SWAYANPRAVA. THESIS 1 (1) - Copy.pdf

1
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

2
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.

3
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 is about
100 million tones, but its utilization is less than 10 %. Mass and effective utilization is possible

4
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.

5
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

6
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 .

7
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 event and

8
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.

9
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

10
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
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

11
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
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.

12
CHAPTER 3
MATERIALS AND METHODS
3.1MATERIALS 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
c) Show plasticity when mixed with moisture

13
Table 1: Properties of Clay soil
SL.
NO.
PROPERTIES VALUE
1 Specific gravity (Gs) 2.75
2 Grain size Distribution
Coefficient of Uniformity (Cu) Coefficient
of Curvature (Cc)
5.33
0
3 Atterberg limits Liquid limit
(%)
Plastic limit (%)
Shrinkage Limit (%Plasticity
Index (%)
51.50
21.50
21.37
30.00
4 Compaction properties
Optimum moisture content (OMC) (%) Maximum
Dry Density (MDD) (gm/cc)
19
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
Figure 4: Methodology Adopted
Compaction test
Atterberg
Results and Conclusions
Analysis
Unconfined Compression test
California Bearing Ratio test
MDD
OMC
Plastic
Liquid
Free swell index
Specific Gravity test
Sieve Analysis
Test on Expansive soil
Preparation of Representative
Procurement of materials

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
W3-W2/

17
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

18
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) =
W2−W1
W4−w3)
W1=weight of density bottle
W2=weight of density bottle + dry soil
* 100
W3=weight of density bottle + dry soil
+ water W4=weight of density bottle
+water
Figure 4-Specific Gravity Tes

19
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.
FSI=
Vd−Vk
* 100
𝑉𝑘
Where,
Vd= Volume of soil in
water Vk= Volume of
soil in kerosene
Figure 5: Free swell index

20
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

21
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

22
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 atpenetration,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

23
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.

24
Figure 9: Unconfined compressive Test

25
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

26
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

27
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
Figure-11
Sr.NO. PROPERTIES VALUE
1
Grain size Distribution
Coefficient of Uniformity (Cu)
Coefficient of Curvature (Cc)
7.56
2.67

28
CHAPTER-4
RESULTS AND DISSCUSIONS
LIQUID LIMIT OF Clayey SOIL
No of Blows 19 26 30
No of
Blows
Water
Conten
t
Wt. Of Container (W1) 8.90 8.62 8.57 19 51.68
Wt. Of container + wet soil (W2) 31
24.4
6
27.7
7
26 52.02
Wt. Of container +dry soil (W3)
23.4
7
19.0
4
21.3
0
30 50.82
Wt. Of oven dry soil (W3-W1)
14.5
7
10.4
2
12.7
3
Wt. Of water (W2-W3) 7.53 5.42 6.47
Water Content
(W2-W3/W3-W1) *100
51.6
8
52.0
2
50.8
2
TABLE NO 3
Liquid Limit
Water
Content
25 51.50

29
Figure 3.1 Liquid limit graph of clay soil
Liquid limit is 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%
50.6
50.8
51
51.2
51.4
51.6
51.8
52
52.2
10 20 30 40
Water
Content
Number of Blows

30
PLASTIC LIMIT OF THE SOIL
Test-I Test-II Test-III
Wt. Of Container (W1) 26.1 24.5 21.6
Wt. Of container + wet soil (W2) 31.44 27.2 23.96
Wt. Of container +dry soil (W3) 30.32 26.74 23.61
Wt. Of Water 1.12 0.46 0.35
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.

31
GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION ClAYEY SOIL BY PIPETTE METHOD
Contn
o
Time Time
Interv
al
Wt.of
Empt
y
Cont.
Wt.Cont.+
Dry soil
Wt.of
dry
soil(W
d)
Pipette
Volume(V
p)
Diameter(
d) in mm
%
Fine
r
1 9.09A
m
0 Sec 29.60 30.47 0.87 10 0 74
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
m
1 Min 30.55 31.24 0.686 10 0.04 37.2
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 Min 9.57 10.09 0.517 10 0.01 3.4
9 9.39 30 Min 8.65 9.16 0.507 10 0.007 1.4
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=
5.33333333
3
Cc=D30^2/D10*D60= 0.00557815

