CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Clayey soil deposits occur in the arid and semi-arid regions of the world and are problematic
to engineering structures because of their tendency to heave during wet season and shrink
during dry season. Clayey soils are a worldwide problem that poses several challenges for
civil engineers. They are considered a potential natural hazard, which can cause extensive
damage to structures if not adequately treated. Hence problematic soil like clayey soil must
be adequately treated before the erection of structure. Wide range of soil modification
method is available. Selection of appropriate method should be based on the type of soil and
its characteristics, type of the construction, time available, associated cost. It has been
observed that industrial byproducts can cause drastic change in the soil properties in terms of
strength characteristics, density, acidity etc. and also serves agricultural benefits by
increasing crop yield. More over utilization of these products is a better solution to disposal
than heaving them up on land.

SOIL TYPES: -

On the basis of the geological origin of their constituents, soils can be divided into two main
groups: -
(1)Those which owe their origin to the physical and chemical weathering of the parent
rocks, such as coarse-grained soils (sands and gravels)
(2)Those which are chiefly of organic origin, are extremely compressible and their use as
foundation material is best avoided.
A soil is called a residual soil, if still located at the place of origin and formation (due
to weathering processes) or a transported soil, if that has been transported from its place of
origin by wind, water, ice or any other agency and re-deposited. The soils of India can be
broadly divided into the following groups, based on the climatic conditions, topography and
geology of their formation.
1. Black cotton soils

2. Laterites and lateritic soils

1
3. Alluvial soils

4. Desert soils

5. Marine soils

6. Boulder deposits

In recent years, environmental issues have driven interest to utilize industrial by-products as
alternative construction materials. The well-established industrial by-products, such as fly
ash, slag, Rice Husk Ash, mine tailing and waste stone powder have been obtained to
improve the geotechnical properties of problematic soils and engineering properties of
pozzolanic stabilized materia

1,1 SCOPE AND IMPORTANCE OF THE STUDY

Soil properties vary an excellent deal and construction of structures depends tons on the
bearing capacity of the soil, hence, we'd like to stabilize the soil, which makes it easier to
divine the load bearing capacity of the soil and even improve the load bearing capacity.
The gradation of the soil is additionally a really important property to stay in mind while
working with soils. The soils could also be well graded which is desirable because it has
less number of voids or uniformly graded which though sounds stable but has more voids.
Thus, it's better to combine differing types of soils together to enhance the soil strength
properties. It is very expensive to exchange the inferior soil entirely and hence, soil
stabilization is that the thing to seem for in thesecases.It is more economical in terms of
both cost and energy to extend the bearing Capacity of the soil instead of going for deep
foundation or foundation .It is also wont to provide more stability to the soil in slopes or
other such places. Sometimes soil stabilization is additionally wont to prevent erosion or
formation of dust, which is extremely useful especially in dry and arid weather.
Stabilization is additionally finished soil waterproofing; This prevents water from getting
into the soil and hence helps the soil from losing its strength. It helps in reducing the soil
volume change thanks to change in temperature or moisture content. Stabilization
improves the workability and therefore the durability of the soil.

2
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE PROJECT

Soil properties vary an excellent deal and construction of structures depends tons on the
bearing capacity of the soil, hence, we'd like to stabilize the soil, which makes it easier to
divine the load bearing capacity of the soil and even improve the load bearing capacity. The
gradation of the soil is additionally a really important property to stay in mind while working
with soils. The soils could also be well graded which is desirable because it has less number
of voids or uniformly graded which though sounds stable but has more voids. Thus, it's better
to combine differing types of soils together to enhance the soil strength properties. It is very
expensive to exchange the inferior soil entirely and hence, soil stabilization is that the thing
to seem for in thesecases.It is more economical in terms of both cost and energy to extend the
bearing Capacity of the soil instead of going for deep foundation or foundation .It is also
wont to provide more stability to the soil in slopes or other such places. Sometimes soil
stabilization is additionally wont to prevent erosion or formation of dust, which is extremely
useful especially in dry and arid weather. Stabilization is additionally finished soil
waterproofing; This prevents water from getting into the soil and hence helps the soil from
losing its strength. It helps in reducing the soil volume change thanks to change in
temperature or moisture content.
SCOPE AND IMPORTANCE OF THE STUDY

Almost 20% of land in India is roofed by Clay soils. With the rapid growth in
industrialization and urbanization, land scarcity appears to be an imminent threat.
Construction of civil engineering structures on Clay soils, however, pose a major risk to the
structure in itself, because of the greater degree of instability in these kinds of soil. Tallied in
billions of dollars per year is the loss in property every year globally owing to the instability
in the expansive soils.So that the clay soil stabilized by various methods , The study invoves
fly ash and stone dust ,for using as stabilization admixture. Now this days disposal of fly ash
has become a growing issue. India, as a developing country, is highly dependent on coal
based thermal power plants for production energy, and this dependency isn’t going to falter
anytime soon, on the other hand Stone powder produced from stone crushing zones appears
as a problem for effective disposal.The present production of fly and stone dust ash in India

3
is about 100 million tones, but its utilization is less than 10 %. Mass and effective utilization
is possible only through geotechnical applications. Therefore, many attempts are being made
to utilize fly ash for various applications to reduce problems associated with its disposal and
environmental problems and health hazards.

4
 OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY

The objectives of the study are:

 To improves the strength of the soil, thus, increasing the soil bearing capacity.

 t 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.

 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.

 To reducing the soil volume change due to change in temperature or moisture

content.T establish the usage of fly ash and stone Dust as an addictive , there by
helping utilize i

1.3 METHODS OF SOIL STABILIZATION

1. Mechanical stabilization

2. Cement stabilization

3. Lime stabilization

4. Bitumen stabilization

5. Fly Ash stabilization

6. Chemical stabilization

5
 Mechanical stabilization

The most basic sort of mechanical stabilization is compaction, which increases the
performance of a natural material. The benefits of compaction however are well
understood then they're going to not be discussed further during this report. Mechanical
stabilization of a cloth is typically achieved by adding a special material so as to enhance
the grading or decrease the plasticity of the first material. The physical properties of the
first material are going to be changed, button reaction is involved. For example, a
material rich in fines could be added to a material deficient in fine sand in order to
produce a material nearer to an ideal particle size distribution curve. This will allow the
extent of density achieved by compaction to be increased and hence improve the
steadiness of the fabric under traffic. The proportion of material added is typically from
10 to 50 per cent. Mechanical stabilization is typically the foremost cost• effective
process for improving poorly graded materials. The stiffness and strength will generally
be less than that achieved by chemical stabilization and would often be insufficient for
heavy traffic pavements. It may even be necessary to feature a stabilizing agent to
enhance the ultimate properties of the mixed material ,Hence stone
Dust is known as mechanical stabilizer because it helps soils to stabilize by improving
its gradations ,plasticity and compaction characteristics .
1.3.2 CEMENT STABILIZATION
Any cement are often used for stabilization, but Ordinary hydraulic cement is that the
most generally used throughout the planet . The addition of cement material, within the
presence of moisture, produces hydrated calcium aluminates and silicate gels, which
crystallize and bond the fabric particles together. The hydrated cement gives most of the
strength of a cement stabilized material. A reaction also takes place between the fabric
and lime, which is released because the cement hydrates resulting in an extra increase in
strength. Granular materials are often improve by the addition of little proportion of
hydraulic cement , generally but 10 per cent. The addition of quite 15 per cent cement
usually leads to conventional concrete. In general the strength of the fabric will steadily
increase with an increase within the cement .

6
 LIME STABILIZATION

The lime stabilization being recorded in the construction of early Roman roads. The
Portland cement invented in the 19th Century resulted in cement replacing lime as the main
type of stabilizer. Lime stabilization will effective with materials which contain enough
clay to take place positive reaction. Lime was produced by heating chalk or limestone or
combining with water. In the road construction only quicklime and hydrated lime are used
as stabilizers. They are usually added in solid form. They can also be mixed with water and
applied as slurry. There is a violent reaction between quicklime and water and
consequently operatives exposed to quicklime can experience several external and internal
burns, as well as blinding. In soil stabilization hydrated lime is used. The quicklime is used
for very rapid stabilization of water• logged sites.

BITUMEN STABILIZATION
Bitumen is too viscous to use at room temperatures and must be made into either the
bitumen immerge in kerosene or diesel or a bitumen particles suspended in water. When
the solvent evaporates, the bitumen is deposited on the material. The bitumen merely acts
as a glue to remain the material particles together and stop the pass of water. In many cases
the bituminous material acts as an impervious layer within the pavement

CHEMICAL STABILIZATIO

Stabilization of moisture in soil and cementation of particles could also be done by

chemicals like salt, common salt etc. FLY ASHcould also be used as an admixture which
is definitely available. The overall objectives of blending chemical additive with soil are to
enhance or control volume stabilities, strength and stress strain properties, permeability
and sturdiness. Volume stabilities namely control of swelling and shrinkage are often
improved by replacement of high hydration of cations like calcium, magnesium, aluminum
or iron. It also can be improved by cementation and by water proofing chemicals. The

7
event and maintenance of high strength and stiffness is achieved by elimination of huge
pores by bonding particles and aggregates together by maintenance of flocculent particle
arrangement by prevention and swelling.
Stabilization of moisture in soil and cementation of particles could also be done by
chemicals like salt, common salt etc. FLY ASH could also be used as an admixture which
is definitely available.

