Click here to load reader
Upload
dangnhan
View
215
Download
3
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
4th
World Conference on
Applied Sciences, Engineering & Technology
24-26 October 2015, Kumamoto University, Japan
WCSET 2015062 Copyright © 2015 BASHA RESEARCH CENTRE. All rights reserved
Effect of Lime on Granite Dust Stabilized Mud Blocks
DEEPAK NAYAK, PURUSHOTHAM G. SARVADE, JAGADEESHA PAI B., RANGA SWAMY Department of Civil Engineering, Manipal Institute of Technology, Manipal University, Manipal, India
Email: [email protected], [email protected]
Abstract: Most of the soil in their natural condition lack the strength, dimensional stability and durability
required for building construction. In the present investigation an attempt is made to study and improve the
quality of locally available red lateritic soil by stabilisation. The granite cutting and polishing dust obtained from
granite tile industry and lime are used as stabilisers. The granite dust is dumped as a waste material usually in
rivers, lakes and landfills resulting in environmental problems. The use of stabilised blocks involves no
pollution and is cost-effective, thus further benefiting the environment by saving deforestation for burning fired
clay bricks. The study focuses on correlating the Unconfined Compressive Strength (UCS), Optimum Moisture
Content (OMC) and Maximum Dry Density (MDD) by stabilising locally available lateritic soil with granite
dust and adding lime up to 15% by dry weight of soil. The investigation revealed an improvement in compaction
characteristics. The UCS value after 7 days and 28 days of curing shows increasing trend up to 9% addition of
lime and thereafter shows a decreasing trend. Hence 9% lime addition is found to be the optimum value for
getting maximum strength and durability. The 28 days average compressive strength of the blocks casted using
the same mix gave a better strength than the conventional bricks.
Keywords: Lateritic soil, Lime, Granite dust, MDD, OMC, UCS, Stabilised Blocks
Introduction: The cost of building materials contributes a large
portion of the overall project cost. Production of
building components using advanced technology is
very expensive. The cost of construction can be
reduced significantly by using locally available
building materials by improving its quality.
Granite mining and process industry are one of the
most promising business areas of the mining sector,
with a mean growth in the world production of
approximately 6% per year in the last 10 years [1].
Granite cutting and polishing dust is a by-product of
granite tile Industry. It is estimated that during the
cutting process 30% of granite mass is lost in the
form of dust and 250-400 tons of granite waste is
generated every year [2]. Granite dust is a non-
biodegradable waste. The finer particles of granite
dust can be easily inhaled by human kind which
results in severe health hazards [3].
For manufacturing soil-cement bricks granite dust
can be used as an effective alternative raw material
[4]. Low density blocks will not have good strength.
Hence it is necessary to increase the density of the
soil by adding the stabilizer to compact it at suitable
moisture content.
Laterite is a cheap, environmental friendly and
abundantly available building material in the coastal
region. Lateritic soils are encountered over extensive
non-alluvial tracts of peninsular India and are made
up of such acidic rocks as granite, gneiss and schist.
It is formed due to tropical and subtropical
weathering. The factors encouraging the formation of
laterites are; basic or intermediate parent rock
material containing ferro-alumina silicates, a
permeable profile, heavy rainfall, high humidity, hot
climates with coolish nights and a fluctuating water
table [5]. Laterite is rich in iron oxide and aluminium
hydroxides and low in silica content [6].
The stabilised blocks are cost effective and energy
efficient alternative material to the conventional
burnt clay bricks and to other commonly used
masonry units in construction. To improve the quality
of the stabilised blocks currently available in the
market and also to utilise the by-product which is
being dumped as a waste causing environmental
issues, a detailed investigation was carried out to use
lateritic soil as a raw material to make granite dust
stabilised blocks and lime as a binder. For the
purpose of this study, granite dust was collected from
Bantakal, Udupi District, Karnataka.
This paper deals with the experimental
investigations carried out to study the feasibility
of use of lime as a binder to the granite dust
stabilised lateritic soil to produce stabilized mud
blocks. The main objective of the present study is to
improve the quality of granite dust stabilized blocks
by adding lime as a binding material in 0%, 3%, 6%,
9%, 12% and 15% proportions and to determine the
optimum quantity of binder (lime) to get the desired
strength and durability.
