40S Be 0258

VISVESVARAYA TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY
BELGAUM
KLS's
VISHWANATHRAO DESHPANDE RURAL INSTITUTE OF
TECHNOLOGY, HALIYAL.
A
“Project Report”
On
“SOIL STABILIZATION USING GEOSYNTHETIC MATERIAL
(BAMBOO FIBRES)”
(A KSCST sponsored Project)
40S_BE_0258
Submitted by
AROJA M. (2VD13CV007)
NAGARAJ K. (2VD13CV026)
PRASHANT. P. (2VD13CV036)
RAJESHWARI S. (2VD13CV043)
Under the Guidance of

Prof. ASHIK BELLARY
Department of Civil Engineering
December 2016– 17
Scanned by CamScanner
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The satisfaction and euphoria that accompany the successful completion of any task
would be incomplete without the mention of the people who made it possible, whose
constant guidance and encouragement crowned the efforts with success.
We would like to express our thanks to the Principal Dr. V.V.Katti for their
encouragement that motivated us for the successful completion of Project work. Also
it gives us immense pleasure to thank Prof. G.V.Chalageri Professor and Head of
Department for his constant support and encouragement.
Also, we would like to express our deepest sense of gratitude to Prof. Ashik Bellary.
Department of Civil Engineering for their constant support and guidance throughout
the Project work.
Also, we would like to express our thanks to juniors Chetana, Suvarna, Preeti,
Manjula, Sangeeta, Megha, Annapurna for their support.
Last, but not the least, we would hereby acknowledge and thank our parents & our
friends who have been a source of inspiration and also instrumental in the successful
completion of the Project work
Aroja Mirashi.
Nagaraj Kashilkar.
Prashant Patil
Rajeshwari Shetty
SYNOPSIS
Soil stabilization is the process which involves enhancing the physical properties of the
soil in order to improve its strength, durability etc. by blending or mixing with additives. The
different types of method used for soil stabilization are: Soil stabilization with cement, Soil
stabilization with lime, Soil stabilization using bitumen, Chemical stabilization and a new
emerging technology of stabilization by Geo textiles and Geo synthetic fibers.
In this study, we are making use of bamboo fibers as geo synthetic material for
stabilization of soil. With the introduction of bamboo fibers to the soil the CBR values will
improve and thickness of pavement layer also gets reduced. It also reduces the intensity of stress
on subgrade. Bamboo fibers is such a geosynthetic material which is easily available, ecofriendly
and also cost effective. With the application of soil stabilization method in construction the
overall cost gets reduced when compared to the ordinary method of construction.
The Highway Research Board (HRB) classification of the soil strata like black cotton soil
and sedu soil is done using suitable sampling technique such as Core Cutter Method. To
determine the characteristics like Grading by Sieve Analysis, Atterbergs Limits i.e Liquid limit
using Cone Penetration Method and Casagrande Method, Plastic limit by rolling the sample to
3mm diameter thread, Shrinkage limit using Shrinkage apparatus, Optimum Moisture Content
and Maximum Dry Density using Standard Proctor Test and also California Bearing Ratio by
conducting CBR test.
The pavement thickness was designed using pavement design catalogues published by
IRC SP:20-2002. The estimation for the road is done by considering the item such as Jungle
Cutting, Earthwork Excavation for Roadway and Drains, compacting and grading etc., as per SR
2016-17, PW, P and IWT circle Dharwad and suggestion of specification for the mixture of
Bamboo fibers as Geo Synthetic material for stabilization using CBR value by CBR Test and
Shear strength using Unconfined Compression Test.
The different tests were conducted in order to determine the different characteristics and
properties of the black cotton soil and obtained with following results. The liquid limit of the soil
with addition of bamboo fibers was found to be decreasing when compared to liquid limit of soil
alone. The plastic limit of the soil decreased with the addition of fibers. The shrinkage limit of
the soil was increased with increase in fibres.
The MDD of the soil with addition of bamboo fibers by weight of soil is found to be
increasing upto 0.75% after that it decreases and the corresponding OMC is decreased with
addition of fibers. The shear strength of soil decreased substantially with addition of fibers. The
CBR value of the soil increased substantially.
properties of the sedu soil and obtained with following results. The liquid limit of the soil alone
was found to be 36.5%. The MDD of the soil with addition of 0.25%, 0.5% bamboo fibers by
weight of soil is found to be decreased by 0.83% and 0.75% , 1.0% bamboo fibers by weight of
soil is found to be increased by 0.11 % and 16.98% respectively and the corresponding OMC is
decreased by 15.62%, 21.87% and 33.75% respectively. The shear strength of the soil with the
addition of 0.25%, 0.5%, 0.75% and 1% of bamboo fibers is found to be decreased by 38.57%,
38.57%, 35.25% and 5.85%. The CBR value of the soil with addition of 0.25%, 0.5%, 0.75% and
1.0%, bamboo fibers by weight of soil is found to be increased.
From the limited laboratory study conducted we concluded that the 0.75% of bamboo
fiber can substantially improve the properties of Black cotton soil. And thus 0.75% of bamboo
fiber is the optimum fiber content for black cotton soil.
The design thickness of flexible pavement before stabilization is obtained as 450mm and
after stabilization is obtained as 250mm.The estimated cost for constructing flexible pavement
before stabilization of soil is obtained as 4018050 Rs /Km and after stabilization of soil is
obtained as 3721894Rs/Km. The estimated cost after stabilization is found to be decreased by
7.37%
CONTENTS
PAGE
CHAPTER DESCRIPTION NO
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 General 1
1.2 Needs and Advantages of soil stabilization 2
1.3 Objectives of the project work 3
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 General 4
2.2 Stabilization of Black Cotton Soil using Lime and Geogrid 6
2.3 Geotextiles: An Overview 7
Improvement in CBR value of Black cotton soil by stabilizing it
2.4 with vitrified polish waste 7
Effects of Jute Fibers on Engineering Characteristics of Black Cotton
2.5 Soil 7
CHAPTER 3 EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS

3.1 General 8
3.2 Wet Sieve Analysis [IS 2720 (Part 4) – 1985] 8
3.3 Liquid Limit Test [IS 2720 (Part 5) – 1985] 9
3.4 Plastic Limit Test [IS 2720 (part 5) – 1985] 11
3.5 Shrinkage Limit Test [IS 2720 (part 20) : 1992] 12
3.6 Compaction Test [IS 2720 (part VII) – 1980] 13
3.7 Unconfined Compression Test [IS 2720 (Part 10) : 1991] 14
3.8 California Bearing Ratio (CBR) Test[IS 2720 (Part 16) – 1987] 15
CHAPTER 4 ANALYSIS OF DATA

4.1 General 17
4.2 Wet Sieve Analysis (Black Cotton Soil) 17
4.3 Liquid Limit Test 18
4.3.1 Cone Penetration Test 18
4.3.2 Casagrande Method 19
4.4 Plastic Limit test 20
4.5 Plasticity Index 20
4.6 Highway Research Board (HRB) classification of soil 20
4.7 Shrinkage Limit 22
4.8 Standard Proctor Test 23
4.9 Unconfined Compression Test 24
4.10. California Bearing Ratio (CBR) Test 25
4.10.1 Liquid Limit Test on soil added with fibers (Cone Penetration Test) 26
4.11 Plastic Limit Test on soil added with fibers 28
4.12 Shrinkage Limit test on soil added fibers 29
4.13 Standard Proctor Test on Black cotton soil with fibers 30
4.14 Unconfined Compression Test on Black cotton soil with fibers 34
4.15 California Bearing Ratio (CBR) on Black cotton soil with fibers 38
4.16 Wet Sieve Analysis (Sedu Soil) 43
4.17 Liquid Limit Test 44
4.17.1 Cone Penetration Test 44
4.18 Standard Proctor Test 45
4.19 Unconfined Compression Test 46
4.20. Caifornia Bearing Ratio (CBR) Test 47
4.21 Standard Proctor Test on Sedu soil with fibers 48
4.22 Unconfined Compression Test on Sedu soil with fibers 53
4.23 Caifornia Bearing Ratio (CBR) Test on Sedu soil with fibers 58
CHAPTER 5 DESIGN OF FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT

5.1 Design of flexible pavement before stabilization 61
5.2 Design of flexible pavement after stabilization 61
CHAPTER 6 COST ESTIMATE

6.1 General 62
6.2 Estimation of Quantities 62
6.3 Abstract of Cost 62
CHAPTER 7 RESULT AND DISCUSSION 72
CHAPTER 8 CONCLUSIONS 75
SCOPE OF STUDY 76
REFERENCE 77
LIST OF TABLES
Table No DESCRIPTION Page No

4.1 Sieve analysis of Black cotton soil 17
4.2 Liquid limit test on Black cotton soil using cone penetration method 18
4.3 Liquid limit test on Black cotton soil using Casagrande’s method 19
4.4 Plastic limit test on Black cotton soil 20
4.5 Shrinkage limit test on Black cotton soil 22
4.6 Standard Proctor Test on Black cotton soil 23
4.7 Unconfined Compression Test on Black cotton soil 24
4.8 California Bearing Ratio (CBR) Teston Black cotton soil 25
Liquid limit test on Black cotton soil + 0.25% Bamboo fibers using cone
4.9 penetration method 26
Liquid limit test on Black cotton soil + 1% Bamboo fibers using cone
Plastic limit test on Black cotton soil + 0.25%, +0.5%,+0.75% and +1%
4.13 Bamboo fibers 28
Shrinkage limit test on Black cotton soil + 0.25%, +0.5%,+0.75% and +1%
4.14 Bamboo fibers 29
4.15 Standard Proctor Test on Black cotton soil+ 0.25% Bamboo Fibers 30
4.19 Unconfined Compression Test on Black cotton soil+0.25% fiber 34
4.23 CBR Test on Black cotton soil+0.25% fiber 39
4.27 Sieve analysis of sedu soil 43
4.28 Liquid limit test on Sedu soil using cone penetration method 44
4.29 Standard Proctor Test on sedu soil 45
4.30 Unconfined Compression Test on sedu soil 46
4.31 California Bearing Ratio (CBR) Test on Sedu soil 47
4.32 Standard Proctor Test on Sedu soil+ 0.25% Bamboo Fibers 49
4.36 Unconfined Compression Test on Sedu soil+0.25% fiber 53
4.40 CBR Test on Sedu soil+0.25% fiber 58
6.1 Abstract of Cost 63
6.2 Bill of Quantities 66
6.3 Abstract for provision of new bituminous road 71
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure No DESCRIPTION Page No
4.1 Particle size distribution curve of Black cotton soil 18

