EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION OF COST

EFFICIENCY OF SOIL ON USAGE OF

POLYMERS

A PROJECT REPORT

Submitted by

PRADEEP M (311515103034)
PRASANNA VENKATESH R (311515103035)
YUVAN KUMAR B (311515103059)
in partial fulfilment for the award of the degree

of

BACHELOR OF ENGINEERING
in
CIVIL ENGINEERING

MEENAKSHI SUNDARARAJAN ENGINEERING COLLEGE

KODAMBAKKAM, CHENNAI-600 024
ANNA UNIVERSITY: CHENNAI 600 025

APRIL 2019
 ANNA UNIVERSITY: CHENNAI 600025

BONAFIDE CERTIFICATE

Certified that this project report “EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION OF

COST EFFICIENCY OF SOIL ON USAGE OF POLYMERS” is the bonafide

work of“ M.PRADEEP(311515103034), R.PRASANNA

VENKATESH(311515103035), B.YUVAN KUMAR(311515103059)”who

carried out the project work under my supervision.

SIGNATURE SIGNATURE
Prof.V.S.SAMPATH, B.E.,M.TECH (LLB) Mr.SARAVANAN M.E
HEAD OF DEPARTMENT SUPERVISOR
Department Of Civil Engineering, Department Of Civil Engineering,
Meenakshi Sundararajan Engineering Meenakshi Sundararajan Engineering
College College
Chennai 600 024. Chennai 600 024.

Submitted for the VIVA-VOCE examination held on at

MEENAKSHI SUNDARARAJAN ENGINEERING COLLEGE, Kodambakkam,
Chennai -24

INTERNAL EXAMINER EXTERNAL EXAMINER

 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

An endeavour over a long period can be successfully only with the advice
and support of many well wishers. We take the opportunity to express our gratitude
and appreciation to all of them

The project has been successfully completed due to the blessing showered on
us by god. We thank the almighty for giving physical and mental stamina to
complete the project.

We deem it great pride in expressing our heartfelt gratitude to our beloved

correspondent Dr. K.S. LAKSHMI and our secretary Dr.K.S.BABAI and our
principal Dr.P.K.SURESH

We are highly thankful to Prof. V.S.SAMPATH, Head of Civil Engineering

Department Dr. L.RAMAJEYAM Dean of civil engineering department for
giving us encouragement and guidance throughout, for the successful completion
of project work.

Our sincere thanks to our Internal guide Asst prof. Mr.SARAVANAN for
giving us valuable suggestions at all stages of our project.We would like to express
our sincere thanks to our External guide MR.MEENAKSHI SUNDARAM for his
guidance in the project work.

Most importantly, we like to thank all our staff members, family, classmates
who helped us in every possible way and guiding us in the completion of project.
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

S.NO TITLE PAGE NO

ABSTRACT

LIST OF TABLES

LIST OF FIGURES

1 INTRODUCTION 1

1.1SOIL STABILISATION 1

1.1.1Definition 2

1.1.2Needs & Advantages 3

1.1.3Methods 4

1..2SOIL PROPERTIES 5

1.2.1Atterberg limits 5

1.2.2Particle size distribution 6

1.2.3Specific gravity 7

1.2.4Shear strength 8

1.2.5CBR test 9

1.2.6Standard proctor test 10

2 LITERATURE REVIEW 11
3 METHODOLOGY 16

4 ANALYSIS OF DATA 17

4.1General 17

4.2Liquid Limit 17

4.3Plastic Limit 19

4.4Plasticity Index 19

4.5HRB Classification of soil 20

4.6Shrinkage Limit 21

4.7Standard Proctor Test 22

4.8California Bearing Ratio Test 25

4.9Sieve Analysis 27

4.10Liquid Limit Test on Addition of Polymers 29

4.11Plastic Limit Test on Addition of Polymers 35

4.12Plasticity Index 36

4.13Shrinkage Limit Test on Addition of Polymers 37

4.14Standard Proctor Test on Addition of Polymers 39

4.15California Bearing Ratio Test on polymers

5 DESIGN OF FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT

 51 Design of pavement on Unstabilized Soil 54

52 Design of pavement on Stabilized Soil 55

6 ESTIMATION 56

61 Estimation of Quantities 56

62 Bill of Quantities 59

7 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 64

8 CONCLUSION 70

REFERENCES 71
 ABSTRACT

The main objective of this study is to investigate the use of polymer

materials in geotechnical applications and to evaluate the effects of low
density polyethlyene fibers (LDPE) of unsaturated soil by carrying out
california bearing ratio tests and standard proctor test on the soil sample.
The proposed site is at Thirusulam area and the soil sample is taken are
disturbed sample which are sieved accordingly.

The results obtained from the above tests are compared with each other,
strength and cost are the parameters compared with one another of the
polymerized soil and the most efficient one is suggested for design.

.
ஆய்வுசுருக்கம்

இந்த ஆய்வின் பிரதான ந ாக்கம் ஜிந ாடெக்னிகல் ப ன்பாடுகளில்

பாலிமர் டபாருட்களின் ப ன்பாட்டெ விசாரிப்பதும், மண் மாதிரி ில்
களிமண் தாங்கி விகிதம் மற்றும் தரமான ப்டரக்ெர் நசாதடனட
ெத்தி, குடைந்த அளவிலான அெர்த்தி ான பாலிதீலின் இடைகளின்
(LDPE) விடளவுகடள மதிப்பீடு டசய்வதாகும்.
நமநல நசாதடனகள் மூலம் டபைப்பட்ெ முடிவுகள்
ஒருவருக்டகாருவர் ஒப்பிடுடக ில், வலிடம மற்றும் டசலவு
ஆகி டவ பாலிமடரட் மண்ணின் ஒருவநராடு ஒப்பிடுடக ில்
அளவுருக்கள் மற்றும் மிகவும் திைடம ான ஒரு வடிவடமப்புக்கு
பரிந்துடரக்கப்படுகிைது.
முன்டமாைி ப்பட்ெ தளம் திருசலம் பிரநதசத்தில் உள்ளது மற்றும்
மண் மாதிரி எடுத்துக் டகாள்ளப்படுகின்ைது, அடவ இடெயூறு
டசய் ப்பட்ெ மாதிரி ஆகும்.
 LIST OF TABLES

