Abstract

Shear strength is a very important property of soils. The concept is used by

geotechnical engineers in estimating the bearing capacity of foundations and in assessing the
stability of retaining walls, slopes, and embankments and the design and construction of
highway and airfield pavements. The shear strength of a soil can be regarded as its intrinsic
capacity to resist failure when forces act on the soil mass. The strength is a function of the
type as well as the physico-chemical make-up of the soil.

This booklet explores the strength theories that are used in geotechnical engineering and
which derive essentially from the classical theories of elasticity and plasticity. Such theories
are usually modified when used by soil engineers in recognition of the discrete and multi-
phase nature of soil deposits. It is important therefore to understand some of the fundamental
concepts or hypothesis of continuum mechanics to be able to appreciate the limitations and
applicability of strength theories in geotechnical engineering.
Contents
Abstract ............................................................................................................................................... 1
CHAPTER 1 .......................................................................................................................................... 6
1.1 Introduction to Geotechnical Engineering .................................................................................... 6
1.2 DEVELOPMENT OF SOIL ENGINEERING:- ...................................................................................... 7
1.3 GROUND IMPROVEMENT AND ITS NECESSITY ............................................................................. 7
1.4 NEED OF PRESENT STUDY .............................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
1.5 OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY .............................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
CHAPTER 2 .......................................................................................................................................... 9
LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................................................................... 9
2.1 GENERAL ....................................................................................................................................... 9
CHAPTER 3 ........................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
3.1 Elements And Compounds ............................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
3.1.1 Groups and Chemical Properties of Minerals ............................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
Chapter 4........................................................................................................................................... 22
MATERIALS ........................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
4.1 GENERAL ..................................................................................................................................... 27
4.1.1 Lime .......................................................................................................................................... 27
4.1.2 FACTORS CONTROLLING THE CHARACTERISTICS OF LIME TREATED CLAY .............................. 27
4.1.3 THE CHEMISTRY OF LIME TREATMENT .................................................................................... 28
4.1.4 LIME-POZZOLANA MIXTURES FOR SOILS WITH LOW AMOUNTS OF CLAY Error! Bookmark not
defined.
4.1.5 LIME SOIL MODIFICATION........................................................................................................ 29
4.2 slag .............................................................................................................................................. 29
4.2.1 HISTORY ...................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
4.2.2 BLAST FURNACE SLAG ................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
4.2.3 FORMS OF BLAST FURNACE SLAG ............................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
4.3.3 STEEL FURNACE SLAG ................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
4.4 CHEMICAL COMPOSITION .............................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
CHAPTER 5 ........................................................................................................................................ 31
Classification and Identification Properties of Soils............................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
5.1 Methods of Determining Soil Properties ....................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
5.2 INDEX PROPERTIES OF SOILS.......................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
5.2.1 Natural moisture content ........................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
5.2.2 Specific gravity ............................................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.
5.2.3 Consistency limits ....................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
5.2.4 Liquid limit................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
5.2.5 Plastic limit .................................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
5.2.6 Shrinkage limit ............................................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.
5.2.7 Plasticity Index ............................................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.
5.3 Engineering Properties of Soil ........................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.
5.3.1 Cohesion ..................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
5.3.2 Angle of internal friction ............................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
5.3.3 Capillarity .................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
5.3.4 Permeability ................................................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.
5.3.5 Elasticity ...................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
5.3.6 Compressibility............................................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.
5.4 Grain Size Distribution ................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Chapter 6.............................................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
Stresses in Soils Due to External Loading............................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
6.1 DEFINITION OF STRESS AT A POINT ............................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
6.1.1 Sign Convention .......................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
6.1.2 Hooke’s Law and Poisson’s Ratio ................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.
Chapter 7........................................................................................................................................... 31
Shear Strength of Soils ......................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
7.1.1 Shear strength parameters ......................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
7.1.2 Law of the shear strength of soil ................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.
7.1.3 Determination of c and 𝜙 from the direct shear test ................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
7.1.4 The Mohr’s circle......................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
7.1.5 The Mohr-Coulomb failure theory for soils ................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.
7.1.6 Determination of c, 𝜙 from the triaxial shear test ..................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
7.1.7 The effective stress parameters c ' and ϕ ' ................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
7.1.8 Determination of the effective stress parameters ..................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
7.1.9 Undrained/drained triaxial tests ................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
CHAPTER 8 ........................................................................................................................................ 32
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE ............................................................................................................ 32
8.1 GENERAL ..................................................................................................................................... 32
8.2 MATERIAL COLLECTION .............................................................................................................. 32
8.3 MINERAL PROPERTIES .................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
8.3.1 SOIL PROPERTIES......................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
8.4 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE ...................................................................................................... 34
8.5 METHODOLOGY .......................................................................................................................... 35
8.5.1 STANDARD PROCTOR COMPACTION TEST .............................................................................. 35
8.5.2 UN-CONFINED COMPRESSIVE TEST ......................................................................................... 40
CHAPTER 9 ........................................................................................................................................ 43
RESULTS AND CONCLUSION.............................................................................................................. 43
9.1 GENERAL ..................................................................................................................................... 43
9.3 PLASTIC LIMIT AND LIQUID LIMIT ............................................................................................... 44
9.4 STANDARD PROCTOR COMPACTION TEST.................................................................................. 51
9.5 IN-CONFINED COMPRESSION TEST ............................................................................................. 58
CHAPTER 10 ...................................................................................................................................... 60
CONCLUSION..................................................................................................................................... 60
CHAPTER 11 ...................................................................................................................................... 61
REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................................... 61
 NOMENCLATURE

BFS Blast furnace slag

A Average cross-section area
A0 Initial average cross-sectional area
Cm Centimetre
C-S-H Calcium Silicate Hydrate
C-A-S-H Calcium Aluminium Silicate Hydrate
e Axial strain
Gm Gram
IS Indian standard
UCS Unconfined compressive strength
OMC Optimum Moisture Content
MDD Maximum Dry Density
CBR California Bearing Ratio Test
Kg Kilogram
 CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

1.1 General
Geotechnical Engineering is a branch of Civil Engineering, which embraces many
aspects of the established sciences, geology and pedology, engineering mechanics, structures
and hydraulics. The term is often used interchangeably with Soil Mechanics but it is much
broader. Soil Mechanics embraces the study of all those properties of soils that are related to
their behavior, and its application as an engineering material. According to Karl Terzaghi
(1948), Soil Mechanics is the application of laws of mechanics and hydraulics to engineering
problems dealing with sediments and other unconsolidated accumulations of solid particles
produced by the mechanical and chemical disintegration of rocks regardless of whether or not
they contain an admixture of organic constituent. That is, Soil mechanics is the application of
the laws and principles of mechanics and hydraulics to engineering problems dealing with
soil as an engineering material. In particular it is concerned with the interaction of structures
with their foundation material. This includes both conventional structures and also structures
such as earth dams, embankments and roads which are themselves made of soil. Geotechnical
Engineering includes not only Soil Mechanics (soil properties and behaviour) but also Soil
Dynamics (dynamic properties of soils, earthquake engineering, machine foundations),
Foundation Engineering (deep & shallow foundations) which is the science and art of
applying the principles of soil and structural mechanics to solve soil-related engineering
problems, Pavement Engineering (flexible & rigid pavements: material properties and
design), Rock Mechanics (rock stability and tunnelling), Geosynthetics (soil improvement)
and geo-environmental engineering. Geotechnical engineering problems are usually solved
by examining the physical conditions of the soil which are influenced by its geological origin,
employing some of the principles of continuum mechanics to model and analyze the problem
and then using engineering judgement based on experience to evolve appropriate solutions.
Geotechnical engineering, in the broadest sense, may be regarded as a subdivision of
structural engineering since it deals with soil both as a foundation material upon which all
types of structures rest and with soil as a structural material. However, geotechnical
engineering, unlike structural mechanics, is not an exact science. The theories of soil
mechanics, for example, provide us only with working hypotheses, because our knowledge of
the average physical properties of the subsoil and of the orientation of the boundaries
between the individual soil strata is always incomplete and often inadequate. This means that
the geotechnical engineer must be fully aware of the uncertainties involved in the
fundamental assumptions of his computations so as to be in a position to anticipate the nature
and importance of the differences, which may exist between reality and his original concept
of the situation. The practice of geotechnical engineering therefore involves, among others,
the making of appropriate observations during construction in order to adapt the design when
necessary to the real soil conditions at the site before it is too late. Soil Mechanics, an aspect
of geotechnical engineering, is a very important field of study because there are very few
civil engineering projects, which do not involve soils either as a foundation or as a
construction material. Man-made structures like buildings and bridges must rest on
foundations, which eventually transfer the load on the superstructure into the soil. The design
of retaining walls, culverts, sewers, subways, tunnels and other types of underground
structures must take into consideration the pressures exerted by the backfill and the ability of
the soil to support the structure. Earth dams, aircraft runways and highway pavements must
take into consideration in their design and construction the strengths, gradations, permeability
and other pertinent engineering properties of the available soils at the site of each project.
The design of the foundations of earth structures therefore, requires a thorough knowledge of
the principles of soil mechanics.