8
 CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

Fly ash by itself has little cementious value but in the presence of moisture it reacts
chemically and forms cementatious compounds and attributes to the improvement of strength
and compressibility characteristics of soils. It has a long history of use as an engineering
material and has been successfully employed in geotechnical applications.

Erdal Cokca (2001): Effect of Flyash on clay soil was studied by Erdal Cokca, Flyash
consists of often hollow spheres of silicon, aluminium and iron oxides and unoxidized
carbon. There are two major classes of flyash, class C and class F. The former is produced
from burning anthracite or bituminous coal and the latter is produced from burning lignite
and sub bituminous coal. Both the classes of fly ash are puzzolans, which are defined as
siliceous and aluminous materials. Thus Fly ash can provide an array of divalent and trivalent
cations (Ca2+,Al3+,Fe3+etc) under ionized conditions that can promote flocculation of
dispersed clay particles. Thus clay oils can be potentially stabilized effectively by cation
exchange using flyash. He carried out investigations using Soma Flyash and Tuncbilek flyash
and added it to clay soil at 0-25%. Specimens with flyash were cured for 7days and 28 days
after which they were subjected to Oedometer free swell tests. And his experimental findings
confirmed that the plasticity index, activity and swelling potential of the samples decreased
with increasing percent stabilizer and curing time and the optimum content of flyash in
decreasing the swell potential was found to be 20%. The changes in the physical properties
and swelling potential is a result of additional silt size particles to some extent and due to
chemical reactions that cause immediate flocculation of clay particles and the time dependent
puzzolanic and self hardening properties of flyash and he concluded that both high –calcium
and low calcium class C fly ashes can be recommended as effective stabilizing agents for
improvement for improvement of clay soils.
Pandian et.al. (2002). Studied the effect of two types of fly ashes Raichur fly ash (Class F)
and Neyveli fly ash (Class C) on the CBR characteristics of the black cotton soil. The fly ash
content was increased from 0 to 100%. Generally the CBR/strength is contributed by its

9
cohesion and friction. The CBR of BC soil, which consists of predominantly of finer
particles, is contributed by cohesion. The CBR of fly ash, which consists predominantly of
coarser particles, is contributed by its frictional The CBR of BC soil, which consists of
predominantly of finer particles, is contributed by cohesion. The CBR of fly ash, which
consists predominantly of coarser particles, is contributed by its frictional component. The
low CBR of BC soil is attributed to the inherent low strength, which is due to the dominance
of clay fraction. The addition of fly ash to BC soil increases the CBR of the mix up to the
first optimum level due to the frictional resistance from fly ash in addition to the cohesion
from BC soil. Further addition of fly ash beyond the optimum level causes a decrease up to
60% and then up to the second optimum level there is an increase. Thus the variation of CBR
of fly ash-BC soil mixes can be attributed to the relative contribution of frictional or cohesive
resistance from fly ash or BC soil, respectively. In Neyveli fly ash also there is an increase of
strength with the increase in the fly ash content, here there will be additional puzzolonic
reaction forming cementitious compounds resulting in good binding between BC soil and fly
ash particles
Phanikumar and Sharma (2004): A similar study was carried out by Phanikumar and
Sharma and the effect of fly ash on engineering properties of clay soil through an
experimental programme. The effect on parameters like free swell index (FSI), swell
potential, swelling pressure, plasticity, compaction, strength and hydraulic conductivity of
expansive soil was studied. The ash blended clay soil with flyash contents of 0, 5, 10,15 and
20% on a dry weight basis and they inferred that increase in flyash content reduces plasticity
characteristics and the FSI was reduced by about 50% by the addition of 20% fly ash. The
hydraulic conductivity of expansive soils mixed with flyash decreases with an increase in
flyash content, due to the increase in maximum dry unit weight with an increase in flyash
content. When the flyash content increases there is a decrease in the optimum moisture
content and the maximum dry unit weight increases. The effect of fly ash is akin to the
increased compactive effort. Hence the clay soil is rendered more stable. The undrained shear
strength of the expansive soil blended with flyash increases with the increase in the ash
content.
Karakus(2011)examined the use of Diyarbakir basalt waste in Stone Mastic Asphalt (SMA).
Asphalt improved with Stone Mastic for road construction has been utilized in Europe and

10
America for 40 years, although is a rather new process in Turkey. SMA basically consists of
93–94% aggregate and mineral fillers, 6–7% bitumen and additives. Karakus (2011) shows
that test results indicate that properties of the basalt waste and the SMA produced were
within the specified limits and that these waste materials can be used as aggregates and
mineral filler in SMA. Studies on providing utilization of basalt dust and aggregate wastes
are proposed to be undertaken also in the areas of concrete and construction chemicals.
Ahmed and Ugai (2011) investigated the use of Recycled gypsum, which is derived from
gypsum waste Plasterboard, is one of the wastes that have recently been used in Japan for
ground improvement in different projects such as embankments and highways (Kamei et al.,
2007; Ugai and Ahmed, 2009; Ahmed et al., 2010, 2011). But the use of recycled gypsum in
ground improvement has a serious problem, which is related to the solubility of gypsum.
Demirel (2010) studied the effect of using Waste Marble Dust (WMD) as fine sand on the
mechanical properties of concrete. It was observed that addition of WMD such that would
replace the fine material passing through a 0.25 mm sieve at particular proportions displayed
an enhancing effect on compressive strength. Marble dust is a by-product of marble
production facilities and also creates large scale environmental pollution. Therefore, it could
be possible to prevent the environmental pollution especially in the regions with excessive
marble production and to consume fewer natural resources as well through its utilization in
normal strength concretes

A.K.Sabat et al. have administered experimentation on effect of crusher dust land

compaction properties of expansive soil. They need replaced expansive soil 10%, 20%,
30%, 40%, 50%, 60%, 70% and quarry dust is added to soil samples for locating the
properties of mixes. From the results they observed that when crusher dust added to
expansive soil liquid limit, plastic limit decreased.

B.M. Abrahan et.al. Studied the utilization of quarry dust in embankment and pavement
constructions. In the work they need found that the quarry dust has high shear strength and
high relative density, CBR value for normal compaction and modified compaction efforts
are found to be around 23% and 49%respectively.

Naman Agarwal(2015) administered test like compaction, relative density and CBR in
laboratory on expansive clay with different proportion of stone dust by dry weight of soil

11
and from the test results, the addition of stone dust to Black cotton soil increases MDD and
increase the OMC, CBR value increased nearlyby50%by adding30% stone dust.
CHAPTER 3

MATERIALS AND METHODS

3.1 MATERIALS USED

 Clay Soil
 Fly Ash
 Stone Dust

3.1.1 CLAY SOIL

Clay is a type of fine-grained natural soil material clay minerals .clay develops plasticity
when wet due to molecular film of water surrounding the clay particles ,but become hard,
brittle and non-plastic upon drying or firing .Most clay minerals are white or light in
coloured but natural clay shows a variety of colours from impurities such as reddish or
brownish from small amount of iron oxide. Clays in general and expansive soils in
particular have been a major concern to geotechnical engineers for many years. Moisture
variations produce big volume changes in these types of soils. Several factors like amount
and type of clay minerals, soil structure, dry density, confining pressure, moisture content
and climate changes influence the amount of swell and shrinkage. These volume changes
finally result in serious damage to the various structures including pavements. Clays are
generally composed of micro-crystalline particles of a group of minerals. include
characteristics of clay, which included:

a) Small particle size (usually smaller than 0.002 mm)

b) Net negative charge

12
c) Show plasticity when mixed with moisture

13
 Table 1: Properties of Clay soil

SL. PROPERTIES VALUE

NO.
1 Specific gravity (Gs) 2.75
2 Grain size Distribution
Coefficient of Uniformity (Cu) Coefficient 5.33
of Curvature (Cc) 0
3 Atterberg limits Liquid limit
(%) 51.50
Plastic limit (%)
Shrinkage Limit (%Plasticity 21.50
Index (%) 21.37
30.00
4 Compaction properties
Optimum moisture content (OMC) (%) Maximum 19
Dry Density (MDD) (gm/cc)
1.71
5 Free swell index (%) 14.28
6 C.B.R (%) 6.79
7 U.C.S (KN/m2) 46.6

Figure 1: Clay soil

14
The following set of experiments is intended to be carried out;

 Atterberg limit:
 Liquid limit
 Plastic limit
 Plasticity index
 Specific gravity test
 Free swelling index
 Sieve analysis
 Compaction characteristics
 Light compaction test
 Maximum dry density
 Optimum moisture content
 Strength characteristics
 Unconfined compression test

15
 Procurement of materials

Preparation of Representative

Test on Expansive soil

Sieve Analysis

Specific Gravity test

Free swell index

Liquid
Atterberg

Plastic OMC
Compaction test

MDD
California Bearing Ratio test

Unconfined Compression test

Analysis

Results and Conclusions

Figure 4: Methodology Adopted

16
 EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAMMES

The Atterberg limits are the basic amount of the acute water content of the fine grained
soil, such liquid limit and plastic limit. As a dry soil takes on increase amount of water, it
undertakes affect and distinct variation in behavior and consistency counting on the water
content of the soil. It’s going to inherit in four states;

 Solid

 Semi- solid

 Plastic

 Liquid

In each state the constancy and behavior of the soil is modified accordingly its engineering
properties. Thus limit between each state be cable of defined supported a difference within
the soil behavior. The Atterberg limits are often wont to make a distinction between silt
and clay and it can distinguish between differing types of silts and clays. The objective of
the Atterberg limits test is to urge critical index information about the soil wont to
estimation strength and therefore characteristics for cohesive soils.