Table Name Page no

No

4.1 Liquid limit test on soil using casagrande apparatus 17

4.2 Plastic limit test on soil 19

4.3 Shrinkage limit test on soil 21

4.4 Standard proctor test on soil 23

4.5 California Bearing ratio test on soil 25

4.6 Sieve analysis 27

4.7 Liquid limit test on soil using 0.25% polymer 29

4.8 Liquid limit test on soil using 0.5% polymer 30

4.9 Liquid limit test on soil using 0.75% polymer 32

4.10 Liquid limit test on soil using 1% polymer 34

4.11 Plastic limit test on soil using polymers 35

4.12 Plasticity index of soil using polymers 36

4.13 Shrinkage limit of soil using polymer 37

4.14 Standard proctor test on soil using 0.25% polymer 40

4.15 Standard proctor test on soil using 0.5% polymer 42

4.16 Standard proctor test on soil using 0.75% polymer 44

4.15 Standard proctor test on soil using 1% polymer 46

4.16 CBR test on soil using 0.25% polymer 47

4.17 CBR test on soil using 0.5% polymer 49

4.18 CBR test on soil using 0.75% polymer 50

4.19 CBR test on soil using 1% polymer 52

 LIST OF FIGURES

Fig No Name Page No

4.1 Liquid Limit curve (casagrande test) 18

21
4.2 HRB classification

4.3 Standard proctor test graph for the soil 24

26
4.4 California bearing ratio test
29
4.5 Sieve analysis graph

4.6 Liquid limit test using 0.25% polymer 30

4.7 Liquid limit test using 0.5% polymer 31

4.8 Liquid limit test using 0.75% polymer 33

4.9 Liquid limit test using 1% polymer 34

4.10 Standard proctor test graph for soil using 0.25% 42

Polymer

4.11 Standard proctor test graph for soil using 0.5% 44

Polymer

4.12 Standard proctor test graph for soil using 0.75% 45

Polymer

4.13 Standard proctor test graph for soil using 1% 47

Polymer

4.14 CBR test graph for soil using 0.25% polymer 48

4.15 CBR test graph for soil using 0.5% polymer

4.16 CBR test graph for soil using 0.75% polymer

4.17 CBR test graph for soil using 1% polymer

 1

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1SOIL STABILISATION

For any land-based structure, the foundation is very important and has to
be strong to support the entire structure. In order for the foundation to be
strong, the soil around it plays a very critical role. So, to work with soils,
we need to have proper knowledge about their properties and factors
which affect their behavior. The process of soil stabilization helps to
achieve the required properties in a soil needed for the construction work.

From the beginning of construction work, the necessity of enhancing soil

properties has come to the light. Ancient civilizations of the Chinese,
Romans and Incas utilized various methods to improve soil strength etc.,
some of these methods were so effective that their buildings and roads
still exist.

In India, the modern era of soil stabilization began in early 1970’s, with a
general shortage of petroleum and aggregates, it became necessary for the
engineers to look at means to improve soil other than replacing the poor
soil at the building site. Soil stabilization was used but due to the use of
obsolete methods and also due to the absence of proper technique, soil
stabilization lost favor. In recent times, with the increase in the demand
for infrastructure, raw materials and fuel, soil stabilization has started to
take a new shape. With the availability of better research, materials and
equipment, it is emerging as a popular and cost-effective method for soil
improvement.
 2

Here, in this project, soil stabilization has been done with the help of low
density polyethylene polymer. The improvement in the shear strength
parameters has been stressed upon and cost effectiveness on using
polymers has been carried out.

1.1.1Definition

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.
Soils are generally stabilized to increase their strength and durability or to
prevent erosion and dust formation in soils.

The main aim is the creation of a soil material or system that will hold
under the design use conditions and for the designed life of the
engineering project. The properties of soil vary a great deal at different
places or in certain cases even at one place; the success of soil
stabilization depends on soil testing. Various methods are employed to
stabilize soil and the method should be verified in the lab with the soil
material before applying it on the field.

Principles of Soil Stabilization:

a)Evaluating the soil properties of the area under consideration.

b)Deciding the property of soil which needs to be altered to get design

value and choose the effective and economical method for

stabilization.
 3

c)Designing the Stabilized soil mix sample and testing it in the lab for
intended stability and durability values.

The soil stabilization technique involves materials either in liquid form or

powdered form.This technique helps in attaining an cost effective
approach of usage of soil sample.However the stabilisation depends upon
the capacity of the foundation and other factors.

1.1.2Needs & Advantages

Soil properties vary a great deal and construction of structures depends a

lot on the bearing capacity of the soil, hence, we need to stabilize the soil
which makes it easier to predict the load bearing capacity of the soil and
even improve the load bearing capacity. The gradation of the soil is also a
very important property to keep in mind while working with soils. The
soils may be well-graded which is desirable as it has less number of voids
or uniformly graded which though sounds stable but has more voids.
Thus, it is better to mix different types of soils together to improve the
soil strength properties. It is very expensive to replace the inferior soil
entirely soil and hence, soil stabilization is the thing to look for in these
cases:

A) It improves the strength of the soil, thus, increasing the soil bearing
capacity.

B) It is more economical both in terms of cost and energy to increase the

bearing capacity of the soil rather than going for deep foundation or raft
foundation.
 4

C) It is also used to provide more stability to the soil in slopes or other

such places.

D) Sometimes soil stabilization is also used to prevent soil erosion or

formation of dust, which is very useful especially in dry and arid weather.

E) Stabilization is also done for soil water-proofing; this prevents water

from entering into the soil and hence helps the soil from losing its
strength.

F) It helps in reducing the soil volume change due to change in

temperature or moisture content.

G) Stabilization improves the work-ability and the durability of the soil.

1.1.3Methods

A) Mechanical method of Stabilization

In this procedure, soils of different gradations are mixed together to

obtain the desired property in the soil. This may be done at the site or
at some other place from where it can be transported easily. The final
mixture is then compacted by the usual methods to get the required
density.

B) Additive method of stabilization

It refers to the addition of manufactured products into the soil, which

in proper quantities enhances the quality of the soil. Materials such as
cement, lime, bitumen, fly ash etc. are used as chemical additives.
Sometimes different fibers are also used as reinforcements in the soil. The
addition of these fibers takes place by two methods;

a) Oriented fiber reinforcement

 5

The fibers are arranged in some order and all the fibers are placed in
the same orientation. The fibers are laid layer by layer in this type of
orientation. Continuous fibers in the form of sheets, strips or bars etc. are
used systematically in this type of arrangement.

b) Random fiber reinforcement

This arrangement has discrete fibers distributed randomly in the

soil mass. The mixing is done until the soil and the reinforcement
form a more or less homogeneous mixture. Materials used in this type
of reinforcements are generally derived from paper, nylon, metals or
other materials having varied physical properties.

Randomly distributed fibers have some advantages over the

systematically distributed fibers. Somehow this way of reinforcement is
similar to addition of admixtures such as cement, lime etc. Besides being
easy to add and mix, this method also offers strength isotropy, decreases
chance of potential weak planes which occur in the other case and
provides ductility to the soil.

1.2SOIL PROPERTIES

1.2.1Atterberg Limits

1) Shrinkage Limit:

This limit is achieved when further loss of water from the soil does
not reduce the volume of the soil. It can be more accurately defined as
 6

the lowest water content at which the soil can still be completely
saturated. It is denoted by w suffix s.

2) Plastic Limit:

This limit lies between the plastic and semi-solid state of the soil. It
is determined by rolling out a thread of the soil on a flat surface which
is non-porous. It is the minimum water content at which the soil just
begins to crumble while rolling into a thread of approximately 3mm
diameter. Plastic limit is denoted by w suffix p.

3) Liquid Limit:

It is the water content of the soil between the liquid state and plastic
state of the soil. It can be defined as the minimum water content at
which the soil, though in liquid state, shows small shearing strength
against flowing. It is measured by the Casagrande’s apparatus and is
denoted by w suffix L.

1.2.2Particle Size Distribution

Soil at any place is composed of particles of a variety of sizes and shapes,

sizes ranging from a few microns to a few centimeters are present
sometimes in the same soil sample.. The distribution of particles of
different sizes determines many physical properties of the soil such as its
strength, permeability, density etc.

Particle size distribution is found out by two methods, first is sieve

analysis which is done for coarse grained soils only and the other method
is sedimentation analysis used for fine grained soil sample. Both are
followed by plotting the results on a semi-log graph. The percentage finer
N as the ordinate and the particle diameter i.e. sieve size as the abscissa
 7

on a logarithmic scale. The curve generated from the result gives us an

idea of the type and gradation of the soil. If the curve is higher up or is
more towards the left, it means that the soil has more representation from
the finer particles; if it is towards the right, we can deduce that the soil
has more of the coarse grained particles.

