Performance Characteristic Study of Weak Subgrade Soil and Improving The Strength of Subgrade Soil by Stabilization Techniques

Performance Characteristic study of weak Subgrade Soil and Improving the strength of Subgrade Soil by Stabilization techniques
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 General
The main drawback is to give a safe and complete road network in the partial
facilities provided to construct road, by normal conventional method in Indian scenario.
Therefore, it is a requirement of adopting a suitable low cost road construction method
leading to development of rising needs of road traffic. The pavements generally consist of
5several layers of different materials and variable thickness. The heavy vehicles
continually loading our pavements, and the load through the pavement is transferred to
sub grade, destroying the integrity of sub grade. Each layer is assisted carefully in
sustaining traffic load and distributing it carefully to the foundation soil i.e sub grade. The
sub grade may be either a local soil or an external imported material. When the local soil
is incompatible to withstand traffic loads, the subgrade is usually treated or stabilized
properly and used to avoid the high cost that may occur from imported material. For any
road projects cost of construction mainly depends upon the availabity of local materials.
Sometimes available soils are not adequate to take wheel load. At this point time there is
need to improve the soil stability.
Figure 1.1 Different Layers of soil
Stabilization of soil is nothing but the improvement of soil characteristics such as strength
parameters, atterberg’s limits etc by soil improvement techniques. These soil techniques
Department of Civil Engineering, JCE Belagavi. 1

may be compaction, addition of stabilizers or admixtures which enhances the properties

of soil. These soil techniques can be used for almost all types of soil like expansive soil to
non cohesive granular soil. Expansive soils due to moisture content exibhits change in
their volume leading to damage. The soils containing minerals such as montmorillonite
have tendency of absorbing water which increases volume of soil. The techniques like
dewatering, mechanical compaction and earth reinforcement are found to temporarily
improve the soil strength, but stabilization technique is more advantageous. The
stabilization is done using different admixtures like Ground granulated blast furnace slag,
fly ash, Quarry dust etc.
The biggest challenge in the product process in any industry is disposal of waste or
some time by products. Also, these by product if is directly disposed to environment it
will create lot of problems such as health issues, landfill, agricultural infertility etc. so
that these materials or by products can be used in effective path in construction industries,
major transportation project, improvement in the stability of embankment. This live issue
needs associate degree emotional, economic and setting friend methodology to combat
the disposal of the residual industrial waste merchandise. One among the common and
possible ways that to utilize this waste merchandise is to travel for construction of -roads,
highways & embankments. If these waste materials are often befittingly utilised in
construction then the pollution drawback caused by the commercial wastes are often
greatly reduced. large quantity of soil is employed within the construction of roads and
highways however spare quantity of soil of needed quality isn't out there simply. These
industrial wastes that area unit used as a substitute for natural soil within the construction
not solely solve the issues of disposal and environmental pollution however conjointly
facilitate to preserve the ‘natural soil’. Waste materials utilization isn't solely the
promising solutions for disposal drawback, however conjointly saves construction price.
In this study, experimental investigations are carried out to study the beneficial effects of
stabilizing black cotton soil, silty soil and sandy soil using ground granulated blast
furnace slag, fly ash, quarry dust in different proportions.
1.2 Objective of the study:

1. Soil stabilization is done for sustaining the loads from vehicles on weak sub grade
soil in construction of pavement.
2. The selected soil is evaluated for performance in terms of strength.

3. To explore the possibility of using locally available materials are in various

proportions to get the best combination for the performance of pavements.
4. To control the swell and shrinking characteristics of soil due to presence of moisture
content.
5. To increase the durability i.e providing resistance against soil erosion and trafficking
loads.
6. To study the effect of stabilizing the admixtures and their combinations for different
types of soil.
7. To design the pavement for these different types of soil.
8. To reduce the plasticity index of the soils.
9. To reduce the moisture content present in the soil.
10. To considerably increase the load bearing capacity of expansive soils.
11. To study the behavior of GGBS, fly ash & quarry dust on consistency limits of soil.
1.3 Scope of the study:
1. To check the quality of the untreated soil by different physical test.

2. The quality of the soil has to be increased using different soil stabilizer.
3. To find out best suitability of different combination of soil mainly in terms of CBR
value.
4. Find out effectiveness of stabilization in terms of cost per unit volume road
construction.
1.4 Organization of thesis:
The thesis has been organized in to following mentioned chapters
Chapter-1: Deals with general topic of introduction on the project work with the brief
description of the work
Chapter-2: Deals with the review of literature studies conducted on the topic to evaluate
previous experimental procedures.
Chapter-3: Deals with the present investigation with methodology and procedure

Chapter-4: Deals with the data analysis of values determined and the results are drawn on
some parameters and observation is carried out on it.
Chapter-5: Deals with a summary and conclusion of the present investigations.
Chapter-6: Future scope of the present investigation work is carried out.

CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 A review on previous Studies
2.1.1 Prof. V. S. Dolli et al [2014] “Performance evaluation of weak sub grade soil and
treating the subsequent layers of the pavement by using advanced stabilization technique”
The work is carried out to stabilize the subgrade soil by replacing expansive soil (black
cotton soil and red soil) with local available materials by using geo grids, quarry dust. It
aims to carry the experimental analysis for the materials with different values of CBR.
This experiment concludes that when quarry dust, GGBS and fly ash are used as base
materials the weak subgrade soil can be stabilize. The strength of soil is increased when
geo grid is used as a reinforcing material in soil. The pavement thickness is reduced when
soil admixtures are used in black cotton soil and Red soil. By using stabilization
techniques the safe bearing capacity of soil can be increased.
2.1.2 Akshaya Kumar Sabat et al [2013] “Improvement in geo-technical properties of

associate degree expansive soil victimization flyash and quarry dirt.” A laboratory
investigation was conducted for stabilization of expansive soil with ash and quarry dirt
with geotechnical properties improvement with molding water content impact on CBR of
ash quarry dirt stabilised expansive soil and economy of ash quarry dirt stabilization.
They over that the CBR goes on increasing once ash quarry dirt is accrued, additionally
results in increase in angle of internal friction and reduce in cohesion. From economic
purpose of study there's substantial save in price of construction, if the quarry dirt and ash
area unit wiped out to forty fifth in 1:2 proportion in versatile pavement construction for
strengthening the expansive soil for subgrade.
2.1.3 S. Bhuaneshwari et al [2005] “Stabilization of expansive soils mistreatment fly

ash” The study is applied to examine the enhancements in expansive soil properties with
flyash in variable percentages. The sphere tests and laboratory trials ar applied and results
tabulated. the main difficulties is compounding of 2 materials (expansive soil and flyash)
in needed proportion to make a regular mass. The paper describes a way adopted for
putting these layers in needed thickness and in operation a disk harrow. a shot hill of 30m
length by 6m breadth by zero.6m high was with success created and also the unchanged

tests are applied tested it quality for construction of hill, ash dykes, filling low-laying
areas.
2.1.4 K.V. Manjunath et al [2010] “Stabilization of Black Cotton Soil exploitation Ground
coarse furnace Slag” The performance of Black cotton soil is known by stabilizing it with
GGBS which is a industrial waste. A research study was carried out to found that the
sulphate bearing clayey soil can be stabilized by using GGBS by gaining momentum in
soil. Many field tests were carried out and finally they revealed that the enhancing black
cotton soil performance is achieved and is more effective in gaining strength to the black
cotton soil. It is also economical and helpful in usage of industrial waste to stabilize the
soil. There was a increase in UCC strength from 188.5 kN/m 2 to 3429.37 kN/m2 for
Ordinary Black cotton soil. The Study concluded that with proper curing on 28 th day for
the proportion of (BC soil + 30% slag + 4% lime) @ OMC, for ordinary black cotton soil
there is increase of UCC strength up to 18 times.
2.1.5 Rajesh Prasad Shukla et al [2015] “Problems and Treatment of Black Cotton Soil”
The paper reveals the micro fine GGBS slag effect depending on the mixing quantity of
micro-fine slag and black cotton soil. The micro fine is incorporated to reduce the
swelling effect of Black cotton soil. By Adding micro fine slag the swell potential is
changed from medium to low. There is decrease in Liquid limit and plasticity index
contents in black cotton soil with mixing of microfine slag. The increment in the slag
leads to raising the shrinkage limit of soil. Increase up to 6%-7% of plastic limit and
unconfined compressive strength of soil weight and by adding more slag causes the
reduction in the plasticity and UCS of micro fine slag added soil. Unconfined
compressive strength of soil is increased 2.5 time of initial UCS. The 6%-7% of optimum
amount of microfine GGBS by weight of soil.
2.1.6 B. Vishnuvardhan Kumar et al [2015] “Comparative Studies of BC Soil and

GGBS” .The OMC decreases with increase of GGBS content with increase in maximum
dry density hence it leads increase in compatibility of soil making the soil dense and hard.
An appreciable rise in the values of CBR and UCS are seen with the accumulation of
Road Building International (RBI) grade 81 materials compared with GGBS and it is
more suitable for stabilization sub grade soil.

