Table of contents

Table of figure 1
CHAPTER 1 2
INTRODUCTION 2
1.1 General 2
1.2 Soil stabilization 2
1.2 Waste materials 3
1.2.1 Fly ash 3
1.2.1.1 General 3
CHAPTER 2 9

REVIEW 9
2.1 General 9
2.2 Lieratures 9

Table of figure

Fig 1-Fly ash 4

1
 CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 General-There are various types of soils which show variation in volume for change in
moisture contents. This causes major damage to structures constructed on it. These soils contain
minerals such as montmorillonite that are capable of absorbing water. When they absorb water
their volume increases. In the developing countries, proper roadway network is one of the most
important requirements. Hence it is necessary to go for suitable method of low cost road
construction followed by a process of stage development of the roads, to meet the growing needs
of road traffic. Good quality of subgrade soils is preferable for durable road but not always
available for highway construction. Engineers find problems in designing the pavement thickness
of the soil unsuitable for subgrade/sub-base. To improve the bearing capacity of the soil, the soil
stabilization may be done. Improvement in the properties of the existing soil by addition of some
other materials may be adopted which is otherwise known as “soil stabilization”.

1.2 Soil stabilization:Soil stabilization means the improvement of the stability or bearing
capacity of a soil by the use of compaction; proportioning and the addition of suitable stabilizers
or admixtures. Soil stabilization includes chemical, mechanical, physio-chemical methods to
make the soil stabilized. This process basically involve excavation of soil, this is an ideal
technique for improving of soil in shallow depth, as in pavements .Stabilization method may be
categories as two main types:(a)improvements of soil properties of existing soil without using
any type of admixture, and (b)improve the property with the admixture.

The greatest challenge before the processing and manufacturing industries is the disposal of the
residual waste products. Waste products which are generally toxic, ignitable, corrosive or
reactive pose serious health and environmental consequences. Thus disposal of industrial waste
2
is a major issue of the present generation. This major issue requires an effective, economic and
environment friendly method to combat the disposal of the residual industrial waste is to go for
construction of roads, highways and embankments, then the pollution problem caused by the
industrial wastes can be greatly reduced. Huge amount of soil is used in the construction of roads
and highways but sufficient amount of soil of required quality is not available easily. These
industrial wastes which are used with natural soil in the construction not only solve the problems
of disposal and environmental pollution but also help to preserve the natural soil.

1.2Waste materials

1.2.1 Fly ash

1.2.1.1 General:Fly ash is the finely divided mineral residue resulting from the combustion of
coal in electric generating plants. Fly ash consists of inorganic, incombustible matter present in
the coal that has been fused during combustion into a glassy, amorphous structure. Fly ash
particles are generally spherical in shape and range in size from 2 μm to 10 μm. They consist
mostly of silicon dioxide (SiO2), aluminium oxide (Al2O3) and iron oxide (Fe2 O 3). Fly ash like
soil contains trace concentrations of the following heavy metals: nickel, vanadium, cadmium,
barium, chromium, copper, molybdenum, zinc and lead. The chemical compositions of the
sample have been examined and the fly ash are of ASTM C618 Class F.

3
 Fig 1-Fly ash

Chemical Property:Basicallyflyash consist of oxides of aluminium silicon and iron which make it
good candidate material for spray coating.flyashexhibits superior mechanical properties and
corrosion resistance.

Chemical composition content:

Compound Content(%)

SiO2 59.00

Al2O3 21.00

Fe2O3 3.70

CaO 6.90

MgO 1.40

4
SO3 1.00

K2O 0.90

LOI 4.62

1.2.2 Lime:

General:Lime is a calcium-containing inorganic mineral in which oxides, and hydroxides

predominate. In the strict sense of the term, lime is calcium oxide or calcium hydroxide. It is also
the name of the natural mineral (native lime) CaO which occurs as a product of coal seam fires
and in altered limestone xenoliths in volcanic ejecta. The word lime originates with its earliest
use as building mortar and has the sense of sticking or adhering.These materials are still used in
large quantities as building and engineering materials (including limestone products, cement,
concrete, and mortar), as chemical feedstocks, and for sugar refining, among other uses. Lime
industries and the use of many of the resulting products date from prehistoric times in both the
Old World and the New World. Lime is used extensively for wastewater treatment with ferrous
sulfate.

Chemical property: Calcium hydroxide is relative insoluble in water with solubility predust ksp
of 5.5 *10-6 .It is large enough that its solutions are basic according to the following rection.

Ca(OH)2 Ca2+ + 2OH-

Compound Content(%)

CaO 62.55

Al2O3 +SiO2 25.95

MgO 3.20

Loss of ignition 7.95

5
1.2.3Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slag (GGBS)

General:GGBS is obtained by quenching molten iron slag which is a by-product of iron and
steel making from a blast furnace in water or steam, to produce a glassy, granular product that is
then dried and ground into a fine powder. It has a cementituous property which acts as binding
material for the soil. In general, the presence of sufficient quantity of CaO results in enhancing
slag basicity and an increase compressive strength. This waste material is easily available and
also cost efficient.

Properties of GGBS

Typical chemical properties of blast-furnace slag (National Slag Association, 1985):

The principal constituents of GGBS are silica (SiO2), alumina (Al2O3), calcium oxide
(CaO) and magnesia (MgO) which make up 95% of the composition According to
Sherwood (1995), GGBS is not a pozzolana, nor in itself cementitious, but it possesses
latent hydraulic properties, which can be developed by the addition of an activator such
as lime or another alkaline material. However, when ground to a proper fineness, the
chemical compositions and glassy nature of vitrified slag are such that when combined
with water, the vitrified slag reacts to form a pozzolanic product (by cementitious
hydration). The magnitude of these cementitious reactions depends on the chemical
composition, glass content and fineness of the slag. GGBS is mildly alkaline and exhibits
a pH in solution in the range of 8 to 10. Following table shows the chemical composition
of air-cooled blast furnace slag.

Table 1: Chemical Composition of GGBS

Oxide compound Mass percentage

Calcium oxide (CaO) 34% – 43 %

Silicon dioxide (SiO2 ) 27% – 38%

Aluminium oxide (Al2O3 ) 0.7% – 12%

6
 Magnesium oxide (MgO) 0. 7% – 15 %

Iron (FeO or Fe2O3) 0.2% – 1.6%

Sulphur (S) 1.0% – 1.9%

Manganese oxide (MnO) 0.15% – 0.76%

The physical characteristics of GGBS such as density, porosity and particle size are affected
by the cooling rate (i.e. cooling method) of the slag and its chemical composition. Air-
cooled GGBS is angular, roughly cubical and has textures ranging from rough, vesicular
(porous) surfaces to glassy surfaces with conchoidal fractures. When it is crushed and
screened, its physical properties make it particularly suitable as an aggregate, both coated
and uncoated. It has a rough surface texture giving good frictional properties and good
adhesion to bituminous and cements binders, a low coefficient of thermal expansion and a
high fire resistance.

