by

DARSHAN GC

USN: 5WK12CHT04

Highway TechnologyGSKSJTI Banglore-01

Under the Guidance ofDr. K.V MANOJ KRISHNA

Assistant Professor

Dept. of Civil Engineering

Govt.S.K.S.J.T.I

Introduction

Literature review

Materials and Methods

Scope of the investigation

Results and discussion

Compaction behaviour of lime treated shedi soil reinforced with randomly distributed fibers

Shear strength behaviour of lime treated shedi

reinforced with randomly distributed fibers

Conclusion

References

Future scope of the work

soil

Stabilisation incorporates the various methods

employed for modifying the properties of

to improve its engineering performance.

a soil

Two main methods of stabilisation

Mechanical stabilisation

Chemical stabilisation

Mechanical

composition

constituents.

stabilisation involves changing the

of soil by addition or removal of certain

Chemical stabilisation involves addition of different

chemicals to soil for stabilisation.

Advantages of Chemical Stabilization of Soil

Setting time and curing time can be controlled.

It gives more strength to soil.

The compacted density of the soil is increases.

Improves the permeability of soil.

Disadvantages of Chemical Stabilization

Relatively expensive

The treated soil may loose strength when exposed to air or

ground water

Requires experienced labours

Chemical should not be used directly to the surface

Reinforced soil is the technique where tensile

elements are placed in the soil to improve stability

and control deformation.

Advantages of soil reinforced with fiber

More importantly, fibre reinforced soil exhibits greater

toughness and ductility and smaller loss of post peak

strength, as compared to soil alone.

Advantages of lime treated soilfibers

reinforced with

It improves strength of soil

It improves ductility behaviour of soil

LITERATURE REVIEWYEAR RESEARCHERS TITLE PUBLICATION

1989 Prakash K et.al Effect of lime on the index and engineering properties of

expansive soil

Indian Geotechnical Conference

1990 Jacques Locat et.al Laboratory investigation on the lime stabilization of sensitive clay

Canadian Geotechnical Conference

1994 Maher M H and HoYC

Mechanical properties kaolinite/fiber soil composite

Journal ofGeotechnical

Engineering

1999 Dallas N Little Mixture design and testing procedures for lime stabilized soil

National lime association

2003 Omer Salbas andTemel Yetimoglu

A study on shear strength of expansive soil reinforced with

randomly distributed fiber

Geotextiles andGeomembranes

2008 Naeini S A andSadjadi S M

Effect of waste polymer materials on shear strength of unsaturated

clays

Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental

Engineering

YEAR RESEARCHER TITLE PUBLICATIONS2009 Suresh Praveen kumar and

Rajasekhar KLaboratory investigation of shedi soil stabilized with pond ash and

coir

Indian geotechnical conference

2010 Ayyappan et.al Investigation of engineering behaviour of soil reinforced with polypropylene fibers and fly ash mixtures for road constructions

International journal of environmental science

and development

2011 Kiki A H et.al Compressive and tensile strength of fibrous clayey soil

stabilized with lime

Al-Rafidain engineering

2012 Muthu Kumar M Strength behaviour of polypropylene fiber reinforced

expansive soil

International journal of engineering research and

applications

2013 Parag M et.al Performance of coir fiber reinforced clayey soil

International journal of engineering and science

2014 Harshita Bairagi R K and Yadav R Jain

Effect of jute fibers on engineering properties of lime

treated black cotton soil

International journal of engineering research and

technology

MATERIALS

ANDMETHODS

( Shedi Soil BIS 425μ sieved)

PROPERTIES RESULTS

Colour Pink

Specific gravity 2.41

Liquid limit (%) 24.00

Plastic limit (%) 12.06

Shrinkage limit (%) 9.96

Plasticity Index (%) 11.94

Maximum Dry Density (kN/m^3) 19.52

Optimum Moisture Content (%) 11.18

Angle of internal friction (Ø) 5˚

Cohesion (C) (kN/m^2) 6.00

Soaked CBR (%) 3.80

Lime

used for

present

investigation

Chemical composition

Sulphate (max) 0.20%

COMPOSITION PERCENTAGE

Assay (min) 95.00%

Chloride (max) 0.01%

Arsenic (max) 0.0004%

Lead (max) 0.001%

Insoluble matter(max)