1.2 Development of soil engineering

Soil is man’s oldest and most common construction material. Construction involving
soils began long before the dawn of written history. Some of the first construction operations
involved the digging of holes and the use of mud to build houses and shelters. This was
followed later by the use of sun-dried adobe bricks made from raw earth to build walls,
arches and roofs. Builders of ancient civilizations such as those of Egypt, Rome, Babylon,
India, China, Zimbabwe, Songhai, Yoruba and Benin have left numerous examples of their
ability to handle soil problems.

1.3 Ground improvements and its necessity

It is a well-established fact that the load coming from the superstructure is ultimately
borne by the soil. Hence when a project encounters, soil feasibility is the first and foremost
thing to be studied. The characteristics of soil vary from one place to another. Often soil
particles at site lack in desirable properties causing distress to the overlying structures. It may
exhibit low shear strength, higher compressibility etc, such as sandy soil has property to
liquefaction whereas expansive soil exhibit lot of water posing threat to small structures,
canal-lining, pavements. Hence when an unsatisfactory condition is met, possible alternative
solutions can be either of

1. Abandon the site

2. Remove and replace the soil
3. Redesign the planned design accordingly
4. Treat the soil to modify its properties or Ground improvement

The last method listed above is known as Ground improvement Technique or soil
stabilization. The ‘leaning tower of Pisa’ is a classic example of such geotechnical
engineering practise and ground improvement technique.
 CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 General

The stabilisation of soils has been recognised before the Christian era began and
performed for millennia. Many ancient cultures including the Chinese, Romans and Indians
experimented with various methods to improve soil suitability some of which were so
effective that many of the buildings and roadways they construct still exist today and some
are still in use.

The Mesopotamians and Romans separately discovered that it was possible to

improve the ability of roadways to carry traffic by mixing the weak soils with a stabilizing
agent like pulverised limestone. This was the first implementation of chemical stabilisation to
weak soils to improve their load carrying.

Jump forward a few years to the Vietnam the US military were looking for
methods for rapid stabilization of weak soils for support of its missions worldwide. Over the
past 60 years they had used cement and lime and these being the most effective stabilizers for
road and airfield applications. But efforts were being made to find a stabilizer that could be
used quickly without having to carry out extensive site test that would increase the strength of
the prevalent soft clay types local soil rapidly to support the and take-off of aircraft on their
temporary airfields.

The beginning of moderns soil stabilization stared in the United States in the 1920’s
a time when regulation was being imposed on many businesses during the expanding
industrial era. Paper mills that once discarded their by-products into their neighbourhood
rivers had to discover a creative way of disposing of their highly toxic, liquid waste. One
solution was to promote the use of their waste as a dust palliative on dirt roads. Surprisingly,
some of the treated road developed a hardened surface. Other road did not. It was only
decades later after significant private and government research, and the development of better
technology during the 1940’s-1960’s that the reason for this change had begun to be
understood as being caused by a chemical reaction between the waste solution and the clay
particles within the soil.
 Effort has been made to find an amalgam by adding various combination of different
material that could cope with the varying levels of moister and prevailing air temperature.
Out of these, significant advances have been made by using industrial waste like granulated
blast furnace slag, copper slag, steel slag etc. for improving the soil properties in many
investigative studies.

S.wild, j.m. kinuthai g.i jones, d.d higgins (1998) carried out the study on the effect
of partial substitution of lime with ground granulated blast furnace slag on the properties of
lime stabilized sulphate bearing clay soil and found out that partial substitution of lime with
GGBS gives improved 7 days and 28 days strength for kaolinite clay. The effect of maximum
level of lime substitution is more pronounced in presence of gypsum. The most significant
strength enhancement of kaolinite stabilized with lime/GGBS over the first 28 day was either
for (i) high slag mixes with gypsum, due to the accelerating effect of gypsum on the lime
activated slag hydrations. Slag alone has no effect on both 7 days and 28 days strength of
kaolinite soil.

Laxmikant yadu and Dr. r k Tripathy (2013) studied the effect of Granulated blast
furnace slag and fly- ash stabilization on soft soil. The was classified as CL-ML as per Indian
standard classification system. Different amount of GBS (3%, 6%, 9%, and 12%) and fly ash
(3%, 6%, 9%, and 12%) was mixed to the parent’s soil and both UCS and CBR are carried
out. They found that there was an increase in maximum dry density but decrease in optimum
moisture content with increase GBS content. Addition of GBS increased the UCS value and
this increase was maximum up to 9% and then it started falling. In case of both soaked and
CBR samples, addition of GBS caused sharp increase in CBR value and it is maximum
upto6%. Hence they found out 3% fly ash +6% GBS mix to be optimum.

Akinmusuru (1991) put his effort in finding out the effect of mixing of GGBS on
the consistency, compaction characteristics and strength of literate soil. GGBS content varied
from 0% -15% by dry soil weight. He observed decrease in both the liquid and plastic limit
and an increase in plasticity index with increasing GGBS portion. Further, he observed that
the compaction, cohesion and CBR increased with increasing the GGBS content up to 0%
and the subsequently decreased. The angle of friction was to be decreased with increasing
percentage of GGBS.
 Gupta and Seehra(1989) studied the effect of lime-GGBS on the strength of soil.
They found that lime –GGBS soil stabilized mixes with and without addition of gypsum, or
containing partial replacement of GGBS by fly ash produced high UCS and CBR in
comparison to plain soil. They also conclude that partial replacement of GGBS with fly ash
further increased the UCS.

Sharma and Shivapullain (2011) studied the compaction behaviour and of

unconfined strength of soil stabilized with fly ash and GGBS. They found the addition GGBS
with and without fly ash and lime has significant influence on the geotechnical characteristics
of the soil.

Antonio Nollal, Gaspar Henrique Korndorfer (2013) focused in correcting soil

with the use of slag where it was found that slag can also be used as corrector as it has
silicates which increased plant resistance.

S. wild, j. m. kinuthai, r. b. robinson and I. humpherey (1995), reported about

effects of ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBS) on the strength swelling properties of
lime-stabilized kaolinite in the presence of sulphates. They tried to extend the use of GGBS
to highway and other foundation layers by determine the be bifacial effect which it had on the
reduction of expansion due to the presence of sulphates. The test determined the strength
development f compacted cylinders, moist curried in a humid environment at 300 c and the
linear expansion of these moist cured cylinder on soaking in water. The addition of GGBS to
the clay-lime-gypsum system resulted in a dramatic reduction in this expansion while it only
a small variation in compressive strength. By adjusting the ratio of lime to GGBS while
maintaining a constant combined weight modified both compressive strength and expansion.
In a decrease but a non- systematic variation in strength. It was postulated that the marked
reduction in expansion imported by the GGBS result from the balance between competing
hydration reactions.
 H. y. poh, gurmel s. ghataora and Nizar ghazireh (2006) have done an
investigative study on the use of basic oxygen steel (BOS) slag fines in soil stabilization.
The study describes a laboratory investigation for English china clay and Mercia
mudstone, while are stabilized with three BOS slag fines from three different steel
production site in the United Kingdom. The investigation also include using mixture of
BOS slag fines and two different activators: quicklime and sodium met silicate. Strength,
volume stability (one-dimensional linear expansion) and durability were studied under
this study and from the laboratory results, it was understood that the use of the three BOS
slag fines for stabilizing both English china clay and Mercia mudstone had shown some
improvements corresponding to these properties. However, a high percentage of 15-20%
of BOS slag fines and a long curing period were required in order for the treated soil was
slow compared to soil treated with OPC. The improvement in term of strength, volume
stability and durability for BOS slag fines treated soil, similar to those of the quicklime
treated soil and also the GGBS plus quicklime treated English china clay than OPC
treated soil and GGBS plus quicklime treated Mercia mudstone.

From above literature we are assigning the problems of soil,

so in this investigation we are going to minimise the problems by adding admixtures to
the soil.

