Soil Stabilization Project

+ PROJECT REPORT
On
Evaluation of stabilized earth blocks in construction
Of
Nonstructural walls with different additives
Submitted by
TARUN JANDYAL Enrolment No. 336/12

ROHIT ATTRI Enrolment No.03/12
RAJESH BANCHRA Enrolment No.100/12
Department of Civil Engineering ,NIT SXR Page 1

UNDERGRADUATE PROJECT
Evaluation of stabilized earth blocks in construction
Of
Nonstructural walls with different additives
UNDER THE GUIDANCE OF
Professor F.A. MIR
Civil Engineering Department
______________________________________________________________________________
Submitted By

CERTIFICATE
This is to certify that project report entitled Evaluation of Stabilized Earth Block
in construction of Nonstructural wall with Different Additives has been prepared
by the 8th semester students. TARUN JANDYAL Enrolment No. 336/12, ROHIT
ATTRI Enrolment No.03/12, RAJESH BANCHRA Enrolment No.100/12 under
our guidance. Their work embodied extensive study of various books, and the
internet browsing. The report is hereby certified according to the protocols set for
the same, towards partial fulfillment of the requirements for the award of the
B.Tech Degree in the Civil Engineering discipline of this institute.
(PROFESSOR. F.A .MIR)
PROJECT SUPERVISOR

PREFACE
This Report is a complete and detailed analysis that we performed for the cause of
our project Evaluation of Stabilized Earth Block in construction of Nonstructural
wall with Different Additives. In this report we describe every detail required for
the implementation of our project. We have discussed the perspectives,
applications and the requirement of the project. All this helped to get us a clear
vision of how we are going to do our project. We hope this effort will clearly define
the vision and scope of our project.
Submitted By


ABSTRACT
Earth as a building material has already known for centuries started with plain mud and straw
utilized sun dried producing brick adobe with low strength and durability until its evolved to
become fired clay brick with mass rapid production in the kiln. In the growing concern of
awareness regarding sustainable building material and environmental issue, Stabilized Earth
Brick (SEB) give the view of energy efficient, cost reduction and environmental friendly
building materials, overall contribution on the sustainable development. It turned out that SEB
properties can be very easy bear comparison with other materials such as concrete block or
normal fired brick.
Stabilized earth is an alternative building material that is significantly cheaper than using
conventional brick and concrete
Various compositions of lime and cement were used with different soil Types as additives in
earth block molding and then were pressed with a pressed to provide Compaction and a definite
shape in solid form. Drying and curing was done before the blocks were tested for strength.
Although the strength yielded by the blocks was not comparable to that of fired clay brick, it
produced rewarding results regarding the reduction of GHG emission, energy consumption and
overall cost of production.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
We wish to take this opportunity to express our sincere gratitude and thanks to our learnt and
worthy guide Professor. F. A. MIR, Department of Civil Engineering, who helped us to
complete our project successfully. They have been very supportive throughout the period.
We express our deep gratitude to DR. M. A. LONE , H.O.D Civil Engineering Department,
NIT Srinagar for giving us an opportunity to pursue this project.
Our special thanks to our classmates, friends, the distinguished faculty members and the non-
teaching employees of the Geotechnical Laboratory, Civil Engineering Department, N.I.T
Srinagar , Who co-operated with us in the collection of the materials, laboratory testing and
making it a success. Lastly we would like to thank our parents who always been there for us,
supporting us all along the way.

Table of contents
PROJECT TITLE
SUPERVISORS CERTIFICATE
PREFACE
ABSTRACT
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES
LIST OF TABLES

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
General12
What are stabilized Earth Blocks?........................................................................................13
Aims and Objectives13
CHAPTER 2 : LITERATURE
REVIEW14
Stabilised Earth Block.16
Soil stabilization Techniques .....17
Soil stabilizers ...18
Principle of soil stabilisers19
CHAPTER 3 :METHODOLOGY22
CHAPTER 4: TEST PERFORMED.24

Specific Gravity25
Liquid Limit25
Plastic Limit.26
P.S.D..27
Standard Proctor Test.27
U.C.S28
CHAPTER 5: EVALUATION OF SOIL SAMPLE......29

Results...29
CHAPTER 6: PREPARATION OF RAW MATERIAL.38

Pulverization38
Sieving...38
Proportioning...39
Mixing...39

CHAPTER 7 : TEST RESULT AND DISCUSSION..40
CHAPTER 8 : CONCLUSION AND COMPARISON52
CHAPTER 9: BIBLOGRAPHY54
LIST OF GRAPHS
Graph 1, PSD Curve ..32
Graph 2,Determination of Plastic Limit & Liquid limit..34
Graph 3,Compaction Curve35
Graph 4,5Compressive Strength/Axial Strain..36
Graph 6, Cement %age vs Compressive Strength.42
Graph 7, Water Absorption vs %age Cement.44
Graph 8, Water Absorption vs %age Lime..45
Graph 9, Erosion Rate vs Cement.47
Graph 10, Erosion Rate vs Lime49

LIST OF FIGURES
Fig 1,Stabilized earth block16
Fig 2 , Atterbergs apparatus..20
Fig 3, Sieve Set ...22
Fig 4, Atterbegs Limit..26
Fig 5, Compressive Strength test41
Fig 6, Weathering Test........42

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1, 2: Specific Gravity29
Table 3,4: PSD Curve and Hydrometer30,31
Table 5: Coefficient Determination33
Table 6,7: Atterberg Limits.34
Table 8: OMC and MDD 35
Table 9: Strength Determination41
Table 10: Strength Determination..42
Table 11,12: Water Absorption44,45
Table 13,14: Weathering of Earth Blocks46,47