1.3.4 Calcium Carbide Residue (CCR)

General

CCR is by-product of Acetylene gas Production Process which is a slurry that mainly
contains Calcium Hydroxide (Ca(OH)2) along with SiO2, CaCO3 and other metal oxides.
In India, there are many Acetylene Gas factories and PVC Chemical Plants which
produces CCR in large amount which is mainly dumped in the landfills causing
environmental pollutions due to its alkalinity. CCR production is described in the
following equation:

7
 𝐶𝑎𝐶 2 + 2H2O C2H2 + Ca(OH)2
(Calcium carbide) (Acetylene) (Calcium hydroxide or
CCR)

Properties of CCR

From above Eq., it is seen that 64 g of calcium carbide (CaC2) provides 26 g of acetylene
gas (C2H2) and 74 g of CCR in terms of Ca(OH)2. Due to its high base, the CCR was
hardly utilized in any work and dumped to disposal area in slurry form. After being sun-
dried for a few days, the slurry form is changed to dry form. The dissociation of Ca(OH)2
leads to an increase in the ph values of the pore water. Strong bases dissolve the silica
and alumina from the clay particles (a natural pozzolanic material), in a manner similar to
the reaction between a weak acid and a strong base. The hydrous silica and alumina then
gradually react with the calcium ions (pozzolanic reaction), which hardens with time.
The chemical composition shows the CaO contents of 90.13% and 70.78% for the
hydrated lime and the CCR, respectively. The CCR contains pozzolanic materials (SiO2,
Al2O3 and Fe2O3) of about 12.3% while the hydrated lime contains very few of about 2%.
The Ca(OH)2 contents are about 96.5% and 76.7% for the hydrated lime and the CCR,
respectively. The high Ca(OH)2 and CaO contents of the CCR indicate that it can react
with pozzolanic materials and produce a cementitious material.
Chemical Composition of CCR:

Table 2: Chemical Composition of CCR

CHEMICAL CaO SiO2 Al2O3 Fe2O3 MgO SO3 K2 O LOI

COMPOSITION

% PRESENCE 70.78 6.49 2.55 3.25 0.69 0.66 7.93 1.35

IN CCR

8
 CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 General:- In this chapter the earlier works on use of flyash and Lime and their
combination with various other additives has been studied. Many pioneer works has been
conducted in this field. It is found that use of these stabilizers is very effective in
enhancing the properties of the soil.

2.2 Literatures.

Gharib et al [2014]conducted the experiment for identification and comparison of plastic

index and shrinkage properties of clay soils with the addition of lime. The results
suggested the significant effect of modification of clay soils in Golestone Province by
adding cement on their shrinkage properties, such that increased percentage of additives
increases the shrinkage limit of clay-additives mixture and the cracks caused by
shrinkage decreases in terms of length and width. Finally the clay-additive mixture
pattern has been obtained that provides the necessary properties which correspond to the
aims of the project. In the present article, cement is used as a chemical for improving the
shrinkage properties of expansive and problematic soils in Golestine Province. During the
course of experiments, four samples of different soils are used with plasticity indices of
20, 30, 35 and 40. Here the plasticity properties
(including liquid limit, plastic limit, shrinkage limit and plastic index) of clay soils in the
region have been examined by adding different percentages of cement (1, 3, 5, 9 and 13
weight percentage).

Takhelmayum et al [2013] investigated to evaluate the compaction and unconfined

compressive strength of stabilized black cotton soil using fine and coarse flyash mixtures.
The percentage of fine and coarse flyash mixtures which is used in black cotton soil
varied from 5 to 30. In the study concludes that with percentage addition of fine, coarse
flyash improves the strength of stabilized black cotton soil and exhibit relatively well-

9
defined moisture-density relationship. It was found that the peak strength attained by fine
flyash mixture was 25% more when compared to coarse flyash.

Oormila et al [2014] evaluated that the different percentages of flyash (5, 10%, 15% and
20%) and GGBS (15%, 20%, 25%) was added to find the variation in its original
strength. Based on these results CBR test was performed with the optimum flyash,
optimum GGBS and combination of optimum flyash with varying GGBS percentages
(15%, 20%, and 25%). From these results, it was found that optimum GGBS (20%) gives
the maximum increment in the CBR value compared with all the other combinations.

Horpibulsuk et al [2013] has investigated Calcium Carbide Residue as a cementing

agent for sustainable soil stabilization. CCR has a very high Ca(OH)2, it can be used to
improve problematic clayey soils that contain high levels of natural pozzolanic material.
It enhances the chemical bonding among the clay particles. He added CCR to the soil in
fixed proportion i.e. 3%,5%,7%.10% and found that optimum moisture content increases
from 17.5% to 20% and maximum dry density decreases from 16 kN/m 3 to 15 kN/m3.
But the value of UCS increases from 600 kPa to 2200 kPa. And vertical swell percentage
decreases from 6% to 0.8%. Thus he found mixing of CCR 7% to the soil gives the best
results for the soil and he named this stage as the active state of mixing of CCR. The
optimum water content is the suitable mixing state, providing the best engineering
properties (highest strength and durability and lowest swelling).

Yadu et al [2013] evaluated the performance of GBS with fly ash modified soils using
compaction and California bearing ratio (CBR) test. OMC increased and MDD decreased
with the addition of flyash-GBS mixture to the soft soil, moreover MDD increases with
increase in GBS content in flyash-GBS mixtures. Reasonable improvement has been
observed for unsoaked and soaked CBR value of soils with this optimum amount. Based

10
on these performance tests, optimum amount of GBS with fly ash was determined as 3%
fly ash + 6% GBS.

Bhobhariya et al [2012] studied the strength improvement and CBR properties of local
soil using CCR and flyash and found good changes in result, thus enhancing the strength.
He added the additives in the proportions of 10%,15%,20%,25%. The result obtained
were as follows:

 Optimum moisture content inecreased from 13.2% to 16%.

 Maximum dry density decreased from 2.08 g/cc to 1.97 g/cc.
 UCS increased from 0.086 MPa to 0.096 MPa.
 CBR unsoaked increased from 2.11% to 4.27%.

Horpibulsuk et al [2012] studied soil stabilization by Calcium Carbide Residue and Fly
Ash and he revealed that the input of CCR reduces specific gravity and soil plasticity;
thus, the maximum dry unit weight and water sensitivity. The input flyash enhances
strength of the soil. Unsoundness due to the free lime content hinders the development by
pozzolanic reactions. The unconfined compressive strength of the soil has been increased
as the percentage of CCR and FA increases .

