by guided by, - srpec
TRANSCRIPT
By guided by, Patel Hardik 10cl12 Amar Salariya Patel Hiren 10cl13 (assistant prof. , civil department) Patel Satish 10cl18 Prajapati Pavan 09cl51
Content • What is soil stabilization?
• Why we choose this topic?
• Object
• Future scope
• Literature Review
• Conclusion from Literature
• Analysis from Literature
• Tests which are performed by us
• Properties of soil sample
• Properties of soil LDPE
• Properties of soil HDPE
• Result And Discussion
• Conclusion
• Further Study Is Needed To
What is soil stabilisation?
• Soil stabilization is the process of altering some soil properties by different methods, mechanical or chemical in order to produce an improved soil material which has all the desired engineering properties.
Why we choose this topic?
• This new technique of soil stabilisation can be effectively used to meet the challenges of society, to reduce the quantities of waste, producing useful material from non-useful waste materials.
• The disposal of the plastic wastes without causing any ecological hazards has become a real challenge. Thus using plastic as a soil stabilizer is an economical utilization since there is scarcity of good quality soil for embankments.
Objective
• To study on CBR (California Bearing Ratio) behavior of waste plastic strip reinforced soil having strip width of 10mm and a thickness of 40 micron. These were cut into lengths of 10mm [Aspect Ratio (AR) =1], 20mm (AR=2) and 30mm (AR=3), 40mm (AR=4)
• The tests were conducted at various strip contents of 0.0%, 0.25%, 0.5%, and 1%
Future scope
• The proposed technique can be used to advantage in embankment/road construction, industrial yards etc.
• This new technique of soil stabilisation can be effectively used to meet the challenges of society, to reduce the quantities of waste, producing useful material from non-useful waste materials.
Literature Review
• Megnath Neopaney1, Ugyen, Kezang Wangchuk2, Sherub Tenzin3 Students, Department of Civil Engineering, KLCE (Autonomous), Vijayawada, AP, India. E-mail:[email protected], K.Shyam Chamberlin4, Assistant Professor, Dept of Civil Engineering, KL University, Vijayawada, AP, India. (International Journal of Emerging trends in Engineering and Development , ISSN 2249-6149 Issue 2, Vol.2 (March-2012)
• Anas Ashraf, B. Tech final year student, College of Engineering Trivandrum, [email protected] ,Arya Sunil, B. Tech final year student, College of Engineering Trivandrum, [email protected] ,J. Dhanya, B. Tech final year student, College of Engineering Trivandrum, [email protected], Mariamma Joseph, Professor, College of Engineering, Trivandrum, [email protected], Meera Varghese, B. Tech final year student, College of Engineering Trivandrum, [email protected], M. Veena, B. Tech final year student, College of Engineering Trivandrum, veenam_20jul@yahoo.(Proceedings of Indian Geotechnical Conference December 15-17,2011, Kochi (Paper No. H-304)
• IS: 1888(1982), Method of Load Test on Soils. Indian Standards Institutions, New Delhi.
• Arpan Sen Rishabh Kashyap , Department of Civil Engineering, National Institute of Technology Rourkela, Rourkela – 769008, India.
Analysis from Literature
• the solid waste produced in the US in 1988 included 14.4 million tons of plastic occupying 20% by volume of available landfill spaces. Approximately 2.2 million tons of HDPE are produced annually and only 7% are currently being recycled. The estimated municipal solid waste production in India up to the year 2000 was of the order of 39 million tons per year. This figure is most likely to touch 56 million tons per year by the end of 2010
Analysis from Literature
Literature 1 Literature 2 Literature 3
Plastic type HDPE(detergent bags, carry bags,
container bags,)
PET(used in water bottels) LDPE(used in carry bags,
film)
Thickness 400 micron - 40 micron
AR 1,2,3 (length=12mm) Not defined 1,2,3(length=10mm)
Percentage Of
plastic taken
0.5%, 0.50%, 1%, 2%, 4% 0.2%, 0.4%, 0.6%, 0.8%, 1% 0.25%, 0.5%, 1%
CBR of normal soil 1.6 1.3 0.71
Maximum CBR
Plastic
content
AR CBR
value
4% 3 2.9
Plastic
content
AR CBR
value
0.6% - 2.5
Plastic
content
AR CBR
value
0.5% 3 1.2
Tests which are performed by us 1)Specific Gravity :
Objective: To determine the specific gravity of soil by using a pycnometer
Result: specific gravity of soil is 2.25
1
1 Weight of pycnometer W1 g
644
2 Weight of pycnometer + dry soil W2 g
1115
3 Weight of pycnometer + dry soil +
water W3 g
1918
4 Weight of pycnometer + water W4 g
1656
5 Specific gravity of soil at Tt G
2.2535
Average sp. Gravity of soil at Tt 2.25
Average sp. Gravity of soil at 27O c 2.4
2)Sieve analysis:
Objective: to determine the grain size distribution of coursed grain soil by: sieving.