32
All the soil passed through sieve No.75 micron and sedimentation test is carried out. A pipette test
was categorize the particle which are lesser than 0.075 mm sieve. The results of grain size analysis
are presented in Fig (12). The position and the 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 %.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
0.000 0.001 0.010 0.100 1.000 10.000
%
FINER
GRAIN SIZE IN mm
PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION
CURVE

33
Shrinkage limit
TABLE NO 5
Wt. of Container 84.34
Wt.of wet soil with Container 123.94
Wt.of dry soil with container 111.63
Water Content(Wi) 45.11
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

34
SIEVE ANALYSIS OF STONE DUST
100
90
80
70
60
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
%
finer

35
STANDARD PROCTOR TEST OF CLAY SOIL
TABLE NO 6
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
Wt. Of Mould +
Compacted soil
(W1)
3860 3890 3922 3975 4005 3997
Wt. Compacted
soil (W1-Wm) gm
1777 1807 1839 1892 1922 1914
Wet density γt
=(W1-Wm)/V
gm/C.C
1.88 1.91 1.95 2.00 2.04 2.03
Container
Weight(X1)
30 29 30 30 23 30
Wt.of
Container+Wet
Soil (X2) gm
84 78.23 65 70 64.86 68.5
Wt. Of container+
dry soil (X3) gm
77 71.6 60.1 64 58.21 62
Wt. Of dry soil
(X3-X1) gms
47 42.6 30.1 34 35.21 32
Wt. Of water (X2-
X3) gm
7 6.63 4.9 6 6.65 6.5
Water Content
W%=(X2-X3/X3-
X1)*100
14.89 15.56 16.28 17.65 18.89 20.31
Dry density
(gm/cc)=
γd=γt/(1+W/100)
1.64 1.66 1.68 1.70 1.71 1.69
MDD 1.71
OMC 18.89 19

36
FIGURE NO 6.1
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.
1.63
1.64
1.65
1.66
1.67
1.68
1.69
1.7
1.71
1.72
10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Dry
Density
Water Content

37
CALIFORNIA BEARING CAPACITY OF CLAY SOIL
Penetration in (mm) Load in (Kg) Unit load
(Kg/cm2)
CBR
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
8 141 7.204
8.5 141 7.204
CBR Value 6.79
TABLE NO 7

38
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.
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
0 2 4 6 8 10
Load
In
KG
Penetration In mm
CBR GRAPH
CBR GRAPH

39
UCS TEST OF CLAYEY SOIL
Dial
Reading
Deformation(i
n mm)
Strain(e=dL/Lo
)
Force(N
)
Stress(kN/m^2
)
Stress(kN/m^2
)
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
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025
StresskN/m2
STRAIN
StrssVs Strain Graph

40
CBR TEST FOR CLAYEY SOIL+10 % FLY ASH
TABLE NO 8
Penetration in (mm) Load in (Kg) Unit load (Kg/cm2) CBR Value
0 0 0 0
0.5 111
123
0.613
1 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

41
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.
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
0 2 4 6 8 10
Load
In
kg
Penetration In mm
CBR GRAPH
CBR GRAPH

42
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

43
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
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
0 2 4 6 8 10
Load
In
kg
Penetration In mm
CBR GRAPH
CBR GRAPH

44
CBR TEST OF CLAYEY SOIL+20%FLY ASH
TABLE 10
Penetration
in (mm)
Load in
(Kg)
Unit load
(Kg/cm2)
CBR
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

45
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.
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
0 2 4 6 8 10
Load
In
kg
Penetration In mm
CBR GRAPH

46
CBR TEST COMPAIRISION OF CLAYEY SOIL +FLY ASH 10%,15%,20%
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.
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
0 2 4 6 8 10
Load
In
kg
Penetration In mm
CBR IN 10%
CBR AT 15%
CBR AT 20%
CBR OF CLAY
clayey soil clayey
soil+10% FA
Clayey
soil+15%FA
Clayey
soil+20%FA
Clayey
soil+25%
SD
6.79 12.12mm 14.38 15.55 11.06

47
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
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
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Load
In
kg
Penetration In mm
CBR GRAPH
CBR GRAPH

48
CBR TESTR OF CLAYEY +3% STONE DUST
TABLE 13
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
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
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Load
In
kg
Penetration In mm
CBR GRAPH
CBR GRAPH

49
CBR TEST CLAYEY SOIL+5% SD
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
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.
0
100
200
300
400
500
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Load
In
kg
Penetration In mm
CBR GRAPH

