INVESTIGATION ON VARIATION OF

STRENGTH OF SWELLING SOILS

WITH INDUCTION OF TERRAZYME
AND BACTERIA

UNDER GUIDANCE OF BY
DR. C.H.SUDHA RANI, S.SWATHI (1115252)
PROFESSOR OF CIVIL ENGINEERING, M. Tech (GEOTECH)
S.V UNIVERSITY , S.V.UNIVERSITY,
TIRUPATI . TIRUPATI.
CONTENTS
1. Introduction
2. Literature Review
3. Experimental Investigation
4. Results and Discussion
5. Development of Regression Analysis
6. Scanning Electron Microscope Analysis
7. Concluding Remarks
8. References

2
1.INTRODUCTION
 Expansive soils, popularly known as black cotton soils in India, are one of the
major deposits of India covering an area of about one fifth of the country’s land
area (about 3lakhs sq.km).
 Expansive soils swell and shrink in a marketed way due to gain or loss in
moisture content.
 During the rains, the soil absorbs moisture and swells.
 Because their susceptibility to high seasonal volumetric changes, extensive
damages have been caused to residential buildings, highways, rail beds and
other structures founded on them.
 Damage due to swelling action has been observed clearly in the form of
cracking and breakup of pavements, building foundations, embankments and
irrigation systems.
3
 Expansive soils have high plasticity, and are relatively stiff.
1.1 Methods of Ground Improvement

 To improve the ground conditions of soil at site.

 By increasing the shear strength of soil.

 Decrease the compressibility of soil so that bearing capacity of the

soil is increased.

 Settlements of the structures built on it are reduced.

 To decrease the permeability of the soil.

4
1.2 Objective of Present Work
 To evaluate the engineering properties of selected expansive soils before
and after adding Terrazyme and Bacteria at different dosages and with
different curing periods.

 To analyze the variation of properties of soils with addition of Terrazyme

and Bacteria with different dosages 0.0 ml/Kg (D0) 0.1 ml/Kg (D1), 0.2
ml/Kg (D2) and 0.3ml/Kg (D3) and curing period (0,3,7) in days.

 To analyse the mineral composition and structure of soils with and without
addition of Terrazyme and Bacteria using Scanning Electron Microscope
(SEM) analysis for reinforcing the findings.

5
1.3 Scope of Present Work
 Collection of three swelling soils from different locations.

 Determination of Index and Engineering properties of selected soils.

 Admixing Terrazyme to selected soils for finding variation of

Plasticity and Strength Characteristics.

 Isolation of Bacteria from vegetable peel waste.

 Induction of Bacteria to the selected soil for finding variation in

strength of soil.

 Ascertain the optimum dosage for bacteria induction and curing time
for better strength improvement.

6
2.LITERATURE REVEIW
 Soil stabilization is used to reduce the permeability and compressibility of
the soil mass in earth structures and to increase its shear strength. Soil
stabilization is required to increase the bearing capacity of foundation soils.
 Study of soil microorganisms and their activities in their functions and how
they affect soil structure and properties.
 Microbial cementation (or structural microbial grouting) is to form soil
particle-binding material after introduction of microbes and specific
additives into soil.
 Constituents of soil are organic matter, polysaccharides, lignins gums
synthesized by soil microbes plays important role in cementing of soil
7
particles.
Contii…..
 Eujineet. al (2014) conducted Unconfined Compressive Strength tests on
treated samples on the 0th, 7th, 14th, 28th day of application of the bio-
enzyme. The soil used in the work was monmorillitic clay (22.5% clay
content, Liquid limit 86%, Plasticity Index 37%) obtained from Quilandy,
Kerala. Dosage rates applied to soil sample 100,200 and 300 ml/m³ of soil
(0.061, 0.112 and 0.183 ml/kg of soil respectively). On curing it was
observed that Liquid limit increased by 28% in the first 2 weeks and later
decreased. Addition of 200 ml/m3 of soil, yielded the maximum
improvement, enhancing the UCS up to 12 times the untreated strength. It is
suggested that the optimum dosage of Terrazyme for the sample may lie
between 210-230 ml/m3.

