SOIL STABILIZATION USING GEOSYNTHETIC … · “soil stabilization using geosynthetic material ... irc sp:20-2002. ... chapter 7 result and discussion 72

VISVESVARAYA TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY

BELGAUM

KLS's

VISHWANATHRAO DESHPANDE RURAL INSTITUTE OF

TECHNOLOGY, HALIYAL.

A

“Project Report”

On

“SOIL STABILIZATION USING GEOSYNTHETIC MATERIAL

(BAMBOO FIBRES)”

(A KSCST sponsored Project)

40S_BE_0258

Submitted by

AROJA M. (2VD13CV007)

NAGARAJ K. (2VD13CV026)

PRASHANT. P. (2VD13CV036)

RAJESHWARI S. (2VD13CV043)

Under the Guidance of

Prof. ASHIK BELLARY

Department of Civil Engineering

December 2016– 17

Scanned by CamScanner

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The satisfaction and euphoria that accompany the successful completion of any task

would be incomplete without the mention of the people who made it possible, whose

constant guidance and encouragement crowned the efforts with success.

We would like to express our thanks to the Principal Dr. V.V.Katti for their

encouragement that motivated us for the successful completion of Project work. Also

it gives us immense pleasure to thank Prof. G.V.Chalageri Professor and Head of

Department for his constant support and encouragement.

Also, we would like to express our deepest sense of gratitude to Prof. Ashik Bellary.

Department of Civil Engineering for their constant support and guidance throughout

the Project work.

Also, we would like to express our thanks to juniors Chetana, Suvarna, Preeti,

Manjula, Sangeeta, Megha, Annapurna for their support.

Last, but not the least, we would hereby acknowledge and thank our parents & our

friends who have been a source of inspiration and also instrumental in the successful

completion of the Project work

Aroja Mirashi.

Nagaraj Kashilkar.

Prashant Patil

Rajeshwari Shetty

SYNOPSIS

Soil stabilization is the process which involves enhancing the physical properties of the

soil in order to improve its strength, durability etc. by blending or mixing with additives. The

different types of method used for soil stabilization are: Soil stabilization with cement, Soil

stabilization with lime, Soil stabilization using bitumen, Chemical stabilization and a new

emerging technology of stabilization by Geo textiles and Geo synthetic fibers.

In this study, we are making use of bamboo fibers as geo synthetic material for

stabilization of soil. With the introduction of bamboo fibers to the soil the CBR values will

improve and thickness of pavement layer also gets reduced. It also reduces the intensity of stress

on subgrade. Bamboo fibers is such a geosynthetic material which is easily available, ecofriendly

and also cost effective. With the application of soil stabilization method in construction the

overall cost gets reduced when compared to the ordinary method of construction.

The Highway Research Board (HRB) classification of the soil strata like black cotton soil

and sedu soil is done using suitable sampling technique such as Core Cutter Method. To

determine the characteristics like Grading by Sieve Analysis, Atterbergs Limits i.e Liquid limit

using Cone Penetration Method and Casagrande Method, Plastic limit by rolling the sample to

3mm diameter thread, Shrinkage limit using Shrinkage apparatus, Optimum Moisture Content

and Maximum Dry Density using Standard Proctor Test and also California Bearing Ratio by

conducting CBR test.

The pavement thickness was designed using pavement design catalogues published by

IRC SP:20-2002. The estimation for the road is done by considering the item such as Jungle

Cutting, Earthwork Excavation for Roadway and Drains, compacting and grading etc., as per SR

2016-17, PW, P and IWT circle Dharwad and suggestion of specification for the mixture of

Bamboo fibers as Geo Synthetic material for stabilization using CBR value by CBR Test and

Shear strength using Unconfined Compression Test.

The different tests were conducted in order to determine the different characteristics and

properties of the black cotton soil and obtained with following results. The liquid limit of the soil

with addition of bamboo fibers was found to be decreasing when compared to liquid limit of soil

alone. The plastic limit of the soil decreased with the addition of fibers. The shrinkage limit of

the soil was increased with increase in fibres.

The MDD of the soil with addition of bamboo fibers by weight of soil is found to be

increasing upto 0.75% after that it decreases and the corresponding OMC is decreased with

addition of fibers. The shear strength of soil decreased substantially with addition of fibers. The

CBR value of the soil increased substantially.


properties of the sedu soil and obtained with following results. The liquid limit of the soil alone

was found to be 36.5%. The MDD of the soil with addition of 0.25%, 0.5% bamboo fibers by

weight of soil is found to be decreased by 0.83% and 0.75% , 1.0% bamboo fibers by weight of

soil is found to be increased by 0.11 % and 16.98% respectively and the corresponding OMC is

decreased by 15.62%, 21.87% and 33.75% respectively. The shear strength of the soil with the

addition of 0.25%, 0.5%, 0.75% and 1% of bamboo fibers is found to be decreased by 38.57%,

38.57%, 35.25% and 5.85%. The CBR value of the soil with addition of 0.25%, 0.5%, 0.75% and

1.0%, bamboo fibers by weight of soil is found to be increased.

From the limited laboratory study conducted we concluded that the 0.75% of bamboo

fiber can substantially improve the properties of Black cotton soil. And thus 0.75% of bamboo

fiber is the optimum fiber content for black cotton soil.

The design thickness of flexible pavement before stabilization is obtained as 450mm and

after stabilization is obtained as 250mm.The estimated cost for constructing flexible pavement

before stabilization of soil is obtained as 4018050 Rs /Km and after stabilization of soil is

obtained as 3721894Rs/Km. The estimated cost after stabilization is found to be decreased by

7.37%

CONTENTS

CHAPTER DESCRIPTION

PAGE

NO

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 General 1

1.2 Needs and Advantages of soil stabilization 2

1.3 Objectives of the project work 3

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 General 4

2.2 Stabilization of Black Cotton Soil using Lime and Geogrid 6

2.3 Geotextiles: An Overview 7

2.4

Improvement in CBR value of Black cotton soil by stabilizing it

with vitrified polish waste 7

2.5

Effects of Jute Fibers on Engineering Characteristics of Black Cotton

Soil 7

CHAPTER 3 EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS

3.1 General 8

3.2 Wet Sieve Analysis [IS 2720 (Part 4) – 1985] 8

3.3 Liquid Limit Test [IS 2720 (Part 5) – 1985] 9

3.4 Plastic Limit Test [IS 2720 (part 5) – 1985] 11

3.5 Shrinkage Limit Test [IS 2720 (part 20) : 1992] 12

3.6 Compaction Test [IS 2720 (part VII) – 1980] 13

3.7 Unconfined Compression Test [IS 2720 (Part 10) : 1991] 14

3.8 California Bearing Ratio (CBR) Test[IS 2720 (Part 16) – 1987] 15

CHAPTER 4 ANALYSIS OF DATA

4.1 General 17

4.2 Wet Sieve Analysis (Black Cotton Soil) 17

4.3 Liquid Limit Test 18

4.3.1 Cone Penetration Test 18

4.3.2 Casagrande Method 19

4.4 Plastic Limit test 20

4.5 Plasticity Index 20

4.6 Highway Research Board (HRB) classification of soil 20

4.7 Shrinkage Limit 22

4.8 Standard Proctor Test 23

4.9 Unconfined Compression Test 24

4.10. California Bearing Ratio (CBR) Test 25

4.10.1 Liquid Limit Test on soil added with fibers (Cone Penetration Test) 26

4.11 Plastic Limit Test on soil added with fibers 28

4.12 Shrinkage Limit test on soil added fibers 29

4.13 Standard Proctor Test on Black cotton soil with fibers 30

4.14 Unconfined Compression Test on Black cotton soil with fibers 34

4.15 California Bearing Ratio (CBR) on Black cotton soil with fibers 38

4.16 Wet Sieve Analysis (Sedu Soil) 43

4.17 Liquid Limit Test 44

4.17.1 Cone Penetration Test 44

4.18 Standard Proctor Test 45

4.19 Unconfined Compression Test 46

4.20. Caifornia Bearing Ratio (CBR) Test 47

4.21 Standard Proctor Test on Sedu soil with fibers 48

4.22 Unconfined Compression Test on Sedu soil with fibers 53

4.23 Caifornia Bearing Ratio (CBR) Test on Sedu soil with fibers 58

CHAPTER 5 DESIGN OF FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT

5.1 Design of flexible pavement before stabilization 61

5.2 Design of flexible pavement after stabilization 61

CHAPTER 6 COST ESTIMATE

6.1 General 62

6.2 Estimation of Quantities 62

6.3 Abstract of Cost 62

CHAPTER 7 RESULT AND DISCUSSION 72

CHAPTER 8 CONCLUSIONS 75

SCOPE OF STUDY 76

REFERENCE 77

LIST OF TABLES

Table No DESCRIPTION Page No

4.1 Sieve analysis of Black cotton soil 17

4.2 Liquid limit test on Black cotton soil using cone penetration method 18

4.3 Liquid limit test on Black cotton soil using Casagrande’s method 19

4.4 Plastic limit test on Black cotton soil 20

4.5 Shrinkage limit test on Black cotton soil 22

4.6 Standard Proctor Test on Black cotton soil 23

4.7 Unconfined Compression Test on Black cotton soil 24

4.8 California Bearing Ratio (CBR) Teston Black cotton soil 25

4.9

Liquid limit test on Black cotton soil + 0.25% Bamboo fibers using cone

penetration method 26

4.10



4.11



4.12

Liquid limit test on Black cotton soil + 1% Bamboo fibers using cone


4.13

Plastic limit test on Black cotton soil + 0.25%, +0.5%,+0.75% and +1%

Bamboo fibers 28

4.14

Shrinkage limit test on Black cotton soil + 0.25%, +0.5%,+0.75% and +1%

Bamboo fibers 29

4.15 Standard Proctor Test on Black cotton soil+ 0.25% Bamboo Fibers 30




4.19 Unconfined Compression Test on Black cotton soil+0.25% fiber 34




4.23 CBR Test on Black cotton soil+0.25% fiber 39




4.27 Sieve analysis of sedu soil 43

4.28 Liquid limit test on Sedu soil using cone penetration method 44

4.29 Standard Proctor Test on sedu soil 45

4.30 Unconfined Compression Test on sedu soil 46

4.31 California Bearing Ratio (CBR) Test on Sedu soil 47

4.32 Standard Proctor Test on Sedu soil+ 0.25% Bamboo Fibers 49




4.36 Unconfined Compression Test on Sedu soil+0.25% fiber 53




4.40 CBR Test on Sedu soil+0.25% fiber 58




6.1 Abstract of Cost 63

6.2 Bill of Quantities 66

6.3 Abstract for provision of new bituminous road 71

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure No DESCRIPTION Page No

4.1 Particle size distribution curve of Black cotton soil 18

4.2 Liquid Limit curve (Cone Penetration) 18

4.3 Liquid Limit curve (Casagrande’s method) 19

4.4 HRB Classification 21

4.5 Compaction Curve for Black cotton soil 23

4.6 UCS Curve for Black cotton soil 24

4.7 CBR Curve for Black cotton soil 25

4.8

Liquid Limit curve of Black cotton soil + 0.25% Bamboo fibers (Cone

Penetration) 26

4.9


Penetration) 27

4.10


Penetration) 27

4.11

Liquid Limit curve of Black cotton soil + 1% Bamboo fibers (Cone

Penetration) 28

4.12 Compaction Curve for Black cotton soil + 0.25% fibers 31




4.16 UCS Curve for Black cotton soil + 0.25% fibers 35



4.19 UCS Curve for Black cotton soil + 1.00% fibers 38

4.20 CBR Curve for Black cotton soil + 0.25% fibers 39




4.24 Particle size distribution curve of sedu soil 44

4.25 Liquid Limit curve (Cone Penetration) 45

4.26 Compaction Curve for Sedu soil 46

4.27 UCS Curve for sedu soil 47

4.28 CBR Curve for Sedu soil 48

4.29 Compaction Curve for Sedu soil + 0.25% fibers 49




4.33 UCS Curve for Sedu soil + 0.25% fibers 54




4.37 CBR Curve for Sedu soil + 0.25% fibers 58




5.1 CBR curve for flexible pavement 61

Soil Stabilization using Geosynthetic Material (Bamboo Fibers)

Page 1

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 General

A developing country like India which has a large geographical area and population,

demands vast infrastructure i.e. network of roads and buildings. Everywhere land is being

utilized for various structures from ordinary house to sky scrapers, bridges to airports and from

rural roads to expressways. Almost all the civil engineering structures are located on various

soil strata. Soil can be defined as a material consisting of rock particles, sand, silt, and clay. It

is formed by the gradual disintegration or decomposition of rocks due to natural processes that

includes disintegration of rock due to stresses arising from expansion or contraction with

temperature changes. Weathering and decomposition from chemical changes that occur when

water, oxygen and carbon dioxide gradually combine with minerals within the rock formation,

thus it is breaking down to sand, silt and clay. Transportation of soil materials by wind, water

and ice forms different soil formations such as those found in river deltas, sand dunes and

glacial deposits. Temperature, rainfall and drainage play important roles in the formation of

soils as in the different climatic regions. Under different drainage regimes, different soils will

be formed from the same original rock formation.