CHAPTER 1:INTRODUCTION
1.1. General
Fire-burnt clay brick has been the main building material of construction industry in India for
quite a long time due to the unavailability of stone aggregate or other alternative building
materials at comparable cost in the country.
This rapid proliferation of Fixed Chimney Kiln (FCK) in North Cluster has resulted in an
elevated concentration of CO2,SO2, and fine particulate matter in the air of North India
especially during dry season.
SEB technology is an alternative to the conventional burnt brick technology and is relatively less
expensive, uses local resources and consumes less energy with reduced carbon emission at the
production stage. However, SEB needs systematic approach for ensuring the consistency of the
method applied to manufacture such building block. The percentage of sand and clay in soil is an
important factor that governs the selection of the type and amount required of the stabilizer for
particular type of SEB production
Stabilization of soil by lime is achieved mainly through cation exchange, flocculation and
agglomeration, and reaction. Cation exchange, flocculation and agglomeration reactions takes
place rapidly and bring immediate changes in soil properties such as strength, plasticity and
workability, whereas,reactions are time dependent. The cation exchange starts to take place
between the monovalent metallic ions associated with the surface of the clay particles (Na+, K+
etc.) and that are surrounded by a diffuse hydrous double layer (H+), which is modified by the
ion exchange of calcium, because of which there is alteration in the density of the electrical
charge around the clay particles, that leads to the flocculation and agglomeration of soil particles.
This process mainly takes place within the lime fixation point and is mainly responsible for the
modification of the engineering properties of soils treated with lime. In addition to cation
exchange,reaction occurs between the silica and some alumina of the lattices of the clay
minerals.

The effectiveness of the treatment depends on the quality and quantity of lime as well as the
chemical and mineralogical composition of the soil. The strength developed is obviously
influenced by the quantity of cementitious gel produced and consequently by the amount of lime
consumed. SEB that will reduce emission and energy requirement and thus replace part of the
traditional fired bricks which are mainly used as non-load bearing purpose in household
construction sector in India.
1.2. What are stabilized earth blocks ?
Stabilized earth blocks are the blocks made of soil along with the admixtures such as cement and
lime. These blocks have modified strength and other parameters as compared to the ordinary
mud block.
1.3. Aims and Objectives

The main purpose of this research study was to replace the relatively expensive cement and lime
as stabiliser of compressed earth blocks (CEB) through ingredients which are renewable
resources in nature. A strength and therefore durability testing method, in the absence of
laboratory facilities in the rural areas, was to be established; this was to be accomplished by
determining a conversion function between standard laboratory tests and the proposed simple
testing method i.e. loading strength was to be correlated with compressive strength. Of equal
importance was to investigate properties of the prepared soil blocks and recommend
specifications accordingly.

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
Stabilized Earth Blocks (SEB) is considered to be an important step in the manufacture of
SEBs, and is aimed at improving the performance of a soil as a construction material. Amongst
the variety of soil stabilizers used, cement has been the most popular stabilizer in the
manufacture of SEBs. However, compared to cement, utilization of lime as a stabilizer in the
preparation of SEBs has not found popularity. Stabilized earth blocks (also called adobe earth
blocks) are made from soil mixed with stabilizing material such as Portland cement, formed into
blocks and dried in the sunlight. Researchers have showed that stabilized earth bricks
demonstrate many advantages compared to conventional burnt bricks. This study focuses on the
comparative performances of earth blocks using different stabilizer.
Dr. Bell and Coulthard, 1990; Little, 1995; Mallela et al., 2004; Amu et al., 2011; Herrier et
al., 2012 reported Lime has been used in stabilizing clayey soils, and has been found to impart
long-term strength gain..
Herrier et al. (2012) as reported that An outstanding testimonial of the durability of the lime-
stabilized soils is the Friant-Kern irrigation canal in California. In the recent past, attempts to
independently utilize lime instead of cement in the preparation of SEBs and compare their
properties with those prepared with cement has been reported in the literature
Raheem et al. (2010) have reported the 28 days wet compressive strength of compressed
stabilized interlocking earth blocks prepared with lime and cement alone as stabilizers added in
varying quantities from 5% to 25%, with an increment of 5%. For maximum amount of stabilizer
content namely 25%, the strength gain of the blocks is found to be 3.2 MPa and 1.2 MPa for
blocks prepared with cement and lime respectively

(Guettala et al., 2002; Raheem et al., 2010; Miqueleiz et al., 2012). Guettala et al. (2002)
have tried to use various quantities of lime namely, 5%, 8% and 12% to improve the durability of
the blocks. The evaluated dry strength of blocks reported by them is around 9.4, 14.2 and 16.2
MPa respectively for 5%, 8% and 12% of lime. Similarly, when tested under humid state, the
strength of the blocks was found to be 4.4, 8.2 and 9.8 MPa respectively for 5%, 8% and 12%
lime. From their study, it is clear that after an optimum value of lime content, any further
increase in lime will not be so beneficial in the strength gain of the blocks
Guettala (2002) describes the durability of lime stabilized earth blocks. They conducted
durability test and freeze-thaw test on earth blocks using clay soil and sand and lime as stabilizer.
They concluded that by increasing the compacting stress from 5 to 20 MPa, it will improve the
compressive strength up to 70%. They also found that water absorption and weight loss decrease
with increasing of compacting stress and lime content.
Miqueleiz (2012) have reported the advantage of using lime towards the development of
unfired clay bricks. From the results of tests conducted on cylindrical specimens of 65 mm
diameter and 30 mm height prepared with use of 18% lime, they have found that, at the end of 90
days of ageing the maximum compressive strength of the cylindrical specimens was nearly 13
MPa, and the strength of cylindrical specimens prepared with 18% of cement were around
18mpa .However, attempts to utilize lime in combination with cement as a stabilizer to achieve
desirable properties of SEBs have not been studied and reported. As lime is known to impart
strength in the long term, its utilization in some proportion as a replacement to cement may be
beneficial. This paper reports the attempts made to understand the role of lime in combination
with cement as a stabilizer in improving the long-term properties of SEBs, optimize the use of
stabilizers and maximize the strength of the blocks. Any effort to optimize the quantity of
stabilizers used in combination would help in reducing the cost of the blocks. This work is thus
aimed at contributing towards improvising the existing technology of manufacture of unfired
earth blocks. This would be a good contribution towards sustainable development

2.1 STABILISED EARTH BLOCK (SEB)
FIG. 1 Stabilised Earth Blocks
2.1.1 Definition
Stabilised earth blocks are blocks made of earth but have additives present in them for the
enhancement of there strength and resistance to erosion.
2.2. Need of stabilised earth blocks
Traditional earth construction techniques such as wattle and daub, cob (jalous) and adobe need
continuous maintenance in order to keep them in good condition.
Current research, carried by us, aims to increase the durability of earth as a construction material.
our work has led to the improvement stablised earth blocks as building techniques. Unfortunately
the quality of stablised earth blocks in some construction schemes is far from adequate and often
materials are wasted in the production process.