50
COMPAIRSION OF CBR OF CLAEY SOIL WITH 1,3,5 %SD MIXED
TABLE NO 15
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
clayey
soil
clayey
soil+1%
SD
Clayey
soil+3%SD
Clayey
soil+5%SD
Clayey
soil+10%
SD
6.79 19.78
mm
21.68 23.14 17.23
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
0 5 10
Load
In
kg
Penetration In mm
CBR 1% STONE
DUST
CBR IN3%
CBR IN 5 %
CBROFCLAY
CBR IN 10%

51
UCS TEST OF CLAYEY SOIL +10% FLY ASH
Dial Reading Deformation(
mm)
Strain
(e=dL/Lo)
Force(N) Stress(N/m2
) Stress(kN/m)
0 0 0 0 0 0
50 0.1 0.00117647 5 4651.1314 4.651131
100 0.2 0.00235294 23 21395.205 21.3952
150 0.3 0.00352941 30 27906.789 27.90679
200 0.4 0.00470588 35 32557.92 32.55792
250 0.5 0.00588235 37 34418.373 34.41837
300 0.6 0.00705882 39 36278.825 36.27883
350 0.7 0.00823529 41 38139.278 38.13928
400 0.8 0.00941176 42 39069.504 39.0695
TABLE NO 16
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 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
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01
Stress(
kN/M
2)
Strain

52
UCS OF CLAY+15% FLY ASH
Dial Reading Deformation(in
mm)
Strain(e=dL/Lo) Force(N) Stress(N/m2
) Stress(kN/m2)
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
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
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
0 0.005 0.01 0.015
Stress
kN/
m2
Strain
StrssVs Strain…

53
UCS OF CLAY+20%FLY ASH
Dial Reading Deformation
(mm)
Strain
(e=dL/Lo)
Force (N) Stress(kN/m2)
Stress
(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
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
0
20
40
60
80
100
0 0.005 0.01 0.015
Stress
kN/
m2
Strain
Stress Vs Strain Graph
StrssVs…

54
COMPAIRISION GRAPH OF UCS TESTOF CLAYEY SOIL WITH
10,15,20% &25%FA
TABLE NO 19
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.
clayey soil clayey
soil+10% FA
Clayey
soil+15%FA
Clayey
soil+20%FA
Clayey
soil+25%
SD
46.11kN/m2 39.06 69.76 79.06 32.55
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
0 0.01 0.02 0.03
Stress
kN/m2
Strain
STRESS VS STRAIN
ucs15% FA
UCS20%
UCS 10%FA
ucsofclay
25% fly ash

55
UCS OF CLAY SOIL+1% STONE DUST
TABLE NO 20
FIGURE NO 20.1
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
.
Dial Reading Deformation (mm) Strain Force N/M2
Stress k N /m2
Stress(k N/m20
0 0 0 0 0 0
50 0.1 0.00117647 3 2790.6795 2.790680
100 0.2 0.00235294 10 9302.265 9.302265
150 0.3 0.00352941 43 39999.74 39.99974
200 0.4 0.00470588 57 53022.911 53.02291
250 0.5 0.00588235 68 63255.402 63.2554
300 0.6 0.00705882 77 71627.441 71.62744
350 0.7 0.00823529 88 81859.932 83.72039
400 0.8 0.00941176 90 83720.385 83.72039
450 0.9 0.01058824 94 87441.291 87.44129
500 1.0 0.01176471 99 92092.424 92.09242
550 1.1 0.01294118 99 92092.424 92.09242
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01 0.012 0.014
Stress
(kN/m2)
Strain

56
UCS TEST OF CLAYEY SOIL+3% STONE DUST
TABLE NO 21
FIGURE NO 21.1
found to be 96.74 kN/𝑚2
and Shear strength was 48.37kN/𝑚2
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
0 0.005 0.01 0.015
Stress
kN/m
2
Strain
StrssVs Strain
Graph
mm)
Strain(e=dL/Lo) Force(N) Stress(kN/m2
) Stress(kN/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

57
UCS OF CLAYEY SOIL+5% STONE DUST
Dial Reading Deformation (mm) Strain Force N/M StresskN/m2
Stress kN/m2
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
FIGURE NO 22.1
found to be 102kN/𝑚2
and Shear strength was 48.37kN/
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01 0.012 0.014
STRESS
kN/m2
STRAIN
Stress vs Strain Graph