In India, soils are classified into six groups namely alluvial soil, marine soil, laterite and

lateritic deposits, expansive soils, sand dunes and boulder deposits. On an average 1 lakh sq.km

area is covered by lateritic soil deposits, 3 lakh sq.km area is covered by black cotton soil, and

5 lakh sq.km area is covered by sand dunes. Encountering land having soft soil for construction

leads to an attention towards adopting ground improvement techniques such as soil

stabilization.

Soil stabilization is the process which involves enhancing the physical properties of the

soil in order to improve its strength, durability etc. by blending or mixing it with additives. The

different types of methods used for soil stabilization are: Soil stabilization using cement, Soil

stabilization using lime, Soil stabilization using bitumen, Chemical stabilization and a new

emerging technology of stabilization that is stabilization of soil by using Geo textiles and Geo

synthetic fibers.


Page 2

Geo synthetics are synthetic products made from various types of polymers which may be

either Woven or Non-Woven. These are used to enhance the characteristics of soil and have

provided a practical way of constructing civil engineering structures economically.

In this study, we are making use of bamboo fibers as geo synthetic material for stabilization

of soil. With the introduction of bamboo fibers to the soil the CBR values may improve and

thickness of pavement layer also may get reduced. It may also reduce the intensity of stress on

subgrade. Bamboo fibers is such a geosynthetic material which is easily available, eco-friendly

and also cost effective. With the application of soil stabilization technique in construction

process the overall cost may get reduced when compared to the ordinary method of

construction.

1.2 Needs and Advantages of soil stabilization

Soil properties vary a great deal and construction of structures depends a lot on the bearing

capacity of the soil, hence, we need to stabilize the soil to improve the load bearing capacity.

The gradation of the soil is also a very important property to keep in mind while working with

soils. The soils may be well-graded which is desirable as it has less number of voids or

uniformly graded which though sounds stable but has more voids.

Advantages of soil stabilizations are as follows

• If during the construction phase weak soil strata is encountered, the usual practice

followed is replacing the weak soil with some other good quality soil. With the

application of soil stabilization technique, the properties of the locally available soil

(soil available at the site) can be enhanced and can be used effectively as the subgrade

material without replacing it.

• The cost of preparing the subgrade by replacing the weak soil with a good quality soil

is higher than that of preparing the subgrade by stabilizing the locally available soil

using different stabilization techniques.

• The strength giving parameters of the soil can be effectively increased to a required

amount by stabilization.

• It improves the strength of the soil, thus, increasing the soil bearing capacity.

• It is more economical both in terms of cost and energy to increase the bearing capacity

of the soil rather than going for deep foundation or raft foundation.


Page 3

• It is also used to provide more stability to the soil in slopes or other such places.

• Sometimes soil stabilization is also used to prevent soil erosion or formation of dust,

which is very useful especially in dry and arid weather.

• Stabilization is also done for soil water-proofing; this prevents water from entering into

the soil and hence helps the soil from losing its strength.

• It helps in reducing the soil volume change due to change in temperature or moisture

content.

However the soil stabilization has disadvantage like increase in cost of construction and

difficulty in mixing the fibers with soil.

1.3 Objectives of the project work

• To categorize the clayey soil namely black cotton soil and sedu soil as per Highway

Research Board classification.

• To analyze the characteristics of soil for different concentrations of Geo synthetic material

(Bamboo fibers) mixed with it.

• The design of flexible pavement without Geo synthetic material and with the optimum

concentration of the geo synthetic material mixed with the above soil as per IRC SP:20-

2002.

• Estimation and costing of the flexible pavement for unit length as per SR 2016-17, PW, P

and IWT circle Dharwad.


Page 4

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 General

Soil stabilization is a method of improving soil properties by blending and mixing other

materials. There are various soil stabilization methods and there are various materials used for

soil stabilization. The following are the few methods described in literature.

• Soil Stabilization with Cement:

The soil stabilized with cement is known as soil cement. The cementing action is

believed to be the result of chemical reactions of cement with siliceous soil during

hydration reaction. The important factors affecting the soil-cement are nature of soil

content, conditions of mixing, compaction, curing and admixtures used.

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%, andClays – 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(tonnes/m3), has to be stabilized with p

percentage of cement by weight on the basis of dry soil, cement mixture will

be((100XP)/(1+P)) and, the amount of cement required for soil stabilization is given by

Amount of cement required, in tonnes =

Lime, calcium chloride, sodium carbonate, sodium sulphate and fly ash are some of the

additives commonly used with cement for cement stabilization of soil.

• Soil Stabilization using Lime:

Slaked lime is very effective in treating heavy plastic clayey soils. Lime may be used

alone or in combination with cement, bitumen or fly ash. Sandy soils can also be

stabilized with these combinations. Lime has been mainly used for stabilizing the road

bases and the subgrade.

Lime changes the nature of the adsorbed layer and provides pozzolanic action. Plasticity

index of highly plastic soils are reduced by the addition of lime with soil. There is an

increase in the optimum water content and a decrease in the maximum compacted density

and he strength and durability of soil increases.


Page 5

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.

• Soil Stabilization with Bitumen:

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. 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.

• Chemical Stabilization of Soil:

Calcium chloride being hygroscopic and deliquescent is used as a water retentive additive

in mechanically stabilized soil bases and surfacing. The vapor pressure gets lowered,

surface tension increases and rate of evaporation decreases. The freezing point of pure

water gets lowered and it results in prevention or reduction of frost heave.

The depressing the electric double layer, the salt reduces the water pick up and thus the

loss of strength of fine grained soils. Calcium chloride acts as a soil flocculent and

facilitates compaction. Frequent application of calcium chloride may be necessary to

make up for the loss of chemical by leaching action. For the salt to be effective, the

relative humidity of the atmosphere should be above 30%.

Sodium chloride is the other chemical that can be used for this purpose with a stabilizing

action similar to that of calcium chloride.

Sodium silicate is yet another chemical used for this purpose in combination with other

chemicals such as calcium chloride, polymers, chrome lignin, alkyl chlorosilanes,

siliconites, amines and quarternary ammonium salts, sodium hexametaphosphate,

phosphoric acid combined with a wetting agent.

• Electrical Stabilization of Clayey Soils:


Page 6

Electrical stabilization of clayey soils is done by method known as electro-osmosis. This

is an expensive method of soil stabilization and is mainly used for drainage of cohesive

soils.

• Soil Stabilization by Grouting:

In this method, stabilizers are introduced by injection into the soil. This method is not

useful for clayey soils because of their low permeability. This is a costly method for soil

stabilization.

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

• Soil Stabilization by Geotextiles and Fabrics:

Geotextiles are porous fabrics made of synthetic materials such as polyethylene,

polyester, nylons and polyvinyl chloride. Woven, non-woven and grid form varieties of

geotextiles are available. Geotextiles have a high strength. When properly embedded in

soil, it contributes to its stability. It is used in the construction of unpaved roads over soft

soils.

Reinforcing the soil for stabilization by metallic strips into it and providing an anchor or

tie back to restrain a facing skin element.

2.2 Stabilization of Black Cotton Soil using Lime and Geogrid [2]

Sujitkawade et al., studied the effect of Lime and geogrid on the properties of the

soil.Their main objectives was to determine the properties of the soil before and after the

addition of lime and geogrid to it. The different tests they conducted were natural

moisture content determination, specific gravity, Atterbergs limits, Compaction test,

Compressive Strength test. After studying and conducting the entire above test, the

optimum lime content was found to be 15% and they concluded that there was a

substantial increase in the compressive strength of the soil.


Page 7

2.3 Geotextiles: An Overview [3]

AyushMithal and Dr. ShalinuShukla studied the effectiveness of use of geotextiles as

reinforcement material for stabilization of soil for different engineering works. Their

objectives were to study and introduce the properties of Geotextiles (such as Physical

property, Mechanical property, Hydraulic property, Endurance property and Durability

property), Fibers of Geotextiles, (they are natural and synthetic fibers), Types of

Geotextiles, functions of Geotextiles, application of geotextiles and impact of geotextiles

on environment. They have concluded that, due to the versatility of functions of

geotextiles they can be used in many important civil engineering works. The use of

geotextiles not only reduces construction cost but also reduce maintenance cost.

2.4 Improvement in CBR value of Black cotton soil by stabilizing it with vitrified

polish waste [4]

Vegulla . Raghudeep et al . , studied the effect of vitrified polish waste on the properties

of the soil. Their objective was to check the reduction in pavement thickness due to

increase in CBR because of addition of polish waste. They conducted the tests like Grain

size distribution, Atterbegs limits, Compaction tests and CBR tests on soil alone and with

addition of vitrified polish waste. They conducted that 10% addition of vitrified polish

waste resulted in substantial increase in CBR value and significant reduction in

pavements thickness was reported.

2.5 Effects of Jute Fibers on Engineering Characteristics of Black Cotton Soil [5]

HarshitaBairagi et al . , studied the effectiveness of jute fibers in controlling the swelling

behavior of black cotton soil measured in lab with and without use of randomly

reinforced jute fibers in the soil. Their objectives were to determine the CBR values and

unconfined compressive strength of the soil. The different tests conducted were sieve

analysis, Atterbergs limits, differential swelling test, proctor test, CBR test and

unconfined compression test. From the test they concluded that there was a substantial

increase in shrinkage limit, optimum moisture, dry density, CBR value and shear strength

of the soil and also the addition of jute fibers to black cotton soil decreased the swelling

behavior.


Page 8

CHAPTER 3

EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS

3.1 General

The Highway Research Board (HRB) classification of the soil strata like black cotton

soil and are done using suitable sampling technique such as Core Cutter Method. To

determine the characteristics like Grading by Sieve Analysis, Atterbergs Limits i.e Liquid

limit using Cone Penetration Method and Casagrande Method, Plastic limit by rolling the

sample to 3mm diameter thread, Shrinkage limit using Shrinkage apparatus, Optimum

Moisture Content and Maximum Dry Density using Standard Proctor Test and also

California Bearing Ratio by conThe determination of the properties such as liquid limit,

plastic limit, shrinkage limit, optimum moisture content, maximum dry density, CBR value

and shear strength for different concentration of Geo synthetic material with black cotton.

The pavement thickness design will be done using pavement design catalogues published by

IRC SP:20-2002. The estimation for the road is done by considering the item such as Jungle

Cutting, Earthwork Excavation for Roadway and Drains, compacting and grading etc., as per

SR 2014-15, PW, P and IWT circle Dharwad and suggestion of specification for the mixture

of Bamboo fibers as Geo Synthetic material for stabilization. ducting four days soaked CBR

Test and Shear using Unconfined Compression Test.


properties of the soil. The procedure of each of the tests have been explained below.