Takhelmayum et al [2013] investigated to evaluate the compaction and unconfined

compressive strength of stabilized black cotton soil using fine and coarse flyash mixtures.
The percentage of fine and coarse flyash mixtures which is used in black cotton soil
varied from 5 to 30. In the study concludes that with percentage addition of fine, coarse
flyash improves the strength of stabilized black cotton soil and exhibit relatively well-
defined moisture-density relationship. It was found that the peak strength attained by fine
flyash mixture was 25% more when compared to coarse flyash.

Koteswara et al [2012] studied the effect of rice husk ash and lime on the properties of
marine clay. In these experimental studies the effects of rice husk ash and lime on
11
strength properties of marine clay has been studied. Those properties are gradation,
Atterberg’s limit, Soaked CBR and Angle of internal friction. The several mix
proportions of lime i.e. 4%, 5%, 6%, 7%, 8%, 9% and 10% has been mixed with 15%,
20%, 25% and 30% rice husk ash. It is noticed that the liquid limit of the marine clay has
been decreased by 16.21% on addition of 25% rice husk ash and it has been further
decreased by 29.86% when 9% lime is added. The CBR value of the marine clay has
been increased by 282% on addition of 25% rice husk ash and it has been further
improved by 449.14% when 9% lime is added.

Okafor et al [2009] performed laboratory experiments to study the effects of RHA on

some geotechnical properties of a laterite soil to be used for subgrade. Their investigation
included evaluation of properties such as compaction, consistency limits and strength of
the soil with RHA content of 5%, 7.5%, 10% and 12.5% by weight of the soil. It
increased the OMC but decreased the MDD of the soil. Also decreased the plasticity
index and increased the volume stability. The addition of RHA increased the strength
(CBR) of the soil.

Guerrero et al [2001] from his study, the maximum dry density of eight types of sands
was obtained; the sands were classified by using the Unified Soil Classification System.
The influence on the maximum dry density of the type of sands, type of fines, amount of
fines and distribution of the grain size was determined, followed by a sensitivity analysis
that measured the influence of these parameters on the obtained maximum dry density.
The research revealed some correlations between the maximum dry density of soil with
the type of fines, the fines content and the Uniformity Coefficient. These correlations
were measured and some particular behavioral trends were encountered and analyzed. It
was found that well-graded sands have higher maximum dry density than poorly graded
when the soils have the same fines content, also it was encountered that plastic fines tend
to increase the maximum dry density.

12
OBJECTIVES:

 To enhance the engineering properties(e.g increase shear strength, increase dry density)
of soil by mixing waste materialswith soil
 To utilize the waste material for obtaining good soil.

3.PROPOSED METHODOLOGY

1. Literature Reviews

2. Materials required

3. Materials Collection

4. Test on material to be conducted

6. Comparison of strengths

7. Result and Conclusion

13
 CHAPTER – 3
EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS
3.1 General
Various laboratory tests have been performed to determine the properties of the natural
soil. The necessary specifications of the additives have also been obtained. In order to
study the modified properties of stabilized soil, the different tests have been conducted.
Those tests are Compaction test, Atterberg’s test, Unconfined Compressive Strength test,
CBR test, Permeability test.

3.5 Specifications of the materials used and soil taken location

3.5.1 Soil
The soil sample for this study has been collected from beside of Govindpur to Sahebganj
highway(Highway bridge above railway line Dumka) from a depth of 1.0 meter below the
natural ground surface by open excavation. The soil was pulverized and dried to perform the
various experimental studies.
The site is undulated and the area is hilly, in this area maximum soil is sandy type.The colour of
soil is lightly red . It indicate the presence of Iron Oxide.

3.0 Soil excavation site

14
3.3 Tests performed
Following tests have been conducted and compared:
 Sieve analysis
 Specific gravity test
 Optimum moisture content
 Liquid limit
 Plastic limit
 Shrinkage limit
 Unconfined Compressive Strength Test
 Unsoaked CBR Test

3.4 Test procedures and Experimental set-up

In this chapter test procedures and experimental set-up have been presented. All tests for
natural soil and the stabilized soil were carried out as per the procedures laid out in the
relevant IS code of practice.
3.4.1 Sieve Analysis
Soil largely contains small particles which differ in its engineering behavior from a soil
mainly containing relatively larger particles. This property of soil led to the necessity of
performing grain size or particle size as the criteria for classifying soils. This is
performed by passing the soil through a set of sieves arranged from larger at the top to
smaller at bottom.
3.4.1.1 Test Procedure
This test can be performed by either dry method or wet method but the wet method is
generally preferred for its better results. 1000 g of soil is taken for dry method. Then it is
poured on the sieve being arranged in sequence i.e. 4.75 mm, 4.0 mm, 3.35mm, 2.36 mm,
2.0 mm, 1.4 mm, 1.2 mm, 600 micron,300 micron,150 micron,75 micron . The soil
retained in these sieves is collected here and the rest soil passing the bottom sieve is
collected in a pan. The soil in each sieve and the pan weights are measured. The
percentage retained is calculated and thus percentage passing each sieve is calculated.
If the soil passing 75 micron is more than 50%, then hydrometer test is done to determine
the percentage of silt and clay.

15
 Fig 3.1 Experimental set for sieve analysis

3.5.1.2 Particle size distribution

WET SIEVE ANALYSIS:

Weight of total soil sample (W) = 500g,

Weight of empty pan = 248g

16
 Table 5: Gradation of Soil Sample
Sieve Empty Weight Weight Cumulative Soil Soil
size weight of sieve of soil weight retained as passing
of sieve + dry retained retained (g) percent of as
(g) soil (g) (g) partial soil percent
taken of partial
(N1=Wd/W soil taken
×100) (N’=100-
N1)
4.75 mm 382.5 387.0 8.5 8.5 1.7 98.3
2 mm 336.0 351.0 15 23.5 4.7 95.3

1 mm 338.5 351.5 13 36.5 7.3 92.7

600 310.5 325.5 15 51.5 10.3 89.7

micron
425 315.0 335.5 20.5 72 14.4 85.6
micron
212 316.0 366.5 50.5 122.5 24.5 75.5
micron

150 314.0 350.0 36 158.5 31.7 68.3

micron
75 354.5 402.5 48 206.5 41.3 58.7
micron

From the wet sieve analysis of soil, it is found that 58.7% soil passed through 75micron sieve
and it is known fact from IS code, that if more than 50% soil passes through 75 micron sieve,
then the soil is fine grained soil.