2.2 Need of present study

Many part ground the globe such as India, U.S.A, Egypt etc are facing problems in
construction work due to clayey soil. Damage to the light structures and road pavements has
been reported. Replacement of soil with suitable one and disposal of the former is costly
process and this is critical in developing country like ours where construction cost is quite
high.

Moreover pavement on clayey soil demands a greater thickness of base and sub-base
course which results in increase cost of project. To set this problem it becomes mandatory to
increase the strength of the soil which in turn will help in lessening the thickness of the
pavement layers and thus project cost.
 Two common additives are widely used in stabilising the soil is cement and lime.
Lime is preferred over cement because lime is cheaper than cement and Carbon-Di-Oxide
(CO2), which causing determine to the environment, is emitted during the production of
cement. Lime stabilisation is requires adequate clay content and a relatively high curing
temperatures and hence it is more suitable for tropical and sub-tropical countries like India.
Cement is generally used where clay content in soil is comparatively less and the temperature
is relatively less. Researchers are going on for alternative by-products to cement and lime
which not only satisfy the engineering requirements and cause no pollution but also be cost
effective.

Large no of steel and iron plants are scattered in various parts of India and all over
the world producing several million tonnes of slag which has no further use in industry.
Rather disposal of these waters is big problem as they occupy valuable land. Later it has been
observed that it has high potential in reforming soil. Moreover it has least or no production
cost. Present thesis makes the use of both lime and Steel slag with soil and finds the change
in the soil properties.

2.3 Objective of study

The study is focused on

1. Improvement of locally available soil using some eco-friendly and cheap waste
materials.
2. Evaluation of strength characteristics of virgin as well as blended soil using different
ratio of Steel slag and lime.
3. Determination of appropriate soil, slag and lime content ratio to achieve the maximum
gain in strength from the mixture
 CHAPTER 3
CLASSIFICATION AND IDENTIFICATION PROPERTIES OF SOILS

3.1 Methods of Determining Soil Properties

Geotechnical soil and rock properties of geologic strata are typically determined using
one or more of the following methods:

1. In-situ testing data from the field exploration program;

2. Laboratory testing; and
3. Back analysis based on site performance data.

Laboratory Testing:
Laboratory soil testing is used to estimate strength, stress\strain, compressibility, and
permeability Characteristics.

3.2 Index Properties of soil

3.2.1 Natural moisture content

The moisture content of the soil in its natural state is known as its ‘natural moisture
content. The moisture content of the soil has a direct bearing on its strength and stability. The
natural moisture content characterizes the performance of the soil under the action of load.
The natural moisture content of the black cotton soils affects the other index properties of
such soil deposits particularly influencing their density and consistency. Foster et.al.(1994)
reported that the bulk density as well as dry densities are affected by the range of moisture
contents. They further noted that the values of bulk density at the localities of Gault black
clay (U.K.) examined; ranged between 1.89 and 2.01 gm/cm. The range of moisture content
was 26-30%. Bell (1994) commented that the bulk density in the specton clay didn’t have a
range as wide as the moisture content. The geological age also has an influence on the
engineering behaviour of the black cotton soil deposit. The moisture content and the
plasticity normally decrease in value with increasing depth and thereby age. This has been
demonstrated in the case of Oxford black clay by Jackson and Fookes (1974) and Borland
et.al.(1977). Cripps and Taylor (1987) referred to a general reduction in the moisture content
of clays with increasing age and previous overburden. The energy with which the moisture is
held by the black cotton soils influenced their volume change characteristics as these are
affected by the permeability and moisture migration.

The initial natural moisture content thus has considerable influence on the swelling
characteristics of black cotton soils. The swelling decreases with the increase in the water
content. As the natural moisture content increases, the amount of water absorption by the soil
for complete saturation will become smaller and consequently the amount of swelling will
decrease (Holtz and Gibbs 1956, Lambed 1960, Parched and Liu 1965, Vijayavergiya and
Gazzaly 1973, El-Sohby and Rabba 1981 and Chen 1988). The influence of natural water

content on swelling is not appreciable for the values of water content below the shrinkage
limit, and the effect is significant when the water content values exceed the shrinkage limit
El-Sohby and Rabba (1981).

3.2.2 Specific gravity

The ratio of the mass of a given volume of solids to the mass of an equal volume of
water, defines the specific gravity of solid particles. The specific gravity of solid particles of
most of the soils varies from 2.65 to 2.80; smaller value for the coarse grained soils and vice-
versa.Following table gives the average values for different soils (Arora, 1992)

Table no 1:

Soil type Specific gravity

Gravel 2.65 – 2.68
. Sand 2.65 – 2.68
Silty 2.66 – 2.70
Silt 2.66 – 2.70
Clays 2.68 – 2.80
Organic soils May fall < 2.0
 The higher values of the specific gravity of a mineral indicate its heaviness being on
the higher side. Thus, a high value of specific gravity of a soil suggests a heavier mineral
composition of the soil (Meansand Parches, 1965). The specific gravity of soil is an
important parameter from the point of view of its usefulness in the calculations of other
parameters of the soil viz. particle size, voids ratio etc... Even though the specific gravity of a
soil may not directly affect the engineering behaviour of soil, but acts as one of the
suggestive tool in quickly assessing the strength and suitability of the soil for engineering
works (Gulati, 1978).

3.2.3 Consistency limits

With reference to the geotechnical or engineering properties of the black cotton soils,
‘consistency’ is a term used to denote the degree of firmness of the soil which may be termed
as soft, fin, stiff or hard. This term is mostly used for fine grained soils (e.g. black cotton soils
in the present context) for which the consistency is related to a large extent to the water
content. Plasticity of a soil is referred to as its property due to which the soil possesses the
ability to undergo the change of shape without deformation or rupture of the soil particles.
The black cotton soil may be mixed with water to form a plastic paste which can be moulded
into any form and the addition of water reduces the cohesion making the soil still easier to
mould. Further addition of water reduces the cohesion until the soil paste no longer retains its
shape, but flows like a liquid. If further more water is added, the soil particles get dispersed
in a suspension. If now the water is evaporated from such a soil suspension, the soil water
mixture undergoes changes from liquid state to a plastic state and finally into a solid state.
The different states through which the soil passes with the decrease in the moisture content
are shown in Table- and fig indicate the graphical representation of the consistency limits.
Table no 2:
States of Soil Limit Recognized Conistency of Soil Volume Change
Liquid Very soft Decrease in volume
Liquid limit (wL) Soft
Plastic Stiff Decrease in volume
Plastic limit (wP) Very Stiff
Semi solid Very Stiff Decrease in volume
Shrinkage limit (wS) Extremely Stiff
Solid Hard Constant volume

Fig no 1

The water contents corresponding to the transition from one state to another state are
termed as consistency limits, which were initially proposed by Atterberg in 1911
(Casagrande, 1932) for agriculture purpose and were later adopted by Terzaghi and Peck
(1967) for the classification and identification of fine grained soils for engineering purpose.
The water content corresponding to the transition from liquid state to plastic state is termed as
liquid limit (\V[); from plastic state to semi solid state is termed as plastic limit (wp) and
from semi solid state to solid state is termed as shrinkage limit (ws). There will be a
corresponding decrease in the volume of soil as the moisture content decreases. This decrease
in the volume takes place up to shrinkage limit and there will be no further decrease in the
volume beyond this limit with the decrease in the water content.

1 Liquid limit

A fine grained soil can exist in any of several states; each state depends on the amount
of water in the soil system. Liquid limit is the percentage of water content at which the soil
has such small shear strength that it flows to close a groove of standard width when jarred in
a specified manner. It is thus the water content above which the soil behaves as a viscous
liquid (a soil-water mixture with little measurable strength). At the moisture content of liquid
limit, the distance between particles is such that the force of interaction between particles is
sufficiently weak to allow easy movement of particles relative to each other. It is dependent
on the amount and type of clay, but the latter being very important. Casagrande (1932, 1958)
reported that the liquid limit corresponds approximately to a water content at which the soil
has shear strength of about 2.5 kPa. Subsequent studies have indicated that the liquid limit for
all fine grained soils such as the black cotton soils correspond to a shearing resistance of
about 1.7 - 2.0 kPa (Wroth and Wood 1978, Whyte 1982).

2 Plastic limit

The plastic limit of a soil is a measure of the soil particles to cracking when the
sample is worked (Yong and Warkentin, 1975). In the laboratory, it is determined as the
water content at which the soil begins to crumble when rolled in to thread of specified size.
At the threshold of plastic limit sufficient water is required to wet all the surfaces and reduce
cohesion so that the particles can move past one another under stress but maintain a new
moulded position. At this water content, the soil particles will slide past one another on
application of force, but there is sufficient cohesion to allow them to retain shape. Plasticity is
an inherent property of fine grained soils.