3.2 Wet Sieve Analysis [IS 2720 (Part 4) – 1985]

3.2.1 General

The grain size distribution is found by mechanical analysis. If the percentage fines are

more there is a need to conduct wet sieve analysis.

3.2.2 Apparatus

The different apparatus used for test were, sieves confirming to IS: 460(part I) - 1978,

4.75 mm, 2 mm, 425µ, 75µ. Oven to maintain temperature between 105˚C to 110˚C, trays or

buckets, brushes, mechanical sieve shaker.

3.2.3 Procedure

Suitable quantity of soil about 200 g passing through 4.75 mm sieve is taken in 75µ

sieve and is washed thoroughly using clean water until clear water appears and retained


Page 9

portion of soil is kept for oven drying. Retained sample is sieved using either mechanical

sieve shaker or manually sieved. Set of IS sieves as 4.75mm, 2.0mm 1.0mm, 600µ, 425 µ,

300µ, 212 µ, 150µ, 75µ were used. Sieve the soil in a mechanical sieve shaker for 10

minutes. Weigh the material retained on each sieve to 1g. Percentage of soil passing 75µ is

considered as combination of silt and clay, soil retained above 75µ is coarse sand, medium or

fine sand. Particles retained above 2.0 mm sieve are considered as gravel portion of soil

under investigation.

3.3 Liquid Limit Test [IS 2720 (Part 5) – 1985]

3.3.1 General

In order to study the liquid limit of soil Casagrande test was conducted. Liquid limit is

generally determined by the mechanical method using Casagrande’s apparatus or the

standard liquid limit test apparatus. As per this method the liquid limit is defined as the

moisture content at which 25 blows or drops in standard liquid limit apparatus will just close

a groove of standardized dimensions cut in the sample by the grooving tool by a specified

amount.

3.3.2 Apparatus

Standard liquid limit apparatus is a mechanical device, consisting of a cup and

arrangement for raising and dropping through a specified height of 10mm. There are two

standard grooving tools. Other apparatus required include spatula, evaporating dish, moisture

containers, balance of capacity 200 grams and sensitivity to 0.01 g and thermostatically

controlled drying oven to maintain 105˚C to 110˚C.

3.3.3 Procedure

About 150 g of dry soil sample passing 425 micron IS sieve is weighed and mixed

thoroughly with distilled water in the evaporating dish to form a uniform thick paste. In the

case of clayey soil, the paste should be kept in water tight container for the required period

(upto 24 hours) to ensure uniform distribution of moisture in the soil paste. The liquid limit

device is adjusted to have a free fall to cup exactly through 10 mm. The cup and the grooving

tools are cleaned well. The paste should have a fairly stiff consistency such that in the trial

run, 30-35 blows or drops of the cup are required to close the standard groove for a specified

length of 12 mm at the bottom. The soil paste is remixed and a portion of the paste is placed

in the cup of the apparatus above the lowest spot and squeezed down with the spatula to have


Page 10

a horizontal surface. The soil paste is trimmed by firm strokes of the spatula in such a way

that the maximum depth of soil sample in the cup is 10 mm. The soil sample in the cup is

divided along the diameter through the centre line of the cam followed by firm strokes of the

grooving tool so as to get a clean sharp groove. The curved grooving tool may be used for all

soils, whereas the V shaped grooving tool may be used only in clayey soils free from sand

particles or fibrous materials.

The crank is rotated at the rate of 2 revolutions per second (either by hand or

electrically depending upon whether it is hand operated or machine operated) so that the test

cup is lifted and dropped as specified. This is continued till the two halves of the soil cake

flows slowly under the blows and come into contact at the bottom of the groove for a length

of 12 mm and the number of blows given is recorded.

In the next trial, additional small quantity of water is added to the soil paste in the dish,

mixed well using a spatula and the required quantity of paste is placed in the test cup and the

operations are repeated to determine the number of blows required in this trial. As the water

content in the paste is increased, the number of blows required to close the groove decreases.

The process is repeated for 3 or more trials with slightly increased water contents each time,

noting the number of blows so that there are at least 4 to 6 uniformly distributed readings of

number of blows between 15 and 35.

Using Cone Penetration Method

3.3.4 General

Another method used for testing liquid limit of soil is cone penetration method. From

the cone penetration method, liquid limit of a soil is defined as the water content in the soil

sample when the depth of the penetration of the standard cone is 20 mm. The depths upto

which the standard metal cone penetrates into samples of soil paste prepared with different

water contents in 5 sec are measured.

3.3.5 Apparatus

Penetration cone of standard apex angle and weight, cylindrical cup, balance of

sensitive to 0.01g and drying oven maintained at 105˚C to 110˚C.

3.3.6 Procedure

About 150g of soil sample is mixed in a dish to form a paste and it is transferred into

cylindrical cup of the cone penetrometer apparatus and is levelled without entrapped air. The


Page 11

cone is adjusted to just touch the surface of the soil paste and is clamped and the initial

reading is noted. The clamp is released allowing the cone to penetrate into the soil paste

under its self-weight for 5 seconds and final penetration reading is noted. The cone

penetration value in mm, is the difference between the final and initial penetration readings

in a period of 5 seconds.The test is repeated for four to five times with different water

contents in the soil paste so that the penetration values are between 14 mm and 28 mm.

3.4 Plastic Limit Test [IS 2720 (part 5) – 1985]

3.4.1 General

In order to study the atterbergs limit it is important to conduct plastic limit test.

Plastic limit (PL) is the water content at which the soil rolled into thread of smallest diameter

possible starts crumbling and has a diameter of 3 mm

3.4.2 Apparatus

Evaporating dish of about 120 mm diameter, spatula, ground glass plate, moisture

containers, rod of 3 mm diameter, balance sensitivity to 0.01g, drying oven controlled at

temperature 105˚C to 110˚C.

3.4.3 Procedure

About 30 g of dry soil sample passing through 425 micron IS sieve is weighed out.

The soil is mixed thoroughly with distilled water in the evaporating dish till the soil paste is

plastic enough to be easily moulded with fingers. A small ball (of about 8 g weight) is

formed with the fingers and this is rolled between the fingers and the ground glass plate to a

thread throughout its length. The pressure just sufficient to roll into a thread of uniform

diameter should be used. The rate of rolling should be between 80 to 90 strokes per minute

counting a stroke as one complete motion of hand forward and back to the starting position

again. The rolling is done till the diameter of the thread is 3 mm. Then the soil is kneaded

together to a ball and rolled again to form thread. During this process of alternate rolling and

kneading there will be loss in water content in the soil sample and it gradually become stiffer.

The process of kneading and rolling into thread is continued until the thread starts crumbling

under the same pressure required for rolling, when the thread just reaches a diameter of 3 mm

and the soil sample can no longer be rolled into thread of smaller diameter.

If the crumbling start at diameter less than 3 mm, then water content is more than plastic

limit and if the diameter is greater while crumbling starts, the moisture content is lower. By


Page 12

trial, the thread which starts crumbling at 3 mm diameter under normal rolling pressure

should be obtained and the pieces of the crumbled thread of soil sample should be

immediately transferred to an air tight moisture container, lid tightly placed quickly and

weighed to find the wet weight of the thread. Any delay in transferring the sample of thread

to the container or closing with the lid tightly could result in considerable loss in the moisture

due to rapid evaporation. The container with the soil specimen is kept in the oven for about a

day and dry weight is found. The water content of the soil thread is determined which is

plastic limit of the soil. The above process is repeated three to four more times so as to get at

least three consistent values of plastic limit.

3.5 Shrinkage Limit Test [IS 2720 (part 20) : 1992]

3.4.1 General

Shrinkage limit (SL) in a remoulded soil sample is the maximum water content,

expressed as a percentage of oven dry weight, at which any further reduction in water

content will not cause decrease in volume or shrinkage of the soil sample.

3.4.2 Apparatus

Evaporating dish, shrinkage dish of diameter 45 mm and height 15 mm (both

internal), spatula, straight edge, glass cup 50-60mm in internal diameter and 25 mm height,

two glass plates of size 75 mm x 75 mm, one plane and the other having three metal prongs.

Other equipment needed are 25 ml graduated jar to read 0.2 ml, balance sensitive to 0.01 g,

mercury sufficient to fill the glass cup and a desiccator.

3.4.3 Procedure

The procedure for shrinkage limit test on remoulded soil samples is given here. About

30g of dry soil passing through 425 micron sieve is weighed out. The soil sample is placed in

the evaporating dish and thoroughly mixed with distilled water to make a paste that may be

readily worked into without entrapping air bubbles. The water content to form the paste may

be little more than liquid limit. The shrinkage dish is cleaned, dried and weighed. The inside

of the clean shrinkage dish is coated with a thin layer of Vaseline or heavy grease to prevent

adhesion of soil to the dish. The soil paste equal to roughly ⅓ the volume of shrinkage dish is

placed in the centre of the dish and the paste is allowed to flow to the edges by tapping the

dish on a firm surface cushioned with the few layers of blotting paper or similar material.

Then another equal quantity of paste is added and the dish tapped so that all the air bubbles


Page 13

entrapped come to the top and the paste gets compacted. The process is continued till the

paste fills the dish completely and starts over flowing. The excess paste is struck off level

with the top edge of the shrinkage dish by the straight edge and the outside of the dish is

wiped clean.

The dish with the soil sample is immediately weighed and the soil sample in the dish

is allowed to dry in air till the colour of the pat becomes lighter. The dish with the soil

sample is then kept in an oven at 105˚C to 110˚C to constant weight, cooled in a dessicator

and weighed to find the weight of the dish and dry pat of soil sample. The weight of the

clean, empty dish is determined so that the weight of dry pat of soil sample can be calculated.

The volume of shrinkage dish is found by pouring mercury until it over flows, removing the

excess by pressing the glass plate flush with surface of glass cup. The weight of mercury in

the shrinkage dish is found to an accuracy of 0.01 g. The volume of the shrinkage dish is

calculated by dividing the weight of mercury (13.59 g/ml). The volume of the shrinkage dish

may also be determined by pouring the mercury from the dish into the graduated jar, as an

additional check.

The volume of the dry pat of soil sample is determined by the method of

displacement of mercury. The glass cup is filled with mercury until it over flows and is

pressed flush with the top edge of glass cup using the glass plate having three prongs to

remove the excess mercury the cup full of mercury is placed in clean evaporating dish, the

dry pat of soil sample is floated in the mercury and it is carefully forced under by the glass

plate with prongs. The plate is firmly pressed flush with the surface of the cup. Care is taken

to ensure that no air is entrapped under the pat. The mercury displaced by the dry soil pat is

weighed to an accuracy of 0.1 g and by dividing this weight by the unit weight of mercury,

the volume of the over dry pat of soil sample, Vo is obtained.

3.6 Compaction Test [IS 2720 (part VII) – 1980]

3.6.1 General

The Standard Proctor Test is conducted to study the density of soil and its

corresponding optimum moisture content. Compaction of soil is a mechanical process by

which the soil particles are constrained to be packed more closely together by reducing the

air voids. Soil compaction causes decrease in air voids and consequently an increase in dry

density. This may result in increase in shearing strength.


Page 14

3.6.2 Apparatus

Mould of capacity 1000 cm3 with diameter of 100 mm and height 127.3 mm, metal

rammer of 50 mm diameter, 2.6 kg weight with a free drop of 310 mm, IS sieve 4.75 mm.

Other accessories like moisture containers, spatula, trowel, balances of capacity 10 kg and

200 g, drying oven, measuring cylinder.

3.6.3 Procedure

Take about 2.5 kg of air dried soil sample passing through 4.75 mm IS sieve. Add

required water to it and mix thoroughly and keep it for soaking in an air tight container for

about 16-20 hours. Find the mass of the empty and clean cylindrical mould along with the

base plate fixed to it. Attach the collar and apply grease to the inside of mould and collar.

Mix the matured soil thoroughly and fill the soil in 1000c.c mould.