1.00%

Natural fibersJute fibreCoir fibre

Artificial fibersPolypropylene fibreNylon fibre

Type of fiber Coir Jute

Colour Brown Brown

Length (mm) 1-38 1-38

Specific gravity 0.95 0.56

Density (kN/m3) 1.30 1.24

Water absorption (%) 12.00 51.28

Cost of fiber per Kg 70.00 75.00

Type of fiber Nylon Polypropylene

Colour Blue White

Length (mm) 1-38 1-38

Specific gravity 1.05 0.10

Density (kN/m3) 1.10 1.01

Water absorption (%) 0.00 0.00

Cost of fiber per Kg 85.00 40.00

Compaction test[Concept courtesy by Professor Shridharan and Professor Shivapullaiah IISc]

Special compaction apparatus used in present investigation

Direct shear test equipment used in present investigation

Samples kept for curing in desiccators

҉� Basic properties of shedi soil, coir, jute, nylon and

polypropylene fibre.

҉� Compaction behaviour of shedi soil with randomlydistributed coir fiber, jute fiber, Nylon fiber andPolypropylene fiber with or without lime

҉� Peak strength and stress-strain behaviour of shedisoil reinforced with coir, jute, nylon andpolypropylene with and without lime

Compaction behaviour of lime treated shedi soil

20

Shedi soil(SS) alone

19 Shedi soil+1%Lime

Shedi soil+2%Lime18

Shedi soil+3%Lime

17 Shedi soil+4%Lime

Shedi soil+5%Lime

16Shedi soil+6%Lime

15

14

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24

water content (%)

Variation of Dry density Versus Water content for Shedi Soil treatedwith varying percentage of lime

Dry

den

sity

(K

N/m

^3)

Compaction behaviour of shedi soil reinforced with different percentageof randomly distributed coir fiber

20.5 Shedi soil(SS) alone

SS+0.25%RDCF

19.5 SS+0.50%RDCF

SS+0.75%RDCF

18.5 SS+1.00%RDCF

SS+1.25%RDCF

SS+1.5%RDCF17.5

16.5

15.5

14.5

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24

water content (%)

Variation of Dry density versus Water content for Shedi Soil reinforced withvarying percentage of randomly distributed Coir fiber

Dry

den

sity

(KN

/m^3

)

Compaction behaviour of shedi soil reinforced with different percentageof randomly distributed jute fiber

20.5

Shedi soil(SS) alone

SS+0.25%RDJF19.5

SS+0.50%RDJF

SS+0.75%RDJF

18.5SS+1.0%RDJF

SS+1.25%RDJF

17.5SS+1.50%RDJF

SS+1.75%RDJF

16.5 SS+2.0%RDJF

15.5

14.5

3 6 9 12 15 18 21

Water content(%)

Variation of Dry density Versus Water content for Shedi Soil reinforcedwith varying percentage of randomly distributed jute fiber

Dry

den

sity

(KN

/m^3

)

Compaction behaviour of shedi soil reinforced with different percentageof randomly distributed nylon fiber

20.5

Shedi soil(SS) alone

19.5

SS+0.2%RDNF

SS+0.4%RDNF18.5

SS+0.6%RDNF

17.5SS+0.8%RDNF

SS+1.0%RDNF16.5

15.5

14.5

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24

Water content(%)

Variation of Dry density versus Water content for Shedi Soil reinforced withvarying percentage of randomly distributed Nylon fiber

Dry

den

sity

(KN

/m^3

)

Compaction behaviour of shedi soil reinforced with different percentageof randomly distributed polypropylene fiber

20.5

Shedi soil(SS) alone

SS+0.2%RDPPF19.5

SS+0.4%RDPPF

18.5SS+0.6%RDPPF

SS+0.8%RDPPF

17.5

SS+1.0%RDPPF

16.5

15.5

14.5

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24

Water content(%)

Variation of Dry density V/S Water content for Shedi Soil reinforced withvarying percentage of randomly distributed polypropylene fiber

Dry

den

sity

(KN

/m^3

)

Compaction behaviour of lime treated shedi soil reinforced with differentpercentage of randomly distributed coir fiber

