and other emergency purposes.

In India, the modern era of soil stabilization began in early 1970’s with a general shortage of petroleum

and aggregates; it became necessary for engineers to look at means to improve soil other than replacing

the poor soil at the building sites.

Need for soil stabilization

• It is needed for strength improvement and for controlling of shrink- swell properties of soil.

• For improving the load bearing capacity of a sub grade soil and foundation soil to support

pavements and structures.

• Lower the compressibility of soil and therefore reduce the settlement when structures are built on

it

• It is needed for Soil waterproofing

The soil stabilization methods are broadly classified into two categories: Mechanical and Chemical

stabilization.

Figure 2.1 Mechanical stabilization (Source – slideshare.net)

18


2.1.2 Mechanical Stabilization

In this method stability of soil is increased by blending the available soil with imported soil or

aggregate so as to obtain a desired particle size distribution, and by compacting the mixture to the

desired density.

The methodologies are as follows, compaction, blasting, dynamic compaction, preloading, sand drains,

etc.

• Application of mechanical stabilization

• Soil - aggregate mixture

• Sand - clay mixture

• Sand – gravel mixture

• Stabilization of soil with soft aggregate

2.1.3 Chemical Stabilization

Stability of granular soil lacks when they are too dry. If their moisture content is stabilized by the

addition of some chemicals then these soils can be used successfully.

It involves treatment of the soil with some kind of chemical compound, which when added to the soil,

would result in a chemical reaction. Addition of chemicals with the soil helps to retain moisture and

to impart some cohesion and thus retain the stability. These chemicals also reduce the dust nuisance in

un-surfaced roads.

The chemical reaction modifies or enhances the physical and engineering properties of a soil, such

asvolume stability and strength. It can increase their strength, bearing capacity, and improve their

shrink/swell and freeze/thaw characteristics. Lime stabilization and cement stabilization are two most

commonly used method in chemical stabilization.

Chlorides of calcium and sodium are the most popular salts used for this purpose. A number of other

chemicals/materials such as sodium silicate, lignin, resins, molasses etc., are used for chemical

stabilization of soils.

Figure 2.2 Chemical stabilization (Source- projecttunnel.com)

19


2.1.4 Cement Stabilization

The soil stabilized with cement is known as soil cement. It is an intimate mix of soil, cement and water

which is well compacted to form a strong base course. A flexible or rigid pavement surface is placed

on top of the soil cement to complete the pavement structure. Cement should be added in the small

proportions to soil to improve its strength and modifies the properties of soil.

The appropriate amounts of cement needed for different types of soils may be as follows:

• Gravels – 5 to 10%

• Sands – 7 to 12%

• Silts – 12 to 15%, and

• Clays – 12 – 20%

The quantity of cement for a compressive strength of 25 to 30 kg/cm2 should normally be sufficient

for tropical climate for soil stabilization.

If the layer of soil having surface area of A (m2), thickness H (cm) and dry density rd. (tones/m3), has

to be stabilized with p percentage of cement by weight on the basis of dry soil, cement mixture will be

And, the amount of cement required for soil stabilization is given by,

Amount of cement required, in tones =

It is used as a base course, a sub-base course and a sub grade treatment for flexible and rigid pavements.

Also, its use includes slope protection for dams and embankments, liners for channels and reservoirs,

and mass soil cement placements for dykes and foundation stabilization but this method cannot be

used as a surface course due to its poor resistance to abrasion and impact.

This method is costly and needs a high degree of quality control as compared to soil-lime stabilization.

There are mainly three types of cement-stabilized materials:

• Soil Cement

• Cement Bound Granular Material (CBM)

• Lean concrete.

2.1.5 Lime Stabilization

Lime is utilized as an effective way to modify soils - improving both workability and load-bearing

characteristics while increasing stability and impermeability. Slaked lime is very effective in treating

heavy plastic clayey soils.

20


Lime-Soil stabilization is the process of adding lime to the soil to improve its properties like density,

bearing capacity etc. Various factors affecting lime-soil stabilization are soil type, lime type, lime

content used, compaction, curing period and additives. Lime may be used alone or in combination with

cement, bitumen or fly ash. When clayey soil with high plasticity is treated with lime, the plasticity

index is decreased and the soil becomes brittle and easy to be pulverized having less attraction with

water.

Lime-Soil stabilized mixes are useful to construct sub-base and base course for pavement. But this

method cannot be used as a surface course due to its poor resistance to abrasion and impact. This

method is quite suitable in warm regions, but not very suitable under freezing temperature.

Types of limes available are:

• Hydrated lime (Ca (OH) 2)

• Quick lime (CaO)

• Mono dehydrated dolomite lime (Ca (OH)2. MgO).

• Dolomite quick lime (Ca (OH) 2Mg (OH) 2).

Normally 2 to 8% of lime may be required for coarse grained soils and 5 to 8% of lime may be required

for plastic soils. The amount of fly ash as admixture may vary from 8 to 20% of the weight of the soil.

2.1.6 Fly Ash Stabilization

Fly ash is a byproduct from burning pulverized coal in electric power generating plants. From these

power generating plants, it generates different types of ash residues and discharge a huge amount of

particulate matter and gases.

Class C fly ash and Class F-lime product blends can be used in numerous geotechnical applications

common with highway construction:

• To enhance strength properties

• Stabilize embankments

• To control shrink swell properties of expansive soils

• Drying agent to reduce soil moisture contents to permit compaction

Its disposal not only needs enormous land, water, and power resources but it also causes serious

environmental hazards.

Figure 2.3 Lime stabilization (Source-happho.com)

21


Fly ash is classified into two classes, F and C. Class C fly ash can be used as a stand-alone material

because of its self-cementitious properties. Class F fly ash can be used in soil stabilization applications

with the addition of a cementitious agent. The self-cementitious behavior of fly ashes is determined by

ASTM D 5239.

This test provides a standard method for determining the compressive strength of cubes made with fly

ash and water (water/fly ash weight ratio is 0.35), tested at seven days with standard moist curing.

The use of fly ash in soil stabilization and soil modification may be subject to local environmental

requirements pertaining to leaching and potential interaction with ground water and adjacent water

courses.

2.1.7 Bitumen stabilization

The basic principles in bituminous stabilization are waterproofing and binding. Generally, both the

binding and waterproofing actions are provided to the soil by adding bituminous material. Asphalts

and tars are bituminous materials which are used for stabilization of soil, generally for pavement

construction. Bituminous materials when added to a soil, it imparts both cohesion and reduced water

absorption. Most commonly used bituminous materials are cutback and emulsion.

Bituminous stabilized layer can be used as a sub-base or base course of ordinary roads and even as a

surface course for roads with low traffic in low rainfall region.

Depending upon the above actions and the nature of soils, bitumen stabilization is classified in

following four types:

• Sand bitumen stabilization

• Soil Bitumen stabilization

• Water proofed mechanical stabilization, and

• Oiled earth.

2.1.8 Soil stabilization by grouting

Among other techniques of soil stabilization, the grouting is one of the most expensive methods where

some kind of stabilizing agent inserted into the soil mass under pressure.

In this method, stabilizers are introduced by injection into the soil. The pressure forces the agent into

the soil voids in a limited space around the injection tube. The agent reacts with the soil and /or itself

to form a stable mass. This method is not useful for clayey soils because of their low permeability.

The most common grout is an admixture of cement and water, with or without sand. It has a large

number of applications such as:

• Control of water problems by filling cracks and pores.

• Prevention of sand densification beneath adjacent structures due to pile driving.

• Underpinning using compaction (displacement) grouting.

• Reducing vibrations by stiffening the soil.

• Reducing settlements by filling voids and cementing the soil structure more firmly.

22


Generally, grout can be used if the permeability of the deposit is greater than 10 -5 m/s. This method is

suitable for stabilizing buried zones of relatively limited extent.

The grouting techniques can be classified as following:

• Clay grouting

• Chemical grouting

• Chrome lignin grouting

• Polymer grouting, and

• Bituminous grouting

2.2 Basic Soil Stabilization Process

Proper design and testing are an important component of any stabilization project. This testing will

establish proper design criteria in determining the proper additive and admixture rate to be used to

achieve the desired engineering properties. The following process is generally practiced.

• Assessment & Testing

The soils of the site are thoroughly tested to determine the existing conditions. Based on analysis of

existing conditions, additives are selected and specified. Generally, a target chemical percentage by

weight and a design mix depth are defined for the sub base contractor. The selected additives are

subsequently mixed with soil samples and allowed to cure. The cured sample is then tested to ensure

that the additives will produce the desired results.

• Site Preparation

The existing materials on site, including existing pavement if it is being reclaimed, is pulverized

utilizing a rotary mixer. The material is brought to the optimal moisture content by drying overly wet

soil or adding water to overlay dry soil.

• Introduce Additives

Cement, lime or fly ash can be applied dry or wet. When applied dry, it is typically spread at a required

amount per square meter or station utilizing a cyclone spreader or other device.

When lime is applied as slurry, it is either spread with tanker truck or through the rotary mixers on

board water spray system. Calcium chloride is usually applied by a tanker truck equipped with a spray

bar.

• Mixing

To fully incorporate the additives with the soil, a rotary mixer makes several mixing passes until the

materials are homogenous and well graded. It is crucial that the rotary mixer maintains optimal mixing

depths, as mixing depth, as mixing too shallow or too deep will create undesirable proportions of soil

and additive will decrease the load bearing properties of the cured layer.

• Compaction & Shaping/Trimming

23


Compaction usually follows immediately after mixing, especially when the additive is cement or fly

ash. Some bituminous additive s requires a delay between mixing and compaction to allow for certain

chemical changes to occur. Compaction is accomplished through several passes using different

machines. Initial compaction is begun utilizing a vibratory pad foot compactor.

The surface is then shaped and trimmed to remove pad marks and provide a more suitable profile.

Intermediate compaction follows utilizing a pneumatic compactor, which provides certain kneading

action that further increase soil density. A tandem drum roller is used on the finishing pass to provide

a smooth surface.

• Curing

Sufficient curing will allow the additive to fully achieve its engineering potential. For cement, lime

and fly ash stabilization, weather and moisture are critical factors, as the curing can have a direct

bearing on the strength of the stabilized base. Generally, a minimum of seven days is required to ensure

proper curing. During the curing period, samples taken from the stabilized base will reveal when the

moisture content is appropriate for surfacing.

2.3 Industrial waste

2.3.1 General

Industrial waste refers to the solid, liquid and gaseous emissions, residual and unwanted wastes from

an industrial operation. It is produced by industrial activity which includes any material that is rendered

useless during a manufacturing process such as that of factories, industries, mills, and mining

operations.

Industrial wastes are hazardous since they are corrosive, reactive, genitive and toxic hence leading to

an extensive pollution. Industrial waste can be reduced through recycling, treatment before release and

utilizing bio friendly methods of manufacturing.

The main sources of industrial waste are:

• It caused by the emission of industrial waste into water bodies. It is the main source of water

pollution.

• Organic chemical industries which includes paints, dyes, detergents etc.

• Industrial waste includes organic pollutants and toxic chemicals i.e. heavy metals.

Waste Management is the collection, transport, processing or disposal, managing and monitoring of

waste materials. The term usually relates to materials produced by human activity, and the process is

generally undertaken to reduce their effect on health, the environment or aesthetics.

Waste management is a distinct practice from resource recovery which focuses on delaying the rate of

consumption of natural resources. All waste materials, whether they are solid, liquid, gaseous or

radioactive fall within the remit of waste management.

24


2.3.2 Total industrial waste in India

India alone generate more than 1, 00,000 metric tonnes of solid waste every day which is higher than

many countries. Large metropolis such as Mumbai and Delhi generate around 9000 metric tonnes and

8300 metric tonnes of waste per day, respectively.

India generates 62 million tonnes of waste (mixed waste containing both recyclable and non-recyclable

waste) every year with an average annual growth rate of 4%. From the total waste generated of which

less than 60% is collected and around 15% processed.

With landfills ranking third in terms of greenhouse gas emissions in India, and increasing pressure

from the public, the Government of India revised the Solid Waste Management after 16 years.

The generated waste can be divided into three major categories:

• Organic (all kinds of biodegradable waste)

• Dry (or recyclable waste)

• Biomedical (or sanitary and hazardous waste).

As shown in Figure 6, nearly 50% of the total waste is organic with the volumes of recyclables and

biomedical/hazardous waste growing each year as India becomes more urbanized.

Figure 2.4 Total Waste Generations (Source-researchgate.com)

Figure 2.5 Collection vs dumped statistics (numbers in million MT per annum)

25


As shown in Figure 7, less than 60% of waste is collected from households and only 15% of urban

India’s waste is processed in a country 12 times as dense as that of the United States (US) (PIB 2016)

While the collection rate needs to be improved to avoid illegal dumping and burning waste at street

corners and unoccupied lands, what happens to the waste post-collection is the subject matter of focus

of this section.

In India, the marble processing is one of the most flourishing industry. Marble industries in India grow

more than 3500 metric tons of marble powder per day.

The Indian marble industry has been growing steadily at an annual rate of around 10% per year. 20 to

30% of marble blocks are converted into powder. 3,172 M tons of marble dust were produced in year

2009-10.

In India, Rajasthan alone accounted for 94% output value followed by Gujarat and Madhya Pradesh.

Production value was less than 1% in Odisha, Andhra Pradesh, Jammu & Kashmir and Jharkhand in

2009-10.

2.3.3 Types of industrial waste

1. Solid waste

In industrial services, solid waste includes a variety of different materials, including paper, cardboard,

plastics, packaging materials, wood, and scrap metal. Some of these materials can be reused and

recycled by a recycling centre.

Solid waste means any garbage, refuse, sludge from a wastewater treatment plant, water supply

treatment plant, or air pollution control facility and other discarded materials including solid, liquid,

semi-solid, or contained gaseous material, resulting from industrial, commercial, mining and

agricultural operations, and from community activities, but does not include solid or dissolved

materials in domestic sewage.

Solid wastes include the following materials when discarded:

• waste tires, scrap metal, latex paints

• furniture and toys

• garbage

• appliances and vehicles

• oil and anti-freeze

• construction and demolition debris, asbestos

A material is discarded if it is abandoned by being:

• disposed of;

26


• burned or incinerated, including being burned as a fuel for the purpose of recovering usable energy;

or

• Accumulated, stored or physically, chemically or biologically treated (other than burned or

incinerated) instead of or before being disposed of.

2. Chemical Waste

Chemical waste is any type of waste that is composed of noxious, potentially hazardous chemicals.

Harmful chemicals and solvents that are the by-products of large-scale laboratories and manufacturing

plants serve as the most common examples of industrial chemical waste.

Chemical waste is typically generated by factories, processing centres, warehouses, and plants. This

waste may include harmful or dangerous chemicals and chemical residue, and waste disposal must

adhere to careful guidelines.

However, certain household refrigerants, batteries and cleaning products qualify as chemical waste,

too. Depending on the potency of certain chemicals and solvents, as well as the potential safety hazards

they present, they may fall under the category of hazardous waste. Because of the safety hazards

associated with this type of waste, most chemical waste must be disposed of in a special manner.

For industrial forms of chemical waste, the disposal process typically involves sealing the waste in

securely sealed chemical-resistant drums or barrels, then transporting the safely stored waste to a

special landfill.

For household forms of chemical waste, many municipal landfills feature areas specifically designated

for this type of waste.

3. Toxic waste

Toxic waste is any unwanted material in all forms that can cause harm (e.g. by being inhaled,

swallowed, or absorbed through the skin). Many of today's household products such as televisions,

computers and phones contain toxic chemicals that can pollute the air and contaminate soil and water.

Disposing of such waste is a major public health issue.

Toxic materials are poisonous by-products as a result of industries such as manufacturing, farming,

construction, automotive, laboratories, and hospitals which may contain heavy metals, radiation,

dangerous pathogens, or other toxins. Toxic waste has become more abundant since the industrial

revolution, causing serious global health issues.

4. Hazardous waste

Hazardous waste is comprised of materials that can cause serious health and safety problems if waste

disposal is not handled correctly. This type of waste typically includes dangerous by-products

materials generated by factories, farms, construction sites, laboratories, garages, hospitals, and certain

production and manufacturing plants. The EPA and state departments regulate toxic and hazardous

waste disposal. This waste disposal is only legal at special designated facilities around the country.

6. Electronic waste

27


Electronic Waste (e-waste) is one of the fastest growing segments of our nation’s waste stream. It

encompasses all broken, unusable, or outdated/obsolete electronic devices, components, and materials.

Used electronics which are destined for refurbishment, reuse, resale, salvage recycling through

material recovery, or disposal are also considered e-waste.

2.3.4 Impact of industrial waste on environment

Factories and power plants are typically located near bodies of water due to the need for large amounts

of water as an input to the manufacturing process, or for equipment cooling.

Metals, chemicals and sewage released into bodies of water directly affect marine ecosystems and the

health of those who depend on the waters as food or drinking water sources.

Air Pollution

Another obvious effect of industrial waste is air pollution resulting from fossil fuel burning. This

affects the lives of many people because this spreads illnesses.

This also affects the quality of soil because farmers have to try and deal with this massive issue. In

addition, nitrogen dioxide is a common air pollutant found in the air. Air pollutants have a devastating

effect on the human population because it causes sicknesses.

Water Pollution

One of the most devastating effects of industrial waste is water pollution. For most industrial processes,

heavy amount of water is used which comes in contact with harmful chemicals. These chemicals are

usually metals or radioactive material.

This heavily effects the environment because most of waste ends up in oceans, lakes, or rivers. As a

result, water becomes polluted posing as health hazard to everyone.

Industry is a huge source of water pollution; it produces pollutants that are extremely harmful to people

and the environment. Many industrial facilities use freshwater to carry away waste from the plant and

into rivers, lakes and oceans.

Pollutants from industrial sources include: Asbestos, lead, mercury, nitrates, Sulphur, phosphates,

petrochemicals etc.

Global Warming

Global warming is among the most serious outcome of industrial pollution, witnessed on the account

of the steady rise of industrial activities. Industries release into the atmosphere a variety of greenhouse

gases including carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4). These gases absorb thermal radiation from

the sun thereby increasing the general temperature of the earth, leading to global warming.

Global warming has several severe effects on human health and the environment. Rise in water levels,

melting of glaciers, extinction of polar species, tsunamis, flooding, and hurricanes are some of the dire

effects of global warming. Furthermore, global warming has threatened human survival and presented

health risks such as the increased incidences of diseases like cholera, plague, malaria, Lyme disease

and so on.

28


Other impacts on environment:

• Decomposition of organic waste is a major source of escaping gases which contributes to global

warming

• Even with controlled land filling, only 45% methane can be utilized, the rest escapes to the

atmosphere, together with other harmful gases

• Global warming potential of methane is significantly higher than CO2

2.3.5 Impact of industrial waste on human health

The world Health Organization (WHO) revealed that outdoor air pollution accounts for about 2% of

all lung and heart diseases. WHO also underscores, around 5% of all lung cancers and 1% of all chest

infections are implications of outdoor air pollution.

Industrial toxic and chemical wastes that are disposed into water bodies or landfills are also responsible

for cancers and human cell poisoning. For instance, exposure to inorganic arsenic causes tumours to

form. Above all, industrial pollutants are responsible for thousands of illnesses and premature deaths

across the globe.

For the general public, the main risks to health are indirect and arise from the breeding of disease

vectors, primarily flies and rats. Uncontrolled hazardous wastes from industries mixing up with

municipal wastes create potential risks to human health.

Some other types of problem are as follows

• Chemical poisoning through chemical inhalation

• Uncollected waste can obstruct the storm

• water runoff resulting in flood Low birth weight

• Cancer

• Congenital malformations

• Neurological disease

• Nausea and vomiting

• Mercury toxicity from eating fish with high

• levels of mercury Plastic found in oceans ingested by birds

• Resulted in high algal population in rivers and sea.

• Degrades water and soil quality

29


INDUS

TRIAL

WAST

E

SOURCE

ENVIRONME

NTAL

IMPACT

IMPACT

ON

HEALT

H

CONCLUSION

MARBL

E DUST

Mineral

waste

Soil damage,

Ecological impact,

Air pollution,

Water pollution,

Water clogging

Silicosis,

Eye

irritation,

Scleroderm

a,

Respiratory

disorder

• It gives maximum improvement

in the swelling and linear

shrinkage properties of BC soil.

• Increase in percentage of

marble dust decreases liquid

limit, plasticity index and

plastic limit and swelling

potential.

SAWDU

ST

Wood

industry

Impact on wildlife,

Harmful leachates

Lung

disease,

Asthma,

Eye

irritation,

ulceration

of the skin

• With increase in Sawdust

content a general reduction in

maximum dry unit weight was

observed.

• The OMC shows increase with

increase in Sawdust content.

• Reduce construction cost of the

roads particularly in the rural

areas.

FLYASH Thermal

power plant

Reduction in

recharge of ground

water,

Air & Water

pollution

kidney

disease,

hearing

impairment

,

high blood

pressure,

Lung

disease

• It is used to stabilize the soil in

different civil work such as in

road construction by reducing

the layer thickness, in

development of low

permeability.

INDUST

RIAL

WASTE

SOU

RCE

ENVIRON

MENTAL

IMPACT

IMPACT

ON

HEALTH

CONCLUSION

30


MARBL

E DUST

Mineral

waste

Soil damage,

Ecological impact,

Air pollution,

Water pollution,

Water clogging

Silicosis,

Eye

irritation,

Scleroderm

a,

Respiratory

disorder

• It gives maximum improvement

in the swelling and linear

shrinkage properties of BC soil.

• Increase in percentage of

marble dust decreases liquid

limit, plasticity index and

plastic limit and swelling

potential.

SAWDU

ST

Wood

industry

Impact on wildlife,

Harmful leachates

Lung

disease,

Asthma,

Eye

irritation,

ulceration

of the skin

• With increase in Sawdust

content a general reduction in


observed.

• The OMC shows increase with

increase in Sawdust content.

• Reduce construction cost of the

roads particularly in the rural

areas.

FLYASH

Thermal

power plant

Reduction in

recharge of ground

water,

Air & Water

pollution

kidney

disease,

hearing

impairment

,

high blood

pressure,

Lung

disease

• It is used to stabilize the soil in

different civil work such as in

road construction by reducing

the layer thickness, in

development of low

permeability

LIME

Limestone

Kankar,

Shells of sea

animals

It increases the pH

of acidic soil,

Global warming

When lime

comes in

contact

with skin it

can cause

serious

irritation

• Lime acts immediately and

improves various property of

soil such as carrying capacity of

soil, resistance to shrinkage

during moist conditions,

reduction in plasticity index,

and increase in CBR value and

subsequent increase in the

compression resistance with the

increase in time.

31


CRUSH

ED

GLASS

Glass

Water pollution,

Production of solid

waste,

Volatile organic

compounds

Glass is

considered

a risk in

areas of

low-level

glazing.

• By adding a (%) of crushed

glass, some mechanical

properties of soil in

embankments as a viable

alternative material,

transportation, &

redevelopment in urban

environments can be improved.

BAGASS

E ASH Sugar mills

Open field burning

or land filling,

soil and water

pollution

Nervous

system

disorders,

Asthma,

Birth

defects

• Bagasse ash has effectively

stabilized black cotton soil and

has led to tremendous increase

in compressive strength of the

soil.

• BA is found to influence the

index and engineering

properties of BC soil making it

suitable for construction as a

foundation material for

structures built over it.

WASTE

PAPER

SLUDGE

Paper

Industry

Water pollution

Paper waste

Asthma

COPD

(Chronic

Obstructive

Pulmonary

Disease)

• When soil is treated with waste

paper sludge an increase in

OMC and decrease in MDD is

observed

• Ratio of decrease in density and

increase in OMC with increase

in percentage of additive waste

paper sludge.

GROUN

D

GRANU

LATED

BLAST

FURNA

CE

SLAG

By product

of iron and

steel

making

Air pollution,

Emission of CO2

Eye

irritation,

Respiratory

system

• With the increases of GGBS

(%) optimum moisture content

goes on decreasing while

maximum dry density goes on

increasing, hence compatibility

of soil increases and making the

soil denser and harder.

32


RICE

HUSK

ASH

Agriculture

waste

Air pollution,

RHA are disposed

of into landfills or

improperly burned,

which can cause

severe

environmental

impacts in air,

water, and soil

Asthma,

Nervous

system

disorders

• The LL and the free swell index

of the soil decreased steeply

with the increase in the % of

RHA.