For light compaction, compact the moist soil in three equal layers, each layer being given 25

blows from the rammer weighing 2.6 kg with a drop of 310 mm for 1000c.c mould by

distributing the blows evenly. Each layer of the compacted soil should be scratched with the

spatula before putting the soil for next layer. The amount of soil should be just sufficient to

fill the mould leaving about 5 mm to be struck off when the collar is removed.

Remove the collar, trim the excess soil using a straight edge, clean the mould from outside

and take the mass of the mould with base plate and compacted soil. Eject out the soil from

the mould and take a representative sample for water content determination. Repeat the

above procedure for 5 to 6 time with increasing water content.

3.7 Unconfined Compression Test [IS 2720 (Part 10) : 1991]

3.7.1 General

The shear strength of the soil is determined by conducting unconfined compression

test. Unconfined compression tests are carried out on cohesive soil specimen. The test may

be considered as a special case of the tri axial compression test when the lateral confining

pressure σ3 is equal to 0. Therefore, the cylindrical test specimen may be directly placed in a

compression testing machine and the compressive load applied.

3.7.2 Apparatus

Strain controlled compression testing machine with proving ring assembly to measure

load applied, dial gauge to measure deformation and moulds and tools to prepare test

specimen.


Page 15

3.7.3 Procedure

Take 150 g of dry soil sample passing through 425 micron IS sieve. Add optimum

water to it and mix thoroughly. The specimen of required size is obtained using sampling

tube. Measure the initial length and diameter of the specimen. Put the specimen on the

bottom plate and raise it to make contact with the upper plate. Adjust the compression dial

gauge and load dial gauge to zero. Compress the specimen to produce an axial strain rate of

0.5-0.2% per minute. Record both the dial gauge readings at suitable time intervals or at least

at every 1 mm deformation of the specimen. Compress the specimen till the cracks are

definitely developed or stress strain curve is well past its peak or 20% of vertical deformation

is reached whichever occurs earlier. Sketch the failure pattern and measure failure angle α

with horizontal, if possible, and if specimen is homogeneous and partially saturated.

3.8 California Bearing Ratio (CBR) Test[IS 2720 (Part 16) – 1987]

3.8.1 General

The CBR test denotes a measure of resistance to penetration of a soil or flexible

pavement material, of standard plunger under controlled test conditions.

3.8.2 Apparatus

CBR test equipment consists of a motorised loading machine fitted with the plunger

which penetrates at the specified rate into the test specimen placed in the CBR mould.

Hollow cylindrical mould of inner diameter 150 mm and height 175 mm , spacer disc,

compaction rammer of 4.89 kg with a drop of 450 mm, metal weights i.e., two discs

weighing 2.5 kg each. Other accessories like IS sieve 19 mm, tray, mixing bowl, straight

edge, filter paper, weight balance, measuring jar.

3.8.3 Procedure

Take 5 kg of dry soil sample passing through 19 mm IS sieve. Add optimum amount

of water to it and mix thoroughly. Apply grease to the inner surface of the CBR mould, place

the spacer disc at the bottom of the mould and keep a filter paper over it and fill the soil

sample into the mould in five layers with each layer being tamped for 55 blows using 4.89 kg

rammer with a free fall of 450 mm, to obtain the required density. Keep the surcharge weight

of 5 kg i.e., two discs weighing 2.5 kg each. Immerse this mould in clean water and allow it

for soaking for minimum four days. Remove the assembly and test it for CBR using

motorised loading machine.


Page 16

The mould with the specimen is clamped over the base plate and the same number of

surcharge weights are placed on the specimen centrally such that the penetration test could be

conducted. The mould with base plate is placed under the penetration plunger of the loading

machine. The penetration plunger is seated at the centre of the specimen and is brought in

contact with top surface of the soil sample by applying a seating load of 4 kg. The dial gauge

for measuring the penetration values of the plunger is fitted in position and the penetration

dial gauge is set to zero.

The dial gauge of the proving ring for load readings (or the load cell reading) is also set to

zero, not considering the seating load.

The load is applied through the penetration plunger of the motorised loading machine at a

uniform rate of 1.25 mm per minute. The load readings are recorded at penetration readings

of 0.0, 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, 2.5, 3, 4, 5, 7.5, 10 and 12.5 mm. In case the load readings start

decreasing before 12.5 mm penetration, the maximum load value and the corresponding

penetration value are recorded. After the final reading, the load is released and the mould is

removed from the loading machine. If the load values are given by the proving ring

assembly, calibration factor of the proving ring is noted so that the load dial values can be

converted into load in kg.


Page 17

CHAPTER 4

ANALYSIS OF DATA

4.1 General

Wet sieve analysis, Atterberg limits, Compaction tests, CBR and UCS tests were

conducted on Black cotton soil and sedu soil. The analysis has been discussed in the

following paragraphs.

4.2 Wet Sieve Analysis

Wet sieve analysis of Black cotton soil collected from Murkwad was carried out in

order to classify the soil. The following observations were made:

Sample taken [passing 4.75mm sieve before washing] = 200 g

Sample retained on 0.075mm sieve after washing and drying = 115 g

Sample passed through 0.075mm sieve after washing = 85 g, 42.5%

Sl. No. IS sieve

size

Particle

size (D)

mm

Mass of

soil

retained

(M1) g

% Mass of

retained

(M1/M) *100

Cumulative

% retained,

C

Cumulative

% fine

N=100-C

1 2.000 2.000 0 0.00 0.00 100.00

2 1.000 1.000 06 05.22 5.22 94.78

3 0.600 0.600 37 32.17 37.39 62.61

4 0.425 0.425 09 07.83 45.22 54.78

5 0.300 0.300 15 13.04 58.26 41.74

6 0.212 0.212 17 14.78 73.04 26.96

7 0.150 0.150 00 0.00 73.04 26.96

8 0.075 0.075 29 25.22 98.26 01.74

9 Pan 0 0 0.00 98.26 01.74

Table 4.1: Sieve analysis of Black cotton soil


Page 18

Figure 4.1: Particle size distribution curve of Black cotton soil

4.3 Liquid Limit Test

4.3.1 Cone Penetration Test

Sample Taken [passing through = 425µ]= 150 g

Trial No. Water Content, % Water Amount, ml Penetration, mm

1 50 75 16

2 55 82.5 17

3 60 90 20

4 65 97.5 35

5 70 105 44

Table 4.2: Liquid limit test on Black cotton soil using cone penetration method

Figure 4.2: Liquid Limit curve (Cone Penetration)


Page 19

Liquid limit as obtained from graph = 60%(corresponding to 20mm penetration)

4.3.3 Casagrande Method

Sample Taken [passing through = 425µ] = 150 g

Trial No. Water Content,

%

Water Amount, ml No. of Blows

1 50.00 75.0 108

2 54.33 81.5 25

3 55.00 82.5 20

4 60.00 90.0 4

Table 4.3: Liquid limit test on Black cotton soil using Casagrande’s method

Figure 4.3: Liquid Limit curve (Casagrande’s method)

Liquid limit as obtained from graph = 54.33%

(corresponding to 25 blows)


Page 20

4.4 Plastic Limit test

Trial Number 1

Container No. GT-19

Mass of empty container, M1 g 32.15

Mass of container + wet soil, M2 g 47.15

Mass of container +dry soil, M3 g 44.50

Mass of water = Mw= M2-M3 02.65

Mass of dry soil= Md= M3-M1 g 12.35

Plastic Limit,% Wp=(Mw/Md)*100 21.46

Table 4.4: Plastic limit test on Black cotton soil

4.5 Plasticity Index

Soil Sample - 1

Ip = WL – WP = 60 – 21.46 = 38.36%

4.6 Highway Research Board (HRB) classification of soil

Passing 0.074 mm Sieve = 42.5%

Liquid limit = 60%

Plasticity index = 38.36%

Group index (G.I) = 0.2a + 0.005ac + 0.01bd

a = 42.5 - 35 = 7.5

b= 42.5 - 15= 27.5

c= 60 – 40 = 20

d= 38.36 – 30 = 8.36

G.I.= 0.2*7.5 + 0.005* 7.5*20 + 0.01*27.5* 8.36= 4.549 5


Page 21

Figure 4.4: HRB Classification

As per Highway research board classification soil is classified asA-7-6 (5).

4.7 Shrinkage Limit

Sl.No a) Volume of wet soil pat (V) c.c.

1 Shrinkage dish No. 1

2 Fibre added, % 0

2 Mass of empty porcelain weighting dish, M1gms 166

3 mass of mercury weighing dish + mercury filling the

shrinkage dish, M2gms

460

4 Mass of mercury filling the dish M3= (M2-M1) gms 294


Page 22

5 Volume of wet soil pat, V=(M3/13.6) cc 21.618

b) Mass of wet dry soil pat and its water-content

6 Mass of empty shrinkage dish, M4gms 37

7 Mass of shrinkage dish + wet soil, M5gmas 71

8 Mass of shrinkage dish + dry soil, M6gmas 57

9 Mass of water Mw= (M5-M6) gms 14

10 Mass of dry soil, Md= (M6-M4) gms 20

11 water content, w=(Mw/Md) 0.700

c) Volume of dry soil pat (Vd) cc

12 mass of mercury weighing dish + mercury

displacement by dry soil pat, M7gms

333

13 Mass of mercury displaced by dry soil pat,

M8= (M7-M1) gms

167

14 Volume of dry soil pat, Vd=(M8/13.6) cc 12.279

d) Calculation

15 Shrinkage Limit(%) Ws= (w-{V-Vd/Md})*100 23.309

Table 4.5: Shrinkage limit test on Black cotton soil

4.8 Standard Proctor Test


Volume of Mold = 1000 cc

Trials 1 2 3 4

Mass of Empty mould, m1 (g) 3686.00 3686.00 3686.00 3690.00

Mass of mould + Compacted soil,m2(g) 5358.00 5390.00 5421.00 5430.00

Mass of Compacted soil, M= m2-m1(g) 1672.00 1704.00 1735.00 1740.00

Bulk density, Ƴb=(M/V)g/cc 1.67 1.70 1.74 1.74

Container number 2 3 4 GT-24


Page 23

Water added 0.22 0.24 0.26 0.28

Mass of container, M1(g) 29.50 22.50 16.00 29.50

Mass of container+ Wet soil,M2(g) 102.00 113.50 78.00 96.50

Mass of container +Dry soil,M3(g) 92.00 99.00 67.00 84.00

Mass of Water, Mw=M2-M3(g) 10.00 14.50 11.00 12.50

Mass of Dry soil, Md=M3-M1(g) 62.50 76.50 51.00 54.50

Water content, w=(Mw/Md)*100 0.160 0.190 0.216 0.229

Dry Density, Ƴd= Ƴb/(1+w) g/cc 1.370 1.374 1.377 1.359

Table 4.6: Standard Proctor Test on Black cotton soil

Figure 4.5: Compaction Curve for Black cotton soil

OMC as obtained from graph = 21.4%

MDD as obtained from graph = 1.378 g/cc

4.9 Unconfined Compression Test

In UCS test following observations made:

OMC = 21.40% h = 7.8cm d = 3.8cm h1 = 7.1cm d1= 3.8cm

load per div.= 3.417N = 58

Dial gauge

reading

Strain

(ϵ)

Proving

ring

reading

(Trial 1)

Proving

ring

reading

(Trial 2)

Avg

Proving

ring

reading

corrected

area

load

(N)

Axial

Stress

(Mpa)

0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.34 0.00 0.00


Page 24

50 0.06 2.6 0.4 1.5 11.34 5.13 0.45

100 0.13 4.2 1.4 2.8 11.34 9.57 0.84

150 0.19 4.4 3.4 3.9 11.34 13.33 1.18

200 0.26 4.0 4.4 4.2 11.34 14.35 1.27

250 0.32 4.0 4.3 4.15 11.34 14.18 1.25

Table 4.7: Unconfined Compression Test on Black cotton soil

Figure 4.6: UCS Curve for Black cotton soil

4.10 California Bearing Ratio (CBR) Test

The water added was equal to OMC = 21.40%

Penetration (mm) Trial 1 Division Load (kg)

