SOIL STABILIZATION USING CEMENT AS

A SATBILIZER.

Session 2017-2021
PROJECT ADVISOR
ENGINEER KASHIF SAEED

SUBMITTED BY:

ALI HASSAN 12909

ASIF NADEEM 12915
ASIF MEHMOOD 12926
KHIYAL MOHAMMAD 12928
ABUBAKAR SIDDIQUE 12929
SALMAN ARIF 12941
SHAFQAT ABBAS 12956
WAJID ARSHAD 12964
WAQAS AHMAD 12966

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY

GOVERNMENT COLLEGE UNIVERSITY FAISALABAD

SAHIWAL CAMPUS
 To Allah Almighty,
Who has been our eternal rock and source of refuge, and for His
words in 61: 13" Nasrun min Allahi, wa fat'hun qareeb" that kept us
all through the journey of completing this work. We also dedicate
this work to our families for being great pillars of support.

i
 Declaration:

The work reported in this report was carried out by us under the supervision of
Engineer Kashif Saeed Department of Civil Engineering Technology Government
College University Faisalabad Sahiwal Campus, Punjab, Pakistan.

We hereby declare that the title of report SOIL STABILIZATION USING

CEMENT AS A SATBILIZER. And the contents of report are the product of our own
research and no part has been copied from any published source (except the reference,
standard mathematical or genetic models /equations /formulas /protocols etc). We
further declare that this work has not been submitted for award of any other degree
/diploma. The university may take action if the information provided is found inaccurate
at any stage.

ii
 Acknowledgment:

All the praises and gratitude to Allah Almighty for blessing us with health and
knowledge to accomplish this work. We would like to appreciate the Department
of Civil Engineering Technology, Government College University Faisalabad
Sahiwal Campus for giving us the opportunity to instigate this research in the first
place and for the financial and infrastructural support.
First of all, we are obliged to our respected advisor Engineer Kashif Saeed, who
provided us with the opportunity to study and perform research at Government
College University Faisalabad (Sahiwal Campus). He introduced us to the new
ideas in the field of geotechnical engineering and gave us ample freedom to
explore interests and pursue what we thought was interesting. We learnt a lot
through the group discussions, where we could hone our communication skills
while we developed the ability to question without hesitation .Without his
guidance, insights and leadership, it would have been impossible for us to grow
both as a researcher and a person that we are today. He has been great source of
inspiration for us and a great advisor, above all.
We are obliged to the lab staff of Soil Mechanics Laboratory. We got major
support from their side. We are obliged to our parents for being a continuous
source of inspiration and support.

iii
 Abstract

This research was aimed at finding the optimum cement content for achieving maximum
compressive strength and stabilization in soft soil found in the periphery of the city of
Chittagong. But, gaining strength was not considered enough unless it can be proved that
strength was gained without compromising the durability. As such, durability test was
performed on the samples stabilized with different percentages of cement. In this
research three different soil samples were used. The samples were collected from three
different areas within the city where future expansion of the city is expected. Six
different percentages of cement by weight of soil: 0%, 2%, 4%, 6%, 8%, and 10% were
used. Cement was mixed with soil at optimum moisture content. Cubes were casted and
their compressive strengths assessed after a curing period of 7, 14 & 28 days. The
durability test was done in two different cycles: 2 days wetting-drying and 7 days
wetting-drying within a time frame of 28 days. The volume and weight were monitored
after completion of each cycle of wetting and drying. The performance of the soils
modified with different percentages of cement were assessed using Standard Proctor
Test, Unconfined Compression Test and Durability Test. It was found that compressive
strengths in the samples under test increased with the increase of cement content up to
8%. But when cement content is increased above 8%, the compressive strength increased
but in a slower rate. At the end of durability test, it was observed that volume, and
weight of the soil samples produced with 2, 4 and 6% cement changes with the variation
in wetting and drying periods. But when the cement percentage is increased by 6%,
preferably increased to 8%, no appreciable change in weight and volume were observed
after the wetting and drying cycles. The samples going through the two days wetting and
drying cycles under durability test showed greater unconfined compressive strength
compared to samples going through seven days durability cycle of wetting and drying. It
may be mentioned here that the three soil samples stabilized with cement did not show
any major degradation in compressive strength during durability test.
Keywords: Standard Proctor Test, Unconfined Compressive Strength, Durability,
Wetting- Drying, Stabilization

iv
 Table of Contents:
Declaration
Acknowledgment
Abstract
Table of Contents
List of Tables
Chapter 1 Introduction

Introduction
 What is Soil-Cement?
 Cement Stabilisation
 Application
 Factors Affecting Soil Cement Stabilization
 Advantages of Cement Stabilizatin
Disadvantages of Cement Stabilization

Chapter 2 Literature review

Literature review
2.1 Engineering Properties of the soil
2.2 Shear Strength of Soil
2.3 Soil Stabilization
2.3.1 Requirement of soil stabilization
2.3.2 Benefits of Soil Stabilization
2.4 Methods for Soil Stabilization
2.4.1 Mechanical Stabilization
2.4.2 Physical Stabilization
2.4.3 Chemical Stabilization
2.4.5 Physiochemical Stabilization