 Rajorial, Suneet Kaur (2014) carried out a theoretical evaluation of

enzyme. Reduction of about 18 to 26 % is seen in cost of construction of
roads by using Terrazyme as a soil stabilizer, constructed by public work
department in Maharashtra. Structures made of bio enzyme are economical
and have greater strength. 8
Contii….
 Venkatasubramanian, C and Dhinakaran, G (2011) studied the
Stabilization effects of bio-enzyme on the Unconfined Compressive
Strength and California Bearing Ratio. Rather than other types of chemicals
bio enzyme is easy to use as it can be mixed with water at Optimum
Moisture Content and then it is sprayed over soil and compacted. It is
convenient to use, safe, effective and dramatically improves road quality.
They found out that the engineering and strength parameter of soil are
improved when it is stabilized by using bio-enzyme. In reality and practice,
addition of bio-enzyme gives better performance in the field and ultimately
ensures durable and maintenance free pavement.

 Chou et al. (2011) conducted a laboratory study to evaluate the effect of

growing, dead, and resting cells on the geo mechanical properties of
microbially cemented sand. They performed direct shear and California
Bearing Ratio (CBR) tests on sand specimens and found that the bacterial
9
cells effectively improved the geo mechanical properties of the sand.
Contii....
An analysis of the sand from CBR specimens treated with growing cells
demonstrated that the microbial processes contributed to the clogging of the
porous medium.

 Wijigarden et al (2010) have formulated a model to describe the bio- grout

process which is a new soil reinforcement method based on microbial –
induced carbonate precipitation. Bacteria are placed and reactants are
flushed through the soil, resulting in Calcium Carbonate (CaCO3)
precipitation. The precipitation of the solid Calcium Carbonate (CaCO3)
decreases the porosity and the permeability and increases strength and
stiffness.

 Tiano et al (2006) some new formulations such as inorganic coating

materials have been developed that exhibit compatibility with concrete. so
far, inorganic coatings have had a hard time achieving sound performance,
because of their tendency to produce shallow and hard crusts.
10
3.EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS
3.1.MATERIALS USED
1. Soil
The soils used in this study were obtained from different places.

S.No Soil Location Designation

1 Renigunta R

2 Padmavathi P

3 Kadapa K
2. Terrazyme
A commercially available organic, enzyme based stabilizer known as
Terrazyme is used as additive to the soil. The bio-enzyme was procured
from Avijeet Agencies, Chennai, India. The properties of the Terrazyme
11
are given in table 1.
Contii…
Table 1. Properties of Terrazyme

S.No Physical/Chemical Value

characteristics
1 Boiling point 212 ◦F
2 Specific Gravity 1.05
3 Melting Point Liquid
4 Evaporation Rate Same as water
5 Solubility in Water complete
6 Appearance /Odour Brown Liquid,
Non - obnoxious
7 pH 3.5 to 9.5

12
3.Bacteria
Bacteria is extracted from vegetable peel waste at different morphology colonies.
Based on morphology the bacteria is categorized into four i.e, T1,T2,T3,T4.
The complete support for the whole process of developing bacteria is taken from
Microbiology department in S. V. UNIVERSITY, Tirupati.
Chemicals required for culturing process are Nutribroth, Agar, Calcium Lactate.
Preparation of Isolated Bacteria
The sample is mixed with 1 litre pure water to make solution sample. This sample is
diluted up to 10-6

Full stock strength 10-1 10-2 10-3 10-4 10-5 10-6

Fig 1. serial dilution method 13

 The isolation process is a procedure of isolation the mixture of colonies to a
single colony. This process was done by using streaking method to obtain pure
cultures.

Fig 2. spread plate method

After sterilization of tubes, each serial dilution is transferred into the

nutrient agar plate by using spread plate method.
It is important that the numbers of colonies developing on the plates are not
being too large.
From the observation, these samples take place to growth on the plate about 14
three to four days.
3.EXPERIMENTAL TESTS

 Liquid Limit (LL)

 Plastic Limit (PL)

 Unconfined Compressive Strength (UCS)

 California Bearing Ratio (CBR)

 Chemical Composition of selected soil

 Scanning Electron microscope analysis (SEM)

15
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

16
4.EFFECT OF TERRAZYME ON TESTED
SOILS
 The main objective of present investigation is to study the effect of
Terrazyme (Bio-Enzyme) on their Plasticity characteristics, Unconfined
Strength and CBR on selected three high compressive soils.
Table 2.The details of the properties of tested soils presented

Tested soils value

S.No Tests R P K

1 Free Swell Index (%) 135 170 110

2 Liquid Limit (%) 60 68 55
3 Plastic Limit (%) 17 15 16
4 Sieve Analysis
a. Gravel (%) 2.2 12.2 6.4
b. Sand (%) 47.3 40.9 14.9
c. Fine Fraction(%) 50.5 46.9 81.71 17
5 Specific Gravity 2.56 2.6 2.65
Contii….