The soil may be of two types- well graded or poorly graded (uniformly
graded). Well graded soils have particles from all the size ranges in a
good amount. On the other hand, it is said to be poorly or uniformly
graded if it has particles of some sizes in excess and deficiency of
particles of other sizes. Sometimes the curve has a flat portion also which
means there is an absence of particles of intermediate size, these soils are
also known as gap graded or skip graded.

For analysis of the particle distribution, we sometimes use D10, D30, and
D60 etc. terms which represents a size in mm such that 10%, 30% and
60% of particles respectively are finer than that size. The size of D10 also
called the effective size or diameter is a very useful data. There is a term
called uniformity coefficient Cu which comes from the ratio of D60 and
D10, it gives a measure of the range of the particle size of the soil sample.

The particle size distribution gives a broad range of characteristically

classifying the soil sample.The fineness index and range of the sieve
depends on the type of soil used.The weight of the dried sample is taken
and for the particle size the weight and soil sample the gravel fraction and
sand sample is taken.

1.2.3Specific Gravity

Specific gravity of a substance denotes the number of times that

substance is heavier than water. In simpler words we can define it as the
 8

ratio between the mass of any substance of a definite volume divided by

mass of equal volume of water. In case of soils, specific gravity is the
number of times the soil solids are heavier than equal volume of water.
Different types of soil have different specific gravities, general range for
specific gravity of soils:

Sand 2.63-2.67

Silt 2.65-2.7

Clay and Silty clay 2.67-2.9

Organic Soil <2.0

1.2.4Shear Strength

Shearing stresses are induced in a loaded soil and when these stresses
reach their limiting value, deformation starts in the soil which leads to
failure of the soil mass. The shear strength of a soil is its resistance to the
deformation caused by the shear stresses acting on the loaded soil. The
shear strength of a soil is one of the most important characteristics. There
are several experiments which are used to determine shear strength such
as DST or UCS etc. The shear resistance offered is made up of three
parts:

a) The structural resistance to the soil displacement caused due to the soil

particles getting interlocked,

b) The frictional resistance at the contact point of various particles,

and c)Cohesion or adhesion between the surface of the particles.

 9

In case of cohesionless soils, the shear strength is entirely dependent upon

the frictional resistance, while in others it comes from the internal friction
as well as the cohesion.

Methods for measuring shear strength:

A) Direct Shear Test (DST)

This is the most common test used to determine the shear strength of the
soil. In this experiment the soil is put inside a shear box closed from all
sides and force is applied from one side until the soil fails. The shear
stress is calculated by dividing this force with the area of the soil mass.
This test can be performed in three conditions- undrained, drained and
consolidated undrained depending upon the setup of the experiment.

B) Unconfined Compression Test (UCS test)

This test is a specific case of triaxial test where the horizontal forces
acting are zero. There is no confining pressure in this test and the soil
sample tested is subjected to vertical loading only. The specimen used is
cylindrical and is loaded till it fails due to shear.

1.2.5California Bearing Ratio Test

California Bearing Ratio (CBR) test was developed by the California

Division of Highway as a method of classifying and evaluating soil-sub
grade and base course materials for flexible pavements. CBR test, an
empirical test, has been used to determine the material properties for
pavement design. Empirical tests measure the strength of the material and
are not a true representation of the resilient modulus. It is a penetration
test wherein a standard piston, having an area of 3 in (or 50 mm
diameter), is used to penetrate the soil at a standard rate of 1.25
 10

mm/minute. The pressure up to a penetration of 12.5 mm and it's ratio to

the bearing value of a standard crushed rock is termed as the CBR.

1.2.6Standard Proctor Test

Compaction is the process of densification of soil by reducing air voids.

The degree of compaction of a given soil is measured in terms of its dry
density. The dry density is maximum at the optimum water content. A
curve is drawn between the water content and the dry density to obtain
the maximum dry density and the optimum water content.
 11

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

The Effect of Polymers for Soil Stabilization and Soil Nutrient

Retention-Franklin M Chen, Julie Wondergem, International
Journal of applied science Nov 2018

Six polymers representing different side-chain charges, molecular

weights, and degree of cross-link are studied for their water and nutrient
retention in soils.The sedimentation test method is designed to measure
the efficacy of a polymer in flocculating the soil under flooding
situations.A material that helps soil retain nutrients (calcium ions) will
show a lower concentration of calcium ions in solution as these nutrients
should be bound to the soil.These properties are especially important for a
sandy soil of the type which has main components of sand (82.9%), and
clay (11.0%).Superabsorbent polymers help the sandy soil to retain the
water, increasing the moisture content from a norm of 24% to 66% after
the soil was saturated with deionized water and allowing the soil-water
mixture to drain under normal gravity condition over 48 hrs. High
molecular weight polyacrylamides help the soil to settle using either the
aluminum hydroxide or calcium chloride coagulants.The results indicate
that superabsorbent polymer representing high degree of cross-link help
the soil retain water best. Polyacrylamides help the soils from being
washed away (by increasing the sedimentation rates. Polyacrylamides
also help the soils retain the calcium ion nutrients.
 12

Effect of Liquid Polymer Stabilizer on Geotechnical Properties of fine

grained soil - VK Puri,S Kumar IIT Madras Oct 2018

Soil stabilization is a common technique to increase the strength,

durability and reduce the swell-shrink behavior of foundation or
subgrade soil in pavement. In the present study two types of soils i.e.,
soil clay with high plasticity and soil ‘silt with low plasticity (ML) has
been used.Laboratory tests includes basic index property tests like
hydrometer, Atterberg limit, specific gravity test; and engineering
property tests like standard Proctor, UCS and CBR tests. All tests were
performed according to respective ASTM standards..The unsoaked
CBR value for high plasticity soil increases upto 1.5% of stabilizer
doses and then decreases with 3.0% of stabilizer.Atterberg limit for
Carbondale soil (CH) and Galatia soil (ML) were slightly decreased
with the addition of polymer, and no significant changes were observed
for both soil.Unsoaked CBR value for Carbondale soil (CH) increases
upto 1.5% of polymer addition and then decreases with 3.0% polymer
stabilizer. The increases in unsoaked CBR values from untreated soil
are 200% for 2.54 mm deformation and 195.5% for 5.08 mm
deformation with 3-days of curing. Almost similar unsoaked CBR
values are obtained for 7 and 28 days of curing.The results show that
with the addition of liquid polymer stabilizer, no significant changes in
Unconfined compression strength (UCS) values were observed for low
plasticity soil.For high plasticity soil, UCS value increases upto 1.5% of
stabilizer doses and then decreases with 3.0% of stabilizer.
 13

Use of Locally available material for Stabilizing Expansive Soil - Mrs.

Vrunda Sule, Vyas Brinda, Chauhan Vandana
International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology
(IRJET) April 2018

Expansive soil is a highly clayey soil it has very low bearing capacity and
high swelling-shrinkage characteristics.In most of places of India there is
wide spread of black cotton soil which causes problems to the
construction activities, especially sub-grade problem.The tests are Carried
out for analyze the properties of expansive soil. The locally available
materials used for the stabilization of expansive soil are 25% yellow soil,
15% stone dust, 10% grit.This project is an attempt to improve the CBR
value and properties of soil using locally available materials in order to
effectively lying of road pavement and increase strength of the road
pavement economically.The test was carried out on different proportions
of yellow soil,quary dust,grit.In the proportion,the content of expansive
soil and yellow soil were taken as constant 50% and 25% respectively.For
propose of the construction of road pavement on expansive soil is mainly
affected by the properties are CBR Value, OMC, MDD.

