Modification of Highway Sub-Grade Black Cotton Soil by Using Nano Chemical

11 II February 2023
https://doi.org/10.22214/ijraset.2023.49233
International Journal for Research in Applied Science & Engineering Technology (IJRASET)
ISSN: 2321-9653; IC Value: 45.98; SJ Impact Factor: 7.538
Volume 11 Issue II Feb 2023- Available at www.ijraset.com
Modification of Highway Sub-Grade Black Cotton

Soil by using Nano Chemical: Terrasil Mixed with
Fly-Ash and Rice Husk Ash
Amir Rashid Bhat1, Preet Singh Rihal2
1
M. Tech Scholar, 2Professor, Department of Civil, Rayat Bahra school of Engineering and Technology, Kharar, Punjab, India
Abstract: As the population grows daily, the amount of excellent, solid ground available for development decreases, necessitating
the use of weaker or softer soil for the construction of buildings and other civil engineering projects. The building of structures
built on the problematic broad black cotton soil is fraught with difficulties. It has poor geotechnical subgrade features, including
swelling and imperviousness. In this study, an attempt is made to improve the different geotechnical characteristics of black
cotton soil by mixing it with waste products like river sand, fly ash, and marble dust. These properties include index properties,
swelling characteristics, consolidation characteristics, hydraulic conductivity characteristics, and strength characteristics. Due to
the best possible use of these waste materials in the enhancement of various aspects of black cotton soil, these techniques
therefore minimised the impact of waste materials on the environment. There are many different types of soil stabilisation, but
typically, mechanical, and chemical stabilisation procedures are used to accomplish traditional soil stability. Stabilizers are the
additives that are used to stabilise substances. For stabilisation, a variety of stabilisers are utilised, including fly ash, bitumen,
rice husk, lime, cement, and other chemicals.
When dry, black cotton soils are extremely hard; yet, when wet, they entirely lose their strength. Widespread issues with
expansive soils provide a number of difficulties for civil engineers. Numerous techniques are used to enhance the expanding
soils' engineering properties. The study's findings are summarised as follows.
By raising the percentage of Terrasil and maintaining the values of rice husk ash and fly ash, which are 10% and 20%
respectively, unchanged, the liquid limit percentage lowers by 0% to 0.08% and grows. When Terrasil is changed while leaving
the values of rice husk ash and fly ash, which are 10% and 20% respectively, unchanged, the plastic limit percentage falls from
0% to 0.10 percent. When rice husk ash and fly ash are kept at their constant values of 10% and 20%, respectively, the plasticity
percentage drops from 0% to 0.04% and then rises to a high of 0.06% at 30.07. The maximum value is reached before the
optimal moisture content (OMC) first increases, then declines. achieved after 0.10% addition of Terrasil while maintaining the
10% and 20% values for rice husk ash and fly ash, respectively, and were equivalent to 27.64%. The compressive strength first
increases and then decreases, the maximum value obtained was at 0.06% addition of Terrasil keeping constant value of rice husk
ash and fly ash, i.e., 10% and 20% respectively, and were equal to 1.69 gm/cm2. The maximum dry density (MDD percentage)
first increases up to 0.06% of Terrasil and then decreases.. The greatest value achieved was at 0.06% addition of Terrasil
retaining constant value of rice husk ash and fly ash, i.e., 10% and 20% respectively, and were equal to 0.861kg/cm2. The shear
strength initially increases and subsequently drops. As Terrasil's percentage rises while the amounts of fly ash and rice husk ash
remain constant at 10% and 20%, respectively, the permeability commonly drops.
Keywords: Black Cotton Soil, Nano chemical, Terrasil, Rice husk
I. INTRODUCTION
When it comes to a building that is constructed on land, the foundation is quite crucial. In order to sustain the entire building, it must
be of extremely high quality. The soil quality surrounding the building must be taken into account for this to be possible. One is able
to select the stabilising techniques based on the soil quality. The qualities for a better foundation are achieved during the course of
this procedure. It's nothing new. Chinese, Romans, and other civilizations have all used this method of soil improvement. It began in
India in the late 1970s. For the past 20 years, India has seen a noticeable surge in the construction of amenities. Pavement
development is proceeding quickly as part of it. As a result, by raising the CBR value of the subgrades, the density of the pavement
layers contributes to a growth that is both manageable and very desirable in our nation. The conversion of locally based dirt into
more suitable material would be an economical alternative...
©IJRASET: All Rights are Reserved | SJ Impact Factor 7.538 | ISRA Journal Impact Factor 7.894 | 1465
Due to a number of variables, it could be necessary to increase both their strength and durability. Strength of a structure may be
increased by replacing the soil or building a structure with the quality of the soil in mind. The quality of the soil currently on the site
can also be improved. The latter assisted in the creation of techniques for stabilising soil. When it comes to the number of
development events, soil stabilising techniques that employ less expensive locally accessible materials have a major potential to
lower the pavement early construction rate. However, they must use such lands that lack desired features like an engineering
product. One of the most common applications for soil stabilisation is in the creation of sub-grades and sub-bases during the
building of roadways. Over time, a variety of techniques have been employed to preserve soils with strength issues. Stabilization has
recently become stronger and is getting better.
A. Soil Stabilisation
It is activity of changing the soil’s residential qualities via methods of mechanical, chemical nature to make it better in every sense
of the word. The idea behind it is to make the soil viable for engineering purpose. The betterments can be in the tensile strength,
capacity to bear weight and so on. Creation of hydrophobic surfaces can be done to prevent roads etc. from failing. A number of
substances can be used for stabilization process like biopolymers, fiber, chlorides of calcium and magnesium etc. Furthermore, new
non typical ingredients are also used like copolymer and polymer-based products.
The first step and the step that determines the success of the entire process is the testing of the soil. This step forms the basis of our
entire process as it helps choose the methods and techniques which will help us achieve the goal. The main principles for the
stabilization are as follows:
1) Assessing the various qualities/properties of the soil where the structure needs to be made.
2) Determining the thing that needs to be change in the soil so as to make it better for structure construction and also evaluating
how economical can it be.
3) Creation of a sample with the required properties and testing it for the intended values in order to achieve stabilization
a) Requirements And Edge