3 Shrinkage limit

Shrinkage limit is the maximum water content at which a reduction in water content
will not cause decrease in the volume of the soil mass. If a mass of soft, saturated soil
gradually dries, its volume is reduced by an amount equivalent to the volume of the water lost
by evaporation. This volume change is caused by capillary forces acting on the surface of the
soil mass. At certain water content the sum of the capillary forces reaches its greatest value
and the volume change ceases. On further drying the water begins to withdraw into the
interior of the soil, whose colour then changes from dark to light. The surface of the
desiccating soil shows a characteristics pattern of shrinkage crack. The finer the particle of
the soil, the greater is the amount of shrinkage. The water content below which further loss of
water by drying does not result in reduction of the volume of the soil is recognised as the
shrinkage limit. On the basis often above definition, the shrinkage limit is determined in the
laboratory by completely drying out a lump of soil and measuring its final volume and
weight. The volume of the oven-dried sample may be assumed to be equal to its volume at
the shrinkage limit no appreciable volume change has taken place. Since the degree of
saturation at the shrinkage limit is unity (as it is throughout the process of description) at
water contents greater than shrinkage limit, the same can be calculated from the minimum
volume and weight of the oven dried sample.

4 Plasticity Index

The plasticity of a soil is conventionally represented through an index called plasticity

index; which is numerically equal to the difference between the liquid limit and the plastic
limit water contents of the soil. It thus indicates the magnitude of the range of moisture
content over which the soil remains plastic. The plasticity index is in fact a measure that
gives the amount of water which must be added to change a soil from its plastic limit to its
liquid limit. The cohesion qualities of the binder resulting from the clay content of the soil
can be measured by the plasticity index. Also it gives some indication of the amount of
swelling and shrinkage that will result in the wetting and drying of the soil. Generally the
behaviour of all soils and specifically clayey soils such as black cotton soils considerably
differs with the presence of water; and the plasticity index can be used as a reference index to
clarify and study the effects. Apart from this basic use, the plasticity index is used in a good
number of correlations with many parameters pertaining to the engineering properties like
compressibility or volume change (compression index parameter - Wroth and Wood, 1978,
coefficient of consolidation parameter-Carrier, 1985, swelling potential parameter - Holtz and
Gibbs,1956; Seeds et.al.,1962), strength ( friction angle parameter - Kenney,1959, coefficient
of earth pressure parameter - Brooker and Ireland, 1965, undrained shear strength parameter -
Osterman,1959) etc.. In addition, the plasticity index is made use of in obtaining the
parameters like activity, liquidity index etc. which have good correlations with the
engineering properties of soils.

5.3 Engineering Properties of Soil

5.3.1 Cohesion

It is the internal molecular attraction which resists the rupture or shear of a material.
Cohesion is derived in the fine grained soils from the water films which bind together the
individual particles in the soil mass. Cohesion is the property of the fine grained soil with
particle size below 0.002 mm. cohesion of a soil decreases as the moisture content increases.
Cohesion is greater in well compacted clays and it is independent of the external load
applied.

5.3.2 Angle of internal friction

The resistance in sliding of grain particles of a soil mass depends upon the angle of
internal friction. It is usually considered that the value of the angle of internal friction is
almost independent of the normal pressure but varies with the degree of packing of the
particles, i.e. with the density. The soils subjected to the higher normal stresses will have
lower moisture contents and higher bulk densities at failure than those subjected to lower
normal stresses and the angle of internal friction may thus change. The true angle of internal
friction of clay is seldom zero and may be as much as 260. The angle of internal friction fro
granular soils may vary in between 280 to 500.

5.3.3 Capillarity

It is the ability of soil to transmit moisture in all directions regardless of any gravitational
force. Water rises up through soil pores due to capillary attraction. The maximum theoretical height
of capillary rise depends upon the pressure which tends to force the water into the soil, and this
force increases as the size of the soil particles decreases. The capillary rise in a soil when wet may
equal as much as 4 to 5 times the height of capillary rise in the same soil when dry.

Coarse gravel has no capillary rise; course sand has up to 30 cm; fine sand and soils
have capillary rise up to 1.2 m but dry sand have very little capillarity.

Clays may have capillary rise up to 0.9 to 1.2 m but pure clays have very low value.
5.3.4 Permeability

Permeability of a soil is the rate at which water flows through it under action of hydraulic
gradient. The passage of moisture through the inter-spaces or pores of the soil is called ‘percolation’.
Soils having porous enough for percolation to occur are termed ‘pervious’ or ‘permeable’, while
those which do not permit the passage of water are termed ‘impervious’ or ‘impermeable’. The rate
of flow is directly proportional to the head of water.

Permeability is a property of soil mass and not of individual particles. The permeability of
cohesive soil is, in general, very small. Knowledge of permeability is required not only for seepage,
drainage and ground water problems but also for the rate of settlement of structures on saturated
soils.

5.3.5 Elasticity

A soil is said to be elastic when it suffers a reduction in volume (or is changed shape
& bulk) while the load is applied, but recovers its initial volume immediately when the load
is removed. The most important characteristic of the elastic behaviour of soil is that no matter
how many repetitions of load are applied to it, provided that the stress set up in the soil do not
exceed the yield stress, the soil does not become permanently deformed. This elastic
behaviour is characteristic of peat.

5.3.6 Compressibility

Gravels, sands & silts are incompressible, i.e. if a moist mass of those materials is subjected
to compression; they suffer no significant volume change. Clays are compressible, i.e. if a moist mass
of clay is subjected to compression, moisture & air may be expelled, resulting in a reduction in
volume which is not immediately recovered when the compression load is withdrawn. The decrease
in volume per unit increase of pressure is defined as the compressibility of soil, and a measure of the
rate at which consolidation proceeds is given by the ‘co-efficient of consolidation’ of the soil.
Compressibility of sand & silt varies with density & compressibility of clay varies directly with water
content & inversely with cohesive strength.
5.4 Grain Size Distribution
The range in sizes of soil particles or grains is almost limitless. It varies from less than
two microns (2μ) to several centimetres. Natural soils contain mixtures of particles of various
sizes, but the properties of the soil are to a large extent determined by the predominant
particle-size in its composition. Grain size distribution is used in soil classification, soil filter
design and to predict in a general way how a soil may be expected to behave with respect to
shear strength, settlement and permeability. The experimental determination of the particle
size distribution is therefore an important factor in soil mechanics.

Grain size distribution analysis is essentially a screening process in which coarse

fractions of soil are separated by means of a series of sieves. Particle sizes larger than 0.075
mm, are usually analyzed by means of sieving. Soil materials finer than 0.074 mm (-200
material) are analyzed by means of sedimentation of soil particles by gravity (hydrometer
analysis). For mixed soils (c-φ), combined grain size analysis is usually carried out. In the
combined analysis, the soil sample in the dry state is first subjected to sieve analysis, and the
finer fraction is then subjected to hydrometer analysis.
 CHAPTER 4
SHEAR STRENGTH OF SOILS
4.1 Shear strength parameters

The shear strength of a soil is derived from two parameters - called shear strength
parameters - which are inherent properties of the soil. They are cohesion (c) and the angle of
internal friction (𝜙).

4.2 Law of the shear strength of soil

The law for the shear strength of soil was propounded as early as 1773 by Charles
Augustine Coulomb, a French military engineer. (Coulomb is also credited with the ‘wedge
theory of earth pressure’-Topic 4.) In fact Coulomb’s law for shear strength is considered the
first milestone in classical soil mechanics.

In its original form, the law states

s = c + 𝜎 tan 𝜙
Where s is the shear strength (kN/m2),

C is the cohesion (kN/m2 ),

𝜎 is the normal stress (kN/m2) and

𝜙 is the angle of internal friction (degree).

S plots as a straight line against 𝜎. (It is of the same form as y = mx + c, (see Kurian,
2005: App.E). In the plot c is the y-intercept and 𝜙 is the inclination of the straight line from
the horizontal, if s and 𝜎 are plotted to the same scale. When we examine Eq.(3.1), it is clear
that c is always mobilised, that is, the contribution of c to s is always available; but the
contribution of 𝜙 is mobilised only to the extent the normal stress is mobilised. (This is the
case in all problems involving mechanical friction). This means, if the normal stress is 0, the
contribution of 𝜙 to s is 0 too, even when soil has a positive value for 𝜙 which is a property
inherent in it. On the other hand, if 𝜙 is 0, there is no contribution of 𝜙 to s even if 𝜎 is
present. As regards c, its contribution to s does not depend upon 𝜎.

