See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/311613803

Improving CBR Value and Swelling Potential of Jamshoro Soil by Cement

Conference Paper · November 2015

CITATIONS READS
2 1,829

3 authors, including:

Aneel Kumar Hindu

Mehran University of Engineering and Technology
35 PUBLICATIONS   59 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Fiber Reinforced Concrete (FRC) View project

Soil Remediation View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Aneel Kumar Hindu on 14 December 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Improving CBR Value and Swelling Potential of Jamshoro Soil by
Cement

Aneel K. Hindu
Professor, Department of Civl Engineering, Mehran University of Engineering and Technolgoy,
Jamshoro, Pakistan, aneel.kumar@faculty.muet.edu.pk

Ghous B. Khaskheli
Professor, Department of Civl Engineering, Mehran University of Engineering and Technolgoy,
Jamshoro, Pakistan, gbk_60@hotmail.com

Rahmatullah Korejo
Master Student, Department of Civl Engineering, Mehran University of Engineering and
Technolgoy, Jamshoro, Pakistan, rahmatullahkorejo@gmail.com

Abstract

The geology of Jamshoro vicinity consists of multiple layers of shale and highly to moderately weathered
limestone. In general, shale is encountered at shallow depth which causes severe construction failures due to
swelling and expansion characteristics. The research is basically aimed to improve the Geotechnical Properties of
Jamshoro soil (shale at shallow depth) by chemical stabilization utilizing, cement, lime, fly ash, cement kiln dust,
rice husk, wheat husk, etc. This paper describes the effects of cement content on California Bearing Ratio (CBR)
values and swelling potential of the Jamshoro Soil. The collected natural soil was thoroughly mixed to obtain the
possible homogeneity and then were oven dried. The soil were then mixed with cement content (CC) of different
proportions that was 0%, 2%, 4%, 6%, 8%, 10% and 12% of oven dry soil weight. Optimum moisture content
(OMC) were obtained for every soil cement mixture by utilizing modified Proctor test. The CBR tests were
performed by utilizing the particular OMC. The effects of cement content on CBR and swelling potential were then
observed. The results show that the mixing of cement in the soil improved the CBR values and decreased the
swelling potential of the soil. The mixing of cement in the soil decreased the swelling potential by 70%. In un-
soaked condition the CBR value was increased from 7 to 78 while in soaked condition it was increased from 3.5 to
105. It is also observed that the mixing of 8% cement is sufficient to achieve the lowest swelling and desirable CBR
value required for a subgrade material.

1. Introduction

Karachi is one of the major urban and trade cities of Pakistan. The main highway which
connects Karachi with other parts of the country is named as Superhighway. The Superhighway
is facing significant rutting problems in the vicinity of Jamshoro (An Educational Hub). This
may be because the shallow depth of the Jamshoro is consists of expansive clay like shale which
is underlain by multiple layers of highly to moderately weathered limestone, shale and gypsum.
Sub soil condition of Jamshoro soil at one of the locations in Mehran University of Engineering
and Technology, Jamshoro is shown in Fig. 1 [1].

The previous researchers [2-7] has utilized different chemicals like cement, fly ash,
gypsum etc to improve the geotechnical properties of soils of their interest. Effect of cement on
unconfined compressive strength of Jamshoro soil is investigated by Kumar and Khaskheli
(2011) [2]. Nonetheless very limited research is carried out on the Jamshoro soil. This research is
aimed to improve the geotechnical properties of the Jamshoro soil (Shale at shallow depth)

A.K. Hindu, G.B. Khaskheli and R. Korejo 1

utilizing various chemical/organic additives like cement, lime, fly ash, cement kiln dust, rice
husk, wheat husk, etc. However this paper is limited to investigate the effects of cement on the
California Bearing Ratio (CBR) and swelling potential of the Jamshoro soil.