0 0 0 0

0.5 0.8 4 6.4

1 1.8 9 14.4

1.5 2.4 12 19.2

2 2.8 14 22.4

2.5 3 15 24

3 3.2 16 25.6

4 3.6 18 28.8

5 4 20 32


Page 25

7.5 4.6 23 36.8

10 5 25 40

12.5 5.6 28 44.8

Table 4.8: California Bearing Ratio (CBR) Teston Black cotton soil

Figure 4.7: CBR Curve for Black cotton soil

Load as obtained from graph at 2.5 mm penetration = 25 kg

CBR of Specimen = (25/1370) *100=1.82%

Load as obtained from graph at 5 mm penetration = 34 kg

CBR of Specimen = (34/2055) *100=1.65%

4.10 Liquid Limit Test on soil added with fibers (Cone Penetration Test)


Trial No. Water Content,

%

Water Amount, ml Penetration, mm

1 38 57 17

2 40 60 22

3 43 64.5 30

Table 4.9: Liquid limit test on Black cotton soil + 0.25% Bamboo fibers using cone

penetration method


Page 26

Figure 4.8: Liquid Limit curve of Black cotton soil + 0.25% Bamboo fibers (Cone

Penetration)


(corresponding to 20mm penetration)


1 38 57 17

2 39.5 59.25 19

3 41 61.5 30


penetration method


Penetration)


Page 27




1 35 52.5 9

2 38 57 15

3 41 61.5 19

4 44 66 22


penetration method


Penetration)

Liquid limit as obtained from graph = 42%



1 37 55.5 15

2 40 60 17

3 43 64.5 21

Table 4.12: Liquid limit test on Black cotton soil + 1% Bamboo fibers using cone

penetration method


Page 28

Figure 4.11: Liquid Limit curve of Black cotton soil + 1% Bamboo fibers (Cone

Penetration)



4.11 Plastic Limit Test on soil added with fibers

Determination Number 1 2 3 4 5

Fiber added, % 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1

Container No. GT-19 GT-21 GT-20 GT-14 GT-22

Mass of empty container, M1 g 32.15 29.5 34.5 30 31.5

Mass of container + wet soil, M2 g 47.15 43.5 44.5 46 48

Mass of container +dry soil, M3 g 44.5 40.5 42 41.8 43.5

Mass of water = Mw= M2-M3 2.65 3 2.5 4.2 4.5

Mass of dry soil= Md= M3-M1 g 12.35 11 7.5 11.8 12

Plastic Limit,% Wp=(Mw/Md)*100 21.46 27.27 33.33 35.59 37.50

Liquid Limit WL 60.0 39.2 39.7 42.0 42.3

Plastic Limit,% Wp 21.46 27.27 33.33 35.59 37.50

Plasticity Index 38.54 11.93 6.37 6.41 4.8

Table 4.13: Plastic limit test on Black cotton soil + 0.25%, +0.5%,+0.75% and +1%

Bamboo fibers

4.12 Shrinkage Limit test on soil added fibers

Sl.No. a) Volume of wet soil pat (V) c.c.

1 Shrinkage dish No. 1 2 3 4 5


Page 29

2 Fibre added, % 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1

2 Mass of empty porcelain weighting dish,

M1 g 166 100.5 100.5 100.5 100.5

3 Mass of mercury weighing dish + mercury

filling the shrinkage dish, M2 g 460 390.5 388 398.5 393

4 Mass of mercury filling the dish M3= (M2-

M1) g 294 290 287.5 298 292.5

5 Volume of wet soil pat, V=(M3/13.6) cc 21.618 21.324 21.140 21.912 21.507

b) Mass of wet dry soil pat and its

water-content

6 Mass of empty shrinkage dish, M4 g 37 39.5 48 42 55.5

7 Mass of shrinkage dish + wet soil, M5 g 71 79.5 81.5 77 90

8 Mass of shrinkage dish + dry soil, M6 g 57 64.5 72.5 66.5 81.5

9 Mass of water Mw= (M5-M6) g 14 15 9 10.5 8.5

10 Mass of dry soil, Md= (M6-M4) g 20 25 24.5 24.5 26

11 water content, w=(Mw/Md) 0.700 0.600 0.367 0.429 0.327

c) Volume of dry soil pat (Vd) cc

12 Mass of mercury weighing dish + mercury

displacement by dry soil pat, M7 g 333 242.5 318.5 282.5 298

13 Mass of mercury displaced by dry soil pat,

M8= (M7-M1) g 167 142 218 182 197.5

14 Volume of dry soil pat, Vd=(M8/13.6) cc 12.279 10.441 16.029 13.382 14.522

d) Calculation

15 Shrinkage Limit(%) Ws= (w-{V-

Vd/Md})*100 23.309 16.471 15.876 8.043 5.826

Table 4.14: Shrinkage limit test on Black cotton soil + 0.25%, +0.5%,+0.75% and +1%

Bamboo fibers

4.13Standard Proctor Test on Black cotton soil with fibers



Page 30


Trials 1 2 3 4

Mass of Empty mould, m1 (g) 3686 3686 3686 3686

Mass of mould+ Compacted soil m2(g) 5276 5326 5369 5403

Mass of Compacted soil, M = m2-m1(g) 1590 1640 1683 1717


Container number GT-1 GT-16 GT-10 GT-3

Water added 0.18 0.2 0.22 0.24

Mass of container, M1(g) 28 29 33 30

Mass of container+ Wet soil M2(g) 131 119.5 125.5 118.5

Mass of Wet soil 103 90.5 92.5 88.5

Mass of container +Dry soil M3(g) 118 106 110 102

Mass of Water, Mw= M2- M3(g) 13 13.5 15.5 16.5

Mass of Dry soil,Md = M3- M1(g) 90 77 77 72

Water content,w=(Mw/Md)*100 0.144 0.175 0.201 0.229

Dry Density,Ƴd= Ƴb/(1+w) g/cc 1.389 1.395 1.401 1.397

Table 4.15: Standard Proctor Test on Black cotton soil+ 0.25% Bamboo Fibers

Figure 4.12: Compaction Curve for Black cotton soil + 0.25% fibers



Trials 1 2 3 4



Page 31

Mass of mould+Compacted soil, m2(g) 6000 6131 6150 6189

Mass of Compacted soil,M= m2-m1(g) 1554 1685 1704 1743


Container number 1 2 3 4

Water added 0.18 0.2 0.22 0.24

Mass of container, M1(g) 22.5 29.5 22.5 16

Mass of container+ Wet soil,M2 (g) 178 178.5 172 110

Mass of Wet soil 155.5 149 149.5 94

Mass of container+Dry soil, M3(g) 156 155 147 92

Mass of Water,Mw= M2-M3(g) 22 23.5 25 18

Mass of Dry soil,Md= M3-M1(g) 133.5 125.5 124.5 76






MDDas obtained from graph = 1.422 g/cc

Trials 1 2 3 4



Page 32

Mass of mould + Compacted soil, m2(g) 6170 6282 6221 6214

Mass of Compacted soil, M= m2-m1(g) 1724 1836 1775 1768



Water added 0.18 0.2 0.22 0.24

Mass of container, M(g) 22.5 29.5 22.5 16

Mass of container+ Wet soil M2(g) 182.5 181.5 182 111.5

Mass of Wet soil 160 152 159.5 95.5

Mass of container+Dry soil M3(g) 161 159 155 94

Mass of Water, Mw=M2-M3(g) 21.5 22.5 27 17.5

Mass of Dry soil, Md=M3-M1(g) 138.5 129.5 132.5 78

Water content, w=(Mw/Md) 0.155 0.174 0.204 0.224






Trials 1 2 3 4


Mass of mould+Compacted soil, m2(g) 5892 6003 6004 6087


Page 33

Mass of Compacted soil, M = m2-m1(g) 1498 1609 1610 1693



Water added 0.18 0.2 0.22 0.24

Mass of container, M1(g) 22.5 29.5 22.5 16

Mass of container + Wet soil, M2(g) 157 168 187 128

Mass of Wet soil 134.5 138.5 164.5 112

Mass of container + Dry soil, M3(g) 140.5 148 159 104

Mass of Water, Mw = M2-M3(g) 16.5 20 28 24

Mass of Dry soil, Md = M3-M1(g) 118 118.5 136.5 91.5

Water content, w = (Mw/Md) 0.140 0.169 0.205 0.262






4.14 Unconfined Compression Test on Black cotton soil with fibers

Black cotton soil added with fibers 0.25% by weight the following observations were

made:

Weight of sample = 250g


Page 34

OMC = 20.1% h = 7.8cm d = 3.8cm h1= 7.1cm d1= 3.9cm f = 55°

load per div.= 3.417N

Dial gauge

reading Strain(ϵ)

Proving

ring

reading

Proving

ring

reading

Avg. Proving

ring reading

corrected

area load (N)

Axial

Stress

(Mpa)

0 0.000 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.341 0.000 0.000

50 0.064 1.2 1.2 1.2 11.341 4.100 0.362

100 0.128 2.0 2.0 2.0 11.341 6.834 0.603

150 0.192 2.4 2.6 2.5 11.341 8.543 0.753

200 0.256 3.0 3.0 3.0 11.341 10.251 0.904

250 0.321 3.2 3.6 3.4 11.341 11.618 1.024

300 0.385 4.0 3.8 3.9 11.341 13.326 1.175

350 0.449 4.4 4.0 4.2 11.341 14.351 1.265

400 0.513 4.8 4.4 4.6 11.341 15.718 1.386

450 0.577 5.2 4.6 4.9 11.341 16.743 1.476

500 0.641 5.4 4.6 5.0 11.341 17.085 1.506

550 0.705 5.8 4.8 5.3 11.341 18.110 1.597

600 0.769 6.2 5.0 5.6 11.341 19.135 1.687

650 0.833 6.0 5.0 5.5 11.341 18.794 1.657

Table 4.19: Unconfined Compression Test on Black cotton soil+0.25% fiber

Figure 4.16: UCS Curve for Black cotton soil + 0.25% fibers


Page 35


made: weight of sample = 250 g

OMC = 19% h = 7.8cm d = 3.8cm h1 = 7.2cm d1 = 3.9cm f = 50°

load per div. = 3.417 N

Dial

gauge

reading

Strain(ϵ)

Proving

ring

reading

Proving

ring

reading

Avg.

Proving ring

reading

corrected

area load (N)

Axial

Stress

(Mpa)

0 0.000 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.341 0.000 0.000

50 0.064 1.2 1.0 1.1 11.341 3.759 0.331

100 0.128 2.4 2.0 2.2 11.341 7.517 0.663

150 0.192 3.2 2.4 2.8 11.341 9.568 0.844

200 0.256 3.8 3.2 3.5 11.341 11.960 1.055

250 0.321 4.4 3.8 4.1 11.341 14.010 1.235

300 0.385 4.8 4.0 4.4 11.341 15.035 1.326

350 0.449 5.0 4.4 4.7 11.341 16.060 1.416

400 0.513 5.4 4.8 5.1 11.341 17.427 1.537

450 0.577 5.6 5.2 5.4 11.341 18.452 1.627

500 0.641 5.8 5.6 5.7 11.341 19.477 1.717

550 0.705 6.0. 5.8 5.9 11.341 20.160 1.778

600 0.769 6.2 6.0 6.1 11.341 20.844 1.838

650 0.833 6.2 6.0 6.1 11.341 20.844 1.838




Page 36


made: weight of sample = 250 g

OMC = 17.2% h = 7.9cm d = 3.8cm h1 = 7.5cm d1 = 3.9cm f = 58°

load per div.=3.417N

Dial

gauge

reading

Strain(ϵ)

Proving

ring

reading

Proving

ring

reading

Avg. Proving

ring reading corrected area

load

(N)

Axial

Stress

(Mpa)

0 0.000 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.34114948 0.000 0.000

50 0.063 1.6 1.5 1.55 11.34114948 5.296 0.467

100 0.127 3.0 2.2 2.60 11.34114948 8.884 0.783

150 0.190 3.6 2.6 3.10 11.34114948 10.593 0.934

200 0.253 4.0 3.0 3.50 11.34114948 11.960 1.055

250 0.316 4.6 3.4 4.00 11.34114948 13.668 1.205

300 0.380 5.0 4.2 4.60 11.34114948 15.718 1.386

350 0.443 5.4 4.6 5.00 11.34114948 17.085 1.506

400 0.506 5.8 4.8 5.30 11.34114948 18.110 1.597

450 0.570 6.0 5.2 5.60 11.34114948 19.135 1.687

500 0.633 6.0 5.6 5.80 11.34114948 19.819 1.747

550 0.696 6.2 6.0 6.1 11.34114948 20.844 1.838

600 0.759 6.2 6.2 6.2 11.34114948 21.185 1.868

650 0.823 6.2 6.2 6.2 11.34114948 21.185 1.868




Page 37


made:

weight of sample = 250 g

OMC = 16.9% h = 7.9cm d = 3.8cm h1 = 7.3cm d1 = 3.9cm f=58°

load per div.=3.417N

Dial

gauge

reading

Strain(ϵ)

Proving

ring

reading

Proving

ring

reading

Avg.