On the basis of observation and discussion,following conclusions drawn

from the study:

A) The MDD is on increasing and OMC is increasing with increase in

percentage of stone dust.

B) The CBR is improved by 3 to 4 % by increase proportion of stone dust

and grit.
 14

C) The cost of the construction is reduced due to use of locally available

material.

A Review on the Soil Stabilization Using Low-Cost Methods

-Amin Esmaeil Ramaji Journal of applied sciences research June

2016

The soil often is weak and has no enough stability in heavy loading. The
aim of the study was to review on stabilization of soil using low-cost
methods. Several reinforcement methods are available for stabilizing
expansive soils. These methods include stabilization with chemical
additives, rewetting, soil replacement, compaction control, moisture
control, surcharge loading, and thermal methods. All these methods may
have the disadvantages of being ineffective and expensive. Based on
literature, Portland cement, lime, fly ash and scrap tire are low-cost and
effective to soil stabilization.Annually, a lot of waste rubber are generated
and occupied a great space. It is necessary to find a solution to solve this
problem. Based on literature, one of the solutions is use of different size
waste rubber in soil reinforcement. Based on literature, Portland cement,
lime, fly ash and scrap tire are low-cost and effective to soil
stabilization.This study reports; stress strain behavior of unconfined
compressive strength showed that failure stress and strains increased by
106% and 50% respectively when the flyash content was increased from 0
to 25%. When the rice husk ash (RHA) content was increased from 0 to
12%, Unconfined Compressive Stress increased by 97% while California
Bearing Ratio (CBR) improved by 47%. Therefore, an rice husk ash
content of 12% and a flyash content of 25% are recommended for
strengthening the expansive subgrade soil. A flyash content of 15% is
 15

recommended for blending into rice husk ash for forming a swell
reduction layer because of its satisfactory performance in the laboratory
tests.

Safe bearing capacity method of design of flexible pavements over

clayey sub grades - C.N.S.Sathyanarayana Reddy,N.V.Rama
Moorthy International Journal of Pavements January 2004

Clayey subgrades pose serious problems to flexible pavements built over

them as they retain moisture for a longer period and possess low strength.
Excessive settlement along the wheel tracks and shear failures in the
subgrade soil is often observed in the flexible pavements over such
subgrades. Shear failures are more common in edge regions of single lane
pavements due to off tracking of vehicles during overtaking, resulting
from improper design of shoulders.For CI group clayey soils, it is noticed
that only one out of three soils has the required safety factor against the
risk of shear failure when designed using CBR method.Samples of clays
of low, intermediate and high compressibility were obtained for testing to
check the adequacy of pavement thickness design using the CBR method
and to determine the safety factor against the risk of subgrade shear
failure. The pavement design thickness for clay of low compressibility is
mostly governed by the CBR method, but there is still a chance for shear
failure as one soil sample yielded higher design thickness based on the
SBC approach. This study investigates the related design procedures of
pavements.It is essential to ensure reasonable safety against risk of sub
grade shear failure because hostile environments affect highly variable
sub-grade soils. Additionally, controlling settlement in pavements ensures
the construction of durable and efficient pavements.
 16

CHAPTER 3

METHODOLGY

COLLECTION OF DATA

SITE SELECTION

COLLECTION OF SOIL SAMPLE

ADDITION OF SOIL MIXED WITH

POLYMER

TESTING OF SOIL

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION

FIGURE 3.1 METHODOLOGY

 17

CHAPTER 4

ANALYSIS OF DATA

4.1General

Sieve analysis, Atterberg limits, Compaction tests, CBR and UCS tests
were conducted on the soil. The analysis has been discussed in the
following paragraphs.

4.2Liquid Limit

Sample taken (passing through 425µ) = 150g

Table 4.1 LIQUID LIMIT TEST ON SOIL USING CASAGRANDE

METHOD

Trail No Water Water Amount No of Blows

content(%) ml

1 50 75 108

2 54.33 81.5 25

3 55 82.5 20

4 60 90 4
 18

Figure 4.1 Liquid limit curve ( from casagrande’s test) Liquid limit as
obtained from graph = 54.33% (corresponding to 25 blows)
 19

4.3 Plastic Limit

Table 4.2 PLASTIC LIMIT OF THE SOIL

Trail Number 1

Mass of empty container M1(g) 32.15

Mass of container + wet soil M2(g) 47.15

Mass of container + dry soil M3(g) 44.50

Mass of water Mw = M2-M3 2.65

Mass of dry soil Md = M3-M1 (g) 12.35

Plastic Limit % Wp = (Mw/Md)*100 21.46

The Plastic Limit obtained from the experiment = 21.46%

4.4 Plasticity Index

Soil sample - 1
 20

Ip = WL – WP = 60 – 21.46 = 38.36%

4.5 Highway Reasearch Board classification of soil

Passing 0.074 mm Sieve = 42.5%

Liquid limit = 60%

Plasticity index = 38.36%

Group index (G.I) = 0.2a + 0.005ac + 0.01bd

a = 42.5 - 35 = 7.5

b= 42.5 - 15= 27.5

c= 60 – 40 = 20

d= 38.36 – 30 = 8.36

G.I.= 0.2*7.5 + 0.005* 7.5*20 + 0.01*27.5* 8.36= 4.549≈5

 21

FIGURE 4.3 HRB CLASSIFICATION

.

4.6 Shrinkage Limit

TABLE 4.3 SHRINKAGE LIMIT TEST ON THE SOIL

Sl.No a) Volume of wet soil pat (V) c.c.

1 Shrinkage dish No. 1

2 Polymer added, % 0
2 Mass of empty porcelain weighting dish, M1gms 166

3 460
mass of mercury weighing dish + mercury filling
the
shrinkage dish, M2gms
 22

4 Mass of mercury filling the dish M3= (M2-M1) gms 294

5 Volume of wet soil pat, V=(M3/13.6) cc 21.618

b) Mass of wet dry soil pat and its water-content

6 Mass of empty shrinkage dish, M4gms 37
7 Mass of shrinkage dish + wet soil, M5gmas 71
8 Mass of shrinkage dish + dry soil, M6gmas 57
9 Mass of water Mw= (M5-M6) gms 14
10 Mass of dry soil, Md= (M6-M4) gms 20
11 water content, w=(Mw/Md) 0.700

c) Volume of dry soil pat (Vd) cc

12 333
mass of mercury weighing dish + mercury

13 167
Mass of mercury displaced by dry soil pat,
M8= (M7-M1) gms

14 Volume of dry soil pat, Vd=(M8/13.6) cc 12.279

d) Calculation
15 Shrinkage Limit(%) Ws= (w-{V-Vd/Md})*100 23.309

Shrinkage Limit obtained from the experiment = 23.309

4.7 Standard Proctor Test

Sample taken [passing 4.75mm sieve before washing] = 2500 g

 23
Volume of Mold = 1000 cc
TABLE 4.4 STANDARD PROCTOR TEST ON SOIL

Trials 1 2 3 4

Mass of Empty mould, m1 (g) 3686.00 3686.00 3686.00 3690.00

Mass of mould + Compacted soil,m2(g) 5358.00 5390.00 5421.00 5430.00

Mass of Compacted soil, M= m2-m1(g) 1672.00 1704.00 1735.00 1740.00

Bulk density, Ƴb=(M/V)g/cc 1.67 1.70 1.74 1.74

Water added 0.22 0.24 0.26 0.28

Mass of container, M1(g) 29.50 22.50 16.00 29.50

Mass of container+ Wet soil,M2(g) 102.00 113.50 78.00 96.50

Mass of container +Dry soil,M3(g) 92.00 99.00 67.00 84.00

Mass of Water, Mw=M2-M3(g) 10.00 14.50 11.00 12.50

Mass of Dry soil, Md=M3-M1(g) 62.50 76.50 51.00 54.50

Water content, w=(Mw/Md)*100 0.160 0.190 0.216 0.229

 24

Dry Density, Ƴd= Ƴb/(1+w) g/cc 1.370 1.374 1.377 1.359

FIGURE 4.3 STANDARD PROCTOR GRAPH FOR THE SOIL

OMC obtained from graph = 21.44%

MDD obtained from graph = 1.378 g/cc
 25

4.8 California Bearing Ratio Test

Water added is equal to OMC = 21.44%
TABLE 4.5 CALIFORNIA BEARING RATIO TEST

Penetration (mm) Division Load(kg)