• Silica present in RHA is

capable to replace the

exchangeable ion present in

clay mineral thus can reduce

shrinkage and swelling property

of clay minerals.

LIME

Limestone

Kankar,

Shells of sea

animals

It increases the pH

of acidic soil,

Global warming

When lime

comes in

contact

with skin it

can cause

serious

irritation

• Lime acts immediately and

improves various property of

soil such as carrying capacity of

soil, resistance to shrinkage

during moist conditions,

reduction in plasticity index,

and increase in CBR value and

subsequent increase in the

compression resistance with the

increase in time.

CRUSH

ED

GLASS

Glass

Water pollution,

Production of solid

waste,

Volatile organic

compounds

Glass is

considered

a risk in

areas of

low-level

glazing.

• By adding a (%) of crushed

glass, some mechanical

properties of soil in

embankments as a viable

alternative material,

transportation. &

redevelopment in urban

environments can be improved

BAGASS

E ASH

Sugar mills

Open field burning

or land filling,

soil and water

pollution

Nervous

system

disorders,

Asthma,

Birth

defects

• Bagasse ash has effectively

stabilized black cotton soil and

has led to tremendous increase

in compressive strength of the

soil.

• BA is found to influence the

index and engineering

properties of BC soil making it

suitable for construction as a

foundation material for

structures built over it.

WASTE

PAPER

SLUDGE

Paper

Industry

Water pollution

Paper waste

Asthma

COPD

(Chronic

• When soil is treated with waste

paper sludge an increase in

33


Obstructive

Pulmonary

Disease)

OMC and decrease in MDD is

observed

• Ratio of decrease in density and

increase in OMC with increase

in percentage of additive waste

paper sludge.

GROUN

D

GRANU

LATED

BLAST

FURNA

CE

SLAG

By product

of iron and

steel

making

Air pollution,

Emission of CO2

Eye

irritation,

Respirator

y system

• With the increases of GGBS

(%) optimum moisture

content goes on decreasing

while maximum dry density

goes on increasing, hence

compatibility of soil increases

and making the soil denser and

harder.

RICE

HUSK

ASH

Agriculture

waste

Air pollution,

RHA are disposed

of into landfills or

improperly burned,

which can cause

severe

environmental

impacts in air,

water, and soil

Asthma,

Nervous

system

disorders

• The LL and the free swell

index of the soil decreased

steeply with the increase in the

% of RHA.

• Silica present in RHA is

capable to replace the

exchangeable ion present in

clay mineral thus can reduce

shrinkage and swelling

property of clay minerals.

Table 2.1 Types of wastes and their impacts (Source –slideshare.com)

2.4 Materials

2.4.1 Black cotton soil

In this thesis, soil is collected from Surat city near Sachin railway station. Black cotton soils possess

low strength and undergo excessive volume changes, making their use in constructions very difficult.

Test according to Indian Standards are performed on the soil to check the properties of untreated and

treated the soil with stabilizer.

These soils cause more extensive damage than even natural disasters. So, we must increase the

compressive strength of black cotton soil by utilizing of additives such as marble dust and wooden

dust. Black cotton soil possesses low strength. If the soil is weak, then the thickness of the pavements

increases. So, for such problematic soil, it is essential to stabilize them in the most economic and

affective way.

Following are the problems with Black cotton soil.

• In the rainy season, these soils become very soft by filling up of water in the cracks and

fissures. These soft soils reduce the bearing capacity of the soils.

34


• In saturated conditions, these soils have high consolidation settlements.

• These soils have high swelling nature. Due to this structure causes damages.

• When lands are applied on these soils in wet conditions. These soils get Shrinkage.

2.4.2 Marble dust

In terms of geological definition ‘Marble is metamorphosed limestone produced by re-crystallization

under thermal condition and also regional metamorphism.’ Marble is a rock resulting from

metamorphism of sedimentary carbonate rocks, most commonly limestone or dolomite rock. The

purest calcite (CaCO3) marble is white in colour.

The purity of marble is responsible for its colour and appearance; it is white if the limestone is

composed solely of calcite.

Marble is used for construction and decoration; marble is durable, has a noble appearance, and is

consequently in great demand. Chemically, marbles are crystalline rocks composed predominantly of

calcite, dolomite or serpentine minerals.

Figure 2.6 Collection of soil sample (Source –Google maps .com)

Figure 2.7 Marble Dust (Source –indiamart.com)

35


The other mineral constituents vary from origin to origin. Quartz, muscovite, tremolite, actinolite,

micro line, talc, garnet, osterie and biotite are the major mineral impurities whereas SiO2, limonite,

Fe2O3, manganese, 3H2O and FeS2 are the major chemical impurities associated with marble.

The marble dusts were generated from cutting and polishing of marble stones. The major constituent

of marble dust is calcium carbonate (88.5%) which aids in the stabilization of the soil.

The solid waste is produced on the mine sites or at the processing units and slurry is in the semi-

liquid form generates during sawing and polishing operations. The generation of waste marble dust is

approximately 30-40% of the total marble handled per year. It makes relevance because every year

about 68 million ton of marble is manufactured all over the world.

The main states of India at which the marble is found are Rajasthan, Haryana, Gujarat, Jammu &

Kashmir, Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh, Sikkim and West Bengal.

❖ Advantages of Marble dust

• Marble powder can be used as filler in concrete and paving materials it helps to reduce total

void content in concrete.

• Marble powder can be used as an admixture in concrete, so that strength of the concrete can be

increased.

• We can reduce the environmental pollution by utilizing this marble powder for producing the

other products.

• Marble dust is mixed with concrete, cement or synthetic resins to make counters, building

stones, sculptures, floors and many other objects.

• Marble dust is also used to make paint primer for canvas paintings, and as paint filler.

• The marble powder is also used to create carbonic acid gases which are used in the bottling of

beverages.

❖ Disadvantages of Marble dust

• Marble powder is not available in all the places.

• Only 20% of the final product is obtained from stone industry.

❖ Production of Waste Marble Dust

The production of fine particles (<2mm) while cutting is one of the major problems for the marble

industry. When 1 m3 marble block is cut into 2 cm thick slab, the proportion of the particle production

is approximately 25%. While cutting of marble block water is used as cooler. But the fine particle can

be easily dispersed after losing humidity, under atmospheric condition, such as wind and rain. Thus,

fine particle can pollute more than other forms of marble waste.

❖ Percentage of waste Generated

The slurry generated during processing can be estimate at about 10% of the total stone quarried (20%

to 25% of the block as received from the quarries) and during polishing as 5% to 7%

Chemical Properties of marble dust

Sr. No. Materials Marble powder (%)

1. Loss of ignition (LOI) 43.63

36


2. CaO (calcium oxide) 43.20

3. Fe2O3 (iron oxide) 1.90

4. Al2O3 (Aluminium oxide) 2.50

5. SiO2 (Silicon dioxide) 13.8

6. MgO (Magnesium oxide) 2.70

7. SO3 (Sulphur trioxide) 0.07

8. K2O (Potassium oxide) 0.60

9. Na2O (Sodium oxide) 0.90

10. CL (chlorine) 0.03

Table 2.2 Chemical properties of marble dust (Source –slideshare.com)

Table 2.3 physical properties of marble dust (Source –slideshare.com)

2.4.2.1 Impact of marble dust on environment

• The waste in the water does not completely sink into the ground and much of it remains on the

surface. As the water evaporates the liquid wastes solidify. Subsequently wet marble wastes

subjected to rain will carry seepage down into the ground.

• Generally, wastes are dumped on the roads outside city and the dust is airborne by the wind and

scrap.

• The fine particles can cause more pollution than other form of marble waste unless stored properly

in sedimentation tanks and further utilized.

• The white dust particles usually contain CaCo3 and can cause visual pollution.

• The marble slurry in the long run could lead into water clogging of the soil, to increase soil

alkalinity and to disruption of photosynthesis and transportation. The net effect is soil fertility and

plant productivity.

• Many animal species are exclusively herbivores. Again, if plants did not out, their internal

chemistry will have been altered and their nutritional value poisoned by gases emitted by the

industries.

• It should also be emphasized that animal health like human health, can be adversely affected by

inferior environment quality

COLOUR WHITE

FORM POWDER

ODOR ODORLESS

MOISTURE CONTENT (%) 1.59

37


• Soil damage: -The waste in the water does not completely sink into the ground and much of it

remains on the surface. As the water evaporates the liquid wastes solidify. Subsequently wet

marble wastes subjected to rain will carry seepage down into the ground.

• Ecological impact: - Reduced porosity & permeability of the topsoil along with the increasing

alkalinity have tremendously affected the soil fertility. The percolation rate of rain water due to

clogging of pores of top soil has also increased surface run-off which reduced recharging of ground

water.

• Air Pollution: - Deposition of particulate/fugitive dust on roads up to 2.5 cm causes

solid particles and liquid droplets found in the air due to vehicular activities and strong wind

currents.

• Water Pollution: - Disposing the slurry waste near to water bodies, road side areas can deteriorate

the surface & ground water quality by increasing turbidity, suspended solids, and calcium and

magnesium hardness.

2.4.2.2 Impact of marble dust on human health

• Silicosis

Stone carving of a hard stone like marble requires the use of power tools such as saws, drills, grinders

and sanders. Inhaling marble dust causes toxic effects on the respiratory system. Workers and residents

living in areas adjacent to stone quarries are prone to a disease called silicosis, whereby inhaled marble

dust damages the cells of the respiratory system. Symptoms include a chronic cough and shortness of

breath. There is no specific treatment other than supportive treatment such as cough medicine,

bronchodilators and oxygen. People with silicosis have a higher risk of developing tuberculosis.

Wearing a protective respirator may decrease risk of inhaling marble dust.

• Eye Irritation

Grinding and polishing marble releases small particles of stone and dust into the air. Exposure to the

eyes with airborne marble dust causes irritation because of the abrasiveness of the product.

Recommended first-aid measures include flushing the eyes with water thoroughly for 15 minutes,

gently lifting the eyelids and rinsing under the eyelids and avoid scrubbing or rubbing the eyes. Seek

medical attention if irritation and discomfort persist. Wearing eye protection may decrease risk of eye

irritation when working with marble.

• Scleroderma

Marble dust is abrasive and causes irritation to the skin. Stonemasons who have long-term exposure

to marble dust have a high risk of developing scleroderma. This is a rare and progressive disease that

involves the hardening and tightening of the skin and connective tissue. It results from the

overproduction and accumulation of collagen in the body tissues. Exposure to silica, which is a

component found in marble dust, is one risk factor for developing scleroderma

2.4.3 Wooden dust

Also known as Saw dust which is actually by-products of sawmills generated by sawing timber. It is

the loose particles or wood chippings obtained by sawing wood into useable sizes. After collection,

clean saw dust not having much bark and so not much organic content was air dried and burnt at the

38


room temperature. Sawdust insulation is probably the most cost-effective insulating material. Sawdust

is composed of fine particles of wood.

Figure 2.7 Sawdust (Source –scialert.com)

It is the by-product of cutting, drilling, grinding, sanding wood. It is produced as a small irregular chip

or small garbage of wood during sawing of logs of timber into different sizes. Sawdust absorbs water

from soil. It can also increase plasticity of soil and reduce swelling pressure of soil.

• Properties of wooden dust

Constituent Composition (%)

Silicon Dioxide 19.30

Aluminium Oxide 10.04

Calcium Oxide 35.63

Potassium Oxide 9.21

Magnesium Oxide 7.30

Ferric Oxide 2.52

Sodium Oxide 3.60

Loss on Ignition 12.40

Table 2.4 Properties of wooden dust (Source –chegg.com)

2.4.3.1 Impact of wooden dust on environment

At sawmills, unless reprocessed into particleboard, burned in a sawdust burner or used to make heat

for other milling operations, sawdust may collect in piles and add harmful lichgates into local water

systems, creating an environmental hazard. This has placed small sawyers and environmental agencies

in a deadlock.

Technical advisors have reviewed some of the environmental studies, but say most lack standardized

methodology or evidence of a direct impact on wildlife. They don’t take into account large drainage

39


areas, so the amount of material that is getting into the water from the site in relation to the total

drainage area is extremely small.

The decomposition of a tree in a forest is similar to the impact of sawdust, but the difference is of

scale. Sawmills may be storing thousands of cubic meters of wood residues in one place, so the issue

becomes one of concentration.

But of larger concern are substances such as lignin’s and fatty acids that protect trees from predators

while they are alive, but can leach into water and poison wildlife.

2.4.3.2 Impact of wooden dust on human health

• Inhaling dust into the lungs can cause breathing problems and lead to lung diseases such as

occupational asthma and lung cancer. Breathing in dust is the most common type of exposure to

wood dust.

• Swallowing wood dust can affect the intestines, bloodstream and vital organs and make people ill.

• Getting dust in the eyes can cause irritation and damage.

• Skin contact with wood dust can cause ulceration of the skin, irritation and dermatitis.

2.5 Review of research paper on Waste Marble powder

[01] B. B. Patel, C. B. Mishra, Dr. H. R. Varia, H. B. Thakar (2017). “Use of Waste Marble

Powder to Improve the Characteristics of Black Cotton Soil.” Earthquake International Journal of

Engineering Research & Technology (IJERT), Vol. 6, Issue 4.

Research Paper Materials Tests Outcome

Use of Waste

Marble Powder to

Improve the

Characteristics of

Black Cotton Soil

Soil: black cotton

soil

Additives: waste

marble dust

Grain Size Analysis,

Atterberg’s Limit,

Free Swell Index of

Soils, Compaction,

California Bearing

Ratio, Unconfined

Compressive Strength,

Water Content

• Soil + 20% Marble

powder PI- 11.57, FSI-

34.44



32.81



30.77


powder PI-4.35, FSI-

29.78

[02] Krichphon Singh, V.K. Arora (2017). “Stabilization of non-plastic silt using marble dust”

International journal of advance research in science and engineering, Vol. 6, Issue 4.

40


[03] Krichphon Singh, V.K. Arora (2018). “Pursuance of waste marble powder to improve soil

stabilization” International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET), Vol. 5, Issue 5.


Pursuance of waste

marble powder to

improve soil

stabilization

Soil: highly

clayey soil

Additives: waste

marble powder

MDD & OMC,

California Bearing

Ratio, Unconfined

Compressive

Strength

• The OMC of 12.97% is

reached at 45% of waste

marble powder.

• The increase in CBR for

45% additive is 2.76

times that of ordinary

soil.

• The UCS vale for soil

with 45% additive is 1.5

times more compared to

ordinary soil.

[04] C. B. Mishra, Nandan Patel, Riddhi Choksi (2018). “Soil stabilization using marble dust”

International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET), Vol. 5, Issue 5.


Soil stabilization

using marble dust

Soil: black

cotton soil

Additives:

waste marble

dust

Free swell Index

Liquid limit Plastic

Limit, Plasticity index,

Shrinkage Limit,

Specific gravity,

MDD.

• The liquid Limit of soil

sample is 61%. Soil sample

is classified as Highly

Compressible clay


Stabilization of non-

plastic silt using

marble dust

Soil: Silt soil

Additives: waste

marble dust

Unconfined

Compression

Strength test,

Standard proctor

test

• Optimum value of marble

dust -15% by weight of

dry soil.

• Maximum UCS of sample

is = 1.032 for 15% marble

dust addition.

• Samples turned brittle on

higher percentage of

marble dust.

41


[05] Jagmohan Mishra R. Yadav A. K. Singhai (2014). “Effect of granite dust on index properties of

lime stabilized black cotton soil” International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology

(IJERT).

[06] M. Yurdakul, F. Yilmaz (2017). “Evaluation of Marble Dust for Soil Stabilization” Special issue

of the 3rd International Conference on Computational and Experimental Science and Engineering

(ICCESEN 2016).

[07] Sumit Shringi, Vishvendra Singh, Dr. B. Acharya (2018). “Review on effect of marble dust on

geotechnical properties of expansive soil” International journal of advance research in science and

engineering, Vol. 7, Issue 2.

Research Paper Materials Tests Outcomes

Effect of granite

dust on index

properties of lime

stabilized black

cotton soil

Soil: black

cotton soil.

Additives:

Granite dust

Specific

Gravity,

Liquid limit,

Plasticity, Index

Shrinkage,

Limit

Free Swell.

• Increase in the granite dust

percentage the liquid limit values

decrease from 57% to 28%.

• The plasticity index values decrease

from 37.2% to 3.7%. The differential

free swell results are also decreased

drastically from 56.6% to 4.1%.

• The shrinkage limit values increase

from 8.15% to 18% with the increase

in granite dust.


Evaluation of

Marble Dust for

Soil

Stabilization

Soil: bentonite

soil

Additives:

waste marble

dust

Liquid limit,

Plastic limit,

Plasticity

index,

Optimum

moisture

content,

Maximum dry

density,

• UCS indicated that the strength of each

marble dust-silty soil specimen

increases with the increase of the curing

duration and the percentage of marble

dust.

• The effect of marble dust on unconfined

compressive strength of silty soil has

been studied. It is seen from the test

results that the addition of marble dust

enhances the strength values of soil.


Review on effect

of marble dust on

geotechnical

properties of

expansive soil

Soil: black

cotton soil

Additives:

waste marble

dust

Liquid limit, Plastic

limit, Plasticity

index, Unconfined

Compressive

Strength

• By replacing soil its dry weight by

marble powder, it gives

maximum improvement in the

swelling and linear shrinkage

properties of black cotton soil.

42


[08] Arun Pratap Singh Rathor, Karan Parbhakar (2018). “Soil stabilization using kota stone slurry in

pavement” International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET), Vol. 7, Issue 5.

2.6 Review of research paper on Saw dust

[01] Zuhaib Zahoor Shaw, Er. Ved Parkash, Er. Vishal Kumar (2017). “Use of Lime and Saw Dust

Ash in Soil Stabilization” International Journal of Innovative Research in Science, Engineering and

Technology, Vol. 6, Issue 2.

[02] Rashmi Bade, Nuzra Zainab Khan, Jaya Sahare, Faisal Ameen, Danish Ahmed (2017). “Effect of

Wood Shaving Ash on Index Properties of Black Cotton Soil” International Research Journal of

Engineering and Technology (IRJET), Vol. 4, Issue 2.


Effect of Wood

Shaving Ash on

Index Properties of

Black Cotton Soil

Soil- Black

cotton soil

Additives:

Wooden dust

Plasticity index,

liquid limit index,

Plastic limit,

compaction,

California bearing

ratio

• Untreated soil LL-56%,

PL- 31%, PI-25%

• 15% admixture LL-69%,

PL-45.3%, PI- 23.7%

• 20% admixture LL-67%,

PL- 47.1%, PI- 19.82%


Soil stabilization

using kota stone

slurry in pavement

Soil: black

cotton soil

Additives:

Kota Stone

Slurry

Specific

Gravity,

Liquid Limit,

Plastic Limit,

Standard Pro

Unconfined

Compressive

Strength.

• 15% of Kota stone slurry then

plasticity index of black cotton soil

decreases 10.81%.

• The mix specimen 15% Kota stone

slurry with black cotton soil is

having 10.732 N/cm2 shear strength

which is 34.43% more than to shear

strength of the black cotton soil.


Use of Lime and Saw

Dust Ash in Soil

Stabilization

Soil: clayey soil

Additives: saw

dust ash, lime

Atterberg limit,

Unconfined

Compressive

Strength

• Plastic limit of the clayey

soil has been increased from

24.4% to 25.58%, 26.2%

and 27.45% on addition of

4%, 8% and 12% SDA.

• MDD reduced to the least

value of 1.37KN/m2 when

both SDA and lime is used

with a proportion of 6% lime

and 12% SDA.

43


[03] A. G. Patil, K. P. Patil, N. P. Patil, P. S. Joshi, S. S. Chavan, Dr. V.R. Saraf (2017). “Eco-

friendly stabilization of black cotton soil” International Journal of Innovative Research in Science,

Engineering and Technology, Vol. 3, Issue 3.

[04] T. Deepika (2019). “Experimental Study on Behavior of Black Cotton Soil using Wood Ash as

Stabilizer” International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET), Vol. 5, Issue 3.

[5] Berjees Anisa Ikra, Tamanna Kabir, Anika Nowshin Mowrin, Ahsan Habib (2018). “Stabilization

of Clay Soil Mixed with Wood Ash” International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, Vol.

9, Issue 10.

Research paper Materials Tests Outcomes

Eco-friendly

stabilization of

black cotton soil

Soil: Black

cotton soil

Additives:

Wooden Ash

Quarry Dust

Specific gravity

Liquid limit

Plastic limit

Plasticity index

Optimum moisture

index

Unconfined

compressive

strength.

California bearing

ratio

• Wood ash and quarry dust are

the industrial wastes which can

be efficiently used as the eco-

friendly stabilizers.

• According to the various tests

conducted on black cotton soil

with and without stabilizers, to

the use of 10% wood ash as a

stabilizer.


Experimental

Study on Behavior

of Black Cotton

Soil using Wood

Ash as Stabilizer

Soil: Black

cotton soil

Additives:

Wood ash

liquid limit, plastic

limit, compaction,

California bearing

ratio, Unconfined

compressive strength

test

• The properties such as LL and

PL decreases with increase in

percentage of wood ash added.

• CBR of the soil attained its

highest value at 8% addition of

wood ash

• Differential FSI decreases with

increase in− percentage of

wood ash added


Strength behavior

of clayey soil

stabilized with

saw dust ash’

Clay soil

Additive

Saw dust

Specific gravity, Liquid

limit,

Plastic limit, Plasticity

index, Optimum

moisture content,

Unconfined compressive

strength,

California bearing ratio

• The CBR value increases by

103.11 % and unconfined

compressive strength

increases by 26.35 at 4 % SDA

content which is taken as

optimum

• With increase in SDA content

a general reduction in


observed.

44


[06] A. Venkatesh and Dr. G. Sreenivasa Reddy (2016). “Effect of Waste Saw Dust Ash on

Compaction and Permeability Properties of Black Cotton Soil” International Journal of Civil

Engineering Research, Vol. 7, Issue 1

[07] M. Usha Rani, J. Martina Jenifer (2016). “Analysis of strength characteristics of black cotton

soil using wood ash as stabilizer” International Journal of Research in Science and Technology, Vol.

6, Issue 1.

Conclusion based on research papers

The research reviewed the use of industrial waste in improving pavement interlayer material. Marble

and saw dust f industrial wastes were reviewed in a bid to improve sustainability and make road

construction affordable in developing nations. From the review, it can be concluded that:

In any project-based work the study of various research papers is important in determining the various

aspects of predetermined knowledge of any study. On the basis of that study we are able to know how

the material would behave on account of various tests performed on it Those research papers also help

us to determine what are the most suitable tests that would carried on the material .In our case we were

able to evaluate that CBR and UCS tests would be the main spine of our projects and on the basis of

those tests only we would be able to design the pavement and find out its cost afterwards. Those

research papers also helped us in finding out the required amount of stimulating dosage between any

tests and find out the required optimum value of the given sample taken. Hence the study of research

papers is important field in any project related study to know its historical background or predict its

future outcome.


Effect of Waste

Saw Dust Ash on

Compaction and

Permeability

Properties of Black

Cotton Soil

Soil: black

cotton

Additive:

saw dust


limit, plasticity index,

Optimum moisture

content by Standard

proctor test, Maximum

dry density, Free swell

index, Sieve analysis,

Specific gravity

• At 2% of WSDA was added to

the soil the dry density was

increased from 1. 40 gm/cc to 1.

46 gm/cc. With further increase

of WSDA to the soil the density

starts decreasing.

• With increase in percentages of

WSDA to the soil the

coefficient of permeability was

reduced from 0. 18 to 0. 08.


Analysis of strength

characteristics of

black cotton soil

using wood ash as

stabilizer

Soil: black

cotton

Additive:

saw dust


limit, plasticity index,

MDD, OMC, Free

swell index, CBR,

Thickness of flexible

pavement

• The maximum dry density of

the soil increases with increase

in percentage of wood ash.

Irrespective of their

percentages.

• The soaked CBR of the soil

increases with increase in

percentage wood ash content.

45


CHAPTER 3 LABORATORY TESTS AND RESULTS

3.1 Laboratory Tests for Soil (As Per Indian Standards)

To identify the engineering properties as per Indian Standard provision, various tests were performed

which are enlisted as follows.