The focus when construction is done is to achieve a strong structure that will stand the test of time. Thus, stabilization of soil is of
importance for the structures to stand. If at some place soil isn’t feasible for construction replacing it can be quite expensive hence
soil stabilization is the best alternative. The advantages are:
 Workability increases.
 Durability increases.
 Strength can be increased.
 Cost efficiency.
 Energy efficiency.
 More efficient structures.
b) Soil Stabilization Approcahes

 Mechanical Method Overstabilization: Soils of varying gradations are mixed together in this treatment to acquire the desired
residential or commercial soil property.
 Additive Method: Means adding manmade products to the soil, which enhances the quality of the soil in the right quantities. It is
possible to use materials such as cement, lime, bitumen, fly ash, and so on. Two methods of oriented and random fiber
reinforcement can be performed.
B. Black Cotton Soil

Black cotton soil also goes by the names swelling soil or shrink soil. This is due to its capacity to change as per the moisture
content. These soils are best when it comes to the purpose of cultivation, however the same cannot be said for construction. Because
of the changes to it due to moisture content it may result in damage to the structure built on it which can be so extreme at times that
it may collapse. This soil type is dominant in the southern part of the country like states of Maharashtra, MP, Andhra Pradesh to
name a few. They are also found around the river valleys in these regions. These soils are rich in minerals thereby making them
highly fertile and having property of water retention the s soils tend to be best suited for cultivation of fruits and vegetables, cereals,
cotton etc.
The river valleys of the south i.e., of the rivers Tapi, Narmada Godawari, Krishna the depth of this soil is huge. To make this soil fit
for the purpose of construction thus, measures need to be taken. Complete change of soil in a region before building is an option but
it is very expensive as already mentioned. Hence, alternative has been explored in this dissertation.
II. OBJECTIVES
1) The main objective of the present work is to study is to enhance the properties of Soils.
2) To study the effects of Terrasil and on a constant ratio of fly ash and rice husk ash on the index properties of expansive soils.
3) To study the effects of Terrasil and on a constant ratio of fly ash and rice husk ash on the engineering properties of expansive
soils.
4) Feasibility of Terrasil, fly ash and rice husk ash as a stabilizer in expansive soils.
5) Increasing the bonding between grains, thus increasing the mechanical strength.
6) Filling the voids that cannot be eliminated.
7) To utilize industrial as well as agricultural waste products in the process of road construction.
III. LITERATURE REVIEW

Praveen Patel and Dr. H.K. Mahiyar(2014)experimentally examined the effect of stabilization on soil utilizing rice husk ash , lime
and fly ash . They noticed that on adding lime, liquid limitation and plastic limit reduces whereas on including fly ash and rice husk,
both increases. CBR value increases when content of rice husk and fly ash boosts. Best amount of the additives was found to be
20% and that of lime limited to 8%. UCS worth increases with the increase in percentages. On developing roadway treated with
above percentages of numerous admixtures, a 60% decrease in density of sub-base layer, and 40.7% reduction in DBM.
Prabhakar et al. (2020) presented an idea of adding dust from quarries and sand from foundry for the purpose of stabilization of soil
to it. Need being increasing the weight bearing quality. Standard tests were carried out on each. Then the percentages of the
additives were altered in percentage and each of the samples create were tested for various properties and a comparison was made. It
was seen that best results were achieved at 15% presence of both the aforementioned additives.
IV. METHODOLOGY
This chapter describes the research methodology used to analyse the engineering properties of black cotton soil of traditional & at a
different dose (0%, 0.02%, 0.04%, 0.06%, 0.08% and 0.10%) of Terrasil, RHA of 10% and FA of 20% to meet this goal. During the
investigation the following tests are carried out.
1) The consistency limits
a) Liquid
b) Plastic
c) Plasticity index
2) Specific gravity Test
3) Standard Proctor Compaction Test
4) Unconfined Compressive Strength Test
5) Shear Strength Test
6) Permeability Test
A. Consistency Limits
The tests for limits of Liquid, Plastic and Plasticity index are given below:
1) Determination of Limit of Liquid
This limit of liquid of soil is the point at which it starts to behave like liquid. Tests, 3-4 in number are carried out. No. of blows N in
each test is figured out and results are plotted. The list of equipment used to carry out these tests are listed below.
a) Apparatus Used
 Arthur Casagrande’s apparatus liquid limit device
 Grooving tools
 Oven
 Evaporating dish / glass sheet
 Spatula
 425µ ISisieve
 Weighing3balance, 3precisioni0.01gm
 Washbottle
Figure 1: Casagrande’s Apparatus