Proving ring

reading

corrected

area load (N)

Axial

Stress

(Mpa)

0 0.000 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.341 0.000 0.000

50 0.063 1.4 2.0 1.7 11.341 5.809 0.512

100 0.127 2.0 3.0 2.5 11.341 8.543 0.753

150 0.190 2.8 3.8 3.3 11.341 11.276 0.994

200 0.253 3.4 4.6 4.0 11.341 13.668 1.205

250 0.316 3.8 5.0 4.4 11.341 15.035 1.326

300 0.380 4.2 5.4 4.8 11.341 16.402 1.446

350 0.443 4.6 6.0 5.3 11.341 18.110 1.597

400 0.506 5.0 6.2 5.6 11.341 19.135 1.687

450 0.570 5.4 6.4 5.9 11.341 20.160 1.778

500 0.633 5.6 6.8 6.2 11.341 21.185 1.868

550 0.696 5.8 7.0 6.4 11.341 21.869 1.928

600 0.759 6.0 7.2 6.6 11.341 22.552 1.989

650 0.823 6.0 7.2 6.6 11.341 22.552 1.989


Figure 4.19: UCS Curve for Black cotton soil + 1.00% fibers


Page 38

4.15 California Bearing Ratio (CBR) on Black cotton soil with fibers


made:

OMC = 20.1%

Penetraton (mm) Trial 5 Division Load (kg)

0 0 0 0

0.5 2 10 16

1 3.6 18 28.8

1.5 4.6 23 36.8

2 5.4 27 43.2

2.5 6 30 48

3 6.4 32 51.2

4 7.2 36 57.6

5 7.8 39 62.4

7.5 8.8 44 70.4

10 9.4 47 75.2

12.5 10 50 80

Table 4.23: CBR Test on Black cotton soil+0.25% fiber

Figure 4.20: CBR Curve for Black cotton soil + 0.25% fibers


CBR of Specimen = (48/1370) *100=3.49%


Page 39

Load as obtained from graph at 5 mm penetration = 62.4 kg

CBR of Specimen = (62.4/2055) *100=3.02%


made:

OMC = 19.00%


0 0 0 0

0.5 2 10 16

1 3.8 19 30.4

1.5 5 25 40

2 6 30 48

2.5 6.8 34 54.4

3 7.6 38 60.8

4 8.8 44 70.4

5 9.8 49 78.4

7.5 11.4 57 91.2

10 12.4 62 99.2

12.5 13.4 67 107.2



Load as obtained from graph at 2.5 mm penetration = 54.4 kg

CBR of Specimen = (54.4/1370) *100=3.96%


Page 40


CBR of Specimen = (78.4/2055) *100=3.80%


made:

OMC = 17.20%


0 0 0 0

0.5 4.2 21 33.6

1 6.2 31 49.6

1.5 7.6 38 60.8

2 8.6 43 68.8

2.5 9.8 49 78.4

3 10.6 53 84.8

4 12 60 96

5 13.2 66 105.6

7.5 15.4 77 123.2

10 17.2 86 137.6

12.5 18.8 94 150.4




CBR of Specimen = (78.4/1370) *100=5.41%



Page 41

CBR of Specimen = (105.6/2055) *100=5.12%


made:

OMC = 16.9%


0 0 0 0

0.5 2 10 16

1 3.4 17 27.2

1.5 4.6 23 36.8

2 5.8 29 46.4

2.5 6.8 34 54.4

3 7.6 38 60.8

4 9 45 72

5 10 50 80

7.5 12.2 61 97.6

10 14 70 112

12.5 15.6 78 124.8




CBR of Specimen = (54.4/1370) *100=3.96%


CBR of Specimen = (80/2055) *100=3.88%


Page 42

4.16 Wet Sieve Analysis

Wet sieve analysis of Sedu soil collected from Khanapur was carried out in order to classify

the soil. The following observations were made:


Sample retained on 0.075mm sieve after washing and drying = 142.5 g

Sample passed through 0.075mm sieve after washing = 57.5 g, 28.75%

Sl. No. IS sieve

size

Partical

size (D)

mm

Mass of

soil

retained

(M1) gms

% Mass of

reained

(M1/M)*100

Cumulative %

retained,C

Cumulative %

fine N=100-C

1 2 2 4.50 3.16 3.16 96.84

2 1 1 23.00 16.14 19.30 80.70

3 0.6 0.6 27.00 18.95 38.25 61.75

4 0.425 0.425 23.50 16.49 54.74 45.26

5 0.3 0.3 17.00 11.93 66.67 33.33

6 0.212 0.212 24.00 16.84 83.51 16.49

7 0.15 0.15 9.00 6.32 89.82 10.18

8 0.075 0.075 14.50 10.18 100.00 0.00

9 Pan 0 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00

Table 4.27: Sieve analysis of sedu soil

Figure 4.24: Particle size distribution curve of sedu soil


Page 43

4.17 Liquid Limit Test

4.17.1 Cone Penetration Test


Trial No. Water Conent,% Water Amount,ml Penetration, mm

1 30 45 14

2 32 48 16

3 34 51 17

4 36 54 19

5 40 60 48

Table 4.28: Liquid limit test on Sedu soil using cone penetration method

Figure 4.25: Liquid Limit curve (Cone Penetration)

Liquid limit as obtained from graph = 36.5%(corresponding to 20mm penetration)




Trials 1 2 3 4





Page 44

Bulk density, Ƴb=(M/V) g/cc 2.01 2.055 2.09 2.1


Water added 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.2

Mass of container, M1(g) 21 22 18.5 20

Mass of container+ Wet soil, M2(g) 120 120 120 120

Mass of container +Dry soil, M3(g) 109 107.5 106 105

Mass of Water, Mw=M2-M3(g) 11 12.5 14 15

Mass of Dry soil, Md=M3-M1(g) 88 85.5 87.5 85



Table 4.29: Standard Proctor Test on sedu soil

Figure 4.26: Compaction Curve for Sedu soil




w c =16% h= 7.8cm d= 3.8cm h1= 6.9cm d1=4.1cm

load per div.= 3.417 kN f=65°


Page 45

Dial gauge

reading

Strain(ϵ) Proving ring

reading

corrected area load (N) Axial Stress

(Mpa)

0 0.000 0 11.341 0.000 0.000

50 0.064 1 11.341 3.417 0.301

100 0.128 2 11.341 6.834 0.603

150 0.192 2.6 11.341 8.884 0.783

200 0.256 3 11.341 10.251 0.904

250 0.321 3.2 11.341 10.934 0.964

300 0.385 3.4 11.341 11.618 1.024

350 0.449 3.4 11.341 11.618 1.024

400 0.513 3.2 11.341 10.934 0.964

Table 4.30: Unconfined Compression Test on sedu soil

Figure 4.27: UCS Curve for sedu soil

4.20 Caifornia Bearing Ratio (CBR) Test

OMC = 16%



Page 46

0 0 0 0

0.5 1 5 8

1 1.8 9 14.4

1.5 2.4 12 19.2

2 3 15 24

2.5 4 20 32

3 4.6 23 36.8

4 6.4 32 51.2

5 8.2 41 65.6

7.5 12.4 62 99.2

10 16.2 81 129.6

12.5 20 100 160

Table 4.31: California Bearing Ratio (CBR) Test on Sedu soil

Figure 4.28: CBR Curve for Sedu soil


CBR of Specimen = (53/1370) *100=3.87%


CBR of Specimen = (88/2055) *100=4.28%


Page 47

4.21 Standard Proctor Test on Sedu soil with fibers



Sedu soil added with fibers 0.25% by weight the following observations were made:

Trials 1 2 3 4






Water added 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18

Mass of container, M1(g) 30.5 30 33 16


Mass of container +Dry soil, M3(g) 104.5 88 86 104


Mass of Dry soil, Md=M3-M1(g) 94.5 77.5 75 89



Table 4.32: Standard Proctor Test on Sedu soil+ 0.25% Bamboo Fibers


Page 48

Figure 4.29: Compaction Curve for Sedu soil + 0.25% fibers


MDD as obtained from graph = 1.788g/cc


Trials 1 2 3 4






Water added 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18



Mass of container +Dry soil, M3(g) 125 107.5 108 105


Mass of Dry soil, Md=M3-M1(g) 94.5 77.5 75 89



Page 49







Trials 1 2 3 4




Bulk density, Ƴb=(M/V) g/cc 1.99 2 2.03 1.794


Water added 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18



Mass of container +Dry soil, M3(g) 119 108 105 105

Mass of Water, Mw=M2-M3(g) 10 9 9 12


Page 50

Mass of Dry soil, Md=M3-M1(g) 88.5 78 72 89








Trials 1 2 3 4

Mass of Empty mould,m1 (gms) 4420 3170 4420 4420

Mass of mould+Compacted soil,m2(gms) 6270 5500 6380 6395

Mass of Compacted soil,M= m2-m1(gms) 1850 2330 1960 1975



Water added 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16

Mass of container, M1(gms) 33 30 30 32

Mass of container+ Wet soil,M2(gms) 94 150.5 98.5 97


Page 51

Mass of Wet soil 61 120.5 68.5 65

Mass of container+Dry soil,M3(gms) 89 139 91 89

Mass of Water,Mw=M2-M3(gms) 5 11.5 7.5 8

Mass of Dry soil,Md=M3-M1(gms) 56 109 61 57







4.22 Unconfined Compression Test on Sedu soil with fibers


weight of sample =250gms

w c=13.7% h=7.9cm d=3.9cm h1=7.2cm d1=4cm

load per div.=3.417kN f=70°


Page 52

Dial

gauge

reading

Strain(ϵ) Proving

ring

reading

corrected area load (N) Axial Stress (Mpa)

0 0.000 0 11.946 0.000 0.000

50 0.063 0.2 11.946 0.683 0.057

100 0.127 1.4 11.946 4.784 0.400

150 0.190 2.2 11.946 7.517 0.629

200 0.253 2.2 11.946 7.517 0.629

250 0.316 2 11.946 6.834 0.572

Table 4.36: Unconfined Compression Test on Sedu soil+0.25% fiber

Figure 4.33: UCS Curve for Sedu soil + 0.25% fibers


weight of sample =250gms

w c= 13.5% h= 7.9cm d= 3.9cm h1=7.2cm

d1= 4cm load per div.=3.417 kN f=65°


Page 53

Dial gauge

reading


reading


(Mpa)

0 0.000 0 11.946 0.000 0.000

50 0.063 0.2 11.946 0.683 0.057

100 0.127 0.6 11.946 2.050 0.172

150 0.190 1 11.946 3.417 0.286

200 0.253 1.4 11.946 4.784 0.400

250 0.316 1.8 11.946 6.151 0.515

300 0.380 2.2 11.946 7.517 0.629

350 0.443 2 11.946 6.834 0.572




weight of sample = 250gms


Page 54

w c=12.2% h=7.8cm d=3.8cm h1=7.6 cm

d1=3.5 cm load per div.=3.417kN f= 65°

Dial gauge

reading


reading


(Mpa)