▪ Determination of Grain Size Analysis (IS: 2720 (Part IV) – 1985)

▪ Determination of Liquid & Plastic Limit (IS: 2720 (Part V) – 1986)

▪ Determination of Free Swell Index of Soils (IS: 2720 (Part XL) – 1977)

▪ Determination of Water Content - Dry Density Relation Using Heavy Compaction (IS: 2720 (Part

VIII) – 1997)

▪ Laboratory Determination of California Bearing Ratio (IS: 2720 (Part XVI) – 1987)

▪ Determination of Unconfined Compressive Strength (IS: 2720 (Part X) – 1991)

3.1.1 Determination of Grain Size Analysis (IS: 2720 (Part 4) – 1985)

Scope: This standard covers the method for the quantitative determination of grain size distribution of

grain size distribution soils.

Apparatus: Balance, Sieve, Rubber Pestle Mortar

Procedure: The portion of the soil sample retained on 4.75-mm IS Sieve, selected as given in the

preparation of the sample, shall be weighed and the mass recorded as the mass of the sample

uncorrected for hygroscopic moisture. The quantity of the soil sample taken shall depend on the

maximum particle size contained in the soil which is shown in Table 3.1.

The sample shall be separated into various fractions by sieving through the Indian Standard Sieves

specified in apparatus. Other sieves may be introduced between the sieves mentioned in rubber pestle

and mortar depending upon the additional information that may be desired to be obtained from the

analysis. While sieving through each sieve, the sieve shall be agitated so that the sample rolls in

irregular motion over the Sieve. Any particles may be tested to see if they will fall through but they

shall not be pushed through.

The material from the sieve may be rubbed, if necessary, with the rubber pestle in the mortar taking

care to see t individual soil particle are not broken and re-sieved to make sure that only individual

particles are retained.

The quantity taken each time for sieving on each sieve shall be such that the maximum weight of

material retained on each sieve at the completion of sieving does not exceed the values given in Table

3.1.

Depending upon the maximum size of material present in substantial quantities in the soil, the mass of

soil sample taken for analysis may be as follows.

46


Sieve size (mm) Wt. of retained

soil (grams)

Cumulative wt.

of retained soil

% Retained % Passing

4.75 30 30 3.0 97

2.36 11 41 4.1 95.9

1.18 14 55 5.5 94.5

0.600 17 72 7.2 92.8

0.300 19 91 9.1 90.9

0.150 23 114 11.4 88.6

0.075 36 150 15.0 85

PAN 850 1000 100 0

Table 3.1 Grain size analysis

Results: IS: 1498 – 1970 describes the Indian Standard on Classification and Identification of soils for

general engineering purposes. To determine the classification of soil, data for gradation, Atterberg’s

limits are required which were performed in the laboratory as per Indian Standards. Following are the

results for the given soil.

Soil

Grain Size Distribution Atterberg's Limit Free

Swell

Index

(FSI)

IS

Classificat

ion

Gravel

(%)

Sand

(%)

Clay

(%)

L. L

(%)

P. L.

(%)

P. I.

(%)

Black cotton Soil 3 12 85 68 33 35 56.56% CH

Table 3.2 Soil classification, Fsi and Atterberg’s limit

From fig. 3.1 in X – axis represents liquid limit and Y – axis represents plasticity index. And at which

plasticity (low, intermediate, high, very high, extremely high) of soil can be found. For black cotton

soil point, P is shown in fig. where P represents Liquid Limit = 56 on X – axis and Plasticity Index

represents = 24 on Y – axis. And the point is above a point. Soil is intermediate plastic. In flow diagram,

dark portion represents black cotton soil and from that flow diagram, it can be concluded that given

Clay soil type is CH.

47


3.1.2 Determination of Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit (IS: 2720 (Part V) – 1986)

Scope: The basic principle is to observe depths of penetrations of soils at various initial moisture

contents of a metal cone of acertain weight and apex angle with the point barely touching the surface

is allowed to drop into the surface. The standardization has been to identify liquid limit water content

for a specified depth of penetration.

Apparatus: Balance -Sensitive to 0.01 g.

Containers - non-corrodible and air-tight for moisture determination.

Soil Sample: A soil sample weighing about 150 g from thoroughly mixed portion of the soil passing

425 microns IS Sieve obtained in accordance to IS 2720 (Part 1)-19837.

Procedure: About 150 g of soil sample obtained as in 4.3 shall be worked well into a paste with the

addition of distilled water. In the case of highly clayey soils, to ensure uniform moisture distribution,

it is recommended that the soil in the mixed state is left for sufficient time (24 hours) in an air-tight

container. The wet soil paste shall then be transferred to the cylindrical cup of cone penetrometer

apparatus, ensuring that no air is trapped in this process. Finally, the wet soil is levelled up to the top

of the cup and placed on the base of the cone penetrometer apparatus.

The penetrometer shall be so adjusted that the cone point just touches the surface of the soil paste in

the cup clamped in this position. The initial reading is either adjusted to zero or noted down as is shown

on the graduated scale. The vertical clamp is then released allowing the cone to penetrate into the soil

paste under its own weight. The penetration of the cone after 5 seconds shall be noted to the nearest

millimetre. If the difference in penetration lies between 14 and 28 mm the test is repeated with suitable

Figure 3.1 Plasticity Chart (I.S. Soil Classification)

48


adjustments to moisture either by the addition of more water or exposure of the spreading paste on a

glass plate for a reduction in moisture content.

The test shall then be repeated at least to have four sets of values of penetration in the range of 14 to

28 mm. The exact moisture content of each trial shall be determined in accordance with IS: 2720 (Part

2)-1973.

Determination of Liquid Limit:

A graph representing later content on the y-axis and the cone penetration on the x-axis shall be

prepared. The best fitting straight line is then drawn. The moisture content corresponding to cone

penetration of 20 mm shall be taken as the liquid limit of the soil and shall be expressed to the nearest

first decimal place.

3.1.2.1 Test Results for Atterberg’s Limit and FSI

Liquid Limit for Raw Soil

Can

No.

Wt. of

Can

(gm)

Number

of blows

Can + Wet

Sample

(gm)

Can + Dry

Sample

(gm)

Wt. of

Water

(gm)

Wt. of Dry

Sample

(gm)

Moisture

Content

(%)

140 15 19 35 26 9 11 81.81

154 27 21 38 33 5 6 83.33

574 30 24 54 44 10 14 71.42

Liquid Limit of black cotton Soil 68.0%

Table 3.3 Liquid limit for raw soil

Table 3.4 Liquid limit with 5% MP

Liquid Limit of black cotton Soil + 5% MP

Sample Condition: Passing through 425-micron sieve

Can

No.

No of

blows

Wt. of

Can

(gm)

Can + Wet

Sample

(gm)

Can + Dry

Sample

(gm)

Wt. of

Water

(gm)

Wt. of Dry

Sample

(gm)

Moisture

Content

(%)

108 21 9.25 33.45 25.38 8.07 16.13 50

175 27 8.25 32.53 24.19 8.38 15.94 52.57

553 32 9.1 35.67 25.5 10.17 16.40 62


49




Can

No.

No of

blows

Wt. of

Can

(gm)

Can + Wet

Sample

(gm)

Can + Dry

Sample

(gm)

Wt. of

Water

(gm)

Wt. of Dry

Sample

(gm)

Moisture

Content

(%)

530 14 10.18 54.37 39.73 14.64 29.55 49.54

505 19 10.82 58.62 41.99 16.63 31.17 53.35

510 27 9.59 45.98 33.29 13.69 23.70 57.76





Can

No.

No of

blows

Wt. of

Can

(gm)

Can + Wet

Sample

(gm)

Can + Dry

Sample

(gm)

Wt. of

Water

(gm)

Wt. of Dry

Sample

(gm)

Moisture

Content

(%)

530 14 15.47 38 30.75 7.25 15.2 47.75

505 19 17.29 45.11 35.88 9.23 18.59 49.65

510 27 13.12 53.95 39.90 14.05 26.78 52.46



Liquid Limit of black cotton Soil + 20 % MP


Can

No.

No of

blows

Wt. of

Can

(gm)

Can + Wet

Sample

(gm)

Can + Dry

Sample

(gm)

Wt. of

Water

(gm)

Wt. of Dry

Sample

(gm)

Moisture

Content

(%)

174 14 30.5 36.5 34.5 2 4 50

205 21 32.5 39 37 2 4.5 44.44

536 29 33 41 38.5 2 5.5 36.36

Liquid Limit of black cotton Soil + 20% MP 43%


50


Plastic Limit for Raw Soil

Can

No.

Wt. of

Can (gm)

Can + Wet

Sample (gm)

Can + Dry

Sample (gm)

Wt. of

Water

(gm)

Wt. of Dry

Sample (gm)

Moisture

Content

(%)

534 15 21.47 19.8 1.67 4.8 34.8

548 14 19 17.81 1.19 3.81 31.2

Average Plastic Limit 33.00%

Plasticity Index 35%

Table 3.8 Plastic limit for raw soil

Plastic Limit of black cotton Soil + 5% MP

Can

No.

Wt. of

Can (gm)

Can + Wet

Sample (gm)

Can + Dry

Sample (gm)

Wt. of

Water

(gm)

Wt. of Dry

Sample

(gm)

Moisture

Content

(%)

140 15 21.8 20.17 1.63 5.17 31.5

538 14 19.21 18.02 1.19 4.02 29.5


Plasticity Index 2.48%

Table 3.9 Plastic limit with 5% MP

Plastic Limit of black cotton soil + 10% MP

Can

No.

Wt. of

Can (gm)

Can + Wet

Sample (gm)

Can + Dry

Sample (gm)

Wt. of

Water

(gm)

Wt. of Dry

Sample (gm)

Moisture

Content

(%)

157 14.5 22.16 20.4 1.76 5.9 29.8

148 15 23.55 21.7 1.85 6.7 27.5




51



Table 3.12 LL, PL and Free Swell Index with 20% MP

Free Swell Index

Mass of Dry

Soil

Volume of Soil In

water

Volume of Soil In

kerosene

% Free Swell

Index Avg. FSI

10 16 10.5 52.38 56.56%

10 17.2 10.7 60.74

Table 3.13 Free Swell Index

3.1.3 Determination of Water Content - Dry Density Relation Using Heavy Compaction (IS: 2720

(Part 8) – 1983)

Scope: This standard lays down the method for the determination of the relation between the water

content and the dry density of soil using light compaction. In this test, 2.6 kg rammer falling through

a height of 310 mm is used.

Apparatus: Cylindrical metal mould, Sample extruder, Balances, Oven, Container, Steel straightedge,

Sieve, Mixing Tools, Metal rammer.

Procedure: A 5-kg sample of air-dried soil passing the 20 mm IS test sieve shall be taken. The sample

shall be mixed thoroughly with a suitable amount of water depending on the soil type. The mould, with

base plate attached, shall be weighed to the nearest 1 gmm1).The mould shall be placed on a solid base,

such as a concrete floor or plinth and the moist soil shall be compacted into the mould, with the


Can

No.

Wt. of

Can

(gm)

Can + Plastic

Wet Sample (gm)

Can + Dry

Sample (gm)

Wt. of

Water

(gm)

Wt. of Dry

Sample

(gm)

Moisture

Content

(%)

1 20 24.95 24 0.95 4 23.5

2 18 21.69 21 0.69 3 23




Can

No.

Wt. of

Can (gm)

Can + Wet

Sample (gm)

Can + Dry

Sample (gm)

Wt. of

Water

(gm)

Wt. of Dry

Sample (gm)

Moisture

Content

(%)

1 24 30.3415 29 1.3415 5 26.83

2 22 27.0068 26 1.0068 4 25.17

Average Plastic Limit 26%


52


extension attached, in three layers of approximately equal mass, each layer being given 25 blows from

the 4.9-kg rammer dropped from a height of 450 mm above the soil. The blows shall be distributed

uniformly over the surface of each layer. The operator shall ensure that the tube of the rammer is kept

clear of soil so that the rammer always falls freely. The amount of soil used shall be sufficient to fill

the mould, leaving not more than about 6 mm to be struck off when the extension is removed. The

extension shall be removed and the compacted soil shall be levelled off carefully to the top of the

mould by means of the straightedge. The mould and soil shall then be weighed to 1gm (m2). The

compacted soil specimen shall be removed from the mould and placed on the mixing tray. The water

content of a representative sample of the specimen shall be determined as in IS: 2720 (Part II) – 1973.

The remainder of the soil specimen shall be broken up, rubbed through the 20 mm IS test sieve, and

then mixed with the remainder of the original sample. Suitable increments of water shall be added

successively and mixed into the sample, and the above procedure from operations shall be repeated for

each increment of water added. The total number of determinations made shall he at least five, and the

range of moisture contents should be such that the optimum moisture content, at which the maximum

dry density occurs, is within that range. Soil Susceptible to Crushing during Compaction: The

procedure is as follows:

a) Five or more 2.5-kg samples of air-dried soil passing the 20 mm are test sieve, shall be taken.

The samples shall each be mixed thoroughly with different amounts of water to give a suitable

range of moisture contents. The range of moisture content, at which the maximum dry density

occurs, is within that range.

b) Each sample shall be treated as in given in procedure.

c) Each compacted specimen shall be treated as given in procedure.

d) The remainder of each soil specimen shall be discarded.

Compaction in Large size Mould - For compacting soil containing coarse material up to 40 mm size,

the 2 250 ml mould should be wed. A sample weighing about 6 kg and passing the 40-mm IS sieve is

used for the test. Soil is compacted in three/five layers, each layer being given 55 blows of the 4.9-kg

rammer. The rest of the procedure is the same as given.

Calculations: Bulk Density: in g/cm3, of each compacted specimen shall be calculated from the

equation:

=

Where,

m1 = Mass in gm of mould and base

m2 = Mass in gm of mould, base, and soil

Vm = Volume in ml of mould

The dry density, in gm/cm3, shall be calculated from the equation:

53


Where,

w = Moisture content of soil in the present

The dry densities, obtained in a series of determinations shall be plotted against the corresponding

moisture contents w.

3.1.3.1 Proctor Test Result for soil by using Standard Procter Test

Proctor Test is to be performed as per IS: 2720 (Part VIII) – 1987. From this test Moisture, Dry Density

(MDD) & Optimum Moisture Content (OMC) can be computed. The Modified Proctor test method

for the determination of the relation between the water content and the dry density of soils use heavy

compaction. In this test 4.9 kg, hammer falling through a height of 450 mm is used. The sample is

compacted in five layers of approximately equal mass, each layer being given 25 blows from the 4.9

kg rammer dropped from a height of 450 mm above the soil. The blows should be distributed uniformly

over the surface of each layer.

54


Result of OMC & MDD for Natural Soil

Volume of Mould = 981.74

Weight of Mould in gram = 4855gm

Wt. of

Mould

+ Wet

Soil

(gm)

Wt.

of

Wet

Soil

(gm)

Bulk

Density

(gm/cc)

Wt. of

Container

(gm)

Wt. of

Container

+ Wet

Sample

(gm)

Wt. of

Container

+ Dry

Sample

(gm)

Wt. of

Water

(gm)

Wt. of

Dry

Sample

(gm)

Moisture

Content

(%)

Dry

Density

(gm/cc)

6487 1619 1.67 13.23 28.22 25.88 2.34 12.65 18.5 1.41

6516 1648 1.70 13.66 25.72 23.74 1.98 10.08 19.6 1.423

6642 1774 1.83 14.31 34.41 30.92 3.49 16.61 21 1.51

6661 1793 1.85 12.87 26.02 23.58 2.44 10.71 22.7 1.50

6642 1774 1.83 16.83 44.98 39.62 5.36 22.79 23.5 1.48

6612 1757 1.79 16.45 49.41 43.15 6.26 26.70 23.44 1.45

Table 3.14 Results of OMC and MDD for Natural soil

1.41

1.423

1.51

1.5

1.48

1.45

1.4

1.42

1.44

1.46

1.48

1.5

1.52

0 5 10 15 20 25

Dry

Den

sity

(gm

/cc)

Moisture Content (%)

Figure 3.2 OMC and MDD for Natural soil

55


Table 3.15 Results of OMC and MDD with 5% MP

Result of OMC & MDD for Natural Soil + 5% Marble powder

Volume of Mould = 981.74cc


Wt. of

Mould

+ Wet

Soil

(gm)

Wt. of

Wet

Soil

(gm)

Bulk

Densit

y

(gm/cc

)

Wt. of

Conta

iner

(gm)

Wt. of

Contain

er +

Wet

Sample

(gm)

Wt. of

Contain

er +

Dry

Sample

(gm)

Wt. of

Water

(gm)

Wt. of

Dry

Sampl

e (gm)

Moisture

Content

(%)

Dry

Density

(gm/cc)

3145.79 1709.21 1.741 36.45 63.43 59.54 3.89 23.086 16.85 1.490

3106.52 1748.48 1.781 14.07 34.99 31.92 3.07 17.849 17.20 1.520

2996.57 1858.43 1.893 27.19 50.44 46.78 3.66 19.593 18.68 1.595

2953.37 1901.63 1.937 11.44 38.07 33.78 4.29 22.344 19.20 1.625

3042.71 1812.29 1.846 10.50 39.71 34.87 4.84 24.371 19.86 1.540

3106.52 1748.48 1.781 8.49 41.14 35.61 5.53 27.161 20.36 1.480

1.49

1.52

1.595

1.625

1.54

1.48

1.46

1.48

1.5

1.52

1.54

1.56

1.58

1.6

1.62

1.64

0 5 10 15 20 25

Dry

Den

sity

(gm

/cc)


Figure 3.3 OMC and MDD for Natural soil + 5% MP

56



Result of OMC & MDD for Natural Soil + 5% Marble powder



Wt. of

Mould

+ Wet

Soil

(gm)

Wt. of

Wet

Soil

(gm)

Bulk

Densit

y

(gm/cc

)

Wt. of

Conta

iner

(gm)

Wt. of

Contain

er +

Wet

Sample

(gm)

Wt. of

Contain

er +

Dry

Sample

(gm)

Wt. of

Water

(gm)

Wt. of

Dry

Sampl

e (gm)

Moisture

Content

(%)

Dry

Density

(gm/cc)

3145.79 1709.21 1.741 36.45 63.43 59.54 3.89 23.086 16.85 1.490

3106.52 1748.48 1.781 14.07 34.99 31.92 3.07 17.849 17.20 1.520

2996.57 1858.43 1.893 27.19 50.44 46.78 3.66 19.593 18.68 1.595

2953.37 1901.63 1.937 11.44 38.07 33.78 4.29 22.344 19.20 1.625

3042.71 1812.29 1.846 10.50 39.71 34.87 4.84 24.371 19.86 1.540

3106.52 1748.48 1.781 8.49 41.14 35.61 5.53 27.161 20.36 1.480

1.49

1.52

1.595

1.625

1.54

1.48

1.46

1.48

1.5

1.52

1.54

1.56

1.58

1.6

1.62

1.64

0 5 10 15 20 25

Dry

Den

sity

(gm

/cc)



57


Result of OMC & MDD for Natural Soil + 10 % Marble powder


Weight of Mould in gram = 4855 gm

Wt. of

Mould +

Wet Soil

(gm)

Wt. of

Wet Soil

(gm)

Bulk

Densi

ty

(gm/c

c)

Wt. of

Container

(gm)

Wt. of

Contai

ner +

Wet

Sampl

e (gm)

Wt. of

Contain

er +

Dry

Sample

(gm)

Wt. of

Wate

r (gm)

Wt. of

Dry

Sampl

e (gm)

Moist

ure

Conte

nt

(%)

Dry

Densit

y

(gm/cc

)

3227.27 1627.73 1.658 38.07 58.57 54.27 4.30 26.54 16.20 1.427

4612.51 242.49 0.247 24.89 50.63 41.87 8.76 51.59 16.98 1.456

4582.08 272.92 0.278 37.5 60.64 55.18 5.46 30.88 17.68 1.538

4564.41 290.59 0.296 26.58 49.58 45.18 4.40 23.65 18.60 1.590

4559.5 295.50 0.301 10.77 33.94 30.22 3.72 19.13 19.45 1.546

4553.61 301.39 0.307 8.67 33.44 29.35 4.09 19.78 20.68 1.487


1.427

1.456

1.538

1.59

1.546

1.487

1.4

1.42

1.44

1.46

1.48

1.5

1.52

1.54

1.56

1.58

1.6

0 5 10 15 20 25

Dry

De

nsi

ty (

gm/c

c



58





Wt. of

Mould +

Wet Soil

(gm)

Wt. of

Wet Soil

(gm)

Bulk

Dens

ity

(gm/

cc)

Wt. of

Contai

ner

(gm)

Wt. of

Contai

ner +

Wet

Sampl

e (gm)

Wt. of

Containe

r + Dry

Sample

(gm)

Wt. of

Water

(gm)

Wt. of

Dry

Sampl

e (gm)

Moistu

re

Conte

nt (%)

Dry

Density

(gm/cc)

6709.5 1854.50 1.889 11.68 35.98 32.49 3.49 20.81 16.77 1.6185

6806.69 1951.69 1.988 8.73 37.38 33.2 4.18 24.47 17.08 1.698

6825.35 1970.35 2.007 9.3 31.56 28.26 3.30 18.96 17.40 1.710

6801.79 1946.79 1.983 12.01 41.99 36.98 5.01 24.97 20.06 1.6518

6804.74 1949.74 1.986 11.62 40.96 35.79 5.17 24.17 21.39 1.6366

6765.46 1910.46 1.946 10.53 44.62 38.42 6.20 27.89 22.23 1.5920


1.6185

1.698

1.71

1.6518

1.6366

1.5921.58

1.6

1.62

1.64

1.66

1.68

1.7

1.72

0 5 10 15 20 25

Dry

Den

sity

(gm

/cc



59





Wt. of

Mould

+ Wet

Soil

(gm)

Wt. of

Wet

Soil

(gm)

Bulk

Densit

y

(gm/cc

)

Wt. of

Conta

iner

(gm)

Wt. of

Conta

iner +

Wet

Sampl

e (gm)

Wt. of

Contain

er +

Dry

Sample

(gm)

Wt. of

Water

(gm)

Wt. of

Dry

Sampl

e (gm)

Moist

ure

Conte

nt (%)

Dry

Density

(gm)

3078.1 1776.9 1.810 21.82 60.68 55.89 55.89 34.068 14.06 1.5869

3025.1 1829.9 1.864 21.31 49.78 45.9 45.9 24.588 15.78 1.610

2980.9 1874.1 1.909 12.78 36.48 33 33 20.221 17.21 1.6289

2949.4 1905.6 1.941 23.2 53.22 48.88 48.88 25.680 16.90 1.660

2957.3 1897.7 1.933 21.71 59.80 54.05 54.05 32.339 17.78 1.6408

2997.4 1857.6 1.892 7.95 35.57 31.22 31.22 23.274 18.69 1.5941


3.1.4 Laboratory Determination of California Bearing Ratio (IS: 2720 (Part 16) 1987))

Scope:

Standard Load:

The load which has been obtained from the test on the crushed stone which was defined as having a

California Bearing Ratio of 100 percent.

1.5869

1.61

1.6289

1.66

1.6408

1.5941

1.58

1.59

1.6

1.61

1.62

1.63

1.64

1.65

1.66

1.67

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Dry

Den

sity

(gm

/cc



60


California Bearing Ratio (CBR):

The Ratio expressed in percentage of force per unit area required to penetrate a soil mass with a circular

plunger of 50 mm diameter at the rate of 1.25 mm/min to that required for corresponding penetration

of a standard material. The ratio is usually determined for penetration of 2.5 mm and 5 mm, the ratio

at 5 mm is used.

Apparatus: Modulus with base plate, Stay rod and wing nut, Collar, Spacer Disc, Metal Rammer,

Expansion Measuring Apparatus, Weights, Loading Machine, Penetration Plunger, Dial Gauges: Two

dial gauges reading to 0.01 mm, Sieves: 47.5 mm IS Sieve and 19 mm IS Sieve, Other general

apparatus, such as a mixing bowl, straightedge, scales, soaking tank or pan, drying oven, filter paper,

dishes and calibrated measuring jar.

Soil Sample: The material used in the remoulded specimen shall pass a 19-mm IS Sieve. Allowance

for larger material shall be made by replacing it with an equal amount of material which passes a 19

mm IS Sieve but is retained on 4.75 mm IS Sieve.