b) Procedure
 Ist the drip of the mug is adjusted which needs to be 1 cm at p.o.c at base.
 120 gm. of sample is taken and passed 425μsieve.
 Water is added to the sample and blended for a maximum of 30 mins and a minimum of 15 mins. A consistent mixture is
achieved.
 Then the mixture is placed in amp conditions for quite some time.
 A portion of this sample is then taken and remixed. It is then to be put in the cup to have a max depth of 1cm.
 Next is to cut a groove in the sample.
 The device handle is then turned at 2rps. Blows are to be counted till 2 halves of sample are achieved due to stream.
 The next step is collecting of sample and placing in an airtight container and determination of water content.
 The soil left from the sample needs to be added to the portion that was left earlier.
 Water content is then changed by either addition of water or soil is kneaded.
 Steps 4 to 10 are reperformed and N is determined. A curve is plotted between N & w.
 The limit of liquid is then identified corresponding to N = 25.
2) Determination of Limit Of Plastic

This limit is basically the point at which the soil starts to crumble when 3mm dia threads are rolled.
Equipment Used
a) Porcelain cup (dia = 120mm) or glass plate (450 mm & 10 mm)
b) The ground glass plate about200 mm x 150 mm.
c) The Metallic rod 3 mm dia. and 100 mm long.
d) The oven .
e) The spatula.
f) The moisture content can.
Figure 2: Plastic Limit Sample and Test Apparatus

Practice
 30 gm. of sample is taken and passed 425μsieve.
 Water (distilled) is added to the sample and blended. A consistent mixture is achieved enough to form a ball.
 Then the mixture allowed to rest for quite some time.
 8 gm of this sample is taken and rolled 80 – 90 strokes p.m. on the plate to form 3 mm dia threads.
 Lesser than 3 mm dia means presence of more water. Kneading the sample more is what needs to be done if this is the case.
 This process is repeated till crumbling takes place.
 Crumbled soil needs to be collected and placed in an airtight container.
 Repeat the steps for a couple of more samples.
B. Determination of Permeability
The device used for this measurement is a permeameter. The coefficient being:
K= . log cm/sec
C. Equipment Used
1) Permeameter mould, internal size= 100mm, effective height =127.3 mm, capability= 1000 ml.
2) Collar 100 mmdia& 60 mm height.
3) Plate
4) Base
5) Cape
6) Compaction Equipment
7) Water supply
8) Vacuum Pump
9) Collection chamber
10) Stopwatch
11) Funnel
12) The thermometer
13) The weighting balance with accuracy 0.1 gm
14) The filter papers
15) The graduated glass standpipe, 50 to 200 mm diameter.
16) The Supporting frame for the standpipe and the clamp.
Figure 3: Permeameter
D. Practice
1) Get rid of collar. Measure the dimensions and weigh it.
2) Apply a little grease on the inside to the mould.
3) Fix the mould in base and collar.
4) 2.5 g. of sample is taken.
5) Remove the collar and base plate
6) A small portion from sample is taken to find water content.
7) Saturate the porous discs (stones)
8) Place a porous disc on a drain base and keep a filter paper on a porous disc.
9) Put the mould with soil on base of the drain, after introducing a washer in between
10) Hygiene mould based edges and applies grease in the grooves surround them.
11) Finally put a filter paper, porous disc and connect the drain cap using washer.
12) At the base now connect the water tank to the exit and allows water to move up hill as long as the sample is saturated. On the
sample top the free water gather for a depth of about 100 mm. Alternatively by subjecting the specimen to a steadily rising
vacuum with the bottom exist closed, the soil of low permeability can be filled to extract air from the voids. Slowly raise the
vacuum to 7000 mm of mercury and depend on the soil form to manage it for 15 min. or more. Close both the outlet after
sample is filled.
13) With the anticipated water the empty portion of the mould is filled with no effect on soil.
14) At end remove the tank from the exist.
15) Put water in standpipe.
16) By removal of stop cock allow the water to remove all air in the mould.
17) Reinsert the cock.
18) Select h1 and h2. Calculate? h1h2.
19) This step involves fall from h1 to h1 h2 and from that to h2.
20) Replication of the 19 step at least two times, after altering the h1 and h2.
21) Halt the water flow and parts need to be detached.
22) For the water content determination take now a small amount of the soil specimen.
E. Unconfined Compressive& Shear Strength

The strength of unconfined compressive is given as:
Equipment Used
1) Unconfined compression apparatus
2) Proving ring
3) Dial gauge
4) Balance
5) Oven
where A= A0
1– ɛ
6) Stopwatch
7) Sampling tube
8) Mould
9) Sample extractor
10) Knife
11) Vernier caliper
Figure.4: Apparatus for Unconfined Compressive Strength and Shear Strength

Practice
 Prepare the soil specimen at the desired water content and density in the large mould.
 Push the sampling tube into the big mould, and remove the sampling tube filled with soil. For undisturbed sample, push the
sampling tube into the clay sample.
 Saturate the soil sample in the sampling tube by an ideal method
 Coat the split mould gently with a thin layer of grease. Weigh the mould.
 Extrude the sample out of the tasting tube into the splitting mould; utilize the sampling e tractor and the knife.
 Cut the two ends of the specimen in the split mould and weigh the mould with the specimen.
 Get rid of the specimen from the split mould by splitting the mould into 2 parts
 Determine the length and size of the specimen with Vernier callipers.
 Place the specimen on the bottom plate of the compression device, change the upper plat e to make contact with the specimen
 Change the dial gauge and providing ring gauge to zero.
 Apply the compression load to cause an axial strain at the rate ofi1/2 to 2% per minute.
 Record the dial gauge reading, and the offering ring reading every thirty seconds up to a stress ofi6%. The reading may be taken
after every 60 seconds for stress in between 6% to 12% and every 2 minutes oriso beyond 12%
 Continue the test till failure surface have plainly established or up until an axial strain of 20% is reached.
 Procedure the angle in between the failure surface areas and the horizontal, if possible.
 Take the sample for the failure zone of the specimen for the water material decision.
F. Standard Proctor Compaction Test