0 0 0

0.5 4.8 5.65

1 6 7.056
 26

1.5 10.8 12.7

2 16 18.87

4 34.4 40.45

5 45.8 51.5

7.5 49.79 58.56

FIGURE 4.4 CBRGRAPH

Load at penetration of 2.5mm = 25kg

CBR of Specimen = (25/1370)*100 = 1.82%

Load at penetration of 5mm = 52kg

CBR of specimen = (52/2055)*100 = 2.53%

 27

4.9Sieve Analysis
TABLE 4.6 SIEVE ANALYSIS

Sieve size (mm) Wt retained % retained % finer

4.75 107.65 10.765 89.235

2.4 144.15 25.18 74.82

 28

1.4 76.95 32.875 67.125

600 159.75 48.85 51.15

425 14.85 50.335 49.665

300 117.55 62.09 37.91

150 232.15 85.305 14.695

90 112.25 96.53 3.47

75 3.85 96.915 3.085

Pan 30.85 100 0

 29
FIGURE 4.5 SIEVE ANALYSIS GRAPH

4.10 Liquid Limit Test on addition of polymer

Sample Taken [passing through = 425µ]= 150 g

TABLE 4.7 LIQUID LIMIT TEST WITH 0.25% POLYMER

Trial No. Water Content, Water Amount(ml) No of blows

%
 30

1 38 57 17

2 40 60 22

3 43 64.5 30

FIGURE 4.6 LIQUID LIMIT USING 0.25% POLYMER

Liquid limit as obtained from the graph =

39.2% (corresponding to 20mm)

TABLE 4.8 LIQUID LIMIT USING 0.5% POLYMER

Trail No Water Water No of Blows

content % content(ml)
 31

1 38 57 17

2 39.5 59.25 19

3 41 61.5 30

FIGURE 4.7 LIQUID LIMIT USING 0.5% POLYMER

Liquid limit as obtained from graph = 39.5%
(corresponding to 20mm
 32

TABLE 4.9 LIQUID LIMIT TEST USING 0.75% POLYMER

Water
Trial No. Water Content, % Amount(ml) No of Blows

1 35 52.5 9

2 38 57 15

3 41 61.5 19

4 44 66 22
 33

FIGURE 4.8 LIQUID LIMIT TEST USING 0.75% POLYMER

Liquid limit as obtained from graph = 42% (corresponding to 20mm)
 34

TABLE 4.10 LIQUID LIMIT TEST USING 1% POLYMER

Trial No. Water Content, % Water Amount(ml) No of blows

1 37 55.5 15

2 40 60 17

3 43 64.5 21

FIGURE 4.9 LIQUID LIMIT TEST USING 1% POLYMER

Liquid limit as obtained from graph = 42.3% (corresponding to

20mm)
 35

4.11 Plastic Limit Test on addition of polymers

TABLE 4.11 PLASTIC LIMIT TEST ON SOIL USING POLYMER

Trail No 1 2 3 4 5

Polymer added, % 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1

Container No. 1 2 3 4 5

Mass of empty container, M1 g 32.15 29.5 34.5 30 31.5

Mass of container + wet soil, M2

G 47.15 43.5 44.5 46 48

Mass of container +dry soil, M3

G 44.5 40.5 42 41.8 43.5

Mass of water = Mw= M2-M3 2.65 3 2.5 4.2 4.5

 36

Mass of dry soil= Md= M3-M1 g 12.35 11 7.5 11.8 12

Plastic Limit,%
Wp=(Mw/Md)*100 21.46 27.27 33.33 35.59 37.50

Liquid Limit WL 60.0 39.2 39.7 42.0 42.3

Plastic Limit,% Wp 21.46 27.27 33.33 35.59 37.50

4.12 Plasticity Index

TABLE 4.12 PLASTICITY INDEX OF SOIL ON

USING POLYMER
S.No 1 2 3 4 5

Polymer 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1

added

Liquid 60 39.2 39.7 42 42.3

Limit Wl

Plastic 21.46 27.27 33.33 35.59 37.50

Limit Wp

Plasticity 38.54 11.93 6.37 6.41 4.8

Index
Wl-Wp
 37

4.14 Shrinkage Limit Test on addition of polymers

TABLE 4.13 SHRINKAGE LIMIT TEST ON USING POLYMERS

1 Polymer added, % 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1

Mass of empty porcelain weighting

dish,

2 166 100.5 100.5 100.5 100.5

M1 g

Mass of mercury weighing dish +

mercury

3 460 390.5 388 398.5 393

filling the shrinkage dish, M2 g

Mass of mercury filling the dish M3

M2-M1

4 294 290 287.5 298 292.5

Volume of wet soil pat, V=(M3/13.6)