Chapter 3 Research Methodology

Research
Methodology
3.1 Laboratory Testing
3.1.1 Sieve analysis
Procedure
3.1.2 Moisture content determination
Procedure
3.1.3 Atterberg limits
3.1.3.1 Liquid Limit test
Procedure
3.1.3.2 Plastic Limit Test
Procedure
3.1.4 Specific gravity test
v
 Procedure

3.1.5 Modified Compaction Test

vi
 Procedure 19
3.1.6 Unconfined compression test 20
Procedure 20
3.1.7 Tri-Axial Compression Test 22
Procedure 22
Chapter 4 Results & Discussion 24
Results & Discussion 25
4.1 Modified Procter Compaction Test 25
Chapter 5 Conclusion & Future Recommendations 30
5.1 Conclusions 31
5.2 Future Recommendations 32
6 References 33

vi
 List of Tables
Table 4.1 Determination of dry unit weight (0% Cement) 25
Table 4.2 Determination of dry unit weight (2% Cement) 26
Table 4.3 Determination of dry unit weight (4% Cement) 27
Table 4.4 Determination of dry unit weight (6% Cement) 28
Table 4.5 Determination of dry unit weight (8% Cement) 29
Table 4.6 Determination of dry unit weight (10% Cement) 30

vii
Chapter 1 Introduction

Chapter 1
Introduction

1
 Chapter 1 Introduction
Introduction

Introduction
Substantial length of the existing low volume rural roads in India is unpaved. Heavy rainfall and floods
affect almost all these roads frequently. The unpaved roads are severely damaged due to flood, currents and
wave action. This situation needs maintenance of these roads every year/ frequently. These adverse effects
together with possibly inadequate compaction significantly impair the durability of these roads. The ultimate
effect is comparatively low subgrade strength and eventually higher pavement thickness if paved roads are to
be constructed. On the basis of this context, some treatment of locally available materials has become
necessary for satisfactory and economic construction of roads in these regions. Cement stabilized bases or
lime stabilized sub- bases may be provided for the construction of rural roads for low volume/ light traffic. An
increasing emphasis has been placed on the use of stabilized pavement materials in recent years. Through the
use of stabilizing agents, low-quality materials can be economically upgraded to the extent that these may be
effectively utilized in the pavement structure. Stabilized pavement materials are generally incorporated into
the pavement structure as base courses and sub-bases.

What is Soil-Cement?
Soil-cement is a highly compacted mixture of soil/aggregate, cement and water. It is widely used as a low-
cost pavement base for roads, residential streets, parking areas, airports, shoulders, and materials-handling
and storage areas. Its advantages of great strength and durability combine with low first cost to make it the
outstanding value in its field. A thin bituminous surface is usually placed on the soil-cement to complete the
pavement.
Soil-cement is sometimes called cement-stabilized base, or cement-treated aggregate base. Regardless of the
name, the principles governing its composition and construction are the same.

Cement Stabilisation
The hydrated products of cement bind the soil particles, the strength developed depending on the
concentration of cement and the intimacy with which the soil particles are mixed with cement. A high
cement content of the order of 7-10% can produce a hard mass having a 7-day compressive strength of 20
kg/cm2 or more, and this usually goes by the term soil-cement. However, a smaller proportion of 2-3%
cement can improve the CBR value to more than 25, and the material goes by the term "cement-modified soil",
which can be advantageously used as sub -base/base for rural roads.
Cement stabilization is ideally suited for well graded aggregates with a sufficient amount of fines to
effectively fill the available voids space and float the coarse aggregate particles. General guidelines for
stabilization are that the plasticity index should be less than 30 for sandy materials. For fine- grained soils,
soils with more than 50 percent by weight passing 75µm sieve, the general consistency guidelines are that the
plasticity index should be less than 20 and the liquid limit (LL) should be less than 40 in order to ensure
proper mixing. A more specific general guideline based on the fines content is given in the equation below
which defines the upper limit of PI for selecting soil for cement stabilization.

2
Cement is appropriate to stabilize gravel soils with not more than 45 percent retained on the no. 4 sieve.
TheChapter
Federal1 Highway Administration recommends the use of cement in materials with less than 35 percent
Introduction
passing no. 200 sieve and a plasticity index (PI) less than 20. Based on this system, soils with AASHTO
classifications A-2 and A-3 are ideal for stabilization with cement, but certainly cement can be successfully
used to stabilize A-4 through A-7 soils as well. The Portland cement Association (PCA) established
guidelines to for stabilizing a wide range of soils from gravels to clays.

Application
Generally, granular soils free of high concentration of organic matter not greater than 2%, or deleterious
salts (sulphate and carbonate not greater than 0.2%) are suitable. A useful rule for soil selection is that the
plasticity modulus (product of Pl and fraction passing 425 micron sieve) should be less than 250 and that the
uniformity coefficient should be greater than 5.

Factors Affecting Soil Cement Stabilization

During soil cement stabilization the following factors are affecting.
a) Type of soil: Cement stabilization may be applied in fine or granular soil, however granular is
preferable for cement stabilization.
b) Quantity of cement: A large amount of cement is needed for cement stabilization.
c) Quantity of water: Adequate water is needed for the stabilization.
d) Mixing, compaction and curing: Adequate mixing, compaction and curing is needed for
cement stabilization.
e) Admixtures: Cement has some important admixtures itself which helps them to create a
proper bond. These admixtures pay a vital role in case of reaction between cement and water.