Compaction simply means to decrease air in the soil and make it dense. It shows the dryness in soil. Between the dry density and
water material a curve is strained to obtain the max dry density & the optimum water content.
M represents total mass, V represents the volume of soil & w represents the water content
Figure 5: Standard Proctor Compaction Test Apparatus.

1) Apparatus Used
a) The 1000ml capacity-based compaction mould
b) Rammer mass 2.6 kg
c) Detachable base plate
d) Collar, 60 mm high
e) 4.75 mmIS sieve
f) Oven
g) Desiccator
h) Weighing balance with 1 gm accuracy.
i) Large mixing pan
j) Straight edge
k) Spatula
l) Graduated jar
m) Mixing tools, spoons, trowels etc
2) Practice
a) Take about 20 kg of air-dried soil. Sieve it through 20mm and 4.75 IS sieves.
b) Determine the percentage kept on 20mm screen, and 4.75 mm screen and the portion pas sing 4.75 mm sieve.do not use the oil
retained on 20mm sieve.
c) Figure out the ratio of portion kept and that passing 4.75 mm screen.
d) If portion retained on 4.75 mm sieve is greater than 20, utilize the large mould ofi150m m diameter.
e) If it is less than 20%, the basic mould ofi100mm size can be utilized. The following procedure is for standard mould.
f) Mix the soil retained on 4.75 mm screen and the passing 4.75 mm screen in the proportions determined in step 2 to obtain about
16 to 18 kg of soil specimen.
g) Clean and dry the mould and the base plate to the closest 1 gm.
h) Take about 16 to 18 kg of soil specimen. Include water to it to bring the water c material to about 4% if the soil is sandy and to
about 8% of the soil is clayey. Keep the soil in an airtight container for about 18 to 20 hours for maturing. Mix the fully grown
soil completely. Divide the processed soil into 6 to 8 parts
i) Attach the collar to the mould. Place the mould on a strong base.
j) Take about 21/2 kg of the processed soil, and position it in the mould in 3 layers.
k) Take about one third the amount first, and compact it by providing 25 blows of the ram mer. The blows need to be uniformly
dispersed over the surface area of each layer. The t op of the very first layer should be scratched with a spatula before
positioning the 2nd layer. The 2nd layer must likewise be compacted by 25 blows of rammer. Similarly, position on the
3rdilayer and compact it. The amount of soil used must be just sufficient to fill the mould and leaving about 5mm above the top
of the mould to be struck off when the collar is gotten rid of.
l) Get rid of the collar and cut off the excess soil forecasting above the mould using a straight edge. Clean the base plate and the
mould from outside. Weigh it to the nearest gm
m) Eliminate the soil from the mould. The soil might also be ejected out. Take the soil sample for the water material decision from
the top, middle and bottom parts.
n) Add about 3% of water to a fresh part of the processed soil and repeat the Steps 10 to 1 4.
V. SIMULATION AND RESULTS