5 cc 21.618 21.324 21.140 21.912 21.507
 38

b) Mass of wet dry soil pat and its

water-content

6 Mass of empty shrinkage dish, M4 g 37 39.5 48 42 55.5

Mass of shrinkage dish + wet soil, M5

7 G 71 79.5 81.5 77 90

Mass of shrinkage dish + dry soil, M6

8 G 57 64.5 72.5 66.5 81.5

9 Mass of water Mw= (M5-M6) g 14 15 9 10.5 8.5

10 Mass of dry soil, Md= (M6-M4) g 20 25 24.5 24.5 26

11 water content, w=(Mw/Md) 0.700 0.600 0.367 0.429 0.327

c) Volume of dry soil pat (Vd) cc

12 Mass of mercury weighing dish + 333 242.5 318.5 282.5 298

 39

mercury

displacement by dry soil pat, M7 g

Mass of mercury displaced by dry soil

pat,

13 167 142 218 182 197.5

M8= (M7-M1) g

Volume of dry soil pat,

Vd=(M8/13.6)
14 cc 12.279 10.441 16.029 13.382 14.522

d) Calculation

Shrinkage Limit(%) Ws= (w-{V-

15 23.309 16.471 15.876 8.043 5.826

Vd/Md})*100

4.15 Standard Proctor Test on addition of polymers

Sample taken [passing 4.75mm sieve before

washing]=2500 g
 40

Volume of Mold = 1000 cc

TABLE 4.14 STANDARD PROCTOR TEST ON ADDING

0.25% POLYMER

Trials 1 2 3 4

Mass of Empty mould, m1 (g) 3686 3686 3686 3686

Mass of mould+ Compacted soil m2(g) 5276 5326 5369 5403

Mass of Compacted soil, M = m2-m1(g) 1590 1640 1683 1717

Bulk density, Ƴb=(M/V)g/cc 1.59 1.64 1.683 1.717

Container number GT-1 GT-16 GT-10 GT-3

Water added 0.18 0.2 0.22 0.24

 41

Mass of container, M1(g) 28 29 33 30

Mass of container+ Wet soil M2(g) 131 119.5 125.5 118.5

Mass of Wet soil 103 90.5 92.5 88.5

Mass of container +Dry soil M3(g) 118 106 110 102

Mass of Water, Mw= M2- M3(g) 13 13.5 15.5 16.5

Mass of Dry soil,Md = M3- M1(g) 90 77 77 72

Water content,w=(Mw/Md)*100 0.144 0.175 0.201 0.229

Dry Density,Ƴd= Ƴb/(1+w) g/cc 1.389 1.395 1.401 1.397

 42

FIGURE 4.10 STANDARD PROCTOR TEST FOR 0.25%

POLYMER

OMC as obtained from graph = 20.1%

MDD as obtained from graph = 1.401 g/cc

TABLE 4.15 STANDARD PROCTOR TEST ON ADDING

0.5% POLYMER

Trials 1 2 3 4

Mass of Empty mould, m1 (g) 4446 4446 4446 4446

Mass of mould+Compacted soil, m2(g) 6000 6131 6150 6189

Mass of Compacted soil,M= m2-m1(g) 1554 1685 1704 1743

 43

Bulk density, Ƴb=(M/V)g/cc 1.554 1.685 1.704 1.743

Container number 1 2 3 4

Water added 0.18 0.2 0.22 0.24

Mass of container, M1(g) 22.5 29.5 22.5 16

Mass of container+ Wet soil,M2 (g) 178 178.5 172 110

Mass of Wet soil 155.5 149 149.5 94

Mass of container+Dry soil, M3(g) 156 155 147 92

Mass of Water,Mw= M2-M3(g) 22 23.5 25 18

Mass of Dry soil,Md= M3-M1(g) 133.5 125.5 124.5 76

Water content,w=(Mw/Md)*100 0.165 0.187 0.201 0.237

Dry Density,Ƴd= Ƴb/(1+w) g/cc 1.334 1.419 1.419 1.409

 44

FIGURE 4.11 STANDARD PROCOTOR TEST GRAPH

USING 0.5% POLYMER

OMC as obtained from graph = 19.00%

MDD as obtained from graph = 1.422 g/cc

TABLE 4.16 STANDARD PROCTOR TEST USING 0.75%

POLYMER

Trials 1 2 3 4

Mass of Empty mould, m1 (g) 4446 4446 4446 4446

Mass of mould + Compacted soil, m2(g) 6170 6282 6221 6214

Mass of Compacted soil, M= m2-m1(g) 1724 1836 1775 1768

Bulk density, Ƴb=(M/V)g/cc 1.724 1.836 1.775 1.768

Container number 1 2 3 4
 45

Water added 0.18 0.2 0.22 0.24

Mass of container, M(g) 22.5 29.5 22.5 16

Mass of container+ Wet soil M2(g) 182.5 181.5 182 111.5

Mass of Wet soil 160 152 159.5 95.5

Mass of container+Dry soil M3(g) 161 159 155 94

Mass of Water, Mw=M2-M3(g) 21.5 22.5 27 17.5

Mass of Dry soil, Md=M3-M1(g) 138.5 129.5 132.5 78

Water content, w=(Mw/Md) 0.155 0.174 0.204 0.224

Dry Density,Ƴd= Ƴb/(1+w) g/cc 1.492 1.564 1.475 1.444

FIGURE 4.12 STANDARD PROCTOR TEST GRAPH

USING 0.75% POLYMER
 46

OMC as obtained from graph = 17.20%

MDD as obtained from graph = 1.565 g/cc
TABLE 4.17 STANDARD PROCTOR TEST OF SOIL USING
1% POLYMER

Trials 1 2 3 4

Mass of Empty mould, m1 (g) 4394 4394 4394 4394

Mass of mould+Compacted soil, m2(g) 5892 6003 6004 6087

Mass of Compacted soil, M = m2-m1(g) 1498 1609 1610 1693

Bulk density, Ƴb=(M/V)g/cc 1.498 1.609 1.61 1.693

Container number 1 2 3 4

Water added 0.18 0.2 0.22 0.24

Mass of container, M1(g) 22.5 29.5 22.5 16

Mass of container + Wet soil, M2(g) 157 168 187 128

Mass of Wet soil 134.5 138.5 164.5 112

Mass of container + Dry soil, M3(g) 140.5 148 159 104

Mass of Water, Mw = M2-M3(g) 16.5 20 28 24

Mass of Dry soil, Md = M3-M1(g) 118 118.5 136.5 91.5

Water content, w = (Mw/Md) 0.140 0.169 0.205 0.262

Dry Density,Ƴd= Ƴb/(1+w) g/cc 1.314 1.377 1.336 1.341

 47

FIGURE 4.13 STANDARD PROCTOR TEST GRAPH USING

1% POLYMER

OMC as obtained from graph = 16.9%

MDD as obtained from graph = 1.378 g/cc

4.17 California Bearing Ratio test on addition of polymers

TABLE4.18 CBR TEST VALUES ON USING 0.25% POLYMER

Penetration(mm) Division Load(kg)

0 0 0

0.5 5.1 6

1 6.3 7.4
 48

1.5 11.2 13.1712

2 17 19.992

4 37.32 43.88

5 56.82 66.82

7.5 62.76 73.8

FIGURE 4.14 CBR GRAPH ON ADDING 0.25% POLYMER

Load at penetration of 2.5mm = 27kg

CBR value at 2.5mm = (27/1370)*100 = 1.97%

Load at penetration of 5mm = 67g

CBR value at 5mm = (67/2055)*100 = 3.26%

 49

TABLE 4.19 CBR TEST VALUES ON USING 0.5% POLYMER

Penetration(mm) Division Load(kg)

0 0 0

0.5 5.6 6.6

1 6.71 7.9

1.5 11.87 14

2 17.33 20.38

4 38.02 44.71

5 58.87 69.23

7.5 64.41 75.74

 50

FIGURE 4.15 CBR GRAPH ON ADDING 0.5% POLYMER

Load at penetration of 2.5mm = 28kg

CBR value at 2.5mm = (28/1370)*100 = 2.04%

Load at penetration of 5mm = 70kg

CBR value at 5mm = (70/2055)*100 = 3.40%

TABLE 4.20 CBR TEST VALUES ON USING 0.75% POLYMER

Penetration(mm) Division Load(kg)

0 0 0
 51

0.5 6.5 7.64

1 7.2 8.46

1.5 13 15.29

2 18.66 21.94

4 46.56 54.75

5 64.88 76.29

7.5 72.35 85.08

FIGURE 4.16 CBR GRAPH ON ADDING 0.75% POLYMER

Load at 2.5mm penetration = 31kg

CBR value at 2.5mm = (31/1370)*100 = 2.26%

Load at 5mm penetration = 77kg

 52

CBR value at 5mm = (77/2055)*100 = 3.74%

TABLE 4.21 CBR TEST VALUES ON ADDING 1% POLYMER

Penetration(mm) Division Load(kg)

0 0 0

0.5 6.2 7.29

1 7.11 8.36

1.5 12.02 14.13

2 17.85 21

4 44.11 51.87

5 63.71 74.92

7.5 70.19 82.54

 53

FIGURE 4.17 CBR GRAPH ON ADDING 1%POLYMER

Load at 2.5mm penetration = 30kg
CBR value at 2.5mm = (30/1370)*100 =2.18%
Load at 5mm penetration = 75kg

CBR value at 5mm penetration = (75/2055)*100 = 3.64%

 54

CHAPTER 5

DESIGN OF FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT

The flexible pavement is designed according to IRC SP:20 – 2002

rural road maunal

5.1 To Design pavement on unstabilised soil

A) The commercial vehicles per day = 0 to 15 vehicles/day

B) The CBR value of soil as tested = 1.82%

 55

C) From the above graph, considering curve A the thickness of

pavement = 450mm. o Thickness of Sub Base material = 250mm.