58
COMPAIRISON GRAPH OF UCS TEST CLAYEY SOIL+1,3,5%
STONE DUST
TABLE N0 23
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 .
clayey soil clayey
soil+1% SD
Clayey
soil+3%SD
Clayey
soil+5%SD
Clayey
soil+10%
SD
46.6
kN/m2
92.09 96.74 102.32 42,22
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
0 0.01 0.02 0.03
STRESS
kN/m2
STRAIN
stress vs strain
ucs of 3% sd
ucs of 1% sd
ucs of 5%
ucs of only clay
10% stone dust

59
CBR OF CLAYEY SOIL +20%FLY ASH+3% STONE DUST
TABLE NO 24
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
Penetration in
(mm)
Load in (Kg) Unit load (Kg/cm2
) CBR Value
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
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
0 2 4 6 8 10
Load
In
kg
Penetration In mm
CBR GRAPH

60
CBR OF CLAYEY SOIL+20% FLY ASH+5% STONE DUST
TABLE NO 25
FIGURE NO 25.1
The clayey soil mixed with 20% fly ash and 5% stone dust, CBR at 2.5 mm penetration the load
ash and stone dust with parent soil , the CBR value gradually increases than clayey soil .
0
50
100
150
200
0 2 4 6 8 10
Load
In
kg
Penetration In mm
CBR GRAPH
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

61
CBR OF CLAY SOIL+20% FLY ASH+8% STONE DUST
Table no 26
FIGURE 26.1
The clay soil mixed with 20% fly ash and 8% stone dust, CBR at 2.5 mm penetration the load
ash and stone dust with parent SOIL in this proportion it seems that the CBR value decreases.
Penetration in
(mm)
Load in (Kg) Unit load (Kg/cm2) CBR Value
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
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
0 2 4 6 8 10
Load
In
kg
Penetration In mm
CBR GRAPH
CBR GRAPH

62
COMPAIRISON GRAPH OF CBR TEST PARENT SOILCLAY AND
CLAY+20% fly ash+3%,5%,8% stone dust
TABLE NO 27
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.
clayey soil clayey
soil+20%
FA+3%SD
Clayey
soil+5%FA+5%SD
Clayey
soil+20%FA+8%SD
6.79kN/m2 6.80 6.85 2.12
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
0 2 4 6 8 10
load
in
kg
penetration in mm
claysoil
load20%FA+3%SD
CLAY+20%FA+5%SD
CLAY+20%FA+8%SD

63
UCS TEST OF CLAYEY SOIL 20% FLY ASH+3% STONE DUSZT
TABLE NO 28
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.
mm)
Strain(
e=dL/Lo)
Force( N) Stress (
kN/m2
)
Stress
(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
0
10
20
30
40
0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01 0.012
Stress
kN/m
2
Strain

64
UCS OF CLAY SOIL+20% fly ash+5% stone Dust
TABLE NO 29
FIGURE NO 29.1
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 kN/
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
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025
St
ress
kN/m
2
Strain

65
UCS OF CLAY SOIL+20% fly ash+8% stone Dust
TABLE NO 30
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
mm)
Strain(e=dL/L
o)
Force(N) Stress(N/m^
2) Stress(K
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
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.006 0.007 0.008 0.009
Stress
kN/m
2)
Strain

66
COMPAIRSON GRAPH OF UCS TESTOF CLAYEY SOIL+ 20%
FA+3%,5%,8% SD
TABLE NO-31
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
clayey soil clayey
soil+20%
FA+3% SD
Clayey
soil+20%FA+5%SD
Clayey
soil+20%FA+8%SD
46.11kN/m2 35.06kN/m2
49.30kN/m2
15.81kN/m2
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0 0.01 0.02 0.03
Stress
(kN/m)
Strain
CLAY+20%FA+3%S
D
CLAY+20%FA+5%S
D
CLAY+20%FA+8%S
D
ONLY CLAY

67
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.

68
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.
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.

69
[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.
[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.

SWAYANPRAVA. THESIS 1 (1) - Copy.pdf

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Ähnlich wie SWAYANPRAVA. THESIS 1 (1) - Copy.pdf

Ähnlich wie SWAYANPRAVA. THESIS 1 (1) - Copy.pdf (20)

Mehr von Krishna2017

Mehr von Krishna2017 (20)

Kürzlich hochgeladen

Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)

SWAYANPRAVA. THESIS 1 (1) - Copy.pdf