A. Consistency Limits
1) Liquid Limit And Plastic Limit At 0% Of Terrasil,0% RHA And 0% FA
The Conventional sample of expensive soil on index-based properties [ Liquid limit & Plastic limit] of examining soils has been
shown in the following figure and table
Table No. .1 –Liquid Limit and Plastic Limit for Conventional Sample
Determination no. 1 2 3 4 1 2 Average
plastic limit
No. of blows 15 18 26 28 - -
Wt. of container (w0) gm. 21 21 21 21 21 21.95
.9 .9 .9 .9 .9
5 5 5 5 5
Wt. of container + wet soil 34 33 33 33 29 30.79
(w1) in gm. .5 .9 .7 .6 .1
6 0 7 8 6
Wt. of container + oven dry 29 29 29 29 27 28.88
soil (w2) gm. .6 .3 .3 .2 .5
8 6 3 9 8
Wt. of water (w1 ̶ w2) gm . 4. 4. 4. 4. 1.58 1.91
88 54 44 39
Wt. of oven dry soil (w2 ̶ 7. 7. 7. 7. 5. 6.93
w0) gm 73 41 38 34 63
Water content w = ̶ 63 62 60 59 28 27.56
× 100 ̶ .1 .2 .1 .8 .0 27.81
3 7 6 0 6
Figure: 6 –Liquid Limit for Conventional Sample Hence: Liquid Limit = 60.27%, Plastic Limit = 27.81
2) Liquid Limit & Plastic Limit At 0.02% Of Terrasil, 10% RHA And 20% FA
The effect of Terrasil at 0.02%,10% RHA and 20% FA dosage on index properties (Liquid limit& Plastic limit) of examining soils
has been shown in Table .2.
Table No. 2 Liquid Limit & Plastic Limit at 0.02% of Terrasil, 10% RHA and 20% FA
plastic limit
No. of blows 16 20 27 30 - - -
Wt. of container (w0) 21.95 21.95 21.95 21.95 21.95 21.95 21.95
Wt. of container wet 34.42 33.66 33.55 33.56 29.17 30.57
soil (w1) in gm +
Wt. of container + oven 29.61 29.17 29.25 29.27 27.62 28.70 -
dry soil (w2) gm
Wt. of water 4.81 4.49 4.30 4.27 1.55 1.87
(w1 ̶
w2)
gm
Wt. of oven dry soil 7.66 7.22 7.30 7.32 5.67 6.75 -
(w2 ̶ w0) gm
Water content w = ̶ 62.79 62.19 58.90 58.6 27.33 27.70 27.52
× 100 ̶
62
61
60
59
58
57
56
55
54
53
52
51
50
18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35
No. of blows
Figure No.: 5.4 Liquid Limits at 0.06% of Terrasil ,10% RHA and 20% FA
Figure No.: 7 Liquid Limits at 0.06% of Terrasil ,10% RHA and 20% FA Hence: Liquid Limit = 56.42%, Plastic Limit = 26.35
Liquid Limit and Plastic Limit at 0.08% of Terrasil ,10% RHA and 20% FA The effect of 0.08% of Terrasil,10% RHA and 20%
FA dosage on index properties (Liquid limit and Plastic limit) of examining soils has been shown in table .5.
plastic
limit
No. of blows 20 24 29 32 - -
Wt. of container (w0) 21.95 21.95 21.95 21.95 21.95 21.95
gm.
Wt. of container + wet 34.68 34.21 33.92 33.96 28.91 30.24
soil (w1) in gm.
Wt. of container + oven 30.00 29.91 29.74 29.81 27.46 28.63
dry soil (w2) gm.
Wt. of water (w1 ̶ w2) . 4.68 4.30 4.18 4.15 1.45 1.71
gm
Wt. of oven dry soil(w2 ̶ 8.05 7.96 7.79 7.86 5.51 6.68
w0) gm
Water content w = ̶ 58.14 54.02 53.66 52.80 26.31 25.60 25.95
× 100 ̶
60
59
58
57
56
55
54
53
52
51
50
49
48
47
46
45
18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35
No. of blows
3) Liquid Limit and Plastic Limit at 0.10% of Terrasil,10% RHA and 20% FA
The effect of 0.10% of Terrasil,10% RHA and 20% FA dosage on index properties (Liquid limit and Plastic limit) of
examining soils has been shown in Table .6.
Table No.: .6 Liquid Limit and Plastic Limit at 0.10% of Terrasil ,10% RHA and 20% FA
Determination no. limit 1 2 3 4 1 2 Average
plastic
No. of blows 2 2 30 33 - -
2 7
Wt. of container (w0) gm 2 2 21. 21. 21.9 2
1. 1. 95 95 5 1
9 9 .
5 5 9
5
.Wt. of container + wet soil 3 3 33. 33. 28.8 2
(w1) in gm 4. 4. 77 91 3 9
5 2 .
8 1 9
2
. Wt. of container + oven dry 2 2 29. 29. 27.4 2
soil (w2) gm 9. 9. 68 81 4 8
9 9 .
7 5 2
8
. Wt. of water (w1 ̶ w2) gm 4. 4.2 4.0 4.10 1 1.64
6 6 9 .
1 3
9
. Wt. of oven dry soil (w2 ̶ 8. 8. 7.7 7.8 5.49 6

w0) gm 0 0 3 6 .
2 0 3
3
Water content w = ̶ 5 5 52. 52. 25.3 2 25.60

× 100 ̶ 7. 3. 91 14 0 5
4 2 .
6 4 9
0
B. Summary of Consistency Limits

The consequence of Terrasil at diverse quantity on index properties (Liquid limit, Plastic limit & Plasticity index) of examining soils
has been shown in Table 7
Table No.: 7 Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit and plasticity index at usual and numerous %ageof Terrasil
Sr. Tests Normal Sample with Sample Sample Sample Sample
No sample 0.02% with with with with
Terrasil,10% 0.04% 0.06% 0.08% 0.10%
RHA and Terrasil Terrasil Terrasil Terrasil
20% FA ,10% ,10% ,10% ,10%
RHA RHA RHA RHA
and and and and
20% 20% 20% 20%
FA FA FA FA
1 Liquid 60.27 59.82 57.02 56.42 53.83 54.88

limit (%)
2 Plastic 27.81 27.52 27.32 26.35 25.95 25.60
limit (%)
3 Plasticity 32.46 32.30 29.70 30.07 27.88 29.28
(%)
C. Specific Gravity
The soil specific gravity is described as the unit weight of the soil mass divided by the unit weight of distilled water at 4°C. It is
sometimes required to compare the density of the soil solids to the density of water. This comparison is in the form of ratio and is
termed as the specific gravity of the soil. The specific gravity of soil (IS: 2720 part- 2).
Wt. of pycnometer W1 = 573 gm.
Wt. of pycnometer + soil sample W2 = 1073 gm.
Wt. of pycnometer + soil sample + water W3 = 1832 gm. Wt. of pycnometer + water W4 = 1530 gm.
Specific gravity of soil G = W2– W1

(W4–W1 )–(W3–W3)
Sieve weight of % of Cumulative Cumulative Percent

size(mm) soil retained weight of % retained finer
retained(gm.) soil soil (gm.) (%)
4.75mm 0 0 0 0 100
2.00mm 98 16.3 98 16.3 83.7
1.00mm 111 18.5 209 34.8 65.2
600µ 104 17.4 313 52.2 47.8
425µ 84 14 397 66.2 33.8
300µ 72 12 469 78.2 21.8
150µ 64 10.6 533 88.8 11.2
75µ 58 9.70 591 98.5 1.5
Pan 9 1.5 600 100 0
Figure No.: 10 Grain Size Distribution