20.5Shedi soil(SS) alone

SS+4%Lime19.5

SS+4%L+0.25%RDCF

18.5 SS+4%L+0.5%RDCF

SS+4%L+0.75%RDCF

17.5

SS+4%L+1.0%RDCF

SS+4%L+1.25%RDCF16.5

SS+4%L+1.50%RDCF

15.5

14.5

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24

Water content(%)

Variation of Dry density versus Water content for Shedi Soil reinforcedwith varying percentage of randomly distributed Coir fiber

Dry

den

sity

(KN

/m^3

)

Compaction behaviour of lime treated shedi soil reinforced with differentpercentage of randomly distributed jute fiber

20

19.5

Shedi soil(SS) alone

19 SS+4%Lime

SS+4%L+0.25%RDJF18.5

SS+4%L+0.50%RDJF18

SS+4%L+0.75%RDJF

17.5 SS+4%L+1.0%RDJF

SS+4%L+1.25%RDJF17

SS+4%L+1.50%RDJF

16.5SS+4%L+1.75%RDJF

16 SS+4%L+2.0%RDJF

15.5

15

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24

content(%)Water

Variation of Dry density versus Water content for Lime treated Shedi Soilreinforced with Randomly Distributed Jute Fiber

Dry

den

sity

(kN

/m^

3)

SS+4%L+0.8%RDNF

Compaction behaviour of lime treated shedi soil reinforced with differentpercentage of randomly distributed nylon fiber

20.5Shedi soil(SS) alone

SS+4%LIME19.5

SS+4%L+0.2%RDNF

18.5 SS+4%L+0.4%RDNF

SS+4%L+0.6%RDNF

17.5

16.5 SS+4%L+1.0%RDNF

15.5

14.5

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24

Water content(%)

Variation of Dry density versus Water content for Lime treated Shedi Soilreinforced with randomly distributed nylon fiber

Dry

den

sity

(kN

/m^3

)

Compaction behaviour of lime treated shedi soil reinforced with differentpercentage of randomly distributed polypropylene fiber

Shedi soil(SS) alone20.5

SS+4%Lime

19.5SS+4%L+0.2%RDPPF

SS+4%L+0.4%RDPPF18.5

SS+4%L+0.6%RDPPF

17.5SS+4%L+0.8%RDPPF

SS+4%L+1.0%RDPPF16.5

15.5

14.5

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24

Water content(%)

Variation of Dry density versus Water content for Lime treated Shedi Soilreinforced with randomly distributed polypropylene fiber

Dry

den

sity

(kN

/m^3

)

Strength behaviour of lime treated shedi soil

reinforced with randomly distributed fibers

Shear strength behaviour of shedi soil treated with lime

200

ays

180ays

160 30 days

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

0 1 2 3

Lime (%)

4 5 6

Variation of shear stress with respect to varying percentage of lime

Pea

k s

hea

r st

ren

gth

(k

N/m

^2)

0 d

7 d

30

Shear strength behaviour of shedi soil reinforced with differentpercentage of randomly distributed coir fiber (30 days curing)

70

0 days

607 days

50 30 days

40

30

20

10

0

0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2

RDCF (%)

Variation of shear stress with respect to varying percentage of randomly distributedcoir fiber

Peak

she

ar s

tren

gth

(kN

/m^2

)

Shear strength behaviour of shedi soil reinforced with differentpercentage of randomly distributed jute fiber (30 days curing)

90

0 days

80

7 days

70

30 days

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2

RDJF (%)

Variation of shear stress with respect to varying percentage of randomly distributedjute fiber

Peak

she

ar s

tren

gth

(kN

/m^2

)

Shear strength behaviour of shedi soil reinforced with differentpercentage of randomly distributed nylon fiber (30 days curing)

60

50

40

30

0 days

7 days20

30 days

10

0

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

RDNF (%)

Variation of shear stress with respect to varyingdistributed nylon fiber

percentage of randomly

Peak

she

ar s

tren

gth

(kN

/m^2

)

Shear strength behaviour of shedi soil reinforced with differentpercentage of randomly distributed polypropylene fiber (30 days curing)

80

70

60

50

40 0 days

7 days

30 days30

20

10

0

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

RDPPF (%)