LIQUID LIMIT [IS: 2720 (Part 5) 1985]

The liquid limit is most commonly performed of the Atterberg Limits along with the
plastic limit. These 2 tests are used internationally to classify soil. The liquid limit is
defining the water content at which soil change from plastic state to liquid state. The liquid
limit is determine in the lab as the moisture content at which the two sides of a groove
shaped in soil come simultaneously and touch a distance of 2 inch after 25 blows. Liquid
Limit is measured by spreading a portion of the soil sample in the brass cup of a liquid
limit machine and dividing it using a grooving tool. The moisture content when the groove
closes for 1/2in after 25 drops of the cup is defined as the liquid limit.We can plot these
results as no of blow versus moisture content and interpolate the moisture content at 25
blows from the graph.

Water conten t (w) = W2−W3* 100

17
W3-W2/

18
Where,

W1=weight of empty
cup W2=weight of cup
+ wet soil W3=weight
of cup + dry soil

Figure 2: Liquid limit Test

PLASTIC LIMIT (as per IS: 2720 (Part 5) 1985)

The plastic limit is determining plastic limit of the red soil. The plastic limit is defined
because the moisture content where the thread breaks apart at a diameter of 3mm.PL is
Compute the typical of the water contents obtained from the three plastic limit tests. The
plastic limit (PL) is that the average of the three water contents.

Water content (w) = W2−W3 * 100

w3−1

W1=weight of empty
cup W2=weight of cup
+ wet soil W3=weight
of cup + dry soil

19
SPECIFIC GRAVITY [IS: 2720 (Part-3)1980]

Specific gravity is defined as the relative amount of the weight in air of a given
volume of a material at a specified high temperature to the weight in air of a same
volume of distilled water at a specified temperature. The reason of the test is
characterize the specific gravity of soil passing the 75micron sieve by density bottle
method. First empty weight of bottle was taken. Then 10gm of sample of soil taken
in bottle and added water then weight of the bottle+soil+water was taken. Then
washed the bottle and then bottle+ water weight was taken.

Specific gravity (Gs) =

* 100

W2−W1

W4−w3)

W1=weight of density bottle

W2=weight of density bottle + dry
soil
W3=weight of density bottle + dry soil
+ water W4=weight of density bottle
+water

Figure 4-Specific Gravity Tes

20
 FREE SWELL INDEX TEST [IS 2720(Part-40)1977]

Free swell or depending the free swell, also term as free swell index, is the increase in
volume of soil within 24 hours without any external limitation when subjected to
submergence with water and kerosene.

Vd−Vk
FSI= * 100
𝑉𝑘

Where,

Vd= Volume of soil in

water Vk= Volume of
soil in kerosene

Figure 5: Free swell index

21
GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION BY PIPETTE METHODS [IS2720(Part-4)1985]

The particle size distribution was determined as per IS: 2720 (part 4) -1980 and ASTM D
422 – 63 (1955). For particles of size more than 75-micron, sieve analysis was carried out
and for the particles of size finer than 75-micron, hydrometer analysis was carried out.1kg of
oven dried soil sample was taken in a tray and soaked with water. If deflocculation was
required, sodium hexametaphosphate, at the rate of 2g per liter of water was added. The
sample was stirred and left for a soaking period of at least one hour. The slurry was then
sieved through a 4.75 mm IS sieve, and washed with a jet of water. The material retained on
the sieve was the gravel fraction. It was fried in an oven, and sieved through set of coarse
sieves. The material passing through 4.75 mm sieve was sieved through a 75 μ sieve. The
material was washed until the wash water becomes clear. The material retained on the 75μ
sieve was collected and dried in an oven. It was then sieved through the set of fine of size
2.36 mm, 1.18mm, 600μ, 300μ, 150μ, 75μ. The material retained on each sieve was collected
and weighed. The material that would had been retained on pan is equal to the total mass of
soil minus the sum of masses of materials retained on all sieves.
Uniformity coefficient, Cu= 𝐷60
𝐷10

Coefficient of curvature, Cc= D302

D30∗D10

22
STANDARD PROCTOR TEST [IS2720(Part-7)1980]

Proctor compaction test is a laboratory method of test is to define the optimal moisture
content at which a given soil type will specifically. To determine the optimum water
content at which soil be able to get to its maximum dry density. The soil is then located
and compacted in the Proctor compaction mould in three different layers where each
layer receives 25 blows of the standard hammer. Before insertion each layer, the exterior
of the layers is scratched in order to verify a uniform distribution of the compaction. At
the end of the test, after eliminate and drying of the sample, the dry density and water
content of the sample is determine for each Proctor compaction test. Based on the
results, a graph is plotted between the dry density and moisture content. From this graph,
the optimum water content to achieve the maximum dry density can be found. The
moisture content, and dry density relations be initiate by compaction tests as per IS:
2720 (Part VII) 1980. Using standard proctor rammer of 2.6 kg and dropped at a height
of 310mm.

Figure 7: Standard proctor test

23
CBR TEST [IS2720(Part-16)1987]

The method combines a load penetration test performed within the laboratory or in place
for the determination of thickness of pavement and of its constituent layers .This is often
probably the most widely used method for the planning of flexible pavement. The CBR
test may be a small scale penetration test during which a cylindrical plunger of (5cm in
dia.) crosssection is penetrated into a soil mass the speed of 1.25mm/min observation are
taken between the penetration resistances versus the penetration of plunger. The
penetration resistance of the plunger into a typical sample of crushed stone for the
corresponding penetration is named standard load. The CBR is defined because the ratio
of test load to the quality load. The CBR test is administered compacted soil during a
CBR mould 150mm in dia meter and 175mm tall, provide with a detachable collar of
fifty mm tall and a detachable perforated base plate. The moulding dry density and water
content should be an equivalent as would be maintained durin field compaction. The
load reading is recorded at penetration,0,0.5,1.0,1.5,2.0,2.5,3.0,4.0,5.0,7.5,10.0 ,and
12.5mm. The CBR values are generally calculated for penetration of two 2.5mm and
5.0mm, and therefore the CBR value at 2.5mm penetration are quite that at 5.0mm
penetration and in such case the previous is to be taken because the CBR value for
design purpose. If the CBR values 5mm exceed than from 2.5mm the test is repeated.

CBR=𝑃𝑇 ∗ 100
𝑃𝑆

PT=test load corresponding taken from to the chosen

penetration PS=standard load for the same penetration

24
 Figure 8: California bearing ratio Test

UCS TEST [IS2720(Part-10)1991]

The unconfined compressive strength obtained from unconfined compressive tests is

often usedas an index for assessing the quality of the soil improvement due to
stabilization. Unconfined compressive testscan determine the strength of cemented soils
without the need to apply the confining stress, while maintaining the soil cementation or
bonding prior to shearing.The soil sample was sieved by 75 micron sieve.The water was
added according to the OMC obtained.The split mould is oiled lightly from inside and
the sample is then pushed out of the tube into the split mould and the sample is carefully
taken out from the split mould. A wire saw may be used to trim the ends parallel to each
other a lathe or trimmer may be used to trim the specimen to circular cross section. The
sample is ready to use for the find out the parameter for unconfined compressives
trength.

25
26
Figure 9: Unconfined compressive Test

27
FLY ASH

Fly ash is a fine, glass powder recovered from the gases of burning coal through the
production of electricity. These micron-sized earth elements consist mainly of silica,
alumina and iron. Fly Ash is also known as Coal Ash, Pulverized Flue Ash, and
Pozzolana. fly ash can be used to replace a portion of cement in the concrete, providing
some discrete quality advantages because when mixed with lime and water the fly ash
forms a cementitious compound with property very similar to that of Portland cement.
Fly ashes are readily available, cheaper and environmentally friendly. There are two main
classes of fly ash; class C and class F. class C fly ash are produced from burning
subbituminous coal; it has high cementing properties because of high content of free
CaO. Class C from lignite has the highest CaO resulting in self- cementing
characteristics. Class F fly ashes are produced by burning anthracite and bituminous coal;
low self – cementing properties due to limited amount of free CaO available for
flocculation of Clay minerals. The Fly Ash are collected from Thermal Power Plant.

Figure-10

28
Uses of fly ash: -
There are various types of uses: -

• Portland cement

• Embankments and structural fill.

• Waste stabilization and solidification.

• Raw feed for cement clinkers.

• Stabilization of soft soils.

• Road sub base.