Hence: Remarks
D10 = size at 10% finer by weight = 0.45mm
D. Standard Proctore Compaction Test

The investigation while conducting this test is described in Table .9.
Table no.: 9 STANDARD PROCTORE COMPACTION TEST NORMAL SAMPLE
Test no. 1 2 3 4 5
Volume of mould Vm(ml) 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000
Weight of mould Wm(gm) 5100 5100 5100 5100 5100
Weight of mould + compacted 6591 6819 6890 6923 6914
soil W(gm.)
Weight of compacted soil (gm.) 1491 1719 1790 1823 1814
Bulk density, ῤ = – 1.491 1.719 1.790 1.823 1.814
Weight of container W1(gm.) 15.15 15.15 15.15 15.15 15.15
Weight of container + soil W2 34.21 30.59 33.23 25.85 28.24
Weight of container + dry soil 31.52 28.04 29.99 23.51 25.50
W3
Water content w (%) 16.49 19.78 21.83 27.99 26.47
Dry density, ῤd = ῤ + 1.279 1.435 1.469 1.42 4 1.42 1
Figure: 11 Standard Proctore Compaction test normal sample
Result: Max dry density ( ρd) = 1.47 gm/cm3& Optimum moisture content = 21.85%
1) Standard Proctor Compaction Test Of Sample With 0.02% Terrasil, 10% RHA And 20% FA
The effect of 0.02% Terrasil, 10% RHA and 20% FA quantity on Standard proctor compaction test of sample of examining soils has
been shown in Table .10
Table no. .10 Standard proctor compaction test of sample with 0.02% Terrasil, 10% RHA and 20% FA
Test no. 1 2 3 4 5
Weight of mould Wm(gm.) 5100 5100 5100 5100 5100
weight of mould + 6765 6905 6981 6942 6909
compacted soil W(gm.)
Weight of compacted soil 1665 1805 1881 1842 1809
(gm.)
Bulk density, ῤ = – 1.665 1.805 1.881 1.842 1.809
v
Weight of container W1(gm) 15.15 15.15 15.15 15.15 15.15
Weight of container + soil 46.27 45.23 39.27 35.57 26.03
W2
Weight of container + dry 40.93 39.67 34.66 30.97 23.53
soil W3
Water content w (%) 20.71 22.68 23.63 29.08 29.83
Dry density, ῤd = ῤ + 1.383 1.475 1.521 1.425 1.393
1.5
1.4
1.3
20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Water content W (%)
Fig no. 12 SPT test of sample with 0.02% Terrasil, 10% RHA and 20% FA
Result: Max dry density ( ρd) = 1.53 gm./cm3& Optimum moisture content = 23.6%
2) Standard Proctor Compaction Test Of Sample With 0.04% Terrasil, 10% RHA AND 20% FA:
The effect of 0.04% Terrasil, 10% RHA and 20% FA amount on Standard proctor compaction test of sample of examining soils has
been shown in Table .11.
Table 11 Standard proctor compaction test of sample with 0.04% Terrasil, 10% RHA and 20% FA
Test no. 1 2 3 4 5
Volume of mould 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000
Vm(ml)
Weight of mould 5100 5100 5100 5100 5100
Wm(gm.)
weight of mould + 6813 7000 7121 7033 6949
compacted
soil
W(gm.)
Weight of compacted soil 1713 1900 2021 1933 1849
(gm.)
Bulk density, ῤ = – 1.713 1.900 2.021 1.933 1.849
Weight of container 15.15 15.15 15.15 15.15 15.15

W1(gm)
Weight of container + soil 56.69 39.00 49.39 45.47 46.17
W2
Weight of container + dry 49.89 35.01 43.15 39.10 39.25
soil W3
Water content w (%) 19.57 20.09 22.29 26.60 28.71
Dry density, ῤd = ῤ + 1.433 1.465 1.652 1.526 1.496
1.7
1.6
1.5
1.4
19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Water content W (%)
Figure No. 13 Standard proctor compaction test of sample with 0.04% Terrasil, 10% RHA and 20% FA
3) Tandard Proctors Compaction Test Of Sample With 0.06% Terrasil, 10% RHA AND 20% FA :
The effect of 0.06% Terrasil, 10% RHA and 20% FA quantity on Standard proctor compaction test of sample of examining soils has
Table No. .12 Standard proctors compaction test of sample with 0.06% Terrasil, 10% RHA and 20% FA
Test no. 1 2 3 4 5
Volume of mould 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000
Vm(ml)
Weight of mould 5100 5100 5100 5100 5100
Wm(gm)
weight of mould + 7077 7178 7221 7201 7139
compacted
soil W(gm.)
Weight of 1739 2078 2121 2101 2039