Variation of shear stress with respect to varying percentage ofdistributed polypropylene fiber

randomly

Peak

she

ar s

tren

gth

(kN

/m^2

)

Shear strength behaviour of lime treated shedi soil reinforced withdifferent percentage of randomly distributed coir fiber (45 days curing)

200

180

Shedi soil(SS) alone

160SS+4%Lime

140SS+4%L+0.25%RDCF

120 SS+4%L+0.50%RDCF

SS+4%L+0.75%RDCF100

SS+4%L+1.00%RDCF80

SS+4%L+1.25%RDCF60

SS+4%L+1.50%RDCF40

20

0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

Curing period (days)

Variation of shear stress of lime treated shedi soil reinforced with randomlydistributed coir fiber at different curing periods

Peak

she

ar s

tren

gth

(kN

/m^2

)

Shear strength behaviour of lime treated shedi soil reinforced withdifferent percentage of randomly distributed jute fiber (45 days curing)

Shedi soi(SS) alone

200

SS+4%Lime180

SS+4%L+0.25% RDJF160

SS+4%L+0.50% RDJF140

SS+4%L+0.75% RDJF120

SS+4%L+1.00% RDJF100

SS+4%L+1.25% RDJF80

60 SS+4%L+1.5%RDJF

40 SS+4%L+1.75% RDJF

20 SS+4%L+2.00% RDJF

0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

Curing period (days)

Variation of shear stress of lime treated shedi soil reinforced with randomlydistributed jute fiber at different curing periods

Peak

she

ar s

tren

gth

(kN

/m^2

)

e

Shear strength behaviour of lime treated shedi soil reinforced withdifferent percentage of randomly distributed nylon fiber (45 days curing)

200Shedi soi(SS)l alone

180SS+4%Lime

160SS+4%L+0.2% RDNF

140 SS+4%L+0.4% RDNF

120 SS+4%L+0.6% RDNF

100 SS+4%L+0.8% RDNF

SS+4%L+1.0% RDNF80

60

40

20

0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

Curing period (days)

Variation of shear stress of lime treated shedi soil reinforced with randomlydistributed nylon fiber at different curing periods

Peak

sh

ar s

tren

gth

(kN

/m^2

)

Shear strength behaviour of lime treated shedi soil reinforced withdifferent percentage of randomly distributed polypropylene fiber (45 days)

200

Shedi soi(SS)l alone180

160 SS+4%Lime

140 SS+4%L+0.2%RDPPF

120 SS+4%L+0.4%RDPPF

100SS+4%L+0.6%RDPPF

80SS+4%L+0.8%RDPPF

60SS+4%L+1.0%RDPPF

40

20

0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

Curing period (days)

Variation of shear stress of lime treated shedi soil reinforced with randomlydistributed polypropylene fiber at different curing periods

Peak

she

ar s

tren

gth

(kN

/m^2

)

Shear strength behaviour of lime treated shedi soil reinforced withoptimum percentage of randomly distributed fibers (60 days curing)

200

180

160

140

120Shedi soil alone

SS+4%Lime

SS+4%L+1.25%RDCF100

SS+4%L+0.75%RDJF

SS+4%L+0.6%RDNF

SS+4%L+0.2%RDPPF

80

60

40

20

0

0 15 30 45 60

Curing period (days)

Variation of peak shear strength of lime treated shedi soil with optimumpercentage of all fibers with curing (60days)

Peak

she

ar s

tren

gth

(kN

/m^2

)

Stress-strain behaviour of lime treated shedi soil reinforced with optimumpercentage of natural and artificial fibers with curing (60days)

250

Conducted at=Their OMC and MDD

200

Shedi soil alone

Shedi soil 4%Lime

150 SS+4%Lime+1.25%RDCF

SS+4%Lime+0.75%RDJF

SS+4%Lime+0.6%RDNF

100 SS+4%Lime+0.2%RDPPF

50

0

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

Strain (%)

Shea

r str

ess

(kN

/^2)

Normal stress=100kN/m^2Strain rate=1.25mm/minConducted at=Their OMC and

Curing period = 60days

She

She

SS+

SS+

SS+

SS+

Shedi soil treated with 4% Lime (by weight of soil) is found

be optimum from compaction and direct shear test.to

Shedi soil reinforced with 1.25% RDCF(by weight of

of of

soil), 1.5% RDJF(by weight of soil) 0.8% RDNF(by weightsoil)

soil)fibre

and shedi soil reinforced with 0.8% RDPPF(by weightshows higher maximum dry density compared to other

combination.