Procedure: The mould containing the specimen, with the base plate in position but the top face exposed,

shall be placed on the lower plate of the testing machine. Surcharge weights, sufficient to produce an

intensity of loading equal to the weight of the base material and pavement shall be placed on the

specimen. If the specimen has been soaked previously, the surcharge shall be equal to that used during

the soaking period. To prevent upheaval of soil into the hole of the surcharge weights, 2.5 kg annular

weight shall be placed on the soil surface prior to seating the penetration plunger after which the

remainder of the surcharge weights shall be placed. The plunger shall be seated under a load of 4 kg

so that full contact is established between the surface of the specimen and the plunger. The load and

deformation gauges shall then be set to zero (In other words, the initial load applied to the plunger

shall be considered as zero when determining the load penetration relation). The load shall be applied

to the plunger into the soil at the rate of 1.25 mm per minute. Reading of the load shall be taken at

penetrations of 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0, 2.5, 4.0, 5.0, 7.5, 10.0 and 12.5 mm (The maximum load and

penetration shall be recorded if it occurs for a penetration of less than 12.5 mm). The plunger shall be

raised and the mould detached from the loading equipment. About 20 to 50 g of soil shall be collected

from the top 30 mm layer of the specimen and the water content determined according to IS: 2720

(Part 2)-1973. If the average water content of the whole specimen is desired, water content sample

shall be taken from the entire depth of the specimen. The undisturbed specimen for the test should be

carefully examined after the test is completed for the presence of any oversize soil particles which are

61


likely to affect the results if they happen to be located directly below the penetration plunger. The

penetration test may be repeated as a check test for the rear end of the sample.

Calculations:

Load Penetration Curve:

The load penetration curve shall be plotted. This curve is usually convex upwards although the initial

portion of the curve may be convex downwards due to surface irregularities. A correction shall then

be applied by drawing a tangent to the point of greatest slope and then transposing the axis of the load

so that zero penetration is taken as the point where the tangent cuts the axis of penetration. The

corrected load-penetration curve would then consist of the tangent from the new origin to the point of

tangency on the re-sited curve and then the curve itself.

California Bearing Ratio:

The CBR values are usually calculated for penetrations of 2.5 mm and 5 mm. corresponding to the

penetration values at which the CBR values are desired, corrected load value shall be taken from the

load penetration curve and the CBR calculated as follows.

California Bearing Ratio = x 100

Where,

PT = Corrected unit (or total) test load corresponding to the chosen penetration from the load

penetration curve.

Figure 3.7 CBR Equipment

62


PS = Unit (or total) standard load for the sample depth of penetration as for PT taken from the table.

Penetration Depth

(mm)

Unit Standard Load

(Kg/cm2)

Total Standard Load

(kgf)

2.5 70 1.370

5.0 105 2.055

Table 3.19 Correction Load Penetration Value

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.

3.1.4.1 CBR test results for soil

The results obtained by these tests are used with the empirical curves to determine the thickness of

pavement and its component layers. This is the most widely used method for the design of flexible

pavement. The CBR value of the specimen reflects on the strength of the specimen in soaked

Figure 3.8 Correction Load Penetration Curves

63


condition as tested in the laboratory. The soak CBR test is carried out after the submergence of the

sample in water for 96 hours in accordance to IS 2720 (part 16) 1987.

Sample Condition: Remolded at OMC & MDD

Test Condition: Soaked Soaking for 96 Hours

Penetration Rate: 1.25 mm/minute Surcharge Weight: 5.0 kg

Penetration (mm) Proving ring Load (kg)

0.5 7 13.74

1.0 9 17.62

1.5 12 23.42

2.0 14 27.54

2.5 16 31.38

4.0 22 43.12

5.0 26 50.94

7.5 29 56.84

10.0 31 60.76

12.5 33 64.68

Table 3.20 Result for CBR Test for Clay Soil

Figure 3.9 CBR Testing Sample

64


CBR = X 100

CBR at 2.5 mm = X 100

CBR at 2.5 mm = 2.2905 % And, CBR at 5.0 mm = X 100

CBR at 5.0 mm = 2.478 %

By the result of test CBR value is 2.478% at 5 mm penetration

Result for CBR Test BC Soil + 5% Marble Powder




Penetration (mm) Proving Ring Reading Load (kg)

0.5 13 25.38

1.0 21 41.26

1.5 27 52.86

2.0 31 60.47

2.5 41 80.01

4.0 52 101.72

5.0 60 117.09

7.5 67 131.67

10.0 70 137.15

2.5, 31.38

5.0, 50.94

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0

Load

(k

g)

Penetration (mm)

Figure 3.10 CBR Graph for BC soil

65


12.5 73 143.08

Table 3.21 Result for CBR Test for BC Soil + 5% MP

CBR = 𝑪𝒐𝒓𝒓𝒆𝒄𝒕𝒆𝒅 𝒕𝒆𝒔𝒕 𝒍𝒐𝒂𝒅 𝒇𝒓𝒐𝒎 𝒈𝒓𝒂𝒑𝒉

𝑺𝒕𝒂𝒏𝒅𝒂𝒓𝒅 𝒍𝒐𝒂𝒅 𝒇𝒓𝒐𝒎 𝒔𝒂𝒎𝒆 𝒑𝒆𝒏𝒆𝒕𝒓𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 X 100

CBR at 2.5 mm = 80.01

1370 X 100

CBR at 2.5 mm = 5.84 %

And,

CBR at 5.0 mm = 117.09

2055 X 100

CBR at 5.0 mm = 5.69 %

By the result of test CBR value is 5.84% at 2.5 mm penetration.

Result for CBR Test BC Soil + 5% Marble Powder (7 Days)





0.5 16 31.36

2.5, 80.01

5.0,117. 09

0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00

120.00

140.00

160.00

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0

Load

(kg

)

Penetration (mm)

Figure 3.11 CBR Graph for BC soil + 5% MP

66


1.0 27 52.92

1.5 38 74.48

2.0 47 92.12

2.5 60 117.60

4.0 75 147.00

5.0 83 162.68

7.5 91 178.36

10.0 101 197.96

12.5 110 215.60

Table 3.22 Result for CBR Test for BC Soil + 5% MP (7 days)

CBR = 𝐶𝑜𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑡𝑒𝑠𝑡 𝑙𝑜𝑎𝑑 𝑓𝑟𝑜𝑚 𝑔𝑟𝑎𝑝ℎ

𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑑𝑎𝑟𝑑 𝑙𝑜𝑎𝑑 𝑓𝑟𝑜𝑚 𝑠𝑎𝑚𝑒 𝑝𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 X 100

CBR at 2.5 mm = 117.60

1370 X 100

CBR at 2.5 mm = 8.58 %

And, CBR at 5.0 mm = 162.68

2055 X 100

CBR at 5.0 mm = 7.92 %


2.5, 117.60

5.0, 162.68

0.00

50.00

100.00

150.00

200.00

250.00

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0

Loa

d (

kg

)

Penetration (mm)

Figure 3.12 CBR Graph for BC soil + 5% MP (7 days)

67







0.5 18 35.28

1.0 35 68.60

1.5 49 96.04

2.0 57 111.72

2.5 72 141.12

4.0 89 174.44

5.0 98 192.08

7.5 110 215.60

10.0 119 233.24

12.5 127 248.92


CBR = 𝑪𝒐𝒓𝒓𝒆𝒄𝒕𝒆𝒅𝒕𝒆𝒔𝒕𝒍𝒐𝒂𝒅𝒇𝒓𝒐𝒎𝒈𝒓𝒂𝒑𝒉

𝑺𝒕𝒂𝒏𝒅𝒂𝒓𝒅𝒍𝒐𝒂𝒅𝒇𝒓𝒐𝒎𝒔𝒂𝒎𝒆𝒑𝒆𝒏𝒆𝒕𝒓𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 X 100

CBR at 2.5 mm = 141.12

1370 X 100

CBR at 2.5 mm = 10.30 %

2.5, 141.12

5.0, 192.08

0.00

50.00

100.00

150.00

200.00

250.00

300.00

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0

Loa

d (

kg

)

Penetration (mm)


68


And, CBR at 5.0 mm = 192.80

2055 X 100

CBR at 5.0 mm = 9.35 %







0.5 21 41.16

1.0 39 76.44

1.5 54 105.84

2.0 66 129.36

2.5 79 154.84

4.0 93 182.28

5.0 109 213.64

7.5 122 239.12

10.0 136 266.56

12.5 141 276.36


2.5, 154.84

5.0, 213.64

0.00

50.00

100.00

150.00

200.00

250.00

300.00

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0

Load

(k

g)

Penetration (mm)


69




CBR at 2.5 mm = 154.84

1370 X 100

CBR at 2.5 mm = 11.30 %

And,

CBR at 5.0 mm = 213.64

2055 X 100

CBR at 5.0 mm = 10.40 %







0.5 12 23.52

1.0 23 45.08

1.5 30 58.80

2.0 39 76.44

2.5 49 96.04

4.0 62 121.52

5.0 71 139.16

7.5 76 148.96

10.0 82 160.72

12.5 86 168.56


70




CBR at 2.5 mm = 96.04

1370 X 100

CBR at 2.5 mm = 7.01 %

And, CBR at 5.0 mm = 139.16

2055 X 100

CBR at 5.0 mm = 6.77 %

By the result of test CBR value is 7.01% at 2.5 mm penetration






0.5 19 37.24

1.0 35 68.60

1.5 42 82.32

2.0 56 109.76

2.5 67 131.32

4.0 92 180.32

2.5, 96.04

5.0, 139.16

0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00

120.00

140.00

160.00

180.00

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0

Loa

d (

kg

)

Penetration (mm)


71


5.0 101 197.96

7.5 119 233.24

10.0 127 248.92

12.5 135 264.60


CBR = 𝐶𝑜𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑡𝑒𝑠𝑡 𝑙𝑜𝑎𝑑 𝑓𝑟𝑜𝑚 𝑔𝑟𝑎𝑝ℎ

𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑑𝑎𝑟𝑑 𝑙𝑜𝑎𝑑 𝑓𝑟𝑜𝑚 𝑠𝑎𝑚𝑒 𝑝𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 X 100

CBR at 2.5 mm = 131.32

1370 X 100

CBR at 2.5 mm = 9.59 %

And,

CBR at 5.0 mm = 197.96

2055 X 100

CBR at 5.0 mm = 9.63 %

By the result of test, CBR value is 9.63% at 5 mm penetration.






2.5, 131.32

5.0, 197.96

0.00

50.00

100.00

150.00

200.00

250.00

300.00

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0

Load

(k

g)

Penetration (mm)


72


0.5 19 37.24

1.0 35 68.60

1.5 55 107.80

2.0 68 133.28

2.5 77 150.92

4.0 104 203.84

5.0 114 223.44

7.5 131 256.76

10.0 147 288.12

12.5 161 315.56


CBR = 𝐶𝑜𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑒𝑑𝑡𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑙𝑜𝑎𝑑𝑓𝑟𝑜𝑚𝑔𝑟𝑎𝑝ℎ

𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑑𝑎𝑟𝑑𝑙𝑜𝑎𝑑𝑓𝑟𝑜𝑚𝑠𝑎𝑚𝑒𝑝𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 X 100

CBR at 2.5 mm = 150.92

1370 X 100

CBR at 2.5 mm = 11.02 %

And, CBR at 5.0 mm = 223.44

2055 X 100

CBR at 5.0 mm = 10.87 %


2.5, 150.92

5.0, 223.44

0.00

50.00

100.00

150.00

200.00

250.00

300.00

350.00

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0

Loa

d (

kg

)

Penetration (mm)


73







0.5 19 37.24

1.0 35 68.60

1.5 55 107.80

2.0 68 133.28

2.5 87 170.52

4.0 104 203.84

5.0 121 237.16

7.5 143 280.28

10.0 155 303.80

12.5 167 327.32




CBR at 2.5 mm = 170.52

1370 X 100

CBR at 2.5 mm = 12.45 %

And, CBR at 5.0 mm = 237.16

2055 X 100

2.5, 170.52

5.0, 237.16

0.00

50.00

100.00

150.00

200.00

250.00

300.00

350.00

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0

Loa

d (

kg

)

Penetration (mm)


74


CBR at 5.0 mm = 11.54 %







0.5 16 31.36

1.0 29 56.84

1.5 38 74.48

2.0 46 90.16

2.5 58 113.68

4.0 75 147.00

5.0 86 168.56

7.5 97 190.12

10.0 113 221.48

12.5 129 252.84




CBR at 2.5 mm = 113.68

1370 X 100

CBR at 2.5 mm = 8.30 %

2.5, 113.68

5.0, 168.56

0.00

50.00

100.00

150.00

200.00

250.00

300.00

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0

Loa

d (

kg

)

Penetration (mm)


75


And, CBR at 5.0 mm = 168.56

2055 X 100

CBR at 5.0 mm = 8.20 %







0.5 20 39.20

1.0 35 68.60

1.5 47 92.12

2.0 63 123.48

2.5 74 145.04

4.0 92 180.32

5.0 110 215.60

7.5 119 233.24

10.0 125 245.00

12.5 138 270.48


76




CBR at 2.5 mm = 145.04

1370 X 100

CBR at 2.5 mm = 10.59 %

And, CBR at 5.0 mm = 215.60

2055 X 100

CBR at 5.0 mm = 10.49 %







0.5 21 41.16

1.0 31 60.76

1.5 45 88.20

2.0 62 121.52

2.5 85 166.60

4.0 101 197.96

5.0 116 227.36

2.5, 145.04

5.0, 215.60

0.00

50.00

100.00

150.00

200.00

250.00

300.00

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0

Load

(k

g)

Penetration (mm)


77


7.5 125 245.00

10.0 136 266.56

12.5 149 292.04



𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑑𝑎𝑟𝑑𝑙𝑜a𝑑𝑓𝑟𝑜𝑚𝑠𝑎𝑚𝑒𝑝𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 X 100

CBR at 2.5 mm = 166.60

1370 X 100

CBR at 2.5 mm = 12.16 %

And, CBR at 5.0 mm = 227.36

2055 X 100

CBR at 5.0 mm = 11.06 %


Result for CBR Test BC Soil + 15% marble powder (21 Days)





0.5 32 62.72

1.0 49 96.04

1.5 61 119.56

2.5, 166.60

5.0, 227.36

0.00

50.00

100.00

150.00

200.00

250.00

300.00

350.00

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0

Load

(k

g)

Penetration (mm)


78


2.0 79 154.84

2.5 91 178.36

4.0 120 235.20

5.0 132 258.72

7.5 145 284.20

10.0 157 307.72

12.5 163 319.48




CBR at 2.5 mm = 178.36

1370 X 100

CBR at 2.5 mm = 13.02 %

And,

CBR at 5.0 mm = 258.72

2055 X 100

CBR at 5.0 mm = 12.59 %





2.5, 178.36

5.0, 258.72

0.00

50.00

100.00

150.00

200.00

250.00

300.00

350.00

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0

Loa

d (

kg)

Penetration (mm)


79




0.5 10 19.60

1.0 18 35.28

1.5 28 54.88

2.0 37 72.52

2.5 43 84.28

4.0 52 101.92

5.0 64 125.44

7.5 71 139.16

10.0 78 152.88

12.5 82 160.72




CBR at 2.5 mm = 84.28

1370 X 100

CBR at 2.5 mm = 6.15 %

And, CBR at 5.0 mm = 125.44

2055 X 100

CBR at 5.0 mm = 6.10 %


2.5, 84.28

5.0, 125.44

0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00

120.00

140.00

160.00

180.00

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0

Loa

d (

kg

)

Penetration (mm)


80







0.5 21 41.16

1.0 29 56.84

1.5 36 70.56

2.0 41 80.36

2.5 49 96.04

4.0 68 133.28

5.0 74 145.04

7.5 86 168.56

10.0 97 190.12

12.5 107 209.72




CBR at 2.5 mm = 96.04

1370 X 100

CBR at 2.5 mm = 7.01 %

And,

2.5, 96.04

5.0, 145.04

0.00

50.00

100.00

150.00

200.00

250.00

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0

Loa

d (

kg

)

Penetration (mm)


81


CBR at 5.0 mm = 145.04

2055 X 100

CBR at 5.0 mm = 7.06 %

By the result of test CBR value is 7.06% at 5 mm penetration.






0.5 19 37.24

1.0 35 68.60

1.5 52 101.92

2.0 61 119.56

2.5 69 135.24

4.0 83 162.68

5.0 91 178.36

7.5 99 194.04

10.0 105 205.80

12.5 112 219.52




2.5, 135.24

5.0, 178.36

0.00

50.00

100.00

150.00

200.00

250.00

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0

Load

(k

g)

Penetration (mm)


82


CBR at 2.5 mm = 135.24

1370 X 100

CBR at 2.5 mm = 9.87 %

And, CBR at 5.0 mm = 178.36

2055 X 100

CBR at 5.0 mm = 8.68 %







0.5 26 50.96

1.0 43 84.28

1.5 56 109.76

2.0 75 147.00

2.5 80 156.80

4.0 101 197.96

5.0 115 225.40

7.5 127 248.92

10.0 139 272.44

12.5 145 284.20


83




CBR at 2.5 mm = 156.80

1370 X 100

CBR at 2.5 mm = 11.45 %

And, CBR at 5.0 mm = 225.40

2055 X 100

CBR at 5.0 mm = 10.97 %


3.1.5 Determination of Unconfined Compressive Strength (IS: 2720 (Part 10) 1991))

Scope: This method describes the m method for determining the unconfined compressive strength of

clayey soil, undisturbed, remolded or compacted, using controlled rate of strain.

Unconfined Compressive Strength qu: It is the load per unit area at which an unconfined cylindrical

specimen of soil will fail in the axial compression test.

Apparatus: Hydraulic loading device, Screw jack with a providing ring, Proving ring, deformation

dial gauge, Vernier calipers, oven, weighing balances, Specimen trimming, and carving tools,

remoulding apparatus, water content cans, data sheets, etc. as required.

Procedure:

1. Extrude the soil sample from Shelby tube sampler. Cut a soil specimen so that the ratio (L/d) is

approximately between 2 and 2.5. Where L and d, are the length and diameter of soil specimen,

respectively.

2. Measure the exact length of the specimen at three locations 120° apart, and then average the

measurements and record the average as the length of the data sheet.

2.5, 156.80

5.0, 225.40

0.00

50.00

100.00

150.00

200.00

250.00

300.00

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0

Load

(k

g)

Penetration (mm)


84


3. Weigh the sample and record the mass on the data sheet.

4. Calculate the deformation (DL) corresponding to 15% strain (e).

Strain (e) =

Where L0 = Original specimen length (as measured in step 3).

5. Carefully place the specimen in the compression device and center it on the bottom plate. Adjust

the device so that the upper plate just makes contact with the specimen and set the load and

deformation dials to zero.

6. Apply the load so that the device produces an axial strain at a rate of 0.5% to 2.0% per minute, and

then record the load and deformation dial readings on the data sheet at every 20 to 50 divisions on

deformation the dial.

7. Keep applying the load until (1) the load (load dial) decreases on the specimen significantly, (2)

the load holds constant for at least four deformation dial readings, or (3) the deformation is

significantly past the 15% strain that was determined in step 5.

Remove the sample from the compression device and obtain a sample for water content determination.

3.1.5.1 UCS Test Results for Soil

UCS Test: Clay Soil

Axial

Deformation

(cm)

Proving ring

Reading

Axial Strain

(%) (e)

Area (A)

(cm2)

Axial Force

(kg)

Compressive

Stress

(kg/cm2)

0 0 0 19.625 0 0

0.05 9 0.472 19.718 17.64 0.8946

0.1 13 0.944 19.812 25.48 1.2860

Figure 3.27 UCS Soil Testing

85


0.15 15 1.415 19.906 29.4 1.4769

0.2 17 1.886 20.002 33.32 1.6658

0.25 18 2.358 20.098 35.28 1.7553

0.3 20 2.830 20.196 39.2 1.9409

0.35 21 3.301 20.294 41.16 2.0281

0.4 21 3.773 20.394 41.16 2.0182

0.45 21 4.245 20.495 41.16 2.0082

0.5 22 4.716 20.596 43.12 2.0936

0.55 23 5.188 20.698 45.08 2.1779

0.6 23 5.660 20.802 45.08 2.1670

0.65 24 6.132 20.907 47.04 2.2499

0.7 24 6.603 20.012 47.04 2.350

0.75 23 7.075 21.119 45.08 2.1345

0.8 23 7.547 21.227 45.08 2.1237

0.85 21 8.018 21.335 41.16 1.9292

0.9 21 8.490 21.445 41.16 1.9193

Table 3.37 Result for UCS Test for BC Soil

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Co

mp

ress

ive

Stre

ss (

kg/c

m2 )

Axial strain (%) (e)

Figure 3.28 Stress v/s Strain for BC Soil

86


UCS Test: Clay Soil (3 Days)

Axial

Deformation

(cm)

Proving ring

Reading

Axial

Strain

(%) (e)

Area (A)

(cm2)

Axial Force

(kg)

Compressiv

e Stress

(kg/cm2)

0 0 0 19.625 0 0

0.05 18 0.472 19.718 35.28 1.789228

0.1 24 0.944 19.812 47.04 2.374319

0.15 28 1.415 19.906 54.88 2.756958

0.2 30 1.886 20.002 58.8 2.939706

0.25 31 2.358 20.098 60.76 3.023186

0.3 32 2.830 20.196 62.72 3.105565

0.35 33 3.301 20.294 64.68 3.187149

0.4 35 3.773 20.394 68.6 3.363734

0.45 37 4.245 20.495 72.52 3.538424

0.5 38 4.716 20.596 74.48 3.616236

0.55 40 5.188 20.698 78.4 3.787806

0.6 42 5.660 20.802 82.32 3.957312

0.65 42 6.132 20.907 82.32 3.937437

0.7 41 6.603 20.012 80.36 4.015591

0.75 41 7.075 21.119 80.36 3.805104

0.8 41 7.547 21.227 80.36 3.785745

0.85 40 8.018 21.335 78.4 3.674713

0.9 40 8.490 21.445 78.4 3.655864

Table 3.38 Result for UCS Test for Clay Soil (3 Days)

87


UCS Test: BC Soil (7 Days)

Axial

Deformation

(cm)

Proving ring

Reading

Axial

Strain

(%) (e)

Area (A)

(cm2)

Axial Force

(kg)

Compressive

Stress

(kg/cm2)

0 0 0 19.625 0 0

0.05 19 0.472 19.718 37.24 1.88863

0.1 26 0.944 19.812 50.96 2.572178

0.15 30 1.415 19.906 58.8 2.953883

0.2 34 1.886 20.002 66.64 3.331667

0.25 37 2.358 20.098 72.52 3.608319

0.3 39 2.830 20.196 76.44 3.784908

0.35 42 3.301 20.294 82.32 4.056371

0.4 44 3.773 20.394 86.24 4.228695

0.45 45 4.245 20.495 88.2 4.303489

0.5 47 4.716 20.596 92.12 4.472713

0.55 48 5.188 20.698 94.08 4.545367

0.6 49 5.660 20.802 96.04 4.616864

0.65 50 6.132 20.907 98 4.687425

0.7 50 6.603 20.012 98 4.897062

0.75 50 7.075 21.119 98 4.640371

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Co

mp

ress

ive

Stre

ss (

kg/c

m2 )

axial strain (%) (e)

Figure 3.29 Stress vs Strain for Clay Soil (3 Days)

88


0.8 50 7.547 21.227 98 4.616762

0.85 49 8.018 21.335 96.04 4.501523

0.9 49 8.490 21.445 96.04 4.478433


UCS Test: Clay Soil Clay Soil (14 Days)

Axial

Deformation

(cm)

Proving ring

Reading

Axial Strain

(%) (e)

Area

(A)

(cm2)

Axial

Force (kg)

Compressive

Stress (kg/cm2)