Figure 1: Borehole log at Mehran University of Engineering and Technology Jamshoro [1]

2. Jamshoro Soil (Shale) Used in the Study

Jamshoro soil (Shale) used in the study was collected by excavating a pit at the depth of
2.5 ft from the ground surface and extended down to about 6 ft. The excavation pit was situated
near the Superhighway in the vicinity of Jamshoro. The geotechnical properties are shown in
Table 1. AASHTO/ USCS classification of soil indicates that the soil is A-7-5/ MH. Thus the
Jamshoro soil shall not be directly used as a highway subgrade material.

Table 1: Geotechnical properties of Jamshoro soil

Parameter Value Parameter Value Parameter Value

Natural moisture content 22% Gravel 1% AASHTO classification A-7-5

Liquid limit 69.5% Fine sand 17.5% USCS classification MH

Plasticity Index 15 Coarse sand 14.6% Free swell in water 8%

Specific gravity 2.68 Fine grained (-#200) 66.9% Free swell in kerosene 10%

3. Experimental Methodology

The collected soil was sieved from # 4 sieve and then properly mixed to obtain the
possible homogeneous soil for further testing. The soil was then dried in thermostatically
controlled oven. Ordinary Portland cement was then mixed in the soil in proportions of 0%, 2%,
4%, 6%, 8%, 10% and 12% of the dry weight of soil. The ratio of weight of cement to weight of
dry soil is termed as cement content (CC).

A.K. Hindu, G.B. Khaskheli and R. Korejo 2

 Soon after mixing of soil and cement, the modified Proctor test was performed on each
soil cement mix and subsequently OMC (Optimum Moisture Content) was obtained for the each
mix [8]. The soaked and un-soaked CBR tests were performed on each mix to investigate the
influence of cement content on CBR value and swelling potential of the soil [9]. The CBR tests
were performed by applying modified compaction effort and maintaining OMC.

4. Results and Discussion

4.1 Effect of cement content on OMC and maximum dry density (γdmax)

Figures 2 and 3 show the influence of cement content on OMC and maximum dry density
(γdmax) respectively. With the increase of cement content the OMC was initially decreased from
22% to 14% (at 10% CC) and then start increasing. While with the increase of cement content
γdmax was increased from 1.65 g/cc to 1.77 g/cc (at 10% CC) and then decreased. This indicates
that if cement is mixed in the soil less compaction effort may be needed to achieve a required
degree of compaction.

Figure 2: Effect of cement content on OMC Figure 3: Effect of cement content on γdmax

The best fit both for OMC-CC and γdmax –CC was obtained with polynomial regression described
in Eqs. 1 and 2 respectively with R2 values of 0.736 and 0.693 respectively

OMC  0.16CC 2  2.14CC  21.8 (1)

 d max  0.0013CC 2  0.0225CC  1.65 (2)

CBR Un  Soaked   1.24CC 2  16.8CC  17.5 (3)

CBRSoaked   9.47CC  0.643 (4)

Swelling  0.06CC 2  1.21CC  8.58 (5)

A.K. Hindu, G.B. Khaskheli and R. Korejo 3

4.2 Influence of cement content on CBR values and swelling potential

Figure 4 shows un-soaked and soaked CBR values with CC. It is seen that up to 6% of
CC the un-soaked CBR value was significantly increased (7% CBR for 0% CC, 69% CBR for
2% CC, 51% CBR for 4% CC and 78% CBR for 6% CC) and then gradually decreased. While a
significant increase in soaked CBR value was observed with increase of cement content (3.56%
CBR for 0% CC and 105% CBR for 12% CC). The best fit for un-soaked CBR-CC was obtained
with polynomial regression (Eq. 3) with R2 value of 0.74 while for soaked CBR-CC it was
obtained with linear regression (Eq. 4.) with R2 value of 0.955. It is interesting to note that from
0% CC to 6% CC, soaked CBR values remain less than the un-soaked CBR and then with further
increase of CC the soaked CBR value remain higher than the un-soaked CBR. This may be
because of the cement hydration process. Higher the CC, higher the impact of cement hydration.

Figure 4: Influence of CC on Un-Soaked/Soaked CBR Figure 5: Influence of CC on Swelling Potential

Figure 5 shows influence of CC on swelling potential. It is seen that with increase of CC

from 0% to 8%, the swelling potential of the soil decreased from 8.5% to 2.5%. Then no
significant change in swelling potential was observed with further increase in CC. The best fit for
Swelling-CC was obtained with polynomial regression described in Eq. 5 with R2 values of 0.99.

