Sei sulla pagina 1di 8

ISSN: 2320-8236

VOLUME: 2, ISSUE:3
JULY- SEPTEMBER 2014

www.ircjournals.org

Performance evaluation of weak sub grade soil and


treating the subsequent layers of the pavement by using
advanced stabilization technique
Prof. Vijayanand S. Dolli
Professor, Civil Department,
Jain College of engineering,
VTU Belgaum, Karnataka, India

Sammed C. Kolhapure , Gautam U.V. ,


Sohan P. Meharwade
Student, Civil Department, Jain College of engineering,
VTU, Belgaum, Karnataka

ABSTRACT
Construction of highways on weak sub grades is greatest challenge for highway engineers, if the sub grade soil is expansive in nature;
the construction becomes more tedious from the stability point of view. The expansive soil such as black cotton soil and red soil are
problematic hence it is required to stabilize those sub grade soil before subsequent layers such as sub base course, base course and
varying courses are to be laid over it. The sub grade soil is improved by using advance stabilization techniques by replacing
expansive soil with locally available materials by using Geo grids, Fly ash, GGBS, Quarry dust. In this project it is aimed to carryout
experimental analysis by using above materials in different percentages, and find out the CBR values for different combinations.
Keywords - Advanced stabilization, CBR, Geo grid, GGBS, Fly-ash ash, Quarry dust.

INTRODUCTION
The pavement is hard layered structure that forms a road carriageway, airfield runway, Vehicle Park, or other paved areas. A highway
pavement is designed to support the wheel loads imposed on it from traffic moving over it
Pavements are typically divided into following types:
1. Flexible pavement 2. Rigid pavement
Flexible pavements are constructed of several layers of natural granular material covered with one or more waterproof bituminous
surface layers, and as the name imply, are considered to be flexible. A flexible pavement will flex (bend) under the load of a tires. The
objective with the design of a flexible pavement is to avoid the excessive flexing of any layer, failure to achieve this will result in the
over stressing of a layer, which ultimately will cause the pavement to fail. In flexible pavements, the load distribution pattern changes
from one layer to another, because the strength of each layer is different. The strongest material (least flexible) is in the top layer and
the weakest material (most flexible) is in the lowest layer. The reason for this is that at the surface the wheel load is applied to a small
area, the result is high stress levels, deeper down in the pavement, the wheel load is applied to larger area, and the result is lower stress
levels thus enabling the use of weaker materials.
Rigid pavements are composed of a PCC surface course. Such pavements are substantially stiffer than flexible pavements due to
the high modulus of elasticity of the PCC material. Further, these pavements can have reinforcing steel, which is generally used to
reduce or eliminate joints. The increased rigidity of concrete allows the concrete surface layer to bridge small weak areas in the
supporting layer through what is known as beam action. This allows the placement of rigid pavements on relatively weak supporting
layers, as long as the supporting layer material particles will not be carried away by water forced up by the pumping action of wheel
loads.
To construct the pavement on weak sub grade soil, the soil should be first stabilized to sustain heavy wheel loads. Here the treatment
of sub grade is done by using various admixtures like GGBS, Quarry dust, fly ash together in different percentages by weight of soil.
Geo grid is used as reinforcing material between upper subsequent layers of pavement and sub grade soil. Geo grids work by
interlocking with the granular or soil material placed over them. The apertures allow for strike-through of the cover soil material
which then interlocks with the ribs (flat straps/bars) providing confinement of the overlaying granular/soil material due to the stiffness
and strength of the ribs.
Earlier to this study the soil is treated by adding single admixture like lime, fly ash, quarry dust, GGBS, silica fumes, fibers. In this
study the experiment is carried out by combination of GGBS, Fly ash, quarry dust in different proportion to know the various changes
in properties of soil.
Objective of study
(1) To explore the possibility of using locally available materials and by using Geo grid, Fly ash, GGBS, Quarry dust in various
proportions to get the best combination for the performance of pavement.
(2) To design the flexible pavement for the best combination of proportion obtained which yields the best strength for
pavement.
Experimental investigation
The experimental investigation carried out to study the different properties of Red soil and Black cotton soil. The various tests which
are been carried out are being explained here.