Tested Soils Value

S.No Tests R P K

6 IS Classification CH SC CH
7 Compaction Characteristics as per (IS : 2720 (part VII) – 1985)
a. OMC (%) 14.0 12.0 14.5
b. MDD (kN/m3) 18.50 18.00 16.85
8 Unconfined Compression
Strength (UCS) kPa 152.00 97.80 248.25
9 CBR (%)
a. Unsoaked Condition 14.60 9.12 11.86
b. Soaked Condition 9.45 4.62 7.37

18
4.1 Plasticity Characteristics
The plasticity characteristics of the soils alone and after admixing Terrazyme (Bio-
Enyzme) to these soils are considered.
4.1.1 Effect of Terrazyme on Liquid Limit
The liquid Limit of three tested soils alone and after admixed soils in different
dosages (D1,D2,D3) (ml/Kg) and 0,3,7 of days curing are presented in table 3.
Table 3. Liquid Limit of Terrazyme admixed with curing period (days)

Dosages R P K
(ml/kg) 0 3 7 0 3 7 0 3 7
D0(0.0) 60 68 55
D1(0.1) 58 57 56 65 62 62 53 52 48
D2 (0.2) 57 55 53 62 59 57 50 49 45
D3(0.3) 56 49 48 61 57 55 49 47 43
19
 70

65
Liquid Limit (%)

60
R
55 P
K
50

45

40
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Curing period (days)

Fig 1. Variation of Liquid Limit of soils with addition of D1 dosage of

Terrazyme with curing period (days) .
20
 70

65
Liquid Limit(%)

60

R
55
P
K
50

45

40
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Curing period (days)

Fig 2.Variation of Liquid limit of soils with addition of D2 dosage of Terrazyme

and Curing Period (days). 21
 70

65
Liquid Limit(%)

60

R
55
P
50

45

40
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Curing period (days)

Fig 3.Variation of Liquid limit of soils with addition of D3 dosage of 22

Terrazyme and curing period (days).
 70 70
0th day R
65 3rd day R 65
Liquid Limit (%)

Liquid Limit (%)

7th day R 60
60

55 55
0th day P
50 50 3rd day P
7th day P
45 45

40 40
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
Dosages (ml/kg) Dosages (ml/kg)
70 Fig 4(ii)
Fig 4(i) 0th day K
65
3rd day K
Liquid Limit (%)

60 7th day K

55 Fig 4(iii)
50

45

40
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
23
Dosages (ml/kg)
Fig 4 (i,ii,iii) .Variation of Liquid Limit of R, P, K soils with dosages (D0,D1,D2,D3) at
different curing period (days) of Terrazyme.
4.1.2 Effect of Terrazyme on Plastic Limit

The Plastic Limit of three tested soils alone and with addition of Terrazyme at different
dosages (D1,D2,D3) (ml/kg) and 0,3,7 days of curing period are shown.

Table 4. Plastic Limit of tested soils admixed with Terrazyme of different dosages at
different curing period (days)

Dosages (ml/kg) R P K
0 3 7 0 3 7 0 3 7
D0(0.0) 17 15.2 16
D1(0.1) 13 14 17 15 16 17 14 16 16
D2 (0.2) 16 15 17 15 17 17 15 16 17
D3(0.3) 17 17 18 16 17 18 17 18 19
24
 25
23
21
19
Plastic Limit(%)

17
15 R
P
13
K
11
9
7
5
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Curing period (days)

Fig 5.Variation of Plastic limit of tested soils with addition of D1 dosage of

Terrazyme with curing period (days).
25
 25

23

21

19
Plastic Limit(%)

17
R
15
P
13 K
11

5
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Curing period (days)

Fig 6.Variation of Plastic Limit of tested soils with addition of D2 dosage of

26
Terrazyme with curing period (days).
 25

23

21

19
Plastic Limit(%)

17
R
15
P
13 K
11

5
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Curing period (days)

