Presentation on stabilisation of soil using admixtures

1. STABILISATION OF CLAYEY SOIL
USING SILICA FUME AND CEMENT
Submitted by:- Guided By:-
Soumya Ranjan Sahoo (14010099) Mrs. Rupashree Ragini Sahoo
Tapas Kumar Das (14010113) Assistant Professor
Dept. of Civil Engineering

2. CONTENTS :-
1. Introduction
2. Literature Review
3. Objectives
4. Materials
5. Experimental Programme
6. Results & Discussion
7. Conclusion
8. References

3. Introduction:-
 Soil stabilization is a process to improve strength of poor soils.
 The construction of buildings and other projects become difficult on clayey soil
due to its less characteristic shear strength and high swelling characteristics.
 In order to control this behaviour, the cohesive soils have to be suitably treated
with chemicals or any other available materials which can alter its engineering
behaviour.
 For this purpose Silica Fume (SF) and cement can be used as they are cheap and
have less adverse impact on environment.

4. Literature Review:-
SL No AUTHOR FINDINGS
1. Abd El-Aziz
M.et al.(2004)
The plasticity index and swell potential decreased and CBR value
increased significantly with addition of silica fume.
2. B Venu Gopal
N.(2009)
The strength of the soil showed significant improvement with
addition of silica fume in varying proportion from 5% to 20%.
3. Mohammed
Khachi Al-
Zairjawi(2009)
The addition of cement and SF decreased MDD and increased
OMC of soil. The unconfined compressive strength was found to
increase from 80 kPa to 190 kPa with addition of 6% SF to 8%
cement
4. Chhaya Negi,
R.K. Yadav,
A.K. Singhai
(2013)
The index properties and swelling properties of soil showed
significant improvement with addition of silica fume at different
proportions i.e. 5%, 10%, 15% and 20%
5. R.Bharathan,
A.Giridharan,
P.Saranya
(2017)
The addition of cement in constant proportion (10%) and silica
fume in varying proportion (5%, 10%, 15%, 20%) reduced the
permeability and settlement in clay soil and improved the shear
strength of soil.

5. Objectives :-
 To study, analyse and classify clayey soils.
 To understand the problematic & damaging nature of clayey soils.
 To learn procedures involved in stabilisation.
 To determine optimum amount of admixtures to stabilize clayey soils.

6. Materials :-
(i) Soil Sample :-
The soil sample used in the experimental program was collected from DR.
A.P.J. ABDUL KALAM PLANETARIUM, Burla area.
 It was made free from roots, organic matters.
 The above sample was then properly air dried.
(ii) Silica Fume (SF) :-
 It is also known as micro silica.
 It is an amorphous (non-crystalline) polymorph of silicon dioxide, silica.
 It is a by-product of the silicon and ferrosilicon alloy production and consists of
spherical particles with an average particle diameter of 150 nm
 It was collected from Rourkela.

7. (iii) Cement :-
 Portland cement is a fine powder.
 It is produced by heating limestone and clay minerals in a kiln to
form clinker, grinding the clinker, and adding 2 to 3 percent of gypsum.
 Ordinary Portland Cement (OPC) of 53 grade confirming to IS: 12269-1987(9) which
was used in the project work is grey in colour.
 It was collected from Burla market.

8. Experimental Programme :-
In order to evaluate geotechnical characteristics of soil, these tests were carried out :-
 Liquid Limit & Plastic Limit Test
 Specific Gravity Test
 Particle Size Distribution Test
 Standard Proctor Test
 California Bearing Ratio Test
 Unconfined Compressive Strength Test

9. Results and Discussion :-
From the tests performed the following results were found out :-
Properties Values
Liquid Limit (wl) 45.5 %
Plastic Limit (wp) 20.79 %
Plasticity Index (Ip) 24.71 %
Specific Gravity (Gs) 2.423
Effective particle size (D10) 0.145 mm
Particle size (D30) 0.33 mm
Particle size (D60) 0.76 mm

10. Continued…
Uniformity Coefficient (Cu) 5.24
Coefficient of Curvature (Cc) 0.98
California Bearing Ratio (Soaked) 4.3%
Maximum dry density (ρd(max)) 1.87 gm/cc
Optimum Moisture Content 17.35 %
Compressive Strength 81.91 kN/m2