158

ISSN: 2320-8236
VOLUME: 2, ISSUE:3
JULY- SEPTEMBER 2014

www.ircjournals.org

Specific gravity: The specific gravity of a substance is the ratio of the unit weight of the substance to the unit weight of water.
Specific gravity of a soil is the measure of its strength or quality of the material. Soils having low specific gravity are generally
weak in strength. Specific gravity is defined as the ratio of the mass of a given volume of soil sample to the mass of an equal
volume of water at the same temperature.
Moisture content: Moisture content of soil is nothing but to determine the water content of soil sample by oven drying
method. The experiment forms an essential part of any other laboratory experiments.
Liquid limit: The liquid limit is determined in the laboratory with the help of the standard liquid limit apparatus designed by
Casagrande. Liquid limit is the water content corresponding to arbitrary limit between liquid limit and plastic limit of
consistency of a soil. It is defined as the minimum water content at which the soil is still in liquid state, but has a small shearing
strength against flowing. It is also defined as the minimum water content at which apart of soil cut by a groove of standard
dimensions, will flow together for a distance of 12mm under an impact of 25 blows in the casagrande device. The tested sample
is oven dried for 24 hrs. to get moisture content.
Plastic limit: Plastic limit is the water content corresponding to an arbitrary limit between the plastic and the semi-solid states
of consistency of a soil. It is defined as the minimum water content at which a soil just begins to crumble when rolled into a
thread approximately 3mm in dia. The tested sample is oven dried for 24 hrs to get moisture content.
Modified proctor compaction: Higher compaction is needed for heavier transport and military aircraft. The modified proctor
test was developed to give a higher standard of compaction. In this test, the soil is compacted in standard proctor mold but in 5
layers, each layer being given 25 blows of a 4.5 kg hammer dropped through a height of 18 inches. The compactive energy
given to the soil in this test is 27260 kg-cm per 1000 cm3 which is about 4.5 times the Standard Proctor test. The effect of
higher compaction is to increase the maximum dry density and to decrease the optimum moisture content.
Here in the study six types of Red soil mixes and six Black cotton soil mixes were carried out. The details of the mixes are as
below;
1. Red Soil:
Mix 1 Red Soil with 5% GGBS, 10% Fly ash, 10% Quarry dust.
Mix 2 Red Soil with 5% GGBS, 12% Fly ash, 12% Quarry dust.
Mix 3 Red Soil with 5% GGBS, 14% Fly ash, 14% Quarry dust.
Mix 4 Red Soil with 5% GGBS, 16% Fly ash, 16% Quarry dust.
Mix 5 Red Soil with 5% GGBS, 18% Fly ash, 18% Quarry dust.
Mix 6 Red Soil with 5% GGBS, 20% Fly ash, 20% Quarry dust.
2. Black Cotton Soil:
Mix 1 Black Cotton Soil with 5% GGBS, 10% Fly ash, 10% Quarry dust.
Mix 2 Black Cotton Soil with 5% GGBS, 12% Fly ash, 12% Quarry dust.
Mix 3 Black Cotton Soil with 5% GGBS, 14% Fly ash, 14% Quarry dust.
Mix 4 Black Cotton Soil with 5% GGBS, 16% Fly ash, 16% Quarry dust.
Mix 5 Black Cotton Soil with 5% GGBS, 18% Fly ash, 18% Quarry dust.
Mix 6 Black Cotton Soil with 5% GGBS, 20% Fly ash, 20% Quarry dust.
The test results for red soil and different red soil mix is tabled below.
Table 1 Test results for red soil and its combination
Sl.no

Tests

Red Soil

Mix1

Mix2

Mix3

Mix4

Mix5

Mix6

1
2
3
4
5

Specific gravity
Moisture. Content
Liquid limit
Plastic limit
MDD

2.18
4.73%
50%
26.9%
1.77

2.58
5.69%
41.13%
29.8%
1.81

2.21
4.3%
41.79%
29.60%
1.82

2.56
4.53%
36.49%
21.62%
1.85

2.2
2.68%
37.12%
22.22%
1.80

2.06
2.53%
38.56%
27.37%
1.79

2.34
2.15%
38.93%
16.9%
1.85

Optimum m. content

21.8%

19.8%

18%

17%

19%

21%

17%

Performance evaluation of weak sub grade soil and treating the subsequent layers of the pavement
by using advanced stabilization technique
Vijayanand S. Dolli, Sammed C. Kolhapure , Gautam U.V., Sohan P. Meharwade