Depending upon the predominance of c and 𝜙, we can have the following extreme soil types.

c > 0, 𝜙 = 0 – ideally cohesive soil,

c = 0, 𝜙 > 0 – cohesion less soil.

The general case of a soil having c > 0, 𝜙 > 0 is called a cohesive soil, because the
term ‘cohesive’ per se does not rule out the presence of friction. Hence the term ‘ideally’ for
describing a purely c > 0, 𝜙 = 0 soil. On the other hand the term ‘cohesion less for the second
type does rule out the presence of cohesion. One may also call the above soils c–soil, 𝜙-soil
and c-𝜙 soil, using the respective symbols. Fig.3.3 shows all the cases mentioned above. (In
the c–case, since the shear strength line is parallel to the x-axis, it is independent of 𝜎. Since
the shear strength line in the 𝜙 - case starts at the origin, c is absent in s.)

4.3 The effective stress parameters c ' and ϕ’

Our discussion so far veered round to total shear strength parameters c and 𝜙. It is
relevant in respect of saturated soils to investigate the effective stress parameters c’ and 𝜙 ′,
taking into account the influence of pore water pressure on the results. At the failure plane in
a saturated soil the presence of pore water obviously does not contribute to shear strength
simply because water has no shear strength. Therefore frictional failure (slip) can only occur
along the points of grain contact at the failure plane produced by the effective normal stress 𝜎
′ and the effective angle of internal friction 𝜙 ′. It is therefore reasonable and necessary to
rewrite the shear strength equation in terms of the effective stress parameters as:

S’ = c’+ σ ' tan ϕ '

If the soil in the field is in a saturated state, and if it has facility to drain under load
(consolidation – Topic 7), it would be more relevant to relate the long term behaviour of the
soil to its effective stress parameters. (Note that even when water is slowly but continuously
draining under consolidation, the soil remains saturated at all levels of consolidation. The
pore pressure, however, will be negligible at advanced stages of consolidation (Murthy, 1974:
Ch.13).)

4.4 Determination of the effective stress parameters

Determination of the effective stress parameters c ' and 𝜙 ′ can be achieved by the
same triaxial test if we can either measure pore pressure in the sample during test under and
𝜎3 and 𝜎1, or else, allow the sample to drain under load and then conduct the test.

The former approach is indeed faster where it is possible to conduct the triaxial test
with facility for pore pressure measurement. The total and effective Mohr’s circles can be
drawn from which one can get c, 𝜙 and 𝑐 ′, 𝜙 ′.

One cannot predict for certain how different 𝑐 ′ and 𝜙 ′ would be compared to c and 𝜙
in quantitative terms since it depends on several interacting parameters. A typical result could
be, c’ < c and 𝜙 ′ > 𝜙.

Analysis using c and 𝜙 is called total stress analysis and that using c’ and 𝜙 ′ is called
effective stress analysis. Total stress analysis is more relevant in the ‘short term’ and
effective stress analysis, in the ‘long term’. The short/long term differentiation is on account
of consolidation. While the theory of consolidation can predict quantitatively the time it takes
for a given percentage of consolidation to occur, short/long term behaviours are not
expressed quantitatively in relation to time.

Total and effective stress parameters can be based on ‘undrained (subscript U) or

‘quick’ tests and ‘drained (subscript D) tests respectively. The unconfined compression test is
always an undrained or quick test.

Summarising the above, we can state the following terms in mutual association.

Short term behaviour – undrained (quick) test – total stress analysis

Long term behaviour – drained (slow) test – effective stress analysis

Between total stress (short term) and effective stress (long term) analysis, design must
cater to the more critical of the two states.
The above applies to cohesive soils because of the time-dependent nature of its behaviour
thanks to consolidation; It is not relevant in the case of a cohesionless soil like sand where,
in the field, drainage and therefore consolidation takes place instantaneously on the
application of the load
 CHAPTER 5
EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION

5.1 Materials

Primary and Secondary Binders form cementations composite material when they
come in contact with the water or in the presence of pozzolanic materials react with water.

5.2 Lime
Stabilization using lime is an established method to upgrade the characteristics of fine
grained soils. The first field applications in the construction of - highways and airfields
pavements were reported in 1950-60. With the proven success of these attempts, the
technique was extended as for large scale soil treatment including sub grades as well as
improvement of bearing capacity of foundations in the form of lime columns.

Soil stabilization significantly changes the properties of a soil producing long-term

strength and stability, particularly with respect to the action of water and frost. Lime, either
alone or in combination with other materials, can be used to treat a range of soil types. Lime
in the form of quicklime (calcium oxide - CaQ), hydrated lime (calcium hydroxide — Ca
[OH],) or lime slurry can be used to treat soils. The mineralogical properties of the soils will
determine their degree of reactivity with lime and the ultimate strength that the stabilised
layers will develop. Generally, fine grained clay soils (with minimum of 25 percent and the
plasticity index greater than 10) are best suited for stabilisation. Soils containing significant
amounts of organic material (greater than about 1 percent) or sulphates (greater than 0.3
percent) demands additional lime and special construction procedures.

5.3 Factors controlling the characteristics of lime treated clay

1. Type of lime (quick lime or hydrated lime)

2. Lime content (Lime fixation point and optimum lime content)
 3. Curing time
4. Type of soil
5. Clay mineral
6. Soil properties
7. Curing temperature

5.4 The chemical reaction of lime treatment

When lime and water are added to a clayey soil, chemical reacts begin to occur
almost immediately

5.4.1 Drying

If quicklime is used, it immediately hydrates i.e. chemically combines with water and
emits heat. Due to heat production soils gets dried. Water present in the soil participates and
emits heat, it can evaporate additional moisture. The hydrated lime produced by these initial
reactions will subsequently react with clay particles. These reactions will slowly produce
additional drying because they reduce the soil’s moisture holding capacity. If hydrated lime
or hydrated lime slurry is used instead of quicklime.

5.4.2 Modification
After initial mixing the calcium ions from hydrated lime migrate to the surface of the
clay particles displacing the water and other ions formed due to hydration of quick lime or
when it is used directly.

CaO+H2O----Ca (OH)2+12.6Kcal/mole

Pore water and dissolves the silicates (sio2) and aluminates (AL2O3) from the clay
particles. The soil becomes friable and granular, making it easier to work and compact. At
this stage the plasticity index of the soil decreases and consequently reduces its tendency to
swell and shrink. The process is called “Flocculation and agglomeration” and generally takes
place in a matter of hours.

5.4.3 Stabilisation
 Addition of lime and water to the soil increases the PH of the soil quickly increases
above 10.5. Which enables the clay particles to break down; silica and alumina are released
and react with calcium from lime to form calcium-silicate-hydrates (CSH) and calcium-
aluminates-hydrates properties similar to those formed in Portland cement. They form a
matrix that imparts to the strength of lime-stabilized soil layers. As this matrix forms the soil
is transformed from a sandy process begins with hours and can continue for years. The matrix
formed is permanent, durable and sigficantly impermeable, producing a structural layer that
is both strong and flexible.

5.5 Lime Soil modification

When lime is mixed with fine grained soil, the lime reacts with various components of
soil and thus, modifying some key properties of it. Lime modification occurs because calcium
captions supplied by hydrated lime replace the cations normally present on the surface of the
clay mineral. Promoted by the high PH environment of the lime-water system, thus the clay
surface mineralogy is altered, producing the following benefits

1. Plasticity reduction
2. Reduction in moisture holding capacity, promoting additional soil drying
3. Increased optimum moisture content for compaction
4. Swell reduction
5. Improved stability
6. The ability to contrast a solid working platforms

Lime can modify almost all fine grained soil, but the most dramatic improvement
occurs in clay soil moderate to high plasticity.

5.6 Slag
 Slag has always been a essential part of iron and steel processing. There is a saying
take care of slag and it will take care of metal. It removes unwanted oxides, sulphides,
nitrides and phosphates.

Slag is the glass like by-product left over after a desired metal has been separated i.e.
smelted from its raw one. Slag is usually a mixture of metal oxide and silicon dioxide. Slags
contain metal sulphides and elemental metal.

5.6.1Chemical composition

Chemical properties of different types of ferrous slag vary depending on the specific
production process and type of cooling. A common characteristic of these slags is that they
are obtained from lime and silica based metals, thus making calcium oxide (Cao) and silica
(Sio2) are their primary components. Other components include alumina and magnesium
oxide. The content of iron in blast furnace slag is usually lower than 0.5 wt % since it results
from a reduction process whereas steel slag is formed in an oxidizing process.