4.2 Liquid Limit curve (Cone Penetration) 18
4.3 Liquid Limit curve (Casagrande’s method) 19
4.4 HRB Classification 21
4.5 Compaction Curve for Black cotton soil 23
4.6 UCS Curve for Black cotton soil 24
4.7 CBR Curve for Black cotton soil 25
Liquid Limit curve of Black cotton soil + 0.25% Bamboo fibers (Cone
4.8 Penetration) 26
4.9 Penetration) 27
4.10 Penetration) 27
Liquid Limit curve of Black cotton soil + 1% Bamboo fibers (Cone
4.11 Penetration) 28
4.12 Compaction Curve for Black cotton soil + 0.25% fibers 31
4.16 UCS Curve for Black cotton soil + 0.25% fibers 35
4.19 UCS Curve for Black cotton soil + 1.00% fibers 38
4.20 CBR Curve for Black cotton soil + 0.25% fibers 39
4.24 Particle size distribution curve of sedu soil 44
4.25 Liquid Limit curve (Cone Penetration) 45
4.26 Compaction Curve for Sedu soil 46
4.27 UCS Curve for sedu soil 47
4.28 CBR Curve for Sedu soil 48
4.29 Compaction Curve for Sedu soil + 0.25% fibers 49
4.33 UCS Curve for Sedu soil + 0.25% fibers 54
4.37 CBR Curve for Sedu soil + 0.25% fibers 58
5.1 CBR curve for flexible pavement 61
Soil Stabilization using Geosynthetic Material (Bamboo Fibers)
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 General
A developing country like India which has a large geographical area and population,
demands vast infrastructure i.e. network of roads and buildings. Everywhere land is being
utilized for various structures from ordinary house to sky scrapers, bridges to airports and from
rural roads to expressways. Almost all the civil engineering structures are located on various
soil strata. Soil can be defined as a material consisting of rock particles, sand, silt, and clay. It
is formed by the gradual disintegration or decomposition of rocks due to natural processes that
includes disintegration of rock due to stresses arising from expansion or contraction with
temperature changes. Weathering and decomposition from chemical changes that occur when
water, oxygen and carbon dioxide gradually combine with minerals within the rock formation,
thus it is breaking down to sand, silt and clay. Transportation of soil materials by wind, water
and ice forms different soil formations such as those found in river deltas, sand dunes and
glacial deposits. Temperature, rainfall and drainage play important roles in the formation of
soils as in the different climatic regions. Under different drainage regimes, different soils will
be formed from the same original rock formation.
In India, soils are classified into six groups namely alluvial soil, marine soil, laterite and
lateritic deposits, expansive soils, sand dunes and boulder deposits. On an average 1 lakh sq.km
area is covered by lateritic soil deposits, 3 lakh sq.km area is covered by black cotton soil, and
5 lakh sq.km area is covered by sand dunes. Encountering land having soft soil for construction
leads to an attention towards adopting ground improvement techniques such as soil
stabilization.
Soil stabilization is the process which involves enhancing the physical properties of the
soil in order to improve its strength, durability etc. by blending or mixing it with additives. The
different types of methods used for soil stabilization are: Soil stabilization using cement, Soil
stabilization using lime, Soil stabilization using bitumen, Chemical stabilization and a new
emerging technology of stabilization that is stabilization of soil by using Geo textiles and Geo
synthetic fibers.
Page 1
Geo synthetics are synthetic products made from various types of polymers which may be
either Woven or Non-Woven. These are used to enhance the characteristics of soil and have
provided a practical way of constructing civil engineering structures economically.
In this study, we are making use of bamboo fibers as geo synthetic material for stabilization
of soil. With the introduction of bamboo fibers to the soil the CBR values may improve and
thickness of pavement layer also may get reduced. It may also reduce the intensity of stress on
subgrade. Bamboo fibers is such a geosynthetic material which is easily available, eco-friendly
and also cost effective. With the application of soil stabilization technique in construction
process the overall cost may get reduced when compared to the ordinary method of
construction.
1.2 Needs and Advantages of soil stabilization
Soil properties vary a great deal and construction of structures depends a lot on the bearing
capacity of the soil, hence, we need to stabilize the soil to improve the load bearing capacity.
The gradation of the soil is also a very important property to keep in mind while working with
soils. The soils may be well-graded which is desirable as it has less number of voids or
uniformly graded which though sounds stable but has more voids.
Advantages of soil stabilizations are as follows
• If during the construction phase weak soil strata is encountered, the usual practice
followed is replacing the weak soil with some other good quality soil. With the
application of soil stabilization technique, the properties of the locally available soil
(soil available at the site) can be enhanced and can be used effectively as the subgrade
material without replacing it.
• The cost of preparing the subgrade by replacing the weak soil with a good quality soil
is higher than that of preparing the subgrade by stabilizing the locally available soil
using different stabilization techniques.
• The strength giving parameters of the soil can be effectively increased to a required
amount by stabilization.
• It improves the strength of the soil, thus, increasing the soil bearing capacity.
• It is more economical both in terms of cost and energy to increase the bearing capacity
of the soil rather than going for deep foundation or raft foundation.
Page 2
• It is also used to provide more stability to the soil in slopes or other such places.
• Sometimes soil stabilization is also used to prevent soil erosion or formation of dust,
which is very useful especially in dry and arid weather.
• Stabilization is also done for soil water-proofing; this prevents water from entering into
the soil and hence helps the soil from losing its strength.
• It helps in reducing the soil volume change due to change in temperature or moisture
content.
However the soil stabilization has disadvantage like increase in cost of construction and
difficulty in mixing the fibers with soil.
1.3 Objectives of the project work
• To categorize the clayey soil namely black cotton soil and sedu soil as per Highway
Research Board classification.
• To analyze the characteristics of soil for different concentrations of Geo synthetic material
(Bamboo fibers) mixed with it.
• The design of flexible pavement without Geo synthetic material and with the optimum
concentration of the geo synthetic material mixed with the above soil as per IRC SP:20-
2002.
• Estimation and costing of the flexible pavement for unit length as per SR 2016-17, PW, P
and IWT circle Dharwad.
Page 3
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 General
Soil stabilization is a method of improving soil properties by blending and mixing other
materials. There are various soil stabilization methods and there are various materials used for
soil stabilization. The following are the few methods described in literature.
• Soil Stabilization with Cement:
The soil stabilized with cement is known as soil cement. The cementing action is
believed to be the result of chemical reactions of cement with siliceous soil during
hydration reaction. The important factors affecting the soil-cement are nature of soil
content, conditions of mixing, compaction, curing and admixtures used.
The appropriate amounts of cement needed for different types of soils may be as follows:
Gravels – 5 to 10%, Sands – 7 to 12%, Silts – 12 to 15%, andClays – 12 – 20%
The quantity of cement for a compressive strength of 25 to 30 kg/cm 2 should normally be
sufficient for tropical climate for soil stabilization.If the layer of soil having surface area
of A (m2), thickness H (cm) and dry density rd(tonnes/m3), has to be stabilized with p
percentage of cement by weight on the basis of dry soil, cement mixture will
be((100XP)/(1+P)) and, the amount of cement required for soil stabilization is given by
Amount of cement required, in tonnes =

Lime, calcium chloride, sodium carbonate, sodium sulphate and fly ash are some of the
additives commonly used with cement for cement stabilization of soil.
• Soil Stabilization using Lime:
Slaked lime is very effective in treating heavy plastic clayey soils. Lime may be used
alone or in combination with cement, bitumen or fly ash. Sandy soils can also be
stabilized with these combinations. Lime has been mainly used for stabilizing the road
bases and the subgrade.
Lime changes the nature of the adsorbed layer and provides pozzolanic action. Plasticity
index of highly plastic soils are reduced by the addition of lime with soil. There is an
increase in the optimum water content and a decrease in the maximum compacted density
and he strength and durability of soil increases.
Page 4
Normally 2 to 8% of lime may be required for coarse grained soils and 5 to 8% of lime
may be required for plastic soils. The amount of fly ash as admixture may vary from 8 to
20% of the weight of the soil.
• Soil Stabilization with Bitumen:
Asphalts and tars are bituminous materials which are used for stabilization of soil,
generally for pavement construction. Bituminous materials when added to a soil, it
imparts both cohesion and reduced water absorption. Depending upon the above actions
and the nature of soils, bitumen stabilization is classified in following four types:
• Sand bitumen stabilization
• Soil Bitumen stabilization
• Water proofed mechanical stabilization, and
• Oiled earth.
• Chemical Stabilization of Soil:
Calcium chloride being hygroscopic and deliquescent is used as a water retentive additive
in mechanically stabilized soil bases and surfacing. The vapor pressure gets lowered,
surface tension increases and rate of evaporation decreases. The freezing point of pure
water gets lowered and it results in prevention or reduction of frost heave.
The depressing the electric double layer, the salt reduces the water pick up and thus the
loss of strength of fine grained soils. Calcium chloride acts as a soil flocculent and
facilitates compaction. Frequent application of calcium chloride may be necessary to
make up for the loss of chemical by leaching action. For the salt to be effective, the
relative humidity of the atmosphere should be above 30%.
Sodium chloride is the other chemical that can be used for this purpose with a stabilizing
action similar to that of calcium chloride.
Sodium silicate is yet another chemical used for this purpose in combination with other
chemicals such as calcium chloride, polymers, chrome lignin, alkyl chlorosilanes,
siliconites, amines and quarternary ammonium salts, sodium hexametaphosphate,
phosphoric acid combined with a wetting agent.
• Electrical Stabilization of Clayey Soils:
Page 5
Electrical stabilization of clayey soils is done by method known as electro-osmosis. This

is an expensive method of soil stabilization and is mainly used for drainage of cohesive
soils.
• Soil Stabilization by Grouting:
In this method, stabilizers are introduced by injection into the soil. This method is not
useful for clayey soils because of their low permeability. This is a costly method for soil
stabilization.
This method is suitable for stabilizing buried zones of relatively limited extent. The
grouting techniques can be classified as following:
• Clay grouting
• Chemical grouting
• Chrome lignin grouting
• Polymer grouting, and
• Bituminous grouting
• Soil Stabilization by Geotextiles and Fabrics:
Geotextiles are porous fabrics made of synthetic materials such as polyethylene,
polyester, nylons and polyvinyl chloride. Woven, non-woven and grid form varieties of
geotextiles are available. Geotextiles have a high strength. When properly embedded in
soil, it contributes to its stability. It is used in the construction of unpaved roads over soft
soils.
Reinforcing the soil for stabilization by metallic strips into it and providing an anchor or
tie back to restrain a facing skin element.
2.2 Stabilization of Black Cotton Soil using Lime and Geogrid [2]
Sujitkawade et al., studied the effect of Lime and geogrid on the properties of the
soil.Their main objectives was to determine the properties of the soil before and after the
addition of lime and geogrid to it. The different tests they conducted were natural
moisture content determination, specific gravity, Atterbergs limits, Compaction test,
Compressive Strength test. After studying and conducting the entire above test, the
optimum lime content was found to be 15% and they concluded that there was a
substantial increase in the compressive strength of the soil.
Page 6
2.3 Geotextiles: An Overview [3]