D) Thickness of base course material = 160mm

E) Thickness of surface coat material = 140mm.

5.2 To Design pavement on stabilised soil

A) The commercial vehicles per day = 0 to 15 vehicles/day

B) The CBR value of soil as tested = 3.74%

C) From the above graph, considering curve A the thickness of

pavement = 320mm. o Thickness of Sub Base material = 200mm.

D) Thickness of Base Coarse material =

120mm. Thickness of Surface Coarse material
= 30mm.
 56
CHAPTER 6
ESTIMATION

6.1 Estimation of Quantities

S.No Description Un N Lengt Widt De Esti Unit Amount(

it o h(m) h(m) pt mate rate Rupees)
h( Quan (rup
m) tity ees)
1 Clearing and sq 1 1000 3.75 3750 5.99 22481.25
grubbing road m 5
land including
uprooting
vegetation,gra
ss,bushes,shru
bs,saplings
and tree girth
upto
300mm,remov
al of stumps
of tress cut
earlier and
disposal of
unserviceable
materials and
stacking of
serviceable
material
labour charges
as per MORD
2 Excavation of Cu 1 1000 3.75 0.5 1875 46.2 86625
road work in m
soil with
hydraulic
excavator of
0.9 cum
bucket
capacity
including
cutting and
loading in
tippers,trimmi
ng bottom and
side slopes in
accordance
with
transporting
all usable
 57
material to
embankment
location as per
MORD
3 Loosening the Cu 1 1000 3.75 0.5 1875 52.3 98062.5
ground upto a m 0
level 500mm
below the
subgrade
level,watered,
graded and
compacted in
layers to meet
requirement of
MORD
4 Construction Cu 1 1000 3.75 0.2 937.5 1416 1328250
of granular m 5 .8
subbase by
providing a
coarse grade
material
mixing in a
mechanical
mix plant at
OMC,carriage
of mixed
material to
work
site,spreading
in uniform
layers with
mortar grader
on prepared
surface and
compacting
with vibratory
roller as per
MORD
5 Providing,layi Cu 1 1000 3.75 0.1 600 1465 879000
ng,spreading m 6
and
compacting
graded stone
Aggregate to
WMM
including
premixing the
material with
 58
water at OMC
in mix plant
carriage of
mixed
material by
tipper to
site,laying in
uniform layers
with paved in
subbase/base
course as per
MORD
6 Providing and Sq 1 1000 3.75 3750 35.8 134475
applying m 6
primer coat
with slow
setting
bitumen
emulsion at
rate of
0.60kg/sqm
on WMM
using
mechanical
means as per
MORD
7 Providing and Sq 1 1000 3.75 3750 28.7 107662.5
applying tack m 1
coat using
VG-10 over
granular base
at rate of 4kg
and of 10sqm
area
8 Providing and Cu 1 1000 3.75 0.0 150 1168 1752960
laying semi m 40 6.4
dense
bituminous
concrete using
crushed agg of
specified
grading,premi
xed with
bituminous
binder and
filler,transport
ing mix to
work
 59
site,laying to
required grade
level and
alignment and
compacting
TO 4409516.
TA 25
L

S.N Description of work Unit Quantity Rate Rs Amount rs

o
1 Clearing and grubbing Sqm 3750 5.995 22481.25
road land
2 Excavating the road Cum 1875 46.20 86625
way in soil by
mechanical means
3 Loosening the ground Cum 1875 52.30 98062.5
upto a level of 500mm
below subgrade level
4 Construction of Cum 375 1416.8 1328250
granular subbase
5 Providing,laying,sprea Cum 412.5 1465 879000
ding and compacting
graded stones
aggregates to wet mix
macadam
6 Providing and Sqm 3750 35.86 134475
applying primer coat
7 Providing and Sqm 3750 28.71 107662.5
applying tack coat on
primed granular
surface
8 Providing and laying Cum 150 11686.4 1752960
semi dense
bituminous concrete
TOTAL 4409516.25

6.2 Bill of Quantities

S.No Description Un N Lengt Widt De Esti Unit Amount(
it o h(m) h(m) pt mate rate Rupees)
h( Quan (rup
m) tity ees)
1 Clearing and sq 1 1000 3.75 3750 5.99 22481.25
grubbing road m 5
land including
uprooting
vegetation,gra
 60
ss,bushes,shru
bs,saplings
and tree girth
upto
300mm,remov
al of stumps
of tress cut
earlier and
disposal of
unserviceable
materials and
stacking of
serviceable
material
labour charges
as per MORD
2 Excavation of Cu 1 1000 3.75 0.5 1875 46.2 86625
road work in m
soil with
hydraulic
excavator of
0.9 cum
bucket
capacity
including
cutting and
loading in
tippers,trimmi
ng bottom and
side slopes in
accordance
with
transporting
all usable
material to
embankment
location as per
MORD
3 Loosening the Cu 1 1000 3.75 0.5 1875 52.3 98062.5
ground upto a m 0
level 500mm
below the
subgrade
level,watered,
graded and
compacted in
layers to meet
requirement of
 61
MORD
4 Construction Cu 1 1000 3.75 0.2 750 1416 1062600
of granular m .8
subbase by
providing a
coarse grade
material
mixing in a
mechanical
mix plant at
OMC,carriage
of mixed
material to
work
site,spreading
in uniform
layers with
mortar grader
on prepared
surface and
compacting
with vibratory
roller as per
MORD
5 Providing,layi Cu 1 1000 3.75 0.1 450 1465 659250
ng,spreading m 2
and
compacting
graded stone
Aggregate to
WMM
including
premixing the
material with
water at OMC
in mix plant
carriage of
mixed
material by
tipper to
site,laying in
uniform layers
with paved in
subbase/base
course as per
MORD
6 Providing and Sq 1 1000 3.75 3750 35.8 134475
applying m 6
 62
primer coat
with slow
setting
bitumen
emulsion at
rate of
0.60kg/sqm
on WMM
using
mechanical
means as per
MORD
7 Providing and Sq 1 1000 3.75 3750 28.7 107662.5
applying tack m 1
coat using
VG-10 over
granular base
at rate of 4kg
and of 10sqm
area
8 Providing and Cu 1 1000 3.75 0.0 150 1168 1752960
laying semi m 40 6.4
dense
bituminous
concrete using
crushed agg of
specified
grading,premi
xed with
bituminous
binder and
filler,transport
ing mix to
work
site,laying to
required grade
level and
alignment and
compacting
TO 3485876
TA
L
 63

Cost per Km =Rs.3485876

Calculating the rate of polymers added to stabilize per km stretch of road

For 1m3 of volume filled by soil, polymers required = 12.843kg

For (1000 x 3.75 x 0.5 = 1875m3), polymers required = 24080.62 kg

Rate of LDPE polymers per kg = 25 Rupees

Total rate of polymers required = 24080.62 x 25 = 602015.5 Rupees

 64

CHAPTER 7

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

7.1 Liquid Limit

A) The liquid limit of the soil alone was found to be 60%

B) The liquid limit of the soil with addition of 0.25%, 0.5%, 0.75%
and 1.0%, by weight of soil is found to be 39.2%, 39.7%, 42.0%
and 42.3% respectively.