Table no 3:

Constituent Steel Slag

Wt. %

CaO 35-45

SiO2 11-17

Al2O3 1-6

MgO 2-9

FeO 16-26

MaO 2-6

Stotal <0.2

Cr2O3 0.5-2
5.7 Soil

Soil which is used in this investigation is black cotton soil,

which is collected from Kandlakoya because most of the area of Kandlakoya covered with
black soil.

Table no 4:

Soil type Specific gravity

Gravel 2.65 – 2.68
Sand 2.65 – 2.68
Silty 2.66 – 2.70
Silt 2.66 – 2.70
Clays 2.68 – 2.80
Organic soils May fall < 2.0
 CHAPTER 7

EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE
7.1 General

It is the most important part of the project, it includes material collection, sampling
methods and the tests conducted on them. Different samples are prepared with varying
proportion of soil, slag and lime. Effort has been made to find out the optimum value for the
mixed samples by conducting a series of tests.

7.2 Materials collection

Soil
Nearly 100kg of locally available clayey soil was collected from kandlakoya village
and thoroughly hand sorted to eliminate the vegetative matters and pebbles. Then the soil was
sieved through 4.75mmsieve to remove the gravel fraction. Soil was oven fried for 24 hours
before execution of geotechnical tests.

Steel slag
Steel slag is a by-product of the iron production process and consists of calcium
silicates and aluminium silicates, about 50kg of steel slag was bought from local store.

Properties of steel slag

Table no 5:

Property Value

Specific gravity 3.2 – 3.6

Unit weight (Kg/m3) 1600 – 1920

Water absorption Up to 3%
 Fig no 2:Image of Steel slag

Lime

A white caustic alkaline substance consisting of calcium oxide which is

obtained by heating lime stone and combine with water. About 50kg of lime was
bought from local store.

Properties of Lime:

Table no 6:
Property Value
Physical Appearance Dry white powder
Specific gravity 2.37
Density(Mg/m3) 0.48
 Fig no 3: Image of Lime

7.3 Experimental Procedure

The following tests have been carried out in the laboratory

 Sieve analysis
 Liquid limit
 Plastic limit
 Standard proctor compaction test
 Un-confined compression test
7.4 Methodology
7.4.1 Sieve Analysis

It is a procedure used to assess the particle size distribution of a granular material by

allowing the material to pass through a series of sieves of progressively smaller mesh size
and weighing the amount of material that is stopped by each sieve as a fraction of the whole.

IS Sieve

Sieve 600 425 300 150 75

opening 4.75 2.36 1.18 Microns Microns Microns Microns Microns
in mm

The sample is dried to constant mass in the oven at a temperature of 1100±50C and all
the sieves which are to be used in the analysis are cleaned. The oven dry sample is weighed 1
kg and sieved successively on the appropriate sieves starting with largest (4.75mm,2.36mm,
1.18mm, 0.6mm, 0.425mm, 0.3mm, 0.15mm,& 0.07mm ). Each sieve is shaken for a period
of not less than 2 minutes. On completion of sieving the material retained on each sieve is
weighed.

Fig no 4 :Image of sieve analysis set up

Liquid Limit

The liquid limit is the moisture content at which the groove, formed by a standard tool
into the sample of soil taken in the standard cup, closes for 10 mm on being given 25 blows
in a standard manner. This is the limiting moisture content at which the cohesive soil passes
from liquid state to plastic state.

Put 120 gm of air-dried soil, passed thorough 425 mm sieve, into an evaporating
dish. Add distilled water into the soil and mix it thoroughly to form uniform paste. (The paste
shall have a consistency that would require 30 to 35 drops of cup to cause closer of standard
groove for sufficient length. Place a portion of the paste in the cup of Liquid Limit device and
spread it with a few strokes of spatula. Trim it to a depth of 1 cm at the point of maximum
thickness and return excess of soil to the dish. Using the grooving tool, cut a groove along the
centre line of soil pat in the cup, so that clean sharp groove of proper dimension (11 mm wide
at top, 2 mm at bottom, and 8 mm deep) is formed. Lift and drop the cup by turning crank at
the rate of two revolutions per second until the two halves of soil cake come in contact with
each other for a length of about 13 mm by flow only, and record the number of blows, N.
Take a representative portion of soil from the cup for moisture content determination. Repeat
the test with different moisture contents a t least four more times for blows between 10 and
40. Repeat the above procedure by adding lime and steel slag of varying percentages of 2%,
4%, 6%, 8%, and10%.
 Fig no 5:Image of Liquid limit set up

Plastic Limit

Put 60 gm of air-dried soil, passed thorough 425 m sieve (In accordance with I.S.
2720: part-1), into an evaporating dish. Add distilled water into the soil and mix it thoroughly
to form uniform paste (the soil paste should be plastic enough to be easily molded with
fingers.). Prepare several ellipsoidal shaped soil masses by squeezing the soil between your
fingures. Take one of the soil masses and roll it on the glass plate using your figures. The
pressure of rolling should be just enough to make thread of uniform diameter throughout its
length. The rate of rolling shall be between 60 to 90 strokes per min. Continue rolling until
you get the thread diameter of 3 mm. If the thread does not crumble at a diameter of 3 mm,
kneed the soil together to a uniform mass and re-roll. Continue the process until the thread
crumbles when the diameter is 3 mm. Collect the pieces of the crumbled thread for moisture
content determination. Repeat the test to at least 3 times and take the average of the results
calculated to the nearest whole number. Repeat the above procedure by adding lime and steel
slag of varying percentages of 2%, 4%, 6%, 8%, and10%.
 Fig no 6: Image of plastic limit set up

Standard proctor compaction test

This phase of study involved a detailed investigation of the compaction

characteristics of the parent soil and the sample containing different steel slag and lime

contents. In order to obtain the optimum moisture content and maximum dry density, the

optimum moisture contents thus obtained is used in preparing samples for unconfined

compressive strength test. The test confirms to IS: 2720 (part 7)-1980.

Take 3.5 kg of air-dried soil sample passing through 4.75 mm IS sieve.Add water to soil

as8%, 10%, 12%,etc., for each trial. Mix soil and water thoroughly.Allow soil to mature for

20 hours. For this keep moist soil in water tight container.Take out soil sample in tray. Spread
it uniformly using spoon/spatula. Divide it in equal 3 parts.Clean empty compaction mould

with base plate, dry and weigh to a nearest gm. Apply grease to inside surface of mould, top

of base, internal surface of collar and bottom surface of rammer. Fix collar to top of the

mould. Place mould on floor.Divide soil (1st part) ion three equal sub parts. Put 1 sub part of

the soil specimen to the mould using spoon. Spread it uniformly in mould. Apply 25 blows

distributed uniformly over. entire soil surface by rammer. Insure that drop of rammer is full

example 310mm. Using spatula make scratches of compacted layer. Add 2 subpart of soil.

And apply 25 blows using rammer as stated in step 8. Repeat step9 for 3 sub parts so that

Mould is fully filled in 3comapcted layers of soil. Compacted soil should not

protrude/project in collar more than 6mm. Remove collar and using straight edge trim top of

compacted layer to level flush with ring of mould. Weigh mould filled with compacted soil.

Extrude soil from mould. Take representative soil sample from middle layer from water

contain determination by oven drying method. Now take 2 part of moist soil sample in a

separate tray. Add water to it to increase its water content as desired. Repeat step 8 to 13.

Conduct test repeatedly for remaining 4parts of moist soil by increasing its water contain

more than previous specimen. Tabulate observation. Calculate bulk density, actual water

contain and dry density of each part of moist soil specimen. Plot a smooth curve between

water contains % as abscissa and dry density as ordinate on natural scale Read water content

% corresponding to max. Dry density and report it as optimum moisture content. Repeat

above procedure by partially substituting lime and steel slag of varying percentages are 2%,

4%, 6%, 8%, and10%.And note down all the readings.

 Fig no 7: Image of Mixing of soil for compaction

Fig no 8: Image of Applying blows during compaction

Unconfined compressive test

This is the simplest and quickest test for determining the cohesion and the shear
strength of the cohesive soils. These values are used for checking the short term stability of
foundations and slopes.