AyushMithal and Dr. ShalinuShukla studied the effectiveness of use of geotextiles as
reinforcement material for stabilization of soil for different engineering works. Their
objectives were to study and introduce the properties of Geotextiles (such as Physical
property, Mechanical property, Hydraulic property, Endurance property and Durability
property), Fibers of Geotextiles, (they are natural and synthetic fibers), Types of
Geotextiles, functions of Geotextiles, application of geotextiles and impact of geotextiles
on environment. They have concluded that, due to the versatility of functions of
geotextiles they can be used in many important civil engineering works. The use of
geotextiles not only reduces construction cost but also reduce maintenance cost.
2.4 Improvement in CBR value of Black cotton soil by stabilizing it with vitrified
polish waste [4]
Vegulla . Raghudeep et al . , studied the effect of vitrified polish waste on the properties
of the soil. Their objective was to check the reduction in pavement thickness due to
increase in CBR because of addition of polish waste. They conducted the tests like Grain
size distribution, Atterbegs limits, Compaction tests and CBR tests on soil alone and with
addition of vitrified polish waste. They conducted that 10% addition of vitrified polish
waste resulted in substantial increase in CBR value and significant reduction in
pavements thickness was reported.
2.5 Effects of Jute Fibers on Engineering Characteristics of Black Cotton Soil [5]
HarshitaBairagi et al . , studied the effectiveness of jute fibers in controlling the swelling
behavior of black cotton soil measured in lab with and without use of randomly
reinforced jute fibers in the soil. Their objectives were to determine the CBR values and
unconfined compressive strength of the soil. The different tests conducted were sieve
analysis, Atterbergs limits, differential swelling test, proctor test, CBR test and
unconfined compression test. From the test they concluded that there was a substantial
increase in shrinkage limit, optimum moisture, dry density, CBR value and shear strength
of the soil and also the addition of jute fibers to black cotton soil decreased the swelling
behavior.
Page 7
CHAPTER 3
EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS
3.1 General
The Highway Research Board (HRB) classification of the soil strata like black cotton
soil and are done using suitable sampling technique such as Core Cutter Method. To
determine the characteristics like Grading by Sieve Analysis, Atterbergs Limits i.e Liquid
limit using Cone Penetration Method and Casagrande Method, Plastic limit by rolling the
sample to 3mm diameter thread, Shrinkage limit using Shrinkage apparatus, Optimum
Moisture Content and Maximum Dry Density using Standard Proctor Test and also
California Bearing Ratio by conThe determination of the properties such as liquid limit,
plastic limit, shrinkage limit, optimum moisture content, maximum dry density, CBR value
and shear strength for different concentration of Geo synthetic material with black cotton.
The pavement thickness design will be done using pavement design catalogues published by
IRC SP:20-2002. The estimation for the road is done by considering the item such as Jungle
Cutting, Earthwork Excavation for Roadway and Drains, compacting and grading etc., as per
SR 2014-15, PW, P and IWT circle Dharwad and suggestion of specification for the mixture
of Bamboo fibers as Geo Synthetic material for stabilization. ducting four days soaked CBR
Test and Shear using Unconfined Compression Test.
properties of the soil. The procedure of each of the tests have been explained below.
3.2 Wet Sieve Analysis [IS 2720 (Part 4) – 1985]
3.2.1 General
The grain size distribution is found by mechanical analysis. If the percentage fines are
more there is a need to conduct wet sieve analysis.
3.2.2 Apparatus
The different apparatus used for test were, sieves confirming to IS: 460(part I) - 1978,
4.75 mm, 2 mm, 425µ, 75µ. Oven to maintain temperature between 105˚C to 110˚C, trays or
buckets, brushes, mechanical sieve shaker.
3.2.3 Procedure
Suitable quantity of soil about 200 g passing through 4.75 mm sieve is taken in 75µ
sieve and is washed thoroughly using clean water until clear water appears and retained
Page 8
portion of soil is kept for oven drying. Retained sample is sieved using either mechanical
sieve shaker or manually sieved. Set of IS sieves as 4.75mm, 2.0mm 1.0mm, 600µ, 425 µ,
300µ, 212 µ, 150µ, 75µ were used. Sieve the soil in a mechanical sieve shaker for 10
minutes. Weigh the material retained on each sieve to 1g. Percentage of soil passing 75µ is
considered as combination of silt and clay, soil retained above 75µ is coarse sand, medium or
fine sand. Particles retained above 2.0 mm sieve are considered as gravel portion of soil
under investigation.
3.3 Liquid Limit Test [IS 2720 (Part 5) – 1985]
3.3.1 General
In order to study the liquid limit of soil Casagrande test was conducted. Liquid limit is
generally determined by the mechanical method using Casagrande’s apparatus or the
standard liquid limit test apparatus. As per this method the liquid limit is defined as the
moisture content at which 25 blows or drops in standard liquid limit apparatus will just close
a groove of standardized dimensions cut in the sample by the grooving tool by a specified
amount.
3.3.2 Apparatus
Standard liquid limit apparatus is a mechanical device, consisting of a cup and
arrangement for raising and dropping through a specified height of 10mm. There are two
standard grooving tools. Other apparatus required include spatula, evaporating dish, moisture
containers, balance of capacity 200 grams and sensitivity to 0.01 g and thermostatically
controlled drying oven to maintain 105˚C to 110˚C.
3.3.3 Procedure
About 150 g of dry soil sample passing 425 micron IS sieve is weighed and mixed
thoroughly with distilled water in the evaporating dish to form a uniform thick paste. In the
case of clayey soil, the paste should be kept in water tight container for the required period
(upto 24 hours) to ensure uniform distribution of moisture in the soil paste. The liquid limit
device is adjusted to have a free fall to cup exactly through 10 mm. The cup and the grooving
tools are cleaned well. The paste should have a fairly stiff consistency such that in the trial
run, 30-35 blows or drops of the cup are required to close the standard groove for a specified
length of 12 mm at the bottom. The soil paste is remixed and a portion of the paste is placed
in the cup of the apparatus above the lowest spot and squeezed down with the spatula to have
Page 9
a horizontal surface. The soil paste is trimmed by firm strokes of the spatula in such a way
that the maximum depth of soil sample in the cup is 10 mm. The soil sample in the cup is
divided along the diameter through the centre line of the cam followed by firm strokes of the
grooving tool so as to get a clean sharp groove. The curved grooving tool may be used for all
soils, whereas the V shaped grooving tool may be used only in clayey soils free from sand
particles or fibrous materials.
The crank is rotated at the rate of 2 revolutions per second (either by hand or
electrically depending upon whether it is hand operated or machine operated) so that the test
cup is lifted and dropped as specified. This is continued till the two halves of the soil cake
flows slowly under the blows and come into contact at the bottom of the groove for a length
of 12 mm and the number of blows given is recorded.
In the next trial, additional small quantity of water is added to the soil paste in the dish,
mixed well using a spatula and the required quantity of paste is placed in the test cup and the
operations are repeated to determine the number of blows required in this trial. As the water
content in the paste is increased, the number of blows required to close the groove decreases.
The process is repeated for 3 or more trials with slightly increased water contents each time,
noting the number of blows so that there are at least 4 to 6 uniformly distributed readings of
number of blows between 15 and 35.
Using Cone Penetration Method
3.3.4 General
Another method used for testing liquid limit of soil is cone penetration method. From
the cone penetration method, liquid limit of a soil is defined as the water content in the soil
sample when the depth of the penetration of the standard cone is 20 mm. The depths upto
which the standard metal cone penetrates into samples of soil paste prepared with different
water contents in 5 sec are measured.
3.3.5 Apparatus
Penetration cone of standard apex angle and weight, cylindrical cup, balance of
sensitive to 0.01g and drying oven maintained at 105˚C to 110˚C.
3.3.6 Procedure
About 150g of soil sample is mixed in a dish to form a paste and it is transferred into
cylindrical cup of the cone penetrometer apparatus and is levelled without entrapped air. The
Page 10
cone is adjusted to just touch the surface of the soil paste and is clamped and the initial
reading is noted. The clamp is released allowing the cone to penetrate into the soil paste
under its self-weight for 5 seconds and final penetration reading is noted. The cone
penetration value in mm, is the difference between the final and initial penetration readings
in a period of 5 seconds.The test is repeated for four to five times with different water
contents in the soil paste so that the penetration values are between 14 mm and 28 mm.
3.4 Plastic Limit Test [IS 2720 (part 5) – 1985]
3.4.1 General
In order to study the atterbergs limit it is important to conduct plastic limit test.
Plastic limit (PL) is the water content at which the soil rolled into thread of smallest diameter
possible starts crumbling and has a diameter of 3 mm
3.4.2 Apparatus
Evaporating dish of about 120 mm diameter, spatula, ground glass plate, moisture
containers, rod of 3 mm diameter, balance sensitivity to 0.01g, drying oven controlled at
temperature 105˚C to 110˚C.
3.4.3 Procedure
About 30 g of dry soil sample passing through 425 micron IS sieve is weighed out.
The soil is mixed thoroughly with distilled water in the evaporating dish till the soil paste is
plastic enough to be easily moulded with fingers. A small ball (of about 8 g weight) is
formed with the fingers and this is rolled between the fingers and the ground glass plate to a
thread throughout its length. The pressure just sufficient to roll into a thread of uniform
diameter should be used. The rate of rolling should be between 80 to 90 strokes per minute
counting a stroke as one complete motion of hand forward and back to the starting position
again. The rolling is done till the diameter of the thread is 3 mm. Then the soil is kneaded
together to a ball and rolled again to form thread. During this process of alternate rolling and
kneading there will be loss in water content in the soil sample and it gradually become stiffer.
The process of kneading and rolling into thread is continued until the thread starts crumbling
under the same pressure required for rolling, when the thread just reaches a diameter of 3 mm
and the soil sample can no longer be rolled into thread of smaller diameter.
If the crumbling start at diameter less than 3 mm, then water content is more than plastic
limit and if the diameter is greater while crumbling starts, the moisture content is lower. By
Page 11
trial, the thread which starts crumbling at 3 mm diameter under normal rolling pressure
should be obtained and the pieces of the crumbled thread of soil sample should be
immediately transferred to an air tight moisture container, lid tightly placed quickly and
weighed to find the wet weight of the thread. Any delay in transferring the sample of thread
to the container or closing with the lid tightly could result in considerable loss in the moisture
due to rapid evaporation. The container with the soil specimen is kept in the oven for about a
day and dry weight is found. The water content of the soil thread is determined which is
plastic limit of the soil. The above process is repeated three to four more times so as to get at
least three consistent values of plastic limit.
3.5 Shrinkage Limit Test [IS 2720 (part 20) : 1992]
3.4.1 General
Shrinkage limit (SL) in a remoulded soil sample is the maximum water content,
expressed as a percentage of oven dry weight, at which any further reduction in water
content will not cause decrease in volume or shrinkage of the soil sample.
3.4.2 Apparatus
Evaporating dish, shrinkage dish of diameter 45 mm and height 15 mm (both
internal), spatula, straight edge, glass cup 50-60mm in internal diameter and 25 mm height,
two glass plates of size 75 mm x 75 mm, one plane and the other having three metal prongs.
Other equipment needed are 25 ml graduated jar to read 0.2 ml, balance sensitive to 0.01 g,
mercury sufficient to fill the glass cup and a desiccator.
3.4.3 Procedure
The procedure for shrinkage limit test on remoulded soil samples is given here. About
30g of dry soil passing through 425 micron sieve is weighed out. The soil sample is placed in
the evaporating dish and thoroughly mixed with distilled water to make a paste that may be
readily worked into without entrapping air bubbles. The water content to form the paste may
be little more than liquid limit. The shrinkage dish is cleaned, dried and weighed. The inside
of the clean shrinkage dish is coated with a thin layer of Vaseline or heavy grease to prevent
adhesion of soil to the dish. The soil paste equal to roughly ⅓ the volume of shrinkage dish is
placed in the centre of the dish and the paste is allowed to flow to the edges by tapping the
dish on a firm surface cushioned with the few layers of blotting paper or similar material.
Then another equal quantity of paste is added and the dish tapped so that all the air bubbles
Page 12
entrapped come to the top and the paste gets compacted. The process is continued till the
paste fills the dish completely and starts over flowing. The excess paste is struck off level
with the top edge of the shrinkage dish by the straight edge and the outside of the dish is
wiped clean.
The dish with the soil sample is immediately weighed and the soil sample in the dish
is allowed to dry in air till the colour of the pat becomes lighter. The dish with the soil
sample is then kept in an oven at 105˚C to 110˚C to constant weight, cooled in a dessicator
and weighed to find the weight of the dish and dry pat of soil sample. The weight of the
clean, empty dish is determined so that the weight of dry pat of soil sample can be calculated.
The volume of shrinkage dish is found by pouring mercury until it over flows, removing the
excess by pressing the glass plate flush with surface of glass cup. The weight of mercury in
the shrinkage dish is found to an accuracy of 0.01 g. The volume of the shrinkage dish is
calculated by dividing the weight of mercury (13.59 g/ml). The volume of the shrinkage dish
may also be determined by pouring the mercury from the dish into the graduated jar, as an
additional check.
The volume of the dry pat of soil sample is determined by the method of
displacement of mercury. The glass cup is filled with mercury until it over flows and is
pressed flush with the top edge of glass cup using the glass plate having three prongs to
remove the excess mercury the cup full of mercury is placed in clean evaporating dish, the
dry pat of soil sample is floated in the mercury and it is carefully forced under by the glass
plate with prongs. The plate is firmly pressed flush with the surface of the cup. Care is taken
to ensure that no air is entrapped under the pat. The mercury displaced by the dry soil pat is
weighed to an accuracy of 0.1 g and by dividing this weight by the unit weight of mercury,
the volume of the over dry pat of soil sample, Vo is obtained.
3.6 Compaction Test [IS 2720 (part VII) – 1980]
3.6.1 General
The Standard Proctor Test is conducted to study the density of soil and its
corresponding optimum moisture content. Compaction of soil is a mechanical process by
which the soil particles are constrained to be packed more closely together by reducing the
air voids. Soil compaction causes decrease in air voids and consequently an increase in dry
density. This may result in increase in shearing strength.
Page 13
3.6.2 Apparatus
Mould of capacity 1000 cm3 with diameter of 100 mm and height 127.3 mm, metal
rammer of 50 mm diameter, 2.6 kg weight with a free drop of 310 mm, IS sieve 4.75 mm.
Other accessories like moisture containers, spatula, trowel, balances of capacity 10 kg and
200 g, drying oven, measuring cylinder.
3.6.3 Procedure
Take about 2.5 kg of air dried soil sample passing through 4.75 mm IS sieve. Add
required water to it and mix thoroughly and keep it for soaking in an air tight container for
about 16-20 hours. Find the mass of the empty and clean cylindrical mould along with the
base plate fixed to it. Attach the collar and apply grease to the inside of mould and collar.
Mix the matured soil thoroughly and fill the soil in 1000c.c mould.
For light compaction, compact the moist soil in three equal layers, each layer being given 25
blows from the rammer weighing 2.6 kg with a drop of 310 mm for 1000c.c mould by
distributing the blows evenly. Each layer of the compacted soil should be scratched with the
spatula before putting the soil for next layer. The amount of soil should be just sufficient to
fill the mould leaving about 5 mm to be struck off when the collar is removed.
Remove the collar, trim the excess soil using a straight edge, clean the mould from outside
and take the mass of the mould with base plate and compacted soil. Eject out the soil from
the mould and take a representative sample for water content determination. Repeat the
above procedure for 5 to 6 time with increasing water content.
3.7 Unconfined Compression Test [IS 2720 (Part 10) : 1991]
3.7.1 General
The shear strength of the soil is determined by conducting unconfined compression
test. Unconfined compression tests are carried out on cohesive soil specimen. The test may
be considered as a special case of the tri axial compression test when the lateral confining
pressure σ3 is equal to 0. Therefore, the cylindrical test specimen may be directly placed in a
compression testing machine and the compressive load applied.
3.7.2 Apparatus
Strain controlled compression testing machine with proving ring assembly to measure
load applied, dial gauge to measure deformation and moulds and tools to prepare test
specimen.
Page 14
3.7.3 Procedure
Take 150 g of dry soil sample passing through 425 micron IS sieve. Add optimum
water to it and mix thoroughly. The specimen of required size is obtained using sampling
tube. Measure the initial length and diameter of the specimen. Put the specimen on the
bottom plate and raise it to make contact with the upper plate. Adjust the compression dial
gauge and load dial gauge to zero. Compress the specimen to produce an axial strain rate of
0.5-0.2% per minute. Record both the dial gauge readings at suitable time intervals or at least
at every 1 mm deformation of the specimen. Compress the specimen till the cracks are
definitely developed or stress strain curve is well past its peak or 20% of vertical deformation
is reached whichever occurs earlier. Sketch the failure pattern and measure failure angle α
with horizontal, if possible, and if specimen is homogeneous and partially saturated.
3.8 California Bearing Ratio (CBR) Test[IS 2720 (Part 16) – 1987]
3.8.1 General
The CBR test denotes a measure of resistance to penetration of a soil or flexible
pavement material, of standard plunger under controlled test conditions.
3.8.2 Apparatus
CBR test equipment consists of a motorised loading machine fitted with the plunger
which penetrates at the specified rate into the test specimen placed in the CBR mould.
Hollow cylindrical mould of inner diameter 150 mm and height 175 mm , spacer disc,
compaction rammer of 4.89 kg with a drop of 450 mm, metal weights i.e., two discs
weighing 2.5 kg each. Other accessories like IS sieve 19 mm, tray, mixing bowl, straight
edge, filter paper, weight balance, measuring jar.
3.8.3 Procedure
Take 5 kg of dry soil sample passing through 19 mm IS sieve. Add optimum amount
of water to it and mix thoroughly. Apply grease to the inner surface of the CBR mould, place
the spacer disc at the bottom of the mould and keep a filter paper over it and fill the soil
sample into the mould in five layers with each layer being tamped for 55 blows using 4.89 kg
rammer with a free fall of 450 mm, to obtain the required density. Keep the surcharge weight
of 5 kg i.e., two discs weighing 2.5 kg each. Immerse this mould in clean water and allow it
for soaking for minimum four days. Remove the assembly and test it for CBR using
motorised loading machine.
Page 15
The mould with the specimen is clamped over the base plate and the same number of
surcharge weights are placed on the specimen centrally such that the penetration test could be
conducted. The mould with base plate is placed under the penetration plunger of the loading
machine. The penetration plunger is seated at the centre of the specimen and is brought in
contact with top surface of the soil sample by applying a seating load of 4 kg. The dial gauge
for measuring the penetration values of the plunger is fitted in position and the penetration
dial gauge is set to zero.
The dial gauge of the proving ring for load readings (or the load cell reading) is also set to
zero, not considering the seating load.
The load is applied through the penetration plunger of the motorised loading machine at a
uniform rate of 1.25 mm per minute. The load readings are recorded at penetration readings
of 0.0, 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, 2.5, 3, 4, 5, 7.5, 10 and 12.5 mm. In case the load readings start
decreasing before 12.5 mm penetration, the maximum load value and the corresponding
penetration value are recorded. After the final reading, the load is released and the mould is
removed from the loading machine. If the load values are given by the proving ring
assembly, calibration factor of the proving ring is noted so that the load dial values can be
converted into load in kg.
Page 16
CHAPTER 4
ANALYSIS OF DATA
4.1 General
Wet sieve analysis, Atterberg limits, Compaction tests, CBR and UCS tests were
conducted on Black cotton soil and sedu soil. The analysis has been discussed in the
following paragraphs.
4.2 Wet Sieve Analysis
Wet sieve analysis of Black cotton soil collected from Murkwad was carried out in
order to classify the soil. The following observations were made:
Sample taken [passing 4.75mm sieve before washing] = 200 g
Sample retained on 0.075mm sieve after washing and drying = 115 g
Sample passed through 0.075mm sieve after washing = 85 g, 42.5%
Sl. No. IS sieve Particle Mass of % Mass of Cumulative Cumulative