compacted soil
(gm.)
bBulkddensity, ῤ 1.739 2.078 2.121 2.101 2.039
= –
Weight of W1(gm) 15.15 15.15 15.15 15.15 15.15
container
Weight of W2 39.43 57.90 36.62 27.54 50.47
container + soil
Weight of W3 35.42 49.86 30.94 24.16 40.57
container + dry
soil
Water content w 19.34 23.16 35.97 37.51 38.94
(%)
Dry density, ῤd = 1.457 1.687 1.559 1.527 1.468
ῤ +
1.7
1.6
1.5
1.4
18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
Water content W (%)
Result: Max dry density ( ρd) = 1.69 gm/cm3& Optimum moisture content = 23.13%
4) 5STANDARD PROCTOR COMPACTION TEST OF SAMPLE WITH 0.08% TERRASIL, 10% RHA AND 20% FA
The effect of 0.02% Terrasil, 10% RHA and 20% FA amount on Standard proctor compaction test of sample of examining soils has
been shown in Table 13.
Table 13 Standard proctor’s compaction test of sample with 0.08% Terrasil, 10% RHA and 20% FA
Test no. 1 2 3 4 5
weight of mould + compacted soil 6656 6942 7122 7107 6998
W(gm.)
Weight of compacted soil (gm.) 1556 1842 2022 2007 1898

Bulk density, ῤ = – 1.556 1.842 2.022 2.007 1.898
Weight of containerW1(gm) 15.15 15.15 15.15 15.15 15.15
Weight of container + soil W2 45.35 32.91 40.65 38.19 41.55
Weight of container + dry soil W3 40.22 29.57 35.43 32.95 36.57
Water content w (%) 20.46 23.16 25.74 29.44 33.25
Dry density, ῤd = ῤ + 1.291 1.495 1.608 1.551 1.478
5) 5standard Proctors Compaction Test Of Sample With 0.10% Terrasil, 10% RHA AND 20% FA:
The effect of 0.10% Terrasil, 10% RHA and 20% FA dose on Standard proctor compaction test of sample of examining soils has
Table no.: .14 Standard proctor compaction test of sample with 0.10% Terrasil, 10% RHA and 20% FA
Test no. 1 2 3 4 5
Volume of mould 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000
Vm(ml)
weight of mould + 6736 7125 7157 6971 6877
compacted soil
W(gm.)
Weight of compacted 1636 2025 2056 2057 1777

soil (gm.)
Bulk density, ῤ = – 1.636 2.025 2.056 2.057 1.777
Weight of container W1(gm) 15.15 15.15 15.15 15.15 15.15

Weight of container + 49.43 36.78 38.66 42.77 47.37
soil W2
Weight of container + W3 43.38 32.09 33.12 35.99 38.55
dry soil
Water content w (%) 21.43 27.69 30.83 32.53 37.69
Dry density, ῤd = ῤ 1.347 1.598 1.571 1.552 1.291
+
E. Permeability of Soil By Variable Head Permeameter

The variable head Permeameter is used to measure the permeability of relatively less previous soils. The coefficient of permeability
is given by
K= . log cm/sec
Where h1 = initial head: h2 = final head; t = time interval; a = cross sectional area of the standpipe; A =cross sectional area of the
specimen, L = length of specimen.
Here the Length of specimen 12 cm, Diameter of specimen 10 cm , Area of specimen A = 78.5 cm2, Diameter of stand pipe = 1 cm
and Area of stand pipe a= 0.785 cm2
Table 15: Coefficient of Permeability
Terrasil RHA FA Length Area Area Initi Fi Tim Permeability cm/sec
% of of of al nal e K= . log
sampl sample stand head hea interv
e (L) (A) pipe(a) h1 d al (t
h2 in
sec)
0, 10% 20% 15 78.5 0.785 50 22 60 2.04×10–3
0.02 10% 20% 15 78.5 0.785 50 28 60 1.44×10–3
0.04 10% 20% 15 78.5 0.785 50 32 60 1.12×10–3
0.06 10% 20% 15 78.5 0.785 50 38 60 6.82×10–4
0.08 10% 20% 15 78.5 0.785 50 40 60 5.54×10–4
0.10 10% 20% 15 78.5 0.785 50 43 60 4.33×10–4
F. Summary Of Various Test Results At Different %Age Of Terrasil

Table 16: Various test results at different %age of Terrasil
%age %age %age Liquid Plasti Plasticity OMC MDD Comp Shear Permeabili
of Of Of limit c (%) (%) (gm/c ressive strength ty
Terrasil RHA FA (%) limit m2) strengt (kg/cm2) (cm/sec)
(%) h
(kg/cm
2)
0 10 20 60.27 27.81 32.46 21.85 1.47 1.071 0.536 2.04×10–3
0.02 10 20 59.82 27.52 32.30 23.60 1.53 1.281 0.640 1.44×10–3
0.04 10 20 57.02 27.32 29.70 22.42 1.65 1.578 0.789 1.12×10–3
0.06 10 20 56.42 26.35 30.07 23.13 1.69 1.772 0.861 6.82×10–4
0.08 10 20 53.83 25.95 27.88 25.90 1.61 1.361 0.681 5.54×10–4
0.10 10 20 54.88 25.60 29.28 27.64 1.59 1.219 0.609 4.33×10–4
VI. CONCLUSION
Following are the conclusions drawn from the numerous tests that were conducted experimentally while adding Terrasil,
maintaining the two additives' levels constant at 10% and 20%, respectively...
1) By raising the proportion of Terrasil, the liquid limit percentage rises from 0.08% to 0.08%.
2) Depending on the amount of Terrasil, the plastic limit percentage drops from 0% to 0.10%.
3) The plasticity percentage rises from 0.04% to 0.06%, with the maximum value being 30.07 at 0.06%.
4) The OMC shows an early increase and a subsequent reduction, with the maximum value being recorded at 27.64% at 0.10%
additive.
5) Terrasil's maximum dry density (MDD percentage) predominantly increases up to 0.06% before declining. The highest result,
1.69 gm/cm2, was attained at a Terrasil addition of 0.06%.
6) The compressive strength increases initially before declining; the highest value was attained after a Terrasil addition of 0.06%,
which was equivalent to 1.772 kg/cm2.
7) Shear strength was 0.861 kg/cm2 when chemical additive was used at a level of 0.06%. There were rises at initially, followed
by declines 8. With an increase in Terrasil content, the permeability typically falls.
VII. FUTURE SCOPE