2.1.7 Laxmikant Yadu et al [2013] “Stabilization of sentimental soil with coarse Blast
Furnance dross and Fly ash” the current paper deals with helpful of a soft soil evaluating
the potential of coarse furnace dross (GBS) with ash. The samples of sentimental soil
were collected from numerous places. The classification of soil is taken as per Indian
customary organization (ISCS). Totally different amounts of GBS and ash i.e. 3%, 6%,
and September 11 were used for helpful the soft soil. The performance analysis of GBS
with ash changed soils mistreatment Golden State bearing quantitative relation (CBR) and
compaction take a look at ar distributed and ended the optimum quantity of GBS with ash
was firm as third ash + 6 June 1944 GBS. There is increase within the soaked and
unsoaked CBR of GBS-fly ash mixture with increase in GBS content. The results
unconcealed that the weak soil is strengthened using fly ash-GBS mixture. Fly ash- GBS
mixtures ar appropriate to be used in rural roads, embankments and it's used as give fill
materials of comparable strength.
2.2 Literature Conclusion

In above literature review it types of soil can be stabilized using different
industrial waste materials such as GGBS pulverized fuel ash, crushed stone sand dust,
microfine slag geogrids etc., also different types of soil stabilization technique can be
adopted with different quality of soil stabilizer
In present study three types of soils are taken for stabilization such as silty
sand and black cotton soil, different percentage of base materials can be added to stabilize
weak sub base soil, so that cost of construction of road can be reduced effectively.

CHAPTER 3
PRESENT INVESTIGATION
3.1 Methodology:
The Study has been planned in the following methodology to ensure proper flow of work
and to avoid over run of time and effort.
Determination that the project

requires/benefits for project
Study/collection of previous journal paper for

basic/related information on project
Soil sampling for present study (Silty Collection of Admixtures GGBS,

soil, Sandy soil, Black cotton soil) Quarry Dust and Fly ash
Laboratory tests conducted for collected samples
 Specific gravity test

 Moisture Content Comparison of values of mix
 Liquid limit design and tabulation of results
 Plastic limit
 Modified Proctor Test
 CBR Test
Flexible Pavement Design
Figure 3.1 Methodology Flow Chart

3.2 Different types of Soil taken for present investigation are:

3.2.1 Silty Soil
Figure 3.2 Sample of Silty soil
This soil is considered as most fertile among soils. This occurs as soil or
suspended fine particles deposited on the earth surface when water from water bodies
flows slowly. It is smooth and soft and granular like sandy soil, but it has got better
drainage property than sandy soil. It has smooth texture when dried and good moisture
holding capacity. The soil sample collected from Majali, Karwar taluk, Uttara kannada
district for present investigation.
3.2.2 Sandy soil
Figure 3.3 Sample of Sandy soil

Sandy soil area unit granular and encompass rock and mineral particles and these
particles will verify the degree of aeration and evacuation that the soil permits. Thus the
feel is gritty and sandy soil is made by the disintegration and weathering of rocks like
sedimentary rock, granite, quartz and sedimentary rock.. Sandy soil drains very fast. It is
not showed the plastic limit values. Sandy soil can be observed semi arid and arid
regions, along the coastal belt. It can be also observed in some extent in cold desert area.
Texture of sandy soil is loamy sand texture containing less than 50% fine sand..Sandy soil
area unit granular and encompass rock and mineral particles and these particles will
verify the degree of aeration and evacuation that the soil permits. Thus the feel is gritty
and sandy soil is made by the disintegration and weathering of rockslike sedimentary
rock, granite, quartz and sedimentary rock. Sandy soil collected from Majali, Karwar
taluk, Uttara Kannada district.
3.2.3 Black Cotton Soil:
Figure 3.4 Sample of black cotton soil
Black cotton soil having high shrinkage and swelling characteristics, which leads
to differential settlement of buildings results in propagation of cracks in super structure
and pavement failures. Black cotton soil was collected from Hotegali village, near
Sadashivghada, Karwar district.
Black cotton soil is the most important types of soil which commonly found in
valley or hilly region. The colour of the soil mainly depends up on the chemical
constituents and mineral fragments from the rock. Though this soil is quite good, its

behavior with moisture content is completely different as it swells with water content.
And completely dried soil shows cracks on the surface.
Black cotton soil contains silty clay which is silty in nature formed by weathering
action of clay sediments, shale and basalt rock. But lot of shrinkage and swelling problem
cause difficulty in construction of building or road which leads of excessive cracking.
Still the soil can be treated with some by products from industrial viz. GGBS, Fly ash so
that engineers can construct building or road without any harmful effects.
In the present study this soil is collected along the high stretch and an attempt has been
made to improve the characteristic of such so that the pavement performance is
satisfactory when compare to the black cotton soil alone.
3.3 Different types of Stabilizers used are:
3.3.1 GGBS:
Figure 3.5: GGBS Sample
This material is a byproduct in the production of steel industry. It is a non mechanic

product consists of calcium cilicate and calcium aluminates. It is mainly used in the
production of Portland pozollona cement, also can be used as mineral admixture in the
concrete industry. In India, approximately 7.8 million Tones of this material is produced
annually it has brought many advantages in the concrete industry also it can be used as a
soil stabilizing material. This GGBS is procured by Jindal steel ltd. Bellary District,
Karnataka State.

3.3.2 Fly Ash
Figure 3.6 Sample of Fly ash
It is a by product or residue of combustion of coal, composing of fine particles

that are driven out of boiler with flue gasses. It is material which we will get from the
burning of powdered coal and collected by ESP (electrostatic precipitation) in thermal
power plant. This waste material can be effectively used in our construction industry such
as production of concrete, stabilization of different soils, production of light weight
concrete blocks etc., so that use of fly ash reduces environmental pollution. Here fly ash
used is procured from thermal power plant Shakti Nagar, Raichur District, Kartnataka
State.
There are 2 forms of ash specifically category F and C ash. Category F ash is
made by burning of soft coal that has low atomic number 20 content and sophistication C
ash is made by burning of sub soft coal that has atomic number 20 content over 100%.
This ash is category F that has low atomic number 20 primarily based ash. The key
constituents are SiO2 , Al2O3,Fe2O3,CaO etc.,

3.3.3 Quarry Dust
Figure.3. 7 Sample of Quarry Dust
Quarry dust is also known as manufactured sand which taken as stabilization material for
soil. Crushed granite dust aggregates are produced in quarry dust, this materials has got
wide range of application in construction industry such as concrete industry,concrete
block industry,road construction use,stabilization process etc., The crushed stone dust can
be used as fine aggregate if it is produced in proper crusher machine. Crushed stone dust
has wide range of particle size it can be used as one such effective stabilizing material
worldwide. Presently, locally available crushed stone dust is used. Crushed stone dust can
also be used for treatment of weak soil and as a base material for road construction works.
As the dust is produced by stone which is harder in nature and is crushed by machine to
required aggregate size and so is by product of hard stone and has higher strength in the
form of dust. The quarry dust is collected from Karwar.
3.4 Experimental Study

 Specific gravity test
 Moisture content
 Liquid limit
 Plastic limit
 Modified Proctor Compaction
 CBR test

3.4.1 Specific gravity test by density bottle method
Fig 3.8: Silty Soil Specific gravity test by density bottle method
The sp gr ‘G’ of soil is that the proportion between the mass of the soil to mass of equal
volume of distilled water @ std temperature. It’s measured by the help of a volumetric
bottle associate in nursing exceptionally basic trial setup wherever the degree of the dirt is
discovered and its weight is partitioned off by the mass of equivalent volume of water.
This value can be used as the index to find quality of the soil as well as to know other
parameters such as degree of saturation, voids ration etc.