17
 Fig 3.15 S-Curve of Natural soil

From above graph and calculations, it is found:

Percentage of clay = 15.24%
Hence the soil is Silty Clay
D60 = 0.08 mm, D30 = 0.0245 mm, D10 = 0.0028 mm
Coefficient of curvature (Cc) = D302/(D60×D10) = 2.7
Uniformity coefficient (Cu) = D60/D10 = 28.57

18
 3.5.1.1 Specific Gravity by density bottle method
Specific gravity of soil = (W2-W1) / (W2-W1) - (W3-W4)

Where, the meanings of W1, W2, W3, W4 are stated in the table:

Table 4: Specific Gravity of Natural Soil

Determination Sample-1
Empty weight of density bottle (W1) 15.00g

Weight of density bottle +

Oven dried soil (W2) 25.00 g
Weight of density bottle + soil + water (W3)
78.00 g
Weight of density bottle + water (W4)
72.00g
Specific Gravity 2.50
(G)

Average Specific Gravity of soil = 2.50

19
3.4.2 Proctor Compaction Test
The Optimum Moisture Content (OMC) and Maximum Dry Density (MDD) can be
determined in the laboratory by performing a standard test which was designed by
Proctor. The limiting moisture, which is most useful to compaction, is called the optimum
moisture content. At this m.c., the soil would be compacted maximum possible, and
would have the maximum density or unit weight, i.e. the weight of soil mass, would be
maximum.
3.4.2.1 Experimental set up & Procedure
The test consists of filling wet soil in a cylindrical mould of a standard size and filling
and compacting the wet soil in the mould in three layers, each layer being compacted
with certain standard amount of compaction by falling hammer. The achieved dry density
at various water contents can thus be determined by repeating the test at different water
content (gradually increasing), and then plotting a curve between water content and
achieved dry density. The obtained curve which shows an initial rise in the dry density
with the increase in moisture content and after the dry density peaks a particular value, it
again falls down with any further increase in moisture content. This maximum value of
dry density is Pd(max.).

Volume of cylindrical mould = 997.46 cc , Wt. of Hammer = 2.6 kg;

Size of Cylinderical .Mould =10 cm dia × 12.7 cm height, Ht. of Free fall = 31 cm ,
Number of layers = 3, Number of blows per layer = 25
Wt. of soil taken is 14 kg (passing through 4.75 mm ,
Formula used:
𝑤𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝑠𝑜𝑖𝑙
𝐵𝑢𝑙𝑘 𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑦 = 𝑣𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑚𝑜𝑢𝑙𝑑

𝑤𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝑚𝑜𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒
𝑀𝑜𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑡 = × 100
𝑤𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝑑𝑟𝑦 𝑠𝑜𝑖𝑙

𝑏𝑢𝑙𝑘 𝑑𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑦
𝐷𝑟𝑦 𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑦 = (𝑚𝑜𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑡+1)

20
3.5.1.4 OMC & MDD
Observations and Calculations:
Initial water 10 12 14 16 18
percentage
Volume of 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000
mould (cm3)
Weight of 3.900 3.900 3.900 3.900 3.900
mould W(kg)
Weight of
mould 6.040 6.120 6.110 6.050 5.990
+compacted
soil(kg)
Weight of
compacted 2.140 2.220 2.210 2.150 2.090
soil
Bulk density 2.14 2.22 2.21 2.15 2.09

Dry density 1.887 1.933 1.929 1.821 1.74

Determination of moisture content:

sample 1 2 3 4 5
Weight of 11.16 11.89 10.798 11.810 11.21
container(w1)
Weight of
container 35.62 43.66 37.81 44.31 43.99
+wet soil(w2)
Weight of
container 32.73 39.56 34.38 39.34 38.52
+dry soil(w3)
Water
content(w2- 13.40% 14.82% 14.54% 18.05% 20.03%
w1/w3-w1)

21
22
 Fig 3.2 Rammer Used in Compaction Test
3.4.4 Atterberg’s limit Test
Liquid Limit Test – Liquid limit is the water content of soil which changes its state from
liquid to plastic state. It is defined as the minimum water content at which the soil is still
in the liquid state but has small shear strength against flowing and a part of soil cut by a
groove of standard dimension will flow together for a distance of 12 mm under an impact
of 25 blows in a device which is called Casagrande apparatus.
Plastic Limit Test – Plastic limit is the water content corresponding to an arbitrary limit
between the plastic and the semi solid states of consistency of soil. It is defined as the
minimum water content at which a soil will just begin crumble when rolled into a thread
approx. 3 mm diameter.

3.4.4.1 Tests Procedure

The standard liquid limit apparatus consists of a hard rubber base, over which a brass cup
can be dropped through a desired height. Take about 100-120 g of an air dried soil
sample passing 425 micron sieve. Mix it thoroughly with distilled water to form a
uniform paste. Place a portion of this paste in the cup of the liquid limit apparatus,
23
smoothen the surface with spatula to a maximum depth of about 1 cm. Draw the grooving
tool through the sample along the symmetrical axis of the cup. Turn the handle of the
device at a rate of about 2 revolutions per second. This will cause the cup to lift and drop,
repeatedly, until the two parts of the soil sample come in contact at the bottom of the
groove along a distance of 1 cm. The number of blows which have been given is noted.
Remix the soil sample in the cup and repeat the entire procedure till the number of blows
required to close the gap is substantially the same. When a consistent value in the range
of 10-50 blows is obtained, then take out approximately 10 g of the soil mix from the cup
from the groove, for determining its water content by oven drying at 1050C-1100C for 24
hours. Repeat the entire process by gradually increasing the water content. Liquid limit
can be determined as the water content to 25 blows from a semi-log graph, log scale in x-
axis as number of blows and ordinary scale in y-axis as water content.
Plastic limit can be calculated from the same soil water mixture. Mix the sample with
sufficient water, so that it becomes plastic enough to be rolled into a small ball. Take
about 10 g of it and roll it between the hand and the glass plate to form the soil mass into
a thread. If the soil starts crumbling when rolled to a diameter of 3 mm, then the water
content at that point is the plastic limit. Calculate the water by taking out the soil and
keep it oven for same period and temperature as in liquid limit.

24
3.5.1.5 Atterberg’s limit
(i) Determination of Liquid Limit of the soil:
Table 11: Determination of Liquid Limit of Natural Soil
Weight of Weight of Weight of Weight of Weight of Moisture No. of
container container + container + dry soil (g) moisture content (%) blows
(g) soil (g) dry soil (g) (g)
9.63 18.16 15.62 5.99 2.54 42.4 9
8.90 18.68 15.87 6.97 2.81 40.3 18
11.69 18.56 16.64 4.95 1.92 38.8 29
10.25 16.76 14.97 4.72 1.79 37.9 38
8.97 16.79 14.67 5.7 2.12 37.2 47

Liquid limit
50

40
Water content(%)

30

20
1 10 100
No. of blows

Fig 3.17 Liquid limit

From graph, it is found that water content corresponding to 25 blows is 39.2%.