Shedi soil reinforced with 1.25% randomly distributed coir

fiber(by weight of soil),shedi soil reinforced with 1.5%randomly

reinforced weight of

disturbed jute fiber(by weight of soil), shedi soilwith 0.8% randomly distributed nylon fiber (by

soil)and shedi soil reinforced with 0.8% randomlydistributed polypropylene fiber (by weight of soil) shows higher

strength on compared with shedi soil.

From Direct shear test it is found that Lime treated shedisoil reinforced with 1.25% of randomly distributed coir fiber

randomlyand lime treated shedi soil

distributed jute is found toreinforced with 0.75% of

be optimum.

Lime treated Shedi soil reinforced with 0.6%of randomlydistributed nylon and lime treated shedi soil reinforced with

0.2% of randomly distributed polypropylene fiber is found to

curing periods. Which

fibres brittle

is found from the direct shear test.

Addition of to the shedi soil changes the failurepattern from to ductile behaviour and strain isincreased by 2.6 folds on compared to shedi soil and strainincreased by 4.4 folds on compared to lime treated shedi soil.

This indicates it exhibits ductile behaviour in all lime treated shedi soil-fiber combinations.

Prakash K., Sridharan A and Rao S.M. (1989). “Effect of lime on the index and engineering properties of expansive soil”. Geotechnical Engineering, Volume 20, pp 39-44

Jacques Locat., Marc-Andre Berube and Marc Choquette., (1990). “Laboratory investigation on the lime stabilization of sensitive clay”. Canadian geotechnical conference, Volume 27, pp 294-303

Maher M.H and Y.C. Ho., 1994. “Mechanical properties ofKaolinite/Fiber soil composite”. Journal of GeotechnicalEngineering, Vol. 120 [8], pp 1381-1393

Dallas N. Little (1999). “Mixture design and testing procedures for lime stabilized soil”, National Lime Association

Peter Evans (1997). “Update on lime stabilization”, GeotechnicalEngineering, Volume. 2, pp 1-18

Suresh Praveen Kumar and Rajasekhar k (2009). “Laboratory Investigation of Shedi Soil Stabilized with Pond Ash and Coir”.IGC 2009, Guntur, INDIA, pp-428-430

Kate J.M., (2009). “Behavior of expansive clays on engineering properties treated with lime”. International geotechnical conference, pp 88-91

Suresh K., Padmavathi V and Apsal sulthana (2009).“Experimental study on stabilization of black cotton soil withstone dust and fibre”. International geotechnical conference, pp502-505

Ramesh H.N., Manoj Krishna K V and Mamatha H.V (2010). “Compaction and strength behaviour of lime-coir fiber treated black cotton soil”. Geomechanics and Engineering, an

international journal published in USA-Korea, Volume2, Issue 1, pp 19-28

Ramesh H.N., Krishnaiah A.J and Supriya M.D (2012).“Effect of Lime on the Compaction and Strength Behavior ofred earth soil”. IOSR Journal of Mechanical and CivilEngineering, Volume 2, Issue 4, pp 01-06

Parag M. Chaple and A I. Dhatrak Coir fiber Reinforced Clayey Soil”. Of Engineering And Science (IJES),

(2013). “Performance of

The International JournalVol. 2, Issue 4, pp54-64

Pandey. K. Bajaj and A. P. Singh (2013). “ Soil StabilizationUsing Pozzolanic Material and Jute Fibre”. IndianGeotechnical Conference (IGC), pp 01-08

Prathap Kumar M.T.and Jairaj (2014). “Shear StrengthParameters of BC Soil Admixed with Different Length of CoirFiber”. IJERT, ISSN: 2278-0181, Vol.3 Issue4, April-2014

X-ray diffraction studies and electronic micro static (EDM)

studies at various curing period are necessary

As these results are validated for duration of 60 days curing

periods like 1 year to 2 years

Financial out-lay of these combinations necessary for field

engineers for selection of combinations based on project and

financial constraints

Comparison of field study with laboratory values