Chemical composition and classification of fly ash: -

Fly ash particles are in general spherical in shape and range in size from 0.5 µm to 100 µm.
They consist mainly of silicon dioxide (SiO2), which is present in two forms: amorphous,
which is rounded and smooth, and crystalline, which is sharp, pointed and hazardous;
aluminum oxide (Al2O3) and iron oxide (Fe2O3).
Two classes of fly ash are defined by ASTM C618: “Class F fly ash and Class C fly ash. The
chief difference between these classes is the amount of calcium, silica, alumina, and iron
content in the ash. The chemical properties of the fly ash are largely subjective by the
chemical content of the coal burned (i.e., anthracite, bituminous, and lignite).

.
PROPERTIES OF FLY ASH

LIQUID LIMIT OF FLY ASH 51.80

SPECIFIC GRAVITY OF FLY ASH 2.25

29
 STONE DUST

Stone dust is finely pulverized stone that has been screened and is typically used as a base
material for leveling. Stone dust is easy to grade and once it is compacted, it can be walked
directly on while laying stone, pavers or bricks Stone dust is by•product of crushed stone. It
is the mechanical stabilizer and high strength and enhances geotechnical properties of soil
when mixed with it in suitable proportion. It stabilizes the problematic soil by improving its
compaction characteristics and reducing the plasticity. The stone dust was collected from
Hindol road crosser, Dhenkanal.

Table 4: Properties of Stone Dust

Sr.NO. PROPERTIES VALUE

Grain size Distribution

1 Coefficient of Uniformity (Cu) 7.56
Coefficient of Curvature (Cc)
2.67

Figure-11

30
 CHAPTER-4

RESULTS AND DISSCUSIONS

LIQUID LIMIT OF Clayey SOIL

Water
No of
No of Blows 19 26 30 Conten
Blows
t
Wt. Of Container (W1) 8.90 8.62 8.57 19 51.68
24.4 27.7
Wt. Of container + wet soil (W2) 31 26 52.02
6 7
23.4 19.0 21.3
Wt. Of container +dry soil (W3) 30 50.82
7 4 0
14.5 10.4 12.7
Wt. Of oven dry soil (W3-W1)
7 2 3

Wt. Of water (W2-W3) 7.53 5.42 6.47

Water Content      
51.6 52.0 50.8
(W2-W3/W3-W1) *100
8 2 2
TABLE NO 3

52.2
52
51.8
51.6
Water Content

51.4 Water
Liquid Limit
Content
51.2
25 51.50
51
50.8
50.6
50.4
50.2
10 20 30 40
Number
31 of Blows
 Test-I Test-II Test-III
Figure 3.1 Wt. Of Container (W1) 26.1 24.5 21.6
Liquid limit
graph of clay Wt. Of container + wet soil (W2) 31.44 27.2 23.96
soil
Wt. Of container +dry soil (W3) 30.32 26.74 23.61

Liquid Wt. Of Water 1.12 0.46 0.35

limit is Wt.Of Dry Soil 4.22 2.24 2.01
Water Content 26.54 20.54 17.41

Plastic Limit 21.50

Liquid Limit 51.50

Plasticity Index 30.00

(Liquid Limit-Plastic Limit)

The Soil Is Highly Plastic as Plasticity Index Greater than 17.

determined by plotting a ‘flow curve ‘on a semi-log graph with number of blows and the water
content and drawing the best straight line through the plotted points. The liquid limit of clays is
primarily controlled by the shearing resistance at particle level, and the thickness of the diffused
double layer. Liquid limit of clay soil was found to be 51.50%

PLASTIC LIMIT OF THE SOIL

32
GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION ClAYEY SOIL BY PIPETTE METHOD

Contn Time Time Wt.of Wt.Cont. Wt.of Pipette Diameter( %

o Interv Empt +Dry soil dry Volume(V d) in mm Fine
al y soil(W p) r
Cont. d)
                 
1 9.09A 0 Sec 29.60 30.47 0.87 10 0 74
m
2   15 Sec 29.63 30.46 0.832 10 0.08 66.4
3   30 Sec 32.17 32.91 0.744 10 0.06 48.8
4 9.10A 1 Min 30.55 31.24 0.686 10 0.04 37.2
m
5 9.11 2 Min 28.57 29.21 0.639 10 0.03 27.8
6 9.13 4 Min 8.56 9.13 0.571 10 0.02 14.2
7 9.17 8 Min 8.91 9.45 0.538 10 0.01 7.6
8 9.24 15 9.57 10.09 0.517 10 0.01 3.4
Min
9 9.39 30 8.65 9.16 0.507 10 0.007 1.4
Min
10 10.09 1 Hr 17.21 17.71 0.502 10 0.005 0.4
11 11.09 2 Hr 23.1 23.60 0.501 10 0.003 0.2
12 1.09 4 Hr 24.07 24.07 0 10 0.002 0
13 3.09 6 Hr 30.56 30.56 0 10 0.002 0

Table 4 Sieve analysis of soil

D10= 0.01363634
D30= 0.03
D60= 0.07
Cu=D60/D10= 5.333333333
Cc=D30^2/D10*D60= 0.00557815

33
 PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION CURVE
110
100
90
80
All the soil passed
through 70 sieve No.75
micron 60 and
sedimentation test
50
% FINER

is carried out. A
pipette 40 test was
categorize the
particle
30 which are lesser
than 20 0.075 mm sieve.
The results of grain
10
size analysis are
0 presented in Fig
(12).
0.000 0.001 0.010 0.100 1.000 10.000 The position and
the GRAIN SIZE IN mm shape of a curve
indicates the type and
gradation of the soil and it is plotted between particle size (%) verses finer (%). The finer percentage
represented normal scale and grain is plotted in log scale. The percentage finer than 75 micron IS Sieve
is 86.49 %, and the clay size fraction passing 75 micron is 74.417 %. Black cotton soil can readily be
compacted to a very dense condition, and will develop high shearing resistance and bearing capacity.
The Clay soil, the particle sizes of the range of gravel 4.07% sand 9.431 %, silt 12.082% and clay is
74.417 %.

Shrinkage limit

34
 Wt. of Container 84.34
Wt.of wet soil with Container 123.94
T
A
Wt.of dry soil with container 111.63
B
L
Water Content(Wi) 45.11
E
Wt. of container + Mercury(gm) 753

Wt. of Mercury(gm) 668.66

Volume of mercury with container 49.42

Wt. of container +Mercury after spillig of Hg 172

Final Volume 42.94

Shrinkage Limit =Wi-Wf=Wi-{(Vi-Vf)ρw/Ws} *100 21.37

NO 5

35
 SIEVE ANALYSIS OF STONE DUST

100
90
80
70
60
% finer

50
40
30
20
10
0
0.01 0.1 1 10
sieve size(mm)

Figure NO 6: Sieve analysis of Stone dust graph

D60= 0.77
D30= 0.46
D10= 0.12

Cu=D60/D10= 7.56
Cc=(D30^2)/D60*D10= 2.67

STANDARD PROCTOR TEST OF CLAY SOIL

Water 7% 9% 11% 13% 15% 17%
Volume of Mould 944 944 944 944 944 944
Wt.of Mould (Wm) 2083 2083 2083 2083 2083 2083

36
Wt. Of Mould +
Compacted soil 3860 3890 3922 3975 4005 3997
(W1)
Wt. Compacted soil 1777 1807 1839 1892 1922 1914
(W1-Wm) gm
Wet density γt
=(W1-Wm)/V 1.88 1.91 1.95 2.00 2.04 2.03
gm/C.C
Container
30 29 30 30 23 30
Weight(X1)
Wt.of
Container+Wet Soil 84 78.23 65 70 64.86 68.5
(X2) gm

Wt. Of container+ 77 71.6 60.1 64 58.21 62

dry soil (X3) gm

Wt. Of dry soil (X3- 47 42.6 30.1 34 35.21 32

X1) gms
Wt. Of water (X2- 7 6.63 4.9 6 6.65 6.5
X3) gm
Water Content W
%=(X2-X3/X3- 14.89 15.56 16.28 17.65 18.89 20.31
X1)*100
Dry density
(gm/cc)= 1.64 1.66 1.68 1.70 1.71 1.69
γd=γt/(1+W/100)            
 
 MDD  1.71          
OMC 18.89  19        

TABLE NO 6

37
 1.72
1.71
1.7
1.69
1.68
Dry Density

1.67
1.66
1.65
1.64
1.63
10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24

Water Content

FIGURE NO 6.1

38
 Standard proctor curve of CLAY soil

In the standard proctor compaction test, the graph was plotted between moisture content and dry
density. OMC & MDD of clay soil was found to 19 and 1.71.
CALIFORNIA BEARING CAPACITY OF CLAY SOIL

Penetration in (mm) Load in (Kg) Unit load CBR

(Kg/cm2) Value
0 0 0 0
0.5 12 0.613
1 35 1.788
1.5 58 2.963
2 77 3.934
2.5 93 4.752 6.79
3 105 5.365
3.5 113 5.774
4 121 6.182
4.5 125 6.387
5 127 6.489 6.18
5.5 131 6.693
6 133 6.796
6.5 135 6.898
7 137 7
7.5 139 7.102
8 CBR GRAPH
141 7.204
8.5 141 7.204
160
140
CBR Value 6.79
120
TABLE NO 7
100
Load In KG

80
CBR GRAPH
60
40
20
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
39

Penetration In mm
 FIGURE 7.1

Un-soaked California Bearing Ratio (CBR) tests are conducted in clay soil. In the parent soil the
CBR result at 2.5 mm penetration the load sustained by the metal 6.79% & 5-mm penetration load
was found to be 6.18%. the graph was plotted between penetration and load curve.