Hence,

Liquid limit = 39.2%

25
(ii) Determination of Plastic Limit of the soil:
Table 12: Determination of Plastic Limit of Natural Soil
Weight of Weight of Weight of Weight of Weight of Moisture
container container + container + dry soil (g) moisture content (%)
(g) soil (g) dry soil (g) (g)
14.51 19.48 18.71 4.20 0.77 18.33
14.47 20.17 19.25 4.78 0.92 19.24

Plastic limit = 18.79%

Plasticity Index (PI) = Liquid limit-Plastic limit
= 39.2-18.79
= 20.41% (High plastic)

(iii) Determination of Shrinkage Limit of the soil:

Observations and calculations-
Shrinkage limit (Ws) = (1/R-1/G)*100
Where, R = Shrinkage ratio = Wo/Vo, Wo = Weight of oven dried pat
Vo = Volume of oven dried soil pat = [(Wt. of dish + Hg displaced) -
(Wt. of the dish)]/(Sp. Gravity
of Hg)

Table 13: Determination of Shrinkage Limit of Natural Soil

Wt. of cake (g) Wt. of dish (g) Wt. of dish + Hg Volume of cake Specific gravity
(Wo) displaced (g) (Vo) of soil
20.72 32.12 188.86 11.525 2.581

Shrinkage ratio (R) = 1.8 Shrinkage limit(Ws)=16.70%

26
3.4.5 Unconfined Compressive Strength Test
The main objective of this test is to determine the unconfined compressive strength of a
cohesive soil. It is defined as the load per unit area at which an unconfined cylindrical
specimen of soil will fail in the axial compression test. Since there is no confined
pressure, so it is called unconfined compression test.
3.4.5.1 Test Procedure
The equipments of this experiment are as follows:
1. Compression Loading Device
2. Proving ring
3. Deformation dial gauge

3 kg soil (4.75 mm passing) mould is prepared as in the proctor test by adding water
equal to the OMC, by the same method used there. This mould is placed in the soil
extractor and soil samples are prepared which are to be tested in the compressive
loading device. Possibly 3 samples are prepared whose diameters are 38 mm and
lengths 76 mm. Now these samples are fixed in the loading device one by one and
load is applied after fixing the dial gauge and proving ring. Deformations are noted
corresponding to the loads applied till the sample fail. The area of the failed sample is
measured called the corrected area (Ao). The load (P) at which the sample fails is
measured multiplying the least count or the load factor of the device. The average of
the three samples is calculated.
Thus, UCS = P/Ao

27
 Fig 3.6 Experimental set up for UCS Test Fig 3.7 Soil specimen after UCS Test

3.5.1.6 Unconfined Compressive Strength

Observations & Calculations:
Table 14: Observations & Calculations for UCS Test of Natural Soil
S. PARAMETERS SAMPLE 1 SAMPLE 2 SAMPLE 3
No.
1. Initial length (L) 76 mm 76 mm 76 mm
2. Final length (L) 71.0 mm 70.5 mm 70 mm
3. Average diameter (D) 38 mm 38 mm 38 mm
4. Strain (e = dL/L) 0.065 0.072 0.079
5. Area (Ao = π X D X D/4) 11.34 cm2 11.34 cm2 11.34 cm2
6. Corrected area (A = Ao/1-e) 12.12 cm2 12.22 cm2 12.31 cm2
7. Maximum proving ring reading 2.0 2.4 2.2
8. Load (P) 5X2.0X2.82366 5X2.4X2.82366 5X2.2X2.82366
= 28.24 kg = 33.88 kg = 31.06 kg
9. UCS (P/A) 2.33 kg/cm2 2.77 kg/cm2 2.52 kg/cm2

Taking average value = (2.33+2.77+2.52)/3 = 2.541

Hence the unconfined compressive strength = 2.541 kg/cm2

28
3.4.6 Soaked & Unsoaked CBR Test
California Bearing Ratio test is used for evaluating the suitability of sub-grade and the
materials used in sub-base and base course. This method is applicable to the design of
flexible pavements only and is considered to give quite reliable results, provided the tests
are carried out under specified conditions. As high the value of CBR, less the thickness
required for the pavement. The CBR test apparatus meets the requirements of IS:2720
Part 16-1987.
3.4.6.1 Test Procedure
The equipments of this experiment consist of the following components:
1. Load frame
2. Mould (150 mm diameter × 175 mm height)
3. Rammer
4. Base plate
5. Collar (150 mm × 50 mm)

The CBR test is carried out on a compacted soil in a CBR mould 150 mm in diameter and
175 mm in height, provided with a detachable collar and a detachable perforated base
plate. The moulding dry density and water content should be the same as would be
maintained during field compaction CBR values are determined for soaked and unsoaked
samples, for soaked specimen are kept submerged in water for minimum 96 hours before
testing. The load reading is recorded at penetration 0, 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0, 2.5, 3.0, 4.0, 5.0,
7.5, 10.0, 12.5 mm. Load is applied to the penetration piston so that penetration is at the
rate of 1.25 mm/min. The CBR value are generally calculated for penetration of 2.5 mm
and 5.0 mm, and the CBR value at 2.5 mm penetration are more than that at 5.0 mm
penetration and in such case the former is to be taken as the CBR value for design
purpose. If the CBR value at 5.0 mm exceeds the value at 2.5 mm, the test is repeated.
Even after repeating if the value at 5.0 mm is higher, then this value is taken as the CBR
value.

29
cc
Fig 3.8 Experimental set up for CBR Test

30
Fig 3.9 Mould for CBR Test Fig 3.10 Specimen after CBR Test

31
3.5.1.8 Unsoaked CBR
Observations & Calculations:
Table 16: Observations & Calculations for Unsoaked CBR of Natural Soil
S.N Penetration Value Load CBR Value (%)
DGR Penetration PRR Load
mm Kg
1. 0 0 0 0
2. 50 0.50 9.0 9.9
3. 100 1.00 12.0 13.2
4. 150 1.50 24.0 26.4
5. 200 2.00 61.0 67.1
6. 250 2.50 48.0 52.8 52.8×100 = 3.85%
1370

7. 300 3.00 59.0 64.9

8. 400 4.00 63.0 69.3
9. 500 5.00 71.0 78.1 78.1×100 = 3.80%
2055
10. 750 7.50 79.0 86.9
11. 1000 10.00 91.0 100.1
12. 1250 12.50 99.0 108.9
CBR Value = 3.85%
(unsoaked)

3.5.1.9 Properties of the soil

Table 17: Properties of the Natural Soil
S. No. Parameters Values
1. Specific Gravity 2.50
2. Permeability 6.147×10-6 cm/sec
3. OMC 15.00%
4. MDD 1.942 g/cc
5. Liquid limit 39.20%
6. Plastic limit 18.79%
7. Plasticity index 20.41%
8. UCS 2.541 kg/cm2
9. Unsoaked CBR 3.85%

32
3.2 Preparation of Test Samples
For experimental study different samples have been prepared with different proportions
of ingredients, which have been given in the Table: 3
Table 3: Description of Samples
S.N. Nomenclature Description of the additives added with the soil