3.4.2 Moisture Content Test:
To know the water present in the soil by oven method. Take the empty mass of the
container and fill the wet soil on container and its weight should be find out. This will
be taken into oven for 24 hours. After taken out the container from the oven, weight it
correctly. And calculate the how much percentage of moisture content present in the
taken soil sample.
3.4.3 Liquid Limit Test by Casagrande’s Method
Figure. 3.9 Silty Soil Liquid Limit test by Casagrande’s method
LL is the ‘quantity of moisture or water , which can be expressed as a %age of the mass
of oveb dried soil sample @ the limit b/w liquid & plastic states of consistency’. LL can
be defined as ‘the water content @ which the 2 halves of soil sample will flow together,
for a distance of 1.27cm along the bottom of a groove of std dimensions separating the 2
halves, when the cup of std LL apparatus is dropped 25 times from a height of 1cm @ the
rate of 2 drops/sec’

3.4.4 Plastic Limit Test
Figure. 3.10 Silty Soil Plastic Limit Test
PL or WP is that the water or moisture content wherever soil sample begins to show
plastic conduct. “Pl of any soil sample is the moisture content, which is expressed as a
%age of the wt. of oven-dry soil, @ which the boundary b/w the plastic & semi-solid
state of consistency’. It is ‘the moisture content or water content @ which a soil sample
just- begin to crumble when rolled into a thread 0.3cm in diameter’.
3.4.5 Modified proctor compaction test
Figure 3.11 Silty Soil Modified Proctor Compaction Test

This take a look at provides Associate in nursing clear relationship b/w the dry density &
water or moisture content present in the soil. The alpha setup includes of (i) barrel formed
metal mould (inward mensuration ten.15 cm and interior stature eleven.7 cm), (ii)
divisible base plate, (iii) neck (5 cm compelling tallness), (iv) ram (2.5 kg). Compaction
method helps to increase the mass thickness by expel out the air from voids. The
hypothesis utilized as a section of the take a look at is that for any compactive soil, the
dry thickness depends on the wetness within the dirt. the foremost extreme dry thickness
(MDD) is accomplished once the dirt is compacted at usually high wetness and every one
the air is driven out, this wetness substance is termed ideal wetness (OMC). within the
wake of plotting the data from the examination with water because the Cartesian
coordinate and dry thickness because the ordinate, we will acquire the OMC and MDD.
3.4.6 California Bearing Ratio Test
Figure. 3.12 Silty Soil California bearing ratio (CBR) test
This test is a penetration test. This test is used for stability of soil sub grade and the
California bearing ration of a compacted soil sample. CBR is help full for calculation of
the flexible pavement thickness. CBR is calculated for penetration of 2.5mm and 5.0mm.
Take about 5kg of soil sample passing 4.75mm and add water to a given sample
mix thoroughly and uniformly. Assemble the cylindrical mould save plate and color.
Place the spacer disc and apply the grease. Put the mixed fill into the cylidrical mould in
three layer and compact the soil either by static compaction the soil is compacted in
continuous way using compressive machine. In dynamic compaction a saturated rammer

give into 56 blows that an uniformly distributed over the soil per layer in total at 5 layers.
Remove the coller and cut off the excess soil and level it uniformly a sharp cutting edge.
Reverse the mould and take out the disc plate.
3.5 Soil Mixing Details

1. Silty soil
Mix -1 Silty soil +4%GGBS + 8% Fly ash+ 8%Quarry dust
Mix-2 Silty soil + 4%GGBS+12% Fly ash+12%Quarry dust
Mix-4 Silty soil +4%GGBS +20% Fly ash+20%Quarry dust
2. Sandy soil
Mix -1 Sandy soil + 4% GGBS + 8% Fly ash + 8%Quarry dust
Mix-2 Sandy soil + 4% GGBS +12% Fly ash +12%Quarry dust
Mix -4 Sandy soil +4% GGBS +20% Fly ash +20%Quarry dust
3. Black cotton soil
Mix -1 Black cotton soil + 4%GGBS + 8% Fly ash+ 8%Quarry dust
Mix-2 Black cotton soil + 4%GGBS +12% Fly ash+12%Quarry dust
Mix -4 Black cotton soil + 4%GGBS +20% Fly ash+20%Quarry dust

CHAPTER 4
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1 SILTY SOIL
4.1.1 Specific Gravity Test
Table 4.1 Observations of Silty Soil Specific Gravity Test
Sl. No. Details
1 Wt. of the empty bottle =(W1) 33g
2 Wt. of bottle W1+ dry sieved soil = (W2) 55g
3 Wt. of bottle + dry soil + full water =(W3) 97g
4 Wt of bottle + only water =(W4) 86g
(W 2−W 1 )
Sp gr test =
( W 2−W 1 )−(W 3−W 4 )
(55−33)
Sp gr test = = 2.06
(55−33)−(97−86)
The other Mixes test results are as below:
Table 4.2 Results of Silty Soil Specific Gravity Test
Plain Silty soil 2.06

Mix -1 2.09
Mix - 2 2.04
Mix - 3 2.11
Mix -4 2.14
Mix - 5 2.18

Silty Soil Mix Specific Gravity Test

2.18
2.14
2.11
2.09
2.06
2.04
Plain Silty soil Mix -1 Mix- 2 Mix- 3 Mix -4 Mix- 5
Graph 4.1: Silty Soil Mix Specific Gravity Test
The above shows the results of specific gravity for plain silty soil and mixture of
different ingredients. Plain silty soil value is 2.06 and it is been increased to 2.18 in
mix 5. In higher percentage replacement there is increase in specific gravity i.e from
Mix-3 to Mix-5 due to addition of GGBS, fly ash & dust. But, there is slight reduction
in specific gravity result.
4.1.2 Moisture content
Table 4.3 Observations of Silty Soil Moisture Content Test

Sl. No. Observations
1 Container Number 16
2 Wt of container + Lid (w1) gms 23

3 Wt of container + Lid + Sample (w2) gms 57
4 Wt of container + Lid + dry sample (w3) gms 55
(W 2 −W 3 )
Moisture content = × 100
(W ¿ ¿ 3−W 1 )¿
(57−55)
= × 100
(55−23)
= 6.25

Table 4.4 Results of Silty Soil Moisture Content Test

Mix - 1 6.02
Mix- 2 5.76
Mix - 3 5.95
Mix - 4 4.80
Mix - 5 4.16
Silty Soil Mix Moisture content

6.25
6.02 5.95
5.76
4.8
4.16
Graph 4.2 Silty Soil Mix Moisture Content Test
From the graph we can see that with increase in replacement in silty soil there is
decrease in moisture content except in Mix-3. Plain silty soil with moisture content 6.25
% has been reduced to 4.16 % in mix no 5 except there is slight increment in the result of
mix no 3.
4.1.3 Liquid limit test by casagrande’s method
Table 4.5 Observations of Silty Soil Liquid Limit Test


1 Container Number 8
2 Wt of container + Lid (w1) gms 31

3 Wt of container + Lid + Sample (w2) gms 52
4 Wt of container + Lid + dry sample (w3) gms 48
(W 2 −W 3 )
Liquid Limit = × 100
(W ¿ ¿ 3−W 1 )¿
(52−48)
= (48−31) × 100
= 23.52
Table 4.6 Results of Silty Soil Liquid Limit Test
Plain Silty soil 23.52%