Experimental Investigation:
The lateritic soil-granite dust, in the present
investigation, is mixed with pulverized hydrated lime
in various proportions, i.e. 0%, 3%, 6%, 9%, 12%
and 15% by weight of oven dried soil mix. The
samples for UCC were prepared for MDD and OMC.
Proper care was taken to maintain the homogeneity
of the mix. Various laboratory tests were conducted
as per IS specification on soil - granite dust mix to
study the correlation of the Unconfined Compressive
Strength (UCS), Optimum Moisture Content (OMC)
DEEPAK NAYAK, PURUSHOTHAM G. SARVADE, JAGADEESHA PAI B., RANGA SWAMY
Proceedings of the 4th
World Conference on Applied Sciences, Engineering and Technology
24-26 October 2015, Kumamoto University, Japan, ISBN 13: 978-81-930222-1-4, pp 251-257
and Maximum Dry Density (MDD). The blocks were
casted for the optimum mix and tested for strength
and durability. The tests involved were Specific
Gravity, Grain Size Analysis, Atterberg Limits,
Standard Proctor Compaction Test, Compressive
strength and Water absorption.
1. Soil:
Laterite is a cheap, environmental friendly and
abundantly available building material in the coastal
region. Laterite is formed due to tropical and
subtropical weathering.
Laterite is rich in iron oxide and aluminium
hydroxides and low in silica content [7]. The laterite
soil colour can vary from red, brown or black
depending on the concentration of iron oxides.
The reddish colour of Laterite soil is due to the
presence of iron compounds in the soil composition.
2. Admixtures:
Granite mining and process industry is one of the
most promising business areas of the mining sector,
with a mean growth in the world production of
approximately 6% per year in the last 10 years [1].
Granite cutting and polishing dust is a bi-product of
granite tile Industry. It is a non-biodegradable waste.
The finer particles of granite dust can be easily
inhaled by human kind which results in severe health
hazards.
In the present study, an attempt is made to improve
the quality of laterite soil. For the purpose of this
study, Granite dust was collected from Bantakal,
Udupi District, Karnataka.
3. Lime
Lime has been used as a soil stabiliser for roads from
olden days. Hydrated lime, also called slaked lime, is
the most commonly used lime for soil stabilisation.
Lime is also used in combination with other
admixtures like flyash, cement, bitumen for soil
stabilisation. Soil plasticity, density and strength are
changed by the addition of lime to soil. In the present
study pulverised hydrated lime is used as a binder.
Generally in lime stabilisation, liquid limit of the soil
decreases but the plastic limit increases. Thus, the
plasticity index of the soil decreases. The soil
becomes more friable and workable. The changes in
plasticity are governed mainly by the mineralogy of
the clay and the proportion of clay fraction in the soil
Results and Discussion:
1. Geotechnical properties of lateritic soil:
The geotechnical properties of lateritic soil is
mentioned in Table 1. Grain size analysis of lateritic
soil as per IS: 2720 (part 4)-1985 [8] in this study is
also specified in Table 1 (Figure1)
Grain size analysis of granite dust and soil mixed
with different proportions of granite dust conducted
as per IS: 2720 (part 4)-1985 in this study is specified
in Figure 2 and Fig 3.
Table 1: Geotechnical properties
Properties Lateritic soil
Specific Gravity 2.6
Liquid Limit (%) 47.5
Plastic Limit (%) 32.42
Plasticity Index (%) 15.08
Shrinkage Limit (%) 24.43
OMC (%) 20
MDD (kN/m3) 18.16
Gravel Size 59.2
Sand Size 40.4
Silt and Clay size 0.4
Soil Classification GW
Figure1: Grain size analysis of lateritic soil
2. Geotechnical properties of granite dust and
mix:
Figure2: Grain size analysis of granite dust
The geotechnical properties of granite dust are
mentioned in Table 2.