INTERNATIONAL RESEARCH COMMUNION

159

ISSN: 2320-8236
VOLUME: 2, ISSUE:3
JULY- SEPTEMBER 2014

www.ircjournals.org

1.9

red soil
red mix1
red mix2
red mix3
red mix 4
red mix 5
red mix 6

Dry density gm/cc

1.85
1.8
1.75
1.7
1.65
1.6
10

12

14

16
18
20
22
Moisture content %
Fig. 1 Modified proctor test for various red soil mixes
The test results for Black cotton soil and different black cotton soil mix is tabled below.
Table 2 Test results for Black cotton soil and its combination

24

Sl.no

Tests

BC Soil

Mix1

Mix2

Mix3

Mix4

Mix5

Mix6

Specific gravity

2.22

2.7

2.18

2.17

1.91

2.65

2.42

Moisture. Content

4.88%

5.7%

6.8%

4.83%

4.61%

3.77%

4.53%

Liquid limit

60.1%

67.1%

58.1%

67.9%

60.9%

59.2%

62.63%

Plastic limit

29.8%

30.98%

33.84%

28.1%

35%

39.85%

31.61%

MDD

1.55

1.6

1.53

1.59

1.57

1.55

1.62

Optimum M.
Content

30%

22%

26%

25%

23%

26%

24%

Fig. 2 Modified proctor test on Black cotton soil


black soil
black mix 1
black mix 2
black mix 3
black mix 4
black mix 5
black mix 6

1.7
Dry density gm/cc

1.65
1.6
1.55
1.5
1.45
1.4
17

22

27
32
Moisture content %

37

The best combination obtained for Red soil is mix 3 with 5% GGBS, 14% fly ash, 14% quarry dust. And best combination
obtained from black cotton soil is with 5%GGBS, 10% fly ash, 10% quarry dust. Because these should higher MDD compare to
all combinations of mixes.
Hence these soil samples are chosen for California bearing Ratio test. And for design proposes.

California bearing ratio test


This is a penetration test developed by the California division of highways, as a method for evaluating the stability of soil sub
grade and other flexible pavement materials test results have been co related with flexible pavement thickness requirements for
highways and air fields. The CBR test may be conducted in the laboratory on a prepared specimen in a mold or in-situ in the
field.
California bearing ratio is the ratio of force per unit area required to penetrate in to a soil mass with a circular plunger of 50mm
diameter at the rate of 1.25mm /min.
Performance evaluation of weak sub grade soil and treating the subsequent layers of the pavement
by using advanced stabilization technique
Vijayanand S. Dolli, Sammed C. Kolhapure , Gautam U.V., Sohan P. Meharwade

INTERNATIONAL RESEARCH COMMUNION

160

ISSN: 2320-8236
VOLUME: 2, ISSUE:3
JULY- SEPTEMBER 2014

www.ircjournals.org

Based on the modified proctor test results for different combinations of Red soil ad Black cotton soil, the best combination
which yielded the best results i.e. max MDD and OMC where considered for the CBR test.
Further to this obtained combination we used Geo grids of cell size 1cm1cm as reinforce material to strengthen the weak soil
and improve CBR value of the soil and hence reduce the thickness of pavement.
Load

Plunger of 50mm diameter

Surcharge
Soil layer above Geo grid
Geo - grid

Soil layer compacted in 4 lifts


Fig-3 CBR Test

Here the CBR test is conducted for both Red and Black cotton weak soil, and compared with best combination which yielded
best results i.e. MDD and OMC were considered for CBR test. The best combination is listed below:
Red soil: Mix-3 Red soil with 5% GGBS, 14% fly ash, 14% quarry dust.
Black cotton soil: Black soil with 5% GGBS, 10%fly ash, 10% quarry dust.
The test result for red soil is shown in figure below.