40
Dial Reading Deformation(in Strain(e=dL/Lo) Force(N) Stress(kN/m^2) Stress(kN/m^2)
mm)
0 0 0 0 0 0
50 0.1 0.00117647 10 9302.2628 9.302263
100 0.2 0.00235294 16 14883.621 14.88362
150 0.3 0.00352941 31 28837.015 28.83701
150 0.3 0.00352941 34 31627.694 31.62769
200 0.4 0.00470588 36 33488.146 33.48815
250 0.5 0.00588235 39 36278.825 36.27883
300 0.6 0.00705882 41 38139.278 38.13928
350 0.7 0.00823529 42 39069.504 39.0695
400 0.8 0.00941176 44 40929.957 40.92996
450 0.9 0.01058824 45 41860.183 41.86018
500 1 0.01176471 46 42790.409 42.79041
550 1.1 0.01294118 49 45581.088 45.58109
600 1.2 0.01411765 50 46511.314 46.51131
650 1.3 0.01529412 51 47441.541 47.44154
700 1.4 0.01647059 51 47441.541 47.44154
750 1.5 0.01764706 52 48371.767 48.37177
800 1.6 0.01882353 53 49301.993 49.30199
850 1.7 0.02000000 51 47441.541 47.44154
900 1.8 0.02117647 50 46511.314 46.51131
UCS TEST OF CLAYEY SOIL

StrssVs Strain Graph

60

50

40
StresskN/m2

30

20

10
41
0
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025
STRAIN
CBR TEST FOR CLAYEY SOIL+10 % FLY ASH

42
Penetration in (mm) Load in (Kg) Unit load (Kg/cm2) CBR Value

0 0 0 0
0.5 111 0.613
1 123 1.788
1.5 137 2.963
2 154 3.934
2.5 166 4.752 12.12
3 179 5.365
3.5 192 5.774
4 201 6.182
4.5 213 6.387
5 226 6.489 11.00
5.5 238 6.693
6 251 6.796
6.5 256 6.898
7 258 7
7.5 260 7.102
8 262 7.204
8.5 268 7.204

CBR Value 12.12

TABLE NO 8

43
 CBR GRAPH
300

250

200
Load In kg

150
CBR GRAPH
100

50

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Penetration In mm

FIGURENO 8.1

The clay soil mixed with 10% fly ash, CBR at 2.5 mm penetration the load sustained by the metal
12.12% & 5-mm penetration load was found to be 11%. After addition of fly ash, the CBR value
gradually increases.

44
 CBR TEST OF CLYEY SOIL +15% FLY ASH

Penetration in (mm) Load in (Kg) Unit load (Kg/cm2) CBR Value

0 0 0 0
0.5 117 0.613
1 148 1.788
1.5 169 2.963
2 184 3.934
2.5 197 4.752 14.38
3 211 5.365
3.5 218 5.774
4 227 6.182
4.5 236 6.387
5 244 6.489 11.87
5.5 252 6.693
6 254 6.796
6.5 258 6.898
7 261 7
7.5 264 7.102
8 268 7.204
8.5 275 7.204

CBR Value 14.38

TABLE NO 9

45
 CBR GRAPH
300

250

200
Load In kg

150
CBR GRAPH
100

50

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Penetration In mm

Figure no 9.1

The clay soil mixed with 15% fly ash, CBR at 2.5 mm penetration the load sustained by the
metal 14.38%- & 5-mm penetration load was found to be 11.87%. After addition of fly ash, the
CBR value gradually increases

46
 CBR TEST OF CLAYEY SOIL+20%FLY ASH

Penetration Load in Unit load CBR

in (mm) (Kg) (Kg/cm2) Value

0 0 0 0
0.5 129 0.613
1 158 1.788
1.5 180 2.963
2 201 3.934
2.5 213 4.752 15.55
3 226 5.365
3.5 231 5.774
4 239 6.182
4.5 245 6.387
5 252 6.489 12.26
5.5 258 6.693
6 261 6.796
6.5 265 6.898
7 268 7
7.5 272 7.102
8 276 7.204
8.5 278 7.204
CBR Value 15.55

TABLE 10

47
 CBR GRAPH
300

250

200

150
Load In kg

100

50

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Penetration In mm
FIGURE NO 10.1

The clay soil mixed with 20%fly ash, CBR at 2.5 mm penetration the load sustained by the metal
15.55%- & 5-mm penetration load was found to be 12.26%. After addition of fly ash, the CBR
value gradually increases.

48
CBR TEST COMPAIRISION OF CLAYEY SOIL +FLY ASH 10%,15%,20%
clayey soil clayey Clayey Clayey Clayey
soil+10% FA soil+15%FA soil+20%FA soil+25%
SD
6.79 12.12mm 14.38 15.55 11.06

300

250

200
Load In kg

150
CBR IN 10%
CBR AT 15%
100 CBR AT 20%
CBR OF CLAY
50

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Penetration In mm

FIGURE NO 11
The above figure shows that the comparison between CBR value of normal soil and admixture
10%,15%,20% which shows that after adding the mixture the CBR value is increases comparison
to Parent Soil Clay.
 After adding of different percentage of fly ash in to clayey soil it observe that the CBR
value of FLY ASH gradually increases till 20% of fly ash added but further added of fly ash it
observe that the CBR value decreased.
 So that we take 20% CBR value of fly Ash as optimum for further study.

49
 CBR TEST OF CLAYEY+1% STONE DUST

Penetration in (mm) Load in (kg) Unit load (kg/cm2) CBR Value

0 0 0 0
0.5 42 0.613
1 101 1.788
1.5 152 2.963
2 220 3.934
2.5 271 4.752 19.78
3 322 5.365
3.5 345 5.774
4 365 6.182
4.5 384 6.387
5 392 6.489 19.08
5.5 403 6.693
6 411 6.796
TABLE NO 12

CBR GRAPH
450
400
350
300
Load In kg

250
200 CBR GRAPH
150
100
50
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Penetration In mm

FIGURE NO 12.1
The clay soil mixed with 1% Stone dust, CBR at 2.5 mm penetration the load sustained by the
metal 19.78% & 5-mm penetration load was found to be 19.08%. After addition of stone dust, the
CBR value gradually increases

50
 CBR TESTR OF CLAYEY +3% STONE DUST

Penetration in (mm) Load in (kg) Unit load (kg/cm2) CBR Value

0 0 0 0
0.5 51 0.613
1 109 1.788
1.5 172 2.963
2 241 3.934
2.5 297 4.752 21.68
3 351 5.365
3.5 374 5.774
4 393 6.182
4.5 404 6.387
5 412 6.489 20.05
5.5 421 6.693
6 422 6.796
TABLE 13

CBR GRAPH
450
400
350
300
Load In kg

250
200 CBR GRAPH
150
100
50
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Penetration In mm

FIGURE NO 13.1
The clay soil mixed with 3% Stone dust, CBR at 2.5 mm penetration the load sustained by the
metal 21.68% & 5-mm penetration load was found to be 20.05%. After addition of stone dust,
the CBR value gradually increases

51
 CBR TEST CLAYEY SOIL+5% SD

Penetration in (mm) Load in (kg) Unit load (kg/cm2) CBR Value

0 0 0 0
0.5 34 0.613
1 98 1.788
1.5 192 2.963
2 261 3.934
2.5 317 4.752 23.14
3 364 5.365
3.5 394 5.774
4 413 6.182
4.5 432 6.387
5 446 6.489 21.70
5.5 458 6.693
6 462 6.796
TABLE NO 14

CBR GRAPH
500
450
400
Load In kg

350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Penetration In mm
FIGURE
14.1
The clay soil mixed with 5% Stone dust, CBR at 2.5 mm penetration the load sustained by the metal
23.14% & 5-mm penetration load was found to be 21.70%. After addition of stone dust, the CBR value
gradually increase.