Soil which is to be tested is mixed with water. This sample is than filled in the mould
which is oiled in advance. The mould is having the same internal diameter as that of specimen
which is to be tested. The mould is opened carefully and sample is taken out. Prepare two or
three such samples for testing. Measure the initial length and diameter of the specimen. Put
the specimen on bottom of the loading device. Adjust upper plate to make contact with the
specimen. Set the dial gauge (compression) at zero. The dial gauge reading provides the
deformation in the sample and in turn strain. Compress the specimen until crakes are
developed or the strain curve is well past its peak or until a vertical deformation of 20% is
reached. Take the dial reading approximately at every 1 mm deformation of the specimen.
The proving ring reading provides the corresponding load in- turn axial stress on the sample.
Repeat of the specimen. Repeat the above procedure by varying content of lime and slag by
2% 4%, 8%, 10%.
Fig no 9: Image of UCS set up
 CHAPTER 8
RESULTS AND Discussion
9.1 General

Table no 7: Sieve Analysis

Sieve no Weight Percentage Cumulative Finer

retained retained percentage percentage

4.75mm 25 2.5 2.5 97.5

2.36mm 113 11.3 13.8 86.2

1.18mm 172 17.2 31 69

600microns 143 14.3 45.3 54.7

425microns 123 12.3 57.6 42.4

300microns 183 18.3 75.9 24.1

150microns 146 14.6 90.5 9.5

75microns 63 6.3 96.8 3.2

Pan 32 3.2 100 0

43
 Fig no 10: image of graph of Cu and Cc

The graph is plotted sieve no (x-axis) versus percentage of finer (yaxis) and note the
values of D10, D30, and D60 corresponding sieve openings.

Uniformity Coefficient (Cu) = D60/D10 = 0.8/0.15 =5.333

Coefficient curvature (Cc) = D302/D10*D60 = (0.34)2/0.14*0.8 =1.032

By comparing Cu and Cc values the soil is classified as well graded soil.

44
9.3 LIQUID LIMIT

Table no 8: liquid limit of black cotton soil

No of Bin no Bin wt Bin + Bin + dry Wt of Wt of dry Percent
blows wet soil soil water soil of water

16 1 25 31.5 29.5 2 4.5 44

22 2 22 32 29 3 7 42.8

33 3 20 37.4 32.4 5 12.4 40.2

43 4 24 45.8 39.8 6 15.8 38

Table no 9: liquid limit of soil + 2% lime

No of Bin Bin Bin + Bin + Percent Weight Weight
Blows number weight Wet soil Dry Soil of Water of water of Dry
soil

15 1 25 46 40 40 6 15

22 2 20 43.8 39 36.8 7 19

32 3 22 55 47 32 8 25

42 4 24 66 57 27.8 9 33

45
Table no 10: liquid limit of soil + 4% lime

No of Bin Bin Bin + Bin + Percent Weight Weight

Blows number Weight Wet soil Dry soil of Water of Water of Dry
soil
16 1 22 33 30 3 8 37.4
23 2 24 43 38 5 14 35.2
32 3 25 49 43 6 18 32.4
40 4 20 54 46 8 26 30.2

Table no 11: liquid limit of soil + 6% lime

No of Bin Bin Bin + Bin + Percent Weight Weight

Blows Number Weight Wet soil Dry soil of Water of Water of Dry
soil

12 1 25 32 30 40 2 5

17 2 22 32.6 29.6 39.2 3 7.6

32 3 20 39 34 36 5 14

40 4 24 45 37 34.4 8 23

46
Table no 12: liquid limit of soil + 8% lime
No of Bin Bin Bin + Bin + Percent Weight Weight
Blows number Weight Wet soil Dry soil of Water of Water of Dry
Soil

12 1 25 32 30 40 2 5

17 2 22 32.6 29.6 39.2 3 7.6

32 3 20 39 34 36 5 14

40 4 24 45 37 34.4 8 23

Table no 13: liquid limit of soil + 10% lime

No of Bin Bin Bin + Bin + Percent Weight Weight
Blows Number Weight Wet soil Dry soil Water of Water of Dry
Soil
18 1 25 36 33 37.8 3 8

23 2 22 41 36 35.8 5 14

32 3 20 44 38 33 6 18

40 4 24 63 54 30.4 9 30

Table no 14: liquid limit of soil + 2% Slag

Bin Bin No of Bin + Wet Bin + Dry Weight of Weight of Percentage
Number Weight Blows Soil Soil Water Dry soil of Water

1 25 16 35 32 3 7 42.6

2 22 22 39 34 5 12 41.6

3 23 32 44.4 38.4 6 15.4 39

4 20 36 49.3 41.3 8 21.3 37.6

47
Table no 15: liquid limit of soil + 4% slag
No of Bin Bin Bin + Bin + Weight Weight Percent
Blows Number Weight Wet soil Dry soil of Water of Dry of Water
soil

17 1 22 28.9 26.9 2 4.9 40.8

22 2 24 38.2 34.2 4 10.2 39.2

32 3 20 46.3 39.3 7 19.3 36.3

38 4 22 57 48 9 26 34.6

Table no 16: liquid limit of soil + 6% slag

No of Bin no Bin wt Bin + Bin + dry Wt of Wt of Percent
blows wet soil soil water dry soil of water
content

17 1 20 27.03 25.03 2 5.03 39.8

23 2 25 39.7 35.7 4 10.7 37.4
30 3 22 41 36 5 14 35.2
37 4 20 49 42 7 22 31.8

Table no 17: liquid limit of soil + 8% of slag

No of Bin no Bin wt Bin + Bin + dry Wt of Weight Water

blows wet soil soil water of dry content
soil
16 1 25 28.76 27.76 1 27.6 36.2

23 2 22 33.7 30.7 3 8.7 34.6

33 3 20 40.4 35.4 5 15.4 32.4

42 4 25 59.5 51.5 8 26.5 30.2

48
 Table no 18: liquid limit of soil + 10% steel slag

No of Bin Bin wt Bin + wt Bin + dry Wt of Wt of dry Percent

blows number of the soil soil water soil of water
content

16 1 20 25.4 26.4 2 6.4 31

22 2 22 39 35 4 13 30.6
32 3 23 49.1 43.1 6 20.1 29.8
42 4 24 59.6 51.6 8 27.6 29

Plastic Limit
Table no 19: Plastic limit

Percentage Plastic Limit for lime Plastic Limit for steel

Slag

2 27.5% 28.2%

4 26.8% 27.1%

6 25.3% 25.2%

8 24.2% 24.1%

10 23.5% 23%

49
 Black cotton soil + lime
40
30
20
10
0
2 4 6 8 10
Liquid limit Plastic limit

Fig no 11: Image of comparison of liquid limit and plastic limit by adding lime

Black cotton soil + slag

50

40

30

20

10

0
2 4 6 8 10
liquid limit plastic limit

Fig no 12: Image of comparison of liquid limit and plastic limit by adding steel slag

50
9.4 STANDARD PROCTOR COMPACTION TEST

1 LIME
Table 20: compaction results of Black cotton soil.
Description Bin no Bin empty Bin + wet Bin + dry Weight of Weight of Percent
weight soil soil water dry soil of water
Trial 1 1 25 35 34 1 9 11.2
Trial 2 2 22 40 38 2 16 12.5
Trial 3 3 25 56 52 4 27 14.87
Trial 4 4 23 58 53 5 30 17
Trial 5 5 22 68 61 7 39 18.21

Mass of Mass of Mass of Bulk density Water Dry density

compaction mould + compacted content %
mould (KG) compact soil soil
(KG)
1.898 3.262 1.364 1.39 11.2 1.25
1.898 3.523 1.625 1.656 12.5 1.472
1.898 3.78 1.882 1.918 14.87 1.67
1.898 3.655 1.757 1.79 17 1.53
1.898 3.255 1.357 1.383 18.27 1.17

Table no 21: compaction values of soil + 2% lime

Container Weight of Weight of Weight of Weight of Weight of Percentage
no bin bin + wet bin + dry water dry soil of water
soil soil
1 24 38 37 1 13 7.6
2 25 47 45 2 20 10
3 23 55 51 4 28 14.12
4 22 57 51 6 29 20.4
5 24 61 54 7 30 23

Mass of Mass of Mass of Bulk density Water Dry density

mould mould + compacted content
compacted soil
soil
1.898 3.398 1.5 1.528 7.6 1.42
1.898 3.712 1.814 1.848 10 1.68
1.898 3.969 2.071 2.11 14.12 1.85
1.898 3.8 1.902 1.938 20.4 1.61
1.898 3.358 1.460 1.488 23 1.21

51
Table no 22: compacted values of soil + 4% lime
Bin number Bin weight Bin + wet Bin + dry Weight of Weight of Water
soil soil water dry soil content
1 25 46 44 2 19 10.1
2 23 52 49 3 26 11.6
3 22 56 52 4 30 13.4
4 25 68 62 6 37 16
5 20 67 60 7 40 17.4