CBR RED SOIL

Load in KN

150
100
50
0
0

5
10mm
Penitration
in

15

20

Fig. 4 CBR test graph


Calculations:
Area of plunger of dia 5 cm = 19.6 cm2
38.16
Pressure at 2.5 mm penetration =
kg/cm2
Pressure at 5.0 mm penetration =
CBR, % =

19.6
73.88
19.6

kg/cm2

2.5 5

38.16100

100

(1)

At 2.5 mm penetration =
19.670
= 2.78% 3.0%
73.88100
At 5.0 mm penetration =
19.6105
= 3.58% 4.0%
Considering CBR value = 3.0%
The test result for red soil mix is shown in figure below.

Performance evaluation of weak sub grade soil and treating the subsequent layers of the pavement
by using advanced stabilization technique
Vijayanand S. Dolli, Sammed C. Kolhapure , Gautam U.V., Sohan P. Meharwade

INTERNATIONAL RESEARCH COMMUNION

161

ISSN: 2320-8236
VOLUME: 2, ISSUE:3
JULY- SEPTEMBER 2014

www.ircjournals.org
CBR RED MIX COMBINATION

500
Load in KN

400
300
200
100
0
0

10
15
Penitration in mm
Fig. 5 CBR test graph

20

Calculations:
Area of plunger of dia 5 cm = 19.6 cm2
64.93
Pressure at 2.5 mm penetration =
kg/cm2
Pressure at 5.0 mm penetration =
CBR, % =

19.6
128 .76

kg/cm2

19.6
Load sustined by specimen at 2.5 or 5 mm penetration

Load sustained by standard aggregates at the corresponding


64.93100

penetration level

100

(1)

At 2.5 mm penetration =
19.670
= 4.73% 5.0%
128 .76100
At 5.0 mm penetration =
19.6105
= 6.25%
Considering CBR value = 5.0%
The test result for black soil is shown in figure below.

CBR BLACK COTTON SOIL

80
60

Lo
ad
in
kg

40
20
0
0

10

15

Penetration in mm

Fig. 6 CBR test graph


Calculations:
Area of plunger of dia 5 cm = 19.6 cm2
42.93
Pressure at 2.5 mm penetration =
kg/cm2
Pressure at 5.0 mm penetration =
CBR, % =

19.6
70.17

kg/cm2

19.6
Load sustined by specimen at 2.5 or 5 mm penetration

Load sustained by standard aggregates at the corresponding


42.93100

penetration level

100

(1)

At 2.5 mm penetration =
19.670
= 3.13% 3.0%
70.17100
At 5.0 mm penetration =
19.6105
= 3.4% 4.0%
Considering CBR value = 3.0%
The test result for black soil is shown in figure below.

Performance evaluation of weak sub grade soil and treating the subsequent layers of the pavement
by using advanced stabilization technique
Vijayanand S. Dolli, Sammed C. Kolhapure , Gautam U.V., Sohan P. Meharwade

INTERNATIONAL RESEARCH COMMUNION

162

ISSN: 2320-8236
VOLUME: 2, ISSUE:3
JULY- SEPTEMBER 2014

www.ircjournals.org
CBR Black cotton soil mix

Load in KN

200
150
100
50
0
0

5
10
15
Penitration in mm
Fig. 7 CBR test graph

20

Calculations:
Area of plunger of dia 5 cm = 19.6 cm2
61.05
Pressure at 2.5 mm penetration =
kg/cm2
Pressure at 5.0 mm penetration =
CBR, % =

19.6
105 .45

kg/cm2

19.6
Load sustined by specimen at 2.5 or 5 mm penetration

Load sustained by standard aggregates at the corresponding


61.05100

penetration leve l

100

(1)