Advantages of Cement Stabilization

a) It is widely available.
b) Cost is relatively low.
c) It is highly durable.
d) Soil cement is quite weather resistant and strong.
e) Granular soils with sufficient fines are ideally suited for cement stabilization as it requires
least amount of cement.
f) Soil cement reduces the swelling characteristics of the soil.
g) It is commonly used for stabilizing sandy and other low plasticity soils. Cement interacts with
the silt and clay fractions and reduces their affinity for water.

Disadvantages of Cement Stabilization

a) Cracks may form in soil cement.
b) It requires extra labour.
c) The quantity of water must be sufficient for hydration of cement and making the mixture
workable.
6

3
 Selection
Chapter 1 of Stabilizer Introduction

The selection of the stabilizer is based on plasticity and particle size distribution of the material to be treated.
The appropriate stabilizer can be selected according to the criterion shown in Table 1. Some control over the
grading can be achieved by limiting the coefficient of uniformity to a minimum value of 5, however, it
should preferably be more than 10. If the coefficient of uniformity lies below 5, the cost of stabilization will
be high and the maintenance of cracks in the finished road would be expensive. If the plasticity of soil is high
there are usually sufficient clay minerals which can be readily stabilized with lime. Cement is more difficult to
mix intimately with plastic material but this problem can be alleviated by pre-treating the soil approximately
2 percent lime.
Table 1: Guide to the Type of Stabilization likely to be Effective
Stabilized Material Soil Properties
More than 25% passing the 0.075 Less than 25% passing the 0.075 mm
mm sieve sieve
PI<10 10<PI<20 PI>20 PI<6 PP<60 PI<10 PI>10
Cement Yes Yes * Yes Yes Yes
Lime - Yes Yes No * Yes
Lime- Pozzolana Yes - No Yes Yes *

Requirement of cement for different types of soils

Stabilisation with cement is resorted to for soils and other locally available materials which do not respond
to lime treatment and when comparatively higher and faster development of strength and durability
characteristics are needed, especially for waterlogged and high rainfall areas. Granular and sandy soils are
most suitable for cement stabilisation. By way of broad guidelines, the requirements of cement content for
different soil types are as under.
For heavy clays/black cotton soils (PI more than 30), two stage stabilization may be adopted i.e. the clay is
treated with lime in the first stage to reduce plasticity and to facilitate pulverization, whereas in the second
stage, the resulting soil is stabilised with cement.
Table 2: Requirements of cement content for different soil types
Soil Type Required Cement Content
Sands/Sandy Soils/Soil Gravels 3-5 percent
Silts/Silty Clays of Low PI (less than 15) 4-8 percent
Clays/Black Cotton Soils 8-15 Percent

Specifications and Test Requirements for Stabilized Materials

General Requirement
The pavement performance of a stabilized road will be largely governed by the gradation and the type of
soil/granular material used for the purpose of stabilization. The quality of material to be stabilized should
meet the minimum standard set out in specifications. Stabilized layers constructed from such material are
likely to perform satisfactory even if, it is affected by carbonation during its life time. Materials which do
not comply with the requirements given in the specifications can be stabilised but more additive will be
required and the risk from cracking and carbonation will

7
4
 Stabilization with Cement
Requirement for soil modification/subgrade improvement
Cement stabilised materials can be used for soil modification or improvement of subgrade
soil. It is recommended from economic consideration that mix in-place methods of construction
be used for subgrade improvement and only granular materials and silty cohesive materials be
used. The assumption being that more clayey materials would be more effectively stabilized with
lime). The main requirements for cement modification or stabilization of subgrade soil are
summarised in Table 3.
Table 3: Soil Characteristics for Cement Modified Soil/Improved Subgrade/Capping
Layer
Properties Specified Value
Liquid Limit (%) <45
Plasticity Index <20
Organic Content (%) <2
Total SO4 content 0.2 % Max
Minimum Laboratory CBR at specified density 15
(%)
Minimum cement content (%) 2*
Degree of pulverisation (%) >60
Temperature for mixing More than 100 C
Time for completing compaction hrs. Max
*In case of better mechanical equipment for spreading of cement, for breaking clods and
blending is used, the minimum percentage of cement for stabilisation could be 0.5 percent.
However extensive lab testing must be done to arrive at this minimum percentage. Sample at
site of blended loose soil be collected and remoulded in lab to confirm that the desired CBR
can be achieved.

Objectives:
The main purpose of this research is to evaluate engineering properties of soil lime mixture
required for safe design of structures to devise a low cost soil strengthening technique for to
construct pavement or a foundation of structure.

General outlines:
. Sample of soil was collected from the soil that was excavated to a depth of 1.5 meters and 2
meters in order to rule out the possibility of intrusive material like weeds, grass or any other sort
of surface organic waste. Sample was preserved in packing sack and placed at room temperature
conditions at Civil Lab Government College University Faisalabad (GCUF) Sahiwal Campus

5
Chapter 2 Literature Review

Chapter 2
Literature review

6
Chapter 2 Literature Review

Literature review

Engineering Properties of the soil:

While Index properties provide base for soil classification, the use of soil as engineering material
is determined by its engineering properties. These properties are related to its stress bearing
capability and are closely linked with each other [3].

Some of the important engineering properties are

Cohesion
Internal friction
Compressive strength
Permeability

Shear Strength of Soil

In soil engineering it is defined as the “maximum stress that soil can safely sustain”. This
resistance to shear is generated by following factors.