0 0 0 19.625 0 0

0.05 19 0.472 19.718 37.24 1.88863

0.1 26 0.944 19.812 50.96 2.572178

0.15 29 1.415 19.906 56.84 2.85542

0.2 34 1.886 20.002 66.64 3.331667

0.25 36 2.358 20.098 70.56 3.510797

0.3 38 2.830 20.196 74.48 3.687859

0.35 42 3.301 20.294 82.32 4.056371

0.4 44 3.773 20.394 86.24 4.228695

0.45 46 4.245 20.495 90.16 4.399122

0.5 49 4.716 20.596 96.04 4.663041

0.55 50 5.188 20.698 98 4.734757

0.6 51 5.660 20.802 99.96 4.805307

0.65 51 6.132 20.907 99.96 4.781174

0.7 51 6.603 20.012 99.96 5.0125

00.5

11.5

22.5

33.5

44.5

55.5

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

com

pp

ress

ive

stre

ss

()kg

/cm

20


Figure 3.29 UCS Graph for BC soil (7 days)

89


0.75 50 7.075 21.119 98 4.640371

0.8 50 7.547 21.227 98 4.616762

0.85 50 8.018 21.335 98 4.593391

0.9 49 8.490 21.445 96.04 4.478433


UCS Test: BC Soil Clay Soil +5% marble Powder

Axial

Deformation

(cm)

Proving ring

Reading

Axial

Strain

(%) (e)

Area (A)

(cm2)

Axial Force

(kg)

Compressive

Stress

(kg/cm2)

0 0 0 19.625 0 0

0.05 7 0.472 19.718 13.72 0.695811

0.1 11 0.944 19.812 21.56 1.088229

0.15 15 1.415 19.906 29.4 1.476942

0.2 18 1.886 20.002 35.28 1.763824

0.25 20 2.358 20.098 39.2 1.950443

0.3 21 2.830 20.196 41.16 2.038027

0.35 23 3.301 20.294 45.08 2.221346

0.4 25 3.773 20.394 49 2.402667

0.45 26 4.245 20.495 50.96 2.48646

0.5 28 4.716 20.596 54.88 2.664595

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Co

mp

ress

ive

Stre

ss (

kg/c

m2 )

Axial Strain (%) (e)

Figure 3.30 UCS Graph for BC soil (14 days)

90


0.55 29 5.188 20.698 56.84 2.746159

0.6 30 5.660 20.802 58.8 2.826651

0.65 30 6.132 20.907 58.8 2.812455

0.7 30 6.603 20.012 58.8 2.938237

0.75 29 7.075 21.119 56.84 2.691415

0.8 29 7.547 21.227 56.84 2.677722

0.85 28 8.018 21.335 54.88 2.572299

0.9 28 8.490 21.445 54.88 2.559105

Table 3.41 Result for UCS Test for Clay Soil + 5% MP

V

UCS Test: BC Soil +5% marble Powder (3 Days)

Axial

Deformation

(cm)

Proving ring

Reading

Axial

Strain

(%) (e)

Area (A)

(cm2)

Axial Force

(kg)

Compressive

Stress

(kg/cm2)

0 0 0 19.625 0 0

0.05 29 0.472 19.718 56.84 2.882645

0.1 39 0.944 19.812 76.44 3.858268

0.15 45 1.415 19.906 88.2 4.430825

0.2 49 1.886 20.002 96.04 4.80152

0.25 53 2.358 20.098 103.88 5.168673

0.3 56 2.830 20.196 109.76 5.43474

0.35 58 3.301 20.294 113.68 5.601656

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

com

pp

ress

ive

stre

ss (

)kg/

cm20


Figure 3.31 UCS Graph for BC soil + 5% MP

91


Table 3.42 Result for UCS Test for Clay Soil + 5% MP (3 Days)


Axial

Deformation

(cm)

Proving ring

Reading

Axial

Strain

(%) (e)

Area (A)

(cm2)

Axial Force

(kg)

Compressive

Stress (kg/cm2)

0 0 0 19.625 0 0

0.05 29 0.472 19.718 56.84 2.882645

0.1 44 0.944 19.812 86.24 4.352917

0.4 60 3.773 20.394 117.6 5.766402

0.45 61 4.245 20.495 119.56 5.833618

0.5 62 4.716 20.596 121.52 5.900175

0.55 63 5.188 20.698 123.48 5.965794

0.6 63 5.660 20.802 123.48 5.935968

0.65 64 6.132 20.907 125.44 5.999904

0.7 64 6.603 20.012 125.44 6.268239

0.75 64 7.075 21.119 125.44 5.939675

0.8 63 7.547 21.227 123.48 5.81712

0.85 63 8.018 21.335 123.48 5.787673

0.9 63 8.490 21.445 123.48 5.757986

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

5.5

6

6.5

7

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Co

mp

ress

ive

Stre

ss (

kg/c

m2 )

Axial Strain (%) (e)

Figure 3.32 UCS Graph for BC soil + 5% MP (3 days)

92


0.15 50 1.415 19.906 98 4.923139

0.2 57 1.886 20.002 111.72 5.585441

0.25 62 2.358 20.098 121.52 6.046373

0.3 66 2.830 20.196 129.36 6.405229

0.35 68 3.301 20.294 133.28 6.567458

0.4 69 3.773 20.394 135.24 6.631362

0.45 70 4.245 20.495 137.2 6.694316

0.5 70 4.716 20.596 137.2 6.661488

0.55 71 5.188 20.698 139.16 6.723355

0.6 71 5.660 20.802 139.16 6.689741

0.65 71 6.132 20.907 139.16 6.656144

0.7 71 6.603 20.012 139.16 6.953828

0.75 70 7.075 21.119 137.2 6.49652

0.8 70 7.547 21.227 137.2 6.463466

0.85 70 8.018 21.335 137.2 6.430748

0.9 69 8.490 21.445 135.24 6.306365


0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

5.5

6

6.5

7

7.5

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

com

pp

ress

ive

stre

ss (

)kg/

cm20



93


UCS Test: BC Soil + 5% marble powder (14 Days)

Axial

Deformation

(cm)

Proving ring

Reading

Axial Strain

(%) (e)

Area

(A)

(cm2)

Axial

Force (kg)

Compressive

Stress (kg/cm2)

0 0 0 19.625 0 0

0.05 32 0.472 19.718 62.72 3.18085

0.1 47 0.944 19.812 92.12 4.649707

0.15 54 1.415 19.906 105.84 5.31699

0.2 61 1.886 20.002 119.56 5.977402

0.25 67 2.358 20.098 131.32 6.533983

0.3 69 2.830 20.196 135.24 6.696376

0.35 71 3.301 20.294 139.16 6.857199

0.4 72 3.773 20.394 141.12 6.919682

0.45 73 4.245 20.495 143.08 6.981215

0.5 73 4.716 20.596 143.08 6.94698

0.55 74 5.188 20.698 145.04 7.00744

0.6 74 5.660 20.802 145.04 6.972406

0.65 74 6.132 20.907 145.04 6.937389

0.7 73 6.603 20.012 143.08 7.14971

0.75 73 7.075 21.119 143.08 6.774942

0.8 73 7.547 21.227 143.08 6.740472

0.85 72 8.018 21.335 141.12 6.614483

0.9 72 8.490 21.445 141.12 6.580555


94


UCS Test: BC Soil +10% marble Powder

Axial

Deformation (cm)

Proving ring

Reading

Axial

Strain

(%) (e)

Area (A)

(cm2)

Axial Force

(kg)

Compressive

Stress

(kg/cm2)

0 0 0 19.625 0 0

0.05 16 0.472 19.718 31.36 1.590425

0.1 21 0.944 19.812 41.16 2.077529

0.15 25 1.415 19.906 49 2.461569

0.2 28 1.886 20.002 54.88 2.743726

0.25 30 2.358 20.098 58.8 2.925664

0.3 31 2.830 20.196 60.76 3.008517

0.35 33 3.301 20.294 64.68 3.187149

0.4 33 3.773 20.394 64.68 3.171521

0.45 34 4.245 20.495 66.64 3.251525

0.5 34 4.716 20.596 66.64 3.23558

0.55 35 5.188 20.698 68.6 3.31433

0.6 35 5.660 20.802 68.6 3.29776

0.65 35 6.132 20.907 68.6 3.281198

0.7 34 6.603 20.012 66.64 3.330002

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

5.5

6

6.5

7

7.5

8

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

com

pp

ress

ive

stre

ss (

kg/c

m2

)



95


0.75 34 7.075 21.119 66.64 3.155452

0.8 33 7.547 21.227 64.68 3.047063

0.85 33 8.018 21.335 64.68 3.031638

0.9 33 8.490 21.445 64.68 3.016088



Axial

Deformation

(cm)

Proving ring

Reading

Axial

Strain

(%) (e)

Area (A)

(cm2)

Axial Force

(kg)

Compressive

Stress

(kg/cm2)

0 0 0 19.625 0 0

0.05 25 0.472 19.718 49 2.485

0.1 38 0.944 19.812 74.48 3.7593

0.15 50 1.415 19.906 98 4.9231

0.2 58 1.886 20.002 113.68 5.6834

0.25 66 2.358 20.098 129.36 6.4365

0.3 70 2.830 20.196 137.2 6.7934

0.35 74 3.301 20.294 145.04 7.1469

0.4 75 3.773 20.394 147 7.208

0.45 76 4.245 20.495 148.96 7.2681

0.5 77 4.716 20.596 150.92 7.3276

0.55 78 5.188 20.698 152.88 7.3862

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

com

pp

ress

ive

stre

ss (

)kg/

cm20



96


0.6 78 5.660 20.802 152.88 7.3493

0.65 78 6.132 20.907 152.88 7.3124

0.7 78 6.603 20.012 152.9 7.639

0.75 78 7.075 21.119 152.88 7.239

0.8 77 7.547 21.227 150.92 7.1098

0.85 77 8.018 21.335 150.92 7.0738

0.9 77 8.490 21.445 150.92 7.0375



Axial

Deformation

(cm)

Proving ring

Reading

Axial

Strain

(%) (e)

Area (A)

(cm2)

Axial Force

(kg)

Compressive

Stress

(kg/cm2)

0 0 0 19.625 0 0

0.05 28 0.472 19.718 54.88 2.783244

0.1 39 0.944 19.812 76.44 3.858268

0.15 52 1.415 19.906 101.92 5.120064

0.2 70 1.886 20.002 137.2 6.859314

0.25 79 2.358 20.098 154.84 7.704249

0.3 85 2.830 20.196 166.6 8.249158

0.35 90 3.301 20.294 176.4 8.692224

0.4 97 3.773 20.394 190.12 9.32235

00.5

11.5

22.5

33.5

44.5

55.5

66.5

77.5

88.5

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

com

pp

ress

ive

stre

ss ()

kg/c

m2 )



97


0.45 101 4.245 20.495 197.96 9.658941

0.5 105 4.716 20.596 205.8 9.992232

0.55 106 5.188 20.698 207.76 10.03768

0.6 108 5.660 20.802 211.68 10.17594

0.65 108 6.132 20.907 211.68 10.12484

0.7 107 6.603 20.012 209.72 10.47971

0.75 107 7.075 21.119 209.72 9.930394

0.8 106 7.547 21.227 207.76 9.787535

0.85 106 8.018 21.335 207.76 9.737989

0.9 106 8.490 21.445 207.76 9.688039


UCS Test: BC Soil + 10% marble powder (14 Days)

Axial

Deformation

(cm)

Proving ring

Reading

Axial Strain

(%) (e)

Area

(A)

(cm2)

Axial

Force (kg)

Compressive

Stress (kg/cm2)

0 0 0 19.625 0 0

0.05 30 0.472 19.718 58.8 2.982047

0.1 40 0.944 19.812 78.4 3.957198

0.15 54 1.415 19.906 105.84 5.31699

0.2 70 1.886 20.002 137.2 6.859314

0.25 81 2.358 20.098 158.76 7.899293

00.5

11.5

22.5

33.5

44.5

55.5

66.5

77.5

88.5

99.510

10.511

11.5

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

com

pp

ress

ive

stre

ss (

)kg/

cm20



98


0.3 87 2.830 20.196 170.52 8.443256

0.35 93 3.301 20.294 182.28 8.981965

0.4 103 3.773 20.394 201.88 9.89899

0.45 105 4.245 20.495 205.8 10.04147

0.5 106 4.716 20.596 207.76 10.0874

0.55 107 5.188 20.698 209.72 10.13238

0.6 107 5.660 20.802 209.72 10.08172

0.65 109 6.132 20.907 213.64 10.21859

0.7 109 6.603 20.012 213.64 10.67559

0.75 108 7.075 21.119 211.68 10.0232

0.8 107 7.547 21.227 209.72 9.87987

0.85 106 8.018 21.335 207.76 9.737989

0.9 106 8.490 21.445 207.76 9.688039

Table 3.48 Result for UCS Test for Clay Soil + 10 % MP (14 Days)

10.67559

00.5

11.5

22.5

33.5

44.5

55.5

66.5

77.5

88.5

99.510

10.511

11.5

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

com

pp

ress

ive

str

ess

(kg

/cm

2)



99


UCS Test: Clay Soil Clay Soil +15% marble Powder

Axial

Deformation

(cm)

Proving ring

Reading

Axial

Strain

(%) (e)

Area

(A)

(cm2)

Axial Force

(kg)

Compressive

Stress (kg/cm2)

0 0 0 19.625 0 0

0.05 17 0.472 19.718 33.32 1.689827

0.1 22 0.944 19.812 43.12 2.176459

0.15 26 1.415 19.906 50.96 2.560032

0.2 29 1.886 20.002 56.84 2.841716

0.25 31 2.358 20.098 60.76 3.023186

0.3 32 2.830 20.196 62.72 3.105565

0.35 34 3.301 20.294 66.64 3.283729

0.4 34 3.773 20.394 66.64 3.267628

0.45 35 4.245 20.495 68.6 3.347158

0.5 35 4.716 20.596 68.6 3.330744

0.55 36 5.188 20.698 70.56 3.409025

0.6 36 5.660 20.802 70.56 3.391982

0.65 36 6.132 20.907 70.56 3.374946

0.7 35 6.603 20.012 68.6 3.427943

0.75 35 7.075 21.119 68.6 3.24826

0.8 34 7.547 21.227 66.64 3.139398

0.85 34 8.018 21.335 66.64 3.123506

0.9 34 8.490 21.445 66.64 3.107484


100



Axial

Deformation

(cm)

Proving

ring

Reading

Axial Strain

(%) (e)

Area

(A)

(cm2)

Axial

Force (kg)

Compressive

Stress (kg/cm2)

0 0 0 19.625 0 0

0.05 26 0.472 19.718 50.96 2.5844

0.1 38 0.944 19.812 74.48 3.7593

0.15 49 1.415 19.906 96.04 4.8247

0.2 57 1.886 20.002 111.72 5.5854

0.25 68 2.358 20.098 133.28 6.6315

0.3 73 2.830 20.196 143.08 7.0846

0.35 86 3.301 20.294 168.56 8.3059

0.4 90 3.773 20.394 176.4 8.6496

0.45 94 4.245 20.495 184.24 8.9895

0.5 97 4.716 20.596 190.12 9.2309

0.55 99 5.188 20.698 194.04 9.3748

0.6 100 5.660 20.802 196 9.4222

0.65 100 6.132 20.907 196 9.3749

0.7 100 6.603 20.012 196 9.794

0.75 99 7.075 21.119 194.04 9.1879

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

com

pp

ress

ive

stre

ss (

)kg/

cm2)



101


0.8 99 7.547 21.227 194.04 9.1412

0.85 99 8.018 21.335 194.04 9.0949

0.9 99 8.490 21.445 194.04 9.0483


UCS Test: BC Soil +15% Marble Powder (7 Days)

Axial

Deformation

(cm)

Proving

ring

Reading

Axial

Strain (%)

(e)

Area (A)

(cm2)

Axial

Force (kg)

Compressive Stress

(kg/cm2)

0 0 0 19.625 0 0

0.05 28 0.472 19.718 54.88 2.783244

0.1 50 0.944 19.812 98 4.946497

0.15 64 1.415 19.906 125.44 6.301618

0.2 75 1.886 20.002 147 7.349265

0.25 79 2.358 20.098 154.84 7.704249

0.3 83 2.830 20.196 162.68 8.05506

0.35 86 3.301 20.294 168.56 8.305903

0.4 89 3.773 20.394 174.44 8.553496

0.45 91 4.245 20.495 178.36 8.70261

0.5 93 4.716 20.596 182.28 8.850262

0.55 94 5.188 20.698 184.24 8.901343

00.5

11.5

22.5

33.5

44.5

55.5

66.5

77.5

88.5

99.510

10.5

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

com

pp

ress

ive

str

ess

()kg

/cm

2)



102


0.6 95 5.660 20.802 186.2 8.951062

0.65 95 6.132 20.907 186.2 8.906108

0.7 95 6.603 20.012 186.2 9.304417

0.75 95 7.075 21.119 186.2 8.816705

0.8 95 7.547 21.227 186.2 8.771847

0.85 94 8.018 21.335 184.24 8.635575

0.9 94 8.490 21.445 184.24 8.59128



Axial

Deformatio

n (cm)

Proving ring

Reading

Axial Strain

(%) (e)

Area (A)

(cm2)

Axial Force

(kg)

Compressive Stress

(kg/cm2)

0 0 0 19.625 0 0

0.05 31 0.472 19.718 60.76 3.081448

0.1 41 0.944 19.812 80.36 4.056128

0.15 55 1.415 19.906 107.8 5.415453

0.2 71 1.886 20.002 139.16 6.957304

0.25 82 2.358 20.098 160.72 7.996816

0.3 88 2.830 20.196 172.48 8.540305

0.35 94 3.301 20.294 184.24 9.078545

0.4 104 3.773 20.394 203.84 9.995097

0.45 106 4.245 20.495 207.76 10.13711

00.5

11.5

22.5

33.5

44.5

55.5

66.5

77.5

88.5

99.510

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

com

pp

ress

ive

str

ess

(kg

/cm

2)



103


0.5 107 4.716 20.596 209.72 10.18256

0.55 108 5.188 20.698 211.68 10.22708

0.6 108 5.660 20.802 211.68 10.17594

0.65 110 6.132 20.907 215.6 10.31234

0.7 110 6.603 20.012 215.6 10.77354

0.75 109 7.075 21.119 213.64 10.11601

0.8 108 7.547 21.227 211.68 9.972205

0.85 107 8.018 21.335 209.72 9.829857

0.9 107 8.490 21.445 209.72 9.779436


UCS Test : BC Soil +20% Marble Powder

Axial

Deformation (cm)

Proving ring

Reading

Axial Strain

(%) (e)

Area

(A)

(cm2)

Axial Force

(kg)

Compressive Stress

(kg/cm2)

0 0 0 19.625 0 0

0.05 14 0.472 19.718 27.44 1.391622

0.1 18 0.944 19.812 35.28 1.780739

0.15 22 1.415 19.906 43.12 2.166181

0.2 25 1.886 20.002 49 2.449755

0.25 28 2.358 20.098 54.88 2.73062

0.3 28 2.830 20.196 54.88 2.71737

0.35 31 3.301 20.294 60.76 2.993988

00.5

11.5

22.5

33.5

44.5

55.5

66.5

77.5

88.5

99.510

10.511

11.5

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

com

pp

ress

ive

str

ess

(kg

/cm

2)



104


0.4 33 3.773 20.394 64.68 3.171521

0.45 33 4.245 20.495 64.68 3.155892

0.5 34 4.716 20.596 66.64 3.23558

0.55 34 5.188 20.698 66.64 3.219635

0.6 35 5.660 20.802 68.6 3.29776

0.65 35 6.132 20.907 68.6 3.281198

0.7 34 6.603 20.012 66.64 3.330002

0.75 33 7.075 21.119 64.68 3.062645

0.8 33 7.547 21.227 64.68 3.047063

0.85 32 8.018 21.335 62.72 2.93977

0.9 31 8.490 21.445 60.76 2.833294



Axial

Deformation (cm)

Proving ring

Reading

Axial Strain

(%) (e)

Area (A)

(cm2)

Axial Force

(kg)

Compressive Stress

(kg/cm2)

0 0 0 19.625 0 0

0.05 20 0.472 19.718 39.2 1.988031

0.1 23 0.944 19.812 45.08 2.275389

0.15 32 1.415 19.906 62.72 3.150809

0.2 46 1.886 20.002 90.16 4.507549

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

com

pp

ress

ive

str

ess

(kg

/cm

2)



105


0.25 58 2.358 20.098 113.68 5.656284

0.3 62 2.830 20.196 121.52 6.017033

0.35 68 3.301 20.294 133.28 6.567458

0.4 71 3.773 20.394 139.16 6.823576

0.45 73 4.245 20.495 143.08 6.981215

0.5 74 4.716 20.596 145.04 7.042144

0.55 76 5.188 20.698 148.96 7.196831

0.6 76 5.660 20.802 148.96 7.16085

0.65 76 6.132 20.907 148.96 7.124886

0.7 77 6.603 20.012 150.92 7.541475

0.75 76 7.075 21.119 148.96 7.053364

0.8 75 7.547 21.227 147 6.925143

0.85 75 8.018 21.335 147 6.890087

0.9 74 8.490 21.445 145.04 6.763348


0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

5.5

6

6.5

7

7.5

8

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

com

pp

ress

ive

str

ess

(kg

/cm

2)



106



Axial Deformation

(cm)

Proving ring

Reading

Axial

Strain (%)

(e)

Area (A)

(cm2)

Axial Force

(kg)

Compressive Stress

(kg/cm2)

0 0 0 19.625 0 0

0.05 22 0.472 19.718 43.12 2.186834

0.1 42 0.944 19.812 82.32 4.155058

0.15 56 1.415 19.906 109.76 5.513915

0.2 65 1.886 20.002 127.4 6.369363

0.25 71 2.358 20.098 139.16 6.924072

0.3 78 2.830 20.196 152.88 7.569816

0.35 81 3.301 20.294 158.76 7.823002

0.4 83 3.773 20.394 162.68 7.976856

0.45 87 4.245 20.495 170.52 8.320078

0.5 89 4.716 20.596 174.44 8.469606

0.55 90 5.188 20.698 176.4 8.522563

0.6 91 5.660 20.802 178.36 8.574176

0.65 91 6.132 20.907 178.36 8.531114

0.7 92 6.603 20.012 180.32 9.010594

0.75 92 7.075 21.119 180.32 8.538283

0.8 90 7.547 21.227 176.4 8.310171

0.85 90 8.018 21.335 176.4 8.268104

0.9 89 8.490 21.445 174.44 8.134297


107


UCS Test: Clay Soil Clay Soil +20% Marble Powder (14 Days)

Axial

Deformation (cm)

Proving ring

Reading

Axial Strain

(%) (e)

Area

(A)

(cm2)

Axial Force

(kg)

Compressive Stress

(kg/cm2)

0 0 0 19.625 0 0

0.05 25 0.472 19.718 49 2.485039

0.1 30 0.944 19.812 58.8 2.967898

0.15 39 1.415 19.906 76.44 3.840048

0.2 48 1.886 20.002 94.08 4.70353

0.25 55 2.358 20.098 107.8 5.363718

0.3 69 2.830 20.196 135.24 6.696376

0.35 73 3.301 20.294 143.08 7.05036

0.4 95 3.773 20.394 186.2 9.130136

0.45 98 4.245 20.495 192.08 9.372042

0.5 101 4.716 20.596 197.96 9.611575

0.55 102 5.188 20.698 199.92 9.658904

0.6 102 5.660 20.802 199.92 9.610614

0.65 104 6.132 20.907 203.84 9.749845

0.7 104 6.603 20.012 203.84 10.18589

00.5

11.5

22.5

33.5

44.5

55.5

66.5

77.5

88.5

99.5

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

com

pp

ress

ive

str

ess

(kg

/cm

2)



108


0.75 103 7.075 21.119 201.88 9.559165

0.8 102 7.547 21.227 199.92 9.418194

0.85 101 8.018 21.335 197.96 9.27865

0.9 101 8.490 21.445 197.96 9.231056


00.5

11.5

22.5

33.5

44.5

55.5

66.5

77.5

88.5

99.510

10.511

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

com

pp

ress

ive

stre

ss (

kg/c

m2)



109


CHAPTER 4 THICKNESS OF PAVEMENT DESIGN

4.1 Pavement design

Comparative table for California Bearing Ratio is given below.