To create the finest stabilising mixture possible, fly ash and rice husk ash can be combined with another addition, such as lime,
murrum, cement, and other similar materials, and their quantities can be changed.
REFERENCES
[1] Amarjit Singh (1967). Use of lime-fly ash in soil stabilisation for roads, Jl. Of Indian Roads Congress, vol-XXX-1,143.
[2] Amos,D.F. and Wright,J.D.,1972, The effect of soil fly Ash on soil physical characteristics, Proc. Of Third Mineral Waste Utilisation Symposium, Chicago, pp.
95- 104.
[3] Bell, F.G., 1993, Engineering treatment of soils, E & FN Spon Publishers, London.
[4] Bhoominathan,A. and Hari,S.,1999, Behaviour of fly ash under static and cyclic loading, Proc.of Indian Geotechnical Conference, Calcutta,pp.324-326.
[5] Bose, B. (2012), “Geo-engineering Properties of Expansive Soil Stabilized with Fly Ash”, Electronic Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 17, pp. 1339-
1353.
[6] Cokca, E. (2001), “Use of Class C fly ash for the stabilization of an expansive soil”, ASCE Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering. Vol.
127, Issue 7, pp. 568–573.
[7] Cokca,E.,2001, Use of class-C fly ashes for the stabilisation of expansive soil, Jl.of Geotechnical and Geo environmental engg.,vol.127,pp.568-573.
[8] Gayathri, M., P. Singh, and M. Prashanth, Soil Stabilization using Terrasil, Cement and Flyash. i-Manager's Journal on Civil Engineering, 2016. 6(4): p. 31.
[9] Hakari, U.D.and Puranik,S.C.,2010,Evaluation of swell potential and identification of expansive and problematic soils in civil engineering works by newly
developed matrices based on index and grain size properties, Electronic Journal of Geotechnical Engineering (EJGE),vol.15,pp.1712-1726.
[10] Holtz, W. G., and Gibbs, H. J. (1956), “Engineering properties of expansive clays” Transactions ASCE. Vol. 121, pp. 641–677.
[11] Indraratna,B.,Nutalaya, P. and Kuganenthria, N.,1991, Stabilisation of a dispersive soil by blending with fly ash, Qtrly Jl. of Engineering Geology,
vol.24,pp.275-290.
[12] Johnson, R. and K. Rangaswamy. Improvement of Soil Properties as a Road Base Material Using Nano Chemical Solution. in 50th Indian Geotechnical
Conference. 2015.
[13] Kumar, A., Walia, B.S., and Bajaj, A. (2007), “Influence of Fly Ash, Lime and Polyester Fibers on Compaction and Strength Properties of Expansive Soil”,
Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, Vol. 19, Issue 3, pp. 242-248.
[14] Lekha, B., S. Goutham, and A.R. Shankar. Laboratory investigation of soil stabilized with nano chemical. in Proceedings of Indian Geotechnical Conference.
India December. 2013.

Modification of Highway Sub-Grade Black Cotton Soil by Using Nano Chemical

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Modification of Highway Sub-Grade Black Cotton Soil by Using Nano Chemical

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

11 II February 2023

Modification of Highway Sub-Grade Black Cotton

a) Requirements And Edge

b) Soil Stabilization Approcahes

B. Black Cotton Soil

III. LITERATURE REVIEW

Figure 1: Casagrande’s Apparatus

2) Determination of Limit Of Plastic

Figure 2: Plastic Limit Sample and Test Apparatus

E. Unconfined Compressive& Shear Strength

Figure.4: Apparatus for Unconfined Compressive Strength and Shear Strength

F. Standard Proctor Compaction Test

Figure 5: Standard Proctor Compaction Test Apparatus.

V. SIMULATION AND RESULTS

. Wt. of oven dry soil (w2 ̶ 8. 8. 7.7 7.8 5.49 6

Water content w = ̶ 5 5 52. 52. 25.3 2 25.60

B. Summary of Consistency Limits

1 Liquid 60.27 59.82 57.02 56.42 53.83 54.88

Specific gravity of soil G = W2– W1

Sieve weight of % of Cumulative Cumulative Percent

Figure No.: 10 Grain Size Distribution

D. Standard Proctore Compaction Test

Figure: 11 Standard Proctore Compaction test normal sample

Water content W (%)

Weight of container 15.15 15.15 15.15 15.15 15.15

Water content W (%)

Weight of 1739 2078 2121 2101 2039

Water content W (%)

Weight of compacted soil (gm.) 1556 1842 2022 2007 1898

Weight of compacted 1636 2025 2056 2057 1777

Weight of container W1(gm) 15.15 15.15 15.15 15.15 15.15

E. Permeability of Soil By Variable Head Permeameter

F. Summary Of Various Test Results At Different %Age Of Terrasil

VII. FUTURE SCOPE

You might also like