It is further observed that in general the R2 values remain lower. This may be because of
the possible heterogeneity in the natural soils.

To support heavy loads without excessive deformation a subgrade having minimum CBR
of 10 is required [10-11]. This value of CBR both in soaked and un-soaked condition was
achieved at 2% CC. But as far as swelling is concerned the best result was obtained when CC
was 8% or more. Keeping in view the above facts 8% CC may be considered optimum to
stabilize the Jamshoro soil as a subgrade material. However this recommendation is based upon
the testing conditions maintained in this study.

A.K. Hindu, G.B. Khaskheli and R. Korejo 4

 5. Conclusions

The experimental research was conducted to investigate the effects of cement on CBR
(California Bearing Ratio) and swelling potential of the Jamshoro soil (Shale). Up to 0% to 12%
of cement is mixed in the dry soil. Following conclusions are drawn from the study.

1. Up to 10% of cement content (CC) in soil, the optimum moisture content (OMC)
decreased while maximum dry density increased. This indicates that if cement is mixed in
the soil less compaction effort may be needed to achieve a required degree of
compaction.
2. The mixing of cement is the soil improved both un-soaked and soaked CBR values. The
maximum improvement in un- soaked condition was obtained with 6% CC. For soaked
condition the maximum value was achieved at 12% CC.
3. For lower cement content in soil (0%-6%) the un-soaked CBR remain higher than the
soaked CBR. While for higher cement content (More than 6%), the soaked CBR remain
higher than un-soaked CBR.
4. Mixing of cement in soil decreased the swelling potential of soil. The swelling potential
keep decreasing up to 8% of CC and then no significant change is observed.

6. Acknowledgements

The authors are thankful to the Department of Civil Engineering of Mehran University of
Engineering and Technology for providing facilities to conduct this research.

7. References
[1] MUET, Report on Sub Soil Investigation of New Academic Zone, Mehran University of Engineering
and Technology Jamshoro, Pakistan, 2006.
[2] Kumar, A. and Khaskehli, G.B., “Effect of Cement Content on Unconfined Compressive Strength of
Jamshoro Soil”. Proceeding of the International Symposium on Sustainable Geosynthetics and Green
Technology for Climate Change (SGCC), Bangkok, Thailand, June 20-21, 2012.
[3] Amu. O.O., Fajobi, A. B., and Afekhui S. O., “Stabilization potential of cement and fly ash mixture
on expansive clay soils. Journal of Applied Sciences, Vol 5, 2005, pp. 1669-1673.
[4] Diamond, S. and Kinter, E. B, Mechanism of lime stabilization-an interpretative review. Highway
Research Rec. Vol. 92, 1965, pp. 83-102.
[5] Lorenzo, G. A. and Bergado, D. T., Fundamental characteristics of cement-admixed clay in deep
mixing. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, Vol. 18, 2006, pp. 161-174.
[6] Yilmaz, I. and Civelekoglu, B., Gypsum: An additive for stabilization of swelling clay soils. Applied
Clay Science, Vol. 44, 2009, pp 166-172.
[7] Ji-ru, Z. and Xing, C., “Stabilization of expansive soil by lime and fly ash”, Journal of Wuhan
University of Technology–Materials Science, Vol. 17, 2002, pp. 73–77.
[8] ASTM., Standard Test Methods for Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of Soil Using Modified
Effort, ASTM D 422-63, Philadelphia, 2002.
[9] ASTM., Standard Test Methods for CBR of Laboratory Compacted Soils, ASTM D 1883-07,
Philadelphia, 2007.
[10] Atkins, H. N., Highway Materials, Soils and Concretes. Second Edition, Prentice-Hall, 1983
[11] SUDAS, Design Guide for Improved Quality of Roadway Subgrades and Subbases. Iowa Highway
Research Board, 2008.

A.K. Hindu, G.B. Khaskheli and R. Korejo 5

View publication stats