To extend the use of compressed stablised earth building blocks to all types of housing e.g. low-
cost housing in rural and urban areas and middle income housing in urban areas, production
techniques need to be further improved so as to achieve better quality and reduce production
costs. In order to do this the following points need to be considered carefully.
proportions between soil and stabiliser need to be optimised, taking into consideration the
specific characteristics of the soil
block surfaces need to be smooth so that they have the potential to be used without an
additional surface coating or render.
Good quality compressed stablised earth blocks improve hygiene (e.g. there will be less
surface cracks for insects to lodge in), reduce maintenance and repair costs and, in
general, prolong the life span of a wall.
2.3. Soil Stabilisation techniques
There are several methods of soil stabilisation widely used to improve construction quality.
Some of the major stabilisation techniques are described in this section.
2.3.1 Cement stabilisation
Ordinary Portland cement hydrates when water is added, the reaction produces a cementitious
gel that is independent of the soil. This gel is made up of calcium silicate hydrates, calcium
aluminate hydrates and hydrated lime. The first two compounds form the main bulk of the
cementitious gel, whereas the lime is deposited as a separate crystalline solid phase. The
cementation process results in deposition between the soil particles of an insoluble binder
capable of embedding soil particles in a matrix of cementitious gel. Penetration of the gel
throughout the soil hydration process is dependent on time, temperature and cement type. The
lime released during hydration of the cement reacts further with the clay fraction forming
additional cementitious bonds. Soil-cement mixes should be compacted immediately after
mixing in order not to break down the newly created gel and therefore reduce strengthening. The
basic function of cementation is to make the soil water-resistant by reducing swelling and
increasing its compressive strength.
With respect to the general processes of cementation, penetration and binding mentioned above,
many factors must be considered. Processes may also vary between different types of soils.
Cement is considered a good stabiliser for granular

soils but unsatisfactory for clays. Generally cement can be used with any soil type, but with clays
it is uneconomical because more cement is required. The range of cement content needed for
good stabilisation is between 8% and 12% by weight according to soil type
2.3.2.Lime stabilisation
By adding lime to the soil for stabilisation, four basic reactions are believed to occur:cation
exchange, flocculation and agglomeration, carbonation, and pozzolanic reactions. The
pozzolanic reaction is believed to be the most important and it occurs between lime and certain
clay minerals to form a variety of cementitious compounds which bind the soil particles together.
Lime can also reduce the degree to which the clay absorbs water, and so can make the soil less
sensitive to changes in moisture content and improve its workability. Lime is a suitable stabiliser
for clay soils. Lime is more widely available than Portland cement in Sudan and is produced
locally in traditional kilns. However, some improvements still need to be made in its production
and processing.
The advantages that lime has over Portland cement are that it requires less fuel to manufacture
and requires relatively simple equipment to make. It is therefore more suitable for village scale
production and use.
2.4. Soil stabiliser

Modifying soil properties by adding another material to improve its durability is called soil
stabilisation. Soil stabilisation has been used widely since the 1920s mainly for road
construction. When a soil is successfully stabilised one or more of the following effects will be
evident.
strength and cohesion of the soil will increase,
permeability of the soil will be reduced,
the soil will be made water repellent
the durability of the soil will increase,
the soil will shrink and expand less in dry and wet conditions

Natural soil construction techniques such as cob, adobe, wattle and daub, or rammed earth are
still widely used throughout the developing world by lowincome groups. This is mainly because
of their low cost and the abundance of easily available soil.
The principal soil fraction which enables a soil to be used as a construction material is clay
because it provides cohesion and binds together the other fractions. Unfortunately, because clay
usually swells on absorbing water and shrinks on drying, this can give rise to severe cracking and
in extreme cases eventual disintegration. It can also give rise to difficulties in getting rendering
to adhere to the walls. In order to enable soil to serve as a better and more durable construction
material an additional material should be added to the soil mix to strengthen it. Traditionally,
animal dung and straw have been used and are still used in many areas. Although they have the
advantage of being low in cost, they are not very durable and need to be renewed after every
rainy season.
Many stabilisers have been tried, including manufactured ones such as Portland cement, lime,
bitumen, gypsum, alkalis, sodium chloride, calcium chloride, aluminum compounds, silicates,
resins, ammonium compounds, polymers, and agricultural and industrial wastes. The most
widely used stabilisers in developing countries, are Portland cement, lime and bitumen because
they are inexpensive and readily.
2.5. Principle of Soil Stabilisation
Silt and clay within a soil sample react to moisture, swelling when water is absorbed, and
shrinking when the soil dries out. Such movement can result in surface cracking of walls and
consequently accelerate erosion, which may eventually lead to structural failures. Movement
often causes the crumbling of surface coatings. The main objective of soil stabilisation is to
enhance soil resistance to the erosive effects of the local weather conditions, including variations
in temperature, humidity and rainwater.
The use and adoption of the right stabilisation method can improve the compressive strength of a
soil by as much as 400 to 500% and increase its resistance to erosion and mechanical damage.
Good resistance to erosion can be obtained in one or more of the following ways:-
increasing the density of the soil,
adding a stabilising agent that either reacts with, or binds the soil grains together
adding a stabilising agent which acts as a waterproofing medium.
2.6. Soil properties
2.6.1 Atterberg Limits
FIG 2. Atterbergs appratus

1) Shrinkage Limit:
This limit is achieved when further loss of water from the soil does not reduce the volume of the
soil. It can be more accurately defined as the lowest water content at which the soil can still be
completely saturated. It is denoted by wS.
2) Plastic Limit:
This limit lies between the plastic and semi-solid state of the soil. It is determined by rolling out
a thread of the soil on a flat surface which is non-porous. It is the minimum water content at
which the soil just begins to crumble while rolling into a thread of approximately 3mm diameter.
Plastic limit is denoted by wP.