C) The liquid limit of the soil with addition of 0.25%, 0.5%, 0.75%
and 1.0%,polymers is found to be decreased by 34.66%, 33.83%,
30.0% and 29.5% respectively, when compared to liquid limit of
soil alone.

Liquid Limit
70
60
Liquid Limit

50
40
30
20
10
0
0% 0.25% 0.50% 0.75% 1%

Polymer added

7.2 Plastic Limit

A) The plastic limit of the soil alone was found to be 21.46%

 65

B) The plastic limit of the soil with addition of 0.25%, 0.5%,

0.75% and 1.0%, polymers by weight of soil is found to be
22.27%, 33.33%, 35.59% and 37.50% respectively.

C) The plastic limit of the soil with addition of 0.25%, 0.5%, 0.75%
and 1.0%, polymers is found to be decreased by 21.3%, 43.5%,
51.8% and 58.8% respectively, when compared to plastic limit of
soil alone.

Plastic Limit
40
35
30
Plastci limit

25
20
15
10
5
0
0% 0.25% 0.50% 0.75% 1%

Polymer added

7.3 Plasticity Index

A) The plasticity index of the soil alone was found to be 38.54%.

B) The plasticity index of the soil with addition of 0.25%, 0.5%,

0.75% and 1.0%, polymers by weight of soil is found to be 11.93%,
6.37%, 6.41% and 4.8% respectively.

C) The plasticity index of the soil with the addition of 0.25%,

0.5%, 0.75% and 1% of polymers is found to be decreased
by 69%, 84.47%, 83.36% and 87.54%.
 66

Plasticity Index
45
40
Plasticity Index

35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
0% 0.25% 0.50% 0.75% 1%

Polymer added

7.4 Shrinkage Limit

A)The shrinkage limit of the soil alone was found to be

23.309%

B)The shrinkage limit of the soil with addition of 0.25%,

0.5%,0.75% and 1.0%, polymers by weight of soil is

found to be 16.471%, 15.876%, 8.043% and5.826%

respectively.

The shrinkage limit of the soil with the addition of 0.25%, 0.5%, 0.75%
and 1% of polymers is found to be decreased by 29.31%, 31.88%,
65.49% and 75%
 67

Shrinkage Limit
25
Shrinkage Limit 20

15

10

0
0% 0.25% 0.50% 0.75% 1%

Polymer added

7.5 Standard Proctor Test

a) The optimum moisture content (OMC) and maximum dry

density (MDD) of soil alone was found to be 21.4% and 1.378
g/cc respectively.
b) The MDD of the soil with addition of 0.25%, 0.5%, 0.75% and
1.0%, polymers by weight of soil is found to be 1.401 g/cc, 1.425
g/cc, 1.565 g/cc and 1.378 g/cc respectively and the
corresponding OMC is found to be 20.1%, 19%, 17% and 16%
respectively.

c) The MDD of the soil with addition of 0.25%, 0.5%, 0.75% and
1.0%, polymers by weight of soil is found to be increased by
1.6%, 3.4%, 13.5% and 0% respectively and the
corresponding OMC is decreased by 6%, 11.2%, 20.56% and
21.02% respectively.
 68

7.6 California Bearing Ratio Test

A) The CBR value of soil alone was found to be 1.82%

B) The CBR value of the soil with addition of 0.25%, 0.5%, 0.75% and
1.0%, polymers by weight of soil is found to be 1.97%, 2.04 %,
2.18% and 2.26% respectively.

CBR
2.5 2.26 2.18
1.97 2.04
2 1.82
CBR Value

1.5

0.5

0
0% 0.25% 0.50% 0.75% 1%
Polymer added
 69
7.7 Estimation

A) Total cost of construction of the flexible pavement without usage of

polymer is Rs.44,09,516.25 per km stretch and thickness is 500mm.
B) Cost of construction including Low density polyethylene (LDPE) to the
pavement resulted in Rs.40,87,892 per km stretch and thickness is
300mm.
C) Pavement design with LDPE resulted in increased CBR value and Cost
efficient when compared with traditional design and difference amount is
Rs.3,21,624 per km.
D) Hence,LDPE design is suggested for flexible pavement construction.
 70

CHAPTER 8

CONCLUSION

On the basis of present experimental study, the following conclusions are

drawn

There is substantial increase in MDD with increase in addition of

polymers upto 0.75% by weight beyond which it decreased.There is
substantial decrease in OMC with increase in addition of polymers.The
California bearing ratio (CBR) of the soil alone is obtained as 1.82% and
it increased to 2.26% after stabilizing it with optimum percentage of
polymers.The shear strength of the soil is maximum when 1%( by weight
of soil of polymer is added to it. Hence in order to obtain higher shear
resistance 1% of fibers (by weight of soil) can be considered as the
optimum Polymer Content.
 71

REFERENCES

1. Ayush Mittal, Shalinee Shukla “GEOTEXTILE: AN OVERVIEW”

Journal of material in Civil Engineering April 2016

2. I.S: 2720 (Part I)-1983 : “Indian standard for preparation of

dry soil samples for various tests”, Bureau of Indian Standards
Publications, New Delhi.

3. I.S: 2720 (Part IV)-1985 : “Indian standard for grain size

analysis”, Bureau of Indian Standards Publications, New Delhi.

4. I.S: 2720 (Part V)-1985 : Indian standard for determination

of liquid limit and plastic limit”, Bureau of Indian Standards
Publications, New Delhi.

5. I.S: 2720 (Part IV)-1985 : “Indian standard for grain size

analysis”, Bureau of Indian Standards Publications, New Delhi.

6. I.S: 2720 (Part V)-1985 : Indian standard for determination

of liquid limit and plastic limit”, Bureau of Indian Standards
Publications, New Delhi.

7. I.S: 2720 (Part VII)-1980 : “Indian standard for determination of

water content- Dry density relationship using light compaction”,
Bureau of Indian Standards Publications,New Delhi.

8. I.S: 2720 (Part XX)-1992 : “Indian standard for determination of

Linear Shrinkage”,Bureau of Indian Standards Publications,
New Delhi
 72

9. I.S: 2720 (Part XVI)-1965 : “Indian standard for laboratory

determination of CBR”, Bureau of Indian Standards
Publications, New Delhi.

10. IS SP 20:2002 Rural roads manual

11. John Paul V. Antony Rachel Sneha M. ” Effect of random

inclusion of bamboo fibers on strength behaviour of flyash
treated black cotton soil” International Journal of science and
Research April 2016

12. Sujit Kawade, Mahendra Mapari, Mr.Shreedhar Sharana”

Stabilization of Black cotton soil with lime and Geo-grid”

Interantonal journal of Science and Reasearch (IJSR),June 2015

13. Vegulla Raghudeep, ”Improvement in CBR value of black cotton

soil by stabilization it with vitrified polish waste” Open Journal
of civil engineering (OJCE) Decemeber 2016

14. Vikas Rameshrao Kulkarni “Experimental study of

stabilization of B.C. soil by using Slag and Glass fibers”
International journal of civil engineering and
Technology (IJCIET) November 2015