0 0.000 0 11.341 0.000 0.000

50 0.064 0.2 11.341 0.683 0.060

100 0.128 0.6 11.341 2.050 0.181

150 0.192 1 11.341 3.417 0.301

200 0.256 1.4 11.341 4.784 0.422

250 0.321 2 11.341 6.834 0.603

300 0.385 2.2 11.341 7.517 0.663

350 0.449 2.2 11.341 7.517 0.663




Page 55


weight of sample = 250gms

w c=10.6% h=7.8cm d=3.8cm h1=7.7cm

d1=3.9 cm load per div.=3.417kN f= 65°

Dial gauge

reading


reading


(Mpa)

0 0.000 0 11.341 0.000 0.000

50 0.064 0.6 11.341 2.050 0.181

100 0.128 2 11.341 6.834 0.603

150 0.192 3.2 11.341 10.934 0.964

200 0.256 3.2 11.341 10.934 0.964

250 0.321 3 11.341 10.251 0.904




Page 56

4.23 Caifornia Bearing Ratio (CBR) Test on Sedu soil with fibers


OMC = 13.7%


0 0 0 0

0.5 2.2 11 17.6

1 4.6 23 36.8

1.5 7 35 56

2 9.4 47 75.2

2.5 14.2 71 113.6

3 18.6 93 148.8

4 30.2 151 241.6

5 42.4 212 339.2

7.5 70.6 353 564.8

10 85.2 426 681.6

12.5 102.6 513 820.8

Table 4.40: CBR Test on Sedu soil+0.25% fiber

Figure 4.37: CBR Curve for Sedu soil + 0.25% fibers


Page 57


CBR of Specimen = (315/1370) *100=22.99%


CBR of Specimen = (570/2055) *100=27.74%


OMC = 14.7%



0 0 0 0

0.5 2.8 14 22.4

1 4.8 24 38.4

1.5 8.2 41 65.6

2 11.8 59 94.4

2.5 16.6 83 132.8

3 22.2 111 177.6

4 34.1 170.5 272.8

5 46.8 234 374.4

7.5 79.6 398 636.8

10 90.2 451 721.6

12.5 110.4 552 883.2


Page 58



CBR of Specimen = (330/1370) *100=24.09%


CBR of Specimen = (600/2055) *100=29.20%


OMC = 12.5%


0 0 0 0

0.5 8.8 44 70.4

1 18.8 94 150.4

1.5 27.4 137 219.2

2 34.6 173 276.8

2.5 40.2 201 321.6

3 45.8 229 366.4

4 56.2 281 449.6

5 66 330 528

7.5 86.2 431 689.6


Page 59

10 105.8 529 846.4

12.5 126.8 634 1014.4




CBR of Specimen = (380/1370) *100=27.74%


CBR of Specimen = (570/2055) *100=27.74%


OMC = 10.6%


0 0 0 0

0.5 7.6 38 60.8

1 18.4 92 147.2

1.5 31.6 158 252.8

2 42.2 211 337.6


Page 60




CBR of Specimen = (32/1370) *100=43.07%


CBR of Specimen = (920/2055) *100=44.77%

2.5 53.6 268 428.8

3 62.8 314 502.4

4 82.6 413 660.8

5 99.6 498 796.8

7.5 135.8 679 1086.4

10 169.8 849 1358.4

12.5 202.4 1012 1619.2


Page 61

CHAPTER 5

DESIGN OF FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT

The flexible pavement is designed according to SP:20 – 2002.

5.1.To design pavement constructed on soil which is not stabilized

• The commercial vehicles per day = 0 to 15 vehicles/day

• The CBR value of soil as tested = 1.82%

• From the above graph, considering curve A the thickness of pavement = 450mm.

o Thickness of Sub Base material = 250mm.

o Thickness of Base Coarse material = 160mm.

o Thickness of Surface Coarse material = 40mm.

5.2.To design pavement to be constructed on stabilized soil

• The commercial vehicles per day = 0 to 15 vehicles/day

• The CBR value of soil as tested = 5.41%

• From the above graph, considering curve A the thickness of pavement = 250mm.

o Thickness of Sub Base material = 100mm.

o Thickness of Base Coarse material = 120mm.

o Thickness of Surface Coarse material = 30mm.


Page 62

CHAPTER 6

COST ESTIMATE

6.1 General

Unit rates of different work items have been derived on the basis of available Schedule of Rates (SOR) of Dharwad of the year

2014-2015 and area weight age of 5% is provided for Havagi near Haliyal. All broad work items have been identified.

Cost Estimate of project has been arrived on the following basis

• Selection of Items of work

• Estimation of item wise quantities

• Analysis of Rates

6.2 Estimation of Quantities

All the relevant road and structure work items are identified as per survey, design and drawings. Following major item of

works considered are given below:

• Site clearance, dismantling and earthwork.

• Bituminous pavement works (GSB, WMM, Bituminous layers).

• Bituminous pavement works also include application of Prime and Tack coats.

Quantity of work is derived from the proposed cross section drawings drawn according to the design details.

The detailed calculation of Bill of Quantities is given in Table 7.1 and summarized quantities in Table 7.2.

6.3 Abstract of Cost

Unit rates are derived by using the “Schedule of Rates for Public Works Dept, Dharwad of the year 2014-2015”. The abstract

of Cost estimate is given in the Table 6.1


Page 63

Description Unit No

Length,

m

Width,

m

Depth,

m

Estimated

quantity

Unit

Rate

(Rupees)

Amount

(Rupees)

1

Clearing and grubbing road land including

uprooting rank vegetation, grass, bushes,

shrubs, saplings and trees girth up to 300

mm, removal of stumps of trees cut earlier

and disposal of unserviceable materials and

stacking of serviceable material labour

charges complete as per Specifications.

MORD

sqm 1 1000 3.75 3750 5.45 20437.5

2

Excavation for roadwork in soil with

hydraulic excavator of 0.9 cum bucket

capacity including cutting and loading in

tippers, trimming bottom and side slopes, in

accordance with requirements of lines,

grades and cross sections, and transporting

all usable material to the embankment

location within all lifts and lead as directed

by engineer. MORD

cum 1 1000 3.75 0.5 1875 42.00

78750

Item No Description Unit No Length,

m

Width,

m

Depth,

m

Estimated

quantity

Unit

Rate

(Rupees)

Amount

(Rupees)

3

Loosening the ground upto a level of

500mm below the Subgrade level, watered,

graded and compacted in layers to meet

requirement of table 300-2 complete as per

specifications. MORD

cum 1 1000 3.75 0.5 1875 48.50 90937.5


Page 64

4

Construction of granular sub-base(GSB) by

providing close graded Material, mixing in

a mechanical mix plant at OMC, carriage of

mixed Material to work site, spreading in

uniform layers with motor grader on

prepared surface and compacting with

vibratory power roller to achieve the desired

density, complete as per MORD

cum 1 1000 3.75 0.250 937.5 1288 1207500


m

Width,

m

Depth,

m

Estimated

quantity

Unit

Rate

(Rupees)

Amount

(Rupees)

5

Providing, laying, spreading and

compacting graded stone aggregate to wet

mix macadam (WMM) specification

including premixing the Material with water

at OMC in mechanical mix plant carriage of

mixed Material by tipper to site, laying in

uniform layers with paver in sub- base /

base course on well prepared surface and

compacting with vibratory roller to achieve

the desired density as per MORD

cum 1 1000 3.75 0.160 600 1332 799200

6

Providing and applying primer coat with

slow setting bitumen emulsion at the rate of

0.60 kg/sqm on WMM using mechanical

means complete as per specifications.

MORD

sqm 1 1000 3.75 3750 32.6 122250


Page 65

7

Providing and applying tack coat using VG-

10 over granular base at the rate of

4kg/10m2area with spray set as per MORD.

sqm 1 1000 3.75 3750 28.1 105375


m

Width,

m

Depth,

m

Estimated

quantity

Unit

Rate

(Rupees)

Amount

(Rupees)

8

Providing and laying semi dense bituminous

concrete 40mm with hot mix plant using

crushed aggregates of specified garding,

premixed with bituminous binder and filler,

transporting the hot mix to work site, laying

to the required grade, level and alignment

and compacting as per complete

specifications using 40/60 TPH capacity

H.M.P with mechanical paver Gr-2 with 6%

VG-30 bitumen. MORD

cum 1 1000 3.75 0.040 150 10624 1593600

TOTAL 4018050


Page 66

SL.

No. DESCRIPTION OF WORK Unit Quantity

Rate,

Rs

Amount,

Rs

1 Clearing and grubbing road land sqm 3750 5.45 20437.5

2 Excavation for road way in soil by

mechanical means cum 1875 42.00 78750

3 Loosening the ground up to a level of

500mm below the Subgrade level cum 1875 48.50 90937.5

4 Construction of granular sub-base cum 375 1288 1207500

5


compacting graded stones aggregate

to wet mix macadam

cum 412.5 1332 799200

6 Providing and applying primer coat sqm 3750 32.6 122250

7 Providing and applying tack coat on

primed granular surface sqm 3750 28.1 105375

8 Providing and laying semi dense

bituminous concrete cum 150 10624 1593600

Total = 4018050

Table 6.2: Bill of Quantities


Page 67

Item

No Description Unit No

Length,

m

Width,

m Depth, m

Estimated

quantity

Unit

Rate

(Rupees)

Amount

(Rupees)

1

Clearing and grubbing road land

including uprooting rank

vegetation, grass, bushes, shrubs,

saplings and trees girth up to 300

mm, removal of stumps of trees cut

earlier and disposal of

unserviceable materials and

stacking of serviceable material

labour charges complete as per

Specifications. MORD

sqm 1 1000 3.75 3750 5.45 20437.5

2

Excavation for roadwork in soil

with hydraulic excavator of 0.9

cum bucket capacity including

cutting and loading in tippers,

trimming bottom and side slopes,

in accordance with requirements of

lines, grades and cross sections,

and transporting all usable material

to the embankment location within

all lifts and lead as directed by

engineer. MORD specification.

cum 1 1000 3.75 0.5 1875 42.00

78750

Item


Length,

m

Width,

m Depth, m

Estimated

quantity

Unit

Rate

(Rupees)

Amount

(Rupees)


Page 68

3

Loosening the ground upto a level

of 500mm below the Subgrade

level, watered, graded and

compacted in layers to meet

requirement of table 300-2

complete as per specifications.

MORD specification .

cum 1 1000 3.75 0.5 1875 48.50 90937.5

4

Construction of granular sub-

base(GSB) by providing close

graded Material, mixing in a

mechanical mix plant at OMC,

carriage of mixed Material to work

site, spreading in uniform layers

with motor grader on prepared

surface and compacting with

vibratory power roller to achieve

the desired density, complete as

per MORD

cum 1 1000 3.75 0.1 375 1288 483000

Item


Length,

m

Width,

m Depth, m

Estimated

quantity

Unit

Rate

(Rupees)

Amount

(Rupees)


Page 69

5


compacting graded stone aggregate

to wet mix macadam (WMM)

specification including premixing

the Material with water at OMC in

mechanical mix plant carriage of

mixed Material by tipper to site,

laying in uniform layers with paver

in sub- base / base course on well

prepared surface and compacting

with vibratory roller to achieve the

desired density as per MORD

specification

cum 1 1000 3.75 0.120 450 1332 599400

6

Providing and applying primer coat

with slow setting bitumen

emulsion at the rate of 0.60 kg/sqm

on WMM using mechanical means

complete as per specifications.