Table 2: Geotechnical properties
Properties Granite Dust
Specific Gravity 2.75
OMC 21.5%
MDD 15.3kN/m3
3. Standard proctor compaction test
The standard proctor compaction test is carried out as
per [IS: 2720 (Part 7) – 2002] [9]. The variation of
MDD and optimum moisture content (OMC) with the
percentage of lime added is discussed in 3.1, 3.2 and
3.3
Effect of lime on granite dust stabilised mud blocks
Proceedings of the 4th
World Conference on Applied Sciences, Engineering and Technology
24-26 October 2015, Kumamoto University, Japan, ISBN 13: 978-81-930222-1-4, pp 251-257
Figure3: Grain size analysis of mix
3.1. Variation of MDD with percentage of lime
added:
Figure 4: Variation of MDD with percentage lime
added
The Figure4 shows the plot between Maximum dry
density and percentage of lime added. From the
experimental investigation, it is found that the
maximum dry density of the soil decreases as
percentage lime increases. The prediction equation
obtained is as below:
y= -0.1196x+ 18.947, where y represents the MDD
and x is the percentage lime added.
3.2. Variation of OMC with percentage of lime
added:
The Figure5 shows the graph between OMC and
percentage of lime added. It is found that the
Optimum moisture content of the soil mix increases
with the increase in percentage of lime. The
prediction equation obtained is as below:
y = 0.3495x + 16.162,
where y represents OMC and x is the percentage lime
added. Fig 6 shows the variation of maximum dry
density with the optimum moisture content. It is
evident from the above figure that the MDD decreases
with the increase in OMC. The prediction equation
obtained is as below:
y=-0.3209x+24.078,
R² = 0.9695
Where y represents MDD and x is the percentage
OMC.
The following reasons could explain this behaviour;
1. The lime added causes the aggregation of the
particles to occupy larger spaces and hence alters the
effective grading of the soils.
2. The specific gravity of lime is generally lower than
that of the soils tested, and
3. The pozzolanic reaction between the clay present in
the soils and the lime is responsible for the increase in
OMC.
Figure 5 Variation of OMC with percentage lime
added
3.3. Variation of MDD with increase in OMC:
Figure 6: Variation of MDD with OMC
4. Consistency Limit Test
The oven dried lateritic soil-granite dust mix, blended
with lime was tested for consistency limits. Soil
samples weighing about 120 gm passing 425-micron
IS Sieve is taken and thoroughly mixed with water to
determine the consistency limits (Liquid limit, plastic
limit, and shrinkage limit) as per IS [IS : 2720 ( Part 5
)-1985] [10]. The variation of liquid limit, plastic
limit, plasticity index and shrinkage limit with
percentage of lime is discussed in sections 3.4.1,
3.4.2, 3.4.3 and 3.4.4 respectively.
4.1. Variation of liquid limit with percentage of
lime added:
As per the experimental results obtained, fig 7
represents the graph between liquid limit and
percentage of lime added. It is clear from the graph
that the liquid limit is showing decreasing trend.
DEEPAK NAYAK, PURUSHOTHAM G. SARVADE, JAGADEESHA PAI B., RANGA SWAMY
Proceedings of the 4th
World Conference on Applied Sciences, Engineering and Technology
24-26 October 2015, Kumamoto University, Japan, ISBN 13: 978-81-930222-1-4, pp 251-257
Figure 7: Variation of liquid limit with percentage of
lime added
3.4.2 Variation of plastic limit with percentage of
lime added:
As per the experimental results obtained, fig 8
represents the graph between plastic limit and
percentage of lime added. It is clear from the graph
that the plastic limit is showing increasing trend.
Figure 8: Variation of plastic limit with percentage of
lime added
4.3. Variation of Plasticity index with percentage
of lime added:
Figure 9: Variation of Plasticity Index with
percentage of lime added
As per the experimental results obtained, fig 9
represents the graph between plasticity index and
percentage of lime added. It is clear from the graph
that the plasticity index is showing decreasing trend.
Figure 10: Variation of Shrinkage Limit with
percentage lime added
4.4. Variation of Shrinkage Limit with percentage
of lime added: As per the experimental results obtained, fig 10
represents the graph between Shrinkage limit and
percentage of lime added. It is clear from the graph
that the shrinkage limit is showing increasing trend.
4.5. Unconfined compressive strength:
The lateritic soil-20% granite dust mix blended with
various percentage of lime were prepared using a
standard mould with internal diameter of 38mm and
height of 76mm. The UCS of soil specimens were
tested for 0%, 3%, 6%, 9%, 10%, 12% and 15% of
addition of lime at 7 day and 28 day curing period.
The results are shown in Figure 11, Figure 12, Fig 13
and Fig 14.