Fig 7. Variation of Plastic Limit of tested soils with D3 dosage of Terrazyme with
curing period (days). 27
 25 25
23 23
21 21

Plastic Limit (%)

Plastic Limit (%)

19 19
17 17
15 0th day R 0th day P
15
13
3rd day R 3rd day P
13
7th day R 7th day P
11 11
9 9
7 7
5 5
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
Dosages (ml/kg) Dosages (ml/kg)
Fig 8 (i) 25
23 Fig 8 (ii)
21
Plastic Limit (%)

19
17
15 0th day K
13 3rd day K
11 7th day K
9
7
Fig 8 (iii)
5
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
Dosages (ml)/kg 28
Fig 8 (i, ii, iii) .Variation of Plastic Limit of R, P, K soils with dosages
(D0,D1,D2,D3) at different curing period (days) of Terrazyme.
4.2 Unconfined Compressive Strength (UCS)
The UCS tests are conducted to the soil at their respective Optimum Water
Content and admixed with Bio–Enzyme at different dosages D0,D1,D2,D3 of
different curing periods 0,3,7days.

From the table, it can be observed that the strength of soil increases with addition
of Terrazyme for all dosages D1, D2 and D3 upto 7 days of curing period.
Table 5. UCS of Terrazyme admixed soils at different dosages (D0,D1,D2,D3 )with curing
period (days)

Dosages R P K
(ml/kg) 0 3 7 0 3 7 0 3 7
D0(0.0) 152.00 97.80 248.25
D1(0.1) 248.80 453.30 491.00 104.00 156.00 215.20 429.10 448.40 507.40
D2(0.2) 278.20 436.70 402.50 108.00 158.00 256.00 446.10 557.30 541.70
D3(0.3) 332.20 360.60 397.00 118.00 142.00 247.20 578.50 615.00 749.40

29
 800

700

600

500
UCS (kPa)

R
400 P
K
300

200

100

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Curing period (days)

Fig 9.Variation of UCS of tested soils with curing period (days) of D1 dosage
with addition of Terrazyme.
30
 800

700

600

500
UCS (kPa)

R
400
P
300 K

200

100

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Curing period (days)

Fig 10.Variation of UCS of tested soils with curing period (days) of D2 dosage with
addition of Terrazyme. 31
 800

700

600

500
UCS (kPa)

400 R
P
300 K

200

100

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Curing period (days)

Fig 11.Variation of UCS of tested soils with curing period (days) of D3 dosage
with addition of Terrazyme. 32
 800 800

700 0th day R 700

3rd day R
600 600
7th day R 0th day P
UCS (kPa)

UCS (kPa)
500 500
3rd day P
400 400
7th day P
300 300

200 200

100 100

0 0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
Dosages (ml/kg) Dosages (ml/kg)

Fig 12 (i) 800

Fig 12 (ii)
700
600
UCS (kPa)

500
400 0th day K
300 3rd day K Fig 12 (iii)
200
7th day K

100
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
Dosages (ml/kg) 33
Fig 12 (i,ii,iii) Variation of UCS of R, P, K soils with dosages (D0,D1,D2,D3) at
different curing period (days) of Terrazyme.
4.3 Califorina Bearing Ratio (%)
 A simple and quick laboratory test was sought that would evaluate the
quality of sub grade, sub-base, and base course materials and establish the
density to which they should be compacted in the field.

 The CBR values of the treated soil corresponding to 2.5 mm penetration

which is higher than that of the treated soil in different curing periods and
Dosages (ml/kg) are considered in this investigation.
Table 4.5 Unsoaked CBR Values (%) of Terrazyme admixed soils at different
dosages with curing period (days).