Mix -1 21.73%
Mix- 2 21.13%
Mix- 3 20.16%
Mix -4 19.38%
Mix- 5 17.42%

Silty Soil Mix Liquid Limit Test

23.52%
21.73% 21.13%
20.16%
19.38%
17.42%
Graph 4.3 Silty Soil Mix Liquid Limit Test
The above graph shows the results of different combination of mixes. The result of
plain silty soil is 23.52% and value is reduced to 17.42%. There is a decrease in the
result of LL as increase in the percentage of material replacement. There is almost 6%
of decrease in LL result in mix no 5.
4.1.4 Plastic Limit Test
Table 4.7 Observations of Silty Soil Plastic Limit Test

1 Container No. 8
2 Wt. of container with Lid (M1) gms 31

3 Wt. of container + wet soil (M2) gms. 60
4 Wt. of container + Dry soil (M3) gms. 56
Calculations:
( M 2−M 3 )
Plastic limit = × 100
(M ¿ ¿ 3−M 1 )¿
60−56
= × 100
56−31
= 16.02

Table 4.8 Results of Silty Soil Plastic Limit Test

Mix -1 15.82%
Mix- 2 15.13%
Mix- 3 14.82%
Mix -4 14.08%
Mix- 5 12.83%
Silty Soil Mix Plastic Limit Test

16.02% 15.82%
15.13% 14.82%
14.08%
12.83%
Graph 4.4 Silty Soil Mix Plastic Limit Test
Plastic limit results of the different mixes are as above. From the graph it can be
seen that there is decrease in plastic limit result by 3.19% in mix-5 when compare to
base mix i.e, plain silty soil.
Table 4.9 Observations of Silty Soil Modified Proctor Compaction Test
Sl. No. Determinations

1 Wt. of mould = soil (w1) gms. 3657
2 Wt. of empty mould (w2) gms. 5687
3 Wt. of compacted soil (w) = (w1-w2) gms 2030
The optimum moisture content calculation:
Table 4.10 Observations of Silty Soil Optimum Moisture Content Test


1 Container No. 11
2 Wt. of container with Lid (M1) gms 19.50
3 Wt. of container + wet soil (M2) gms. 36.01
4 Wt. of container + Dry soil (M3) gms. 33.50
Calculations:
( M 2−M 3 )
Moisture content = × 100
(M ¿ ¿ 3−M 1 )¿
36.0−33.5
= × 100
33.5−19.5
= 17.85
W 2030
Bulk Density = γb = = = 2.03gm /cc
V 1000
γb 2.03
Dry Density = γd = = = 1.72
1+ W 1+ 0.178
The other Maximum Dry density test results are as below:
Table 4.11 Results of Silty Soil Maximum Dry density(MDD) Test

Mix -1 1.78
Mix - 2 1.82
Mix - 3 1.76
Mix - 4 1.85
Mix - 5 1.93
The other Moisture or water content test results are as below:
Table 4.12 Results of Silty Soil Moisture Content Test

Mix -1 17.71%
Mix- 2 16.32%
Mix- 3 17.48%
Mix -4 16.11%
Mix- 5 16.02%
4.1.6 California bearing ratio test
Table 4.13 Observations of Silty Soil California bearing ratio Test
Sl. No. Penetration PRP Division Load
PRP Division × 4.6

1 0 0 0
2 0.5 2.24 10.30
3 1.0 3.66 16.84
4 1.5 5.64 25.94
5 2.0 6.88 31.64
6 2.5 8.64 39.74
7 3.0 9.24 42.50
8 3.5 11.32 52.06
9 4.0 14.62 67.25
10 4.5 15.88 73.04
11 5.0 16.08 73.96
12 5.5 18.72 86.12
13 6.0 19.44 89.42
14 6.5 19.88 91.44
15 7.0 20.16 92.73
16 7.5 21.28 97.88
17 8.0 22.46 103.31
18 8.5 22.88 105.24
19 9.0 24.32 111.88
20 9.5 24.84 114.26
21 10.0 25.36 116.66
22 10.5 26.12 120.16
23 11.0 26.92 123.83

24 11.5 27.32 125.67
25 12.0 28.16 129.53
Calculations
load sustained by specimen at 2.5∨5.0 mm penetration

CBR % = × 100
Load sustained by standard aggregates at corresponding penetration level
load
At 2.5mm penetration = ×100
1370
8.64 × 4.6 ×100

=
1370
= 2.9
16.08× 4.6 ×100

At 5mm penetration =
2055
= 3.60
CBR Silty Soil

140
120
100
80
Load in kN
60
40
20
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Penetration in mm
Graph 4.5 CBR Silty Soil

Mix 5
Table 4.14 Observations of Silty Soil Mix California bearing ratio Test

PRP Division × 4.6
1 0 0 0
2 0.5 8.26 37.98
3 1.0 12.48 57.40
4 1.5 14.32 65.87
5 2.0 16.54 76.08
6 2.5 17.28 79.48
7 3.0 18.12 83.35
8 3.5 26.14 120.24
9 4.0 28.32 130.27
10 4.5 30.76 141.48
11 5.0 32.00 147.20
12 5.5 32.96 151.62
13 6.0 34.88 160.44
14 6.5 37.68 173.32
15 7.0 38.46 176.92
16 7.5 39.78 182.98
17 8.0 40.84 187.86
18 8.5 41.32 190.08
19 9.0 42.52 195.58
20 9.5 43.74 201.20
21 10.0 45.16 207.72
22 10.5 46.06 211.86
23 11.0 46.94 215.92
24 11.5 48.18 221.62
25 12.0 49.08 225.76

CBR Silty Soil Mix Combination

250
200
150
Load in kN
100
50
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Penetration in mm
Graph 4.6 CBR Silty Soil Mix Combination
17.28× 4.6 ×100

At 2.5mm penetration =
1370
= 5.80
32.00× 4.6 ×100

2055
= 7.16
The other mixes CBR values are given below:
Table 4.15 Results of Silty Soil Mix California bearing ratio Test
2.5mm 5 mm
Silty Soil 2.9 3.6
Mix-1 4.22 5.62
Mix-2 4.48 5.86
Mix-3 4.81 6.18
Mix-4 5.1 6.74

Mix-5 5.8 7.16
Silty Soil CBR Values

2.5mm 5 mm
7.16
6.74
6.18
5.86 5.8
5.62
5.1
4.81
4.48
4.22
3.6
2.9
Silty Soil Mix-1 Mix-2 Mix-3 Mix-4 Mix-5
Graph 4.7 Silty Soil CBR Values
Above figure shows the results of CBR test for penetration value of 2.5mm and
5mm. Native silty soil has CBR value of 2.9 & 3.6% for the penetration value of 2.5 & 5
mm respectively. The values are increased with increment in the replacement of silty by
other additives. It can be noticed that values have been increased to 5.8 & 7.16% for 2.5
& 5mm penetration in mix no 5. There is almost 50 % increment in the CBR values.
4.2 Sandy Soil
Table 4.16 Results of Sandy Soil Specific Gravity Test
Plain Sandy soil 2.69

Mix - 1 2.77
Mix - 2 2.80
Mix - 3 2.87
Mix - 4 2.90
Mix - 5 2.95

Sandy Soil Mix Specific Gravity Test

2.95
2.9
2.87
2.8
2.77
2.69
Plain Sandy soil Mix -1 Mix- 2 Mix- 3 Mix -4 Mix- 5
Graph 4.8 Sandy Soil Mix Specific Gravity Test
Sandy soil and treated soil specific gravity results are as shown in the
above figure. The value plain sandy soil is 2.69 where as the value is been increased to as
much as 2.95 in mix 5. The values are increased gradually with the increase in the
additive contents.
Table 4.17 Results of Sandy Soil Moisture Content Test
Plain Sandy soil 6.88%