size size (D) soil retained % retained, % fine
mm retained (M1/M) *100 C N=100-C
(M1) g
1 2.000 2.000 0 0.00 0.00 100.00

2 1.000 1.000 06 05.22 5.22 94.78
3 0.600 0.600 37 32.17 37.39 62.61
4 0.425 0.425 09 07.83 45.22 54.78
5 0.300 0.300 15 13.04 58.26 41.74
6 0.212 0.212 17 14.78 73.04 26.96
7 0.150 0.150 00 0.00 73.04 26.96
8 0.075 0.075 29 25.22 98.26 01.74
9 Pan 0 0 0.00 98.26 01.74
Table 4.1: Sieve analysis of Black cotton soil
Page 17
Figure 4.1: Particle size distribution curve of Black cotton soil

4.3 Liquid Limit Test
4.3.1 Cone Penetration Test
Sample Taken [passing through = 425µ]= 150 g
Trial No. Water Content, % Water Amount, ml Penetration, mm
1 50 75 16
2 55 82.5 17
3 60 90 20
4 65 97.5 35
5 70 105 44
Table 4.2: Liquid limit test on Black cotton soil using cone penetration method
Figure 4.2: Liquid Limit curve (Cone Penetration)
Page 18
Liquid limit as obtained from graph = 60%(corresponding to 20mm penetration)
4.3.3 Casagrande Method

Sample Taken [passing through = 425µ] = 150 g
Trial No. Water Content, Water Amount, ml No. of Blows

%
1 50.00 75.0 108
2 54.33 81.5 25
3 55.00 82.5 20
4 60.00 90.0 4
Table 4.3: Liquid limit test on Black cotton soil using Casagrande’s method
Figure 4.3: Liquid Limit curve (Casagrande’s method)

Liquid limit as obtained from graph = 54.33%
(corresponding to 25 blows)
Page 19
4.4 Plastic Limit test
Trial Number 1
Container No. GT-19
Mass of empty container, M1 g 32.15
Mass of container + wet soil, M2 g 47.15
Mass of container +dry soil, M3 g 44.50
Mass of water = Mw= M2-M3 02.65
Mass of dry soil= Md= M3-M1 g 12.35
Plastic Limit,% Wp=(Mw/Md)*100 21.46
Table 4.4: Plastic limit test on Black cotton soil
4.5 Plasticity Index
Soil Sample - 1
Ip = WL – WP = 60 – 21.46 = 38.36%
4.6 Highway Research Board (HRB) classification of soil
Passing 0.074 mm Sieve = 42.5%
Liquid limit = 60%
Plasticity index = 38.36%
Group index (G.I) = 0.2a + 0.005ac + 0.01bd
a = 42.5 - 35 = 7.5
b= 42.5 - 15= 27.5
c= 60 – 40 = 20
d= 38.36 – 30 = 8.36
G.I.= 0.2*7.5 + 0.005* 7.5*20 + 0.01*27.5* 8.36= 4.549  5
Page 20
Figure 4.4: HRB Classification

As per Highway research board classification soil is classified asA-7-6 (5).
4.7 Shrinkage Limit
Sl.No a) Volume of wet soil pat (V) c.c.

1 Shrinkage dish No. 1
2 Fibre added, % 0
2 Mass of empty porcelain weighting dish, M1gms 166
3 mass of mercury weighing dish + mercury filling the 460

shrinkage dish, M2gms
4 Mass of mercury filling the dish M3= (M2-M1) gms 294
Page 21
5 Volume of wet soil pat, V=(M3/13.6) cc 21.618

b) Mass of wet dry soil pat and its water-content
6 Mass of empty shrinkage dish, M4gms 37
7 Mass of shrinkage dish + wet soil, M5gmas 71
8 Mass of shrinkage dish + dry soil, M6gmas 57
9 Mass of water Mw= (M5-M6) gms 14
10 Mass of dry soil, Md= (M6-M4) gms 20
11 water content, w=(Mw/Md) 0.700

c) Volume of dry soil pat (Vd) cc
12 mass of mercury weighing dish + mercury 333

displacement by dry soil pat, M7gms
13 Mass of mercury displaced by dry soil pat, 167

M8= (M7-M1) gms
14 Volume of dry soil pat, Vd=(M8/13.6) cc 12.279
d) Calculation
15 Shrinkage Limit(%) Ws= (w-{V-Vd/Md})*100 23.309
Table 4.5: Shrinkage limit test on Black cotton soil
4.8 Standard Proctor Test
Volume of Mold = 1000 cc
Trials 1 2 3 4
Mass of Empty mould, m1 (g) 3686.00 3686.00 3686.00 3690.00
Mass of mould + Compacted soil,m2(g) 5358.00 5390.00 5421.00 5430.00
Mass of Compacted soil, M= m2-m1(g) 1672.00 1704.00 1735.00 1740.00
Bulk density, Ƴb=(M/V)g/cc 1.67 1.70 1.74 1.74
Container number 2 3 4 GT-24
Page 22
Water added 0.22 0.24 0.26 0.28

Mass of container, M1(g) 29.50 22.50 16.00 29.50
Mass of container+ Wet soil,M2(g) 102.00 113.50 78.00 96.50
Mass of container +Dry soil,M3(g) 92.00 99.00 67.00 84.00
Mass of Water, Mw=M2-M3(g) 10.00 14.50 11.00 12.50
Mass of Dry soil, Md=M3-M1(g) 62.50 76.50 51.00 54.50
Water content, w=(Mw/Md)*100 0.160 0.190 0.216 0.229
Dry Density, Ƴd= Ƴb/(1+w) g/cc 1.370 1.374 1.377 1.359
Table 4.6: Standard Proctor Test on Black cotton soil
Figure 4.5: Compaction Curve for Black cotton soil

OMC as obtained from graph = 21.4%
MDD as obtained from graph = 1.378 g/cc
4.9 Unconfined Compression Test
In UCS test following observations made:
OMC = 21.40% h = 7.8cm d = 3.8cm h1 = 7.1cm d1= 3.8cm
load per div.= 3.417N = 58
Dial gauge Strain Proving Proving Avg corrected load Axial
reading (ϵ) ring ring Proving area (N) Stress
reading reading ring (Mpa)
(Trial 1) (Trial 2) reading
0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.34 0.00 0.00
Page 23
50 0.06 2.6 0.4 1.5 11.34 5.13 0.45

100 0.13 4.2 1.4 2.8 11.34 9.57 0.84
150 0.19 4.4 3.4 3.9 11.34 13.33 1.18
200 0.26 4.0 4.4 4.2 11.34 14.35 1.27
250 0.32 4.0 4.3 4.15 11.34 14.18 1.25
Table 4.7: Unconfined Compression Test on Black cotton soil
Figure 4.6: UCS Curve for Black cotton soil
4.10 California Bearing Ratio (CBR) Test

The water added was equal to OMC = 21.40%
Penetration (mm) Trial 1 Division Load (kg)
0 0 0 0
0.5 0.8 4 6.4
1 1.8 9 14.4
1.5 2.4 12 19.2
2 2.8 14 22.4
2.5 3 15 24
3 3.2 16 25.6
4 3.6 18 28.8
5 4 20 32
Page 24
7.5 4.6 23 36.8

10 5 25 40
12.5 5.6 28 44.8
Table 4.8: California Bearing Ratio (CBR) Teston Black cotton soil
Figure 4.7: CBR Curve for Black cotton soil

Load as obtained from graph at 2.5 mm penetration = 25 kg
CBR of Specimen = (25/1370) *100=1.82%
Load as obtained from graph at 5 mm penetration = 34 kg
CBR of Specimen = (34/2055) *100=1.65%
4.10 Liquid Limit Test on soil added with fibers (Cone Penetration Test)
Trial No. Water Content, Water Amount, ml Penetration, mm