S. No. Samples C. B. R. Values

1. Raw Soil 2.47

2. Raw Soil +5% MP 5.84

3. Raw Soil +10% MP 7.01

4. Raw Soil + 15%MP 8.30

5. Raw soil +20%MP 6.15

Table 4.1 Result for CBR test

Considered Pavement Design Data:

• State Highway of 6 lane

• Design Traffic(A)= 1000 CVPD

• Lane Distribution Factor(D) = 60% (three lane carriage way road)

• Vehicle damage factor (F) = 3.5 (For Plain Terrain)

• Design Life (n) = 15 years

• Annual Growth Rate(r) = 7.5% (assumed)

• Width = 10.5m + 10.5m (10.5m of single side)

• N = [(365 x {(1+ r)n-1})/ r}]AFD

N = [(365 x {(1+0.075)15-1})/0.075] x 1000 x 0.6 x 3

N= 20 msa

4.2 Different layer thickness by referring IRC: 37-2012

Material CBR

GSB

(mm)

G. BASE

(mm)

DBM

(mm)

BC

(mm)

TOTAL

(mm)

RAW SOIL 2.47 380 250 120 40 790

R.S.+5% MP 5.84 260 250 90 40 640

R.S.+10%MP 7.01 200 250 85 40 575

R.S.+15%MP 8.3 260 250 90 40 640

R.S.+20%MP 6.15 200 250 85 40 575

Table 4.2 Different layer thickness

110


4.2.1 Total Pavement Thickness for BC Soil

• Total Pavement Thickness = 790 mm

• Granular Sub base = 380 mm = 200mm + 180 mm

• Granular Base Course = 250 mm = 125 mm +125 mm

• Dense Bound Macadam = 120 mm

• Bituminous Course = 40 mm

Quantity for BC Soil (1 km)

• Quantity for GSB = 0.380 * 10.5 * 1000 = 3990 m3

• Quantity for WMM = 0.125 * 10.5 * 1000 = 1312.5m3

• Quantity for WBM = 0.125 * 10.5 * 1000 = 1312.5m3

• Quantity for Prime Coat = 10.5 * 1000 = 10500m2

• Quantity for DBM = 0.120 * 10.5* 1000 = 1260 m3

• Quantity for BC = 0.040 * 10.5 * 1000 = 420 m3

Item No. Item Name Total Quantity Unit Rate Rs. Total cost Rs.

1 GSB 3990 Cum 1200 4788000

3 WMM 1312.5 Cum 1600 2100000

4 WBM 1312.5 Cum 1600 2100000

5 Prime Coat 10500 Sq. m 35 367500

6 DBM 1260 Cum 7400 9324000

7 BC 420 Cum 9000 3780000

Total Amount Rs. 22459500

Table 4.3 Cost estimation for raw soil

Figure 4.1 Composition of layers of BC soil

111


4.2.2 Total Pavement Thickness for BC Soil +5% MP


• Granular Sub base = 260 mm




Quantity for BC Soil + 5 % MP (1 km)






• Quantity for BC = 0.040 * 10.5 * 1000 = 420 m3


1 GSB 2730 Cum 1200 3276000

3 WMM 1312.5 Cum 1600 2100000

4 WBM 1312.5 Cum 1600 2100000

5 Prime Coat 10500 Sq. m 35 367500

6 DBM 945 Cum 7400 6993000

7 BC 420 Cum 9000 3780000


Table 4.4 Cost estimation for raw soil +5% MP

Figure 4.2 Composition of layers of BC soil + 5% MP

112








Quantity for BC Soil +10% MP (1 km)

• Now, width = 10.5 m & length = 1000 m





• Quantity for DBM = 0.085* 10.5* 1000 = 892.5 m3

• Quantity for BC = 0.040 * 10.5 * 1000 = 420 m3



1 GSB 2100 Cum 1200 2520000

3 WMM 1312.5 Cum 1600 2100000

4 WBM 1312.5 Cum 1600 2100000

5 Prime Coat 10500 Sq. m 35 367500

6 DBM 892.5 Cum 7400 6604500

7 BC 420 Cum 9000 3780000



113








Quantity for BC Soil 15 % MP (1 km)







• Quantity for BC = 0.040 * 10.5 * 1000 = 420 m3


1 GSB 2730 Cum 1200 3276000

3 WMM 1312.5 Cum 1600 2100000

4 WBM 1312.5 Cum 1600 2100000

5 Prime Coat 10500 Sq. m 35 367500

6 DBM 945 Cum 7400 6993000

7 BC 420 Cum 9000 3780000




114








Quantity for BC Soil +20% MP (1 km)







• Quantity for BC = 0.040 * 10.5 * 1000 = 420 m3


1 GSB 2100 Cum 1200 2520000

3 WMM 1312.5 Cum 1600 2100000

4 WBM 1312.5 Cum 1600 2100000

5 Prime Coat 10500 Sq. m 35 367500

6 DBM 892.5 Cum 7400 6604500

7 BC 420 Cum 9000 3780000




115


4.3 Summary of cost analysis

Materials Cost (Rs.)

BC Soil 22459500

BC Soil + 5% MP 18616500

BC Soil + 10% MP 17472000

BC Soil + 15% MP 18616500

BC Soil + 20% MP 17472000

116


CHAPTER 5 LABORATORY TEST BY USING SAW DUST

5.1 Laboratory Tests for Soil (As Per Indian Standards)

To identify the engineering properties as per Indian Standard provision, various tests were performed

which are enlisted as follows.

▪ Determination of Liquid & Plastic Limit (IS: 2720 (Part V) – 1986)

▪ Determination of Free Swell Index of Soils (IS: 2720 (Part XL) – 1977)

▪ Determination of Water Content - Dry Density Relation Using Heavy Compaction (IS: 2720 (Part

VIII) – 1997)

▪ Laboratory Determination of California Bearing Ratio (IS: 2720 (Part XVI) – 1987)

▪ Determination of Unconfined Compressive Strength (IS: 2720 (Part X) – 1991)

5.1.1 Determination of Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit (IS: 2720 (Part V) – 1986)

Scope: The basic principle is to observe depths of penetrations of soils at various initial moisture

contents of a metal cone of acertain weight and apex angle with the point barely touching the surface

is allowed to drop into the surface. The standardization has been to identify liquid limit water content

for a specified depth of penetration.

Apparatus: Balance -Sensitive to 0.01 g.

Containers - non-corrodible and air-tight for moisture determination.

Soil Sample: A soil sample weighing about 150 g from thoroughly mixed portion of the soil passing

425 microns IS Sieve obtained in accordance to IS 2720 (Part 1)-19837.

Procedure: About 150 g of soil sample obtained as in 4.3 shall be worked well into a paste with the

addition of distilled water. In the case of highly clayey soils, to ensure uniform moisture distribution,

it is recommended that the soil in the mixed state is left for sufficient time (24 hours) in an air-tight

container. The wet soil paste shall then be transferred to the cylindrical cup of cone penetrometer

apparatus, ensuring that no air is trapped in this process. Finally, the wet soil is levelled up to the top

of the cup and placed on the base of the cone penetrometer apparatus.

The penetrometer shall be so adjusted that the cone point just touches the surface of the soil paste in

the cup clamped in this position. The initial reading is either adjusted to zero or noted down as is shown

on the graduated scale. The vertical clamp is then released allowing the cone to penetrate into the soil

paste under its own weight. The penetration of the cone after 5 seconds shall be noted to the nearest

millimetre. If the difference in penetration lies between 14 and 28 mm the test is repeated with suitable

adjustments to moisture either by the addition of more water or exposure of the spreading paste on a

glass plate for a reduction in moisture content.

The test shall then be repeated at least to have four sets of values of penetration in the range of 14 to

28 mm. The exact moisture content of each trial shall be determined in accordance with IS: 2720 (Part

2)-1973.

117


Determination of Liquid Limit:

A graph representing later content on the y-axis and the cone penetration on the x-axis shall be

prepared. The best fitting straight line is then drawn. The moisture content corresponding to cone

penetration of 20 mm shall be taken as the liquid limit of the soil and shall be expressed to the nearest

first decimal place.

Test Results for Atterberg’s Limit and FSI

Liquid Limit for Raw Soil

Can

No.

Wt. of

Can

(gm)

Number

of blows

Can + Wet

Sample

(gm)

Can + Dry

Sample

(gm)

Wt. of

Water

(gm)

Wt. of Dry

Sample

(gm)

Moisture

Content

(%)

140 15 19 35 26 9 11 81.81

154 27 21 38 33 5 6 83.33

574 30 24 54 44 10 14 71.42


Table 5.1 Liquid Limit for Raw Soil

Table 5.2 Liquid limit BC Soil + 3% SD

Liquid Limit of black cotton Soil + 6% SD


Can

No.

No of

blows

Wt. of

Can

(gm)

Can + Wet

Sample

(gm)

Can + Dry

Sample

(gm)

Wt. of

Water

(gm)

Wt. of Dry

Sample

(gm)

Moisture

Content

(%)

530 14 10.18 54.37 39.73 14.64 29.55 49.54

505 19 10.82 58.62 41.99 16.63 31.17 53.35

510 27 9.59 45.98 33.29 13.69 23.70 75.68





Can

No.

No of

blows

Wt. of

Can

(gm)

Can + Wet

Sample

(gm)

Can + Dry

Sample

(gm)

Wt. of

Water

(gm)

Wt. of Dry

Sample

(gm)

Moisture

Content

(%)

108 21 9.25 33.45 25.38 8.07 16.13 50

175 27 8.25 32.53 24.19 8.38 15.94 52.57

553 32 9.1 35.67 25.5 10.17 16.40 62

Liquid Limit of BC Soil 66.9

118


Liquid Limit of black cotton Soil + 9%SD


Can

No.

No of

blows

Wt. of

Can

(gm)

Can + Wet

Sample

(gm)

Can + Dry

Sample

(gm)

Wt. of

Water

(gm)

Wt. of Dry

Sample

(gm)

Moisture

Content

(%)

530 14 15.47 38 30.75 7.25 15.2 47.75

505 19 17.29 45.11 35.88 9.23 18.59 70.50

510 27 13.12 53.95 39.90 14.05 26.78 52.46





Can

No.

No of

blows

Wt. of

Can

(gm)

Can + Wet

Sample

(gm)

Can + Dry

Sample

(gm)

Wt. of

Water

(gm)

Wt. of Dry

Sample

(gm)

Moisture

Content

(%)

174 14 30.5 36.5 34.5 2 4 50

205 21 32.5 39 37 2 4.5 65.9

536 29 33 41 38.5 2 5.5 66.36

Liquid Limit of black cotton Soil + 20% SD 64.9%


Plastic Limit for Raw Soil

Can

No.

Wt. of

Can (gm)

Can + Wet

Sample (gm)

Can + Dry

Sample (gm)

Wt. of

Water

(gm)

Wt. of Dry

Sample (gm)

Moisture

Content

(%)

534 15 21.47 19.8 1.67 4.8 34.8

548 14 19 17.81 1.19 3.81 31.2



Table 5.6 Plastic Limit for Raw Soil

119


Plastic Limit of black cotton Soil + 3% SD

Can

No.

Wt. of

Can

(gm)

Can + Wet

Sample (gm)

Can + Dry

Sample (gm)

Wt. of

Water

(gm)

Wt. of Dry

Sample (gm)

Moisture

Content

(%)

16 14.9 21.49 20.00 1.49 5.10 29.22

27 15.6 20.50 19.28 1.22 3.68 33.15



Table 5.7 Plastic Limit of black cotton Soil + 3% SD

Plastic Limit of black cotton soil + 6% SD

Can

No.

Wt. of

Can

(gm)

Can + Wet

Sample (gm)

Can + Dry

Sample (gm)

Wt. of

Water

(gm)

Wt. of Dry

Sample (gm)

Moisture

Content

(%)

12 14.5 22.16 20.4 1.76 5.9 30.83

21 15 23.56 21.6 1.96 6.6 29.70



Table 5.8 Plastic Limit of black cotton Soil +6% SD




Can

No.

Wt. of

Can

(gm)

Can + Wet

Sample (gm)

Can + Dry

Sample (gm)

Wt. of

Water

(gm)

Wt. of Dry

Sample (gm)

Moisture

Content

(%)

16 16 22.5 21.1 1.4 5.1 27.45

11 15.5 24.6 22.6 2 7.1 28.17

Average Plastic Limit 23.25



Can

No.

Wt. of

Can (gm)

Can + Wet

Sample (gm)

Can + Dry

Sample (gm)

Wt. of

Water

(gm)

Wt. of Dry

Sample (gm)

Moisture

Content

(%)

140 14 21.49 19.8 1.69 5.8 29.14

538 15 22.67 20.8 1.87 5.8 32.24



120


5.1.2 Proctor Test Result for soil by using Standard Procter Test

Result of OMC & MDD for Natural

Soil



Wt. of Wt. Wt. of Wt. of Wt. of

Dry

Sample

(gm)

Mould of Bulk Wt. of Container Container Wt. of Moisture Dry

+ Wet Wet Density Container + Wet + Dry Water Content Density

Soil Soil (gm/cc) (gm) Sample Sample (gm) (%) (gm/cc)

(gm) (gm) (gm) (gm)

6487

1619

1.67

13.23

28.22

25.88

2.34

12.65

18.5

1.41

6516

1648

1.70

13.66

25.72

23.74

1.98

10.08

19.6

1.423

6642 1774 1.83 14.31 34.41 30.92 3.49 16.61 21 1.51

6661 1793 1.85 12.87 26.02 23.58 2.44 10.71 22.7 1.50

6642 1774 1.83 16.83 44.98 39.62 5.36 22.79 23.5 1.48

6612 1757 1.79 16.45 49.41 43.15 6.26 26.70 23.44 1.45

Table 5.11 Results of OMC and MDD for Natural soil

Dry

Den

sity

(gm

/cc)

1.52

1.51

1.5 1.5

1.48 1.48

1.46

1.45

1.44

1.42 1.423

1.41

1.4

0 5 10 15 20 25


Figure 5.1 OMC and MDD for Natural soil

121


1.66

1.64

1.62

1.6

1.58

1.56

0 5 10 15 20 25

Moisture Contact (%)

Result of OMC & MDD for Natural Soil + 3% saw dust



Wt. of

Mould +

Wet Soil

(gm)

Wt. of

Wet

Soil

(gm)

Bulk

Densit

y y

(gm/cc

)

Wt. of

Contai

ner

(gm)

Wt. of

Container

+ Wet

Sample

(gm)

Wt. of

Container

+ Dry

Sample

(gm)

Wt.

of

Wate

r r

(gm)

Wt. of

Dry

Sample

(gm)

Moistu

re re

Conte

nt (%)

Dry

Densit

y

(gm/c

c)

6574.026 1719.0

26 1.751 29.89 54.054 50.32 3.734 20.430 18.28 1.48

6630.967 1775.9

67 1.809 20.59 44.063 40.179 3.884 19.589 19.83 1.51

6763.503 1908.5

03 1.944 31.59 57.829 53.17 4.659 21.580 21.59 1.59

6822.407 1967.4

06 2.004 26.89 49.723 45.56 4.163 18.670 22.3 1.64

6794.918 1939.9

18 1.976 16.58 39.882 35.528 4.354 18.948 22.98 1.61

6756.63 1901.6

30 1.937 19.64 47.546 42.238 5.308 22.598 23.49 1.56

Table 5.12 Result of OMC & MDD for Natural Soil + 3% saw dust

1.64

1.61

1.59

1.56

1.51

1.48

Figure 5.2 OMC and MDD for Natural soil + 3 % Saw Dust

Dry

Den

sity

(gm

/cc)

122


1.8

1.75

1.7

1.65

1.6

1.55

0 5 10 15

Moisture Contact (%)

20 25 30

Result of OMC & MDD for Natural Soil + 6% saw

dust



Wt. of

Mould

+ Wet

Soil

(gm)

Wt. of

Wet

Soil

(gm)

Bulk

Densit

y

(gm/cc

)

Wt. of

Containe

r (gm)

Wt. of

Containe

r + Wet

Sample

(gm)

Wt. of

Containe

r + Dry

Sample

(gm)

Wt.

of

Wate

r

(gm)

Wt. of

Dry

Sampl

e (gm)

Moistu

r e

Conten

t (%)

Dry

Den

sit y

(gm/

cc

)

6714.41

6

1859.41

6

1.894

12.38

29.9

26.94

2.96

14.56

20.38

1.573

6839.09

7

1984.09

7

2.021

14.84

30.12

27.4

2.72

12.56

21.65

1.661

6981.44

9

2126.44

9 2.166 11.58 33.65 29.41 4.24 17.83 23.8 1.750

6891.12 9

2036.12 9

2.074 17.96 31.41 28.81 2.60 10.85 23.97 1.673

6750.74 1895.74 1.931 18.64 43.02 38.18 4.84 19.54 24.81 1.547

6658.45

6

1803.45

6 1.837 12.61 40.93 35.27 5.66 22.66 24.99 1.467


1.75

1.673

1.661

1.5 73

1.54

7

1.46 7

Dry

Den

sity

(gm

/cc)


123


1.9 1.891

1.85

1.8

1.75

1.7

1.65 0 5 10 15


20 25 30

Result of OMC & MDD for Natural Soil + 9% saw

dust



Wt. of

Mould +

Wet Soil

(gm)

Wt. of

Wet

Soil

(gm)

Bulk

Densit

y

(gm/cc

)

Wt. of

Contai

ner

(gm)

Wt. of

Container

+ Wet

Sample

(gm)

Wt. of

Container

+ Dry

Sample

(gm)

Wt.

of

Wate

r

(gm)

Wt.

of

Dry

Sam

ple

(gm)

Mois

tu re

Cont

e nt

(%)

Dry

Densit

y

(gm/c

c)

6810.608 1777.9

31 1.811 25.67 52.996 48.56 4.436 22.89 19.38 1.517

6811.608 1956.6

08 1.993 30.38 67.384 60.99 6.394 30.61 20.89 1.649

6991.266 2136.2

66 2.176 33.72 67.569 61.28 6.289 27.56 22.82 1.772

7141.472 2286.4

72 2.329 19.51 59.784 52.2 7.584 32.69 23.2 1.891

7033.481 2178.4

81 2.219 21.38 44.655 40.16 4.495 18.78 23.94 1.791

6901.928 2046.9

28 2.085 23.67 67.493 58.83 8.663 35.16 24.64 1.673


1.791 1.772

1.673

1.649

1.517

Dry

Den

sity

(gm

/cc)


124


Result of OMC & MDD for Natural Soil + 12% saw dust



Wt. of

Mould +

Wet Soil

(gm)

Wt. of

Wet

Soil

(gm)

Bulk

Densit

y

(gm/cc

)

Wt. of

Contai

ner

(gm)

Wt. of

Container +

Wet Sample

(gm)

Wt. of

Container

+ Dry

Sample

(gm)

Wt.

of

Wat

e r

(gm)

Wt. of

Dry

Sampl

e (gm)

Mois

tu re

Cont

e nt

(%)

Dry

Dens

i ty

(gm)

6589.735 1734.7

35 1.767 12.01 55.646 48.63 7.01

6

36.6

2

19.1

6

1.483

6691.836 1836.8

36 1.871 11.62 48.257 42.2 6.05

7

30.5

8 19.8

1

1.562

6776.265 1921.2

65 1.957 10.53 43.649 37.92 5.72

9

27.3

9 20.9

2

1.619

6855.786 2000.7

86 2.038 13.23 62.778 53.9 8.87

8

40.6

7 21.8

3

1.673

6943.161 2088.1

61 2.127 13.66 67.199 57.33 9.86

9

43.6

7 22.6

0

1.735

6833.206 1978.2

06 2.015 14.31 43.312 37.88 5.43

2

23.5

7 23.0

5

1.638


1.673

1.638

1.619

1.56 2

1.483

5.1.3 Laboratory Determination of California Bearing Ratio (IS: 2720 (Part 16) 1987))

Scope: Standard Load:

1.75 1.735

1.7

1.65

1.6

1.55

1.5

1.45 0 5 10 15 20 25


Dry

Den

sity

(gm

/cc)


125


The load which has been obtained from the test on the crushed stone which was defined as having a

California Bearing Ratio of 100 percent.

California Bearing Ratio (CBR):

The Ratio expressed in percentage of force per unit area required to penetrate a soil mass with a circular

plunger of 50 mm diameter at the rate of 1.25 mm/min to that required for corresponding penetration

of a standard material. The ratio is usually determined for penetration of 2.5 mm and 5 mm, the ratio

at 5 mm is used.

Apparatus: Modulus with base plate, Stay rod and wing nut, Collar, Spacer Disc, Metal Rammer,

Expansion Measuring Apparatus, Weights, Loading Machine, Penetration Plunger, Dial Gauges: Two

dial gauges reading to 0.01 mm, Sieves: 47.5 mm IS Sieve and 19 mm IS Sieve, Other general

apparatus, such as a mixing bowl, straightedge, scales, soaking tank or pan, drying oven, filter paper,

dishes and calibrated measuring jar.

Soil Sample: The material used in the remolded specimen shall pass a 19-mm IS Sieve. Allowance for

larger material shall be made by replacing it with an equal amount of material which passes a 19 mm

IS Sieve but is retained on 4.75 mm IS Sieve.

Procedure: The mould containing the specimen, with the base plate in position but the top face

exposed, shall be placed on the lower plate of the testing machine. Surcharge weights, sufficient to

produce an intensity of loading equal to the weight of the base material and pavement shall be placed

on the specimen. If the specimen has been soaked previously, the surcharge shall be equal to that used

during the soaking period. To prevent upheaval of soil into the hole of the surcharge weights, 2.5 kg

annular weight shall be placed on the soil surface prior to seating the penetration plunger after which

the remainder of the surcharge weights shall be placed. The plunger shall be seated under a load of 4

kg so that full contact is established between the surface of the specimen and the plunger. The load

and deformation gauges shall then be set to zero (In other words, the initial load applied to the plunger

shall be considered as zero when determining the load penetration relation). The load shall be applied

to the plunger into the soil at the rate of 1.25 mm per minute. Reading of the load shall be taken at

penetrations of 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0, 2.5, 4.0, 5.0, 7.5, 10.0 and 12.5 mm (The maximum load and

penetration shall be recorded if it occurs for a penetration of less than 12.5 mm). The plunger shall be

raised and the mould detached from the loading equipment. About 20 to 50 g of soil shall be collected

from the top 30 mm layer of the specimen and the water content determined according to IS: 2720

(Part 2)-1973. If the average water content of the whole specimen is desired, water content sample

126


shall be taken from the entire depth of the specimen. The undisturbed specimen for the test should be

carefully examined after the test is completed for the presence of any oversize soil particles which are

likely to affect the results if they happen to be located directly below the penetration plunger. The

penetration test may be repeated as a check test for the rear end of the sample.

Load Penetration Curve:

The load penetration curve shall be plotted. This curve is usually convex upwards although the initial

portion of the curve may be convex downwards due to surface irregularities. A correction shall then

be applied by drawing a tangent to the point of greatest slope and then transposing the axis of the load

so that zero penetration is taken as the point where the tangent cuts the axis of penetration. The

corrected load-penetration curve would then consist of the tangent from the new origin to the point of

tangency on the re-sited curve and then the curve itself.

California Bearing Ratio:

The CBR values are usually calculated for penetrations of 2.5 mm and 5 mm. corresponding to the

penetration values at which the CBR values are desired, corrected load value shall be taken from the

load penetration curve and the CBR calculated as follows.

California Bearing Ratio = x 100 Where,

127


PT = Corrected unit (or total) test load corresponding to the chosen penetration from the load

penetration curve.

PS = Unit (or total) standard load for the sample 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.

CBR test results for soil

The results obtained by these tests are used with the empirical curves to determine the thickness of

pavement and its component layers. This is the most widely used method for the design of flexible

pavement. The CBR value of the specimen reflects on the strength of the specimen in soaked condition

as tested in the laboratory. The soak CBR test is carried out after the submergence of the sample in

water for 96 hours in accordance to IS 2720 (part 16) 1987.

128





Penetration (mm) Proving Ring Reading Load

(kg)

0.5 7 13.74

1.0 9 17.62

1.5 12 23.42

2.0 14 27.54

2.5 16 31.38

4.0 22 43.12

5.0 26 50.94

7.5 29 56.84

10.0 31 60.76

12.5 33 64.68

Table 5.16 Result for CBR Test for BC Soil

CBR = X 100

Load

(k

g)

70.00

5.0, 50.94

50.00

2.5, 31.38

30.00

20.00

10.00 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0

Penetration (mm)

Figure 5.6 CBR Graph for BC soil

129


CBR at 2.5 mm = X 100

CBR at 2.5 mm = 2.478 % And, CBR at 5.0 mm = X

100 CBR at 5.0 mm = 2.22 %

By the result of test CBR value is 2.47% at 5 mm penetration.