Sr.
no.
IS
Sieve
Particle
size (mm)
Mass
retained
(g)
%
Retained
Cumulative %
retained
Cumulative %
finer
(N)
1 4.75 mm 4.75 10 1 1 99
2 2.36 mm 2.36 80 8 9 91
3 1.18 mm 1.18 113 11.3 20.3 79.7
4 600µ
0.600
140 14 34.3 65.7
5 425µ
0.425
44 4.4 38.7 61.3
6 300µ
0.300
38 3.8 42.5 57.5
7 150µ
0.150
175 17.5 60 40
8 75µ
0.075
343 34.3 94.3 5.7
9 pan pan 55 5.5 99.8 0.2ss
(Sieve analysis) Result: cu=4.36 is <5 so the send particle are having uniform size and cc=1.13 which is between 1 to 3
99
91
79.7
65.7
61.3 57.5
40
5.7
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
-1.4 -1.2 -1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Chart Title
3)Liquid limit:
Objective: To Determine the moisture content, expressed as a percentage of the weight of the oven-dried soil,
at the boundary between the liquid and plastic states of consistency.
Determination Number 1 2 3
Container number 6 7 8
Weight of container (gm) 10 9 10
Weight of container + wet soil (gm) 45 34 44
Weight of container + dry soil (gm) 40 29 36
Weight of water (gm) 5 5 8
Weight of dry soil (gm) 30 20 26
Moisture content (%) 16.6 25 30.76
No. of blows 55 15 7
(Liquid limit graph) Result: the liquid limit of soil is 23%
flow index is 14.92
4)Standard compaction test:
Objective: To determine the optimum moisture content at which the maximum dry unit
weight is attained.
Trial No. 1 2 3 4 5
a) DENSITY
1. Weight of mould + Compacted soil
(g)
5294 5404 5674 5752 5720
2.Weight of empty mould (g) 3622 3622 3622 3622 3622
3. Weight of Compacted soil (g) 1672 1782 2052 2130 2098
4. Bulk density (g/c.c) 1.77 1.84 2.17 2.26 2.22
5.Dry density (g/c.c) 1.66 1.70 1.92 1.96 1.89
a) WATER CONTENT
1.Container No. 5 6 7 8 9
2.Weight of container + wt. soil (g) 43 40 43 40 57
3.Weight of container + dry soil (g) 41 37 35 36 50
4.Weight of empty container (g) 10 10 10 10 10
5.Weight of water W/w(g) 2 3 4 4 7
6.Weight of dry soil Wd (g) 31 27 29 26 40
7.Water content % = Ww/Wd x 100 6.45 11.11 13.79 15.38 17.5
(compaction graph)
Result: optimum moisture content of our soil is 15.54% and OMD is 1.96g/cc
1.6
1.65
1.7
1.75
1.8
1.85
1.9
1.95
2
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
dry
den
city
water content
Chart Title
5)Direct shear test:
Objective: To Determine the Shear Parameters of a soil.
• Result: value of c=0.0017kg/cc and ø=30o
Sr.No.