Mix - 1 6.12%
Mix - 2 5.89%
Mix - 3 5.26%
Mix - 4 4.93%
Mix - 5 4.52%

Sandy Soil Mix Moisture Content Test
6.88%
6.12%
5.89%
5.26%
4.93%
4.52%
Graph 4.9 Sandy Soil Mix Moisture Content Test
Moisture content results of plain sandy soil & different mixes are as above. The
plain sandy soil has got a value of 6.88 % and the values are decreased gradually. The
value is reduced to 4.52% in mix 5.
4.2.3 Liquid limit
Table 4.18 Results of Sandy Soil Liquid Limit Test

Mix -1 23.72%
Mix- 2 23.13%
Mix- 3 22.84%
Mix -4 21.32%
Mix- 5 19.93%

Sandy Soil Mix Liquid Limit Test
24.52%
23.72% 23.13% 22.84%
21.32%
19.93%
Graph 4.10 Sandy Soil Mix Liquid Limit Test
Sandy soil LL value is 24.52% and subsequently values are decreased due to
addition of stabilizers. Ultimately the decrease in the LL of 19.93% is been observed for
mix no 5.
4.2.4 Plastic limit Test
It was not possible to found out plastic limit test as sandy soil is non cohesive soil.
Table 4.19 Results of Sandy Soil MDD Test
Plain Sandy soil 1.9

Mix - 1 2.06
Mix - 2 2.18
Mix - 3 2.08
Mix - 4 2.21
Mix - 5 2.31
The other Optimum Moisture content(OPC)test results are as below:

Table 4.20 Results of Sandy Soil Optimum Moisture content Test

Mix - 1 14.28%
Mix- 2 14.04%
Mix - 3 13.92%
Mix - 4 13.12%
Mix - 5 12.28%
The OMC results are above. Plain sandy soil has OMC of 14.12%. The result
values are decreased with increase in stabilizers.
Table 4.21 Observations of Sandy Soil California bearing ratio Test

PRP Division × 4.6
1 0 0 0
2 0.5 4.62 21.25
3 1.0 6.84 31.46
4 1.5 9.12 41.95
5 2.0 10.86 49.95
6 2.5 11.62 53.45
7 3.0 13.12 60.35
8 3.5 14.28 65.69
9 4.0 16.84 77.46
10 4.5 18.62 85.65
11 5.0 20.64 94.94

12 5.5 22.86 105.16

13 6.0 23.72 109.11
14 6.5 25.22 116.01
15 7.0 26.84 123.46
16 7.5 28.64 131.74
17 8.0 29.08 133.77
18 8.5 31.12 143.15
19 9.0 31.88 146.65
20 9.5 32.82 150.97
21 10.0 34.06 156.68
22 10.5 36.86 169.56
23 11.0 37.24 171.30
24 11.5 37.82 173.96
25 12.0 38.12 175.34
Sandy Soil CBR Test

200
180
160
140
120
Load in kN
100
80
60
40
20
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Penetration in mm
Graph 4.11 Sandy Soil CBR Test
11.62× 4.6 × 100

1370
= 3.9

20.64 × 4.6× 100

2055
=4.62
Mix 5
Table 4.22 Observations of Sandy Soil Mix California bearing ratio Test

PRP Division × 4.6
1 0 0 0
2 0.5 4.76 21.90
3 1.0 8.96 41.22
4 1.5 12.08 55.56
5 2.0 16.54 76.08
6 2.5 21.44 98.62
7 3.0 23.06 106.08
8 3.5 25.18 115.82
9 4.0 27.64 127.14
10 4.5 29.72 136.72
11 5.0 33.32 153.28
12 5.5 35.16 161.72
13 6.0 36.74 169.00
14 6.5 38.06 175.08
15 7.0 38.84 178.66
16 7.5 39.74 182.80
17 8.0 40.26 185.18
18 8.5 42.82 196.98
19 9.0 44.06 202.66
20 9.5 47.18 217.02
21 10.0 47.82 219.96
22 10.5 47.96 220.62
23 11.0 48.22 221.80
24 11.5 48.64 223.74
25 12.0 49.08 225.76

Sandy Soil Mix 5 CBR Test

250
200
150
Load in kN
100
50
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Penetration in mm
Graph 4.12 Sandy Soil Mix 5 CBR Test
21.44 × 4.6× 100

At 2.5mm penetration = = 7.2
1370
33.32× 4.6 ×100

At 5mm penetration = = 7.46
2055
Table 4.23 Results of Sandy Soil California bearing ratio Test
2.5mm 5 mm
Sandy Soil 3.9 4.62
Mix-1 5.24 5.15
Mix-2 5.6 5.84
Mix-3 6.48 6.1
Mix-4 6.4 6.88
Mix-5 7.2 7.46

Sandy Soil Mix CBR Values

2.5mm 5 mm
7.46
7.2
6.88
6.48 6.4
6.1
5.84
5.6
5.24 5.15
4.62
3.9
Sandy Soil Mix-1 Mix-2 Mix-3 Mix-4 Mix-5
Graph 4.13 Sandy Soil Mix CBR Values
The CBR values of sandy soil are as above. Plain or native soil has a CBR value
of 3.9 % for 2.5mm penetration & 4.62% for 5mm. Again the values are increased with
the increase in stabilizer percentage. There is a noticeable increase in the CBR value for
mix-5 i.e., 7.2 % & 7.46% for 2.5mm & 5mm penetration respectively.
4.3 Black Cotton Soil
Table 4.24 Results of Black Cotton Soil Specific Gravity Test
Plain Black cotton soil 2.18

Mix - 1 2.23
Mix - 2 2.08
Mix - 3 2.11
Mix - 4 2.35
Mix - 5 2.49

Black Cotton Soil Specific Gravity Test
2.49
2.35
2.23
2.18
2.11
2.08
Plain Black cotton soil Mix -1 Mix- 2 Mix- 3 Mix -4 Mix- 5
Graph 4.14 Black Cotton Soil Specific Gravity Test
Specific gr G of plain BC soil in the present study is 2.18. the value is marginally
increased to 2.23 in mix -1. Again the values are decreased for mix no 2 & 3 i.e. 2.08,
2.11 respectively. There is noticeable increase in the results of mix no 4 & 5 when
compared to mix 1 & 2.
Table 4.25 Results of Black Cotton Soil Moisture Content Test
Plain Black cotton soil 4.90%

Mix -1 4.84%
Mix- 2 4.62%
Mix- 3 4.71%
Mix -4 4.52%
Mix- 5 4.33%

Black Cotton Soil Moisture Content Test

4.90%
4.84%
4.71%
4.62%
4.52%
4.33%
Graph 4.15 Black Cotton Soil Moisture Content Test
The values of moisture content results are as above. The plain black cotton soil
has a value of 4.90%. Further the results are decreased remarkable percentage till 4.33%
in mix no 5 except the value of mix-2.
4.3.3 Liquid limit
Table 4.26 Results of Black Cotton Soil Liquid Limit Test

Mix -1 62.18%
Mix- 2 58.65%
Mix- 3 56.34%
Mix -4 63.68%
Mix- 5 65.13%

Black Cotton Soil Liquid Limit Test

65.13%
63.68%
62.18%
61.12%
58.65%
56.34%
Graph 4.16 Black Cotton Soil Liquid Limit Test
The value of plain black cotton soil is 61.12% and this value is increase
marginally to 62.18%. These values are decreased in results of mix on 2 and 3. Further
these values are increased to 63.68% & 65.13% in mix 4 & 5 respectively.
4.3.4 Plastic limit
Table 4.27 Results of Black Cotton Soil Plastic Limit Test

Mix -1 31.86%
Mix- 2 34.05%
Mix- 3 32.71%
Mix -4 36.11%
Mix- 5 35.28%

Black Cotton Soil Plastic Limit Test

36.11%
35.28%
34.05%
32.71%
31.86%
30.60%
Graph 4.17 Black Cotton Soil Plastic Limit Test
BC soil without addition of stabilizer has a PL of 30.60%. The values are

increased to 34.86% & 34.05% in mix 1 & mix 2 respectively. Then there is a slight
decrement in the PL in mix 3 i.e. 32.71%. Further the value has been increased to 36.11%
in mix no 4. But mix 5 showed a slight decrement in PL value of 35.28% when compared
to mix 5.
Table 4.28 Results of Black Cotton Soil Maximum Dry density (MDD) Test
Plain Black cotton soil 1.65