 Interlocking of particles
 Internal friction angle
Cementation between particles [4].

Number of factors that affect the magnitude of shear strength of the soil. Besides Soil type and
Moisture content mentioned as most important, some secondary factors are

 Soil composition like mineralogy, grain size, grain shape grain distribution.
 Initial State like stress history, initial void ratio, existing overburden stress.
Packing characteristics like dense or distributed [4].

Soil strength is dependent upon all these properties. For instance particle size and particle shape
determine the inter-particular friction, broadly termed as angle of internal friction which is key
property of soil to assign specific soil stabilization technique. Similar optimum moisture content
of a soil also affect the selection of type of soil stabilization technique [4].

7
Chapter 2 Literature Review

Soil Stabilization
The process of changing the soil properties either index or engineering properties by any mean in
order to make it strong enough to be used as stable foundation material is known as soil
stabilization [5].

Requirement of soil stabilization

As soil behavior tells us about the type of soil and bearing capacity of soil can be achieved by
getting these properties i.e. cohesion and internal friction. Bearing capacity of soil tells us about
how much load can be applied safely that will not cause a problem related to stability of structure
being built on soil.

If a site is selected for a project like construction of multi-story commercial or residential

building and the load coming on foundation is beyond the safe bearing capacity of the soil, then
we have to apply the soil improvement techniques known as soil stabilization technique.

Benefits of Soil Stabilization

 Substantial cost savings in stabilizing soil instead of replacing the soil existing at site.
 Weather related delays are omitted so construction time is reduced.
 Stabilizing soil reduces the section of base and sub base material for pavements.

Methods for Soil Stabilization:

Following general methods are in application to stabilize the soil these days.

1. Mechanical Stabilization
2. Physical Stabilization
3. Chemical stabilization
4. Physiochemical stabilization

Mechanical Stabilization:
It is a technique to improve the soil properties by using mechanical effort/energy. Compaction is
one of its examples. This technique is most widely used in the construction of embankments,
railways and hydraulic structure like dams and barrages. It may be done by using different kinds
of machines such as rollers, vibratory plates or vibratos and tampers.

8
Chapter 2 Literature Review

Physical Stabilization
This method is based upon the concept of changing physical properties of material to improve
its intended use and performance. This is done by blending two or three soil types together so as
to improve the gradation of soil mix, leading it to well graded material. This technique is mostly
used in construction of roads where more than one type of soil are readily available near the site.

Chemical Stabilization
Stabilization of soil carried out with the help of chemical addition or mixing is known as
chemical stabilization of soil. These chemicals are usually known as chemical stabilizers, being
other name soil binders or soil palliatives, provides temporary soil stabilization. Material made
of vinyl, asphalt or rubber are added/mixed or sprayed on the surface of the soil to improve its
resistance and to hold itself together in form of erosion or run off [6] .

Physiochemical Stabilization
It is the use of both physical and chemical methods collectively for soil stabilization. Use of
lime stabilizers is a common example [7].

9
Chapter 3 Research Methodology

Chapter 3
Research Methodology

10
 Chapter 3 Research Methodology

Research Methodology

Material Properties
Three soil samples were collected from (S-1), (S-2) and (S-3) of Sahiwal for this research. S-1 and
S-2 are almost identical in terms of soil properties and grain sizes. The results of the physical
identification tests for all the aforementioned three soil samples are shown in Table 1.
Table 1. Physical parameters of soil samples.

Soil Sample MIT classification Specific Gravity Liquid limit Plastic limit Plasticity index Salinity
(G) (wl) (wp) (Ip)
S-1 Sandy silt and some 2.5 26% 20.45% 5.55% 3%
clay
S-2 Sandy silt and some 2.5 25.5% 20.00% 5.50% 0%
clay
S-3 Silty sand and some 2.67 -- -- -- 0%
gravel
(S-1) in the southern part of the city is near the coast line; therefore, a little percentage of salinity may
be expected in this type of soil. Diamond cement, a composite cement, purchased from the local market
was used as a binder for enhancing the compressive strength / load bearing capacity of the soil.
According to their literature, the compressive strength of the cement at 3, 7 and 28 days are 2.57, 3.56
and
5.9 ksi respectively. Initial and final setting time of the cement are 162 and 353 minutes respectively.
Fineness of the cement was found recorded as 353 m2/kg.