At 2.5 mm penetration =
19.670
= 4.45% 5.0%
105 .45100
At 5.0 mm penetration =
= 5.12%
19.6105
Considering CBR value
= 5.0%
DESIGN OF FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT
The design of flexible pavement involves the interplay of several variables such as, the wheel loads, traffic, climate, terrain, and
sub- grade conditions. With a view to have a unified approach for working out the design of flexible pavement, IRC guidelines
are being followed. These are based on CBR values. For the purpose of the guidelines, flexible pavements are considered to
include the pavements which have the bituminous surfacing and granular base and sub base courses conforming to IRC
standards
For design consideration, the following data were being obtained from the Transport Departments of Goa and
Karnataka States. The values are listed below.
1.Number of commercial vehicle as per last count (P) = 2000
2.Annual growth rate of commercial vehicles (r) = 8.5%
3.Number of years between last count and year of completion of construction (x) = 3 years
4.Design life in years (n) = 10 years
5.Vehicle damage factor (F) = 4.5 for more than 1500 vehicles.
6.Lane distribution factor (D) = 75% for 2 lane single carriage way.
For Red Soil only: As per IRC Method 37 2001 the design procedure is as follows:
A = P (1 + r) x
(2)
= 2000 (1 + 0.085)3 = 2554.57 2555.
Design traffic in terms of cumulative number of standard axles(N),
N = 365

(1+) 1

(3)

(1+.085 )10 1

= 365
2555 0.75 4.5 = 46.68msa.
0.085
Corresponding to this design traffic, pavement thickness can be calculated from IRC chart for Pavement Design Catalogue.
Referring to the Fig 3.8 (b) in IRC 37 - 2001 corresponding to CBR 3% pavement thickness required is 810 for 30msa and
830 for 50msa. Interpolating these values, the pavement thickness for 46.68msa,
(830 810 )
t = 810 +
(46.68 30) = 826.68 830mm.
(5030)

The pavement composition may be


Sub Base = 380mm
Base = 250mm
Dense Bituminous macadam (DBM) = 160mm
Bituminous concrete = 40mm
Performance evaluation of weak sub grade soil and treating the subsequent layers of the pavement
by using advanced stabilization technique
Vijayanand S. Dolli, Sammed C. Kolhapure , Gautam U.V., Sohan P. Meharwade

INTERNATIONAL RESEARCH COMMUNION

163

ISSN: 2320-8236
VOLUME: 2, ISSUE:3
JULY- SEPTEMBER 2014

www.ircjournals.org

The total pavement thickness a per IRC design guidelines is 830mm.


For Red Soil Mix: As per IRC Method 37 2001 the design procedure is as follows:
A = P (1 + r) x
= 2000 (1 + 0.085)3
= 2554.57 2555.
Design traffic in terms of cumulative number of standard axles,
N = 365

(1+) 1

(2)

(3)

(1+.085 )10 1

= 365
2555 0.75 4.5
0.085
= 46.68msa.
Corresponding to this design traffic, pavement thickness can be calculated from IRC chart for Pavement Design Catalogue.
Referring to the Fig 3.8 (d) in IRC 37 - 2001 corresponding to CBR 5% pavement thickness required is 710 for 30msa and
730 for 50msa. Interpolating these values, the pavement thickness for 46.68msa,
(730 710 )
t = 710 +
(46.68 30)
(5030)

= 726.68 730mm.
The pavement composition may be
Sub Base = 300mm
Base = 250mm
Dense Bituminous macadam (DBM) = 140mm
Bituminous concrete = 40mm
The total pavement thickness a per IRC design guidelines is 730mm.
There is 100mm reduction in the pavement thickness for Red soil Mix as compared to only Red soil without any
admixture.
For Black Cotton Soil only: As per IRC Method 37 2001 the design procedure is as follows:
A = P (1 + r) x
(2)
= 2000 (1 + 0.085)3
= 2554.57 2555.
Design traffic in terms of cumulative number of standard axles,
N = 365

(1+) 1

(3)

(1+.085 )10 1

= 365
2555 0.75 4.5
0.085
= 46.68msa.
Corresponding to this design traffic, pavement thickness can be calculated from IRC chart for Pavement Design Catalogue.
Referring to the Fig 3.8 (a) in IRC 37 - 2001 corresponding to CBR 2% pavement thickness required is 900 for 30msa and
925 for 50msa. Interpolating these values, the pavement thickness for 46.68msa,
(925900)
t = 900 +
(46.68 30) = 920.85 925mm.
(5030)