5.1. Variation of stress with percentage strain
Figure 11: Variation of Stress with Strain after 7 days
curing
Figure 12: Variation of Stress with Strain after 28
days curing
Effect of lime on granite dust stabilised mud blocks
Proceedings of the 4th
World Conference on Applied Sciences, Engineering and Technology
24-26 October 2015, Kumamoto University, Japan, ISBN 13: 978-81-930222-1-4, pp 251-257
Fig 11 shows the relationship of axial stress and strain
after 7 days curing period. The soil-20% granite dust
mix treated with 9% lime failed at higher value of
UCS compared to other percentage lime addition.
Similarly Fig 12 shows the relationship of axial stress
and strain after 28 days curing period. The soil-20%
granite dust mix treated with 9% lime failed at higher
values of UCS compared to other percentage lime
addition. Thus the maximum value of UCS is
observed on both 7days and 28 days curing period.
5.2. Variation of UCS with the percentage of lime
added: It is evident from the Figure 13 that the value of
unconfined compressive strength (UCS) of soil-20%
granite dust mix blended with 9% lime addition
increased from 330 kN/m2 to 620 kN/m
2 after 7 days
curing and the value of UCS increased to 1,454 kN/m2
after 28 days of curing period. As the percentage lime
increases above 9% the UCS value shows decreasing
trend. The same trend can be observed in both 7 days
cured samples and 28 days cured samples. Therefore
the 9% addition of lime is found to be the optimum
percentage of lime addition.
Figure 13: Variation of UCS with percentage lime
3.5.3. Variation of UCS with the increase in curing
period:
Figure 14: Variation of UCS with curing period
Fig 14 represents the relationship between UCS and
curing time of original lateritic soil, soil-20% granite
dust mix and soil mix treated with 9% addition of
lime. The value of UCS of original soil increased
from 134 kN/m2 to 716 kN/m
2 and thereafter shows
horizontal trend and the value remains constant. The
value of UCS of soil-20% granite dust mix increased
from 330 kN/ m2 to 1,472 kN/m
2 and thereafter shows
horizontal trend and the value remains constant. The
value of UCS of soil-20% granite dust mix blended
with 9% lime addition, increases from 127 kN/m2 to
620 kN/m2 after 7 days of curing period and 1454
kN/m2 after 28 days of curing period. Thus the
variation of UCS of soil with 9% lime addition
linearly varies with the increase in curing period.
The various geotechnical properties with increase in
dosage of lime is given in Table 3.
Table 3: Geotechnical properties of lateritic soil-20%
granite dust mix before and after blended with lime
Atterberg
Limits Percentage Lime Addition
0% 3% 6% 9%
12
%
15
%
Liquid
Limit (%)
42.0
0
45.1
0
46.2
0
44.9
0
42.2
0
43.3
0
Plastic
Limit (%)
28.2
0
31.1
0
32.0
0
31.7
0
29.6
0
30.0
0
Plasticity
Index (%)
13.8
0
14.0
0
14.2
0
13.2
0
12.6
0
13.3
0
Shrinkage
Limit (%)
20.1
0
26.7
0
24.8
0
27.3
0
28.9
0
28.9
9
Grain Size
Analysis
Gravel
Size (%)
19.2
1
34.9
5
37.5
5
37.0
6
28.3
9
28.3
5
Sand Size 68.5 64.9 62.3 62.7 70.8 71.5
(%) 4 8 6 5 9 7
Silt/ Clay
(%)
12.2
4 0.07 0.09 0.18 0.71 0.09
Cu 49 4.1 5 11.2
5 31 5.65
Cc 2.94 1.52 0.99 1.1 3.22 0.9
Soil
Classificat
ion
SM SP SP SW SP SP
Compaction Characteristics
MDD
(kN/m3)
19.1
3
18.3
4
18.1
5
17.9
5
17.6
6
17.0
7
OMC (%) 15.5 18.2 18.6 19 19.3 22.1
7 days
UCS (
kN/m2 )
330 308 407 620 311 256
28 days
UCS
(kN/m2)
330 656 127
5
145
4
138
5
125
5
3.6. Variation of Strength of stabilised blocks with
curing period
y = 45.621x + 201.42 R² = 0.9822
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
0 7 14 21 28 35
UC
S (k
N/m
2)
Curing period (Days)
Original Soil
soil + 20% Granite dust
Linear (9% lime addition)
DEEPAK NAYAK, PURUSHOTHAM G. SARVADE, JAGADEESHA PAI B., RANGA SWAMY
Proceedings of the 4th
World Conference on Applied Sciences, Engineering and Technology
24-26 October 2015, Kumamoto University, Japan, ISBN 13: 978-81-930222-1-4, pp 251-257
Figure 15: Variation of compressive strength with
curing period
Blocks are air dried for 1 day and then stacked
and moist cured for the following 28 days by
covering them with gunny bags and keeping them
moist. After 28 days, the blocks are dried and tested
for dry compressive strength. The blocks are tested in
a compression testing machine, until the blocks fail
under compression.