Experimental Program
For the laboratory tests, locally available cement; in this case Diamond Brand Cement, was considered
a candidate stabilizer to treat / stabilize the soil samples. Experiments with different percentages of
cement: 0%, 2%, 4%, 6%, 8% and 10% were used to identify the optimum cement content for gaining
maximum compressive strength with durable subgrade at a low affordable cost. Cement stabilization is
the densification of soil via applying mechanical energy in order to remove air from the soil mass. In this
study “standard compaction test” were applied for investigation the effect of different combination of
cement on the soil behavior. Standard compaction test described in the AS1289.5.5.1 (ASTM D 698) [3]
was performed to determine the maximum dry density (MDD) and the optimum moisture content
(OMC) of the soils.
Unconfined Compression Test (UCT) samples were prepared at the optimum moisture contents
determined from the compaction curves. The UCS tests were carried out on cylindrical specimens,
having a length of 76 mm and a
diameter of 38 mm, by following ASTM D 2166-98. [4] The prepared UCT samples were sealed in a
plastic bag to cure in the humidity room where the temperature was maintained at 20 ± 2 oC for 7, 14
and 28 days before conducting the test. Unconfined compression tests were conducted on a strain-
controlled tri-axial testing frame at a strain rate of 1%/min without application of the cell pressure (σ 3 =
zero). The maximum load was converted to the unconfined compression strength of the sample.
The durability test was used to ensure sustainability of the strength of the modified soil. The test is
conducted according to ASTM D 559-96 standard test method [5]. Samples were prepared with varying
cement contents mentioned above. A set of two specimens were prepared for each mix specifications.
These specimens were prepared with cement mixed with soil at its optimum moisture content; obtained
from the Proctor Compaction Test. The test requires measurements and sample handling for each cycle of
wetting and drying procedures. Two different cycles were considered for this study; 2 days wetting-
11
 Chapter 3 Research Methodology
drying and 7 days wetting- drying for a curing period of 28 days
Atterberg limits:
Atterberg limits are liquid limit, plastic limit and shrinkage limit. The shrinkage limit test is
performed for highly expansive soil.

Liquid Limit test:

Procedure:
1. Take roughly 3/4 of the soil and place it into the porcelain dish. Assume that the soil was
previously passed through a No. 40 sieve, air-dried, and then pulverized. Thoroughly mix
the soil with a small amount of distilled water until it appears as a smooth uniform paste.
Cover the dish with cellophane to prevent moisture from escaping.
2. Weigh four of the empty moisture cans with their lids, and record the respective weights
and can numbers on the data sheet.
3. Adjust the liquid limit apparatus by checking the height of drop of the cup. The point on
the cup that comes in contact with the base should rise to a height of 10 mm. The block on
the end of the grooving tool is 10 mm high and should be used as a gage. Practice using
the cup and determine the correct rate to rotate the crank so that the cup drops
approximately two times per second.
4. Place a portion of the previously mixed soil into the cup of the liquid limit apparatus at
the point where the cup rests on the base. Squeeze the soil down to eliminate air pockets
and spread it into the cup to a depth of about 10 mm at its deepest point. The soil pat
should form an approximately horizontal surface.
5. Use the grooving tool carefully cut a clean straight groove down the center of the cup.
The tool should remain perpendicular to the surface of the cup as groove is being made.
Use extreme care to prevent sliding the soil relative to the surface of the cup
6. Make sure that the base of the apparatus below the cup and the underside of the cup is
clean of soil. Turn the crank of the apparatus at a rate of approximately two drops per
second and count the number of drops, N, it takes to make the two halves of the soil pat
come into contact at the bottom of the groove along a distance of 13 mm (1/2 in.) if the
number of drops exceeds 50, then go directly to step eight and do not record the number
of drops, otherwise, record the number of drops on the data sheet.
7. Take the sample using the spatula, from edge to edge of the soil pat. The sample should
include the soil on both sides of where the groove came into contact. Place the soil into a

12
Chapter 3 Research Methodology

moisture can cover it. Immediately weigh the moisture can, containing the soil, record its
mass, remove the lid, and place the can into the oven. Leave the moisture can in oven for
at least 16 hours. Place the soil remaining in the cup into the porcelain dish and dry the
cup on the apparatus and the grooving tool.
8. Remix the entire soil specimen in the porcelain dish. Add a small amount of distilled
water to increase the water content so that the number of drops required closing the
groove decrease.
9. Repeat steps six, seven, and eight for at least two additional trials producing. Successively
lower numbers of drops to close the groove. One of the trials shall be for a closure
requiring 25 to 35 drops, one for closure between 20 and 30 drops, and one trial for a
closure requiring 15 to 25 drops. Determine the water content from each trial by using the
same method used in the first laboratory. Remember to use the same balance for all
weighing.

Plastic Limit Test:

Procedure:
1. Weigh the remaining empty moisture cans with their lids, and record the weights.
2. Take the remaining 1/4 of the original soil sample and add distilled water until the soil is
at a consistency where it can be rolled without sticking to the hands.
3. Form the soil into an ellipsoidal mass. Roll the mass between the palm or the fingers and
the glass plate. Use sufficient pressure to roll the mass into a thread of uniform diameter
by using about 90 strokes per minute. (A stroke is one complete motion of the hand
forward and back to the starting position. The thread shall be deformed so that its
diameter reaches 3.2 mm (1/8 in.), taking no more than two minutes.
4. When the diameter of the thread reaches the correct diameter, break the thread into
several pieces. Knead and reform the pieces into ellipsoidal masses and re-roll them.
Continue this alternate rolling, gathering together, kneading and re-rolling until the thread
crumbles under the pressure required for rolling and can no longer be rolled in to a 3.2
mm diameter thread.
5. Gather the portions of the crumbled thread together and place the soil into moisture, then
cover it. If the can does not contain at least 6 grams of soil add soil to the can from the

13
Chapter 3 Research Methodology

next trial. Immediately weigh the moisture can containing the soil, record its mass, and
place the can into the oven. Leave the moisture can in the oven for at least l6 hours.
6. Repeat the test to determine the water content from various trials by using the same
method.