Dosages R P K
(ml/kg) 0 3 7 0 3 7 0 3 7
D0 (0.0) 14.60 9.12 11.86
D1 (0.1) 5.01 14.30 14.87 4.856 9.58 11.56 6.54 17.33 20.07
D2 (0.2) 6.39 14.30 15.56 6.55 10.86 17.59 7.30 18.68 21.89
34
D3(0.3) 6.84 15.11 17.34 7.11 8.29 15.36 7.34 21.44 21.90
 30

25

20
CBR (%)

15 R
P
10 K

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Curing period (days)

Fig 13.Variation of Unsoaked CBR of tested soils with addition of D1 dosage of

Terrazyme with Curing Period (days). 35
 30

25

20
CBR (%)

15 R
P
K
10

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Curing period (days)

Fig 14.Variation of Unsoaked CBR of tested soils with addition of D2 dosage of

Terrazyme with Curing Period (days). 36
 25

20

15
CBR (%)

R
P
10
K

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Curing period (days)

Fig 15.Variation of Unsoaked CBR of tested soils with addition of D3 dosage of

37
Terrazyme with Curing period (days).
Table 6.Soaked CBR values (%) of Terrazyme admixed soils at different dosages
with curing period (days)

Dosages R P K
(ml/kg) 0 3 7 0 3 7 0 3 7
D0 (0.0) 9.45 4.62 7.37

D1 (0.1) 5.10 10.11 11.11 4.02 6.83 9.43 5.25 7.39 9.82

D2 (0.2) 6.12 10.47 12.19 5.52 7.16 12.56 6.82 9.82 11.19

D3(0.3) 6.56 11.02 12.51 5.82 6.39 11.36 6.74 9.28 11.82

38
 14

12

10
CBR (%)

8
R
6 P
K
4

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Curing period (days)

Fig 16.Variation of Soaked CBR of tested soils with addition of D1 dosage of

Terrazyme with curing period (days).
39
 14

12

10
CBR (%)

8
R
6 P
K
4

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Curing period (days)

Fig 17.Variation of Soaked CBR of tested soils with addition of D2 dosage of

40
Terrazyme with Curing period (days).
 14

12

10
CBR (%)

8
R
6 P
K
4

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Curing period (days)

Fig 18. Variation of Soaked CBR of tested soils with addition of D3 dosage of
Terrazyme with Curing period (days). 41
4.4 Effect of Terrazyme on Soil Composition
 The maximum Unconfined Compressive Strength (UCS) for Terrazyme
admixed soil with respect to curing period (days) is considered for
composition studies.
Table 7.Soil Composition of selected untreated soil (K)

Composition Value
Caco3 (%) 9.75
Sulphates (%/mass) 82.31
Chlorides (ppm) 13.75
pH 8.27
Electrical Conductivity (dS/m) 0.10
Organic Carbon (%) 0.14
Organic Matter 0.24
Sulphur (ppm) 54
Nitrogen (%) 50.18
42
P2O5 (kg/ha) 20.52
K2O (%) 195.95
4.4.1 Effect on Carbonates, Sulphates, Chlorides, pH in
selected soil
 The maximum UCS admixed soil with respect to curing period is
considered for soil composition studies.

 Increase in carbonates percentages with increase in no of days curing

leading to increase in cementation and bonding nature of the admixed soil
to original soil.

Table 8. Soil composition of D3 dosage of Terrazyme admixed selected soil (K)

with curing period (days)
S.no Curing Period CaCO3 Sulphates Chlorides pH
(days) (%) (%/mass) (ppm)
1 0 10.70 18.76 1.45 8.93
2 3 24.00 23.54 1.45 8.96 43
3 7 24.47 23.36 1.55 9.02
Contii….
 The sulphates (%/ mass) increased with curing period when compared
to the original soil, as the Sulphates are utilised by the microbes in the
Terrazyme admixed soil.

 The utilised chlorides can increase the flocculation structure of soil and
also increase the carbonates which gives the cementation and strength
to the soil.

 The soil generally becomes more flocculated with increase in pH.

 Further Increase in pH can increase Cation Exchange Capacity of soil

which in turn can alter the properties.

44
5.EFFECT OF BACTERIA INDUCTION ON
STRENGTH OF TESTED SOIL
 Commercial patented details of Bio-Enzymes are not available in the market and
restricted to only very few agencies.
 Previous investigations have shown different strength attainment values with
varying usage time. so a attempt has been made to develop bacteria in our
laboratory
 In the present investigation, the effect of Bacteria (isolated from vegetable peel
waste) on the UCS and CBR of selected soil is studied. Here selected soil is
Kadapa soil, because it has higher FF(%),and Maximum Strength (UCS) is
observed when admixed with Terrazyme , when compared to remaining soils.
 The growth of extracted bacteria is observed with addition of growth promoting
or favouring agents called Nutribroth , Calcium Lactate.
 The investigation is carried in three phases. 45
5.1 Effect of bacterial growth on UCS
 The soil specimens that underwent different treatment conditions
were tested for their compressive strength.