11. Continued…
These are the graphs we have plotted :-
42.57
44.36
49.21
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
1 10 100
WaterContentin%
No. of Blows
Flow Curve
10096.76
79.46
49.73
26.49
10.273.24
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
0.01 0.1 1 10
PercentFinerNin%
Particle Size in mm
Particle size vs Percent finer N
1.65
1.81
1.87
1.72
1.6
1.55
1.6
1.65
1.7
1.75
1.8
1.85
1.9
0 5 10 15 20 25
DryDensitYingm/cc
Water Content in %

12. Continued…
1.56
1.6
1.65
1.68
1.688
1.6
1.55
1.54
1.56
1.58
1.6
1.62
1.64
1.66
1.68
1.7
1.72
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
DryDensitYingm/cc
Water Content in %
1.49
1.52
1.56
1.59
1.598
1.43
1.37
1.36
1.38
1.4
1.42
1.44
1.46
1.48
1.5
1.52
1.54
1.56
1.58
1.6
1.62
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
DryDensitYingm/cc
Water Content in %
10% cement + 5% SF
10% cement + 10% SF

13. Continued…
1.46
1.48
1.51
1.551.556
1.36
1.27
1.26
1.28
1.3
1.32
1.34
1.36
1.38
1.4
1.42
1.44
1.46
1.48
1.5
1.52
1.54
1.56
1.58
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
DryDensitYingm/cc
Water Content in %
1.4
1.42
1.52
1.541.548
1.44
1.35
1.34
1.36
1.38
1.4
1.42
1.44
1.46
1.48
1.5
1.52
1.54
1.56
0 10 20 30 40
DryDensitYingm/cc
Water Content in %
10% cement + 15% SF
10% cement + 20% SF

14. Continued…
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
7.5 12.5 17.5 22.5 27.5 32.5 37.5 42.5
DryDensitYingm/cc
Water Content in %
Dry Density Vs Water Content
10% SF
5 % SF
SOIL
15% SF
20% SF

15. Continued…
81.91
90.74
109.38
135.86
114.28
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
Soil Mix Proportion 1 Mix Proportion 2 Mix Proportion 3 Mix Proportion 4
CompressiveStrengthinkN/m2
Mix Proportions
Compressive Strength kN/m2

16. Continued…
135.86
164.81
235.96
262.69
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
0 day 7 days 14 days 28 days
CompressiveStrengthkN/m2
Days
Compressive Strength kN/m2

17. Conclusion :-
Based on the experimental results, the following conclusions were made:
 The Maximum Dry Density (MDD) has decreased with addition of Silica Fume (SF)
and cement
 The Optimum Moisture Content (OMC) has increased with increase in SF content at
constant cement proportion
 The Unconfined Compressive Strength (UCS) has increased with increase in SF
percentage and attained maximum at 15% SF. With further addition of SF strength has
decreased. So optimum Silica Fume (SF) percentage is found out to be 15%.
 The UCS value has increased with curing period.

18. References :-
 R.Bharathan, A.Giridharan, P.Saranya, Soil Stabilization Using Silica Fume and Cement-2017.
 Chhaya Negi, R.K. Yadav, A.K. Singhai, Effect of Silica Fume on Index Properties of Black Cotton
Soil-2013.
 Santosh Dhakar, S. K. Jain, Stabilization of Soil Using Flyash, Lime & Cement-2015
 Chhaya Negi, R.K. Yadav, A.K. Singhai, Effect of Silica Fume on Index Properties of Black Cotton
Soil-2013.
 Abd El-Aziz.,Abo-Hashema M., and El-Shourbagy M., “The effect of Lime-Silica Fume Stabilizer on
Engineering Properties of Clayey Subgrade”,.Fourth Mansoura International Engineering Conference
(4th IEC), Faculty of Engineering ,Mansoura University,Eygpt,April 2004.
 Dr. Adel A. Al-Azzawi, Khalida A. Daud ,Muhammed A. Abdul Sattar “Effect of Silica Fume
Addition on the Behavior of Silty-Clayey Soils” Journal of Engineering and Development, Vol. 16,
No.1, March 2012.
 Venu Gopal.N,Project report on “Study of Soil Properties with Silica Fume as Stabilizer and
Comparing the same with RBI-81 and Cost Estimation”,PG diploma in Highway
Engineering,Visvesvaraya Technological University,Belgaum

19. THANK YOU