Soil (%) Fly ash by (%) of Lime by (%) of

weight of soil weight of soil
1. S 100.0 0 0
2. S1 99.50 0 0.5
3. S2 99.30 0 0.70
4. S3 99.25 0 0.75
5. S4 99.20 0 0.80
6. S5 99.00 0 1.00
7. S6 94.25 5.0 0.75
8. S7 89.25 10.0 0.75
9. S8 84.25 15.0 0.75
10. S9 79.25 20.0 0.75
11. S10 74.25 25.0 0.75
3.5.3 Fly Ash
Fly ash was obtained from Chandrapura thermal power which was the waste product of coal
which is used for fuel.
The specifications of the obtained are (as per Plant) :
Moisture content – 1.1%
Specific Gravity – 2.95
Size of particles – 45 micron sieve residue = 5%
Fineness (Blain’s air permeability) – 320 m2/kg

3.5.4 LIME
Size of particles – Passed by 425 micron sieve = 100%
Specific Gravity – 2.31

33
Fig 3.18 Soil-Lime-Flyash mix

34
 CHAPTER-4
RESULTS & DISCUSSION
4.1 Test Results of the Modified Soil
Detailed experimental study has been conducted to investigate the characteristics and
behavior of locally available soil mixed with Fly ash and Lime at different percentages.
Initially only Lime was added to the soil in definite proportions and optimum value of the
Lime was obtained, where the maximum strength of the soil was achieved. After fixing
this percentage of Lime, Fly ash was added to the mixture of soil and Lime
4.1.1 Mixing Lime to the natural soil to determine the optimum quantity of Lime
Following test results has been shown in tabular form:
4.1.1.1 OMC & MDD Test
To know the compaction characteristics, OMC and MDD test have been performed
on different mix proportion of soil with Lime:

Table 18: Values of OMC & MDD Test results

S. No. Sample Type OMC (%) Variation MDD (g/cc) Variation of

of OMC MDD with
with respect to
respect to Natural Soil
Natural
Soil
1. S 15.00 _ 1.942 _
2. S1 15.30 2.00% 1.948 0.31%
(increase) (decrease)
3. S2 15.80 5.33% 1.937 0.26%
(increase) (decrease)
4. S3 15.90 6.00% 1.927 0.77%
(increase) (decrease)
5. S4 16.20 8.01% 1.918 1.23%
(increase) (decrease)
6. S5 16.60 10.66% 1.903 2.0%
(increase) (decrease)

35
4.1.2 Remarks
Hence, it is found that with the increasing percentage of Lime, OMC of the soil increases
and MDD decreases, which shows Lime is a drying agent and acts as a desiccating agent.
Hence from these results it is justified that the optimum values are observed in soil
sample S3, where the percentage of Lime is 0.75% by weight and the rest is soil.

4.1.3 Mixing Flyash to the soil sample fixing the value of Lime as 0.75%
As the value of Lime has been fixed by performing the tests where OMC, MDD; Liquid
limit; Plastic limit; UCS and CBR were obtained. Now fixing the percentage of Lime as
0.75%, Flyash was added varying in a definite proportion and soil was tested.
The optimum condition has to be obtained where the soil gives maximum strength and
other enhanced properties.
Now all the tests were to be performed replacing both the stabilizers to the soil and the
results would be obtained.

4.1.3.2 OMC & MDD Test

To know the compaction characteristics, OMC and MDD test has been performed on different
mix proportion of soil & CCR with GGBS:

36
 Table 24: Values of OMC & MDD Test results

S. No. Sample Type OMC (%) Variation MDD (g/cc) Variation of

of OMC MDD with
with respect to
respect to Natural soil
Natural soil (S)
(S)
1. S 15.00 1.942 _
2. S6 14.80 1.33% 1.952 0.51%
(decrease) (decrease)
3. S7 14.70 2.00% 1.972 1.54%
(decrease) (increase)
4. S8 14.60 2.66% 1.994 2.67%
(decrease) (increase)
5. S9 14.55 3.00% 2.012 3.60%
(decrease) (increase)
6. S10 14.40 4.01% 2.021 4.06%
(decrease) (increase)

OMC & MDD Comparison

S
1.8
S6

S7
1.75
Dry Density (g/cc)

S8

S9
1.7
S10

1.65

1.6
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Water Content (%)

Fig 4.2 OMC & MDD comparison graph

37
 From table no. 24, it is found that value of OMC decreases in this respect 14.80%, 14.70%,
14.60%, 14.55%,14.40 as the percent of Flyash increases from 5%, 10%, 15%, 20%, 25%
respectively, correspondingly the value of MDD increases as 1.952, 1.972, 1.1994, 12.012,2.021
(g/cc) with the increase in Flyash.
Interpretation : As the maximum dry density increases, it shows that soil sample becomes more
compact with the increase of Flyash. The moisture content also decreases with the increase in
percentage of Flyash. The compaction characteristic of the sample makes it good and suitable to
be used for sheep foot rollers.

4.1.3.3 Liquid limit, Plastic limit & Plasticity index

To know the Atterberg’s limits characteristics, this test has been performed on different
mix proportions of Soil & Lime with Flyash.
Table 25: Values of Liquid limit, Plastic limit, Shrinkage limit & Plasticity index

S. No. Sample Liquid limit Plastic limit Shrinkage Plasticity Variation

Type (%) (%) limit (%) index (%) of
Plasticity
index
w.r.t.
Natural
soil
1. S 39.20 18.79 16.70 20.41 _
2. S6 36.10 18.08 15.80 18.02 11.70%
(decrease)
3. S7 35.80 18.01 15.20 17.79 12.83%
(decrease)
4. S8 34.90 17.97 14.70 16.93 17.05%
(decrease)
5. S9 34.50 17.86 13.70 16.64 18.47%
(decrease)
6.. S10 34.10 17.71 13.30 16.39 19.70%
(decrease)

38
 Atterberg's limit
45
40
35
Warer content (%)

30
25 Liquid limit (%)
20 Plastic limit (%)
15 Plasticity index (%)
10 Shrinkage limit (%)
5
0
S S6 S7 S8 S9 S10
Soil Sample