 The supply of nutrient into soil specimen during soil treatment

process is essential.

 Unconfined Compression Tests are conducted on hand moulded

soil specimens extracted from split moulds to find additional
strength.

 The variation of Unconfined Compressive Strength with D0, D1,

D2, D3 dosages for different curing periods 0,3,7 days are
presented in table. 46
Table 9. Unconfined Compressive Strength of K soil with induction of bacteria
Bacteria Dosage Original soil 0 days 3 days 7 days
(ml/kg) (kPa) (kPa) (kPa) (kPa)
NIL D0 248.25 - - -
D1 213.30 231.40 250.70
T1 D2 282.10 340.30 280.30
D3 355.50 330.10 319.40
D1 213.20 329.70 319.90
T2 D2 274.20 344.80 325.00
D3 300.30 406.90 324.50
D1 324.50 378.30 438.70
T3 D2 288.40 386.30 489.30
D3 269.70 407.40 370.80
D1 302.90 275.40 394.00
T4 D2 278.20 375.80 396.40
D3 271.60 342.10 386.30 47
 500 500
450 450
400 @ D1 400 @ D2
350 350
UCS (kPa)

UCS (kPa)
300 T1 300 T1
250 T2 250 T2
200 T3 200 T3
150 T4 150 T4
100 100
50 50
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Curing period (days) Curing period (days)
Fig 19 (i) 500
Fig 19 (ii)
450
400 @ D3
350
300
T1
UCS(kPa)

250
T2
200
T3
150
T4
100
50 Fig 19 (iii)
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 48
Curing Periods (Days)
Fig 19(i, ii, iii).Variation of UCS of K soil with Curing period (days) for all Dosages
(D1,D2,D3) with addition of isolated bacteria
5.2 Effect of Nutribroth on bacterial growth

 Nutribroth is a medium that contain nutrients for bacterial growth are

Carbohydrates, Aminoacids, Nucleotides, Salts, Vitamins i.e., Peptone, Meat
extract, yeast extract etc,.
 In aerobic conditions, the culture of bacteria ,nutrients are needed to ensure
the bacteria to sustain the long enough to the carbonates which develop in
the soil.

 Nutribroth is added to OMC % of water and mixed to the selected soil with
different treatment levels (T1,T2,T3,T4) for favourable environment
conditions.

 Unconfined Compression Tests are conducted on hand moulded soil

specimens extracted from split moulds to find additional strength. 49
Table 10. Unconfined Compressive Strength of K soil with addition of Nutribroth for
bacterial growth

Bacteria Dosage Original soil 0 days 3 days 7 days

(ml/kg) (kPa) (kPa) (kPa) (kPa)
NIL D0 248.25 - - -
D1 166.80 244.60 209.00
T1 D2 214.20 206.00 252.40
D3 196.00 210.40 231.40
D1 203.80 198.00 271.60
T2 D2 175.00 211.80 262.60
D3 213.00 247.20 256.00
D1 214.40 229.80 309.80
T3 D2 161.60 194.60 309.00
D3 161.80 185.40 365.6
D1 193.40 271.60 266.40
T4 D2 182.80 167.20 219.40 50
D3 182.80 222.40 298.80
 500 500
450 450
400 @ D1 @ D2
400
350 350
UCS (kPa)

300 T1 300 T1

UCS (kPa)
250 T2 250 T2
200 T3 200 T3
150 T4 150 T4
100 100
50 50
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Curing period (days) Curing period (days)
500 Fig 20( ii)
Fig 20 (i) 450
@ D3
400
350
300 T1
Fig 20 (iii)
UCS (kPa)

250 T2
200
T3
150
T4
100
50
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 51
Curing period (days)
Fig 20 (i,ii,ii) Variation of UCS of K soil with curing period (days) for all dosages (D1, D2, D3)
of isolated Bacteria with NB
5.3 Effect of combination of Nutribroth and Calcium Lactate
on bacterial growth
 Nutribroth is added to or introduced into the treatment solution
to sustain the growth and viability of urease producing
bacteria.