Result for CBR Test BC Soil+3% SD



Penetration Rate: 1.25 mm/minute Surcharge Weight: 5.0

kg

Penetration (mm) Proving Ring Reading Load

(kg)

0.5 7 12.72

1.0 9 17.64

1.5 12 23.52

2.0 14 27.44

2.5 16 31.38

4.0 22 42.12

5.0 26 49.02

7.5 29 56.84

10.0 31 60.76

12.5 33 64.68

Table 5.17 Result for CBR Test for BC Soil + 3% Saw Dust

CBR = 𝐶𝑜𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑡𝑒𝑐𝑡 𝑆𝑜𝑎𝑑 𝑓𝑟𝑜𝑚 𝐺𝑟𝑎𝑝ℎ

𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑑𝑎𝑟𝑑 𝐿𝑜𝑎𝑑𝑓𝑟𝑜𝑚 𝑠𝑎𝑚𝑒 𝑝𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑋 100

70

60

50

40

30 0 . 5 1 1 . 5 2 2 . 5 4 5 7 . 5 1 0 1 2 . 5

PENETRATION (MM)

Figure 5.7 CBR Graph for BC soil + 3% SD

LOA

D (

KG)

130


CBR at 2.5 mm =2.38 %

CBR at 5.0 mm = 2.20 %


Result for CBR Test BC Soil + 6% SD



Penetration Rate : 1.25 mm/minute Surcharge Weight : 5.0 kg


0.5 13 18.56

1.0 21 23.48

1.5 27 31.92

2.0 31 42.76

2.5 41 53.36

4.0 52 73.92

5.0 60 79.60

7.5 67 92.32

10.0 70 97.20

12.5 73 103.08

Table 5.18 Result for CBR Test for BC Soil + 6% Saw Dust

Figure 5.8 CBR Graph for BC soil + 6% SD



131


CBR at 2.5 mm =3.89 %

CBR at 5.0 mm = 2.50 %

By the result of test CBR value is 3.89 % at 2.5 mm penetration






0.5 10 19.60

1.0 18 35.28

1.5 28 54.88

2.0 37 49.52

2.5 43 61.28

4.0 52 78.92

5.0 64 102.5

7.5 71 109.16

10.0 78 116.88

12.5 82 126.72

Table 5.19 Result for CBR Test for BC Soil + 9% SAW DUST



CBR at 2.5 mm = 4.98 %

140

120

100

80

60

0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 4 5 7.5 10 12.5

PENETRATION (MM)

Figure 5.9 CBR Graph for BC Soil + 9% SD

132


CBR at 5.0 mm = 4.80 %


Table 5.20 Result for CBR Test for BC Soil + 12% SAW DUST

Figure 5.10 Graph for BC Soil + 12% SD



CBR at 2.5 mm = 3.94 %






0.5 12 19.57

1.0 23 24.38

1.5 30 31.90

2.0 39 42.77

2.5 49 54.04

4.0 62 73.92

7.5 71 75.61

10.0 76 82.32

12.5 86 101.08

120

100

80

60

40

20

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 4 5 7.5 10 12.5

PENETRATION (MM)

133


CBR at 5.0 mm = 3.67 %


Table 5.21 Result for CBR Test for BC Soil + 3% SD (7 days)



Result for CBR Test BC Soil + 3% saw dust (7 Days)





0.5 16 12.74

1.0 27 17.82

1.5 38 23.56

2.0 47 27.48

2.5 60 32.87

4.0 75 42.20

5.0 83 46.50

7.5 91 56.84

10.0 101 60.76

12.5 110 64.68

LOA

D (

KG

)

70

60

50

40

30

0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 4 5 7.5 10 12.5

PENETRATION (MM)

Figure 5.11 Graph for BC Soil + 3% SD (7 day)

134


CBR at 2.5 mm = 3.43 %

CBR at 5.0 mm = 2.261

By the result of test CBR value is 3.43 % at 2.5 mm penetration.

Result for CBR Test BC Soil + 6% SAW DUST (7 Days)





0.5 19 18.45

1.0 35 23.48

1.5 42 31.92

2.0 56 42.76

2.5 67 52.36

4.0 92 74.98

5.0 101 81.42

7.5 119 90.31

10.0 127 98.20

12.5 135 102.08


70

60

50

40

0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 4 5 7.5 10 12.5

PENETRATION (MM)


135




CBR at 2.5 mm = 3.821 %

CBR at 5.0 mm = 3.96 %

By the result of test, CBR value is 3.96 % at 5 mm penetration







0.5 20 23.47

1.0 35 39.28

1.5 47 55.88

2.0 63 62.52

2.5 74 71.13

4.0 92 84.92

5.0 110 98.71

7.5 119 109.16

10.0 125 116.88

12.5 138 126.72

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 4 5 7.5 10 12.5

PENETRATION (MM)

LOA

D (

KG

)


136




CBR at 2.5 mm = 5.18 %

CBR at 5.0 mm = 4.80 %







0.5 21 21.67

1.0 29 29.28

1.5 36 41.88

2.0 41 49.52

2.5 49 55.68

4.0 68 71.92

5.0 74 84.92

7.5 86 99.16

10.0 97 106.88

12.5 107 116.72


LOA

D (

KG

)

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 4 5 7.5 10 12.5

PENETRATION (MM)


137




CBR at 2.5 mm = 4.06 %

CBR at 5.0 mm = 4.13 %

By the result of test CBR value is 4.13% at 5 mm penetration

Result for CBR Test BC Soil + 3%Saw Dust (14 Days)





0.5 18 13.54

1.0 35 16.72

1.5 49 23.56

2.0 57 27.48

2.5 72 33.06

4.0 89 43.20

5.0 98 49.02

7.5 110 55.84

10.0 119 60.56

12.5 127 65.67


70

60

50

40

0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 4 5 7.5 10 12.5

PENETRATION (MM)

Figure 5.15 CBR Graph for BC soil + 3% SD (14 days)

138




CBR at 2.5 mm = 3.43%

CBR at 5.0 mm = 2.38 %









0.5 19 20.60

1.0 35 29.28

1.5 55 41.88

2.0 68 49.52

2.5 77 57.43

4.0 104 74.92

5.0 114 83.67

7.5 131 99.16

10.0 147 106.88

12.5 161 116.72

140

120

100

80 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 4 5 7.5 10 12.5

PENETRATION (MM)

139




CBR at 2.5 mm = 4.19 %

CBR at 5.0 mm = 4.07 %


Table 5.27 Result for CBR Test for BC Soil + 9% SD (14 Days)







0.5 21 27.47

1.0 31 45.28

1.5 45 57.88

2.0 62 68.52

2.5 85 76.01

4.0 101 91.92

5.0 116 109.21

7.5 125 116.91

10.0 136 127.63

12.5 149 136.72

140




CBR at 2.5 mm = 5.54 %

CBR at 5.0 mm = 5.30 %









0.5 19 24.62

1.0 35 32.28

1.5 52 44.88

2.0 61 55.52

2.5 69 64.60

4.0 83 71.92

5.0 91 95.24

7.5 99 104.16

10.0 105 116.80

12.5 112 127.72

141




CBR at 2.5 mm = 4.715%

CBR at 5.0 mm = 4.63 %


Result for CBR Test BC Soil + 3% Sawdust (21 Days)





0.5 21 14.54

1.0 39 19.72

1.5 54 24.56

2.0 66 28.78

2.5 79 33.38

4.0 93 43.20

5.0 109 49.74

7.5 122 56.84

10.0 136 60.93

12.5 141 65.46



CBR Graph for BC soil + 3% SD(21days)

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 4 5 7.5 10 12.5

PENETRATION (MM)

142




CBR at 2.5 mm = 3.89 %

CBR at 5.0 mm = 2.420 %







0.5 19 22.70

1.0 35 31.28

1.5 55 41.88

2.0 68 49.52

2.5 87 61.95

4.0 104 74.92

5.0 121 86.97

7.5 143 101.16

10.0 155 112.88

12.5 167 123.72



CBR Graph for BC soil + 6% SD(21 days) 140

120

100

80

0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 4 5 7.5 10 12.5

PENETRATION (MM)

143




CBR at 2.5 mm = 4.52 %

CBR at 5.0 mm = 4.23 %


Result for CBR Test by Soil +9 % SAW DUST (21 Days)





0.5 32 29.59

1.0 49 47.28

1.5 61 59.88

2.0 79 72.47

2.5 91 81.61

4.0 120 101.92

5.0 132 120.19

7.5 145 129.34

10.0 157 137.63

12.5 163 146.72


Figure 5.21 CBR Graph for BC Soil + 9% SD(21 Days)

160

140

120

100

80

0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 4 5 7.5 10 12.5

PENETRATION (MM)

144




CBR at 2.5 mm = 5.95 %

CBR at 5.0 mm = 5.84 %



Figure 5.22 CBR Graph for BC Soil + 12% SD (21 Days)






0.5 26 34.64

1.0 43 42.24

1.5 56 53.62

2.0 75 62.26

2.5 80 71.40

4.0 101 89.94

5.0 115 105.86

7.5 127 114.16

10.0 139 126.51

12.5 145 137.75

160

140

120

100

80

0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 4 5 7.5 10 12.5

PENETRATION (MM)

145




CBR at 2.5 mm = 5.21 %

CBR at 5.0 mm = 5.15 %

By the result of test CBR value is 5.21% at 2.5 mm penetrations.

5.1.4 Determination of Unconfined Compressive Strength (IS: 2720 (Part 10) 1991))

Scope: This method describes the m method for determining the unconfined compressive strength of

clayey soil, undisturbed, remolded or compacted, using controlled rate of strain.

Unconfined Compressive Strength Qu: It is the load per unit area at which an unconfined

cylindrical specimen of soil will fail in the axial compression test.

Apparatus: Hydraulic loading device, Screw jack with a providing ring, proving ring, deformation

dial gauge, Vernier callipers, oven, weighing balances, Specimen trimming, and carving tools,

remoulding apparatus, water content cans, data sheets, etc. as required.

Procedure:

1. Extrude the soil sample from Shelby tube sampler. Cut a soil specimen so that the ratio (L/d)

is approximately between 2 and 2.5. Where L and d, are the length and diameter of soil

specimen, respectively.

2. Measure the exact length of the specimen at three locations 120° apart, and then average the

measurements and record the average as the length of the data sheet.

3. Weigh the sample and record the mass on the data sheet

4. Calculate the deformation (DL) corresponding to 15% strain (e).

5. Strain (e) =

6. Where L0 = Original specimen length (as measured in step 3).

7. Carefully place the specimen in the compression device and center it on the bottom plate.

Adjust the device so that the upper plate just makes contact with the specimen and set the

load and deformation dials to zero.

8. Apply the load so that the device produces an axial strain at a rate of 0.5% to 2.0% per minute,

and then record the load and deformation dial readings on the data sheet at every 20 to 50

divisions on deformation the dial.

Figure 5.23 UCS Soil

Testing

146


9. Keep applying the load until (1) the load (load dial) decreases on the specimen significantly,

(2) the load holds constant for at least four deformation dial readings, or (3) the deformation

is significantly past the 15% strain that was determined in step 5.

Remove the sample from the compression device and obtain a sample for water content

determination.

UCS Test Results for Soil

Table 5.33 Result for UCS Test for BC Soil

UCS Test: Clay Soil

Axial

Deformation

(cm)

Proving ring

Reading

Axial Strain

(%) (e)

Area (A)

(cm2)

Axial Force

(kg)

Compressive

Stress

(kg/cm2)

0 0 0 19.625 0 0

0.05 9 0.472 19.718 17.64 0.8946

0.1 13 0.944 19.812 25.48 1.2860

0.15 15 1.415 19.906 29.4 1.4769

0.2 17 1.886 20.002 33.32 1.6658

0.25 18 2.358 20.098 35.28 1.7553

0.3 20 2.830 20.196 39.2 1.9409

0.35 21 3.301 20.294 41.16 2.0281

0.4 21 3.773 20.394 41.16 2.0182

0.45 21 4.245 20.495 41.16 2.0082

0.5 22 4.716 20.596 43.12 2.0936

0.55 23 5.188 20.698 45.08 2.1779

0.6 23 5.660 20.802 45.08 2.1670

0.65 24 6.132 20.907 47.04 2.2499

0.7 24 6.603 20.012 47.04 2.350

0.75 23 7.075 21.119 45.08 2.1345

0.8 23 7.547 21.227 45.08 2.1237

0.85 21 8.018 21.335 41.16 1.9292

0.9 21 8.490 21.445 41.16 1.9193

Co

mp

ress

ive

stre

ss (

kg/c

m2)

147


UCS Test: BC Soil Clay Soil +3% Saw Dust

Axial

Deformation

(cm)

Proving ring

Reading

Axial

Strain

(%) (e)

Area (A)

(cm2)

Axial Force

(kg)

Compressive

Stress

(kg/cm2)

0

0

0

0

0

0

0.05

7

0.472

25.12821

13.72

0.546

0.1

11

0.944

21.82186

21.56

0.988

0.15

15

1.415

22.20544

29.4

1.324

0.2

18

1.886

21.03757

35.28

1.677

0.25

20

2.358

20.65332

39.2

1.898

0.3

21

2.830

20.37624

41.16

2.02

0.35

23

3.301

20.50955

45.08

2.198

0.4

25

3.773

20.6229

49

2.376

0.45

26

4.245

21.3311

50.96

2.389

2.5 2.35

2

1.5

1

0.5

0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Axial strain (%) €

Figure 5.24 Graph of BC Soil

148


0.5

28

4.716

22.48259

54.88

2.441

0.55

29

5.188

22.84566

56.84

2.488

0.6

30

5.660

23.30559

58.8

2.523

0.65

30

6.132

22.72025

58.8

2.588

0.7

30

6.603

22.18031

58.8

2.651

0.75

29

7.075

21.87837

56.84

2.598

0.8

29

7.547

22.28146

56.84

2.551

0.85

28

8.018

21.96078

54.88

2.499

0.9

28

8.490

22.23663

54.88

2.468

Table 5.34 Result for UCS Test for Clay Soil + 3% SD

Figure 5.25 Graph of BC Soil + 3% SD

UCS Test: BC Soil +6% Saw Dust

Axial

Deformation

(cm)

Proving ring

Reading

Axial

Strain (%)

(e)

Area (A)

(cm2)

Axial Force

(kg)

Compressive

Stress

(kg/cm2)

0

0

0

0

0

0

0.05

16

0.472

21.03286

31.36

1.491

0.1

21

0.944

26.69261

41.16

1.542

149


0.15

25

1.415

31.79753

49

1.541

0.2

28

1.886

31.16411

54.88

1.761

0.25

30

2.358

29.57746

58.8

1.988

0.3

31

2.830

28.37926

60.76

2.141

0.35

33

3.301

29.16141

64.68

2.218

0.4

33

3.773

28.14621

64.68

2.298

0.45

34

4.245

28.57633

66.64

2.332

0.5

34

4.716

27.30029

66.64

2.441

0.55

35

5.188

26.40493

68.6

2.598

0.6

35

5.660

26.27346

68.6

2.611

0.65

35

6.132

24.95453

68.6

2.749

0.7

34

6.603

23.20334

66.64

2.872

0.75

34

7.075

24.22392

66.64

2.751

0.8

33

7.547

23.85835

64.68

2.711

0.85

33

8.018

24.49072

64.68

2.641

0.9

33

8.490

25.86166

64.68

2.501



150


UCS Test: Clay Soil Clay Soil +9% Saw Dust

Axial

Deformation

(cm)

Proving

ring

Reading

Axial

Strain (%)

(e)

Area (A)

(cm2)

Axial

Force

(kg)

Compressive

Stress (kg/cm2)

0

0

0

0

0

0

0.05

17

0.472

20.64436

33.32

1.614

0.1

22

0.944

26.00724

43.12

1.658

0.15

26

1.415

29.61069

50.96

1.721

0.2

29

1.886

28.59155

56.84

1.988

0.25

31

2.358

28.91956

60.76

2.101

0.3

32

2.830

26.14423

62.72

2.399

0.35

34

3.301

26.21558

66.64

2.542

0.4

34

3.773

25.52279

66.64

2.611

0.45

35

4.245

25.42624

68.6

2.698

0.5

35

4.716

25.29499

68.6

2.712

0.55

36

5.188

24.83633

70.56

2.841

0.6

36

5.660

23.61446

70.56

2.988

0.65

36

6.132

22.60814

70.56

3.121

0.7

35

6.603

21.16631

68.6

3.241

0.75

35

7.075

21.98013

68.6

3.121

0.8

34

7.547

22.31001

66.64

2.987

0.85

34

8.018

25.12821

66.64

2.652

0.9

34

8.490

27.10045

66.64

2.459


151



UCS Test : BC Soil +12% Saw Dust

Axial

Deformatio

n

(cm)

Proving ring

Reading

Axial

Strain

(%) (e)

Area (A)

(cm2)

Axial

Force (kg)

Compressive

Stress (kg/cm2)

0

0

0

0

0

0

0.05

14

0.472

19.41967

27.44

1.413

0.1

18

0.944

24.08191

35.28

1.465

0.15

22

1.415

26.07013

43.12

1.654

0.2

25

1.886

26.54388

49

1.846

0.25

28

2.358

28.17248

54.88

1.948

0.3

28

2.830

24.97952

54.88

2.197

0.35

31

3.301

26.83746

60.76

2.264

0.4

33

3.773

26.77152

64.68

2.416

0.45

33

4.245

24.65879

64.68

2.623

0.5

34

4.716

24.54512

66.64

2.715

0.55

34

5.188

23.70687

66.64

2.811

152


0.6

35

5.660

23.85257

68.6

2.876

0.65

35

6.132

23.3254

68.6

2.941

0.7

34

6.603

22.57453

66.64

2.952

0.75

33

7.075

22.06755

64.68

2.931

0.8

33

7.547

22.72663

64.68

2.846

0.85

32

8.018

22.75762

62.72

2.756

0.9

31

8.490

22.37113

60.76

2.716

Table 5.37 Result for UCS Test for Clay Soil +12% SD


UCS Test: Clay Soil (3 Days)

Axial

Deformation

(cm)

Proving ring

Reading

Axial

Strain

(%) (e)

Area (A)

(cm2)

Axial Force

(kg)

Compressiv

e e Stress

(kg/cm2)

0

0

0

19.625

0

0

0.05

18

0.472

19.718

35.28

1.789228

0.1

24

0.944

19.812

47.04

2.374319

0.15

28

1.415

19.906

54.88

2.756958

0.2

30

1.886

20.002

58.8

2.939706

0.25

31

2.358

20.098

60.76

3.023186

153


0.3

32

2.830

20.196

62.72

3.105565

0.35

33

3.301

20.294

64.68

3.187149

0.4

35

3.773

20.394

68.6

3.363734

0.45

37

4.245

20.495

72.52

3.538424

0.5

38

4.716

20.596

74.48

3.616236

0.55

40

5.188

20.698

78.4

3.787806


Figure 5.29 Graph of BC Soil (3 day)

UCS Test: BC Soil +3% Saw Dust (3 Days)

Axial

Deformation

(cm)

Proving ring

Reading

Axial

Strain

(%) (e)

Area (A)

(cm2)

Axial Force

(kg)

Compressive

Stress

(kg/cm2)

0

0

0

0

0

0

0.05

29

0.472

26.93839

56.84

2.11

0.1

39

0.944

34.77707

76.44

2.198

0.15

45

1.415

39.74763

88.2

2.219

0.2

49

1.886

40.88548

96.04

2.349

154


0.25

53

2.358

43.01449

103.88

2.415

0.3

56

2.830

41.45015

109.76

2.648

0.35

58

3.301

39.94378

113.68

2.846

0.4

60

3.773

39.93209

117.6

2.945

0.45

61

4.245

36.06637

119.56

3.315

0.5

62

4.716

35.13154

121.52

3.459

0.55

63

5.188

33.57259

123.48

3.678

0.6

63

5.660

31.22914

123.48

3.954

0.65

64

6.132

29.8809

125.44

4.198

0.7

64

6.603

28.672

125.44

4.375

0.75

64

7.075

29.41149

125.44

4.265

0.8

63

7.547

29.41401

123.48

4.198

0.85

63

8.018

30.15385

123.48

4.095

0.9

63

8.490

31.30038

123.48

3.945

Table 5.39 Result for UCS Test for Clay Soil + 3% SD (3 Days)

Figure 5.30 BC Soil +3% Saw Dust (3 Days)

155



Axial

Deformation

(cm)

Proving ring

Reading

Axial

Strain

(%) (e)

Area (A)

(cm2)

Axial Force

(kg)

Compressive

Stress

(kg/cm2)

0

0

0

0

0

0

0.05

25

0.472

19.26858

49

2.543

0.1

38

0.944

27.39242

74.48

2.719

0.15

50

1.415

33.27674

98

2.945

0.2

58

1.886

35.54722

113.68

3.198

0.25

66

2.358

38.06945

129.36

3.398

0.3

70

2.830

39.02162

137.2

3.516

0.35

74

3.301

40.08845

145.04

3.618

0.4

75

3.773

38.56243

147

3.812

0.45

76

4.245

38.03882

148.96

3.916

0.5

77

4.716

36.78284

150.92

4.103

0.55

78

5.188

36.35672

152.88

4.205

0.6

78

5.660

35.42169

152.88

4.316

0.65

78

6.132

33.85297

152.88

4.516

0.7

78

6.603

33.25359

152.9

4.598

0.75

78

7.075

33.87547

152.88

4.513

0.8

77

7.547

34.95137

150.92

4.318

0.85

77

8.018

35.46886

150.92

4.255

0.9

77

8.490

35.97616

150.92

4.195


156


Figure 5.31 Graph BC Soil +6% Saw Dust (3 Days)


Axial

Deformation

(cm)

Proving ring

Reading

Axial

Strain

(%) (e)

Area (A)

(cm2)

Axial

Force (kg)

Compressive

Stress (kg/cm2)

0

0

0

19.625

0

0

0.05

26

0.472

19.718

50.96

2.815

0.1

38

0.944

19.812

74.48

2.954

0.15

49

1.415

19.906

96.04

3.126

0.2

57

1.886

20.002

111.72

3.349

0.25

68

2.358

20.098

133.28

3.429

0.3

73

2.830

20.196

143.08

3.519

0.35

86

3.301

20.294

168.56

3.715

0.4

90

3.773

20.394

176.4

3.975

0.45

94

4.245

20.495

184.24

4.197

157


0.5

97

4.716

20.596

190.12

4.315

0.55

99

5.188

20.698

194.04

4.428

0.6

100

5.660

20.802

196

4.615

0.65

100

6.132

20.907

196

4.759

0.7

100

6.603

20.012

196

4.822

0.75

99

7.075

21.119

194.04

4.765

0.8

99

7.547

21.227

194.04

4.691

0.85

99

8.018

21.335

194.04

4.565

0.9

99

8.490

21.445

194.04

4.416


Figure 5.32 Graph BC Soil +9% Saw Dust (3 Days)


Axial

Deformation

(cm)

Proving ring

Reading

Axial Strain

(%) (e)

Area (A)

(cm2)

Axial

Force

(kg)

Compressiv

e Stress

(kg/cm2)

0

0

0

0

0

0

158


0.05

20

0.472

13.9254

39.2

2.815

0.1

23

0.944

14.95191

45.08

3.015

0.15

32

1.415

19.01759

62.72

3.298

0.2

46

1.886

27.173

90.16

3.318

0.25

58

2.358

33.18155

113.68

3.426

0.3

62

2.830

33.65273

121.52

3.611

0.35

68

3.301

35.86652

133.28

3.716

0.4

71

3.773

36.47706

139.16

3.815

0.45

73

4.245

36.54662

143.08

3.915

0.5

74

4.716

35.36698

145.04

4.101

0.55

76

5.188

34.72261

148.96

4.29

0.6

76

5.660

33.73188

148.96

4.416

0.65

76

6.132

32.99225

148.96

4.515

0.7

77

6.603

32.26165

150.92

4.678

0.75

76

7.075

32.97034

148.96

4.518

0.8

75

7.547

33.21283

147

4.426

0.85

75

8.018

34.03566

147

4.319

0.9

74

8.490

34.82353

145.04

4.165


159


Figure 5.33 Graph BC Soil + 12% Saw Dust (3 Days)