52
COMPAIRSION OF CBR OF CLAEY SOIL WITH 1,3,5 %SD MIXED

clayey clayey Clayey Clayey Clayey

soil soil+1% soil+3%SD soil+5%SD soil+10%
SD SD
6.79 19.78 21.68 23.14 17.23
mm
TABLE NO 15

600

500

400

300 CBR 1% STONE DUST

Load In kg

CBR IN3%
200 CBR IN 5 %
CBROFCLAY
CBR IN 10%
100

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Penetration In mm

FIGURE NO 15,1
The above figure shows that the comparison between CBR value of normal soil and admixture of
SD1%,3%,5% & 10%.After adding of different percentage of SD in to clayey soil it observe that
the CBR value of the mixture gradually increases till 5% of SD added but further added of SD it
observe that the CBR value decreased.
 So that we take 5% CBR value of SD as optimum for further stu

53
 UCS TEST OF CLAYEY SOIL +10% FLY ASH

Dial Deformatio Strain Force(N Stress(N/ Stress(kN/

Reading n( mm) (e=dL/Lo) ) m2) m)
0 0 0 0 0 0
50 0.1 0.0011764 5 4651.1314 4.651131
7
100 0.2 0.0023529 23 21395.205 21.3952
4
150 0.3 0.0035294 30 27906.789 27.90679
1
200 0.4 0.0047058 35 32557.92 32.55792
8
250 0.5 0.0058823 37 34418.373 34.41837
5
300 0.6 0.0070588 39 36278.825 36.27883
2
350 0.7 0.0082352 41 38139.278 38.13928
9
400 0.8 0.0094117 42 39069.504 39.0695
6
TABLE NO 16

StrssVs Strain Graph

45
40
35
30
25
Stress( kN/M2)

20
15
10
5
0
0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.006 0.007 0.008 0.009 0.01

Strain

FIGURE NO 16.1
Due to pozzolanic reactions which increase the strength, and reaction in cohesion strength of clayey
soils by the silty nature of the fly ash particles has been observed from this study that fly ashes add

54
UCS strength of clay soil. The graph shows the variation of UCS with changing in the UCS test. The
graph was plotted between stress and strain curve. In parent soil, the UCS was found to be 39.06
kN/𝑚2 and Shear strength was 19.99 kN/𝑚2

55
 UCS OF CLAY+15% FLY ASH

Dial Deformation(i Strain(e=dL/ Force(N Stress(N/m2) Stress(kN/m2)

Reading n mm) Lo) )
0 0 0 0 0 0
50 0.1 0.00117647 7 6511.584 6.511584
100 0.2 0.00235294 14 13023.168 13.02317
150 0.3 0.00352941 18 16744.073 16.74407
200 0.4 0.00470588 24 22325.431 22.32543
250 0.5 0.00588235 30 27906.789 27.90679
300 0.6 0.00705882 34 31627.694 31.62769
350 0.7 0.00823529 38 35348.599 35.3486
400 0.8 0.00941176 47 43720.635 43.72064
450 0.9 0.01058824 59 54883.351 54.88335
500 1.0 0.01176471 73 67906.519 69.76652
TABLE 17

StrssVs Strain Graph

80
70
60
50
40
Stress kN/m2

30
StrssVs Strain Graph
20
10
0
0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01 0.012 0.014

Strain
FIGURE NO 17,1
Due to pozzolanic reactions which increase the strength, and reaction in cohesion strength of
clayey soils by the silty nature of the fly ash particles has been observed from this study that fly
ashes add UCS strength of clay soil. The graph shows the variation of UCS with changing in the
UCS test. The graph was plotted between stress and strain curve. In parent soil, the UCS was
found to be 69.76

56
 UCS OF CLAY+20%FLY ASH

Dial Deformation Strain Force Stress(kN/m2) Stress

Reading (mm) (e=dL/Lo) (N) (kN/m2)
0 0 0 0 0 0
50 0.1 0.00117647 15 13953.394 13.95339
100 0.2 0.00235294 32 29767.241 29.76724
150 0.3 0.00352941 44 40929.957 40.92996
200 0.4 0.00470588 55 51162.446 51.16245
250 0.5 0.00588235 67 62325.161 62.32516
300 0.6 0.00705882 72 66976.292 66.97629
350 0.7 0.00823529 77 71627.424 71.62742
400 0.8 0.00941176 80 74418.103 74.4181
450 0.9 0.01058824 82 76278.555 76.27856
500 1.0 0.01176471 84 78139.008 79.06901
TABLE NO 18

Stress Vs Strain Graph

90
80
70
60
50
Stress kN/m2

40
30 StrssVs Strain ...
20
10
0
0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01 0.012 0.014

Strain
FIGURE NO 18,1
Due to pozzolanic reactions which increase the strength, and reaction in cohesion strength of clayey
soils by the silty nature of the fly ash particles has been observed from this study that fly ashes add UCS
strength of clay soil. The graph shows the variation of UCS with changing in the UCS test. The graph
was plotted between stress and strain curve. In parent soil, the UCS was found to be 79.06 kN/𝑚2 and
Shear strength was 39.53kN/𝑚2

57
 COMPAIRISION GRAPH OF UCS TESTOF CLAYEY SOIL
WITH 10,15,20% &25%FA
clayey soil clayey Clayey Clayey Clayey
soil+10% FA soil+15%FA soil+20%FA soil+25%
SD
46.11kN/m2 39.06 69.76 79.06 32.55

TABLE NO 19

STRESS VS STRAIN
60

50

40
ucs15% FA
30 UCS20%
UCS 10%FA
Stress kN/m2

20 ucsofclay
25% fly ash
10

0
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025

Strain
FIGURE NO 19.1
Here is the Comparison graph between UCS value of FA in different percentage
 After adding of FLY ASH till 20% percentage The UCS value increases .
 But after of further adding of percentage of FA we observe that the UCS value decreaseds.
 So that We tale 20% of FLY ASH as optimum value for fort her Study.

58
 UCS OF CLAY SOIL+1% STONE DUST

Dial Deformation Strain Force Stress k Stress(k

Reading (mm) N/M2 N /m2 N/m20
0 0 0 0 0 0
50 0.1 0.0011764 3 2790.6795 2.790680
7
100 0.2 0.0023529 10 9302.265 9.302265
4
150 0.3 0.0035294 43 39999.74 39.99974
1
200 0.4 0.0047058 57 53022.911 53.02291
8
250 0.5 0.0058823 68 63255.402 63.2554
5
300 0.6 0.0070588 77 71627.441 71.62744
2
350 0.7 0.0082352 88 81859.932 83.72039
9
400 0.8 0.0094117 90 83720.385 83.72039
6
450 0.9 0.0105882 94 87441.291 87.44129
4
500 1.0 0.0117647 99 92092.424 92.09242
1
550 1.1 0.0129411 99 92092.424 92.09242
8
TABLE NO 20

StrssVs Strain Graph

100
90
Stress (kN/m2)

80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 0.002 0.004 0.00659 0.008 0.01 0.012 0.014

Strain
 FIGURE NO 20.1
Due to pozzolanic reactions which increase the strength, and reaction in cohesion strength of
clayey soils by the silty nature of the Stone dust particles has been observed from this study that
stone dust add UCS strength of clay soil. The graph shows the variation of UCS with changing in
the UCS test. The graph was plotted between stress and strain curve. In parent soil, the UCS was
found to be 92.09 kN/𝑚2 and Shear strength was 46.04kN/𝑚2.

60
 UCS TEST OF CLAYEY SOIL+3% STONE DUST

Dial Deformation(i Strain(e=dL/ Force(N Stress(kN/ Stress(kN/

Reading n mm) Lo) ) m2) m2)
0 0 0 0 0 0
50 0.1 0.00117647 6 5581.3577 5.581358
100 0.2 0.00235294 24 22325.431 22.32543
150 0.3 0.00352941 55 51162.446 51.16245
200 0.4 0.00470588 72 66976.292 66.97629
250 0.5 0.00588235 83 77208.782 77.20878
300 0.6 0.00705882 87 80929.687 80.92969
350 0.7 0.00823529 93 86511.044 86.51104
400 0.8 0.00941176 98 91162.176 91.16218
450 0.9 0.01058824 100 93022.628 93.02263
500 1 0.01176471 104 96743.534 96.74353
550 1.1 0.01294118 104 96743.534 96.74353
TABLE NO 21

StrssVs Strain Graph

120

100

80

60 StrssVs Strain Graph

Stress kN/m2

40

20

0
0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01 0.012 0.014

Strain
FIGURE NO 21.1
Due to pozzolanic reactions which increase the strength, and reaction in cohesion strength of
clayey soils by the silty nature of the Stone dust particles has been observed from this study that
stone dust add UCS strength of clay soil. The graph shows the variation of UCS with changing in
the UCS test. The graph was plotted between stress and strain curve. In parent soil, the UCS was
found to be 96.74 kN/𝑚2 and Shear strength was 48.37kN/𝑚2

61
 UCS OF CLAYEY SOIL+5% STONE DUST

Dial Deformation Strain Force StresskN/m2 Stress kN/m2

Reading (mm) N/M
0 0 0 0 0 0
50 0.1 0.00117647 10 9302.265 9.302265
100 0.2 0.00235294 22 20464.983 20.46498
150 0.3 0.00352941 54 50232.231 50.23223
200 0.4 0.00470588 73 67906.535 67.90653
250 0.5 0.00588235 81 75348.347 75.34835
300 0.6 0.00705882 89 82790.159 82.79016
350 0.7 0.00823529 94 87441.291 94.8831
400 0.8 0.00941176 102 94883.103 94.8831
450 0.9 0.01058824 110 102324.92 102.3249
500 1.0 0.01176471 110 102324.92 102.3249
550 1.1 0.01294118 110 102324.92 102.3249
TABLE NO 22

Stress vs Strain Graph

120

100

80
STRESS kN/m2

60

40

20

0
0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01 0.012 0.014

STRAIN

FIGURE NO 22.1
Due to pozzolanic reactions which increase the strength, and reaction in cohesion strength of
clayey soils by the silty nature of the Stone dust particles has been observed from this study that
stone dust add UCS strength of clay soil. The graph shows the variation of UCS with changing in
the UCS test. The graph was plotted between stress and strain curve. In parent soil, the UCS was

62
found to be 102kN/𝑚2 and Shear strength was 48.37kN/

63
 COMPAIRISON GRAPH OF UCS TEST CLAYEY SOIL+1,3,5%
STONE DUST
clayey soil clayey Clayey Clayey Clayey
soil+1% SD soil+3%SD soil+5%SD soil+10%
SD
46.6 92.09 96.74 102.32 42,22
kN/m2
TABLE N0 23

stress vs strain
90

80

70

60 ucs of 3% sd
ucs of 1% sd
50 ucs of 5%
ucs of only clay
STRESS kN/m2

40
10% stone dust
30

20

10

0
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025
STRAIN

FIGURE NO 23.1

Here is the Comparison graph between UCS value of in different percentage

 After adding SD till 5% percentage The UCS value increases .
 But after of further adding of percentage of SD in the parent soil we observe that the UCS value
decreased.
 So that We take 3%,5%,8% of SD as mixing proportion for further study .