 The nutrient Calcium Lactate is used in the water content

additionally to improve the strength of soil.

 So, Bio-cementation can be ensured since the bacteria can

sustain long enough to support calcite precipitation in order to
achieve the desired level of improvement.

52
Table 9. UCS with bacteria (Nutribroth and Calcium lactate) admixed soil

Bacteria Dosage Original soil 0 days 3 days 7 days

(ml/kg) (kPa) (kPa) (kPa) (kPa)
NIL D0 248.25 - - -
D1 199.80 189.40 247.20
T1 D2 141.60 181.40 309.80
D3 155.20 192.00 375.80
D1 203.80 235.00 224.00
T2 D2 175.00 239.40 401.60
D3 177.40 227.80 282.00
D1 194.70 215.60 428.40
T3 D2 170.00 210.40 386.60
D3 149.40 226.20 391.40
D1 181.40 186.60 412.00
T4 D2 167.20 185.40 288.40
D3 129.20 190.60 334.80 53
 500 500
450 450 @ D2
@ D1
400 400
350 350
UCS (kPa)

UCS (kPa)
300 T1 300 T1
250 250 T2
T2
200 200 T3
T3
150 150
T4 T4
100 100
50 50
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Curing period (days) Curing period (days)
500
Fig 21 (i) 450 Fig 21(ii)
400 @ D3
350
UCS (kPa)

300 T1
250 T2
200 T3
150 T4
Fig 21( iii)
100
50
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Curing period (days)
54

Fig 21(i,ii,iii). Variation of UCS of K soil with curing periods for all dosages (D1, D2, D3)
with induction of bacteria with NB+ Calcium Lactate.
5.4 Effect of bacteria on soil composition
 The maximum Unconfined Compressive Strength (UCS) attained at a dosage
and particular treatment for Bacteria induced soil with respect to curing
period (days) is considered for soil composition studies.
Table 10.Soil Composition of Selected soil treated with bacteria T3
Soil Composition Dosages (ml/kg)
D1 D2 D3
CaCo3 (%) 29.23 28.75 27.15
Sulphates (%/mass) 1.39 1.45 1.73
Chlorides (ppm) 22.48 17.35 18.76
pH 9.01 9.1 9.14
 From the investigation results, it can be inferred that for the selected soil
(K),the induction of bacteria at D2 dosage for T3 concentration .
 7 days curing is better for cementation which indirectly improves the
55
strength of soil.
6.REGRESSION ANALYSIS

 For taking up any construction activity, determination of strength of soil is

important.

 For construction of highways, embankments, railway tracks and heavy

loaded structures, strength of the soil is determined by using CBR test.

 California Bearing Ratio test is time consuming and large quantity of soil
sample is required for each trail.

 so an empirical relation to predict CBR value of soil in terms of other

parameter which reflects the properties of soil is preferable.

 An attempt has been made to predict CBR in terms of UCS of soil , PI and
FF in soil. 56
 Table 11.Different combinations used in this model development

CBR (%) Different Combinations

Dependent variable Independent variable

CBR UCS

CBR PI, %FF, UCS

 Finally, the following output empirical relations are obtained for CBR
CBR (%) = UCS *0.033627-1.0971
CBR(%) = -IP*0.03874-0.06926*%F+ 0.0342*UCS+5.325

Table 12.influence of parameters on CBR

S.no Parameters used R2

1 UCS 0.74
57
2 PI, %FF, UCS 0.77
7.SCANNING ELECTRON MICROSCOPE
ANALYSIS
 It has been established that fabric influences the engineering behaviour of soil
(keller, 1985).

 Fabric analyses are useful in research to reveal how the mechanical properties
relate to particle associations and arrangements.
 Due to changes in fabric and thickness of diffuse double layer water molecules
near clay surface and may change due to any chemical interaction between
microbes and soil.