Fig 4.3 LL, PL, PI & SL variations of Soil-Lime-Flyash mixed samples

From the results shown in table 25 above, it is found that the values of Liquid limit decreases
from 39.20%, 36.10%, 35.80%, 34.90%, 34.50% and 34.10% and plastic limit decreases from
18.79%, 18.08%, 18.01%, 17.97%, 17.86%, and 17.71% with the increase of Flyash from 0%,
5%, 10%, 15%, 20% and 25% to the Lime mixed soil. The value of plasticity index also
decreases correspondingly as 20.41%, 18.02%, 17.79%, 16.93%, 16.64% and 16.39%.
Interpretation : The liquid limit of the soil sample has decreased. As per code (IS 2720-Part 5
1980) recommendations if the liquid limit is higher than 50% , it comes under high compressible
range, between 35-50 %, then the soil comes in medium range compressible and below 35%, it
comes in low compressible range, hence from the result above it is found that the natural soil
with liquid limit 39.20% the soil is medium compressible but after the addition of Lime 0.75%
and Flyash the value decreases and as the percentage of Flyash becomes 15%, 20% and 25% the
value of liquid limit becomes less than 35%, hence it comes in low compressible range. The
value of plastic limit also decreases. Similarly it is found that the value of plasticity index
decreases. As per code recommendations if the value of plasticity index exceeds 17%, it comes
under high plastic zone and in between 7-17 %, the soil comes in medium plastic zone. Here it is
found the plasticity index of the natural soil is 20.41%, which means it is in high plastic zone but
as the Lime is fixed to 0.75% and Flyash increases, the plasticity index decreases and when it
becomes less than 17%, the soil becomes medium plastic. Medium range of plasticity was
obtained for sample S8, S9 & S10.

39
4.1.3.4 UCS Test
The unconfined compressive strength of the mix of soil CCR and GGBS was known.
Following table shows the results :
Table 26: Values of UCS Test results

S. No. Sample Type UCS (kg/cm2) Variation of UCS w.r.t.

Natural Soil
1. S 2.541 _
2. S6 3.081 21.25% (increase)

3. S7 3.684 44.98% (increase)

4. S8 4.051 59.42% (increase)

5. S9 4.513 77.60% (increase)

6. S10 4.582 80.32% (increase)

Unconfined Compressive Strength

5
4.5
4
3.5
UCS (kg/cm2)

3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
S S6 S7 S8 S9 S10
Soil Sample

Fig 4.4 UCS variations of Soil-LIME-FLYASH mixed samples

40
 From the results above in the table 26, it is found the value of unconfined compressive strength
increases from 2.541 kg/cm2, 3.081 kg/cm2 , 3.684 kg/cm2 , 4.051 kg/cm2, 4.513 kg/cm2 and
4.582 kg/cm2 as the percent of GGBS changes from 0%, 5%, 10%, 15%, 20% and 25% .
Interpretation : Soil generally fails by shear, hence it becomes necessary to test the compressive
strength in unconfined conditions (as per IS 2720-10 1980). It is found from the results that the
value of UCS increases with the increase of Flyash, hence from this results it can be said that it
can be used in slopes and foundations of embankments.

4.1.3.5 CBR Test

To know the soaked and unsoaked CBR value of the all the mix of soil, CCR and GGBS
this test was done. Results are given in following table :
Table 27: Values of CBR Test results

S. No. Sample Type Unsoaked CBR Value Variation of

(%) Unsoaked CBR
w.r.t. Natural
soil
1. S 3.85 _
2. S6 4.26 10.65%
(increase)
3. S7 5.38 39.74%
(increase)
4. S8 6.10 58.44%
(increase)
5. S9 6.50 68.83%
(increase)
6. S10 6.74 75.06%
(increase)

41
 Unsoaked CBR
8

5
CBR (%)

4
Unsoked CBR
3

0
S S6 S7 S8 S9 S10
Soil Sample

Fig 4.5 Unsoaked CBR variations of Soil-Lime-Flyash mixed sample

From the results of Table 27, it is found that unsoaked CBR value increases as the value Flyash
percentage increases from 0%, 5%, 10%, 15%, 20%, 25%, keeping Lime fixed 0.75%. The value
of soaked CBR are 2.25%, 3.61%, 3.93%, 4.17%, 4.34%, 4.74% and the values of unsoaked
CBR are 3.85%, 4.26%, 5.38%, 6.10%, 6.50%, 6.74% respectively.
Interpretation : CBR value is the indicator of subgrade soil strength and is often used for
flexible pavement designing. Higher the value of CBR, lesser is the requirement of thickness of
pavement and economic is the construction.Unsoaked CBR the value of natural soil was 3.85%
which is also less; it has also increased to 6.74% which is high.

4.2 Comparison

42
 Following table shows comparison of the properties for all the Soil and Lime mixed
samples:
Table 28: Comparison of all the properties of each Soil-Lime mixed samples
Soil S S1 S2 S3 S4 S5
Specimen (100% (99.50% (99.30% (99.25% (99.20% (99.00%
Soil + Soil + Soil + Soil + Soil + Soil +
0% 0.50% 0.70% 0.75% 0.80% 1.0%
Lime + Lime + Lime + Lime+ Lime + Lime +
0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Flyash) Flyash) Flyash) Flyash) Flyash) Flyash)
OMC (%) 16.20 16.50 16.80 16.90 17.20 17.60
MDD (g/cc) 1.752 1.748 1.737 1.727 1.718 1.703
Liquid limit 39.20 38.60 37.60 37.30 36.90 36.50
(%)
Plastic limit 18.79 18.51 18.45 18.32 18.21 18.13
(%)
Plasticity 20.41 20.09 19.15 18.98 18.69 18.37
index (%)
UCS 2.541 2.611 2.923 3.042 2.844 2.766
(kg/cm2)
Unsoaked 3.85 3.93 4.09 4.18 4.01 3.93
CBR (%)

43
 Following table shows comparison of the properties for all the Soil-LIME-FLYASH mixed
samples:
Table 29: Comparison of all the properties of each Soil-Lime-Flyash mixed samples
Soil S S6 S7 S8 S9 S10
Specimen (100% (94.25% (89.25% (84.25% (79.25% (74.25%
Soil + Soil + Soil + Soil + Soil + Soil +
0% 0.75% 0.75% 0.75% 0.75% 0.75%
LIME+ LIME + LIME + LIME + LIME + LIME +
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%
FLYASH) FLYASH) FLYASH) FLYASH) FLYASH) FLYASH)
Specific 2.581 2.713 2.792 2.854 2.891 2.932
Gravity
OMC (%) 16.20 16.00 15.80 15.70 15.50 15.40
MDD (g/cc) 1.752 1.742 1.772 1.794 1.812 1.821
Liquid limit 39.20 36.10 35.80 34.90 34.50 34.10
(%)
Plastic limit 18.79 18.08 18.01 17.97 17.86 17.71
(%)
Plasticity 20.41 18.02 17.79 16.93 16.64 16.39
index (%)
Shrinkage 16.70 15.80 15.20 14.70 13.70 13.30
limit (%)
UCS 2.541 3.081 3.684 4.051 4.513 4.582
(kg/cm2)
US CBR % 3.85 4.26 5.38 6.10 6.50 6.74