%
1 38 57 17
2 40 60 22
3 43 64.5 30
Table 4.9: Liquid limit test on Black cotton soil + 0.25% Bamboo fibers using cone
penetration method
Page 25
Figure 4.8: Liquid Limit curve of Black cotton soil + 0.25% Bamboo fibers (Cone
Penetration)
(corresponding to 20mm penetration)
1 38 57 17
2 39.5 59.25 19
3 41 61.5 30
penetration method
Penetration)
Page 26


1 35 52.5 9
2 38 57 15
3 41 61.5 19
4 44 66 22
penetration method
Penetration)
Liquid limit as obtained from graph = 42%

1 37 55.5 15
2 40 60 17
3 43 64.5 21
Table 4.12: Liquid limit test on Black cotton soil + 1% Bamboo fibers using cone
penetration method
Page 27
Figure 4.11: Liquid Limit curve of Black cotton soil + 1% Bamboo fibers (Cone
Penetration)
4.11 Plastic Limit Test on soil added with fibers
Determination Number 1 2 3 4 5
Fiber added, % 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1
Container No. GT-19 GT-21 GT-20 GT-14 GT-22
Mass of empty container, M1 g 32.15 29.5 34.5 30 31.5
Mass of container + wet soil, M2 g 47.15 43.5 44.5 46 48
Mass of container +dry soil, M3 g 44.5 40.5 42 41.8 43.5
Mass of water = Mw= M2-M3 2.65 3 2.5 4.2 4.5
Mass of dry soil= Md= M3-M1 g 12.35 11 7.5 11.8 12
Plastic Limit,% Wp=(Mw/Md)*100 21.46 27.27 33.33 35.59 37.50
Liquid Limit WL 60.0 39.2 39.7 42.0 42.3
Plastic Limit,% Wp 21.46 27.27 33.33 35.59 37.50
Plasticity Index 38.54 11.93 6.37 6.41 4.8
Table 4.13: Plastic limit test on Black cotton soil + 0.25%, +0.5%,+0.75% and +1%
Bamboo fibers
4.12 Shrinkage Limit test on soil added fibers

Sl.No. a) Volume of wet soil pat (V) c.c.
1 Shrinkage dish No. 1 2 3 4 5
Page 28
2 Fibre added, % 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1

Mass of empty porcelain weighting dish,
2 166 100.5 100.5 100.5 100.5
M1 g
Mass of mercury weighing dish + mercury

3 460 390.5 388 398.5 393
filling the shrinkage dish, M2 g
Mass of mercury filling the dish M3= (M2-

4 294 290 287.5 298 292.5
M1 ) g
5 Volume of wet soil pat, V=(M3/13.6) cc 21.618 21.324 21.140 21.912 21.507
b) Mass of wet dry soil pat and its
water-content
6 Mass of empty shrinkage dish, M4 g 37 39.5 48 42 55.5
7 Mass of shrinkage dish + wet soil, M5 g 71 79.5 81.5 77 90
8 Mass of shrinkage dish + dry soil, M6 g 57 64.5 72.5 66.5 81.5
9 Mass of water Mw= (M5-M6) g 14 15 9 10.5 8.5
10 Mass of dry soil, Md= (M6-M4) g 20 25 24.5 24.5 26
11 water content, w=(Mw/Md) 0.700 0.600 0.367 0.429 0.327

c) Volume of dry soil pat (Vd) cc
Mass of mercury weighing dish + mercury

12 333 242.5 318.5 282.5 298
displacement by dry soil pat, M7 g
Mass of mercury displaced by dry soil pat,

13 167 142 218 182 197.5
M8= (M7-M1) g
14 Volume of dry soil pat, Vd=(M8/13.6) cc 12.279 10.441 16.029 13.382 14.522
d) Calculation
Shrinkage Limit(%) Ws= (w-{V-
15 23.309 16.471 15.876 8.043 5.826
Vd/Md})*100
Table 4.14: Shrinkage limit test on Black cotton soil + 0.25%, +0.5%,+0.75% and +1%
Bamboo fibers
4.13Standard Proctor Test on Black cotton soil with fibers
Page 29

Trials 1 2 3 4
Mass of Empty mould, m1 (g) 3686 3686 3686 3686
Mass of mould+ Compacted soil m2(g) 5276 5326 5369 5403
Mass of Compacted soil, M = m2-m1(g) 1590 1640 1683 1717
Container number GT-1 GT-16 GT-10 GT-3
Water added 0.18 0.2 0.22 0.24
Mass of container, M1(g) 28 29 33 30
Mass of container+ Wet soil M2(g) 131 119.5 125.5 118.5
Mass of Wet soil 103 90.5 92.5 88.5
Mass of container +Dry soil M3(g) 118 106 110 102
Mass of Water, Mw= M2- M3(g) 13 13.5 15.5 16.5
Mass of Dry soil,Md = M3- M1(g) 90 77 77 72
Water content,w=(Mw/Md)*100 0.144 0.175 0.201 0.229
Dry Density,Ƴd= Ƴb/(1+w) g/cc 1.389 1.395 1.401 1.397
Table 4.15: Standard Proctor Test on Black cotton soil+ 0.25% Bamboo Fibers
Figure 4.12: Compaction Curve for Black cotton soil + 0.25% fibers
Trials 1 2 3 4
Page 30
Mass of mould+Compacted soil, m2(g) 6000 6131 6150 6189

Mass of Compacted soil,M= m2-m1(g) 1554 1685 1704 1743
Container number 1 2 3 4
Water added 0.18 0.2 0.22 0.24
Mass of container, M1(g) 22.5 29.5 22.5 16
Mass of container+ Wet soil,M2 (g) 178 178.5 172 110
Mass of Wet soil 155.5 149 149.5 94
Mass of container+Dry soil, M3(g) 156 155 147 92
Mass of Water,Mw= M2-M3(g) 22 23.5 25 18
Mass of Dry soil,Md= M3-M1(g) 133.5 125.5 124.5 76
MDDas obtained from graph = 1.422 g/cc
Trials 1 2 3 4
Page 31
Mass of mould + Compacted soil, m2(g) 6170 6282 6221 6214

Mass of Compacted soil, M= m2-m1(g) 1724 1836 1775 1768
Water added 0.18 0.2 0.22 0.24
Mass of container, M(g) 22.5 29.5 22.5 16
Mass of container+ Wet soil M2(g) 182.5 181.5 182 111.5
Mass of Wet soil 160 152 159.5 95.5
Mass of container+Dry soil M3(g) 161 159 155 94
Mass of Water, Mw=M2-M3(g) 21.5 22.5 27 17.5
Mass of Dry soil, Md=M3-M1(g) 138.5 129.5 132.5 78
Water content, w=(Mw/Md) 0.155 0.174 0.204 0.224
Trials 1 2 3 4
Mass of mould+Compacted soil, m2(g) 5892 6003 6004 6087
Page 32
Mass of Compacted soil, M = m2-m1(g) 1498 1609 1610 1693

Water added 0.18 0.2 0.22 0.24
Mass of container, M1(g) 22.5 29.5 22.5 16
Mass of container + Wet soil, M2(g) 157 168 187 128
Mass of Wet soil 134.5 138.5 164.5 112
Mass of container + Dry soil, M3(g) 140.5 148 159 104
Mass of Water, Mw = M2-M3(g) 16.5 20 28 24
Mass of Dry soil, Md = M3-M1(g) 118 118.5 136.5 91.5
Water content, w = (Mw/Md) 0.140 0.169 0.205 0.262
4.14 Unconfined Compression Test on Black cotton soil with fibers
Black cotton soil added with fibers 0.25% by weight the following observations were
made:
Weight of sample = 250g
Page 33
OMC = 20.1% h = 7.8cm d = 3.8cm h1= 7.1cm d1= 3.9cm f = 55°

load per div.= 3.417N
Proving Proving Axial

Dial gauge Avg. Proving corrected
Strain(ϵ) ring ring load (N) Stress
reading ring reading area
reading reading (Mpa)
0 0.000 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.341 0.000 0.000
50 0.064 1.2 1.2 1.2 11.341 4.100 0.362
100 0.128 2.0 2.0 2.0 11.341 6.834 0.603
150 0.192 2.4 2.6 2.5 11.341 8.543 0.753
200 0.256 3.0 3.0 3.0 11.341 10.251 0.904
250 0.321 3.2 3.6 3.4 11.341 11.618 1.024
300 0.385 4.0 3.8 3.9 11.341 13.326 1.175
350 0.449 4.4 4.0 4.2 11.341 14.351 1.265
400 0.513 4.8 4.4 4.6 11.341 15.718 1.386
450 0.577 5.2 4.6 4.9 11.341 16.743 1.476
500 0.641 5.4 4.6 5.0 11.341 17.085 1.506
550 0.705 5.8 4.8 5.3 11.341 18.110 1.597
600 0.769 6.2 5.0 5.6 11.341 19.135 1.687
650 0.833 6.0 5.0 5.5 11.341 18.794 1.657
Table 4.19: Unconfined Compression Test on Black cotton soil+0.25% fiber
Figure 4.16: UCS Curve for Black cotton soil + 0.25% fibers
Page 34
made: weight of sample = 250 g
OMC = 19% h = 7.8cm d = 3.8cm h1 = 7.2cm d1 = 3.9cm f = 50°
load per div. = 3.417 N
Dial Proving Proving Avg. Axial

corrected
gauge Strain(ϵ) ring ring Proving ring load (N) Stress
area
reading reading reading reading (Mpa)
0 0.000 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.341 0.000 0.000
50 0.064 1.2 1.0 1.1 11.341 3.759 0.331
100 0.128 2.4 2.0 2.2 11.341 7.517 0.663
150 0.192 3.2 2.4 2.8 11.341 9.568 0.844
200 0.256 3.8 3.2 3.5 11.341 11.960 1.055
250 0.321 4.4 3.8 4.1 11.341 14.010 1.235
300 0.385 4.8 4.0 4.4 11.341 15.035 1.326
350 0.449 5.0 4.4 4.7 11.341 16.060 1.416
400 0.513 5.4 4.8 5.1 11.341 17.427 1.537
450 0.577 5.6 5.2 5.4 11.341 18.452 1.627
500 0.641 5.8 5.6 5.7 11.341 19.477 1.717
550 0.705 6.0. 5.8 5.9 11.341 20.160 1.778
600 0.769 6.2 6.0 6.1 11.341 20.844 1.838
650 0.833 6.2 6.0 6.1 11.341 20.844 1.838
Page 35
made: weight of sample = 250 g
OMC = 17.2% h = 7.9cm d = 3.8cm h1 = 7.5cm d1 = 3.9cm f = 58°
load per div.=3.417N
Dial Proving Proving Axial
Avg. Proving load
gauge Strain(ϵ) ring ring corrected area Stress
ring reading (N)
reading reading reading (Mpa)
0 0.000 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.34114948 0.000 0.000
50 0.063 1.6 1.5 1.55 11.34114948 5.296 0.467
100 0.127 3.0 2.2 2.60 11.34114948 8.884 0.783
150 0.190 3.6 2.6 3.10 11.34114948 10.593 0.934
200 0.253 4.0 3.0 3.50 11.34114948 11.960 1.055
250 0.316 4.6 3.4 4.00 11.34114948 13.668 1.205
300 0.380 5.0 4.2 4.60 11.34114948 15.718 1.386
350 0.443 5.4 4.6 5.00 11.34114948 17.085 1.506
400 0.506 5.8 4.8 5.30 11.34114948 18.110 1.597
450 0.570 6.0 5.2 5.60 11.34114948 19.135 1.687
500 0.633 6.0 5.6 5.80 11.34114948 19.819 1.747
550 0.696 6.2 6.0 6.1 11.34114948 20.844 1.838
600 0.759 6.2 6.2 6.2 11.34114948 21.185 1.868
650 0.823 6.2 6.2 6.2 11.34114948 21.185 1.868
Page 36
made:
weight of sample = 250 g
OMC = 16.9% h = 7.9cm d = 3.8cm h1 = 7.3cm d1 = 3.9cm f=58°
load per div.=3.417N
Dial Proving Proving Avg. Axial
corrected
gauge Strain(ϵ) ring ring Proving ring load (N) Stress
area
reading reading reading reading (Mpa)
0 0.000 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.341 0.000 0.000
50 0.063 1.4 2.0 1.7 11.341 5.809 0.512
100 0.127 2.0 3.0 2.5 11.341 8.543 0.753
150 0.190 2.8 3.8 3.3 11.341 11.276 0.994
200 0.253 3.4 4.6 4.0 11.341 13.668 1.205
250 0.316 3.8 5.0 4.4 11.341 15.035 1.326
300 0.380 4.2 5.4 4.8 11.341 16.402 1.446
350 0.443 4.6 6.0 5.3 11.341 18.110 1.597
400 0.506 5.0 6.2 5.6 11.341 19.135 1.687
450 0.570 5.4 6.4 5.9 11.341 20.160 1.778
500 0.633 5.6 6.8 6.2 11.341 21.185 1.868
550 0.696 5.8 7.0 6.4 11.341 21.869 1.928
600 0.759 6.0 7.2 6.6 11.341 22.552 1.989
650 0.823 6.0 7.2 6.6 11.341 22.552 1.989
Figure 4.19: UCS Curve for Black cotton soil + 1.00% fibers
Page 37
4.15 California Bearing Ratio (CBR) on Black cotton soil with fibers
made:
OMC = 20.1%
Penetraton (mm) Trial 5 Division Load (kg)