(1)
Normal stress
(kg/cm2)(2)
Shear force=
Proving div(3)
Shear strain =
(3)/A* P.C (kg/cm2)(4)
1. 7 0.004 0.000034
2. 10 0.005 0.000043
3. 13 0.006 0.000052
0.004
0.005
0.006
0
0.001
0.002
0.003
0.004
0.005
0.006
0.007
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
norm
al s
tres
s
normal stress
Proving div(3)
6)CBR test: Objective: Determination of CBR of soil either in undisturbed or Remoulded condition
Penetration Dial Load Dial
Penetration (mm) Load (kg)
0.5 6
1 5
1.5 7
2 13.75
2.5 14
3 14.689
4 15.5
5 16
7.5 20
10.5 21.26
12.5 22.4
13 22.6
14 23
15 24
16 25
(CBR graph) • Result: we get the CBR of specimen at
2.5mm and 5mm penetration is
0.71% and 0.64% respectively
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Load
penetration
CBR test
Properties of soil sample Test IS Code Result
Dry Density Is :272O(PartxxIx)-1975 1.702
Specific Gravity IS : 2720 ( Part III/Set 2) - 1980
2.4
Co-efficient of uniformity IS :2720 (Part 4) - 1985
4.36
Co-efficient of curvature IS :2720 (Part 4) - 1985 1.13
Liquid limit IS :2720 (Part 5) - 1985 23%
Flow index IS :2720 (Part 5) - 1985 14.92
OMC IS :2720 (Part 7) – 1980/87 15.54
MDD IS :2720 (Part 7) – 1980/87 1.96 g/cc
C IS :2720 (Part 13) - 1985 0.0017kg/cc
Ø IS :2720 (Part 13) - 1985 30o
C.B.R. of specimen at 2.5 mm penetration IS : 2720 ( Part 16 ) - 1987 0.71%
C.B.R. of specimen at 5 mm penetration IS : 2720 ( Part 16 ) - 1987 0.64%
Properties of LDPE Behavior parameters Values
Plastic type LDPE
Fiber type single fiber
Density 0.92gm/cm3
Dielectric Constant (Relative Permittivity)
Low Hz Range 2.3
Elastic (Young's) Modulus 0.3 GPa
Limiting Oxygen Index (LOI) 18%
Maximum Temperature
Onset of Melting (Solidus) 112 °C
Shear Modulus 0.21 GPa
Specific Heat Capacity (Conventional) 2300 J/kg-K
Specific Heat Capacity (Volumetric) 2100 103 J/m3-K
Speed of Sound 18 103 m/s
Stiffness-to-Weight Ratio (Shear) 0.22 MN-m/kg
Stiffness-to-Weight Ratio (Tensile) 0.32 MN-m/kg
Strength-to-Weight Ratio Tensile, Ultimate 7.6 kN-m/kg
Tensile Strength Ultimate
7Mpa
Thermal Conductivity Ambient
0.36 W/m-K
Thermal Expansion 20 to 100°C 220 µm/m-K
Vicat Softening Temperature 50 °C
Acid and alkali resistance Excellent
Dispersibility excellent
Properties of HDPE Behavior parameters Values
Plastic type HDPE
Fiber type single fiber
Density 0.95gm/cm3
Dielectric Constant (Relative Permittivity)
Low Hz Range 2.4
Elastic (Young's) Modulus 1.0 GPa
Limiting Oxygen Index (LOI) 18%
Maximum Temperature
Onset of Melting (Solidus) 131 °C
Shear Modulus 0.85 GPa
Specific Heat Capacity (Conventional) 2400 J/kg-K
Specific Heat Capacity (Volumetric) 2200 103 J/m3-K
Speed of Sound 32 ×103 m/s
Stiffness-to-Weight Ratio (Shear) 0.89 MN-m/kg
Stiffness-to-Weight Ratio (Tensile) 1.0 MN-m/kg
Strength-to-Weight Ratio Tensile, Ultimate 21 kN-m/kg
Tensile Strength Ultimate
20Mpa
Thermal Conductivity Ambient
0.45 W/m-K
Thermal Expansion 20 to 100°C 160 µm/m-K
Vicat Softening Temperature 70 °C
Acid and alkali resistance Excellent
Dispersibility excellent
Result And Discussion • Load and penetration with 0.25 percentage of strip
penetration load 0.25
0 0
0.5 6
1 5
2.1 14
4 21
6 22
7 24
8 25
9 25.2
10 25.6
11 26
12 27
13 28
14 28.4
15 28.7
16 29
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Load
Penetration
load 0.25
Result And Discussion
• Load and penetration with 0.5 percentage of strip
penetration load 0.5
0 0
0.5 4
1 7
2.1 18
4 30
6 39
7 42
8 45
9 46
10 47
11 48
12 49
13 49.7
14 50
15 50.3
16 51
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Load
penetration
load 0.5
Result And Discussion
• Load and penetration with 0.1 percentage of strip
penetration load 1
0 0
0.5 4
1 5.1
2.1 11
4 19
6 20
7 22
8 24
9 25
10 26
11 27
12 27.5
13 28.6
14 28.4
15 28
16 28