 SEM images of the expansive soil specimens that are treated under two
conditions i.e. untreated, treated with bio enzyme fluids and treated with
bacteria and cementation fluids.
 The micrographs of untreated soil are shown in fig.22 and the micrographs
58
show a sheet like structure and flaky arrangements of clay particles.
 59
Fig 22.Scanning Electron Micrograph of K soil without admixtures
Fig 23.SEM of K soil admixed with D3 Fig 24.SEM of K soil admixed with D3
60
dosage of Terrazyme at 0 days curing. dosage of Terrazyme at 3 days curing
Fig 25.SEM of K soil admixed with D3 Fig 26.SEM of K soil with D1 dosage of
dosage of Terrazyme at 7 days curing Bacteria induction for 7 days curing61
Fig 27.SEM of K soil with D2 dosage of Fig 28.SEM of K soil with D3 dosage of
Bacteria induction for 7 days curing . Bacteria induction for 7 days curing .
62
8.CONCLUDING REMARKS
Three selected soils (R, P and K) are mixed with Terrazyme and one soil
(K soil) is induced with extracted vegetable peel waste and in
combinations Bacteria with Nutribroth and Bacteria with Nutribroth +
Calcium Lactate in different dosages (D1, D2, and D3) and cured for 14
days. Tests are conducted for Plasticity Characteristics, Strength (UCS)
and CBR for 0,3,7days of curing.
The following Concluding Remarks are made from the present work:
1. The Liquid Limit is found to decrease for K soil with curing period with
addition of different dosages of Terrazyme for soils. Among all the soils
maximum reduction is observed for K soil for 7 days curing period.
2. For Plastic Limit is found to increase for all soils and maximum
increase is found for K soil for 7 days of curing period at all dosages
when compared to the original soil.
3. The Unconfined Compressive Strength improvement is found
to increase for all soils and maximum improvement is63
observed for 7 days of curing of K soil.
Contii…
4. Maximum strength and CBR improvement is found for K soil for 7
days curing period when compared to R soil and P soil.
5. On induction of Bacteria extracted from vegetable peel waste to K
soil, the maximum strength improvement is found for T3 treatment
on7 days curing period at D2 dosage.
6. The maximum strength attained for K soil is 489.3 kPa for 7 days
curing period with T3 bacteria concentration when compared to all
other concentrations and cementatious materials when compared to
original soil strength of 248.25 kPa which is almost twice of
original strength i.e., 200%.
7. The Soil Composition tests indicate Carbonates (%), Sulphates
(%/mass), Phosphates, Chlorides (ppm) and pH of the soil. For the
maximum strength exhibited soil, the Calcium Carbonates (%)
increased, sulphates (%/ mass) decreased, and pH value increased
that lead to high alkaline nature and low state existence of organic
matter.
64
Contii…
8. An empirical correlation is developed for prediction of CBR value
of soils as a function of UCS value of soil.
9. SEM analysis is conducted on soil sample without any admixture
and also on better strength exhibited.
a. Soil sample alone i.e., without any admixture.
b. Soil sample admixed with Terrazyme that exhibited at D3
dosage and for different curing period (0, 3, 7 days).
c. Soil sample with induced isolated bacteria at different dosages
(D1, D2, and D3) for 7 days curing period.
10. SEM micrograph studies conducted support the improvement in
strength development due to Calcite precipitation and aggregation
of particles.

65
FURTHER SCOPE OF WORK

 Further work can be extended by considering induction other

bacteria into soils alone or in combinations with more types of
bacteria by increasing dosages and changing the cementatious
materials for finding the improvement of strength of swelling soils.

66
 REFERENCES
 Eujine, G.N., Somervell, L.T., Chandrakaran. S., and Sankar.S., (2014).
Stabilisation of High Liquid Limit, Electronic Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering, 19: 6989-6995.
 Vijay Rajoria, Suneet Kaur, (2014) “A Review on Stabilization of Soil
Using Bio –Enzyme”, Vol. 03 2321-7308, International Journal of Research
in Engineering and Technology.
 Venkatasubramanian,C. & Dhinakaran, G,(2011). Effect of bio-enzymatic
soil stabilization on confined compressive strength and California bearing
ratio". Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences295-298.
 Van Wijngaarden, W.K., Vermolen, F.J., VanMeurs, G.A.M., Vuik, C.,
(2010). Modelling biogrout a new ground improvement method based on
microbial-induced carbonate precipitation. Trans. Porous Med.http:
//dxdoi.org/10.1007/s11242-010-9691-8.
 Chou, C.W.,Seagren,E.A.,Aydilek,A.H.,Lai,M.,(2011).Biocalcification of
sand through ureolysis, ASCEJ. Geotechnical, Geoenvironmental
Engineering. 137 (12), 1179–1189. 67
68