From the Fig 15 it is evident that blocks casted of
soil-dust mix blended with 9% lime addition gave an
average compressive strength of 1.99 N/mm2 and 3.67
N/mm2 after 7 days and 28 days of curing period
respectively. However, the blocks casted with only
lateritic soil after natural air drying gave an average
compressive strength of 1.9 N/mm2 and remained
same during the test. The blocks casted with lateritic
soil blended with 20% granite dust (optimum
percentage) gave an average compressive strength of
2.05 N/mm2 and remained unchanged.
In most cases, for given curing conditions, a soil will
achieve a maximum strength at some optimum lime
content or will reach a lime content, beyond which
further increase in treatment level will not produce a
significant strength increase. The literature indicated
that optimum lime contents will vary depending on
soil type, lime type, curing period and curing
temperature. Higher density achieved with higher
compactive efforts also influences the cured strength
of a lime-soil mixture. Although lime carbonation
may contribute slightly to strength increase of the
lime-soil mixtures, the pozzolanic reaction
mechanism is regarded as the prime contributor of
strength. Unconfined compressive strength is used as
a measure of the pozzolanic reaction that occurs to
varying degrees with different lime-soil mixtures.
Generally the strength of the soil increases with the
addition of lime. It is partly due to a decrease in the
plastic properties of the soil and partly due to
formation of cementation. The lime content required
for stabilization depends upon the role of lime.
Plasticity of the soil gets affected during the short
term reaction and the strength during the long term
reaction of lime and soil. When lime is added to a clay
soil, it must first satisfy the affinity of the soil for
lime, that is, ions are adsorbed by clay minerals and
are not available for pozzolanic reactions until this
affinity is satisfied. The content of lime, which is
fixed in the soil and is not available for other
reactions, has been referred to as lime fixation. The
lime fixation point corresponds with the point where
further addition of lime does not bring further changes
in the plastic limit. However an optimum quantity of
lime is needed for achieving maximum improvement
on targeted properties of soil. Normally between 1%
and 3% lime by weight of soil is required to modify
the plasticity. The content of lime more than the limit
of fixation is available for other reactions and it
increases the strength of the soil until an optimum
lime content is reached beyond which the strength
continues to increase at a reduced rate or begins to
decline.
7. Durability study of stabilised blocks:
7.1. Total Water Absorption
Water absorption test is a test conducted over 24
hours to determine the quantity of water absorbed by
a block. At first, cured specimens are air dried for
a day and then it is submerged in water at a
temperature of 270 C for 24 hours (IS 3495 part 2)
[11]. It is weighed again on the next day and the
quantity of water absorbed by the block is
ascertained as a percentage of its initial mass.
The total water absorption of the 9% lime stabilised
blocks are tested after 7 days of curing and 28 days of
curing period and are listed in Table No. 4. The water
absorption of blocks are reduced as the curing period
is increased. The blocks cured for 28 days shows less
water absorption than that of 7 days value. This may
be due to the filling of the pore or voids by the
cementitious or pozzolanic compounds. The average
total water absorption value after 28 days curing is
less than the water absorption of first class bricks (less
than 15%) [12].
Table 4: Total water absorption of lime stabilised
blocks
Number of days 7 days 28 days
Total water absorption 22.33% 11.23%
4. Conclusion:
The threat of Environmental pollution is reduced by
using the granite dust instead of disposing it. Usage of
stabilised blocks may lead to minimal use of non-
renewable naturally available resources. Thus, the
environmental crisis of deforestation is also eradicated
making the stabilised block an eco-friendly
construction material.