0 0 0 0
0.5 2 10 16
1 3.6 18 28.8
1.5 4.6 23 36.8
2 5.4 27 43.2
2.5 6 30 48
3 6.4 32 51.2
4 7.2 36 57.6
5 7.8 39 62.4
7.5 8.8 44 70.4
10 9.4 47 75.2
12.5 10 50 80
Table 4.23: CBR Test on Black cotton soil+0.25% fiber
Figure 4.20: CBR Curve for Black cotton soil + 0.25% fibers
CBR of Specimen = (48/1370) *100=3.49%
Page 38
Load as obtained from graph at 5 mm penetration = 62.4 kg

CBR of Specimen = (62.4/2055) *100=3.02%
made:
OMC = 19.00%

0 0 0 0
0.5 2 10 16
1 3.8 19 30.4
1.5 5 25 40
2 6 30 48
2.5 6.8 34 54.4
3 7.6 38 60.8
4 8.8 44 70.4
5 9.8 49 78.4
7.5 11.4 57 91.2
10 12.4 62 99.2
12.5 13.4 67 107.2
Load as obtained from graph at 2.5 mm penetration = 54.4 kg
CBR of Specimen = (54.4/1370) *100=3.96%
Page 39

CBR of Specimen = (78.4/2055) *100=3.80%
made:
OMC = 17.20%
0 0 0 0
0.5 4.2 21 33.6
1 6.2 31 49.6
1.5 7.6 38 60.8
2 8.6 43 68.8
2.5 9.8 49 78.4
3 10.6 53 84.8
4 12 60 96
5 13.2 66 105.6
7.5 15.4 77 123.2
10 17.2 86 137.6
12.5 18.8 94 150.4
CBR of Specimen = (78.4/1370) *100=5.41%
Page 40
CBR of Specimen = (105.6/2055) *100=5.12%

made:
OMC = 16.9%
0 0 0 0
0.5 2 10 16
1 3.4 17 27.2
1.5 4.6 23 36.8
2 5.8 29 46.4
2.5 6.8 34 54.4
3 7.6 38 60.8
4 9 45 72
5 10 50 80
7.5 12.2 61 97.6
10 14 70 112
12.5 15.6 78 124.8

CBR of Specimen = (54.4/1370) *100=3.96%
CBR of Specimen = (80/2055) *100=3.88%
Page 41
4.16 Wet Sieve Analysis

Wet sieve analysis of Sedu soil collected from Khanapur was carried out in order to classify
the soil. The following observations were made:
Sample retained on 0.075mm sieve after washing and drying = 142.5 g
Sample passed through 0.075mm sieve after washing = 57.5 g, 28.75%
Mass of
Partical % Mass of
IS sieve soil Cumulative % Cumulative %
Sl. No. size (D) reained
size retained retained,C fine N=100-C
mm (M1/M)*100
(M1) gms
1 2 2 4.50 3.16 3.16 96.84

2 1 1 23.00 16.14 19.30 80.70
3 0.6 0.6 27.00 18.95 38.25 61.75
4 0.425 0.425 23.50 16.49 54.74 45.26
5 0.3 0.3 17.00 11.93 66.67 33.33
6 0.212 0.212 24.00 16.84 83.51 16.49
7 0.15 0.15 9.00 6.32 89.82 10.18
8 0.075 0.075 14.50 10.18 100.00 0.00
9 Pan 0 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00
Table 4.27: Sieve analysis of sedu soil
Figure 4.24: Particle size distribution curve of sedu soil
Page 42
4.17 Liquid Limit Test

4.17.1 Cone Penetration Test
Trial No. Water Conent,% Water Amount,ml Penetration, mm

1 30 45 14
2 32 48 16
3 34 51 17
4 36 54 19
5 40 60 48
Table 4.28: Liquid limit test on Sedu soil using cone penetration method
Figure 4.25: Liquid Limit curve (Cone Penetration)
Liquid limit as obtained from graph = 36.5%(corresponding to 20mm penetration)

Trials 1 2 3 4
Page 43
Bulk density, Ƴb=(M/V) g/cc 2.01 2.055 2.09 2.1

Water added 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.2
Mass of container, M1(g) 21 22 18.5 20
Mass of container+ Wet soil, M2(g) 120 120 120 120
Mass of container +Dry soil, M3(g) 109 107.5 106 105
Mass of Water, Mw=M2-M3(g) 11 12.5 14 15
Mass of Dry soil, Md=M3-M1(g) 88 85.5 87.5 85
Table 4.29: Standard Proctor Test on sedu soil
Figure 4.26: Compaction Curve for Sedu soil

w c =16% h= 7.8cm d= 3.8cm h1= 6.9cm d1=4.1cm
load per div.= 3.417 kN f=65°
Page 44
Dial gauge Strain(ϵ) Proving ring corrected area load (N) Axial Stress
0 0.000 0 11.341 0.000 0.000

50 0.064 1 11.341 3.417 0.301
100 0.128 2 11.341 6.834 0.603
150 0.192 2.6 11.341 8.884 0.783
200 0.256 3 11.341 10.251 0.904
250 0.321 3.2 11.341 10.934 0.964
300 0.385 3.4 11.341 11.618 1.024
350 0.449 3.4 11.341 11.618 1.024
400 0.513 3.2 11.341 10.934 0.964
Table 4.30: Unconfined Compression Test on sedu soil
Figure 4.27: UCS Curve for sedu soil

4.20 Caifornia Bearing Ratio (CBR) Test
OMC = 16%
Page 45
0 0 0 0
0.5 1 5 8
1 1.8 9 14.4
1.5 2.4 12 19.2
2 3 15 24
2.5 4 20 32
3 4.6 23 36.8
4 6.4 32 51.2
5 8.2 41 65.6
7.5 12.4 62 99.2
10 16.2 81 129.6
12.5 20 100 160
Table 4.31: California Bearing Ratio (CBR) Test on Sedu soil
Figure 4.28: CBR Curve for Sedu soil

CBR of Specimen = (53/1370) *100=3.87%
CBR of Specimen = (88/2055) *100=4.28%
Page 46
4.21 Standard Proctor Test on Sedu soil with fibers

Sedu soil added with fibers 0.25% by weight the following observations were made:
Trials 1 2 3 4
Water added 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18
Mass of container, M1(g) 30.5 30 33 16
Mass of container +Dry soil, M3(g) 104.5 88 86 104
Mass of Dry soil, Md=M3-M1(g) 94.5 77.5 75 89
Table 4.32: Standard Proctor Test on Sedu soil+ 0.25% Bamboo Fibers
Page 47
Figure 4.29: Compaction Curve for Sedu soil + 0.25% fibers

MDD as obtained from graph = 1.788g/cc
Trials 1 2 3 4
Water added 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18
Mass of container +Dry soil, M3(g) 125 107.5 108 105
Mass of Dry soil, Md=M3-M1(g) 94.5 77.5 75 89
Page 48


Trials 1 2 3 4
Bulk density, Ƴb=(M/V) g/cc 1.99 2 2.03 1.794
Water added 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18
Mass of container +Dry soil, M3(g) 119 108 105 105
Mass of Water, Mw=M2-M3(g) 10 9 9 12
Page 49
Mass of Dry soil, Md=M3-M1(g) 88.5 78 72 89


Trials 1 2 3 4
Mass of Empty mould,m1 (gms) 4420 3170 4420 4420
Mass of mould+Compacted soil,m2(gms) 6270 5500 6380 6395
Mass of Compacted soil,M= m2-m1(gms) 1850 2330 1960 1975
Water added 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16
Mass of container, M1(gms) 33 30 30 32
Mass of container+ Wet soil,M2(gms) 94 150.5 98.5 97
Page 50
Mass of Wet soil 61 120.5 68.5 65

Mass of container+Dry soil,M3(gms) 89 139 91 89
Mass of Water,Mw=M2-M3(gms) 5 11.5 7.5 8
Mass of Dry soil,Md=M3-M1(gms) 56 109 61 57

4.22 Unconfined Compression Test on Sedu soil with fibers

weight of sample =250gms
w c=13.7% h=7.9cm d=3.9cm h1=7.2cm d1=4cm
load per div.=3.417kN f=70°
Page 51
Dial Strain(ϵ) Proving corrected area load (N) Axial Stress (Mpa)
gauge ring
reading reading
0 0.000 0 11.946 0.000 0.000

50 0.063 0.2 11.946 0.683 0.057
100 0.127 1.4 11.946 4.784 0.400
150 0.190 2.2 11.946 7.517 0.629
200 0.253 2.2 11.946 7.517 0.629
250 0.316 2 11.946 6.834 0.572
Table 4.36: Unconfined Compression Test on Sedu soil+0.25% fiber
Figure 4.33: UCS Curve for Sedu soil + 0.25% fibers
weight of sample =250gms
w c= 13.5% h= 7.9cm d= 3.9cm h1=7.2cm
d1= 4cm load per div.=3.417 kN f=65°
Page 52
0 0.000 0 11.946 0.000 0.000

50 0.063 0.2 11.946 0.683 0.057
100 0.127 0.6 11.946 2.050 0.172
150 0.190 1 11.946 3.417 0.286
200 0.253 1.4 11.946 4.784 0.400
250 0.316 1.8 11.946 6.151 0.515
300 0.380 2.2 11.946 7.517 0.629
350 0.443 2 11.946 6.834 0.572

weight of sample = 250gms
Page 53
w c=12.2% h=7.8cm d=3.8cm h1=7.6 cm

d1=3.5 cm load per div.=3.417kN f= 65°
0 0.000 0 11.341 0.000 0.000

50 0.064 0.2 11.341 0.683 0.060
100 0.128 0.6 11.341 2.050 0.181
150 0.192 1 11.341 3.417 0.301
200 0.256 1.4 11.341 4.784 0.422
250 0.321 2 11.341 6.834 0.603
300 0.385 2.2 11.341 7.517 0.663
350 0.449 2.2 11.341 7.517 0.663
Page 54
weight of sample = 250gms
w c=10.6% h=7.8cm d=3.8cm h1=7.7cm
d1=3.9 cm load per div.=3.417kN f= 65°
0 0.000 0 11.341 0.000 0.000

50 0.064 0.6 11.341 2.050 0.181
100 0.128 2 11.341 6.834 0.603
150 0.192 3.2 11.341 10.934 0.964
200 0.256 3.2 11.341 10.934 0.964
250 0.321 3 11.341 10.251 0.904
Page 55
4.23 Caifornia Bearing Ratio (CBR) Test on Sedu soil with fibers
OMC = 13.7%
0 0 0 0
0.5 2.2 11 17.6
1 4.6 23 36.8
1.5 7 35 56
2 9.4 47 75.2
2.5 14.2 71 113.6
3 18.6 93 148.8
4 30.2 151 241.6
5 42.4 212 339.2
7.5 70.6 353 564.8
10 85.2 426 681.6
12.5 102.6 513 820.8
Table 4.40: CBR Test on Sedu soil+0.25% fiber
Figure 4.37: CBR Curve for Sedu soil + 0.25% fibers
Page 56

CBR of Specimen = (315/1370) *100=22.99%
CBR of Specimen = (570/2055) *100=27.74%
OMC = 14.7%