3) Liquid Limit:
It is the water content of the soil between the liquid state and plastic state of the soil. It
can be defined as the minimum water content at which the soil, though in liquid state,
shows small shearing strength against flowing. It is measured by the Casagrandes
apparatus and is denoted by wL.
2.6.2 Particle Size Distribution
Soil at any place is composed of particles of a variety of sizes and shapes,

sizes ranging from a few microns to a few centimetres are present sometimes in the same
soil sample. The distribution of particles of different sizes determines many physical
properties of the soil such as its strength, permeability, density etc.
Particle size distribution is found out by two methods, first is sieve analysis which is
done for coarse grained soils only and the other method is sedimentation analysis used for
fine grained soil sample. Both are followed by plotting the results on a semi-log graph.
The percentage finer N as the ordinate and the particle diameter i.e. sieve size as the
abscissa on a logarithmic scale. The curve generated from the result gives us an idea of
the type and gradation of the soil. If the curve is higher up or is more towards the left, it
means that the soil has more representation from the finer particles; if it is towards the
right, we can deduce that the soil has more of the coarse grained particles.
The soil may be of two types- well graded or poorly graded (uniformly graded).
Well graded soils have particles from all the size ranges in a good amount. On the other
hand, it is said to be poorly or uniformly graded if it has particles of some sizes in excess
and deficiency of particles of other sizes. Sometimes the curve has a flat portion also
which means there is an absence of particles of intermediate size, these soils are also
known as gap graded or skip graded.
For analysis of the particle distribution, we sometimes use D10, D30, and D60 etc. terms
which represents a size in mm such that 10%, 30% and 60% of particles respectively are

finer than that size. The size of D10 also called the effective size or diameter is a very
useful data.
Fig 3, Sieve set

2.7. Specific gravity
Specific gravity of a substance denotes the number of times that substance is

heavier than water. In simpler words we can define it as the ratio between the mass of any
substance of a definite volume divided by mass of equal volume of water. In case of soils,
specific gravity is the number of times the soil solids are heavier than equal volume of

water. Different types of soil have different specific gravities, general range for specific
gravity of soils:
Soil Type Specific Gravity
Gravel 2.65-2.68
Sand 2.65-2.68
Silty Sand 2.66-2.70
Silt 2.66-2.70
Inorganic Clays 2.68-2.80
Organic Soils Variable, may fall below 2.00

3.TESTING OF SOIL PRIOR TO BLOCK PRODUCTION /
METHODOLOGY
3.1. Tests Performed:
3.1.1 Specific gravity of soil
3.1.2 Determination of soil index properties (Atterbergs Limits)
3.1.2.1. Liquid limit by Casagrandes apparatus
3.1.2.2 Plastic limit
3.1.3. Particle size distribution by wet sieve & hydrometer analysis
3.1.4.. Determination of the maximum dry density (MDD) and the corresponding optimum
moisture content (OMC) of the soil by Proctor compaction test
3.1.5. Unconfined compressive test
3.2. Soil sample
Soil sample are chosen from Nit Srinagar
3.2.1. Mechanical pit
3.2.1. Behind J&K Bank

4.Test Procedure
The experimental study involved performing a series of laboratory CBR tests on unreinforced
and randomly oriented plastic strip reinforced soil specimen
Brief steps involved in the experiments
4.1.Specific gravity of the soil
The specific gravity of soil is the ratio between the weight of the soil solids and weight of
equal volume of water. It is measured by the help of a volumetric flask in a very simple
experimental setup where the volume of the soil is found out and its weight is divided by
the weight of equal volume of water
Specific gravity = (W2-W1)/ (W2-W1)-(W3-W4)
W1- Weight of bottle
W2- Weight of bottle + Dry soil
W3- Weight of bottle + Soil + Water
W4- Weight of bottle + Water
4.2.Liquid limit
The Casagrande tool cuts a groove of size 2mm wide at the bottom and 11 mm wide at the
top and 8 mm high. The number of blows used for the two soil samples to come in contact is

noted down. Graph is plotted taking number of blows on a logarithmic scale on the abscissa
and water content on the ordinate. Liquid limit corresponds to 25 blows from the graph.
4.3. Plastic limit
This is determined by rolling out soil till its diameter reaches approximately 3 mm and
measuring water content for the soil which crumbles on reaching this diameter. Plasticity index
(IP) was also calculated with the help of liquid limit and plastic limit;
IP = WL - WP
WL-Liquid limit
WP-Plastic limit
Fig. 4 , atterbergs limits

4.4. Particle size distribution
The results from sieve analysis of the soil when plotted on a semi-log graph with particle
diameter or the sieve size as the abscissa with logarithmic axis and the percentage passing as the
ordinate gives a clear idea about the particle size distribution. This Curve can be completely
obtained by performing both wet sieve analysis and hydrometer analysis. As in our case, only
3% of total weight of soil was retained on the sieve. Rest of the soil was finer than 0.075mm
so hydrometer analysis was conducted to get a clearer picture of
% of particles of different sizes in our soil sample. From the help of the curve, percentage
content of different sizes of particles can be easily obtained and hence soil can be classified
accordingly.
4.5. Proctor compaction test
This experiment gives a clear relationship between the dry density of the soil and the
moisture content of the soil. The experimental setup consists of (i) cylindrical metal mould
(internal diameter- 10.15 cm and internal height-11.7 cm), (ii) detachable base plate, (iii)
collar (5 cm effective height), (iv) rammer (2.5 kg).
Compaction process helps in increasing the bulk density by driving out the air from the voids.
The theory used in the experiment is that for any compactive effort, the dry density depends
upon the moisture content in the soil. The maximum dry density (MDD) is achieved when the
soil is compacted at relatively high moisture content and almost all the air is driven out, this
moisture content is called optimum moisture content (OMC). After plotting the data from the
experiment with water content as the abscissa and dry density as the ordinate, we can obtain the
OMC and MDD.