The pavement composition may be


Sub Base = 460mm
Base = 250mm
Dense Bituminous macadam (DBM) = 175mm
Bituminous concrete = 40mm
The total pavement thickness a per IRC design guidelines is 925mm.
For Black Soil Mix: As per IRC Method 37 2001 the design procedure is as follows:
A = P (1 + r) x
= 2000 (1 + 0.085)3
= 2554.57 2555.
Design traffic in terms of cumulative number of standard axles,
N = 365

(1+) 1

(1+.085 )10 1

= 365
0.085
= 46.68msa.

(2)

(3)

2555 0.75 4.5

Performance evaluation of weak sub grade soil and treating the subsequent layers of the pavement
by using advanced stabilization technique
Vijayanand S. Dolli, Sammed C. Kolhapure , Gautam U.V., Sohan P. Meharwade

INTERNATIONAL RESEARCH COMMUNION

164

ISSN: 2320-8236
VOLUME: 2, ISSUE:3
JULY- SEPTEMBER 2014

www.ircjournals.org

Corresponding to this design traffic, pavement thickness can be calculated from IRC chart for Pavement Design Catalogue.
Referring to the Fig 3.8 (d) in IRC 37 - 2001 corresponding to CBR 5% pavement thickness required is 710 for 30msa and
730 for 50msa. Interpolating these values, the pavement thickness for 46.68msa,
(730 710 )
t = 710 +
(46.68 30)
(5030)

= 726.68 730mm.
The pavement composition may be
Sub Base = 300mm
Base = 250mm
Dense Bituminous macadam (DBM) = 140mm
Bituminous concrete = 40mm
The total pavement thickness a per IRC design guidelines is 730mm.
There is 195mm reduction in the pavement thickness for Black cotton soil Mix as compared to only Black cotton soil
without any admixture.

Conclusion
Based on the experimental investigations some of the major conclusions of this work are drawn:
1) The investigation have shown that using GGBS along with Fly ash and Quarry dust as base materials, it is possible to stabilize
the weak sub grade soil.
2) By using Geo grid as reinforcing material to the soil the load sustaining property of soil and strength is increased because of
good interlocking of Soil granules.
3) There is 100mm reduction in the pavement thickness for Red soil Mix as compared to only Red soil without any admixture.
4) There is 195mm reduction in the pavement thickness for Black cotton soil Mix as compared to only Black cotton soil without
any admixture.
5) As thickness of pavement reduces, the cost of pavement construction and maintenance also reduced hence increase the
durability of pavement by sustaining higher wheel loads.
6) By using these stabilizing methods we can design Runway pavements, as it can sustain high impact loads of air craft.
7) By using these stabilizing materials we can strengthen the weak soil not only in pavement construction but also in Building
Foundation, the Safe bearing Capacity (SBC) can be enhanced or improved.

References
Journal Papers:
[1]
Prof. Gali Madhavi Latha, Performance evaluation of Geo synthetic Reinforced Un-Paved Roads by, Indian Institute of Science,
Bangalore.
[2]
S.Bhuvaneshwari, R.G. Robinson, S.R. Gandhi. Stabilization of Expansive soils using Fly ash.
[3]
Peter W.C. Leung and H.D. Wong, Final Report on Durability and Strength development of Ground Granulated Blast Furnace
Slag.
[4]
Akshaya Kumar Sabat, Bidula Bose , Improving the Geo- Technical Properties of Soil by using Fly-Ash and Quarry dust.
Books:
[5]
Dr. B.C. Punmia, Ashok Kumar Jain, Arun Kumar Jain, Soil Mechanics and Foundations.
[6]
Dr. S.K. Khanna and Dr. C.E.G. Justo , Highway Engineering.

Performance evaluation of weak sub grade soil and treating the subsequent layers of the pavement
by using advanced stabilization technique
Vijayanand S. Dolli, Sammed C. Kolhapure , Gautam U.V., Sohan P. Meharwade

INTERNATIONAL RESEARCH COMMUNION

165