0 0 0 0
0.5 2.8 14 22.4
1 4.8 24 38.4
1.5 8.2 41 65.6
2 11.8 59 94.4
2.5 16.6 83 132.8
3 22.2 111 177.6
4 34.1 170.5 272.8
5 46.8 234 374.4
7.5 79.6 398 636.8
10 90.2 451 721.6
12.5 110.4 552 883.2
Page 57

CBR of Specimen = (330/1370) *100=24.09%
CBR of Specimen = (600/2055) *100=29.20%
OMC = 12.5%
0 0 0 0
0.5 8.8 44 70.4
1 18.8 94 150.4
1.5 27.4 137 219.2
2 34.6 173 276.8
2.5 40.2 201 321.6
3 45.8 229 366.4
4 56.2 281 449.6
5 66 330 528
7.5 86.2 431 689.6
Page 58
10 105.8 529 846.4

12.5 126.8 634 1014.4

CBR of Specimen = (380/1370) *100=27.74%
CBR of Specimen = (570/2055) *100=27.74%
OMC = 10.6%
0 0 0 0
0.5 7.6 38 60.8
1 18.4 92 147.2
1.5 31.6 158 252.8
2 42.2 211 337.6
Page 59
2.5 53.6 268 428.8

3 62.8 314 502.4
4 82.6 413 660.8
5 99.6 498 796.8
7.5 135.8 679 1086.4
10 169.8 849 1358.4
12.5 202.4 1012 1619.2

CBR of Specimen = (32/1370) *100=43.07%
CBR of Specimen = (920/2055) *100=44.77%
Page 60
CHAPTER 5
DESIGN OF FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT
The flexible pavement is designed according to SP:20 – 2002.
5.1.To design pavement constructed on soil which is not stabilized
• The commercial vehicles per day = 0 to 15 vehicles/day
• The CBR value of soil as tested = 1.82%
• From the above graph, considering curve A the thickness of pavement = 450mm.
o Thickness of Sub Base material = 250mm.
o Thickness of Base Coarse material = 160mm.
o Thickness of Surface Coarse material = 40mm.
5.2.To design pavement to be constructed on stabilized soil

• The commercial vehicles per day = 0 to 15 vehicles/day
• The CBR value of soil as tested = 5.41%
• From the above graph, considering curve A the thickness of pavement = 250mm.
o Thickness of Sub Base material = 100mm.
o Thickness of Base Coarse material = 120mm.
o Thickness of Surface Coarse material = 30mm.
Page 61
CHAPTER 6
COST ESTIMATE
6.1 General
Unit rates of different work items have been derived on the basis of available Schedule of Rates (SOR) of Dharwad of the year
2014-2015 and area weight age of 5% is provided for Havagi near Haliyal. All broad work items have been identified.
Cost Estimate of project has been arrived on the following basis
• Selection of Items of work
• Estimation of item wise quantities
• Analysis of Rates
6.2 Estimation of Quantities
All the relevant road and structure work items are identified as per survey, design and drawings. Following major item of
works considered are given below:
• Site clearance, dismantling and earthwork.
• Bituminous pavement works (GSB, WMM, Bituminous layers).
• Bituminous pavement works also include application of Prime and Tack coats.
Quantity of work is derived from the proposed cross section drawings drawn according to the design details.
The detailed calculation of Bill of Quantities is given in Table 7.1 and summarized quantities in Table 7.2.
6.3 Abstract of Cost
Unit rates are derived by using the “Schedule of Rates for Public Works Dept, Dharwad of the year 2014-2015”. The abstract
of Cost estimate is given in the Table 6.1
Page 62
Unit
Length, Width, Depth, Estimated Amount
Description Unit No Rate
m m m quantity (Rupees)
(Rupees)
Clearing and grubbing road land including
uprooting rank vegetation, grass, bushes,
shrubs, saplings and trees girth up to 300
mm, removal of stumps of trees cut earlier
1 sqm 1 1000 3.75 3750 5.45 20437.5
and disposal of unserviceable materials and
stacking of serviceable material labour
charges complete as per Specifications.
MORD
Excavation for roadwork in soil with
hydraulic excavator of 0.9 cum bucket
capacity including cutting and loading in
tippers, trimming bottom and side slopes, in
2 accordance with requirements of lines, cum 1 1000 3.75 0.5 1875 42.00 78750
grades and cross sections, and transporting
all usable material to the embankment
location within all lifts and lead as directed
by engineer. MORD
Unit
Item No Description Unit No Rate
(Rupees)
Loosening the ground upto a level of

500mm below the Subgrade level, watered,
3 graded and compacted in layers to meet cum 1 1000 3.75 0.5 1875 48.50 90937.5
requirement of table 300-2 complete as per
specifications. MORD
Page 63
Construction of granular sub-base(GSB) by

providing close graded Material, mixing in
a mechanical mix plant at OMC, carriage of
mixed Material to work site, spreading in
uniform layers with motor grader on
4 prepared surface and compacting with cum 1 1000 3.75 0.250 937.5 1288 1207500
vibratory power roller to achieve the desired
density, complete as per MORD
Unit
(Rupees)
Providing, laying, spreading and

compacting graded stone aggregate to wet
mix macadam (WMM) specification
including premixing the Material with water
at OMC in mechanical mix plant carriage of
5 cum 1 1000 3.75 0.160 600 1332 799200
mixed Material by tipper to site, laying in
uniform layers with paver in sub- base /
base course on well prepared surface and
compacting with vibratory roller to achieve
the desired density as per MORD
Providing and applying primer coat with
slow setting bitumen emulsion at the rate of
6 0.60 kg/sqm on WMM using mechanical sqm 1 1000 3.75 3750 32.6 122250
means complete as per specifications.
MORD
Page 64
Providing and applying tack coat using VG-

7 10 over granular base at the rate of sqm 1 1000 3.75 3750 28.1 105375
4kg/10m2area with spray set as per MORD.
Unit
(Rupees)
Providing and laying semi dense bituminous

concrete 40mm with hot mix plant using
crushed aggregates of specified garding,
premixed with bituminous binder and filler,
transporting the hot mix to work site, laying
8 cum 1 1000 3.75 0.040 150 10624 1593600
to the required grade, level and alignment
and compacting as per complete
specifications using 40/60 TPH capacity
H.M.P with mechanical paver Gr-2 with 6%
VG-30 bitumen. MORD
TOTAL 4018050
Page 65
SL. Rate, Amount,

DESCRIPTION OF WORK Unit Quantity
No. Rs Rs
1 Clearing and grubbing road land sqm 3750 5.45 20437.5

Excavation for road way in soil by
2 cum 1875 42.00 78750
mechanical means
Loosening the ground up to a level of
3 cum 1875 48.50 90937.5
500mm below the Subgrade level
4 Construction of granular sub-base cum 375 1288 1207500
5 compacting graded stones aggregate cum 412.5 1332 799200
to wet mix macadam
6 Providing and applying primer coat sqm 3750 32.6 122250
Providing and applying tack coat on

7 sqm 3750 28.1 105375
primed granular surface
Providing and laying semi dense
8 cum 150 10624 1593600
bituminous concrete
Total = 4018050
Table 6.2: Bill of Quantities
Page 66
Unit
Item Length, Width, Estimated Amount
Description Unit No Depth, m Rate
No m m quantity (Rupees)
(Rupees)
Clearing and grubbing road land
including uprooting rank
vegetation, grass, bushes, shrubs,
saplings and trees girth up to 300
mm, removal of stumps of trees cut
1 sqm 1 1000 3.75 3750 5.45 20437.5
earlier and disposal of
unserviceable materials and
stacking of serviceable material
labour charges complete as per
Specifications. MORD
Excavation for roadwork in soil
with hydraulic excavator of 0.9
cum bucket capacity including
cutting and loading in tippers,
trimming bottom and side slopes,
2 in accordance with requirements of cum 1 1000 3.75 0.5 1875 42.00 78750
lines, grades and cross sections,
and transporting all usable material
to the embankment location within
all lifts and lead as directed by
engineer. MORD specification.
Unit
(Rupees)
Page 67
Loosening the ground upto a level

of 500mm below the Subgrade
level, watered, graded and
3 compacted in layers to meet cum 1 1000 3.75 0.5 1875 48.50 90937.5
requirement of table 300-2
complete as per specifications.
MORD specification .
Construction of granular sub-
base(GSB) by providing close
graded Material, mixing in a
mechanical mix plant at OMC,
carriage of mixed Material to work
site, spreading in uniform layers
with motor grader on prepared
4 cum 1 1000 3.75 0.1 375 1288 483000
surface and compacting with
vibratory power roller to achieve
the desired density, complete as
per MORD
Unit
(Rupees)
Page 68

compacting graded stone aggregate
to wet mix macadam (WMM)
specification including premixing
the Material with water at OMC in
mechanical mix plant carriage of
5 mixed Material by tipper to site, cum 1 1000 3.75 0.120 450 1332 599400
laying in uniform layers with paver
in sub- base / base course on well
prepared surface and compacting
with vibratory roller to achieve the
desired density as per MORD
specification
Providing and applying primer coat
with slow setting bitumen
emulsion at the rate of 0.60 kg/sqm
6 sqm 1 1000 3.75 3750 32.6 122250
on WMM using mechanical means
complete as per specifications.
MORTH specification
Providing and applying tack coat
using VG-10 over granular base at
7 the rate of 4kg/10m2area with sqm 1 1000 3.75 3750 28.1 105375
spray set as per MORTH
specification .
Unit
(Rupees)
Page 69
Providing and laying semi dense

bituminous concrete 40mm with
hot mix plant using crushed
aggregates of specified garding,
premixed with bituminous binder
and filler, transporting the hot mix
8 to work site, laying to the required cum 1 1000 3.75 0.03 112.5 10624 1195200
grade, level and alignment and
compacting as per complete
specifications using 40/60 TPH
capacity H.M.P with mechanical
paver Gr-2 with 6% VG-30
bitumen. MORD specification
TOTAL 2695350
Cost per Km = Rs.2695350

Calculating the rate of fibers added to stabilize per km stretch of road
For 1m3 of volume filled by soil, fibers required = 10.33 kg
For (1000 x 3.75 x 0.5 = 1875m3), fibers required = 19368.75 kg
Rate of bamboo fibers per kg = 53 Rupees
Total rate of fibers required = 19368.75 x 53 = 1026544 Rupees
Page 70
Table 6.3 Abstract for provision of new bituminous road
SL. No. DESCRIPTION OF WORK Unit Quantity Rate, Rs Amount, Rs
1 Clearing and grubbing road land Sqm 3750 5.45 20437.5

Excavation for road way in soil by mechanical
2 Cum 1875 42.00 78750
means
Loosening the ground up to a level of 500mm
3 Cum 1875 48.50 90937.5
below the Subgrade level
4 Construction of granular sub-base Cum 375 1288 483000
Providing, laying, spreading and compacting

5 Cum 412.5 1332 599400
graded stones aggregate to wet mix macadam
6 Providing and applying primer coat Sqm 3750 32.6 122250
Providing and applying tack coat on primed

7 Sqm 3750 28.1 105375
granular surface
Providing and laying semi dense bituminous
8 Cum 150 10624 1195200
concrete
9 Bamboo fibers Kg 19368.75 53 1026544
Total = 3721894
Page 71
Page 72
CHAPTER- 7
RESULT AND DISCUSSION
7.1. General
7.2.Atterbergs Limit
7.2.1. Liquid limit
• The liquid limit of the soil alone was found to be 60%
• The liquid limit of the soil with addition of 0.25%, 0.5%, 0.75% and 1.0%, by weight of
soil is found to be 39.2%, 39.7%, 42.0% and 42.3% respectively.
• The liquid limit of the soil with addition of 0.25%, 0.5%, 0.75% and 1.0%, bamboo fibers
is found to be decreased by 34.66%, 33.83%, 30.0% and 29.5% respectively, when
compared to liquid limit of soil alone.
7.2.2. Plastic limit
• The plastic limit of the soil alone was found to be 21.46%
• The plastic limit of the soil with addition of 0.25%, 0.5%, 0.75% and 1.0%, bamboo
fibers by weight of soil is found to be 22.27%, 33.33%, 35.59% and 37.50%
respectively.
• The plastic limit of the soil with addition of 0.25%, 0.5%, 0.75% and 1.0%, bamboo
fibers is found to be decreased by 21.3%, 43.5%, 51.8% and 58.8% respectively, when
compared to plastic limit of soil alone.
7.2.3. Plasticity Index
• The plasticity index of the soil alone was found to be 38.54%.
• The plasticity index of the soil with addition of 0.25%, 0.5%, 0.75% and 1.0%, bamboo
fibers by weight of soil is found to be 11.93%, 6.37%, 6.41% and 4.8% respectively.
• The plasticity index of the soil with the addition of 0.25%, 0.5%, 0.75% and 1% of
bamboo fibers is found to be decreased by 69%, 84.47%, 83.36% and 87.54%.
7.2.4. Shrinkage limit
• The shrinkage limit of the soil alone was found to be 23.309%
• The shrinkage limit of the soil with addition of 0.25%, 0.5%, 0.75% and 1.0%, bamboo
fibers by weight of soil is found to be 16.471%, 15.876%, 8.043% and5.826%
respectively.
• The shrinkage limit of the soil with the addition of 0.25%, 0.5%, 0.75% and 1% of
bamboo fibers is found to be decreased by 29.31%, 31.88%, 65.49% and 75%.
Page 72