4.6. . Unconfined compressive strength
The unconfined compression test is by far the most popular method of soil shear testing because
it is one of the fastest and cheapest methods of measuring shear strength. The method is used
primarily for saturated, cohesive soils recovered from thin-walled sampling tubes. The
unconfined compression test is inappropriate for dry sands or crumbly clays because the
materials would fall apart without some land of lateral confinement. To perform an unconfined
compression test, the sample is extruded from the sampling tube. A cylindrical sample of soil is
trimmed such that the ends are reasonably smooth and the length-to-diameter ratio is on the order
of two. The soil sample is placed in a loading frame on a metal plate; by turning a crank, the
operator raises the level of the bottom plate. The top of the soil sample is restrained by the top
plate, which is attached to a calibrated proving ring. As the bottom plate is raised, an axial load is
applied to the sample. The operator turns the crank at a specified rate so that there is constant
strain rate. The load is gradually increased to shear the sample, and readings are taken
periodically of the force applied to the sample and the resulting deformation. The loading is
continued until the soil develops an obvious shearing plane or the deformations become
excessive. The measured data are used to determine the strength of the soil specimen and the
stress-strain characteristics. Finally, the sample is oven dried to determine its water content. The
maximum load per unit area is defined as the unconfined compressive strength, qu. In the
unconfined compression test, we assume that no pore water is lost from the sample during set-up
or during the shearing process. A saturated sample will thus remain saturated during the test with
no change in the sample volume, water content, or void ratio. More significantly, the sample is
held together by an effective confining stress that results from negative pore water pressures
(generated by menisci forming between particles on the sample surface). Pore pressures are not
measured in an unconfined compression test; consequently, the effective stress is unknown.
Hence, the undrained shear strength measured in an unconfined test is expressed in terms of the
total stress.

5. Evaluation of Soil Sample
5.1. Specific Gravity Test
1. Test temperature Tt, C=15

2. Relative density of water at Tt, C=0.999
3. Relative density of water at 27C=0.996
4. Correction factor due to temperature Ct=1.00301
Sample: J&K Bank
Bottle No. 1 2 3
Mass of empty bottle W1 {gm} 31.10 31.10 31.10
Mass of bottle + dry soil W2 {gm} 41.34 45.48 43.49
Mass of bottle + dry soil + water 88.16 91.04 89.02
W3{gm}
Mass of bottle + water W4 {gm} 81.92 82.32 81.39
Specific Gravity 2.61 2.62 2.61
Avg. Specific Gravity 2.61
Table 1 , Specific Gravity determination
Sample: Mechanical pit

Sample 3
Bottle No. 1 2 3
Mass of empty bottle W1 {gm} 31.28 31.28 31.28
Mass of bottle + dry soil W2 {gm} 40.34 40.42 40.39
Mass of bottle + dry soil + water 87.65 87.670 87.60
W3{gm}
Mass of bottle + water W4 {gm} 82.10 82.10 82.01
Specific Gravity 2.60 2.62 2.61
Avg. Specific Gravity 2.61
Table 2 , Specific gravity determination
5.2 Wet Sieve and hydrometer Analysis

Sample: J&K Bank
Weight Weight
Sieve Retained Retained Cumulative weight Finer (%)
Size(mm) (gm) (%) retained
(%)
2 0.30 0.15 0.15 99.85
1 0.60 0.30 0.45 99.55
0.6 0.35 0.175 0.63 99.37
0.425 0.64 0.32 0.94 99.06
0.3 0.55 0.275 1.22 98.78
0.150 0.63 0.315 1.54 98.46
0.075 0.52 0.26 1.79 98.21
Particle size hydrometer
in mm
0.042 93.5
0.0312 84.32
0.0260 62.83
0.0170 46.12
0.0138 37.42
0.0106 27.3
0.0081 19.46
0.00521 15.63
0.0038 10.53
0.0015 4.23

Sample: Mechanical Pit
Weight Weight
Sieve Retained Retained Cumulative

Cumulative weight
Size(mm) (gm) (%) retained Finer (%)
2 0.53 0.26 0.26 99.74
(%)
1 1.6 0.8 1.06 98.94
0.6 0.55 0.27 1.33 98.67
0.425 1.0 0.5 1.83 98.17
1.83
0.3 0.8 0.4 2.23 97.77
0.150 0.98 0.49 2.72 97.28
0.075 0.7 0.35 3.07 96.93
Particle size hydrometer
in mm
0.0381 91.62
0.0312 80.76
0.025 59.23
0.018 41.26
0.015 33.38
0.0112 24.73
0.009 15.42
0.0052 12.29
0.0035 10.46
0.0023 5.32
Table 4

PSD CURVE
100
90
80
70
60
% FINER
50
40
30
20
10
0
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
PARTICLE SIZE( MM )
----
------------- Sample 1
------------- Sample 2
P.S.D Curve

Coefficient Sample 1 Sample 2
Cu 6.15 7.352
Cc 1.53 1.98
Table 5, Coefficent determination
Both samples are WELL GRADED FINE SOIL
5.3 Index Properties
Atterbergs limit
Sample: J&K Bank

Liquid Limit Plastic Limit
Container No. 18 58 21 8 114 2
Mass of empty container 16.58 15.91 15.28 16.35 16.19 45.42
Mass of container + wet soil 33.64 33.19 31.56 30.80 19.14 49.77
Mass of container + dry soil 28.33 29.74 26.64 26.59 18.59 48.93
Mass of dry soil 11.75 12.03 11.36 10.24 2.4 3.51
Mass of water 5.31 5.25 4.92 4.21 0.55 0.84
Water content (%) 45.19 43.64 43.309 41.11 22.91 23.93
No. of blows 14 21 29 35
LL=43.1% PL=23.42%
PI=19.82 IF=8.8
IT=2.66 PIA=16.86
PIU=31.59
Type of soil Intermediate clay (CI)
TABLE 6,Atterbergs limits

Determination of PI and LL
Sample: Mechanical Pit

Liquid Limit Plastic Limit
Container No. 80 7 31 10 15 13 38
Mass of empty container 16.57 15.65 15.75 16.7 15.84 16.84 16.0
Mass of container + wet soil 28.94 31.4 28.44 29.16 20.07 20.43 19.51
Mass of container + dry soil 25.57 26.65 24.44 25.6 19.25 19.78 18.9
Mass of dry soil 8.57 11 8.69 8.9 3.41 2.94 2.9
Mass of water 3.8 4.75 4.0 3.56 0.82 0.65 0.61
Water content (%) 44.3 43 46 39.85 24 22.1 21
No. of blows 26 30 22 38
LL=44.54 PL=21.55
PI=23 IF=14
IT=1.64 PIA=17.9
PIU=32.8
Type of soil Intermediate clay (CI)
TABLE 7,Atterbergs limits

5.4 Compaction Test
CO MPACT I O N CURVE
1.9
1.85 sample 1
1.8 sample 2
DRY UNIT WEIGHT IN G/CC
1.75 zav 2
1.7 zav 3
1.65
1.6
1.55
1.5
1.45
1.4
10 15 20 25 30 35
% WATER CONTENT
Compaction Curve
Sample No MDD in g/cc OMC