Specific gravity test:

Procedure:
1. Determine and record the weight of the empty can dry pycnometer, WP.
2. Fill the pycnometer by one third of a dry soil sample (passed through the sieve No.10).
3. Determine and record the weight of the pycnometer containing the dry soil, WPS.
4. Add distilled water to fill about half to three-fourth of the pycnometer. Soak the sample
for 10 minutes.
5. Apply the partial vacuum to contents for 10 minutes, to remove the entrapped air.
6. Stop the vacuum and carefully remove the vacuum line from pycnometer. Fill the
pycnometer with distilled (water to the mark), clean the exterior surface of the
pycnometer with a clean, dry cloth. Determine the weight of the pycnometer and contents,
WB.
7. Empty the pycnometer and clean it. Then fill it with distilled water only (to the mark).
Clean the exterior surface of the pycnometer with a clean, dry cloth. Determine the weight
of the pycnometer and distilled water, WA.
8. Empty the pycnometer and clean it.

Figure 3-5: Pycnometer for Specific Gravity

14
Chapter 3 Research Methodology

Modified Compaction Test

Procedure:
1. Compact the soil in five layers, each layer being given 25 blows from the rammer
weighing 10 lbs. dropping from a height of 18 inches. The blows should be uniformly
distributed over the surface of each layer.
2. Pulverize the soil sieve it through the # 4 sieve.
3. Determine the weight of the soil sample as well as the weight of the compaction mold
with its base (Without the collar) by using the balance and record the weights.
4. Compute the amount of initial water to add by the following method: Assume water
content for the first test to be 5 percent.
5. Measure out the water, add it to the soil, and then mix it thoroughly into the soil using the
trowel until the soil gets a uniform color.
6. Assemble the compaction mold to the base, place some soil in the mold and compact the
soil in the number of equal layers specified by the type of compaction method employed.
The number of drops of the rammer per layer is also dependent upon the type of mold
used. The drops should be applied at a uniform rate not exceeding around 1.5 seconds per
drop, and the rammer should provide uniform coverage of the specimen surface. Try to
avoid rebound of the rammer from the top of the guide sleeve.
7. Soil should completely fill the cylinder and the last compacted layer must slightly extend
slightly above the collar joint. If the soil is below the collar joint at the completion of the
drops, the test point must be repeated. (Note: For the last layer, carefully, aid add more
soil after about 10 drops if it appears that the soil will be compacted bet the collar joint.
8. Carefully remove the collar and trim off the compacted soil so that it is completely even
with the top of the mold using the trowel. Replace small bits of soil that may fall out
during the trimming process.
9. Weigh the compacted soil while it's in the mold and to the base, and record the mass.
Determine the wet mass of the soil by subtracting the weight of the mold and base.
10. Remove the soil from the mold using a mechanical extruder and take soil moisture
content samples from the top and bottom of the specimen. Fill the moisture cans with soil
and determine the water content.

15
Chapter 3 Research Methodology

11. Place the soil specimen in the large tray and break up the soil until it appears visually as if
it will pass through the # 4 sieve, add 2 percent more water based on the original sample
mass, and re-mix' in step 4. Repeat steps 5 through 9 until, based on wet mass, we got a
peak value followed by two slightly lesser compacted soil masses.

Unconfined compression test:

Procedure:
To determine the shear strength of a cohesive soil with the help of unconfined compression the
procedure is given below

1. Extrude the soil sample from Shelby tube sampler. Cut a soil specimen so that the ratio is
approximately between 2 and 3.

Figure 3-6: Mould for Sample Preparation Figure 3-7: Prepared Sample

2. Measure the exact diameter of the top of the specimen and the length of the specimen.
3. Weigh the sample and record the mass.
4. Carefully place the specimen in the compression device and center it on the bottom plate.
Adjust the device so that the upper plate just makes contact with the specimen and set the
load and deformation dials to zero.

16
Chapter 3 Research Methodology

Figure 3-8: Load and Deflection Gauges

5. Apply the load so that the device produces an axial strain at a rate of 0.5% to 2.0% per
minute, and then record the load and deformation dial readings on the data sheet at every
20 to 50 divisions on deformation the dial.
6. Keep applying the load until the load (load dial) decreases on the specimen significantly

7. The load holds constant for at least four deformation dial readings
8. The deformation is significantly past the 15% strain
9. Draw a sketch to depict the sample behavior.
10. Remove the sample from the compression devices and obtain a sample for water content
determination.
11. Compute the necessary calculations, plot stress strain curve for each sample and find out
failure load (qu).
12. Draw Mohr’s circle using average (qu) and show the cohesion of the soil sample.

17
Chapter 3 Research Methodology

Tri-Axial Compression Test: -

When a soil sample is removed from a soil mass, all of the horizontal and vertical
stresses acting on the soil in situ are removed. Thus, when the soil is tested in the laboratory to
determine its strength, the test should be conducted under test conditions that resemble the field
conditions as closely as possible. The tri-axial compression test is the procedure that permits
different horizontal and vertical stresses to be applied to the soil specimen simultaneously and
thus closely duplicate the expected field conditions