• The optimum moisture content (OMC) and maximum dry density (MDD) of soil alone
was found to be 21.4% and 1.378 g/cc respectively.
• The MDD of the soil with addition of 0.25%, 0.5%, 0.75% and 1.0%, bamboo fibers by
weight of soil is found to be 1.401 g/cc, 1.425 g/cc, 1.565 g/cc and 1.378 g/cc
respectively and the corresponding OMC is found to be 20.1%, 19%, 17% and 16%
respectively.
weight of soil is found to be increased by 1.6%, 3.4%, 13.5% and 0% respectively and
the corresponding OMC is decreased by 6%, 11.2%, 20.56% and 21.02% respectively.
• The shear strength of soil alone was found to be 1.27MPa.
• The shear strength of the soil with addition of 0.25%, 0.5%, 0.75% and 1.0%, bamboo
fibers by weight of soil is found to be 1.687,1.838, 1.868 and1.989% respectively.
• The shear strenght of the soil with the addition of 0.25%, 0.5%, 0.75% and 1% of
bamboo fibers is found to be decreased by 32.83%, 44.72%, 47.08and 56.61%.
• The CBR value of soil alone was found to be 1.82%
• The CBR valueof the soil with addition of 0.25%, 0.5%, 0.75% and 1.0%, bamboo fibers
by weight of soil is found to be 3.49%, 3.96%, 5.41% and 3.96% respectively.
• The CBR value of the soil with addition of 0.25%, 0.5%, 0.75% and 1.0%, bamboo fibers
by weight of soil is found to be increased by 91.75%, 117.5%, 197.25% and 117.5%
respectively.
7.6 Atterbergs Limit (sedu soil)
7.6.1 Liquid limit
• The liquid limit of the soil alone was found to be 36.5%

7.7 Standard proctor test
• The optimum moisture content (OMC) and maximum dry density (MDD) of soil alone
was found to be 16% and 1.802 g/cc respectively
Page 73
weight of soil is found to be 1.788 g/cc, 1.788g/cc, 1.804 g/cc and 2.108 g/cc respectively
and the corresponding OMC is found to be 13.5%, 13.5%, 12.5% and 10.6% respectively.
• The MDD of the soil with addition of 0.25%, 0.5% bamboo fibers by weight of soil is
found to be decreased by 0.83% and 0.75% , 1.0% bamboo fibers by weight of soil is
found to be increased by 0.11 % and 16.98% respectively and the corresponding OMC is
decreased by 15.62%, 21.87% and 33.75% respectively.
• The shear strength of soil alone was found to be 1.024 MPa.
• The shear strength of the soil with addition of 0.25%, 0.5%, 0.75% and 1.0%, bamboo
fibers by weight of soil is found to be 0.629, 0.629, 0.663 and 0.964% respectively.
• The shear strength of the soil with the addition of 0.25%, 0.5%, 0.75% and 1% of
bamboo fibers is found to be decreased by 38.57%, 38.57%, 35.25%and 5.85%.
• The CBR value of soil alone was found to be 4.28%
by weight of soil is found to be 27.74%, 29.20%, 27.74% and 44.77% respectively.
by weight of soil is found to be increased
7.10 The design thickness of flexible pavement before stabilization is obtained as 450mm.
7.11 The design thickness of flexible pavement after stabilization is obtained as 250mm.
7.12 The estimated cost for constructing flexible pavement before stabilization of soil is
obtained as 4018050 Rs /Km
7.13 The estimated cost for constructing flexible pavement after stabilization of soil is obtained
as 3721894Rs/Km
Page 74
CHAPTER 8
CONCLUSIONS
On the basis of present experimental study, the following conclusions are drawn
1. According to the Highway Research Board classification, the black cotton
soil sample has been categorized as A-7-6 (4.549)
2. There is substantial increase in MDD with increase in addition of fibersupto
0.75% by weight beyond which it decreased.
3. There is substantial decrease in OMC with increase in addition of fibers.
4. In unconfined compression test it was observed that the shear strength of the
soil has increased with the increase in percentage of bamboo fibers, when
compared to that of shear strength of soil tested without fiber.
5. The shear strength of the soil is maximum when 1%( by weight of soil) of
bamboo fibers is added to it. Hence in order to obtain higher shear resistance
1% of fibers (by weight of soil) can be considered as the optimum fiber
content.
6. The California bearing ratio (CBR) of the soil alone is obtained as 1.82%
and it increased to 5.41% after stabilizing it with optimum percentage of
bamboo fibers.
7. The percentage increase in CBR value after stabilizing it with optimum
percentage of fibers is 197.25%.
8. In the case of sedu soil there is substantial increase in MDD with increase in
addition of fibers.
9. In unconfined compression test it was observed that the shear strength of the
soil has decreased with the increase in percentage of bamboo fibers, when
compared to that of shear strength of soil tested without fiber.
10. The California bearing ratio (CBR) of the soil alone is obtained as 4.28%
and there substantial increase in CBR value with addition of fibres.
Page 75
SCOPE OF STUDY
1) The fibres can be used for stabilization of different soil having low CBR value.
2) The soil stabilization with bamboo fibers may be tested by preparing semi test track.
3) Fatigue studies may be carried out.
Page 76
REFERENCES
1. Sujit Kawade, Mahendra Mapari, Mr.Shreedhar Sharana” Stabilization of Black cotton

soil with lime and Geo-grid”
2. Ayush Mittal, Shalinee Shukla “GEOTEXTILE: AN OVERVIEW”
3. Vegulla Raghudeep, ”Improvement in CBR value of black cotton soil by stabilization it
with vitrified polish waste”
4. Harshita Bairagi “International journal of engineering sciences and research technology”
5. Vikas Rameshrao Kulkarni “Experimental study of stabilization of B.C. soil by using
Slag and Glass fibers”
6. Olugbenga O. Amu1, Akinwole A. Adetuberu” Characteristics of Bamboo Leaf Ash
Stabilization on Lateritic Soil in Highway Construction”
7. John Paul V. Antony Rachel Sneha M. ” Effect of random inclusion of bamboo fibers on
strength behaviour of flyash treated black cotton soil”
8. I.S: 2720 (Part I)-1983 : “Indian standard for preparation of dry soil samples for various
tests”, Bureau of Indian Standards Publications, New Delhi.
9. I.S: 2720 (Part IV)-1985 : “Indian standard for grain size analysis”, Bureau of Indian
Standards Publications, New Delhi.
10. I.S: 2720 (Part V)-1985 : Indian standard for determination of liquid limit and plastic
limit”, Bureau of Indian Standards Publications, New Delhi.
11. I.S: 2720 (Part IV)-1985 : “Indian standard for grain size analysis”, Bureau of Indian
Standards Publications, New Delhi.
12. I.S: 2720 (Part V)-1985 : Indian standard for determination of liquid limit and plastic
limit”, Bureau of Indian Standards Publications, New Delhi.
13. I.S: 2720 (Part VII)-1980 : “Indian standard for determination of water content- Dry
density relationship using light compaction”, Bureau of Indian Standards Publications,
New Delhi.
14. I.S: 2720 (Part X)-1991 : “Indian standard for determination of unconfined compressive
strength”, Bureau of Indian Standards Publications, New Delhi
15. I.S: 2720 (Part XX)-1992 : “Indian standard for determination of Linear Shrinkage”,
Bureau of Indian Standards Publications, New Delhi
16. I.S: 2720 (Part XVI)-1965 : “Indian standard for laboratory determination of CBR”, Bureau
of Indian Standards Publications, New Delhi.
17. IRC SP: 20-2002 : “Rural Roads Manual”
18. SR 2014-15, PW, P and IWT circle Dharwad
Page 77

40S Be 0258

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

40S Be 0258

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

VISVESVARAYA TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY

Under the Guidance of

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW

CHAPTER 3 EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS

CHAPTER 4 ANALYSIS OF DATA

CHAPTER 5 DESIGN OF FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT

CHAPTER 6 COST ESTIMATE

CHAPTER 7 RESULT AND DISCUSSION 72

Table No DESCRIPTION Page No

4.1 Particle size distribution curve of Black cotton soil 18

Advantages of soil stabilizations are as follows

Amount of cement required, in tonnes =

Electrical stabilization of clayey soils is done by method known as electro-osmosis. This

2.3 Geotextiles: An Overview [3]

Sl. No. IS sieve Particle Mass of % Mass of Cumulative Cumulative

1 2.000 2.000 0 0.00 0.00 100.00

Figure 4.1: Particle size distribution curve of Black cotton soil

Figure 4.2: Liquid Limit curve (Cone Penetration)

Liquid limit as obtained from graph = 60%(corresponding to 20mm penetration)

4.3.3 Casagrande Method

Trial No. Water Content, Water Amount, ml No. of Blows

Figure 4.3: Liquid Limit curve (Casagrande’s method)

4.4 Plastic Limit test

Figure 4.4: HRB Classification

4.7 Shrinkage Limit

Sl.No a) Volume of wet soil pat (V) c.c.

2 Mass of empty porcelain weighting dish, M1gms 166

3 mass of mercury weighing dish + mercury filling the 460

5 Volume of wet soil pat, V=(M3/13.6) cc 21.618

6 Mass of empty shrinkage dish, M4gms 37

7 Mass of shrinkage dish + wet soil, M5gmas 71

8 Mass of shrinkage dish + dry soil, M6gmas 57

9 Mass of water Mw= (M5-M6) gms 14

10 Mass of dry soil, Md= (M6-M4) gms 20

11 water content, w=(Mw/Md) 0.700

12 mass of mercury weighing dish + mercury 333

13 Mass of mercury displaced by dry soil pat, 167

Water added 0.22 0.24 0.26 0.28

Figure 4.5: Compaction Curve for Black cotton soil

50 0.06 2.6 0.4 1.5 11.34 5.13 0.45

Figure 4.6: UCS Curve for Black cotton soil

4.10 California Bearing Ratio (CBR) Test

7.5 4.6 23 36.8

Figure 4.7: CBR Curve for Black cotton soil

Trial No. Water Content, Water Amount, ml Penetration, mm

Liquid limit as obtained from graph = 39.7%

Trial No. Water Content, % Water Amount, ml Penetration, mm

Trial No. Water Content, % Water Amount, ml Penetration, mm

4.12 Shrinkage Limit test on soil added fibers

2 Fibre added, % 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1

Mass of mercury weighing dish + mercury

Mass of mercury filling the dish M3= (M2-

7 Mass of shrinkage dish + wet soil, M5 g 71 79.5 81.5 77 90

8 Mass of shrinkage dish + dry soil, M6 g 57 64.5 72.5 66.5 81.5

9 Mass of water Mw= (M5-M6) g 14 15 9 10.5 8.5

10 Mass of dry soil, Md= (M6-M4) g 20 25 24.5 24.5 26

11 water content, w=(Mw/Md) 0.700 0.600 0.367 0.429 0.327

Mass of mercury weighing dish + mercury

Mass of mercury displaced by dry soil pat,

Volume of Mold = 1000 cc

Mass of mould+Compacted soil, m2(g) 6000 6131 6150 6189

Mass of mould + Compacted soil, m2(g) 6170 6282 6221 6214

Mass of Compacted soil, M = m2-m1(g) 1498 1609 1610 1693