1(J&K ) 1.65 18.58
2(Mech) 1.73 21.49
TABLE 8,omc, mdd determination
5.5 Compression Test
Sample:J&K Bank

2.8000
2.6000
Compressive Strength N/cm2

2.4000
2.2000
2.0000
1.8000
1.6000
1.4000
1.2000
1.0000
0.8000
0.6000
0.4000
0.2000
0.0000
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00
Axial Strain %
Compressive strength vs Axial strain
Unconfined Compressive Stength =2.271N/cm2
Strain At failure = 14.47
2.8000
2.6000
2.4000
Compressive strength N/cm2
2.2000
2.0000
1.8000
1.6000
1.4000
1.2000
1.0000
0.8000
0.6000
0.4000
0.2000
0.0000
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00
Axial Strain %

Unconfined Compressive Stength =2.290N/cm2
Strain At failure = 14.00
6.Preparation of Raw Materials
6.1 The Requirements for Preparation
The basic materials required for the production of compressed stablised earth building blocks are
soil, stabiliser, and water. The stabiliser, whether lime or cement or some other material, is
usually available in powder or liquid form, ready for use. The soil may be wet or dry when it is
first obtained, and will probably not be homogeneous. In order to have uniform soil, it is often
necessary to crush it so that it can pass through a 5 to 6mm mesh sieve.
Different soil types may also need to be used together so as to obtain good quality products. For
instance, a heavy clay may be improved by addition of a sandy soil. It is not only important to
measure the optimum proportion of ingredients, but also to mix them thoroughly. Mixing brings
the stabiliser and soil into direct contact, thus improving the physical interactions as well as the
chemical reaction and cementing action. It also reduces the risk of uneven production of low
quality blocks. Various types and sizes of mixing equipment are available on the market.
6.2. Pulverisation of soil

The material is hit with great force so it disintegrates. The machinery required is
complex but performs satisfactorily. At the delivery end, any large pieces left can
be removed by means of screen.
6.3. Sieving
Soil contains various sizes of grain, from very fine dust up to pieces that are still too large for use
in block production. The oversized material should be removed by sieving, either using a built-in
sieve, as with the pendulum crusher, or as a separate operation.

6.4. Proportioning
Before starting production, tests should be performed to establish the right proportion of soil,
stabiliser and water for the production of good quality blocks. The proportions of these materials
and water should then be used throughout the production process. To ensure uniformity in the
compressed stabilised earth blocks produced, the weight or volume of each material used in the
block making process should be measured at the same physical state for subsequent batches of
blocks. The volume of soil or stabiliser should ideally be measured in dry or slightly damp
conditions.
6.5. Mixing
In order to produce good quality blocks, it is very important that mixing be as thorough as
possible. Dry materials should be mixed first until they are a uniform colour, then water is added
and mixing continued until a homogeneous mix is obtained. Mixing can be performed by hand
on a hard surface, with spades, hoes, or shovels.
It is much better to add a little water at a time, sprinkled over the top of the mix from a watering
can with a rose spray on the nozzle. The wet mix should be turned over many times with a spade
or other suitable tool. A little more water may then be added, and the whole mixture turned over
again. This process should be repeated until all the water has been mixed in. When lime is used
as a stabiliser, it is advisable to allow the mix to stand for a short while before moulding starts to
allow better moistening of soil particles with water. However, if cement is used for stabilisation,
it is advisable to use the mix as soon as possible because cement starts to hydrate immediately
after it is wetted and delays will result in the production of poor quality blocks. For this reason
the quantity of cement-sand mix should not exceed what is needed for one hour of operation.
Even so, the blocks produced at the end of one hour may be considerably weaker than those
produced immediately after the mixing.

7.Test , Results And Discussion
7.1. Materials Used

Cement: Ordinary Portland Cement (OPC) 43 grade conforming to IS: 8112 1989, having a
specific gravity of 3.15 was made use of, in the casting of the specimens.
Lime : conforming to IS:8112 1989 ,was used in casting of the specimen.
7.2. Preparation of blocks

A mix ratio of Cement as 8% , 10% , 12 % with respect to weight of soil is taken. The Indian Standard
specification IS 1725 1982 specifies the following three sizes for soil cement blocks: 29 x 19 x
9cm, 19 x 9 x 9 cm and 19 x 9 x 4 cm .The size of the block selected for this investigation is 29 x
19 x 9 cm.
.
3 moulds each of 6 different combinations of mixtures were made of both sample
TOTAL NO OF BLOCKS = 3 x 6 x 2 =36 Blocks.
For each mixes 36 blocks were cast out of which 12 blocks were tested for their compressive
strength and 12 blocks were subjected to water absorption test and 12 for weathering test. All the
ingredients were thoroughly mixed and after dry mixing of all the ingredients, water is added a
little.
After complete mixing, mixture was filled into the wooden moulds in three layers and the
compaction was done for each layer manually The blocks thus prepared are shown
7.3. Testing of blocks

All the cast blocks were tested for the parameters like compressive strength and water absorption
as per the requirements of IS 1725 1982 for soil cement blocks and Lime Blocks.

7.4. Compressive Strength
For each of the mixes one block was tested under UTM. In general the blocks having highest %
of cement had highest bearing capacity i.e upto 24 x 1000 x kg / area .
As per the recommendations of Indian Standard specification IS 1725 cement blocks shall have a
minimum average compressive strength of 1.96 N/mm
Fig 5, Compressive strength
7.5. Water Absorption
In this test we, Immerse completely dried specimen in clean water at a temperature of 27 f 2C
for 24 hours. Remove the specimen and wipe out any traces of water with a damp cloth and
weigh the specimen. Complete the weighing 3 minutes after
the specimen has been removed from water (M2).
* Water absorption, percent by mass, after 24-hour immersion in cold water is given by the
Following formula:
((M2-M1)/ (M1))*100
7. 6.Weathering of earth block