64
 CBR OF CLAYEY SOIL +20%FLY ASH+3% STONE DUST

Penetration in Load in (Kg) Unit load (Kg/cm2) CBR Value

(mm)
0 0 0 0
0.5 23 0.613
1 37 1.788
1.5 48 2.963
2 58 3.934
2.5 65 4.752 4.74
3 71 5.365
3.5 76 5.774
4 80 6.182
4.5 84 6.387
5 88 6.489 4.28
5.5 92 6.693
6 95 6.796
6.5 98 6.898
7.0 101 7
7.5 103 7.102
8 111 7.204
8.5 112 7.204

TABLE NO 24

CBR GRAPH
120

100
Load In kg

80

60

40

20

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Penetration In mm

FIGURE NO 24.1

The clay soil mixed with 20% fly ash and 3% stone dust, CBR at 2.5 mm penetration the load
sustained by the metal 4.74 & 5-mm penetration load was found to be 4.28. After addition of fly
ash and stone dust with parent soil , the CBR value decreased than clay soil

65
 CBR OF CLAYEY SOIL+20% FLY ASH+5% STONE DUST
Penetration in (mm) Load in (Kg) Unit load (kg/cm2) CBR Value

0 0 0 0
0.5 28 0.613
1.0 39 1.788
1.5 56 2.963
2.0 72 3.934
2.5 82 4.752 6.85
3.0 88 5.365
3.5 98 5.774
4.0 110 6.182
4.5 112 6.387
5.0 120 6.489 5.84
5.5 129 6.693
6.0 134 6.796
6.5 139 6.898
7.0 143 7.000
7.5 148 7.102
8.0 150 7.204
8.5 155 7.204

TABLE NO 25

CBR GRAPH
180
160
140
120
Load In kg

100
80
60
40
20
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Penetration In mm

FIGURE NO 25.1

The clayey soil mixed with 20% fly ash and 5% stone dust, CBR at 2.5 mm penetration the
load sustained by the metal 6.85 & 5-mm penetration load was found to be 5.84. After addition
of fly ash and stone dust with parent soil , the CBR value gradually increases than clayey soil .

CBR OF CLAY SOIL+20% FLY ASH+8% STONE DUST

66
 Penetration in Load in (Kg) Unit load (Kg/cm2) CBR Value
(mm)
0 0 0 0
0.5 9 0.613
1 14 1.788
1.5 19 2.963
2 24 3.934
2.5 29 4.752 2.12
3 33 5.365
3.5 38 5.774
4 42 6.182
4.5 45 6.387
5 49 6.489 2.38
5.5 52 6.693
6 54 6.796
6.5 57 6.898
7 59 7.000
7.5 62 7.102
8 63 7.204
8.5 65 7.204
Table no 26

CBR GRAPH

70
Load In kg

60
50
40
CBR GRAPH
30
20
10
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Penetration In mm

FIGURE 26.1

The clay soil mixed with 20% fly ash and 8% stone dust, CBR at 2.5 mm penetration the load
sustained by the metal 2.12 & 5-mm penetration load was found to be 2.38. After addition of fly
ash and stone dust with parent SOIL in this proportion it seems that the CBR value decreases.

67
 COMPAIRISON GRAPH OF CBR TEST PARENT SOILCLAY AND
CLAY+20% fly ash+3%,5%,8% stone dust

clayey soil clayey Clayey Clayey

soil+20% soil+5%FA+5%SD soil+20%FA+8%SD
FA+3%SD
6.79kN/m2 6.80 6.85 2.12
TABLE NO 27

180

160

140

120

100 claysoil
load20%FA+3%SD
80 CLAY+20%FA+5%SD
CLAY+20%FA+8%SD
load in kg

60

40

20

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

penetration in mm

FIGUIRE NO 27.1
 Here is the comparison graph of SD and fA CBR value mixed which is FA is 20% and
SD is 3%
 Which shows that the CBR value increases.

UCS TEST OF CLAYEY SOIL 20% FLY ASH+3% STONE DUSZT

68
 Dial Reading Deformation(i Strain( e=dL Force( N) Stress Stress
n mm) /Lo) ( kN/m2) (kN/m2)

0 0 0 0 0 0

50 0.1 0.00117647 6 5581.357700 5.581358

100 0.2 0.00235294 18 16744.07300 16.74407

150 0.3 0.00352941 27 25116.1100 25.11611

200 0.4 0.00470588 32 29767.24100 29.76724

250 0.5 0.00588235 35 32557.9200 32.55792

300 0.6 0.00705882 36 33488.14600 33.48815

350 0.7 0.00823529 38 35348.59900 35.3486

400 0.8 0.00941176 38 35348.59900 35.3486

450 0.9 0.01058824 38 35348.59900 35.3486

TABLE NO 28

StrssVs Strain Graph

40
Stress kN/m2

35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01 0.012

Strain
FIGURE NO 28.1
The graph shows the variation of UCS with changing in the UCS test. The graph was plotted
between stress and strain curve. In parent soil, the UCS was found to be 35.34kN/𝑚2 and Shear
strength was 17.65 kn/m2.

69
 UCS OF CLAY SOIL+20% fly ash+5% stone Dust
Deformation(in mm) Strain(e=dL/Lo) Force(N) Stress(N/m2) Stress(kN/m2)

0 0 0 0 0
0.1 0.00117647 11 10232.48900 10.23249
0.2 0.00235294 25 23255.65700 23.25566
0.3 0.00352941 29 26976.56200 26.97656
0.4 0.00470588 33 30697.46700 30.69747
0.5 0.00588235 36 33488.14600 33.48815
0.6 0.00705882 39 36278.82500 36.27883
0.7 0.00823529 41 38139.27800 38.13928
0.8 0.00941176 42 39069.50400 39.0695
0.9 0.01058824 43 39999.7300 39.99973
1 0.01176471 45 41860.18300 41.86018
1.1 0.01294118 46 42790.40900 42.79041
1.2 0.01411765 47 43720.63500 43.72064
1.3 0.01529412 48 44650.86200 44.65086
1.4 0.01647059 49 45581.08800 45.58109
1.5 0.01764706 53 49301.99300 49.30199
1.6 0.01882353 53 49301.99300 49.30199
1.7 0.02 53 49301.99300 49.30199

TABLE NO 29

StrssVs Strain Graph

60
Stress kN/m2

50

40

30

20

10

0
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025

Strain
FIGURE NO 29.1
Due to pozzolanic reactions which increase the strength, and reaction in cohesion strength of
clayey soils by the silty nature of the Stone dust and fly ash particles has been observed from
this study that stone dust & fly ash add UCS strength of clay soil. The graph shows the
variation of UCS with changing in the UCS test. The graph was plotted between stress and
strain curve. In parent soil, the UCS was found to be 49.30kN/𝑚2 and Shear strength was 24.65
70
kN/

71
 UCS OF CLAY SOIL+20% fly ash+8% stone Dust

Dial Reading Deformation(in Strain(e=dL/ Force(N) Stress(N/m^2) Stress(K

mm) Lo) n/m^2)
0 0 0 0 0 0
50 0.1 0.00117647 8 7441.8103 7.44181
100 0.2 0.00235294 13 12092.942 12.09294
150 0.3 0.00352941 15 13953.394 13.95339

200 0.4 0.00470588 16 14883.621 14.88362

250 0.5 0.00588235 17 15813.847 15.81385
300 0.6 0.00705882 17 15813.847 15.81385
350 0.7 0.00823529 17 15813.847 15.81385
TABLE NO 30

StrssVs Strain Graph

18
16
14
12
10
Stress kN/m2)

8
6
4
2
0
0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.006 0.007 0.008 0.009

Strain
FIGURE NO 30.1

After adding 20 % fly ash and 8% stone dust with pare soil clay it observe that the Unconfined
compressive strength of soil decreased which is UCS 15.81 and Shear strength is 7.9

72
 COMPAIRSON GRAPH OF UCS TESTOF CLAYEY SOIL+ 20%
FA+3%,5%,8% SD

clayey soil clayey Clayey Clayey

soil+20% soil+20%FA+5%S soil+20%FA+8%SD
FA+3% SD D
46.11kN/m2 35.06kN/m2 49.30kN/m2 15.81kN/m2

TABLE NO-31
60

50

40

30
CLAY+20%FA+3%SD
CLAY+20%FA+5%SD
20
CLAY+20%FA+8%SD
Stress (kN/m)

ONLY CLAY
10

0
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025

Strain
FIGURE NO-31.1

 Here is the Compairson graph of UCS test result of clayey soil with 20% FA
and 3%,5%,8% SD .