MORTH specification

sqm 1 1000 3.75 3750 32.6 122250

7

Providing and applying tack coat

using VG-10 over granular base at

the rate of 4kg/10m2area with

spray set as per MORTH

specification .

sqm 1 1000 3.75 3750 28.1 105375

Item


Length,

m

Width,

m Depth, m

Estimated

quantity

Unit

Rate

(Rupees)

Amount

(Rupees)


Page 70

8

Providing and laying semi dense

bituminous concrete 40mm with

hot mix plant using crushed

aggregates of specified garding,

premixed with bituminous binder

and filler, transporting the hot mix

to work site, laying to the required

grade, level and alignment and

compacting as per complete

specifications using 40/60 TPH

capacity H.M.P with mechanical

paver Gr-2 with 6% VG-30

bitumen. MORD specification

cum 1 1000 3.75 0.03 112.5 10624 1195200

TOTAL 2695350

Cost per Km = Rs.2695350

Calculating the rate of fibers added to stabilize per km stretch of road

For 1m3 of volume filled by soil, fibers required = 10.33 kg

For (1000 x 3.75 x 0.5 = 1875m3), fibers required = 19368.75 kg

Rate of bamboo fibers per kg = 53 Rupees

Total rate of fibers required = 19368.75 x 53 = 1026544 Rupees


Page 71

Table 6.3 Abstract for provision of new bituminous road

SL. No. DESCRIPTION OF WORK Unit Quantity Rate, Rs Amount, Rs

1 Clearing and grubbing road land Sqm 3750 5.45 20437.5

2 Excavation for road way in soil by mechanical

means Cum 1875 42.00 78750

3 Loosening the ground up to a level of 500mm

below the Subgrade level Cum 1875 48.50 90937.5

4 Construction of granular sub-base Cum 375 1288 483000

5 Providing, laying, spreading and compacting

graded stones aggregate to wet mix macadam Cum 412.5 1332 599400

6 Providing and applying primer coat Sqm 3750 32.6 122250

7 Providing and applying tack coat on primed

granular surface Sqm 3750 28.1 105375

8 Providing and laying semi dense bituminous

concrete Cum 150 10624 1195200

9 Bamboo fibers Kg 19368.75 53 1026544

Total = 3721894


Page 72


Page 72

CHAPTER- 7

RESULT AND DISCUSSION

7.1. General

7.2.Atterbergs Limit

7.2.1. Liquid limit

• The liquid limit of the soil alone was found to be 60%

• The liquid limit of the soil with addition of 0.25%, 0.5%, 0.75% and 1.0%, by weight of

soil is found to be 39.2%, 39.7%, 42.0% and 42.3% respectively.

• The liquid limit of the soil with addition of 0.25%, 0.5%, 0.75% and 1.0%, bamboo fibers

is found to be decreased by 34.66%, 33.83%, 30.0% and 29.5% respectively, when

compared to liquid limit of soil alone.

7.2.2. Plastic limit

• The plastic limit of the soil alone was found to be 21.46%

• The plastic limit of the soil with addition of 0.25%, 0.5%, 0.75% and 1.0%, bamboo

fibers by weight of soil is found to be 22.27%, 33.33%, 35.59% and 37.50%

respectively.

• The plastic limit of the soil with addition of 0.25%, 0.5%, 0.75% and 1.0%, bamboo

fibers is found to be decreased by 21.3%, 43.5%, 51.8% and 58.8% respectively, when

compared to plastic limit of soil alone.

7.2.3. Plasticity Index

• The plasticity index of the soil alone was found to be 38.54%.

• The plasticity index of the soil with addition of 0.25%, 0.5%, 0.75% and 1.0%, bamboo

fibers by weight of soil is found to be 11.93%, 6.37%, 6.41% and 4.8% respectively.

• The plasticity index of the soil with the addition of 0.25%, 0.5%, 0.75% and 1% of

bamboo fibers is found to be decreased by 69%, 84.47%, 83.36% and 87.54%.

7.2.4. Shrinkage limit

• The shrinkage limit of the soil alone was found to be 23.309%

• The shrinkage limit of the soil with addition of 0.25%, 0.5%, 0.75% and 1.0%, bamboo

fibers by weight of soil is found to be 16.471%, 15.876%, 8.043% and5.826%

respectively.

• The shrinkage limit of the soil with the addition of 0.25%, 0.5%, 0.75% and 1% of

bamboo fibers is found to be decreased by 29.31%, 31.88%, 65.49% and 75%.


Page 73


• The optimum moisture content (OMC) and maximum dry density (MDD) of soil alone

was found to be 21.4% and 1.378 g/cc respectively.

• The MDD of the soil with addition of 0.25%, 0.5%, 0.75% and 1.0%, bamboo fibers by

weight of soil is found to be 1.401 g/cc, 1.425 g/cc, 1.565 g/cc and 1.378 g/cc

respectively and the corresponding OMC is found to be 20.1%, 19%, 17% and 16%

respectively.


weight of soil is found to be increased by 1.6%, 3.4%, 13.5% and 0% respectively and

the corresponding OMC is decreased by 6%, 11.2%, 20.56% and 21.02% respectively.


• The shear strength of soil alone was found to be 1.27MPa.

• The shear strength of the soil with addition of 0.25%, 0.5%, 0.75% and 1.0%, bamboo

fibers by weight of soil is found to be 1.687,1.838, 1.868 and1.989% respectively.

• The shear strenght of the soil with the addition of 0.25%, 0.5%, 0.75% and 1% of

bamboo fibers is found to be decreased by 32.83%, 44.72%, 47.08and 56.61%.


• The CBR value of soil alone was found to be 1.82%

• The CBR valueof the soil with addition of 0.25%, 0.5%, 0.75% and 1.0%, bamboo fibers

by weight of soil is found to be 3.49%, 3.96%, 5.41% and 3.96% respectively.

• The CBR value of the soil with addition of 0.25%, 0.5%, 0.75% and 1.0%, bamboo fibers

by weight of soil is found to be increased by 91.75%, 117.5%, 197.25% and 117.5%

respectively.

7.6 Atterbergs Limit (sedu soil)

7.6.1 Liquid limit

• The liquid limit of the soil alone was found to be 36.5%

7.7 Standard proctor test

• The optimum moisture content (OMC) and maximum dry density (MDD) of soil alone

was found to be 16% and 1.802 g/cc respectively


Page 74


weight of soil is found to be 1.788 g/cc, 1.788g/cc, 1.804 g/cc and 2.108 g/cc respectively

and the corresponding OMC is found to be 13.5%, 13.5%, 12.5% and 10.6% respectively.

• The MDD of the soil with addition of 0.25%, 0.5% bamboo fibers by weight of soil is

found to be decreased by 0.83% and 0.75% , 1.0% bamboo fibers by weight of soil is

found to be increased by 0.11 % and 16.98% respectively and the corresponding OMC is

decreased by 15.62%, 21.87% and 33.75% respectively.


• The shear strength of soil alone was found to be 1.024 MPa.

• The shear strength of the soil with addition of 0.25%, 0.5%, 0.75% and 1.0%, bamboo

fibers by weight of soil is found to be 0.629, 0.629, 0.663 and 0.964% respectively.

• The shear strength of the soil with the addition of 0.25%, 0.5%, 0.75% and 1% of

bamboo fibers is found to be decreased by 38.57%, 38.57%, 35.25%and 5.85%.


• The CBR value of soil alone was found to be 4.28%


by weight of soil is found to be 27.74%, 29.20%, 27.74% and 44.77% respectively.


by weight of soil is found to be increased

7.10 The design thickness of flexible pavement before stabilization is obtained as 450mm.

7.11 The design thickness of flexible pavement after stabilization is obtained as 250mm.

7.12 The estimated cost for constructing flexible pavement before stabilization of soil is

obtained as 4018050 Rs /Km

7.13 The estimated cost for constructing flexible pavement after stabilization of soil is obtained

as 3721894Rs/Km


Page 75

CHAPTER 8

CONCLUSIONS

On the basis of present experimental study, the following conclusions are drawn

1. According to the Highway Research Board classification, the black cotton

soil sample has been categorized as A-7-6 (4.549)

2. There is substantial increase in MDD with increase in addition of fibersupto

0.75% by weight beyond which it decreased.

3. There is substantial decrease in OMC with increase in addition of fibers.

4. In unconfined compression test it was observed that the shear strength of the

soil has increased with the increase in percentage of bamboo fibers, when

compared to that of shear strength of soil tested without fiber.

5. The shear strength of the soil is maximum when 1%( by weight of soil) of

bamboo fibers is added to it. Hence in order to obtain higher shear resistance

1% of fibers (by weight of soil) can be considered as the optimum fiber

content.

6. The California bearing ratio (CBR) of the soil alone is obtained as 1.82%

and it increased to 5.41% after stabilizing it with optimum percentage of

bamboo fibers.

7. The percentage increase in CBR value after stabilizing it with optimum

percentage of fibers is 197.25%.

8. In the case of sedu soil there is substantial increase in MDD with increase in

addition of fibers.

9. In unconfined compression test it was observed that the shear strength of the

soil has decreased with the increase in percentage of bamboo fibers, when

compared to that of shear strength of soil tested without fiber.

10. The California bearing ratio (CBR) of the soil alone is obtained as 4.28%

and there substantial increase in CBR value with addition of fibres.


Page 76

SCOPE OF STUDY

1) The fibres can be used for stabilization of different soil having low CBR value.

2) The soil stabilization with bamboo fibers may be tested by preparing semi test track.

3) Fatigue studies may be carried out.


Page 77

REFERENCES

1. Sujit Kawade, Mahendra Mapari, Mr.Shreedhar Sharana” Stabilization of Black cotton

soil with lime and Geo-grid”

2. Ayush Mittal, Shalinee Shukla “GEOTEXTILE: AN OVERVIEW”

3. Vegulla Raghudeep, ”Improvement in CBR value of black cotton soil by stabilization it

with vitrified polish waste”

4. Harshita Bairagi “International journal of engineering sciences and research technology”

5. Vikas Rameshrao Kulkarni “Experimental study of stabilization of B.C. soil by using

Slag and Glass fibers”

6. Olugbenga O. Amu1, Akinwole A. Adetuberu” Characteristics of Bamboo Leaf Ash

Stabilization on Lateritic Soil in Highway Construction”

7. John Paul V. Antony Rachel Sneha M. ” Effect of random inclusion of bamboo fibers on

strength behaviour of flyash treated black cotton soil”

8. I.S: 2720 (Part I)-1983 : “Indian standard for preparation of dry soil samples for various

tests”, Bureau of Indian Standards Publications, New Delhi.

9. I.S: 2720 (Part IV)-1985 : “Indian standard for grain size analysis”, Bureau of Indian

Standards Publications, New Delhi.

10. I.S: 2720 (Part V)-1985 : Indian standard for determination of liquid limit and plastic

limit”, Bureau of Indian Standards Publications, New Delhi.

11. I.S: 2720 (Part IV)-1985 : “Indian standard for grain size analysis”, Bureau of Indian

Standards Publications, New Delhi.

12. I.S: 2720 (Part V)-1985 : Indian standard for determination of liquid limit and plastic

limit”, Bureau of Indian Standards Publications, New Delhi.

13. I.S: 2720 (Part VII)-1980 : “Indian standard for determination of water content- Dry

density relationship using light compaction”, Bureau of Indian Standards Publications,

New Delhi.

14. I.S: 2720 (Part X)-1991 : “Indian standard for determination of unconfined compressive

strength”, Bureau of Indian Standards Publications, New Delhi

15. I.S: 2720 (Part XX)-1992 : “Indian standard for determination of Linear Shrinkage”,

Bureau of Indian Standards Publications, New Delhi

16. I.S: 2720 (Part XVI)-1965 : “Indian standard for laboratory determination of CBR”, Bureau

of Indian Standards Publications, New Delhi.

17. IRC SP: 20-2002 : “Rural Roads Manual”

18. SR 2014-15, PW, P and IWT circle Dharwad

Documents

SOIL STABILIZATION USING GEOSYNTHETIC … · “soil stabilization using geosynthetic material ... irc sp:20-2002. ... chapter 7 result and discussion 72