Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
ISSN: 22503676
Volume - 2, Issue - 1, 12 17
A LABORATORY STUDY ON THE INFLUENCE OF RUBBER STRIPS ON THE IMPROVEMENT OF CBR VALUES OF EXPANSIVE SOIL
Koteswara Rao. D1, G.N.V.V.S.S.L.Shilpa Devi2, P.R.T. Pranav3
2
Professor, Civil Engineering Department, UCE-JNTUK KAKINADA, India dr.dkrjntuk@rediffmail.com Graduate Student, Civil Engineering Dept., UCE-JNTUK KAKINADA, India gaddeshilpadevi@gmail.com 3 Graduate Student, Civil Engineering Dept, UCE-JNTUK KAKINADA, India, pranav_rt1642@yahoo.com
Abstract
The problem with expansive soils has been recorded all over the world. Many foundations related problems are also noticed in and around India. Because of alternative swelling and shrinkage of expansive soils, lightly loaded civil engineering structures like residential buildings, pavements and canal linings are severely damaged. Many innovative foundation techniques have been devised as a solution to the problem of expansive soils. The chief among them is to provide reinforcement layers. In this study, the influence of rubber strips as reinforcement on the strength properties of expansive soil was studied.
Index terms: CBR, swelling, shrinkage properties, MDD, OMC, rubber strips ---------------------------------------------------------------------- *** ----------------------------------------------------------------------1. INTRODUCTION
Expansive soils, popularly known as black cotton soils in India, exhibit alternate shrinkage and swelling with the advent of summer and monsoon respectively .The mineralogical composition of these clays, which contain montmorillonite is responsible for this behavior. In the present work, a study was made to reinforce the black cotton soil, collected from Amalapuram with the different combination of rubber strips. Unconfined compression tests and CBR tests are carried out for all the mixes. The amount of rubber strips in the mixes varied from 0 to 6 %. It has been observed that the strength was enormously increased with the addition of particular percentage of rubber strips. Godavari district. The property of the soil assessed based on relevant IS code provisions are given in table.1
KOTESWARA RAO. D * et al. [IJESAT] INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING SCIENCE & ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY
ISSN: 22503676
Volume - 2, Issue - 1, 12 17
4. LABORATORY EXPERIMENTATION
The laboratory studies were carried out on the samples of expansive soil alone and also on the expansive soil mixed with rubber strips.
density and water content. The test was conducted under a constant strain rate of 1.5mm/min. The proving ring reading is noted for 50 divisions, and loading was continued until 3 (or) more readings are decreasing (or) constant (or) strain 20% has been reached. The samples of expansive soil and additive mixes were cured for 4 days, 7days and 28days, and at the end of each curing period, three samples for each mix were tested.
4. 4 Plastic Limit
The plastic limit test was conducted on expansive soil, expansive soil with rubber strips as per the specifications lay down in IS: 2720 part 4 (1970).
4. 5 Shrinkage Limit
This test was also conducted on expansive soil, expansive soil with rubber strips As per IS: 2720 part 4 (1972).
Table 2: Effect of different percentages of rubber strips on the engineering properties and CBR values of expansive soil
% of Rubber Strips 1 2 3 4 5 6 % of soil 99 98 97 96 95 94 CBR ( % ) OMC (%) 37.0 36.0 37.0 41.5 39.5 37.0 MDD g/cc 1.252 1.230 1.260 1.200 1.200 1.220 Unsoaked 2.87 2.91 4.48 4.71 4.72 4.65 Soaked 2.20 2.30 2.45 2.73 3.94 2.78
KOTESWARA RAO. D * et al. [IJESAT] INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING SCIENCE & ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY
ISSN: 22503676
Volume - 2, Issue - 1, 12 17
1.26 1.25 34, 1.252 32, 1.248 38, 1.234 99% 1.24
1.259
dry density
1.234 1.23 1.22 1.21 1.2 1.213 1.201 97% soil+3% rubber
dry density
41, 1.19
water content Figure3: water content Vs dry density Figure 1: water content Vs dry density 1.26 1.24 1.22 dry density 1.2 1.19 1.18 1.16 1.14 1.12 25 29 33 37 41 45 49 water content 1.13 35 40 45 1.128 1.14 1.134 50 98% soil+2% rubber 1.236 1.224 1.21 1.2 1.196 1.19 1.18 1.17 1.16 1.15 1.172 96% soil+ 4% rubber 1.2