UCS Test: BC Soil (7 Days)

Axial

Deformation

(cm)

Proving ring

Reading

Axial

Strain

(%) (e)

Area (A)

(cm2)

Axial Force

(kg)

Compressive

Stress

(kg/cm2)

0

0

0

19.625

0

0

0.05

19

0.472

19.718

37.24

1.88863

0.1

26

0.944

19.812

50.96

2.572178

0.15

30

1.415

19.906

58.8

2.953883

0.2

34

1.886

20.002

66.64

3.331667

0.25

37

2.358

20.098

72.52

3.608319

0.3

39

2.830

20.196

76.44

3.784908

0.35

42

3.301

20.294

82.32

4.056371

0.4

44

3.773

20.394

86.24

4.228695

0.45

45

4.245

20.495

88.2

4.303489

160


0.5

47

4.716

20.596

92.12

4.472713

0.55

48

5.188

20.698

94.08

4.545367

0.6

49

5.660

20.802

96.04

4.616864

0.65

50

6.132

20.907

98

4.687425

0.7

50

6.603

20.012

98

4.897062

0.75

50

7.075

21.119

98

4.640371

0.8

50

7.547

21.227

98

4.616762

0.85

49

8.018

21.335

96.04

4.501523

0.9

49

8.490

21.445

96.04

4.478433


Figure 5.34 Graph BC Soil (7 Days)

161



Axial

Deformation

(cm)

Proving ring

Reading

Axial

Strain

(%) (e)

Area (A)

(cm2)

Axial Force

(kg)

Compressiv

e Stress

(kg/cm2)

0

0

0

0

0

0

0.05

29

0.472

23.05882

56.84

2.465

0.1

44

0.944

22.97283

86.24

3.754

0.15

50

1.415

24.6355

98

3.978

0.2

57

1.886

25.09941

111.72

4.4511

0.25

62

2.358

26.43463

121.52

4.597

0.3

66

2.830

27.80739

129.36

4.652

0.35

68

3.301

27.77824

133.28

4.798

0.4

69

3.773

28.4596

135.24

4.752

0.45

70

4.245

28.43523

137.2

4.825

0.5

70

4.716

28.20144

137.2

4.865

0.55

71

5.188

28.25584

139.16

4.925

0.6

71

5.660

28.0791

139.16

4.956

0.65

71

6.132

26.98991

139.16

5.156

0.7

71

6.603

26.4161

139.16

5.268

0.75

70

7.075

26.51208

137.2

5.175

0.8

70

7.547

27.5005

137.2

4.989

0.85

70

8.018

27.88051

137.2

4.921

0.9

69

8.490

27.74154

135.24

4.875


162




Axial

Deformation

(cm)

Proving ring

Reading

Axial

Strain

(%) (e)

Area (A)

(cm2)

Axial Force

(kg)

Compressive

Stress

(kg/cm2)

0

0

0

0

0

0

0.05

28

0.472

19.92738

54.88

2.754

0.1

39

0.944

22.68923

76.44

3.369

0.15

52

1.415

29.53347

101.92

3.451

0.2

70

1.886

36.12428

137.2

3.798

0.25

79

2.358

36.02606

154.84

4.298

0.3

85

2.830

34.74453

166.6

4.795

0.35

90

3.301

36.37113

176.4

4.85

0.4

97

3.773

37.06765

190.12

5.129

0.45

101

4.245

36.4433

197.96

5.432

0.5

105

4.716

36.78284

205.8

5.595

163


0.55

106

5.188

35.90736

207.76

5.786

0.6

108

5.660

36.33368

211.68

5.826

0.65

108

6.132

35.53467

211.68

5.957

0.7

107

6.603

37.96524

209.72

5.524

0.75

107

7.075

40.92896

209.72

5.124

0.8

106

7.547

42.83711

207.76

4.85

0.85

106

8.018

43.30138

207.76

4.798

0.9

106

8.490

45.0477

207.76

4.612




Axial

Deformation

(cm)

Proving ring

Reading

Axial

Strain

(%) (e)

Area (A)

(cm2)

Axial Force

(kg)

Compressive

Stress

(kg/cm2)

0

0

0

0

0

0

0.05

28

0.472

20.67822

54.88

2.654

0.1

39

0.944

33.80476

76.44

2.899

164


0.15

52

1.415

38.37259

101.92

3.269

0.2

70

1.886

43.93305

137.2

3.346

0.25

79

2.358

44.37948

154.84

3.489

0.3

85

2.830

44.05091

166.6

3.693

0.35

90

3.301

44.84171

176.4

3.759

0.4

97

3.773

43.79613

190.12

3.983

0.45

101

4.245

41.2012

197.96

4.329

0.5

105

4.716

37.99083

205.8

4.798

0.55

106

5.188

37.93288

207.76

4.857

0.6

108

5.660

36.30337

211.68

5.129

0.65

108

6.132

35.12545

211.68

5.301

0.7

107

6.603

32.38824

209.72

5.749

0.75

107

7.075

35.71155

209.72

5.214

0.8

106

7.547

38.66279

207.76

4.816

0.85

106

8.018

38.95961

207.76

4.729

0.9

106

8.490

39.74973

207.76

4.635



165



Axial

Deformation

(cm)

Proving ring

Reading

Axial Strain

(%) (e)

Area (A)

(cm2)

Axial

Force

(kg)

Compressive

Stress

(kg/cm2)

0

0

0

0

0

0

0.05

22

0.472

15.64586

43.12

2.756

0.1

42

0.944

25.36044

82.32

3.246

0.15

56

1.415

31.73171

109.76

3.459

0.2

65

1.886

33.66808

127.4

3.784

0.25

71

2.358

35.6912

139.16

3.899

0.3

78

2.830

36.52174

152.88

4.186

0.35

81

3.301

37.47875

158.76

4.236

0.4

83

3.773

36.64789

162.68

4.439

0.45

87

4.245

37.32108

170.52

4.569

0.5

89

4.716

36.16836

174.44

4.823

0.55

90

5.188

35.45016

176.4

4.976

0.6

91

5.660

34.19479

178.36

5.216

0.65

91

6.132

33.64648

178.36

5.301

0.7

92

6.603

32.13115

180.32

5.612

0.75

92

7.075

35.19813

180.32

5.123

0.8

90

7.547

36.34116

176.4

4.854

0.85

90

8.018

37.72455

176.4

4.676

0.9

89

8.490

38.36376

174.44

4.547


166



UCS Test: Clay Soil Clay Soil (14 Days)

Axial

Deformation

(cm)

Proving ring

Reading

Axial Strain

(%) (e)

Area

(A)

(cm2)

Axial

Force (kg)

Compressive

Stress (kg/cm2)

0

0

0

19.625

0

0

0.05

19

0.472

19.718

37.24

1.88863

0.1

26

0.944

19.812

50.96

2.572178

0.15

29

1.415

19.906

56.84

2.85542

0.2

34

1.886

20.002

66.64

3.331667

0.25

36

2.358

20.098

70.56

3.510797

0.3

38

2.830

20.196

74.48

3.687859

0.35

42

3.301

20.294

82.32

4.056371

0.4

44

3.773

20.394

86.24

4.228695

0.45

46

4.245

20.495

90.16

4.399122

0.5

49

4.716

20.596

96.04

4.663041

0.55

50

5.188

20.698

98

4.734757

167


0.6

51

5.660

20.802

99.96

4.805307

0.65

51

6.132

20.907

99.96

4.781174

0.7

51

6.603

20.012

99.96

5.0125

0.75

50

7.075

21.119

98

4.640371

0.8

50

7.547

21.227

98

4.616762

0.85

50

8.018

21.335

98

4.593391

0.9

49

8.490

21.445

96.04

4.478433


Figure 5.38 Graph BC Soil (14 Days)

UCS Test: BC Soil + 3% Saw Dust (14 Days)

Axial

Deformation

(cm)

Proving ring

Reading

Axial

Strain

(%) (e)

Area (A)

(cm2)

Axial

Force (kg)

Compressive

Stress (kg/cm2)

0

0

0

0

0

0

0.05

32

0.472

18.36066

62.72

3.416

0.1

47

0.944

24.93774

92.12

3.694

0.15

54

1.415

28.5668

105.84

3.705

168


0.2

61

1.886

30.53895

119.56

3.915

0.25

67

2.358

31.98246

131.32

4.106

0.3

69

2.830

31.40734

135.24

4.306

0.35

71

3.301

30.81488

139.16

4.516

0.4

72

3.773

29.92366

141.12

4.716

0.45

73

4.245

29.71547

143.08

4.815

0.5

73

4.716

29.11089

143.08

4.915

0.55

74

5.188

27.9784

145.04

5.184

0.6

74

5.660

27.37637

145.04

5.298

0.65

74

6.132

27.12042

145.04

5.348

0.7

73

6.603

26.49139

143.08

5.401

0.75

73

7.075

26.73893

143.08

5.351

0.8

73

7.547

27.69648

143.08

5.166

0.85

72

8.018

28.70627

141.12

4.916

0.9

72

8.490

29.64706

141.12

4.76

Table 5.49 Result for UCS Test for Clay Soil + 3% SD(14 Days)

Figure 5.39 Graph of BC Soil +3% SD (14 Days)

169


UCS Test: BC Soil + 6% Saw Dust (14 Days)

Axial

Deformation

(cm)

Proving ring

Reading

Axial Strain

(%) (e)

Area (A)

(cm2)

Axial

Force

(kg)

Compressive

Stress (kg/cm2)

0

0

0

0

0

0

0.05

30

0.472

26.08696

58.8

2.254

0.1

40

0.944

33.23442

78.4

2.359

0.15

54

1.415

44.00832

105.84

2.405

0.2

70

1.886

48.22496

137.2

2.845

0.25

81

2.358

51.11397

158.76

3.106

0.3

87

2.830

48.74786

170.52

3.498

0.35

93

3.301

51.99087

182.28

3.506

0.4

103

3.773

52.76529

201.88

3.826

0.45

105

4.245

49.02334

205.8

4.198

0.5

106

4.716

46.11765

207.76

4.505

0.55

107

5.188

43.55556

209.72

4.815

0.6

107

5.660

41.07325

209.72

5.106

0.65

109

6.132

38.9073

213.64

5.491

0.7

109

6.603

37.39541

213.64

5.713

0.75

108

7.075

37.69902

211.68

5.615

0.8

107

7.547

38.14478

209.72

5.498

0.85

106

8.018

39.91547

207.76

5.205

0.9

106

8.490

41.73564

207.76

4.978

Table 5.50 Result for UCS Test for Clay Soil + 6 % SD (14 Days)

170




Axial

Deformation

(cm)

Proving ring

Reading

Axial

Strain

(%) (e)

Area (A)

(cm2)

Axial

Force (kg)

Compressive

Stress (kg/cm2)

0

0

0

0

0

0

0.05

31

0.472

21.25219

60.76

2.859

0.1

41

0.944

25.47876

80.36

3.154

0.15

55

1.415

33.01685

107.8

3.265

0.2

71

1.886

39.81688

139.16

3.495

0.25

82

2.358

44.58252

160.72

3.605

0.3

88

2.830

45.19916

172.48

3.816

0.35

94

3.301

46.66667

184.24

3.948

0.4

104

3.773

49.68072

203.84

4.103

0.45

106

4.245

48.26016

207.76

4.305

0.5

107

4.716

42.41052

209.72

4.945

0.55

108

5.188

38.37563

211.68

5.516

0.6

108

5.660

37.47875

211.68

5.648

171


0.65

110

6.132

36.861

215.6

5.849

0.7

110

6.603

34.97729

215.6

6.164

0.75

109

7.075

35.91796

213.64

5.948

0.8

108

7.547

37.03937

211.68

5.715

0.85

107

8.018

37.43663

209.72

5.602

0.9

107

8.490

38.39619

209.72

5.462



UCS Test: Clay Soil Clay Soil +12% Saw Dust (14 Days)

Axial

Deformation

(cm)

Proving ring

Reading

Axial

Strain (%)

(e)

Area (A)

(cm2)

Axial

Force (kg)

Compressive

Stress (kg/cm2)

0

0

0

0

0

0

0.05

25

0.472

21.25813

49

2.305

0.1

30

0.944

23.27791

58.8

2.526

0.15

39

1.415

28.86707

76.44

2.648

172


0.2

48

1.886

31.59167

94.08

2.978

0.25

55

2.358

32.61725

107.8

3.305

0.3

69

2.830

38.11725

135.24

3.548

0.35

73

3.301

38.40043

143.08

3.726

0.4

95

3.773

45.80566

186.2

4.065

0.45

98

4.245

43.50623

192.08

4.415

0.5

101

4.716

42.89491

197.96

4.615

0.55

102

5.188

40.07216

199.92

4.989

0.6

102

5.660

37.3822

199.92

5.348

0.65

104

6.132

36.97442

203.84

5.513

0.7

104

6.603

35.71754

203.84

5.707

0.75

103

7.075

36.59898

201.88

5.516

0.8

102

7.547

36.84482

199.92

5.426

0.85

101

8.018

45.41409

197.96

4.359

0.9

101

8.490

48.21237

197.96

4.106



173


CHAPTER 6 PAVEMENT DESIGN USING SAW DUST

6.1 Pavement design

Comparative table for California Bearing Ratio is given below.

S. No. Samples C. B. R. Values

1. Raw Soil 2.47

2. Raw Soil +3% SD 2.38

3. Raw Soil +6% SD 3.89

4. Raw Soil + 9%SD 4.98

5. Raw soil +12%SD 3.94

Table 6.1 Result for CBR test

Considered Pavement Design Data:

• State Highway of 6 lane

• Design Traffic(A)= 1000 CVPD

• Lane Distribution Factor(D) = 60% (three lane carriage way road)

• Vehicle damage factor (F) = 3.5 (For Plain Terrain)

• Design Life (n) = 15 years

• Annual Growth Rate(r) = 7.5% (assumed)

• Width = 10.5m + 10.5m (10.5m of single side)

• N = [(365 x {(1+ r)n-1})/ r}]AFD

• N = [(365 x {(1+0.075)15-1})/0.075] x 1000 x 0.6 x 3.5

• N= 20 msa

6.2 Different layer thickness by referring IRC: 37-2012

Material

CBR

GSB

(mm)

G. BASE

(mm)

DBM

(mm)

BC

(mm)

TOTAL

(mm)

RAW SOIL 2.47 380 250 120 40 790

R.S.+3% SD 2.38 380 250 120 40 790

R.S.+6%SD 3.89 330 250 110 40 730

R.S.+9%SD 4.98 300 250 100 40 690

R.S.+12%SD 3.94 300 250 110 40 730

Table 6.2 Different layer thickness

174


6.2.1 Total Pavement Thickness for BC Soil






Quantity for BC Soil (1 km)

Now, width = 10.5 m & length = 1000 m






• Quantity for BC = 0.040 * 10.5 * 1000 = 420 m3

Item No. Item Name Total Quantity Unit Rate Rs. Total cost

Rs.

1 GSB 3990 Cum 1200 4158000

3 WMM 1312.5 Cum 1600 2100000

4 WBM 1312.5 Cum 1600 2100000

5 Prime Coat 10500 Sq. m 35 367500

6 DBM 1260 Cum 9000 9324000

7 BC 420 Cum 7400 3780000


Table 6.3 Cost estimation for raw soil

Figure 6.1 Composition of layers of BC soil

175


6.2.2 Total Pavement Thickness for BC Soil +3% SD






Quantity for BC Soil + 3% SD (1 km)







• Quantity for BC = 0.040 * 10.5 * 1000 = 420 m3


1 GSB 3990 Cum 1200 4158000

3 WMM 1312.5 Cum 1600 2100000

4 WBM 1312.5 Cum 1600 2100000

5 Prime Coat 10500 Sq. m 35 367500

6 DBM 1260 Cum 9000 9324000

7 BC 420 Cum 7400 3780000


Table 6.4 Cost estimation for Raw Soil +3% SD

Figure 6.2 Composition of layers of BC soil + 3% SD

176




• Granular Sub base = 330mm




Quantity for BC Soil +6% SD (1 km)

Now, width = 10.5 m & length = 1000 m





• Quantity for DBM = 0.110* 10.5* 1000 = 1155m3

• Quantity for BC = 0.040 * 10.5 * 1000 = 420 m3


1 GSB 3465 Cum 1200 4158000

3 WMM 1312.5 Cum 1600 2100000

4 WBM 1312.5 Cum 1600 2100000

5 Prime Coat 10500 Sq. m 35 367500

6 DBM 1155 Cum 7400 8547000

7 BC 420 Cum 9000 3780000

Table 6.176 Cost estimation for raw soil + 6% SD

6.2.4 Total Pavement Thickness for BC Soil + 9% SD

• Total Pavement Thickness = 690mm


177


• Granular Sub base = 300mm




Quantity for BC Soil 9% SD (1 km)


• Quantity for GSB = 0.300* 10.5 * 1000 = 3150m3





• Quantity for BC = 0.040 * 10.5 * 1000 = 420 m3


1 GSB 2730 Cum 1200 3780000

3 WMM 1312.5 Cum 1600 2100000

4 WBM 1312.5 Cum 1600 2100000

5 Prime Coat 10500 Sq. m 35 3675000

6 DBM 945 Cum 7400 7770000

7 BC 420 Cum 9000 3780000


Table 6.6 Cost estimation for raw soil + 9% SD


Total Pavement Thickness = 730 mm

Granular Sub base = 330mm

Granular Base Course = 250 mm = 125 mm +125 mm

Dense Bound Macadam = 110 mm


178


Bituminous Course = 40 mm

•

Quantity for BC Soil +12% SD (1 km)







• Quantity for BC = 0.040 * 10.5 * 1000 = 420 m3

Item No. Item Name Total Quantity Unit Rate Rs. Total cost

Rs.

1 GSB 3465 Cum 1200 4158000

3 WMM 1312.5 Cum 1600 2100000

4 WBM 1312.5 Cum 1600 2100000

5 Prime Coat 10500 Sq. m 35 367500

6 DBM 1155 Cum 7400 7770000

7 BC 420 Cum 9000 3780000


Table 6.7 Cost estimation for raw soil +12% SD


179


6.3 Summary of cost analysis

Materials Cost (Rs.)

BC Soil 22459500

BC Soil + 3% SD 22459500

BC Soil + 6% SD 21052500

BC Soil + 9% SD 19897500

BC Soil + 12% SD 21052500

Table 6.8 Cost Analysis

180


CHAPTER 7 CONCLUSION

7.1 Conclusion based on Saw Dust

From the above results of test, it can be concluded that the impact of saw dust on BC soil is positive.

By replacing soil its dry weight by saw dust it gives maximum improvement in the swelling and linear

shrinkage properties of black cotton soil. The presence of Holocellulose (83.8%) in Saw Dust are

responsible for improve the performance of black cotton soil. The MDD of black cotton soil varies

from 1.510 g/cc to 1.891 g/cc and the OMC increase from 21% to 23.2% for increase of saw dust from

0% to 12%. With increase in saw dust a general increase in maximum dry unit weight was observed.

So, use of saw dust is preferable for stabilization because it gives positive results as stabilizer and also

it is a waste utilization. Use of saw dust in highway construction must provide a clear advantage in

term of improvement of the geotechnical properties of the foundation subgrade, sub base and

embankment material.

7.2 Conclusion based on Marble Powder

The results showed positive response of marble powder on BC soil. The C.B.R. value of black cotton

soil varies from 5.80% to 8.30%, M.D.D. is found to increase by 1.510gm/cc to 1.710 gm/cc, O.M.C.

changes from 1.8 to 4.1%. The presence of CaCo3 in Marble Powder is responsible for improve the

performance of black cotton soil. With increase in marble powder as general increase in maximum dry

unit weight was observed. So, we can clearly see that the marble powder is a good stabilizing agent

for weak black cotton soil and can be used to drastically change its properties which could be better

and helpful in several construction process related to subgrade, sub base and embankment.

7.3 Conclusion based on both the additives

This study concludes that addition of waste material can prove out to be a good stabilizing agent for

weaker soils. Some results showed marble dust was better where as some favoured saw dust but overall

results of both the tests were positive. But usage of saw dust can be recommended more than that of

use of marble dust as saw dust is generated from wooden derived products and can be found out

everywhere in the world but whereas marble dust can be found out on the selective areas only.

181


# REFRENCES

JOURNALS [1] A. G. Patil, K. P. Patil, N. P. Patil, P. S. Joshi, S. S. Chavan, Dr. V.R. Saraf (2017). “Eco-friendly

stabilization of black cotton soil” International Journal of Innovative Research in Science,

Engineering and Technology, Vol. 3, Issue 3.

[2] Arun Pratap Singh Rather, Karan Parbhakar (2018). “Soil stabilization using kota stone slurry in

pavement” International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET), Vol. 7, Issue 5.

[3] A. Venkatesh and Dr. G. Sreenivasa Reddy (2016). “Effect of Waste Saw Dust Ash on

Compaction and Permeability Properties of Black Cotton Soil” International Journal of Civil

Engineering Research, Vol. 7, Issue 1

[4] B. B. Patel, C. B. Mishra, Dr. H. R. Varia, H. Thakar (2017). “Use of Waste Marble Powder to

Improve the Characteristics of Black Cotton Soil.” Earthquake International Journal of Engineering

Research & Technology (IJERT), Vol. 6, Issue 4

[5] Berjees Anisa Ikra, Tamanna Kabir, Anika Nowshin Mowrin, Ahsan Habib (2018). “Stabilization

of Clay Soil Mixed with Wood Ash” International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, Vol.

9, Issue 10.

[06] Berjees Anisa Ikra, Tamanna Kabir, Anika Nowshin Mowrin, Ahsan Habib (2016).

[7] C. B. Mishra, Nandan Patel, Riddhi Choksi (2018). “Soil stabilization using marble dust”

International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET), Vol. 5, Issue 5

[8] Jagmohan Mishra, R K Yadav and A K Singhai (2018). “Effect of granite dust on index

properties of lime stabilized black cotton soil” International Research Journal of Engineering and

Technology (IRJET), Vol. 3, Issue 1

[9] Krichphon Singh, V.K. Arora (2018). “Pursuance of waste marble powder to improve soil

stabilization” International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET), Vol. 5, Issue 5

[10] Krichphon Singh, V.K. Arora (2017). “Stabilization of non-plastic silt using marble dust”

International journal of advance research in science and engineering, Vol. 6, Issue 4

[11] M. Usha Rani, J. Martina Jenifer (2016). “Analysis of strength characteristics of black cotton soil

using wood ash as stabilizer” International Journal of Research in Science

[12] M. Yurdakul, F. Yilmaz (2017). “Evaluation of Marble Dust for Soil Stabilization” Special issue

of the 3rd International Conference on Computational and Experimental Science and Engineering

(ICCESEN 2016).

[13] Rashmi Bade, Nuzra Zainab Khan, Jaya Sahare, Faisal Ameen, Danish Ahmed (2017). “Effect of

Wood Shaving Ash on Index Properties of Black Cotton Soil” International Research Journal of

Engineering and Technology (IRJET), Vol. 4, Issue 2.

[14] Sumit Shringi, Vishvendra Singh, Dr. B. Acharya (2018). “Review on effect of marble dust on

geotechnical properties of expansive soil” International journal of advance research in science and

engineering, Vol. 7, Issue 2

182


[14] T. Deepika (2019). “Experimental Study on Behavior of Black Cotton Soil using Wood Ash as

Stabilizer” International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET), Vol. 5

[15] Zuhaib Zahoor Shaw, Er. Ved Parkash, Er. Vishal Kumar (2017). “Use of Lime and Saw Dust

Ash in Soil Stabilization” International Journal of Innovative Research in Science, Engineering and

Technology, Vol. 6, Issue 2

IS Codes [1] IS: 1498-1970, “Soil Classification”

[2] IS: 2720 (Part 4) – 1985, “Determination of Grain Size Analysis”

[3] IS: 2720 (Part 5) – 1985, “Determination of Liquid and Plastic Limit”

[4] IS: 2720 (Part 7) – 1980, “Determination of Water Content – Dry Density Relation Using

Standard Proctor Compaction test”

[5] IS: 9143 – 1979, “Laboratory Determination of UCS”

[6] IS: 2720 (Part 40) – 1977, “Determination of Free swell index”

Documents

BIRLA VISHVAKARMA MAHAVIDYALAYA (ENGINEERING