Mix -1 1.72
Mix - 2 1.52
Mix - 3 1.58
Mix - 4 1.69
Mix - 5 1.78
The other OMC test results are as below:

Table 4.29 Results of Black Cotton Soil Optimum Moisture content Test

Mix -1 23.36%
Mix- 2 25.47%
Mix- 3 26.54%
Mix -4 24.08%
Mix- 5 23.48%
OMC value of plain BC soil is 29.12%. The value is decreased to 23.36% in mix
1. Then values have increased in mix 2 & 3. Further the values of OMC are decreased
with increased in percentage of stabilizer.
Table 4.30 Observations of Black Cotton Soil California bearing ratio Test
Sl.No. Penetration PRP Division Load

PRP Division ×4.6
1 0 0 0
2 0.5 3.88 17.84
3 1.0 5.16 23.72
4 1.5 7.94 36.52
5 2.0 9.06 41.68
6 2.5 10.18 46.82
7 3.0 11.92 54.82
8 3.5 12.72 58.52
9 4.0 14.06 64.66
10 4.5 15.76 72.48
11 5.0 17.24 79.32

12 5.5 18.04 82.98

13 6.0 18.96 87.22
14 6.5 19.32 88.86
15 7.0 19.96 91.82
16 7.5 20.32 93.48
17 8.0 21.16 97.34
18 8.5 22.04 101.38
19 9.0 22.42 103.12
20 9.5 22.94 105.52
21 10.0 23.18 106.62
22 10.5 23.86 109.72
23 11.0 24.12 110.96
24 11.5 25.32 116.48
25 12.0 26.22 120.62
CBR Black Cotton Soil Test

140
120
100
80
Load in kN
60
40
20
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Penetration in mm
Graph 4.18 CBR Black Cotton Soil Test
10.18× 4.6 ×100

1370

= 3.42
17.24 ×4.6 × 100

2055
=3.86
Mix 5
Table 4.31 Observations of Black Cotton Soil Mix 5 California bearing ratio Test

PRP Division × 4.6
1 0 0 0
2 0.5 3.72 17.12
3 1.0 5.88 27.04
4 1.5 10.42 47.94
5 2.0 14.76 67.90
6 2.5 17.52 80.60
7 3.0 19.06 87.68
8 3.5 20.84 95.86
9 4.0 22.66 104.24
10 4.5 24.92 114.64
11 5.0 27.88 128.24
12 5.5 28.16 129.54
13 6.0 28.88 132.84
14 6.5 29.14 134.04
15 7.0 29.82 137.18
16 7.5 30.08 138.36
17 8.0 30.76 141.50
18 8.5 31.04 142.78
19 9.0 31.46 144.72
20 9.5 31.84 146.46
21 10.0 32.04 147.38
22 10.5 32.68 150.32
23 11.0 33.12 152.36
24 11.5 33.76 155.30

25 12.0 34.18 157.22
Black Cotton Soil Mix 5 CBR Test

180
160
140
120
Load in kN
100
80
60
40
20
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Penetration in mm
Graph 4.19 Black Cotton Soil Mix 5 CBR Test
17.52× 4.6 ×100

1370
= 5.88
27.88× 4.6 ×100

2055
= 6.24
Table 4.32 Results of Black Cotton Soil California bearing ratio Test
Different 2.5mm 5 mm
combinations
Black Cotton Soil 3.42 3.86
Mix-1 3.66 3.98
Mix-2 4.16 4.28

Mix-3 4.54 4.76
Mix-4 5.12 5.62
Mix-5 5.88 6.24
Black Cotton Soil CBR Values

2.5mm 5 mm
6.24
5.88
5.62
5.12
4.76
4.54
3.98 4.16 4.28
3.86
3.66
3.42
Black Cotton Soil Mix-1 Mix-2 Mix-3 Mix-4 Mix-5
Graph 4.20 Black Cotton Soil Mix 5 CBR Values
The results of CBR value BC soil and soil treated with the stabilizers are as shown
in the graph above. The BC soil has a result of 3.42% & 3.86% corresponding to the
penetration of 2.5mm & 5mm respectively. The values are increased gradually with the
increase percentage content of stabilizer. The maximum values of 5.88% and 6.24%
obtained for mix no 5 for penetration of 2.5mm and 5mm respectively.
4.4 Design of Flexible Pavement and Cost Evaluation
4.4.1 Silty Soil

For silty soil only
Last count of number of (commercial vehicles) (P) = 3500
Annual growth rate of (commercial vehicles) (r) = 8.5 %
No. of yrs b\w the last count (LC) & required year of completion for construction
(x) = 4 years.
Design life (n) = 12 years.
Vehicle damage factor (F) = 4.5 for more than 1500 vehicles.
Lane distribution factor (D) = 75% for two lane.
Design procedures of IRC 37-2001 should be as below:

P=3500
r=8.5%
x=4years
F= 4.5
D=75%
Solution:
A=P(1+r)x
=3500 (1+0.085)4
=4850.5 ≈ i.e 4851
Design-Traffic (in terms of cumulative number standard axles)= (N)
N= (365)× (1+r)n – 1× (A) ×( D)× (F)
R
= (365)× (1+.085)12-1× 4851 ×0.75×4.5

0.085
= 116.82 msa
For 2.9% ≈ 3% CBR, pavement thickness required is 860 for 100msa and 890 for 150, the
thickness for 116.82 msa is
860- 100
? -116.82
890 – 150
t = 860+ (890-860) ×(116.82-100)

(150-100)
= 870.09 mm ≈ i.e 870 mm
The pavement composition of plain silty soil may be as follows:

Table 4.33 Pavement composition of Plain Silty Soil

Sl. No. Different Level Depth (in mm)

1 Sub base 380
2 Base 250
3 DBM 190
4 Bituminous Concrete 50
Mix -5
CBR 7.16% ≈ 7%
A= 4851
N= 116.82msa
For 7% CBR, pavement thickness required is 675 for 100msa and 695 for 150, the
thickness for 116.82msa is
675 – 100
? -116.82
695 – 150
(695−675)
t = 675 + × (116.82-100)
(150−100)
= 681.72 ≈ i.e 682mm
t = 682mm
The pavement composition of silty soil Mix5 may be as follows:

Table 4.34 Pavement composition of Silty Soil Mix5

1 Sub base 230
2 Base 250
3 DBM 152

Different Levels of Silty Soil

Plain Silty Soil Silty Soil Mix 5
380
250 250
230
190
152
50 50
Sub base Base DBM Bituminous Concrete
Graph 4.21 Different Levels of Silty Soil
The above graph refers to the thickness of different layers of road for plain silty soil
and soil treated with various percentage of stabilizer (mix 5-GGBS: Fly ash:
Dust=5:24:24%). The thickness of sub base is reduced to 230mm in treated soil when
compared to 380mm in plain soil. Also, there is a decrease in the DBM thickness in the
treated soil mix no 5 from 190mm to 152mm. but there is no change the thickness of base
and bituminous concrete.
4.4.2 Sandy Soil

For sandy soil only
A = 4851
N = 116.82msa
CBR 3.9% ≈ 4%, pavement thickness required is 800 for 100msa and 820 for 150, the
800 – 100
? -116.82
820 -150
t = 800+ 20 × 16.82
50
= 806.72 ≈ i.e 807mm
The pavement composition of plain sandy soil may be as follows:
Table 4.35 Pavement composition of Plain Sandy Soil

1 Sub base 330
2 Base 250
3 DBM 177
Mix -5
CBR-7.46 ≈ i.e 8%, pavement thickness required is 640 for 100msa and 660 for 150, the
640 – 100
? -116.82
660 – 150
t =640 + 20 × 16.82
50
=646.72 ≈ i.e 647mm
The pavement composition of sandy soil Mix5 may be as follows:
Table 4.36 Pavement composition of Sandy Soil Mix5