dry density
water content Figure 2: water content Vs dry density Figure 4: water content Vs dry density
KOTESWARA RAO. D * et al. [IJESAT] INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING SCIENCE & ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY
ISSN: 22503676
Volume - 2, Issue - 1, 12 17
1.217
dry density
dry density
1.19 1.18 1.17 1.16 1.15 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 water content 1.161 1.182 94% soil+6% rubber
Figure 5: water content Vs dry density 22 20 18 Penetration Resistance in Kg 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 6.4 5.2 4.9 4.2 3.5 2.9 9.2 8.6 8.4 8.1 6.4 5
19.5 19.9 18.9 19.2 18 18.4 16.9 16.5 17 16 15.8 16.1 16.3 15.8 15.9 15 14.5 15.1 15 15.2 15.4 15.2 15 14.7 14.9 14.8 14.6 14.2 14.3 14.2 14 13.4 13.4 13.5 13.9 13 12.6 13.4 12.3 12.2 11.3 11.4 11.5 11.2 10.4 10.2 9.8 9.2 9.1 9 9.1 9.3 9.5 8.9 8.6 8.2 7.6 6.4 6.9 5.3
1% Rubber Strips 2% Rubber Strips 3% Rubber Strips 4% Rubber Strips 5% Rubber Strips 6% Rubber Strips
10
11
12
13
Penetration depth in mm
Figure7: Influence of various % of Rubber strips on Unsoaked CBR values of expansive soil
KOTESWARA RAO. D * et al. [IJESAT] INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING SCIENCE & ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY
ISSN: 22503676
Volume - 2, Issue - 1, 12 17
16 14 12 10 9.3 8 6 4 2 0 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Penetration depth in mm 4.1 3.7 3.6 3.1 2.7 2.5 6.5 5.9 5.6 4.4 4.2 6.7 6.4 6.2 4.8 4.5 7.5 6.8 5.1 4.9 8.2 7.9 7.3 5.3 5.1 8.4 7.5 5.4 5.3 10.2 8.8 7.7 5.7 5.5 9.2 7.9 5.9 5.7 12.2 11.4 12.8 13.1 11.4 9.7 8.1 6.3 5.9 10.1 10.4 8.3 6.6 6.2 8.5 7 6.5 1% Rubber Strips 2% Rubber Strips 3% Rubber Strips 4% Rubber Strips 5% Rubber Strips 6% Rubber Strips 13.9 14.2 13.5 13.7
Penetration Resistance in Kg
Figure8: Influence of various % of Rubber strips on soaked CBR values of expansive soil
6. CONCLUSIONS
The following conclusions were drawn based on the laboratory test results. 1. Soil used in this investigation may be classified as CH group as per IS classification indicating that it is a clay of high compressibility .The free swell index of the soil is equal to 100% which indicates high degree of expansion. 2. In case of soil-rubber strip mixes, the CBR value has been increased with increase in percentage of rubber strips up to an optimum percentage of rubber strips and there after the CBR value has been decreased with further increase in percentage of rubber strips. 3. It is observed that the CBR value of the expansive soil has been increased by 88% with addition of 5% Rubber strips as an optimum.
REFERENCES
[1] The performance studies on GEO-GRID as reinforcement in flexible pavement construction by D.Koteswara Rao and A.C.S.V Prasad. [2] Ahmed, I.,1993 Laboratory study on properties of rubber soils , Report no. fhwa/in/jhrp-93/4,Purdue University .West Lafayette ,Indian apolis. [3] AlWahab ,R>M and Al-Qurna ,H.H.,1995 , Fiber Reinforced cohesive soils for Application in Compacted Earth Structures ,Proceedings of Geo-synthetics95 ,IFAI,vol 2,Nashville, Tennessee,USA ,February 1995,pp.433-446. [4] Bernal ,A.Salgado, R. and Lovell,C>W,1997, Tyre Shreds and Rubber- Sand as light weight Backfill Material , accepted for publication as a technical paper in
KOTESWARA RAO. D * et al. [IJESAT] INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING SCIENCE & ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY the journal of Geotechnical and geo environmental Engineering. [5] Chaturvedhi,A.C,1997, Expansive soil in India with Special Reference to U.P.,Proc. Of First National Symposium on Expansive soils ,HBTI-Kanpur ,India ,pp.2-1 to 2-5. [6] Chen. F.H ,1988. Foundation soils,Elsevier pub. Co.,Amsterdam. on expansive
ISSN: 22503676
Volume - 2, Issue - 1, 12 17
[7] IS:2720(part 2)-1973,Determination of water content. [8] IS:2720(part 3)-1980,Determination of specific gravity.
BIOGRAPHIES
Dr. D. Koteswara Rao Prof of Civil Engineering University College of Engineering JNTUK -KAKINADA