1. From the consistency test the liquid limit showed a
decreasing trend and plastic limit showed an
increasing trend with the addition of lime. Also the
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
7 28
1.9 1.9 2.05 2.05 1.99
3.67
Stre
ngt
h (
N/m
m2 )
Curing Period (days)
only soil
soil + 20% granite dust
soil + 20% granite dust + 9% lime
Effect of lime on granite dust stabilised mud blocks
Proceedings of the 4th
World Conference on Applied Sciences, Engineering and Technology
24-26 October 2015, Kumamoto University, Japan, ISBN 13: 978-81-930222-1-4, pp 251-257
plasticity index showed a decreasing trend with the
addition of lime. The variations are in agreement with
the results obtained in previous studies [13].
2. In the standard proctor test, the dry density is
showing decreasing trend and optimum moisture
content is showing increasing trend as the percentage
of lime added is increased.
4. It was observed in the unconfined compressive
strength test (after 7 days and 28 days curing), the
value of UCS showed a rising trend up to 9% addition
of lime and thereafter showed a decreasing trend.
5. The value of UCS of soil-20% granite dust mix
blended with 9% lime addition, increases with
increase in curing period.
6. As the percentage lime increases above 9%, the
UCS value shows a decreasing trend. The same trend
can be observed in both 7 days cured samples and 28
days cured samples. Therefore the 9% addition of
lime is found to be the optimum percentage of lime
addition.
7. The average compressive strength of the blocks
tested after 28 days of curing period is more than the
minimum compressive strength of fired bricks as per
IS 1077 : 1992. The strength of the blocks will further
increase with increased curing due to pozzolanic
reactions at later stage.
8. The average water absorption of blocks reduced
with the increase in curing period from 7 days to 28
days. The value obtained for 28 days curing period
was below the minimum value as specified in IS
1077:1992.
References: [1] Menezes R. R. et al.(2005). “Use of granite
sawing wastes in the production of ceramic
bricks and tiles”, Journal of the European
Ceramic Society, Vol.25 Issue 7.
[2] Mamta B. Rajgor and Jayeshkumar Pitroda
(2013). “A Study of Utilization Aspect of Stone
waste in Indian context”, International Journal of
Global Research Analysis, Vol.2 Issue.1.
[3] Rajendra Prasad H. N. et al. (2014). “An
approach for alternative solution in brick
manufacturing”,International Journal of Science,
Environment and Technology,Vol.3 Issue 3.
[4] Ribeiro S. V. and Holanda J. N. F. (2014) “Soil-
cement bricks incorporated with granite cutting
sludge”, International Journal of engineering
science and innovative technology, Vol. 3 Issue
2.
[5] Gidigasu, M.D.(1976).”Laterite soil engineering.
”Developments in geotechnical engineering 9,
Elsevier scientific publishing company, Oxford,
New York.
[6] Kowalski T. E. and Starry D. W.(2007). “Modern
Soil Stabilization Techniques”, Annual
conference of the Transportation Association of
Canada (Saskatoon, Saskatchewan-2007), PP 14-
17
[7] Chaibeddra et al. (2013). “Sustainability of
Stabilized Earth Blocks to Water Erosion”,
Iternational Journal of Engineering and
Innovative Technology, Vol.2, Issue 9.
[8] IS: 2720 (Part 4)-1985, (Reaffirmed 2006)
“Methods of Test for Soil: Grain Size Analysis.”
Bureau of Indian Standards.
[9] [9] IS: 2720 (Part 7)-1980, (Reaffirmed 2002)
“Methods of Test for Soil: Determination of
Water Content – Dry density Relation Using
Light Compaction.” Bureau of Indian Standards.
[10] IS: 2720 (Part 5)-1985, (Reaffirmed 2006)
“Methods of Test for Soil: Determination of
Liquid and Plastic limits.” Bureau of Indian
Standards.
[11] IS: 3495 (part 2)-1992, (Reaffirmed 2002),
“Methods of Tests of burnt clay building bricks:
Determination of water absorption.
[11] IS:1077 - (1992) (Reaffirmed 2002), “Common
burnt clay building bricks”, Bureau of Indian
Standards.
[12] Ninija Merina et al (2012). “Performance of
cementitious soil”. International Journal of
Emerging Technology and Advanced
Engineering, Vol. 2, Issue 11.