Mass of Mould + Mass of Bulk density Water Dry density

mould compacted Compacted content
soil soil
1.898 3.627 1.729 1.762 10.1 1.6
1.898 3.891 1.993 2.031 11.6 1.82
1.898 4.102 2.204 2.215 13.4 1.98
1.898 3.856 1.958 1.995 16 1.72
1.898 3.442 1.544 1.573 17.4 1.34

Table no 23: compacted values of soil + 6% lime

Bin number Bin weight Bin + wet Bin + dry Weight of Weight of Water
soil soil water dry soil content
1 22 49 47 2 25 8
2 23 55 52 3 29 10.2
3 24 61 57 4 33 12.1
4 25 69 63 6 38 15.6
5 20 64 57 7 37 18.8

Mass of Mould + Mass of Bulk density Water Dry density

mould compacted compacted content
soil soil
1.898 3.912 2.014 2.052 8 1.9
1.898 4.202 2.304 2.347 10.2 2.13
1.898 4.428 2.530 2.578 12.1 2.3
1.898 4.179 2.281 2.324 15.6 2.01
1.898 3.776 1.878 1.913 18.8 1.61

52
Table no 24: compaction values of soil + 8% lime
Bin number Bin weight Bin + wet Bin + dry Weight of Weight of Water
soil soil water dry soil content
1 25 50 48 2 23 8.8
2 23 57 54 3 31 9.7
3 24 63 59 4 35 11.52
4 20 60 55 5 35 14.5
5 22 71 64 7 42 16.9

Mass of Mould + Mass of Bulk density Water Dry density

mould compacted compacted content
soil soil
1.898 3.981 2.083 2.122 8.8 1.95
1.898 4.859 2.961 3.016 9.7 2.75
1.898 4.575 2.649 2.698 11.52 2.42
1.898 4.259 2.361 2.405 14.5 2.1
1.898 3.86 1.962 1.998 16.9 1.7

Table no 25: compaction values of soil + 10% lime

Bin number Bin weight Bin + wet Bin + dry Weight of Weight of Water
soil soil water dry soil content
1 25 45 44 1 19 5.4
2 24 52 50 2 26 7.8
3 23 62 58 4 35 11.2
4 22 57 52 5 30 16.6
5 20 63 56 7 36 19.4

Mass of soil Mould + Mass of Bulk density Water Dry density

compacted compacted content
soil soil
1.898 4.112 2.214 2.256 5.4 2.14
1.898 4.353 2.455 2.50 7.8 2.32
1.898 4.623 2.794 2.847 11.2 2.56
1.898 4.429 2.529 2.577 16.6 2.21
1.898 4.099 2.192 2.233 19.4 1.87

53
 15

10

0
2 4 6 8 10
OMC MDD

Fig no 13: graph of comparison OMC and MDD by adding steel slag

2 Steel Slag
Table no 26: compaction values of soil + 2% slag
Bin number Bin weight Bin+Wet Bin+Dry soil Weight of Weight of Water
soil water Dry content
soil
1 26 34.5 33.5 1 7.5 13.5
2 23 36.5 34.5 2 11.5 17.1
3 24 45 41 4 17 24
4 22 43 38 5 16 30.2
5 20 46 39 7 19 36

Mass of Mould Mould + Mass of Bulk Density Water Content Dry Density
54
 Compacted Compacted soil
Soil
1.898 13.486 11.588 11.804 13.5 10.4
1.898 17.468 15.75 16.043 17.1 13.7
1.898 21.368 19.47 19.84 24 16
1.898 17.492 15.59 15.884 30.2 12.2
1.898 13.518 11.62 11.832 36 8.7

Table no 27: compaction values of soil + 4% slag

Bin number Bin weight Bin+Wet soil Bin+Dry soil Weight of Weight of Water
water Dry content
soil

1 26 42 40 2 14 14
2 22 43 40 3 18 16.4
3 23 48 44 4 21 19.42
4 24 51 46 5 22 23
5 25 58 51 7 26 26.6

Mass of Mould + Mass of Bulk Density Water Dry Density

Mould Compacted Compacted Content
Soil soil

1.898 17.679 15.781 16.074 14 14.1

1.898 20.753 18.855 19.206 16.4 16.5
1.898 23.235 21.337 21.734 19.42 18.2
1.898 20.132 18.234 18.573 23 15.1
1.898 15.321 13.423 13.673 26.6 10.8

55
Table no 28: compaction values of soil + 6% slag
Bin Bin weight Bin+Wet Bin+Dry Weight of Weight of Water
number soil soil water dry soil content

1 25 43 41 2 16 12.4
2 24 48 45 3 21 14.8
3 23 59 54 5 31 16.2
4 22 60 54 6 32 19
5 20 61 54 7 34 20.8

Mass of Mould+compacted Mass of Bulk Water Dry density

mould soil compacted density content
soil

1.898 18.891 16.993 17.309 12.4 15.4

1.898 21.395 19.497 19.861 14.8 17.3
1.898 24.143 22.245 22.659 16.2 19.5
1.898 21.174 19.276 19.635 19 16.5
1.898 17.671 15.773 16.066 20.8 13.3

Table no 29: compaction of soil + 8% slag

Bin Bin weight Bin+Wet Bin+Dry Weight of Weight of Water
number soil soil water dry soil content

1 25 48 46 2 21 9.4
2 20 47 44 3 24 12.4
3 22 53 49 4 27 14.8
4 23 60 54 6 31 19
5 24 62 55 7 31 22.6

56
Mass of Mould+Mass Mass of Bulk density Water Dry density
mould of compacted compacted content
soil soil

1.898 17.149 15.251 15.535 9.4 14.2

1.898 23.526 21.628 22.030 12.4 19.6
1.898 25.926 24.028 24.475 14.8 21.32
1.898 21.759 19.860 20.23 19 17
1.898 14.898 13.01 13.241 22.61 10.8

Table no 30: compaction values of soil + 10% slag

Bin number Bin weight Bin+Wet Bin +dry Weight of Weight of Water
soil soil water dry soil content

1 25 35 34 1 9 11.2
2 26 44 42 2 16 12.4
3 22 47 44 3 22 13.5
4 24 62 57 5 33 15.4
5 20 69 62 7 42 16.6

Mass of Mould + Mass of Bulk density Water Dry density

mould compacted compacted content
soil soil
1.898 18.274 16.375 16.68 11.2 15
1.898 26.175 24.276 24.728 12.4 22
1.898 29.198 27.299 27.802 13.5 24.5
1.898 21.611 19.713 20.079 15.4 17.4
1.898 15.177 13.278 13.526 16.6 11.6

57
 30
25
20
15
10
5
0 OMC MDD
2 4 6 8 10
Fig no 14: graph of comparision OMC and MDD by adding steel slag

1.5 Un-confined compressive Test

Lime percentage Kg/cm2

2 6.12
4 6.85

6 8.35
8 13.52

10 18.26

58
 Black cotton soil + lime
20

15

10

0
2 4 6 8 10
Kg/cm2

represents the graph of soil + lime

Steel percentage Kg/cm2

2 16.83

4 19.35

6 21.63

8 23.94

10 25.00

59
 30

25

20

15

10

0
2 4 6 8 10
Kg/cm2

represents the UCS values of soil + slag

CHAPTER 10
CONCLUSION

 From this project we observed that when admixture is added to black

cotton soil (STEEL SLAG and LIME) there is a increase in strength of

soil and less change in volume of soil.

60
  Hence it can be economical in construction.

 We also found that lime reduces the soil moisture content, reduces soil

plasticity and the compaction increases the strength.

 The strength of the soil increased more with the steel slag compared to

lime.

CHAPTER 11
REFERENCES

 Murthy, V. N. S. (1974), Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Dhanpat Rai &
Sons, Delhi.

 Punmia B.C. (2005), “soil mechanics and foundation engineering” 16th edition Laxmi
publication India 2005.

 Singh M. and Mittal A. (2014), “A Review on the Soil Stabilization with Waste
Materials” International Journal of Engineering Research and Applications (IJERA)
61
 ISSN: 2248-9622 National Conference on Advances in Engineering and Technology
(AET- 29th March 2014).

 Sen A. and Kashyap R. (2012), “Soil stabilization using waste Fiber materials”
National Institute of Technology Rourkela, July 2012.

 Borthakur N. and Singh M. S. (2014) “Stabilization of Peat soil using locally

available admixture”, studied Peat soil has geotechnical properties such as high
water Conf. on Advances in Civil and Structural Engineering - CSE 2014.

62