Procedure:
1. If density and moisture content of the soil is known, calculate the weight of the dry soil
needed for proportion of three soil samples of 1.5 inch diameter and 3 inch height.
2. Add specified moisture to the dry soil and mix thoroughly.
3. Prepare the three soil samples of required density by packing the soil in the specimen
mold
4. Take the correct size membrane stretcher and membrane and fit the stretcher, folding the
ends of the membrane over the ends of the stretcher.
5. Insert the sample into the membrane and attach the lower platen using rubber bands or
strips to seal the membrane.
6. Remove the sample from the membrane stretcher and attach the lower platen to the base
of the tri-axial cell. Also attach the upper platen if this has not already been done. Use
extreme case not to damage the soil specimen.
7. Place the Lucite cover on the cell and place the cell in the compression machine. Bring
the load bar in contact with the load piston until a load just flickers on the load dial.
8. Apply a pre-determined chamber pressure for the lateral pressure 3.
9. Attach a deformation dial to the machine so that the sample deformation can be obtained.
Set the dial gage to zero, then manually compress and release the dial plunger several
times and observe the zero reading. Readjust the gage to zero if necessary.
10. Check deformation dial gage and cell pressure gage for final correct settings. Set the
compression machine to the desired rate (generally between 0.5 and 1.25 minim
11. Turn on the compression machine and take simultaneous load and deformation readings.
Readings may be taken at 5,15,25,50, and every 50 to 100 division or as specified until.
Load peaks and then fails off.

18
Chapter 3 Research Methodology

12. Load holds constant for 3 or 4 successive readings.

13. Be sure to monitor the chamber pressure gauge and do not let the chamber pressure vary
2
by more than 0.05 Kg/Cm . It takes only slight pressure changes to alter considerably the
deviator stress, which defines “failures”.
14. After the sample fails, shut off and reverse the compression machine; release the chamber
pressure and remove the same load.
15. Remove the specimen. Obtain final moisture content. Sample.
16. Test at least two more samples by repeating steps 7 to 14 at different confining pressures.
17. Two graphs must be prepared for each confining pressure after necessary calculation.
18. Plot deviator stress, ∆ versus axial strain, ∈. The maximum deviator stress is used to
calculate the maximum value of a 1
19. Plot the Mohr's circle using values of 1 and 3 as abscissa and shear stress as ordinate.
From the Mohr's circle, plot a curve tangent to each circle is drawn. The slope of the
tangent is the angle of internal friction and the intercept with the vertical axis is the value
of the soil cohesion, C

Figure 3-9: Sample placed for Triaxial Test Figure 3-10: Sample Failure in Triaxial Test

19
Chapter 4 Results & Discussion

Chapter 4
Results & Discussion

24
 Chapter 4 Results & Discussion

Results
&
Discus
sion

Physical Properties of the Soil Samples

Results of the physical parameter tests
conducted on the soil samples are presented in
Table 1.
From the particle size analysis, it is found that,
S-1 sample had a sand content of about 38%, silt
content of 47% and clay content of about 15%. In
S-2 sample, the contents of sand, silt and clay
were 39%, 49% and 12% respectively. For
 Chapter 4
S-3 soil sample, these percentages of sand, silt and
clay change to 90%, 8% and 0% respectively with
around 2% gravel in it.
Compaction Characteristics of Stabilized
Soil
The soil particles are reorganized during the
compaction
Figure 1. Compaction curve of S-1 sample with different cement contents.
Maximum dry density (MDD) and Optimum
moisture content (OMC) of the soil sample S-1 is
16.27kN/m3 and 18.73% respectively with zero
percent cement. The MDD lowers when the OMC
increases with the addition of cement
Figure 2. Compaction curve of S-2 sample with different cement contents.
In case of soil sample S-2, the controlled MDD
value is
16.85 kN/m3 and OMC value is 16.19% with zero
% cement. OMC goes up to 21.75% and MDD
declines to 15.86 kN/m3
Results & Discussion
process through water, cement and the external
energy. Figure 1, Figure 2 and Figure 3 illustrate
the compaction properties of soil (S-1, S-2 and S-
3) with varying cement mixtures. The adjustment
in composition of the stabilized mixtures reflected
in the changes in the maximum dry unit weight and
the optimum moisture content.
up to 4%. At this percentage of cement, the MDD
value is
15.4 kN/m3 with a corresponding OMC value is
22.49%. With further addition of cement content,
condition reverses.
for an addition of 6% cement with the soil. Further
addition of cement OMC gets reduced and MDD
increased.
Chapter 4 Results & Discussion

Figure 3. Compaction curve of S-3 sample with different cement contents and variation.
 Chapter 4 Results & Discussion

For sample S-3, OMC was 13.09% and MDD
was 16.4 kN/m3 for the control soil with zero
cement. If cement is added up to 6% the OMC
changes from the controlled value to 15.43% and
the corresponding MDD becomes 16.7kN/m3.
cement. Compressive strength of control soil with
0% percent cement was 2.37 ton/sq.ft. With further
increase in cement percent, the rate of growth in
compressive strength decreased by 0.98% compared
to 8% cement.

Strength Characteristics of Soil-Cement

Stabilization
Time–strength development is crucial in the
study of strength characteristics of soils treated
with stabilizers as the structure of such materials
evolves with time due to continuing hydration/
pozzolanic reactions ([7], [8], [9], [10]). To illustrate
the strength evolution soil specimens treated with
2%, 4%, 6%, 8% and 10% cement, the stress–strain
response was recorded for each of the mixtures
which were cured for 0, 7, 14 and 28 days to
produce the stress–strain curves.

Figure 4. Variation of strength with curing period of S-1.