44
 CHAPTER – 5
CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 Conclusions
This chapter summarizes the test results and significant findings of various properties of
the soil when modified with the replacement of Lime first and after fixing the percentage
of Lime 0.75%, the results for varying percentage of Flyash (5%, 10%, 15%, 20% &
25%) have been determined. Recommendations for future research are also provided
based on the findings from this study.
On the basis of results obtained, the following conclusions have been arrived at:
1. With the increase of Lime (0.5%, 0.7%, 0.75%, 0.8% & 1.0% of the weight of soil),
OMC increases and MDD decreases.
2. The UCS value increases when Lime percentage changes from 0.5% to 0.7% but started
decreasing for 0.8% and 1.0%, hence it was tested for 0.75% and found that the value of
UCS was 3.042 kg/cm2 which was maximum.
3. Similar result was obtained for CBR test, maximum value of CBR in unsoaked condition
was found to be 4.18% when soil samples replaced with 0.75% Lime by weight of soil.
4. Based on above two results, optimum quantity of Lime was fixed to 0.75% by weight of
soil.
5. With the replacement of Flyash (5%, 10%, 15%, 20% & 25% by weight of soil) and fixed
percentage of 0.75% Lime, OMC goes on decreasing and simultaneously MDD goes on
increasing. The maximum value of MDD was obtained for 25% Flyash i.e. 1.821 g/cc
and corresponding OMC was 15.40%.
6. With the increase of percentage of Flyash, liquid limit, plastic limit and plasticity index
decreases, hence the soil sample becomes less plastic and less compressible.
7. The results from UCS test show that UCS value increases as the percentage of Flyash
increases. The maximum value obtained was 4.582 kg/cm2 for 25% Flyash by weight of
soil.
8. As the percentage of Flyash increases to the mixture of soil and Lime in unsoaked CBR
increases, maximum value of CBR was obtained 6.74%, when percentage of Flyash was
25% by weight of soil.
9. From strength analysis, replacement of soil by 0.75% Lime & 25% Flyash by weight
of soil is advisable.

45
5.2 Recommendations for further studies
For further research the effect of Lime & Flyash on soil can be studied on following
points:
I. For further combination of Flyash & Lime and their different percentage should be used
to study the properties of soil.
II. The swelling properties of the clayey or silty soil can be studied with the addition of
Lime and Flyash.
III. The environmental impacts can be studied in the use of Flyash, Lime and even for the use
of other industrial wastes.
IV. The same soil can be studied for various industrial wastes other than Flyash and Lime
V. It may be further design of road may be done

46
 REFERENCES
1. Kumrawat Neeraj, Ahirwar. S.K.,(2014), “Performance Analysis of Black Cotton Soil
Treated with Calcium Carbide Residue and Stone Dust”, International Journal of Engineering
and Science & Technology, ISSN 2319-5991. Vol. 3, No. 4 Nov 2014.
2. Sridevi G., Sreerama. Rao. A.,(2014), “Efficacy of GGBS Stabilized Soil Cushions With and
Without Lime in Pavements”, IJETCAS, ISSN 2279-0047. June-August 2014, pp. 141-147.
3. Oormila T.R.,(2014) “Effects of Stabilisation Using Flyash and GGBS in Soil
Characteristics.” IJETT-Vol 11 No.6 2014
4. Pathak, A.K. (2014), “Soil Stabilization using Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slag”.
IJERA ISSN:2248-9622,Vol.4, Issue 5 2014,pp.164-171.
5. Gharib M.,(2014), “An Experimental Study for Identification and Comparison of Plastic Index
and Shrinkage Properties of Clay Soils with the Addition of Cement”, European Journal of
Experimental Biology,2014,2(4):1034-1038.
6. Yadu L., Tripathi, R.K, (2013), “Stabilization of soft soil with granulated blast furnace slag
and flyash”, International Journal of Research in Engineering and Technology, vol.2, Issue 2,
pp115-119.
7. Horpibulsuk. S., Phetchuay, C., and Chinkulkijniwat,.A. (2013) “Strength development in
silty clay stabilized with calcium carbide residue and flyash”, Soils and Foundation, 53, issue4,
pp477-486.
8. Takhelmayum G., Savitha. A.L, Krishna Gudi (2013), “Laboratory Study on Soil Using
Flyash Mixture”, International Journal of Engineering Science and Innovative Technology
(IJESIT), ISSN:2319-5967.
9. Koteswara Rao. D. And Rameswara Rao G.V.V., P.R.T. Pranav, (2012), “A Laboratory Study
on the affect of Rice Husk Ash & Lime on the Properties of Marine Clay” International Journal
of Engineering and Innovative Technology (IJEIT) vol 2, ISSN:2277-3754.
10. Horpibulsuk. S., Phetchuay, C., and Chinkulkijniwat,.A. (2012). “Soil stabilization by
calcium carbide residue and flyash”, Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, ASCE, 24, Issue
2, pp184-193.
11. Bhobariya S., Anand V.,(2012), “A Comparative Study on Strength Improvement and CBR
Properties of NIT Hostel Area Soil by Using Calcium Carbide Residue and Flyash”, Thesis. NIT
Rourkela.
12. Anil Kumar Sharma, Sivapullaiah, P.V., (2011) “Soil stabilization with waste materials based
binder.” Proceedings of Indian Geotechnical Conference.

13. Cokca E.,(2009). “Stabilization of Expansive clays using Granulated Blast Furnace Slag and
GBFS cement”, Geotech Geol Eng 27:489-499.
47
14. Du Y.J., Zhang, Liu S.Y., (2009) “Investigation of Strength and California Bearing Ratio
Properties of Natural Soils Treated by Calcium Carbide Residue”, Geo-Frontiers Advances in
Geotechnical Engineering, Page No 1237.
15. Okafor F.O.,(2009), “Effects of RHA on Some Geotechnical Properties of Laterite Soil”,
LEJPT, ISSN 1583-1078, Issue 15,July-Dec 2009 p:67-74.
16. Guerrero A. (2004), “Effects of the soil properties on the Maximum Dry Density Obtained
from the Standard Proctor Test” 2004 Andres Arvelo.
17. IRC: 37-2001 Guidelines for the design of Flexible Pavements.
18. Wild S., (1995) “Effects of GGBS on the Strength and Swelling Properties of Lime-
Stabilized Kaolinite in the presence of Sulphates”, Clay Minerals 31(3):423-433, Jan 1995.
19. IS:2720-Part 10-1991, Determination of Unconfined Compressive Strength.
20. IS:2720-Part 16-1987, Laboratory determination of CBR.
21. IS:2720-Part 17-1986, Laboratory determination of Permeability.
22. IS:2720-Part 4-1985, Grain Size Distribution.
23. IS:2720-Part 5-1985, Determination of Liquid limit and Plastic limit.
24. IS: 2720-Part III-1980, Determination of Specific gravity.
25. IS:2720-Part 7-1980, Determination of water content-dry density relation using light
compaction.
26. IS:2720-Part 6-1972, Determination of Shrinkage factors

48