 Which shows that the UCS value increases at the percentage of 20% FA and
5% SD mixture with parent soil clay,After that we observe that the
UCSvalue deflect at 20%FA and 8% SD mixture with parent soil cla

73
 CONCLUSION

In this thesis, the comparative study has been done of Soil fly Ash mixture and Soil-Stone Dust
mixture to find out the compaction characteristics, strength parameter and CBR value of this
soil mixed with different material at different percentage. Based on this the following
conclusion can be made on the basis of test performed in laboratory: -
1) With the addition of fly Ash into the soil the CBR and UCS upto 20%. But with further
addition of fly ash in the soil the CBR & UCS starts to decreases Than the parent soil Clay.
2) When we add stone Dust to parent soil Clay The CBR & UCS value gradually increases upto
5% but further adding of stone dust the values decreases Than clay soil.
3) When we add both fly ash and and stone dust in addition to parent soil in different proportion it
observe that that the CBR value and UCS value is increases than clay soil but on a constant
mixing proportion 20% FA+5% SD. After further addition of the FA &SD mixture proportion
the value getting deflected.
.
4) It was also observed that C.B.R. value was increase for both fly ash and stone dust addition to
clayey soil. The increase in C.B.R. value is an indication of improvement of soil properties and
its strength to counter the resistance to penetration resulting in a decrease in pavement thickness
and reduction in cost of construction of pavement.
5) In UCS, both the fly ash and Stone dust stabilized soil shows increment in the strength of the
soil but it shows varying nature it may be due to maximum dry density and optimum moisture
content.
6) Fly ash has several advantages for the construction of embankments. The disadvantages are due
to its fine grained non - cohesive nature, is easily subject to erosion by wind or water.
7) It is also observe that the strength of the Clayey soil increases with a adding of admixtures FA
And SD individually with the parent soil Clay than the mixing of both admixture adding at a
same time with parent soil in optimum values.
SCOPE OF FUTHER STUDY: SO the scope for further study is we should add the add
mixture in individually with the parent soil so that the soil strength would be increases and the
soil can be more stabilized.

74
 All rights reserved by www.ijsrd.com 350

REFERANCE
[1] Sabat et al. (2005) studied the stabilization of clayey soil using coal ash-stone powder mixture.
[2] Sharma et al. (1992), using mixtures of coal ash, blast furnace slag and gypsum, studied
stabilization.
[3] Srivastava et al. (1997) studied the microscopic changes in the fabric and micro-structure of the
clayey soil due to the addition of lime sludge and coal ash using SEM photography.
[4] Cokca (2001) found out that swelling pressure decreased by 75% after 7 day curing, and 79%
after 28 day curing when soil specimens were treated with 25% Class C Coal ash (18.98% of
CaO).
[5] Pandian et al. (2001) made an effort towards stabilization of clayey soil by using Class F Coal
ash. He found that coal ash can make for an effective additive when he saw that with 20% coal
ash content, the CBR value of Black cotton soil improved (about 200%) significantly.
[6] Satyanarayana et al. (2004) aimed to study the mutual effect of addition of lime and coal ash on
the engineering properties of the clayey soil.
[7] Phani Kumar et al. (2004) saw that the hydraulic conductivity, swelling properties and plasticity
of clayey soil-coal ash mixture decreased.
[8] Baytar (2005) contemplated the stabilization of clayey soils using desulphogypsum and coal ash
acquired from a thermal power plant by 0 to 30%. A variable percentage of lime (0 to 8%) was
appended into the clayey soil-desulphogypsum-coal ash mixture.
[9] Amu et al. utilized coal ash and cement mixture for the stabilization purposes of clayey soil.
[10] Wagh (2006) utilized rock flour, lime and coal ash independently, furthermore in diverse extent
to stabilize the black cotton soil from Nagpur Plateau, India.
11Ahmed A, Ugai K (2011). Environmental effects on durability of soil stabilized with recycled
gypsum. Cold Regions Science and
Technology, 66: 84–92.
12 Ahmed A, Ugai K, Kamei T (2010). Application of gypsum waste plasterboard and waste
plastic trays to enhance the performance of sandy soil. In the Proceedings of Geo-Shanghai 2010
International Conference, Shanghai 9–12 June,
China. Ground Improvement and Geo synthetics, Geotechnical Special Publication, ASCE, No.
207, pp. 165–173.
13 Ahmed A, Ugai K, Kamei T (2011). Investigation of recycled gypsum in conjunction with
waste plastic trays for ground improvement. J. Construction and Building Materials, 25 (1):
208–217.
14 Ali FH, Adnan A, Choy CK (1992). Use of rice husk ash to enhance lime treatment of soil,
Canadian Geotech Journal, 29: 843–852.
15 ASTM (2007). Test Method for Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of Soil Using Modified
Effort Designation D1557. Annual Book of ASTM Standards, ASTM American Society for
Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, PA, US.
75
 16 ASTM D 2166–91 (1995). Test Method for Unconfined Compressive Strength of Cohesive
Soil. Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol. 04.08, American Society for testing and Materials,
Philadelphia, PA.
[1] Jones, J., D. Parker, and J. Bridgwater, “Axial mixing in a ploughshare mixer”, Powder
technology, vol. 178(2): pp. 73-86, 2007.
[2] Chittoori, B.C.S., “Clay mineralogy effects on long-term performance of chemically treated
expansive clays”, ProQuest, 2008.
[3] Firoozi, A. A., Taha, M. R., Firoozi, A. A. & Khan, T. A., “Effect of Ultrasonic Treatment on
Clay Microfabric Evaluation by Atomic Force Microscopy”, Measurement, vol. 66, pp. 244-
252, 2015.
[4] Chittoori, B.C., et al., “Experimental studies on stabilized clays at various leaching cycles”,
Journal of Geotechnical and Geo Environmental Engineering, vol. 139(10): pp. 1665-1675,
2013.
[5] Al-Rawas, A.A. and M.F. Goosen, “Expansive soils: recent advances in characterization and
treatment”, Taylor & Francis, 2006.
[6] Firoozi, A. A., Taha, M. R. & Firoozi, A. A., “Nanotechnology in Civil Engineering”, EJGE,
vol. 19: pp. 4673-4682, 2014.
[7] rivitmaitrie, C., Puppala, A. J., Chikyala, V., Saride, S. & Hoyos, L. R., “Combined lime and
cement treatment of expansive soils with low to medium soluble sulfate levels”, American
Society of Civil Engineers, Proceedings of the Geo Congress, pp. 646-653, 2008.
[8] Sirivitmaitrie, C., Puppala, A. J., Saride, S. & Hoyos, L., “Combined lime-cement stabilization
for longer life of lowvolume roads”, Transportation Research Record: Journal of the
Transportation Research Board, vol. 2204(1): pp. 140-147, 2011.
[9] Das, B., “Principles of foundation engineering”, Cengage learning, 2015.
[10] Peng, X., Horn, R., Peth, S. & Smucker, A., “Quantification of soil shrinkage in 2D by digital
image processing of soil surface”, Soil and Tillage Research, vol. 91(1): p. 173-180, 2006.
[11] Safari, E., Ghazizade, M. J., Abduli, M. & Gatmiri, B., “Variation of crack intensity factor in
three compacted clay liners exposed to annual cycle of atmospheric conditions with and without
geotextile cover”, Waste management, vol. 34(8): pp. 1408-1415, 2014.
[12] Uday, K., Jayanthi, P. N., Singh, D. & Apte, P., “Application of Taguchi Method in
Establishing Criticality of Parameters That Influence Cracking Characteristics of Fine-Grained
Soils”, Drying Technology, 2015.
[13] Hwang, C., “Determination of material functions for unsaturated flow”, Ph. D. dissertation,
University of Colorado, Boulder, Co, USA, 2002.
[14] Mitchell, J., SOGAK, “Fundamentals of soil behavior”, New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2005.
[15] Kibria, G., “Evaluation of physico-mechanical properties of clayey soils using electrical
resistivity imaging technique”, 2014.
[16] Pedarla, A., S. Chittoori, and A.J. Puppala, “Influence of mineralogy and plasticity index on the
stabilization effectiveness of expansive clays”, Transportation Research Record: Journal of the
Transportation Research Board, 2212(1): p. 91-99, 2011.

76
[17] Nayak,P.S. and B. Singh, “Instrumental characterization of clay by XRF, XRD and FTIR”,
Bulletin of Materials Science, vol. 30(3): p. 235-238, 2007.

77