Figure 5. Variation of strength with% of cement of S-1.

In S-1 soil sample (Collected from Bandartilla),

the maximum strength after 28 days curing is
found with 8% cement, which is about 36 ton
/sq.ft, approximately 15 times greater than the
compressive strength of control soil with 0%
 Chapter 4 Results & Discussion

Figure 6. Variation of strength with curing period of S-2.

Figure 7. Variation of strength with% of cement of S-2.

In S-2 soil sample (Collected from Mohara), the

maximum strength of 33.10 ton/sqft after 28 days
curing period was found with 8% cement, which
are 16 times greater than the compressive strength
(2 ton/ sqft) of control soil with 0% cement. If
percentage of cement is increased further, the rate
of increase in compressive strength gets reduced
compared to the strength of 8% cement. It is
evident from the graph that up to the addition of
8% cement, the rate of gain in strength was almost
uniform.
Figure 8. Variation of strength with curing period of S-1.
Chapter 4 Results & Discussion
Chapter 4 Results & Discussion

Figure 9. Variation of strength with% of cement of S-1.

In S-3 soil sample (Collected from Khulshi hills), the maximum strength was 33.45 ton/sq ft after 28
days of curing period with an addition of 10% cement. The maximum strength is around 25 times larger
than the compressive strength of control soil with 0% cement. Compressive strength of control soil with
0% cement=1.35 ton/sq ft. With further increase of cement content, the strength increases further
significantly. It is evident from the graph that up to the addition of 2.5% cement, compressive strength
gained at a uniform rate. But beyond 2.5% cement, with further addition of cement, gain was there but
the gain took place at a reduced rate of increment. Even with the addition of 2.5% cement, compressive
strength was about 18 ton per sq. ft compared to 1.35 ton per sq.ft in control soil sample with 0%
cement. The gain is around 13 times over the control sample. Therefore, it can be said that the most
economical percentage of cement for gaining a reasonable increase in compressive strength will be 2.5%
in sandy hill soil. But it is to be looked into whether the soil samples with the addition of a minimum
cement of 2.5% of the weight of soil, will be durable or not.

Durability Characteristics
After completion of 7 days cycle of wetting, all the three samples with no cement could not retain
shape and spread flat. A slight change in volume and weight was found with cyclic wetting and drying
of the soil samples with cement percentages of 2%, 4% and 6%. But the volume and weight of the
samples remained almost same with 8 and 10% cement. During durability tests, the 2 days cycled
sample provides higher unconfined compressive strength (UCS) compared to the 7 days cycled sample.
That means with long period of weathering strength decreases.
Chapter 4 Results & Discussion
Chapter 5 Conclusion & Future Recommendations

Conclusion & Future Recommendations

strength increases 11 to 12 times over the control sample of soil with 0% cement in it. This information
can be used effectively in reducing the cost of foundation.
For example, Bandartilla soil in Halishahar, Chittagong has Unconfined Compressive Strength of
2.37 tons /sq.ft and 36 tons /sq.ft for soils with 0% & 10% cement respectively.
If we use safety factor 3, then the strengths for 0% and 10% cement will be 1.09 ton/sq.ft & 11.15
tons/sq.ft. respectively. Improvement in strength is around 10 times the strength with zero percent
cement. This will allow a designer to use shallow foundation in place of deep foundation for a structure
which eventually will reduce the foundation cost drastically.
In road construction, soil bearing capacity improved like this will give very high CBR value. With
high CBR value for sub grade/sub base, height of embankment can be drastically reduced which will
reduce the cost of road construction, eventually.

References
[1] Dr. Arora K. R, 2006. Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering. 376p.
[2] Ibrahaim M. Al-Kiki, Moafaq A. Al-Atalla & Abdulrahman H. Al-Zubaydi., 2011. Durability test of stabilized soil. Eng. & Tech.
Journal, Vol. 29, No. 4.
[3] ASTM D 698, 2000, Standard Test Methods for Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of Soil Using Standard Effort.
[4] ASTM D 2166-98, 2000, Standard Test Method for Unconfined Compressive Strength of Cohesive Soil.
[5] ASTM D 559-96, 1996, Standard test methods for wetting and drying compacted soil-cement mixtures.
[6] T. Kamei, A. Ahmed, K. Ugai, 2013, Durability of soft clay soil stabilized with recycled Bassanite and furnace cement mixtures, The
Japanese Geotechnical Society, 53(1):155 – 165
[7] Al-Refeai, T. O., Al-Karni, A. A., 1999. Experimental study on the utilization of cement kiln dust for ground modification. King
Saud Univ. Eng. Sci. 11 (2), 217–232.

[8] Oriola, F., Moses, G., 2011. Compacted black cotton soil treated with cement kiln dust as hydraulic barrier material. Am. J. Sci.
Indust. Res. 2(4), 521–530.
[9] Peethamparan, S., Olek, J., 2008. Study of the effectiveness of cement kiln dusts in stabilizing N-montmorillonite clays. J. Mater.
Civ. Eng. 20 (2), 137–146.
Salahudeen, A. B., Eberemu, A. O., Osinubi, K. J., 2014. Assessment of cement kiln dust-treated expansive soil for the construction of
flexible pavements. Geotech. Geol. Eng. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10706-014-9769-0 (Springer International Publishing
Chapter 6 References
5