In this test we simulate the raining condition of the (i) rain drop diameter at impact (range in 2

mm for medium intensity and 4 mm for high intensity) ( ii) maximum terminal velocity of 65
m/set at impact, and (iii) maximum intensity of rainfall, 15-30 (mm/hr.) a sprayer which can
shower on the full body of the block is used. The diameter of each shower is 10 cm with 36 holes
of 2 mm diameter. A facility for providing a device pump to create a constant pressure of l-5 f
0.2 Kgf/cm2 should be available for this test.
Fig 6, Weathering test

7.7. Results
7.7.1. Compressive strength due to cement stabilise
Soil sample Percentage(%) of Load(KN) Compressive

cement strength(MPa)
08 95 1.7241
Mechanical pit 10 180 3.2666
12 240 4.3555
08 90 1.6333
J&k bank 10 130 2.3555
12 170 3.0855
Table 9. Strengh determination

12
10
Compressive Strength (N/mm2)
0
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Cement Percentage (%)
Cement % age vs compressive strength
---------- sample 1
----------- sample 2
7.7.2. Compressive strength due lime stabiliser

Table 12:
Soil sample Percentage(%) Load(KN) Compressive
lime strength(MPa)
08 80 1.451
Mechanical 1o 85 1.542
pit
12 120 2.177
08 70 1.270
J&k bank 10 110 1.995
12 185 3.357
Table 10. Strengh determination

4
3.5
3
Compressive strength Mpa
2.5
1.5
0.5
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
%ge Lime
---------- sample 1
----------- sample 2
7.7.3. Compressive strength of soil block with no stabilizer = .42 Mpa

7.7.4. Water Absorption
Cement Stabliser
Soil sample Percentage Dry weight Wet weight Water absorption
(%) of of (%)
Cement block(w1,kg) block(w2,kg)
={( w2-
w1)/w1}*100
08 10.4 11.3 8.6
Mechanical 1o 10.54 11.62 10.24

pit
12 10.62 11.50 8.23
08 9.45 10.42 10.2
J&k bank 10 9.57 10.38 8.49
12 9.38 10.25 9.2
Table 11, Water absorption

12
10
8
Water absorption
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
%ge cement
Water absorption vs %ge cement

---------- sample 1
----------- sample 2

Stabilizer-Lime
Soil Percentage Dry weight Wet weight Water

sample (%) Lime of of absorption (%)
block(w1,kg) block(w2,kg) ={( w2-
w1)/w1}*100
08 7.12 8.32 16.85
Mechanical 1o 7.53 8.86 17.66
Pit 12 6.5 7.8 20
08 6.23 7.41 18.94
J&K Bank 10 6.43 7.8 21.3
12 6.2 7.62 22.9
Table 12, Water absorption
25
20
Water Absorption
15
10
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
% lime
Water absorption vs %ge lime
---------- sample 1
----------- sample 2

7.7.5. Weathering of Earth Block
Cement Stabiliser
Percentage
Depth of Rate of Erosion
Soil sample (%)
Time(Minutes) Erosion(mm) (mm/min)
Cement
15 16
30 17.5
08 45 21 0.40
60 24
15 14
30 15.5
10 45 18 0.35
Mechanical 60 21.5
pit 15 13
30 14.5
12 45 17 0.32
60 19.5
15 17
30 19
0.42
08 45 22
60 26
15 18.5
30 20
10 45 22 0.41
60 25
J&K Bank 15 19
30 20.5
22
45 0.39
12
60 23.5

0.45
0.4
0.35
Rate Of erosion mm/min
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
% cement
Erosion rate vs % cement

---------- sample 1
----------- sample 2
7.7.7 Erosion due to stabiliser Lime

Soil sample Percentage Depth of Rate of Erosion
(%) Lime Time(Minutes) Erosion(mm) (mm/min)
15 21
08 30 24 0.516
45 28
60 31
Mechanical pit 15 22
10 30 24 0.53
45 27
60 32
15 19
12 30 22 0.49
45 24.5
60 29.5
15 27
08 30 30.5 0.65
45 33
60 39.5
J&K Bank 15 29
10 30 32 0.69
45 35.5
60 41.5
15 28
12 30 31.5 0.61
45 34
60 37

0.8
0.7
0.6
Rate of Erosion mm/min
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
% lime
Erosion rate vs % lime
---------- sample 1
----------- sample 2
7.7.8. Weathering rate of block without Stabiliser = 1.24 mm/min

8. CONCLUSION AND COMAPRISON
Soil has been, and continues to be, the most widely used building material throughout most
developing countries. It is cheap, available in abundance, simple to form into building elements.
It provides adequate shelter against hot and cold weather conditions due to its high thermal
capacity and insulating properties. Despite its long proven applications, earth is sometimes
looked upon with scepticism and mistrust, and is often not recognised by authorities as an
acceptable, durable building material. Its main technical disadvantage is the lack of resistance to
extreme weather conditions, in particular rain. In many developing countries building standards,
which often rule out applications of soil as an acceptable building material, have been
formulated. Earth is mostly used for buildings that are built without formal authorisation, such as
rural housing or squatter settlements around urban centres
The previous sections have demonstrated that in general, the utilization of compressed stabilised
earth buildings blocks in building construction can provide a great number of advantages,
especially to the Low GDP areas and developing countries in general. The development and
promotion of good quality building blocks can also improve the standard of living for low-
income groups in developing countries. Soil blocks are the only building material that can be
produced in-situ if the proper equipment and optimum amount of stabiliser is available. For
example, housing authorities may organize for the transport of a block making machine and
supporting equipment to the building site and assist in training of the work-force. Alternatively,
the equipment can be owned by a contractor within the urban areas, and/or by co-operatives in
rural areas operating on a self help basis.
8.1 COMPARISON
By the above experiments we are able to determine the following results and comparison,
1) The maximum compressive strength shown by cement Block @12 % =4.355

By the sample of Mechanical pit which is 11 times as compared to simple soil block.