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Load
Penetration
load 1
Result And Discussion
• Load and penetration with different percentage of strip
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Load
Penetration
CBR graph for differnt % of strip
load 0.25 load 1 load 0.5 load 0
Result And Discussion
• Load and penetration with AR 1 and 0.5% strip content
• Result: we get the CBR of specimen at
2.5mm and 5mm penetration is
1.20% and 1.06% respectively
penetration load at AR 1
0 0
1 5
2 9
3 15
4 19
5 21
6 22
7 24
8 25
9 26
10 28
11 28
12 28
13 29
14 29
15 29
16 29
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Load
penetration
load at AR 1
Result And Discussion
• Load and penetration with AR 2 and 0.5% strip content
•
• Result: we get the CBR of specimen at
2.5mm and 5mm penetration is
1.40% and 1.33% respectively
penetration load at AR 2
0 0
1 5
2 9
3 21
4 23
5 24
6 34
7 36
8 38
9 39
10 41
11 48
12 51
13 52
14 53
15 54
16 55
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Load
Penetration
load at AR 2
Result And Discussion
• Load and penetration with AR 3 and 0.5% strip content
• Result: we get the CBR of specimen at
2.5mm and 5mm penetration is
1.90% and 2.07% respectively
penetration load at AR 3
0 0
1 12
2 21
3 30.5
4 36
5 41
6 43
7 46
8 51
9 52
10 53
11 53.4
12 54
13 55
14 54.7
15 56
16 60
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Load
Penetration
load at AR 3
Result And Discussion
• Load and penetration with AR 4 and 0.5% strip content
•
• Result: we get the CBR of specimen at
2.5mm and 5mm penetration is
1.63% and 1.91% respectively
penetration load at AR 4
0 0
1 5
2 10
3 29
4 33
5 37
6 41
7 42.7
8 47
9 50
10 50.5
11 51
12 53
13 54.3
14 54
15 55
16 58
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Load
Penetration
load at AR 4
Result And Discussion
• Load and penetration with different AR and 0.5% strip content
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Load
Penetration
CBR graph with diffrent AR and 0.5% strip content
with out strip load at AR 1 load at AR 2 load at AR 3 load at AR 4
Result And Discussion
1) The load- penetration curves for following CBR test were performed.
a) Same aspect ratio but at different strip content of 0%, 0.25%, 0.50%, 1%.
b) Varying aspect ratios (AR) 1, 2,3and 4 at same strip content.
2) It can be observed from these figures that mixing of uniformly distributed
plastic strips in soil increased the piston load at a given penetration considerably.
3) It is also evident from these figures that inclusion of waste plastic increased the
CBR value appreciably.
Conclusion
• The addition of reclaimed plastic waste material to local soil increases the CBR.
• The maximum improvement in CBR is obtained while using 0.5% plastics strips having aspect ratio 3.
• The CBR value at AR 4 and 0.5% plastic strip decreased.
• The reinforcement benefit increases with an increase in AR and percentage of strip content up to certain limit, and beyond that it reduces its strength.
• The maximum CBR value of a reinforced system is approximately 1.70 times that of an unreinforced system.
• We can therefore conclude that base course thickness can be significantly reduced if waste plastic strip is used as soil stabilizing agent for sub-grade material. This suggests that the strips of appropriate size cut from reclaimed plastic wastes may prove beneficial as soil reinforcement in highway sub-base if mixed with locally available granular soils in appropriate quantity.
Further Study Is Needed To
• optimize the size and shape of strips and increasing its percentage content.
• assess the durability and aging of the strip.
• Large scale test is also needed to determine the boundary effects influence on test results.