1 Sub base 200
2 Base 250
3 DBM 147

Different Levels of Sandy Soil

Plain Sandy Soil Sandy Soil Mix5
330
250 250
200
177
147
50 50
Graph 4.22 Different Levels of Sandy Soil
The above graph refers to the thickness of different layers of road for plain sandy
soil and soil treated with various percentage of stabilizer (mix 5-GGBS: Fly ash:
4.4.3 Black cotton soil

For black cotton soil only
CBR-3.42% i.e 3%, pavement thickness required is 860 for 100msa and 890 for 150, the
thickness for 116.82 msa is
860- 100
? -116.82
890 – 150
t = 860+ (890-860) ×(116.82-100)
(150-100)
= 870.09 mm ≈ i.e 870 mm

The pavement composition of Plain Black Cotton soil may be as follows:
Table 4.37 Pavement composition of Plain Black Cotton Soil


1 Sub base 380
2 Base 250
3 DBM 190
Mix 5
CBR-3.42% i.e 3%, pavement thickness required is 700 for 100msa and 720 for 150, the
700 – 100
? – 116.82
720 -150
20
t = 700 + × (116-100)
(150−100)
= 706.4 mm ≈ 707 mm
The pavement composition of Black cotton soil Mix5 may be as follows:
Table 4.38 Pavement composition of Black Cotton Soil Mix 5

1 Sub base 260
2 Base 250
3 DBM 147
4 Bitumenous Concrete 50
Different Levels of Black Cotton Soil

Plain Black Cotton Soil Black Cotton Soil Mix5
380
260 250 250

190
147
50 50
Graph 4.23 Different Levels of Black Cotton Soil

The above graph refers to the thickness of different layers of road for plain BC
soil and soil treated with various percentage of stabilizer (mix 5-GGBS: Fly ash:
4.5 Cost Evaluation

Table 4.39 Details of Quantities and Rate abstract for Silty soil
Items of Length Width Depth Quantity Rate Amount

work (m) (m) (m) (m3) (Rs/m3) (Rs)
Granular
1000 7.0 0.38 2660 868 23,08,880
Sub Base
For Granular
1000 7.0 0.25 1750 1031 18,04,250
Native Base
Silty Dense
soil Bituminou 1000 7.0 0.19 1330 7984 1,06,18,720
s Macadam
Bituminou
1000 7.0 0.05 350 9671 33,84,850
s Concrete
Grand total 1,81,16,700/-
Table 4.40 Details of Quantities and Rate abstract for Mix 5 soil

work (m) (m) (m) (m3) (Rs/m3) (Rs)
Granular
1000 7.0 0.23 1610 868 13,97,480
Sub Base
Granular
For 1000 7.0 0.25 1750 1031 18,04,250
Base
Mix 5
Dense
Soil
Bituminous 1000 7.0 0.152 1064 7984 84,94,976
Macadam
Bituminous
1000 7.0 0.05 350 9671 33,84,850
Concrete

Above table gives the cost analysis for plain silty soil and soil treated with
stabilizer. The cost of the stabilizer is not taken in to consideration (5+24+24 % of the
cost has to be taken and deduct the same quantity by soil). There is almost 30 lakhs
rupees in reduction in the cost of materials. (17% reduction in the material cost).
Table 4.41 Details of Quantities and Rate abstract for Sandy soil

work (m) (m) (m) (m3) (Rs/m3) (Rs)
Granular
1000 7.0 0.33 2310 868 20,05,080
Sub Base
For Granular
1000 7.0 0.25 1750 1031 18,04,250
Native Base
Sandy Dense
soil Bituminou 1000 7.0 0.177 1239 7984 98,92,176
s Macadam
Bituminou
1000 7.0 0.05 350 9671 33,84,850
s Concrete

work (m) (m) (m) (m3) (Rs/m3) (Rs)
Granular
1000 7.0 0.20 1400 868 12,15,200
Sub Base
Granular
For 1000 7.0 0.25 1750 1031 18,04,250
Base
Mix 5
Dense
soil
Bituminous 1000 7.0 0.147 1029 7984 82,15,536
Macadam
Bituminous
1000 7.0 0.05 350 9671 33,84,850
Concrete
Above table gives the cost analysis for plain silty soil and soil treated with stabilizer.
The cost of the stabilizer is not taken in to consideration (5+24+24 % of the cost has to be

taken and deduct the same quantity by soil). There is almost 24.5 lakhs rupees in
reduction in the cost of materials. (14.5% reduction in the material cost).
Table 4.43 Details of Quantities and Rate abstract for Black cotton soil

work (m) (m) (m) (m3) (Rs/m3) (Rs)
Granular
1000 7.0 0.38 2660 868 23,08,880
For Sub Base
Granular
Native 1000 7.0 0.25 1750 1031 18,04,250
Base
Black
Dense
cotton
Bituminou 1000 7.0 0.19 1330 7984 1,06,18,720
soil
s Macadam
Bituminou
1000 7.0 0.05 350 9671 33,84,850
s Concrete

work (m) (m) (m) (m3) (Rs/m3) (Rs)
Granular
1000 7.0 0.26 1820 868 15,79,760
Sub Base
Granular
For 1000 7.0 0.25 1750 1031 18,04,250
Base
Mix 5 Dense
soil Bituminous 1000 7.0 0.147 1029 7984 82,15,536
Macadam
Bituminous
1000 7.0 0.05 350 9671 33,84,850
Concrete
For using stabilizing agents such as GGBS, Fly ash, Quarry dust for mix proportions
(4:24:24) reduces the 31,32,304 (Rs) cost.
Above table gives the cost analysis for plain BC soil and soil treated with stabilizer.
The cost of the stabilizer is not taken in to consideration (5+24+24 % of the cost has to be

taken and deduct the same quantity by soil). There is almost 31.3 lakhs rupees in
reduction in the cost of materials. (17.3% reduction in the material cost).
CHAPTER 5
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
Summary:
The aim of the investigation was to find out combination of different stabilizers and its
proportions in order to lower the cost of construction.
Three different types of soils are taken for the present investigation. Those are (i) Silty
soil (ii) Sandy soil (iii) Black cotton soil.
Accordingly different types of stabilizer used are GGBS, Fly ash, Quarry dust. Various
test were adopted to find the behavior of soil with different combination of stabilizer.
The % of different stabilizers is as below:
1. Silty soil
Mix -1 Silty soil +4%GGBS + 8% Fly ash+ 8%Quarry dust

2. Sandy soil
Mix -1 Sandy soil + 4% GGBS + 8% Fly ash + 8%Quarry dust
3. Black cotton soil
Mix -1 Black cotton soil + 4%GGBS + 8% Fly ash+ 8%Quarry dust
Mix -5 Black cotton soil + 4%GGBS +24% Fly ash+24%Quarry dust.
Conclusions:
1. The investigation has shown that various stabilizing agents used in the present
study, it is possible to stabilize the weak sub grade soil. By product such as GGBS
& fly Ash along with quarry dust can be effectively used for stabilization process
as observed with results obtained.
2. All three soils showed the gradual increase in the result strength parameter in
terms of CBR value, as native soil has been replaced by the stabilizers.
3. Plastic limit & liquid limit values decreased as native soil is replaced by the
stabilizers.
4. The reduction in the sub base of silty, sandy & BC soil are 150mm, 130mm &
120mm respectively.
5. The reduction in the bituminous concrete of silty, sandy & BC soil are 38mm,
30mm & 43mm respectively.
6. Overall decreased cost of construction of road in silty soil, sandy % BC soil is

17%, 14.5% & 17.3% respectively. So, stabilization of silty and BC soil are more
effective than sandy soil.
7. Technique can be also use for the stabilization foundation soil,railway, runway
pavements work to sustain heavy load.
8. Increase the durability i.e providing resistance against soil erosion and trafficking
loads.
9. Stabilization improves the workability, reduces the cost of project and the
durability of the soil.
10. This techniques prove to be economical where these stabilizing materials available
in economical rate.
CHAPTER 6
SCOPE OF FUTURE WORK

1. Stabilization can be done with different materials such as lime, geo grids, geo
synthetic materials, waste rubber waste, Rice husk ash etc.
2. Future the proportioning of materials can be tried for different combination.
3. The project work can be extended by taking the rate of stabilizers so this
technique can be adopted in construction industries.
4. Also, rate analysis can be done for the all mixes and find out the optimum result
from the particular mix.
5. Performance studies can by studied by constructing trail stretches for the selected
soils.
6. Further, the soil can be analyzed for physico-chemical interaction so that exact
reason for the stability can be found out.
7. The treated soil should not have any impact on the neighbor soil due to the
chemical reaction. It may affect the agriculture land which in contact with road.
GGBS, quarry dust and fly ash contain more silica, alumina etc.