2) The maximum compressive strength shown by cement Block @12 % =3.0855
By the sample of J&K Bank which is 7.34 times as compared to simple soil block.
3)The maximum compressive strength is shown by lime Block @12 % =2.177

By the sample of Mechanical pit which is 5.13 times as compared to simple soil block.
4) The maximum compressive strength is shown by lime Block @12 % =3.357

By the sample of J&K Bank 7.99 which is 11 times as compared to simple soil block.
5)The minimum water absorption is shown by cement Block(Mechanical Pit) @12% = 8.23 as
compared to minimum water absorption of the Cement Block (J&K Bank) @ 10% =8.49
Which are almost equal
6)The minimum water absorption is shown by Lime Block(Mechanical Pit) @8% = 16.85 as
compared to minimum water absorption of the Lime Block (J&K Bank) @ 8% =18.94
Which are almost equal
7) The minimum rate of erosion is shown by cement block(Mech pit) @12% =.32 mm/min
which is 3.875 times less as compared to simple soil block
8) ) The minimum rate of erosion is shown by cement block(J&K Bank) @12% =.39mm/min
9) ) The minimum rate of erosion is shown by Lime block(mech pit) @12% =.49 mm/min which
is 2.53 times less as compared to simple soil block
10) The minimum rate of erosion is shown by Lime block(J&K Bank) @12% =.61mm/min
8.2. Advantages
Soil is available in large quantities in most regions
Cheap and affordable - in most parts of the world soil is easily accessible to low-income groups.
In some locations it is the only material available

Ease of use - usually no very specialised equipment is required.
Suitable as a construction material for most parts of the wall
Fire resistant - non-combustible with excellent fire resistance properties
Beneficial climatic performance in most regions due to its high thermal capacity, low thermal
conductivity and porosity, thus it can moderate extreme outdoor temperatures and maintain a
satisfactory internal temperature balance.
Low energy input in processing and handling soil - only about 1% of the energy required to
manufacture and process the same volume of cement concrete. This aspect was investigated by
the Desert Architecture Unit which has discovered that the energy needed to manufacture and
process one cubic metre of soil is about 36 MJ (10 kwh), while that required for the manufacture
of the same volume of concrete is about 3000 MJ (833 kwh). Similar findings were also reported
by Habitat (UNCHS), Technical Note No. 12 comparing adobe with fired clay bricks
Environmental appropriateness - the use of this almost unlimited resource in its natural state
involves no pollution and negligible energy consumption thus further benefiting the environment
by saving biomass fuel.
9. Biblography
http://prr.hec.gov.pk/chapters/233s-2.pdf
http://etd.aau.edu.et/bitstream/123456789/4602/3/final%20repo%20hm.pdf
http://www.academicjournals.org/journal/SRE/article-full-text-pdf/093C6D821208
https://www.cyut.edu.tw/~jrlai/CE7334/Unconfined.pdf

IS 1725: 1982, Indian Standards, New Delhi.
www.researchdesk.net
http://iesmaster.org/public/archive/2016/IM-1465456864.pdf
https://law.resource.org/pub/in/bis/irc/irc.gov.in.006.2014.pdf
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UDmjToX3aBI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M4TNKwuSnAk
Basic and applied soil mechanics by Gopal Ranjan and A S R Rao
http://prr.hec.gov.pk/chapters/2335s-2.pdf
IS 2720(XIII):1986 Methods of Test for Soils, direct shear test
IS 2720(X):1991 Methods of Test for Soils, determination of unconfined compression test.
IS 2720(IV):1985 Methods of Test for Soils, determination of grain size analysis

Soil Stabilization Project

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Soil Stabilization Project

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

+ PROJECT REPORT

TARUN JANDYAL Enrolment No. 336/12

Department of Civil Engineering ,NIT SXR Page 1

Evaluation of stabilized earth blocks in construction

Nonstructural walls with different additives

UNDER THE GUIDANCE OF

Professor F.A. MIR

Civil Engineering Department

TARUN JANDYAL Enrolment No. 336/12

ROHIT ATTRI Enrolment No.03/12

RAJESH BANCHRA Enrolment No.100/12

Department of Civil Engineering ,NIT SXR Page 2

(PROFESSOR. F.A .MIR)

Department of Civil Engineering ,NIT SXR Page 3

TARUN JANDYAL Enrolment No. 336/12

Department of Civil Engineering ,NIT SXR Page 4

Department of Civil Engineering ,NIT SXR Page 5

TARUN JANDYAL Enrolment No. 336/12

ROHIT ATTRI Enrolment No.03/12

RAJESH BANCHRA Enrolment No.100/12

Department of Civil Engineering ,NIT SXR Page 6

Department of Civil Engineering ,NIT SXR Page 7

CHAPTER 4: TEST PERFORMED.24

CHAPTER 5: EVALUATION OF SOIL SAMPLE......29

CHAPTER 6: PREPARATION OF RAW MATERIAL.38

Department of Civil Engineering ,NIT SXR Page 8

CHAPTER 8 : CONCLUSION AND COMPARISON52

Graph 1, PSD Curve ..32

Graph 2,Determination of Plastic Limit & Liquid limit..34

Graph 3,Compaction Curve35

Graph 4,5Compressive Strength/Axial Strain..36

Graph 6, Cement %age vs Compressive Strength.42

Graph 7, Water Absorption vs %age Cement.44

Graph 8, Water Absorption vs %age Lime..45

Graph 9, Erosion Rate vs Cement.47

Graph 10, Erosion Rate vs Lime49

Department of Civil Engineering ,NIT SXR Page 9

Fig 1,Stabilized earth block16

Fig 2 , Atterbergs apparatus..20

Fig 3, Sieve Set ...22

Fig 4, Atterbegs Limit..26

Fig 5, Compressive Strength test41

Fig 6, Weathering Test........42

Department of Civil Engineering ,NIT SXR Page 10

Department of Civil Engineering ,NIT SXR Page 11

Department of Civil Engineering ,NIT SXR Page 12

1.2. What are stabilized earth blocks ?

1.3. Aims and Objectives

Department of Civil Engineering ,NIT SXR Page 13

Department of Civil Engineering ,NIT SXR Page 14

Department of Civil Engineering ,NIT SXR Page 15

FIG. 1 Stabilised Earth Blocks

Department of Civil Engineering ,NIT SXR Page 16

Department of Civil Engineering ,NIT SXR Page 17

2.4. Soil stabiliser

Department of Civil Engineering ,NIT SXR Page 18

FIG 2. Atterbergs appratus

Department of Civil Engineering ,NIT SXR Page 20

2.6.2 Particle Size Distribution

Soil at any place is composed of particles of a variety of sizes and shapes,

Department of Civil Engineering ,NIT SXR Page 21

Fig 3, Sieve set

Specific gravity of a substance denotes the number of times that substance is