REFERENCES:
1. Amu Olugbenga Oludolapo, Oluwole Fakunle Bamisaye and Iyiola Akanmu

Komolafe, “Lime Stabilization for Lateritic Soil Samples” Int. J. Pure Appl. Sci.
Technol., 2(1) (2011), pp. 29-46
2. Akshaya Kumar Sabat, Bidula Bose, “Improving the Geo- Technical Properties of
Soil by using Fly-Ash and Quarry dust”.
3. Bahia Louafi, Ramdane Bahar “SAND: An Additive for Stabilization of Swelling

Clay Soils” International Journal of Geosciences, 2012, 3, pp719-725
4. Chavali Rama Vara Prasad, Dr. R. K. Sharma “Influence of sand and fly ash on
clayey soil stabilization” Department of Civil Engineering, National Institute of
Technology, Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh, India. IOSR-JMCE, pp 36-40
5. Dutta.B.N, “Estimating and Costing in Civil Engineering” 25 th edition, UBS
publishers, New Delhi, 2001.
6. Dr.Kadyali.L.R and Dr.Lal.N.B, “Highway Engineering”,5 th edition, Khanna
Publishers, Delhi, 2010
7. GyanenTakhelmayum, savitha.A.L, Krishna Gudi “ Experimental Studies On Soil
Stabilization Using Fine And Coarse GGBS” International Journal Of Emerging
Technology And Advanced Engineering, volume 3, march 2013
8. IRC 37:2012, “Guidelines for the design of flexible pavements” ,third revision
Indian Standards
9. IS: 2720 (Part 4, 5, 8 &16) “Methods of test for soils” Indian Standards.
10. IS 2720-5 (1985): Methods of test for soils, Part 5: Determination of liquid and
plastic limit [CED 43: Soil and Foundation Engineering]
11. Justyna mrugala “Soil Stabilization with Foamed Bitumen” Kielce university of
technology, Dept of civil engg Poland. 2007
12. Khanna.S.K and Justo.C.E.G, “Highway Engineering”,9th edition, Nem Chand
and Brothers Publications, Roorkee, India, 2009
13. Ogunniyi, S.A. and Oladeji “Geotechnical properties of lateritic soil stabilized
with sugarcane straw ash” Department of Civil Engineering, Nigeria, American
Journal Of Scientific And Industrial Research,2011
14. Oriola, Folagbade, Moses, George “Groundnut Shell Ash Stabilization of Black
Cotton Soil” Dept. of Civil Engg., Nigerian Defense Academy, Kaduna, Nigeria
15. Peter W. C. Leung and H.D. Wong, “Final Report on Durability and Strength
development of Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slag”.
16. Punmia B C, Ashok Kumar Jain, Arun Kumar Jain, “Soil mechanics and
foundations” 16th edition, Laxmi publication, New Delhi, India, 2005.
17. Prof. Gali Madhavi Latha. “Performance evaluation of Gen synthetic Reinforced
Un-Paved Roads” by, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore.
18. Robert M. Brooks “Soil Stabilization With Flyash And Rice Husk Ash”
International Journal of Research and Reviews in Applied Sciences, Volume 1,
Issue 3(December 2009)
19. S Bhuvaneshwari, R. G. Robinson, S.R. Gandhi, “Stabilization of Expansive soils
Fly ash”.
20. Vijayananda S. Dolli et all “Performance evaluation of weak sub grade soil and
treating the subsequent layers of the pavement by using advanced stabilization
technique”. ISSN: 2320-8236, Volume: 2, ISSUE:3, JULY-SEPTEMBER 2014.
21. Y. Keerthi, P. Divya Kanthi, N. Tejaswi, K. Shyam Chamberlin, B. Satyanarayana
“Stabilization of Clayey Soil using Cement Kiln Waste” International Journal of
Advanced Structures and Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 02, 2013.


Performance Characteristic Study of Weak Subgrade Soil and Improving The Strength of Subgrade Soil by Stabilization Techniques

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Performance Characteristic Study of Weak Subgrade Soil and Improving The Strength of Subgrade Soil by Stabilization Techniques

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Performance Characteristic study of weak Subgrade Soil and Improving the strength of Subgrade Soil by Stabilization techniques

Figure 1.1 Different Layers of soil

Department of Civil Engineering, JCE Belagavi. 1

may be compaction, addition of stabilizers or admixtures which enhances the properties

1.2 Objective of the study:

Department of Civil Engineering, JCE Belagavi. 2

3. To explore the possibility of using locally available materials are in various

1.3 Scope of the study:

1. To check the quality of the untreated soil by different physical test.

1.4 Organization of thesis:

The thesis has been organized in to following mentioned chapters

Department of Civil Engineering, JCE Belagavi. 3

Chapter-5: Deals with a summary and conclusion of the present investigations.

Chapter-6: Future scope of the present investigation work is carried out.

Department of Civil Engineering, JCE Belagavi. 4

2.1 A review on previous Studies

2.1.2 Akshaya Kumar Sabat et al [2013] “Improvement in geo-technical properties of

2.1.3 S. Bhuaneshwari et al [2005] “Stabilization of expansive soils mistreatment fly

Department of Civil Engineering, JCE Belagavi. 5

2.1.6 B. Vishnuvardhan Kumar et al [2015] “Comparative Studies of BC Soil and

Department of Civil Engineering, JCE Belagavi. 6

2.2 Literature Conclusion

Department of Civil Engineering, JCE Belagavi. 7

Determination that the project

Study/collection of previous journal paper for

Soil sampling for present study (Silty Collection of Admixtures GGBS,

Laboratory tests conducted for collected samples

 Specific gravity test

Flexible Pavement Design

Figure 3.1 Methodology Flow Chart

Department of Civil Engineering, JCE Belagavi. 8

3.2 Different types of Soil taken for present investigation are:

Figure 3.2 Sample of Silty soil

3.2.2 Sandy soil

Figure 3.3 Sample of Sandy soil

Department of Civil Engineering, JCE Belagavi. 9

3.2.3 Black Cotton Soil:

Figure 3.4 Sample of black cotton soil

Department of Civil Engineering, JCE Belagavi. 10

3.3 Different types of Stabilizers used are:

Figure 3.5: GGBS Sample

This material is a byproduct in the production of steel industry. It is a non mechanic

Department of Civil Engineering, JCE Belagavi. 11

3.3.2 Fly Ash

Figure 3.6 Sample of Fly ash

It is a by product or residue of combustion of coal, composing of fine particles

Department of Civil Engineering, JCE Belagavi. 12

3.3.3 Quarry Dust

Figure.3. 7 Sample of Quarry Dust

3.4 Experimental Study

 Modified Proctor Compaction

Department of Civil Engineering, JCE Belagavi. 13

3.4.1 Specific gravity test by density bottle method

Department of Civil Engineering, JCE Belagavi. 14

3.4.2 Moisture Content Test:

3.4.3 Liquid Limit Test by Casagrande’s Method

Figure. 3.9 Silty Soil Liquid Limit test by Casagrande’s method

Department of Civil Engineering, JCE Belagavi. 15

3.4.4 Plastic Limit Test

Figure. 3.10 Silty Soil Plastic Limit Test

3.4.5 Modified proctor compaction test

Figure 3.11 Silty Soil Modified Proctor Compaction Test

Department of Civil Engineering, JCE Belagavi. 16